There seems to be a lot of it about at the moment, as the late British comic writer and broadcaster Spike Milligan might have put it. “It” being atheism. The biologist Richard Dawkins, known in some quarters as “Darwin’s Rottweiler”, takes aim at religion in a current television series on Britain’s Channel 4 station. And only a few weeks ago I watched a programme on BBC 2 with Jonathan Miller, praising the tradition of skepticsm and outright atheism.
What is going on? We live at a time when our post-Enlightenment civilisation is threatened by religious fundamentalism in the guise of radical Islam. It seemed for a while after 9/11 to be bad form to make harsh attacks on religion per se but now it appears some restraints are coming off.
Of course this may only apply to Britain. In the United States, notwithstanding the theoretical separation of religion and state, it is, as Salman Rushdie has said, all but impossible for any declared atheist to hold down a public office more senior than that of a dog-catcher. This may of course change in time. Such things sometimes move in cycles.
Atheism is extraordinary! I’m an atheist myself. Unfortunatelly many people in Europe automatically associate it with the “enlightened fine-tuning” of Socialism.
We need to be more vocal about atheism and capitalism.
Religion is a mindless crutch to many people, and it’s good that others are starting to kick it away.
I’m not talking about genuinely religious people, just people who use the authority of religion to stifle argument, despite themselves never going to church: the ‘traditional values’ brigade. Well, values are good because they’re good, not because they’re traditional. They may coincide, but ‘we’ve always done it this way’ is no defence. Unfortunately, 70% of Brits call themselves Christians out of intellectual laziness. No one seems to realise that if you’re not a Jew or a Muslim, that doesn’t leave only one box you can tick.
What is going on? I suppose atheism had to get some coverage at some point. We’ve had mad mullahs, a change of Pope, the increasing brazenness of certain ‘cummunity leaders,’ and the government wanting to get non-Christians en masse into the House of Lords, wanting to increase the number of ‘faith schools’ seven times seven and wanting to involve these damned ‘faith communities’ (that word again) in everything from focus groups to sustainable development.
Rooted in their locality over generations, defined by a strong, shared set of non-materialistic values, and experienced in working together with trust and respect, faith groups are well-placed, both in outlook and practice, to influence and deliver sustainable development at all levels.
The government really shouldn’t be writing this sort of rubbish. We’re further away from a secular society than we were ten years ago, with the government pandaring to every New Ager and cleric knocking about.
Unfortunately, these ‘community leaders’ give the government ideas, which are the last thing it needs. It riles me that the MCB wants employers to provide prayer rooms. A bit more cosying to the government, a bit more woolliness from the government, and it could easily become law, at the business’s expense. If it does, the rest of us will have to use the rooms to declaim Shelley, Paine and all the other atheist writers in literature.
That might be a bit more believable if Atheism didn’t require such great religious faith: To hold the unflinching belief that there is no god, a “fact” which cannot either be proven or disproven, obviously requires one hell of a lot of *faith*.
Its a bit rich for atheists to look down on those who believe in god for relying on religious faith when their own beliefs are full of it.
I consider atheism a luxury best enjoyed by those living in a tolerant religious society. When everyone is an atheist, then they need to start dealing with the larger questions of morality and right living. So far as I can see, all that is on offer now in that regard are shallow arguments based on utility. There needs to be more.
And why simply attack traditional religions? Why not all the other superstitions: vegetarianism, astrology, marxism, newage mysticism, and various psychobabble oddities that have grown to fill the religious void?
I speak as one raised atheist who has never been tempted to change, but I have also always sensed a spiritual need that remains unfulfilled in modern society. I suspect this need explains much of the odd behaviour found on the left, who evidently find it necessary to believe in the devil and whose beliefs are reminiscent of the Gnostic heresy.
Lets see:
(1) Atheism is just as much a religion as any form of theism. Stating that god/gods don’t exist requires just as much a leaf of faith as asserting that they do. As a result, people that are loudly and publicly atheist come off as not only as religious zealots but ones with none of the restraint of tradition.
(2) Atheism has underpinned all the mass murdering doctrines of the 20th century. As a religion, atheism easily matches and in recent history highly exceeds theistic religions as the basis for killing doctrines.
(3) Atheist have proven just as susceptible to overarching world views that claim to explain everything and to order all human existence as theist. Marxism for example.
In short, there is often very little to differentiate the real world behavior of atheist and theist and the recent track record of atheism in general isn’t pretty.
To be honest, I can only imagine that the views aired by Dawkins and Miller apply in a Christian context. I haven’t seen either programme, but would suppose that it is very unlikely that there were any comments directly or indirectly relating to Islamic beliefs.
It’s a lot easier to beat on the Christian in the UK than it is the Muslim or any other ‘minority’ religion, for many different reasons.
I’d be very surprised if anybody dared to publicly challenge and even derise the Islamic faith on their own programme.
Consider it the resurgence of Rationalism. The natural response of the reason-based world to the creep of faith-based initatives and policies in the post-enlightenment world. I’m happy to self-identify as an apatheist – that is, someone who doesn’t believe in God but for who the whole issue is pretty much irrelevant. I don’t need an invisible puppetmaster.
