Print
Those fanatical atheists
by Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen
Thanks to Sasquatch for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=62d4e647-9088-47dc-8a46-6397e3a6e30d
It's popular these days to equate those who question God with the worst kind of zealots, but it's not fair
Yesterday was one major religion's holy day. Today is another's. Tomorrow is a third's. So I thought this is an opportune moment to say I think all three of these faiths -- these mighty institutions, these esteemed philosophies, these ancient and honoured traditions -- are ridiculous quackery. Parted seas. Walking corpses. Nocturnal visits to Heaven. For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.
In the past, I've tried to avoid talking about religion in such sharp terms. It's not that I fear giving offence (which would be something of a limitation in my line of work). Rather, I know, as all humans do, that it's scary knowing you're going to die. And if belief in angels on high eases the existential fears of some, I won't begrudge them. Whatever gets you through the night, as a long-haired prophet once said.
But a series of books doing quite well on bestseller lists -- by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and, soon, Christopher Hitchens -- argues it's time to be a lot less deferential to faith, and I have to say I find it hard to disagree. After all, we live in a time when blowing children to bits is an increasingly popular form of worship, the most powerful man on earth thinks he's got a hotline to God, and much of the electorate who gave that man his power would never consider replacing him with someone who does not believe the son of a carpenter who died 2,000 years ago sits in heaven advising presidents, fixing football games, and waiting for the day he will return to the Earth to brutally murder all unbelievers and erect a worldwide dictatorship.
Private, quiet faith is one thing. But when the guy holding the launch codes believes the end of the world could come any day and that's a good thing, those who believe lives are limited to one per customer have a problem.
Those making this case have been dubbed the "new atheists." They have also been called fanatics who are dogmatic, zealous and intolerant of other views -- the mirror image of religious extremists. As one English university dean said in the Guardian, Richard Dawkins is "just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs in the Tube."
Less Olympian thinkers have portrayed strident atheists as hacking away at the bonds of morality, which must inevitably lead to various forms of depravity ranging from the sexual to the genocidal.
Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag.
This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.
The appeal is obvious. "All things to moderation," the Greeks sensibly advised, and this looks perfectly moderate. Whether it can withstand a little scrutiny is another matter.
The first problem for the moderate believer comes from those who like their faith hot. You've agreed God exists and that He mucks about in the world. You've agreed this book contains His holy commandments. So how do you respond when the mad religious zealot says, "hey, here on page 23, it says we should slice open unbelievers and use their guts for garters. And over here on page 75, it says we should bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses. If God exists and these are his holy commandments, then shouldn't we get serious about the gutting and stuffing?"
One response is to make like a Philadelphia lawyer and spin plain words ("and yea, the Lord saith, the nose of the sodomite shall be stuffed with olives ...") until they don't say what they plainly say. But the more common response is to simply pretend the garters-and-olives passages don't exist and prattle on about how God is merciful and loving.
This is neither faithful nor reasonable. Still, as a practical matter, it will do in times of religious quiescence. But with religious zealotry in the ascendant, this non-answer is not going to keep the ranks of the nutters from swelling. And that's dangerous to us all.
Then there's the problem on the other side -- among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled "fanatics." Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard. But just what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?
Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.
That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.
This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).
So isn't it odd that when claims are made about matters as important as the nature of existence and our place in it we suddenly drop all expectation of proof and we respect those who make and believe claims without the slightest evidence? Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle but it is "fundamentalist" and "fanatical" to say that, absent evidence, it is absurd to believe Muhammad was not lying or hallucinating when he claimed to have long chats with God?
Of course I realize that by asking this question I may be contributing to mass depravity and a crisis of civilization. But I thought I'd risk it. That's just the kind of fanatic I am.
It should also be obvious from this that the supposed link between Dawkinsian atheism and Stalinist butchery is pure nonsense. Yes, Stalin did not believe in God. But he believed in History, Marxism, Leninism and all sorts of Hegelian mumbo-jumbo for which he had not the slightest evidence.
He was not a religious man, but he most certainly was a man of faith.
Dan Gardner's column appears Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com
Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=62d4e647-9088-47dc-8a46-6397e3a6e30d
It's popular these days to equate those who question God with the worst kind of zealots, but it's not fair
Yesterday was one major religion's holy day. Today is another's. Tomorrow is a third's. So I thought this is an opportune moment to say I think all three of these faiths -- these mighty institutions, these esteemed philosophies, these ancient and honoured traditions -- are ridiculous quackery. Parted seas. Walking corpses. Nocturnal visits to Heaven. For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.
In the past, I've tried to avoid talking about religion in such sharp terms. It's not that I fear giving offence (which would be something of a limitation in my line of work). Rather, I know, as all humans do, that it's scary knowing you're going to die. And if belief in angels on high eases the existential fears of some, I won't begrudge them. Whatever gets you through the night, as a long-haired prophet once said.
But a series of books doing quite well on bestseller lists -- by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and, soon, Christopher Hitchens -- argues it's time to be a lot less deferential to faith, and I have to say I find it hard to disagree. After all, we live in a time when blowing children to bits is an increasingly popular form of worship, the most powerful man on earth thinks he's got a hotline to God, and much of the electorate who gave that man his power would never consider replacing him with someone who does not believe the son of a carpenter who died 2,000 years ago sits in heaven advising presidents, fixing football games, and waiting for the day he will return to the Earth to brutally murder all unbelievers and erect a worldwide dictatorship.
Private, quiet faith is one thing. But when the guy holding the launch codes believes the end of the world could come any day and that's a good thing, those who believe lives are limited to one per customer have a problem.
Those making this case have been dubbed the "new atheists." They have also been called fanatics who are dogmatic, zealous and intolerant of other views -- the mirror image of religious extremists. As one English university dean said in the Guardian, Richard Dawkins is "just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs in the Tube."
Less Olympian thinkers have portrayed strident atheists as hacking away at the bonds of morality, which must inevitably lead to various forms of depravity ranging from the sexual to the genocidal.
Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag.
This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.
The appeal is obvious. "All things to moderation," the Greeks sensibly advised, and this looks perfectly moderate. Whether it can withstand a little scrutiny is another matter.
The first problem for the moderate believer comes from those who like their faith hot. You've agreed God exists and that He mucks about in the world. You've agreed this book contains His holy commandments. So how do you respond when the mad religious zealot says, "hey, here on page 23, it says we should slice open unbelievers and use their guts for garters. And over here on page 75, it says we should bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses. If God exists and these are his holy commandments, then shouldn't we get serious about the gutting and stuffing?"
One response is to make like a Philadelphia lawyer and spin plain words ("and yea, the Lord saith, the nose of the sodomite shall be stuffed with olives ...") until they don't say what they plainly say. But the more common response is to simply pretend the garters-and-olives passages don't exist and prattle on about how God is merciful and loving.
This is neither faithful nor reasonable. Still, as a practical matter, it will do in times of religious quiescence. But with religious zealotry in the ascendant, this non-answer is not going to keep the ranks of the nutters from swelling. And that's dangerous to us all.
Then there's the problem on the other side -- among the atheists such as Richard Dawkins who have been labelled "fanatics." Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard. But just what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?
Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.
That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.
This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).
So isn't it odd that when claims are made about matters as important as the nature of existence and our place in it we suddenly drop all expectation of proof and we respect those who make and believe claims without the slightest evidence? Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle but it is "fundamentalist" and "fanatical" to say that, absent evidence, it is absurd to believe Muhammad was not lying or hallucinating when he claimed to have long chats with God?
Of course I realize that by asking this question I may be contributing to mass depravity and a crisis of civilization. But I thought I'd risk it. That's just the kind of fanatic I am.
It should also be obvious from this that the supposed link between Dawkinsian atheism and Stalinist butchery is pure nonsense. Yes, Stalin did not believe in God. But he believed in History, Marxism, Leninism and all sorts of Hegelian mumbo-jumbo for which he had not the slightest evidence.
He was not a religious man, but he most certainly was a man of faith.
Dan Gardner's column appears Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, May 6, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 160 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #38057 by mbcraig11 on May 6, 2007 at 10:07 pm
"Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag."lol I like that line. That really is how many feel about the thought of abandoning religion.