Joe,
I, and no atheist I have ever met, holds the opinion that there cannot be a god. Dawkins explained this position himself, using the example of a society that believes there is a giant invisible teapot in space. Those who did not believe in the teapot would be considered strange or even crazy. In truth, none of us know for sure that the is no giant teapot in space but in practice we are all “teapot atheists”.
It would take faith to believe there couldn’t be a god, believing there isn’t a god merely requires taking an objective approach.
Of course, one could conclude (as some have) that the science supports an intelligent designer. Usually these people do not buy into any religious version of history or moral dictats as these concepts are separate from the scientific arguments. There is nothing to be considered undesirable about reaching this conclusion based on reason.
Shannon,
You posted after I started.
1) For the reasons I stated above, stating that their cannot be a god requires faith, stating that you believe their isn’t does not. It may be that people who believe their cannot be a god exist and even that they get on TV more than most atheists (or that they are more likely to bring up their atheism) but this does not make faith a pre-requisite of atheism.
2) Facism was not atheistic – the Nazis accused the Jews of being “Christ killers”. Some (such as the communists) were atheist but atheism does not underpin communism – it is a consequence of it.
3) Atheists are suceptible to overarching world views, they are not bound to them.
James,
Dawkins did attack muslim fundamentalists in his programme.
“To hold the unflinching belief that there is no god, a “fact” which cannot either be proven or disproven, obviously requires one hell of a lot of *faith*.”
No – atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It requires no faith.
“Atheism is just as much a religion as any form of theism.”
Atheism is not a religion – see above. That some atheists are bores is simply an observation of human nature, not evidence that atheism is a religion – it isn’t.
I have always been facinated by religion, more accuratly, spirituality. For the orthodox monotheistic religions over the last 2000 years have gained the upper hand in these matters. In the words of an old Small Faces song “All or Nothing”.
Born into a nominally christian family, even from a very young age I use to say to myself ,” What’s this worship thing all about?” If I was the intellegent being that created this incredible and eternal universe (and of course I was being told that HE created me in his image, then I figured we may share some thought processes) So why the hell would I want a bunch of monkeys like us to give thanks for this world of pain and pleasure that he has unleashed upon us, Five times a day? That always seemed to me mentally ill (on the part of the supreme being).
Do dolphins and gorrillas get away scot free of religion? or are there, unbeknown to us , Dolphin preachers and Ant anabaptists? I dont think so.
Ian . That which is unprovable , either way is UNPROVEN. My own birth religion is so full of miracles and fantasy that proof goes out the window . You either believe or you don’t.
Depending on where you live, you can get killed for a negative response.
So much as I have trawled through every major and minor religion , I just dont believe in God.
Now if God would like to reply, well the spambot code thingy isnt that hard Lord! give it a try! And who amongst your spin doctors thought that passing your message to illiterate desert dwellers was a good move!
I was seriously disappointed that Dawkins, introducing the venerable Russell teapot, did not make the connection with the Ayah Pin Sky Kingdom teapot that aroused the ire of Isamlic fundamentalists in Malaysia recently.
I have to ask, why does the fact that someone does or does not go to church affect the reasoning behind their religious beliefs?
The fact that someone is sincere, doesn’t make them better informed.
If you must resort to supernatural explanations, you could try reading Roger Penrose’s magnum opus (The Road to Reality; a superb achievement, and a book I have spent the last year or so trying to understand. I haven’t succeeded either. Physics is hard, even though I have a degree in the subject.) I wouldn’t care to assert that Professor Penrose has, or has not, any religious beliefs, but his chapter on the second law of thermodynamics is certainly thought provoking for those that may care to entertain them.
Not that most people who have religious beliefs have ever heard of the second law of thermodynamics. But if they were to work hard to understand this point, they might find a trace of justification for their views.
Having said that, I don’t myself find sufficient justification for ‘God’ in that either. After all, the notion of ‘God’ is typically rather more complicated that the things it is invoked to explain.
Western morality comes from philosophy rather than the Christianity. You believe in freedom of speech not thanks to the Pope, but thanks to John Locke, among others. Aristotle did a lot to define what virtue was in his treatise on Ethics, and he wasn’t the only philosopher to do so.
If the Church was your sole moral input, then you’d believe in the divine right of kings and in stoning witches.
It really gets up my nose when theists start saying “Ah, but without us you would have no morality”, when it seems to me that philosophers rather than priests have been responsible for defining what is good.
Joe: “To hold the unflinching belief that there is no god… Its a bit rich for atheists to look down on those who believe in god for relying on religious faith when their own beliefs are full of it.”
Congratulations on committing the most frequent and tedious error in discussing atheism: confuting strong and weak atheism. There is a difference between lacking a belief in God and believing there is no God. Some of the arguments for strong atheism are interesting, but unconvincing. Weak atheism requires no ‘faith’, and strong atheism doesn’t require anything near the same sort of ‘faith’ as religion – which actively promulgates it as a sort of life-centering virtue rather than just a philosophical presupposition.
Shannon Love: “Atheism has underpinned all the mass murdering doctrines of the 20th century. As a religion, atheism easily matches and in recent history highly exceeds theistic religions as the basis for killing doctrines.”
Ludicrous. So the key doctrine on which Nazism and Communism is based is atheism? Of course not! They both include atheism within a worldview predicated on other things – nationalism and a rather strange form of socialism (well, stranger than ordinary socialism) in the former and unquestioned belief in socialist/communist economic and political ideals.
James: “I haven’t seen either programme, but would suppose that it is very unlikely that there were any comments directly or indirectly relating to Islamic beliefs.”
If you haven’t seen the programmes, why are you commenting on them? Miller’s programme focued on a mixture of the three main monotheistic faiths, but was mostly a history of disbelief (hence the programme’s title: “Atheism: A Brief History of Disbelief”). Disbelief has not exactly flourished in Saudi Arabia in the way it has in Western Europe. The brief history was pretty much tied with social revolution: Hobbes, Locke, the founding of the United States, the French Revolution, Deism, Thomas Paine, then later with Darwin, Marx and others. All operated in societies which with either state-sponsored or mass Christianity and how their ideas – good or bad (and I would say that the ideas of Locke and Paine are good, Darwin’s true, and Marx’s bad) – helped promote the general disbelief (in Europe) and the state secularism (in the USA).
Dawkins first programme covered, in chronological order, Catholicism, American protestantism, Judaism and Islam (on location at Lourdes, Colorado Springs and Israel/Palestine). With regard to Islam, here’s what he had to say after talking a Muslim convert:
“Clearly historic injustice towards the Palestinians breeds hatred and anger. But we must face up to the fact that in creating the death cults of suicide bombers, it’s unshakeable and unreasonable conviction in your own righteous faith that is the key. If preachers then tell the faithful that paradise after martyrdom is better than existence here in the real world, it’s hardly surprising that some crazed followers will actually swallow it leading to a terrible cycle of vendetta, war and suffering.” (just transcribed from my taped copy)
In an article entitled “Time to Stand Up”, Dawkins said: “‘To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!’ Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry.”
chuck: “Why not all the other superstitions: vegetarianism, astrology, marxism, newage mysticism, and various psychobabble oddities that have grown to fill the religious void?”
Vegetarianism a superstiton? Whatever. I’m a vegetarian because I don’t like the taste of meat. If I liked the taste of meat, I’d eat it. I’m not sure how that’s superstition.
As for Astrology, New Age stuff? Many of the same writers attack that, as they do with “psychobabble” (just do a search for “Carole Caplin” and “Cherie Blair” in Google News or equivalent). Marxism? Well, I really ought to read “The Poverty of Historicism” sometime…
As for whether atheism has suddenly seen a resurgence on the telly? I don’t think so. Miller’s programme was made back in 2004, I think. The BBC kept it to their “cultured ghetto”, BBC4, until quite recently. It just so happened they broadcast it on BBC2 a month or two before Dawkins’ two-part programme. Two programmes over two years is not a resurgence when compared with, oh, the huge media time given to superstition and religious belief.
Oh, I said “confuting”, I meant “confusing”. Slip of the old keys, chaps.
Vegetarianism a superstiton?
Sure. I recall that when it came back into fashion in the 60’s it was connected with eastern mysticism. There was some sort of karmic virtue in eating rice and fruit while steering clear of meat: it was yet another step on the way to enlightenment. The 60’s and the new left it spawned, were full of desire for magic. To add a few bits to the list: shamanism, astral projection, levitation, tarot, i-ching, fortune telling, sweat lodges, wiccan, hallucinigens, pot, communes, environmentalism in its more extreme forms, Gaia worship, the elevation of dolphins to the status of demigods… Note the primitive religion aspect to much of this, an aspect that I believe led to the cultural relativism of today and explains the odd fact that ancient and undeveloped cultures are actually considered *superior* to western culture. It is because those unmodern cultures retain a belief in ancient magics, magics that jaded and unhappy westerners devoutly wish to be true.
Frankly, the stodgy 50’s were infinitely more sane and rational than the 60’s.
You mean they’ll let us be dog catchers now?!
Woohoo!
You’re honestly saying that pot was one of the bad bits of hippy culture? The dippy Eastern mysticism shit was bad, but the availability of certain psychoactive drugs was good.
“Atheism has underpinned all the mass murdering doctrines of the 20th century. As a religion, atheism easily matches and in recent history highly exceeds theistic religions as the basis for killing doctrines.”
No. It has been a part of many doctrines, but not an underpinning. As has religion. The constant was FANATICISM, which can apply to almost any human activity. Can you say ‘World Cup’?
The greatest slaughters of the past century were done by communists. I know many religious communists. Atheism is not required.
Communism as practiced by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et.al., was essentially a substitution of belief in a mythical omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent deity for a belief in a mythical omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent state.
Note the mythical in both cases, since neither has ever existed, exists now, or is likely to exist in the future.
The NSDAP, whatever else it was, was far from atheistic. “Gott Mit Uns” was embossed on the SS uniform belt buckles. The hierarchy believed in ludicrous Aryan mythologies, as well as astrology and the writings of Nostradamus. That Hitler and the NSDAP were Atheists is a deliberate slur, the philosophical equivalent of a blood libel, used by cynical theocrats seeking to destroy secular and atheistic arguments by any means available, and believed by their uninformed and gullible, if not ignorant, followers.