Other Comments by mbcraig11
3. Comment #38061 by ImagineAZ on May 6, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I really think the simple essays like this one are the ones that have a chance of making a difference. It's hard to imagine reading this and not thinking to yourself "Hmm...in that light, my faith looks kinda silly."Other Comments by ImagineAZ
4. Comment #38062 by LenW on May 6, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Always nice (not to mention surprising) to see something sensible coming from the mainstream media.Other Comments by LenW
5. Comment #38063 by kurzweilfreak on May 6, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard.
I don't quite understand something. I always see people complaining about Dawkins et al "tone" of their arguments against religion and the existence of deities. What exactly WOULD the correct "tone" be to use? "Oh, um, I'm sorry, but I think that maybe, just maybe, and I could be wrong, but I'm not quite 100% sure that God exists... but I can't prove it so don't hurt me!" That seems to be the kind of tone that's expected. To me, it looks like ANY kind of argument against the supernatural deities is the "wrong" tone, so I'd like to know how all the faith-heads think we SHOULD say it?
Oh? "Just shut up and let us live in our delusion, we aren't hurting you." Is that it? Sorry, that hasn't worked for the last 2000+ years. Any other bright ideas?
Other Comments by kurzweilfreak
6. Comment #38064 by Sir John Falstaff on May 6, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Oh man, Paul was definitely the creative force behind Sgt. Pepper. No contest. And I agree about those ridiculous Ringo claims; I refuse to tolerate such extreme ignorance! But enough about the Beatles...Other Comments by Sir John Falstaff
7. Comment #38067 by MelM on May 6, 2007 at 10:34 pm
It should also be obvious from this that the supposed link between Dawkinsian atheism and Stalinist butchery is pure nonsense. Yes, Stalin did not believe in God. But he believed in History, Marxism, Leninism and all sorts of Hegelian mumbo-jumbo for which he had not the slightest evidence.And newer forms of madness could be added to the list.
He was not a religious man, but he most certainly was a man of faith.
Yes, yes! It's irrationalism that's lethal!
Other Comments by MelM
8. Comment #38071 by MelM on May 6, 2007 at 10:50 pm
It's the tone in "Jesus Camp" that I'm worried about, not Dawkins' tone. Someone want to infiltrate some churches and record the "tones" found? Dawkins can't even come close to these guys! (And I'm glad.)Other Comments by MelM
9. Comment #38077 by Planeswalker on May 6, 2007 at 11:18 pm
When I read the headline I was like "Aw, not again..."But I got surprized.
Other Comments by Planeswalker
10. Comment #38078 by Russell Blackford on May 6, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I think that Richard Dawkins usually seems gentle and urbane ... almost to a fault. I don't understand the "fingernail on blackboard" comment, or why such comments are so often made about him. Otherwise, great article.Other Comments by Russell Blackford
11. Comment #38085 by Stewart on May 7, 2007 at 12:07 am
Roy_H,Agree very much. One of the very best to have been written. Must be circulated a lot more. Shame it probably won't fit on a t-shirt. Agree with Russell about the fingernails on the blackboard, too. Dawkins never makes that impression. But let's assume that for a believer he does and ask, is that it? Is that the worst we have going for us? Marvellous piece.
Other Comments by Stewart
12. Comment #38087 by HappyPrimate on May 7, 2007 at 12:09 am
Terrific article and well organized. Great rebuttal for the Stalin farce. For myself, I adore the tones of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Sweet music to my ears. Other Comments by HappyPrimate
13. Comment #38088 by Jolly Wally on May 7, 2007 at 12:12 am
Yes, well-written and well-reasoned. Well done.Other Comments by Jolly Wally
14. Comment #38092 by ricey on May 7, 2007 at 12:32 am
Would this article get published in a mainstream US paper? Good for Canada!Other Comments by ricey
15. Comment #38093 by Boogie on May 7, 2007 at 12:34 am
Planeswalker: I wonder whether he chose the headline on purpose, so that faith-heads would read the article? Hopefully they will, and at least some of them will engage their brains and have the sort of reaction mentioned by ImagineAZ above.Excellent article.
Other Comments by Boogie
17. Comment #38099 by ShellShock on May 7, 2007 at 1:14 am
"I don't quite understand something. I always see people complaining about Dawkins et al "tone" of their arguments against religion and the existence of deities....To me, it looks like ANY kind of argument against the supernatural deities is the "wrong" tone, so I'd like to know how all the faith-heads think we SHOULD say it?"I think religious people may see Dawkins' tone as derogatory and disrespectful at times. For example, like you, he has used the term "faith-head", which could be viewed by some as an insult, although it does not bother me.
Other Comments by ShellShock
18. Comment #38101 by WilliamP on May 7, 2007 at 1:24 am
I applaud Mr. Gardner for taking up the issue of Stalin. I fully agree, and I think more should be done to show that much of Communism is based on faith like religion. It is a system that called people to action based on the belief that there is an inevitable course to history that would bring about a worker's revolution. Russel was baffled as to how Marx could believe this and still be an atheist.Then again, Russel himself was an atheist and therefore likely had dozens of abortions in his 97 years.
Other Comments by WilliamP
19. Comment #38105 by CloudedHills on May 7, 2007 at 1:46 am
This article is... excellent. What more can I say? He has the right tone, the right logic, the right conclusion, and says it at the right time. Ottawa just jumped up quite a bit in my estimation from a place I knew next to nothing about, to a place where I knew there was at least one person who thought like me.Oh, and on the Dawkins' tone point: I wouldn't go so far as to draw the fingernails on a blackboard analogy, but there are certain passages in The God Delusion in particular which came across poorly. Just a minor thing, I did really quite like the book, but a few (and I mean a few: I can count them on one hand, citing page numbers if you like) of the sentences in teh book came across as not being terribly well thought out. I wouldn't go overboard though, if I wrote a dozen or so books, I'm sure there'd be far more turns of phrase far nastier than what Dawkins uses.
Oh, and damn is Dawkins a good public speaker. Never seen him in person, of course, living in Australia (hint hint, tour needed?), but they put a recording of him at the Beyond Belief conference on radio and it was some of the best speaking I've heard in years.
You can't look at Stalinist communism or German/Italian/Spanish fascism and say it isn't a wildly intolerant, faith-based ideology of hatred; the only difference is that where religion does it in service of something supernatural which doesn't exist, nationalism does it for an arbitrary area of land and group of people which doesn't exist except in peoples' minds.
Other Comments by CloudedHills
20. Comment #38106 by Grandt on May 7, 2007 at 1:48 am
"Private, quiet faith is one thing. But when the guy holding the launch codes believes the end of the world could come any day and that's a good thing, those who believe lives are limited to one per customer have a problem."Perfect definition :-)
Other Comments by Grandt
21. Comment #38108 by Stewart on May 7, 2007 at 1:54 am
Maybe this'll fit on a t-shirt: "'Read Dawkins, have abortion, repaint Gulag' Grow up."Other Comments by Stewart
22. Comment #38112 by Azven on May 7, 2007 at 2:29 am
Maybe this is a bit long for a T-shirt but this sentence stuck out for me as I think it expresses how we (atheists) feel...If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so
Other Comments by Azven
23. Comment #38126 by Donald on May 7, 2007 at 3:59 am
I had never read so much rubbish before I started visiting this website.I refer, of course, to all the crazy and ignorant stuff this site exposes, which I had previously not paid any attention to.
This article is one of the few that give me hope. EXCELLENT.
Other Comments by Donald
24. Comment #38127 by Hip_Priest on May 7, 2007 at 4:12 am
This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.
What a perfect summary of the vacuous 'athiest fundamentalism' argument. How many articles posted on this site fall into this category?
Other Comments by Hip_Priest
25. Comment #38138 by Bob Russell on May 7, 2007 at 5:12 am
Bravo ...proof that we make more than just great hockey players...Other Comments by Bob Russell
26. Comment #38146 by jonecc on May 7, 2007 at 5:53 am
He makes some good points around the concept of moderation. It's always struck me that the problem with this concept is that it depends what historical era you are measuring it in. Presumably a moderate Aztec would have believed you had to sacrifice some prisoners of war to the Gods, but maybe not quite so many. A moderate 17th century Briton would have thought the laws covering slavery could stand a little gentle tweaking.From the point of view of a 22nd century citizen, no longer burdened with religion but struggling to reclaim their coastal city from the sea, our idea of moderation might seem similarly unhelpful.
Other Comments by jonecc
27. Comment #38148 by phasmagigas on May 7, 2007 at 5:58 am
i like the simple breakdown of dawkins wanting truth as his form of supposed fanaticism.To oppose accusations of atheist fanaticism I like to use the example of a fanatical zealous surgeon who will not accept crystal healing as suggested by a patients sister in law to remove a brain tumor. Dawkins is 'fanatical' in the same way as the surgeon and anybody who really wants to live as long as possible is going to listen to the surgeon and not the sister in law.