OK. I feel better now.
You’re honestly saying that pot was one of the bad bits of hippy culture?
Every ox should be equally gored. My point is that every habit and belief can be rationalized, but the basis of the habit or belief is seldom rational.
Dawkins is an idiot.
1) Anything beyond what we currently know by observation is ENTIRELY speculation. Therefore, saying conclusively that there is OR is NOT a God constitutes speculating – it constitutes making a judgment on something we really have no idea about. Dawkins is claiming to know just as much as religious people – he is not simply saying that we don’t know if there is a God or not – he’s saying that HE knows that there isn’t!
2) There’s also the troublesome issue of defining ‘God’. If ‘God’ is merely “a superior being”, notwithstanding the possibility of there being MANY “superior beings”, what evidence leads to the conclusion that such a being does not exist? Like I say, it’s idiotic.
3) None of this means that we can’t, by other logic, rule out the possibility or probability of certain things being the case. For example, I could say that I don’t believe God to be a nasty kid on an anthill with a magnifying glass, burning off our feelers to watch us squirm. If a God created our world, he is constructive rather than destructive, even though part of his creation contains destructive elements. There are certain things we can work out…. none of which support Dawkins insane fundamentalist ramblings.
By the way. The word atheism is, grammatically, the word we should use to describe an agnostic. The word most grammatically suited to Dawkins is “anti-theism” – a different thing entirely.
Thanks, Tom. Better put than I could.
I should just add, on the ‘atheism is a faith’ point of Shannon’s, that you can’t, and atheists don’t generally attempt to, draw moral instruction from the non-existence of gods; this is in contrast to the faithful, for whom their gods provide foundations for ethical systems.
I am satisfied that to say the all-powerful all-pervasive God of Abrahamic religion, the Providence of deists, or the Brahma of the Hindus “exists” is meaningless. Nothing would follow from it, precisely because anything could.
It is perfectly possible to have an atheist religion. Buddhism is, in its main tradition. The philosophically sophisticated in the classical world (Cicero, for example) often argued that religious observance was of social value regardless of the existence or not of gods in which they didn’t really believe. It is arguable that strands of Marxism and Freudian cults have the proleptic disregard of verification combined with sense of purpose that characterises religions.
Meanwhile we should recognise the widespread existence of practical atheism in many advanced countries. A large segment of the population (in Britain, the Netherlands, and Japan, probably other places too, a majority) have religious adherence that is nominal only, if that. Established ritual serves some social functions – to mark rites of passage, to bond one to the group, and so forth – but many of those who might classify themselves as ‘believers’ if asked, may yet be in practice atheistic: they do not worship, attend any regular service, or give any thought to God in everyday life.
The reason you don’t hear very much about atheism, I’d suggest, is not because there isn’t a lot of is about, but because atheists don’t think their lack of faith a big deal until they are confronted by religious types who do. It makes as much sense to talk about the doctrine of atheism as it does nudist couture.
Do not forget Dr Starkey (spelling?) on Radio 4.
He is busy repeating the old Jeremy Bentham trick of claiming that St. Paul (etc) “betrayed” the teachings of Jesus.
Of course neither J.B. nor Dr S. believe in Jesus either – but it is a useful trick to pretent that one is only against the followers.
Actually I do not have a problem with athiesm.
Although I am a Christian I believe that decent athiests go upstairs (although it might take a long time to convince them that it was not a delusion).
That might be considered a Jewish view (and I do have some Jewish blood), but I see no problem in accepting “I am the way the truth and the life, there is no way to the father but through me” whilst thinking (“whether someone knows it or not, they go to the father via Jesus”).
I also prefer open athiesm to the sort of “religion as government economic and social policy” that one gets so much of in many churches (especially the Anglican Church [the Church of England] – I am an Anglican myself).
Actually Adolf Hitler was an athiest (that is quite clear from his private words) – although he might talk about God in public.
Also the National Socialists were strongly antiChristian.
The “League of German Chrisitians” was a farce and meant to be.
It is not just the private talk of National Socialists.
The S.S. (and others) had lots of fun smashing up churches in many parts of Europe.
Also the biggest killing doctrine in human history – Marxism is athiest.
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest were all athiests.
This does not mean that athiests tend to be bad people.
But to claim that religion is the cause of most of the word’s problems (as Dr D. does) is bullshit.
Even the Welfare States can not be blamed on religion (although many religious people were involved in them – thus ignoring the fact that to be moral giving money to the poor must be voluntary).
It was not religion that motivated Bismark, Dizzy, Lloyd-George, F.D.R. and L.B.J. – it was politics.
As an Anglican, then, Paul, you probably cherish the sixteenth-century wisdom of the Thirty-Nine Articles:
The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.
We’d both agree that forced giving (taxation) is not charity.
chuck said
“Sure. I recall that when it came back into fashion in the 60’s it was connected with eastern mysticism. ”
True. It was also associated with our own western mysticism (Gnosticism) in the middle ages.