Dawkins is also fanatical in the same way that we all are when we dont walk into the path of a truck on a road because our brain processing the sensory inputs says 'dont walk'. Another type of fanatic could ignore the inputs and say the truck will be guided around me this morning because I prayed for longer than normal. As we know one is a fanatic and one shows a totally normal adaptive response.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
28. Comment #38152 by Luthien on May 7, 2007 at 6:06 am
For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.
Yup, that's going up as my Messenger quote of the day :-)
Other Comments by Luthien
29. Comment #38153 by newathiest on May 7, 2007 at 6:13 am
It's so true. I can only echo Kurzweilfreak (Comment 38063). Now that athiesm seems to be breaking the last taboo of not affording religious belief any actual respect, (a crime I was guilty of until recently) the religious are crying foul.How dare Richard Dawkins actually speak the plain truth! That's dirty tactics indeed.
Other Comments by newathiest
30. Comment #38158 by SRWB on May 7, 2007 at 6:25 am
As a native of Ottawa, I can assure you there are a number of people who think like this (and Ottawa is a great city). I wrote Gardner an e-mail and congratulated him on this article, which was a rejoinder to a two part series on faith written the week before. I responded unfavorably to the previous articles in a letter to the editor, but alas while it was considered, it was not published (however, two others taking atheistic positions were). So the fight continues....Other Comments by SRWB
31. Comment #38166 by debaser71 on May 7, 2007 at 6:55 am
Nice article. I especially like the sarcasm.Other Comments by debaser71
32. Comment #38171 by Logicel on May 7, 2007 at 7:04 am
Fantastic content from the title to the last word, penned in an exhilaratingly entertaining style. I cannot pay any better compliment to this author than my saying that I wish I had wrote this article instead of him. Other Comments by Logicel
33. Comment #38176 by Jack Rawlinson on May 7, 2007 at 7:12 am
Excellent. And the perfect rebuttal to this nonsensehttp://richarddawkins.net/article,993,The-New-Atheists-loathe-religion-far-too-much-to-plausibly-challenge-it,Madeleine-Bunting
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
34. Comment #38182 by Eureka Step on May 7, 2007 at 7:22 am
You've said it all.Great article.
Other Comments by Eureka Step
35. Comment #38186 by FightingFalcon on May 7, 2007 at 7:30 am
"Fanatical" Atheists spend their time studying evolution, science, etc. and ponder ways in which we can solve mankind's most pressing questions.Fanatical Theists fly planes into buildings.
Do we really need to spell this out? Very nice article.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
36. Comment #38197 by flyingscot on May 7, 2007 at 7:52 am
Great article. The good news is spreading. Other Comments by flyingscot
37. Comment #38204 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 7, 2007 at 8:07 am
A very enjoyable article, very well put and good humoured.Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood
38. Comment #38219 by uzi on May 7, 2007 at 8:56 am
During his lifetime, Hitler ate carrots. Stalin, too, liked the taste of carrots. This devastating revelation cannot be ignored forever. Eatng carrots causes mass murderous tendencies.This relationship can make predictions: If you have killed (or authorized/ordered the deaths of) people, you most assuredly have eaten carrots.
Other Comments by uzi
39. Comment #38225 by firemancarl on May 7, 2007 at 9:11 am
I have to agree with all of you, this is probably one of the best articles I have ever read. Too bad it won't see the light of day in a US newspaper. We are so out of touch with reality here in the states, unless of course, you are a fan of Fox "News". Other Comments by firemancarl
40. Comment #38228 by newcomer on May 7, 2007 at 9:16 am
Best article I've read in a very long time.Wonder how good he"d be in a debate.Other Comments by newcomer
41. Comment #38272 by burn0gas on May 7, 2007 at 11:20 am
I've sent an email response to Dan:Hi Dan,
Thank you for your column title "Those fanatical atheists" in the Ottawa Citizen on Sunday. Well put! I'm an ex-Christian who just couldn't continue lying to myself to justify the injustice in the Bible to defend God. I'm still the same caring loving person I always was, but now I do my good and give my love for the noble reason that I chose to, not because some personal invisible God will reward or punish me for doing so.
Many thanks and Cheers!
Mark
Other Comments by burn0gas
42. Comment #38280 by BradR on May 7, 2007 at 11:39 am
"I know, as all humans do, that it's scary knowing you're going to die."I had open heart surgery last year. I was concerned about the impact on my family, but I was not scared at all. You can read about my expereince at http://bradatmayo.livejournal.com/. (There are some entries that would be of interest strictly from a medical perspective.)
Death is only scary if you don't know where you're going when you die.
Other Comments by BradR
43. Comment #38282 by Logicel on May 7, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I dutifully clicked on the above url, and I found the mention of god and praying in every one of the posts that I browsed. I lost interest. Other Comments by Logicel
44. Comment #38322 by Pi Guy on May 7, 2007 at 3:30 pm
That is a very fine article.> On the subject of RD's et al tone ("charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard") and its impact on the "core radical" message:
For Regular Joes like us, it's not so tough to keep our cool in the comparitively few real-life situations in which we are confronted by believers on matters of faith, god, etc. And while I've certainly had a heated exchange or few with relatives/co-workers/friends, the circumstances are not typically conducive to engaging in a serious, hot button issue debate beyond both sides firmly stating their position. ("Never talk about politics or religion with your father-in-law.") But, in most cases in civil society, once we know what makes someone feel uncomfortable, threatened, or insulted, we tend to try to avoid doing things that provoke the people we know and love, despite their delusions.
Dr. Dawkins, OTOH, could've simply rested on his Selfish Gene/Blind Watchmaker laurels, shaking hands and kissing babies as he hopped from one cushy, lucrative speaking engagement to another. Instead, he's chosen to use his powers for good, at considerable risk to his significant celebrity and potential financial considerations, and use the platform that his scientific expertise and experience and masterful writing has earned him to challenge all people to employ reason – a human trait whose impact is orders of magnitude greater than that of the opposable thumb! – and recognize and acknowledge that the seat of morality, of legal and civil discourse, and of life itself is not some Toga-Wearing Hippie in Birkenstocks in the Sky but, rather, it is MAN. And when you write books, go on TV and radio, etc. and boldly deliver the "…whole, crazy, fanatical package"...
"If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so" [my emphasis]
...well, then, you're going to piss a few people off even if what you say is right. But being right doesn't matter to people who've got a vested interest in perpetuating the fraud or just plain don't want to think about things that hard. And, eventually, when – and I don't know how to put this delicately – people keep asking the same dumb questions and making the same tired assertions and challenge you to address them again, and again, and again, as if this time they'll make sense and are somehow valid or even remotely convincing and seething and frothing at the mouth as they do it, you're bound to lose your cool once in a while. I wouldn't last three audience questions, personally…
It is MAN (by which I mean HUMAN) who decides what is good and what is bad. We decide what is good and what is bad. And, if the origin of life and what, if anything, happens after we die is to ever be known, I'll bet the farm that it'll be a scientist like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, or some other clear-headed, objective observer of nature that figures it out way before some Snake Oil Salesman peddling in Ignorance and Fear.
Other Comments by Pi Guy
45. Comment #38332 by drbreakfast on May 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm
This article is brilliant. Mr. Gardner really hits the spot when he addresses the "fundamentalist atheists" proproganda. There is nothing extreme in saying, "hey, show me your god" and waiting patiently for real proof. The only reason such a position is deemed "extreme" is because for centuries, one would be burned or suffer some other unpleasant fate as a result of reasonable questioning.Other Comments by drbreakfast
46. Comment #38339 by BaronOchs on May 7, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Death is only scary if you don't know where you're going when you die.
I haven't been through anything like open heart surgery, and I respect your own feelings about this matter. I have to say though I do not feel that way about death at all. If I thought there was an afterlife I would expect no less than for it to possess the same uncertainty and surprise present in this earthly life. I wouldn't want a religion dictating to me endless rules that affect where I might end up.
Someone who seems to have had an undogmatic belief in the afterlife was Walt Whitman, which is expressed in this poem, among others:
"Darest thou now, O Soul,
Walk out with me toward the Unknown Region,
Where neither ground is for the feet, nor any path to follow?
No map, there, nor guide,
Nor voice sounding, nor touch of human hand,
Nor face with blooming flesh, nor lips, nor eyes, are in that land.