Guy Herbert mentions Cicero:…..”religious observance is of social value…..”
In “The Latest Decalogue”, & I’m too lazy to verify its authorship: “At Church on Sunday to attend, will serve to keep the World thy friend.”
Paul Marks,
Please post links Hitlers writings that can stand witness to whether Hitler was an atheist. And I mean the entire writings in context with all surrounding statements. I could take statements out of context to use as evidence that anyone from bin Laden to the pope was an atheist.
The word ‘god’ is used around 20 times in Mein Kampf, if I recall correctly.
being anti-church or anti-christian is not being atheist. There are many people that profess religion but belong to no organized church.
You are letting religion off the hook, blaming politics, yet blaming atheism an letting politics off the hook in other situations. Seems rather inconsistent to me.
LBJ and FDR did have religious motivations behing much of what they did, politics was just the environment they worked in. Yes politics drove much of what they did, as it does much of what everyone not sitting in a monks cell does. But both FDR and LBJ were religious men. I can say anything about Bismark, Dizzy of Lloyd-George.
So far as how murderous Marxism was, or anything in the late 19th to 20 centuries was, I think is applicable to technology, not faith. With mechanization every form of fanaticism became more dangerous. Note the 600,000+ people killed in the US Civil War, which has been termed the first modern, (mechanized), war. Both sides were full of religious people.
This is why the insanity of islam is so dangerous. Up till arounf 1860 or so, such insanity was limited in how many it could kill to the number of guns and blades it could weild. Now entire citries can be slaughtered at a single stroke with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. With mechanization and technology the ability to slaughter has been extended.
Should some imam/mullah/ayatollah, or some christian fanatic, or israel, or the hindus in india, decide to use nukes in the name of protecting thier religion or striking at the heretics or infidels, will you then blame religion?
I doubt it. You will find some excuse to let religion off the hook. Yet you blame atheism.
As I said. Fanaticism is the problem, not the cloak it wears.
…….and I think the “First” was:
“Thou shalt have one God only, who
would be at the expense of two.”
such insanity was limited in how many it could kill to the number of guns and blades it could weild.
I would argue that Stalin’s low tech Ukrainian famine killed more people in less time and at less cost than Hitler’s high tech extermination camps. The Mongols also had great success with low tech methods. All that is required is that one side be stronger than the other, not that it possess modern technology.
As I said. Fanaticism is the problem, not the cloak it wears.
So what is the cure for fanaticism? Not rationalism, certainly. Lenin regarded himself as eminently rational, quite above the quaint bourgeois delusions of lesser beings. He thought of himself as a man who could see the brutal nature of reality and act accordingly. He was quite the Darwinian romantic, actually.
Mark, you say: “I, and no atheist I have ever met, holds the opinion that there cannot be a god.”
If this is true how can any self-called “atheist” propose a contrary comment on the belief that there is a god? In order to do so they must necessarily consider the fact that there might be a god- failure to do so amounts to pure (though perhaps unintentional) hypocrisy.
If you really believe the following: “…believing there isn’t a god merely requires taking an objective approach.” then you are ignoring the fact that an “objective belief” is still nothing more than a belief and therefore ultimately reliant on faith! 😉
Tom, don’t be silly – you are too quick to congratulate me on…” committing the most frequent and tedious error in discussing atheism: confuting strong and weak atheism.”
You see – tedious i may be – but not on that count 🙂
In order to consider oneself an atheist one has to consider the possibility of God – and do so beliefs are required to consder the possibilities and all beliefs eventually rely on the faith to decide whether they are: true, false or inconsequential.
Anyone who believes themselves an atheist ulimately rely’s on faith to maintain that belief.
Anyone who feels that the “belief in God” is inconsequential themselves has faith that that belief is so.
For a person to be completely ignorant of the possibility of “God beliefs” (of some description or other) is an unknown phenomena… we cannot possibly scientifically determine such an idea without contaminating it. As soon as they discover that someone else has a belief in God – consideration of that belief automatically ends in a God/No-God belief based in faith that they “know” to be true.
Joe,
An atheist can, and should, consider the possibility that there is a god and the possibility that there is not. The two competing hypothesis should then be weighed against one another and a conclusion reached. It is on the basis of weighing up the evidence that any contrary comment to the belief in god would be made.
Belief itself can be reliant either on faith or on objective reasoning. The whole point of faith is to hold a belief whatever evidence is brought against it. However, if the facts were to change then I would reconsider my opinion, thus there is nothing taken on faith.
Some commenters have brought up Marxism and Facism. Firstly, although Hitler may not have believed in a god the scapegoating of the Jews exploited a tradition of Christian anti-semitism. I don’t wish to blame Christians for the holocaust but to propose that it was totally atheistic entirely ignores centuries of Christian scapegoating of jews that preceded.
As for Marxism, it is a faith in itself. Many rulers used religion before to lay claim to power. Unquestioning faith was used as a tool for oppression by many kings (and notably ancient rulers who frequently declared themselves living gods). Marxism used that same technique but replaced god with an the concept of an infallable communist ideal.