I know it not, O Soul;
Nor dost thou -- all is a blank before us;
All waits, undream'd of, in that region - that inaccessible land"
Walt Whitman
'Towards the Unknown Region' 1870.
He evidently didn't know where he was going and was not scared.
However while I'm quite open to the possibility of some kind of conscious existence after death I do not expect there will be any.
As a good materialist I think as soon as the chemical processes that keep me going break down and my constituent atoms begin to disperse that is it. That is not something that frightens me, I only wish to live every day up until the day I die to the full. Also I love the world and the fact that oneday I will be no longer differentiated from it in anyway is one I welcome.
Other Comments by BaronOchs
47. Comment #38353 by Boondoggle on May 7, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I believe in God and Jesus and I really enjoyed this article.It seems to me that the author is genuinely seeking answers. Though I disagree with his conclusions, I love his desire to find truth.
Just like politics, I think it's easy to surround ourself by people who share our views and opinions about religion, n'est pas, Richarddawkins.net? I would just encourage the author and others to look at both sides of the argument.
Other Comments by Boondoggle
48. Comment #38360 by sdlvx on May 7, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Boondoggle.I am just passing by, I don't usually read richard dawkins, because I feel he is too soft.
The fact that you think atheists just gather around Richard Dawkins is the stupidest shit on this whole page. The man has some good ideas, but I at least, only cherry pick what I like, and live by my means.
I find it humorous that you, being a christian, which is a religion based on gathering in churches and saying "YES!" and "PRAISE THE LORD" and more senseless agreeing, can compare atheism to the same thing. Atheists have no churches, they have no leaders. Sure, there are people like Richard, but they are voices, not leaders. If people do "follow him", they are a disgrace to all non-believers. If you are an atheist, you can say "rich dawkins is a disphit", and you won't be outcast. You could just as well say "Dawkins is the greatest atheist alive" to someone who hates him, and it's not going to end up as some stupid "OMG UR TEH DEVIL OMG SINNER YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG BE AFRAIDD!!!"
I'm all too familiar with your little christ-games. You're the kind of intellectualizing christfuck who presents themselves as fair, but only has one motive. And that motive is to drag as many morons on your "retard shortbus of fairy tales" AKA the bible as you can possibly grab at.
If you assclown christians keep this up, I'm going to take the catholic pastor uniform, invert the colors, and run around crushing all you worthless theists little fantasies of your stupid little gods. I just need to some pamphlets and one of those obnoxious ass bells I can ding in everyone's face when they are trying to shop.
Other Comments by sdlvx
49. Comment #38368 by Kimpatsu on May 7, 2007 at 10:23 pm
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis.
Actually, I always plan to lace the eucharist with ipecac or, in my darker moments, with cyanide. Then we can tell in seconds whether transubstantiation is true.
On another note, I wonder just how much faith the Pope really has? If I gave him a eucharist he knew was laced with cyanide, would he trust in the transubstantiation to transform the wafer into a harmless "body of christ" before eating it? Or would he decline to eat?
Other Comments by Kimpatsu
50. Comment #38369 by McCroskey42 on May 7, 2007 at 10:38 pm
So saith the mostly-excellent article:Now, it is absolutely true that Dawkins' tone is often as charming as fingernails dragged slowly down a chalkboard
I'm curious what tone the author would consider 'charming' to people of faith. How, exactly, are you supposed to say to a fellow human being 'Well, sir (or madam), your entire belief system is a fairy tale predicated on wishful thinking, ancient superstition, and submission to blind authority' and NOT profoundly offend them? It is fundamentally impossible to be a 'polite atheist' and cogently explain what your arguments against faith are without severely pissing off the people who hold it so dear. Frankly, it's far better to be honest and loathed than to live in polite silence.
Other Comments by McCroskey42
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
Bertrand Russell
"Most people, I believe, think that you need a God to explain the existence of the world, and especially the existence of life. They are wrong, but our education system is such that many people don't know it."
Richard Dawkins
"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests""
Richard Dawkins
"There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true."
Richard Dawkins
"It may be that brain hardware has co-evolved with the internal virtual worlds that it creates. This can be called hardware-software co-evolution."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
American Theocracy
Kevin Phillips
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #38056 by Roy_H on May 6, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Perfect! one of the best articles I have ever read on this website.Other Comments by Roy_H