Not believing in god does not prevent people from putting unquestioning faith into ideas or leaders but it makes people no more suceptible than religious belief. Arriving at atheism (as oppose to having not been introduced to an idea of god) should be based on reason and a willingness to question.
“It was not religion that motivated Bismark, Dizzy, Lloyd-George, F.D.R. and L.B.J. – it was politics.”
It also wasn’t lack-of-religion.
“Anyone who believes themselves an atheist ulimately rely’s on faith to maintain that belief.”
How exactly? I looked at the arguments for and against God, and decided that the evidence doesn’t warrant the belief. How exactly is that faith?
Do I have ‘faith’ in my no-angels stance? Do I have ‘faith’ in my belief that if I drop a brick on my foot, it’ll hurt.
Believing in God requires having faith. Not believing in God does not require faith. I have not seen any evidence for supernaturalism in general, so I approach such claims with a certain skepticism.
The best reply to the accusation that atheism is a religion is this.
If atheism is a religion then baldness is a hair colour.
“And why simply attack traditional religions? Why not all the other superstitions: vegetarianism, astrology, marxism, newage mysticism, and various psychobabble oddities that have grown to fill the religious void?”
thats the stupidest thing i have ever read. if your gripe is with mystics then just say that.
O yeah, my gripe is with vegetarianism being included in with the others
John Wright– Dawkin’s position regarding whether God exists works like this : the burden of proof when it comes to the issue of deity’s existence ( and it is clear that he takes ‘god’ to reffer to supernatural person , so he is not a Deist ala 18thc. thinkers ) is on those who wish to say that there is such a being. And there is no good argument known ( historically or at present available ) that conclusively establishes the fact so Dawkins wins by default.
Also note that there are arguments that aim at showing that the very concept of God involves a contradiction and so this class of argument is not based on observatin .
Tom Morris, you ask:
I looked at the arguments for and against God, and decided that the evidence doesn’t warrant the belief. How exactly is that faith?
It is faith because – That belief requires faith just as all beliefs require a certain faith. Evidence and proof require that you “have the faith” that the evidence and proof are THE defining truth with regard to the nature of the belief. If someone slaps you in the face with a wet fish, the actual wet, slippery, yucky, slapping feeling may appear to be proof and true evidence of having been slapped in the face with a wet fish, but the only thing that makes it real as opposed to being a dream of being slapped with a fish is the faith that you are awake!
Johnathan- in the general post modern climate that media is hostage to you would *expect* that some rationalist perspective ( which is pro enlightnment such as Dawkin’s views ) gets exposure because anything goes on post modern take.
So we get new age , traditional religious perspective and so on down the line ; they are all there. So it is not an indication of some reaction -I am sad to say- to the forces of romantic counterenlightnment. sad but true.
Stating that god/gods don’t exist requires just as much a leaf of faith as asserting that they do.
Religious believers often say this, overlooking one of the elementary rules of logic: one is not required to prove a negative. To say that a non-material, non-perceivable entity called “God”, or “Allah”, or “Grand Zog”, does not exist, or there is no proof of said existence, is not the same as saying it does. The burden of proof should be on those who claim the existence of such things.
I very much second what Ian said right at the top of this thread.
Mark, you say:
“An atheist can, and should, consider the possibility that there is a god and the possibility that there is not. The two competing hypothesis should then be weighed against one another and a conclusion reached. It is on the basis of weighing up the evidence that any contrary comment to the belief in god would be made”.
I agree wholeheartedly 🙂
But your next thought is missing an important point:
“Belief itself can be reliant either on faith or on objective reasoning”.
That isn’t true because -although *Belief* can be arrived at by faith alone or by objective reasoning – the belief itself ultimately relies on your faith that the evidence supporting your belief is THE only True possibility based on that evidence.
Try this little change in your wording – see how it plays out – instead of saying:
“The whole point of faith is to hold a belief whatever evidence is brought against it”
Try thinking of it this way: “The whole point of faith is to hold a belief up to the scrutiny of whatever evidence is brought against it”
Faith that can’t be held up to scrutiny relies on “hope” or “denial”… Which are worthwhile if we have good reason to believe the evidence is flawed… otherwise they become nothing more than chains in which we encase ourselves.
As there is no proof that can be accepted without recourse to faith, especially with regard to choosing for or against there being a God… the whole thing ultimately comes down to personal choice. Which is itself usually based on the faith that the decision either is or isn’t a consequential thing.
Johnathan– you are right on the burden of proof in the debate i.e. where it lies. I would make two observations : what explains that it is the believers in god who have the burden of proof; has it always been like that or has the burden of proof shifted only recently ? ( in middle ages for instance where was the burden of proof ?) What was the burden of proof shifting event ?
Second the atheist can deploy a priory type argument ( viz. that the notion of a personal supernatural being that is outside time is contradictory ) which shows that god *cannot* exist ; not just that he contingently as a matter of empirical fact does not exist.
The point is that if this works than you can have complete certainty that god does not exist ; the certainty involved is as strong as the certainty that 1+1=2.
My understanding of Dawkins is that he goes with the ‘burden of proof’ argument.
Mark and Tom Morris, Look at what “zdenek” has just written with regard to “burden of proof” :
What a brilliant example of faith!
Joe,
“the belief itself ultimately relies on your faith that the evidence supporting your belief is THE only True possibility based on that evidence”
Actually no. My belief looks for the most probable conclusion based on the evidence available to me. The idea that faith is the ability to hold an argument up to scrutiny implies that you are willing to reject the belief if the evidence does not support it. Faith is defined (by the OED in front of me) as “complete trust, unquestioning confidence”. To put faith in a person or idea means to believe in them/it without evidence. Thus to hold a belief up to scrutiny would be, by definition, a lack of faith.
I can see what you’re doing which is to try to push me on to the defensive. You are taking the burden of proof argument to a bizarre extreme, which is to say there is reasonable doubt god exists, therefore god exists. This simply does not follow. Science is not like a criminal trial, it is the process of weighing up competing hypotheses. In the case that neither can be proven, the most likely is accepted but is open to be challenged by new evidence.
To say that everything is taken on faith is an even stranger way of making you’re argument – you’re saying that nothing can be believed without faith therefore god exists. We all make assumptions in our daily lives. Often we call things “true” when the evidence says there is, say, a 98% chance they are actually true. However those beliefs are open to question if new evidence is presented – thus our trust is not complete and our confidence is not unquestioning so they are not beliefs based on faith.
Finally, integers are human defined concepts. It is because we have defined them in such abstract logical terms that mathematical statements can be true or false. 2 is defined as “1+1” so “1+1 = 2” is a truism. It is only when god is defined in such a strictly logical way that this method can be used to logically disprove the existence of that definition of a god. The overall concept of god cannot be disproven in that way.
Mark,
is not what I said.
What I said was: “The whole point of faith is to hold a belief up to the scrutiny of whatever evidence is brought against it” That is a very different thing to what you have written.
Also I’m not suggesting: “nothing can be believed without faith therefore god exists”
What I’m saying is more along the lines of: All beliefs are based on the faith that they are (or are based on) a “truth” – therefore, whether we believe god exists, or not, is ultimately and entirely down to either faith in personal choice or blind faith.
With that in mind – a person who declares that they are an atheist – is making a declaration that they have enough faith in the belief that no god exists in order to name themselves atheist.
Whether they like it or not they are being religiously faithful. If at that point they blindly, religiously and faithfully follow atheism without putting that faith under scrutiny then they have fallen into all the exact blind faith trap that they say believers in God are so prone to.
If we really scrutinise all our beliefs then sometimes you will see the world through atheistic eyes and sometimes through the eyes of a true believer in God. It can and possibly will keep changing with the evidence… What you decide within this everchanging frame of evidence is entirely up to you… or of course you can – like the TV stations – make it up to suit your politics 🙂
A brief interjection: anyone who thinks that the Lockean philosophy was independent of religious context needs to read a little more intellectual history. Roy Porter’s ‘Enlightenment’ would be a good place to start; Nicholas Wolterstorff’s ‘John Locke and the ethics of belief’ would be a suitable main course; Rowan Williams on Hooker would then be a good dessert – as long as you had a suitable Sauternes to help wash down the indigestible bits.
Having just read through the comments above it seems to me that a lot of the points being made have little to do with atheism and a lot to do with semantics.
I am with the crowd who state that being an atheist is not a faith. I am not religious about my atheism. I do not think about gods, or my belief that they do not exist, other than when people with belief in a god talk about their beliefs (which they seem to do an awful lot).
Further I find it absurd that people who claim religious convictions can assert that morality is only possible with religion. What nonsense. Every religion has a different morality even if many of them overlap. One can be moral without religious belief. How one defines morality is not a religious question but one of concience.
May I assume that there are no links or other evidence to prove the statement:
“Actually Adolf Hitler was an athiest (that is quite clear from his private words) – although he might talk about God in public.”
????
Joe,
Other than interchanging belief and argument how is what I have said different? You have made no attempt to further explain yourself.
You are using the argument that relies on faith to attack the premise that atheists base their belief on reason rather than faith- and you are using this argument to promote the validity of your view that god exists.
“All beliefs are based on the faith that they are (or are based on) a “truth”
All beliefs are not based on an unquestioning confidence (i.e. faith) that they are an absolute certainty (i.e. “truths”). Some beliefs are based on an objective approach which continually questions and reappraises the evidence and accepts no absolute certainties.
If an atheist does not scrutinise their beliefs then yes, they are holding their views on faith rather than reason. However faith cannot be scrutinised or it is not an unquestioning confidence.
Nick,
You’re right that this conversation is getting bogged down in semantics, for which I take a share of the blame. I also agree that atheism is not a faith, which I’m afraid is where the argument over semantics started.
Of course religion does not make a person more moral. Religion (rather than mere belief in a god – sorry, semantics again) is too overarching in its scope.
Joe,
“You are using the argument that relies on faith…”
Should have read:
“You are using the argument that belief relies on faith…”
I’m tired. Sorry.
Joe – you are being silly ; my comment about maths is not connected to the burden of proof issue. Observe ( read a bit more closely ) that I describe the argument that has conclusion that is absolutely certain as ‘a priori ‘. This type of argument is deployed by some philosophers *independently * of arguments that only try to shift the burden of proof. ( people seem to be confused about this also ). You seem to be lost.
As to you remark ( or is this a joke , sorry dont have time to check ) that the belief that 1+1=2 involves faith in the way empirical belief such as that there exits a supernatural person who created all is just utter rubbish. The latter is analytically true simply by virtue of the meanings of the terms like ‘1’ and ‘+’. its justfication does not rely on experience ( this is in part why logitians say that ‘1+1=2 ‘is true in all possible worlds ) i.e. is analytically true. But we do not say the same about empirical claims that require senses for justification and where the issue of faith can be raised . read some intro to epistemology before you start talking nonsense.
Mark– what you say about the statement ‘1+1=2’ and how it relates to showing that God cannot exist is nonsense. The idea is briefly that because the personal conceptions of god define him as a person and also as a being that is outside time we get a contradiction ( person has thoughts which have temporal nature i.e. occur in time so he cannot by definition be nontemporal as the traditional conception will have him ) . Now the move is to argue that contradictions are false in all possible worlds therefore such a being *necessarily* –where necessity is logical necessity –does not exist.
This is the argument ( not mine I am just giving exegisis ) and if you going to take issue with it as you shoud you need to get the nature of the argiment straight otherwise you are arguing against a straw man.
zdenek, absolutely. When I read someone make a remark that 1+2 = 4 is a form of faith, I want to despair. The lack of respect for basic logic is simply shocking.
Johnathan– in today’s ‘SanFrancisco Chronicle’ David Oderberg argues that scientific fraud ( recent Korean example ) is encouraged by government funding of scientific research. So he suggests ” seperation of science and state “. Interesting idea dont you think ?
” …I venture to suggest that contemporary science is now so corrupted by the lust for glory that nothing less than root-and-branch reform can save it. For a start although I distance myself from his irrationalism ..I share Paul Feyerabend’s demand for seperation of science and state, or at the very least a radical curtailment of public financial sponsorship of scientific research…”
Worth checking out no ?
zdenek, Am I really so silly?
In your comment re “burden of proof” you describe an “a priori” argument – an argument of deduction without experience- which you end by ascribing a certainty akin to 1+1=2.
How can it be silly to ascribe faith to this when any argument made “a priori” relies on absolute faith in the reasoning of the thinker. Added to that – anything that can be described as “a certainty” is only something which we have evidence of recurrent happenings – and good therefore good possibilities of future recurrences. This is all faith based – because it only holds true until such a time and circumstances in which it does not happen. That is a basic tenet of science!
Lets try that with something simple … Water.
1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water
Doesn’t it?
If you one drop of water gets added to another drop of water – what do you get?
You get one bigger drop of water.
Therefore with 1+1 =*1*
If you place a mirror behind the drop – your eyes can now see two drops of water, but yet still there is only one real drop.
Repeat this experiment outside on the ground in a desert at midday and 1drop+1drop = 0 drops of water as it evaporates before your eyes, no matter how many mirrors you add.
All the certainty in the world will not keep those drops apart or keep them from evaporating or make a reflection into reality. When you talk about certainty you are really talking about faith.
That is why, even for logicians 1+1= 2 (on faith) (or any possible number in reality – dependent on the circumstances- and question- of the situation.)
Joe, all I can say to your comment is, rubbish. Sorry but the statement 1+1 = 2 requires no special features for it to be true. It is a statement of logic, internally consistent.
If you add two determinate units together, you get two of them. Not more, not less, but two. To say that statement is based on faith and not logic is mere sophistry.
Zednek, thanks for the pointer.
Johnathon, if that is what you believe – and you really- honest to god, believe that what I said is rubbish –
Fair play to you. Its good to have an unshakable faith in some beliefs.
Always keep the faith! 😉
Joe, if you cannot see the difference between formal math and statements such as Christ died and was born again, then there is no hope for a rational debate. None. No wonder cod-science like ID and the rest is on the rise.
At a fundamental level, atheism of course is faith based, “I believe in no God”. The great difference (and ultimate attraction) is that it is a faith that requires no “works” relying instead on concepts of either self omnipotence or fatalism and the “wisdom” of politicians to provide any ultimate fulfillment.
The interesting phenomenon is that the onus of proof in any discussion seems to rest with the non-atheist. This is an interesting convolution given that the most ardent atheist has eyes.
We don’t have to look to isolated tribes to understand that as humans we have a fundamental need to “believe”, look to the sophistication of the “tree-huggers” who in my lifetime have passionately believed that we are entering a new ice age, and with equal passion believe in global warming using the same data set.
The real reason (and ipso-facto evidence) lies in why do we have this need.
If the need to believe is unadulterated it is invariably accompanied by looking to a God – again why?.
Atheism has at it’s core value self indulgence, an attempt to justify the fulfilment of personal desire and be released from any wider social obligation.
If you are not sure if you are an atheist or not how do you react to these two statements:
1. It’s ok to let corn rot in the fields while millions are starving because we don’t want the price to fall 2 cents a bushel.
2. If we change the phrase “I’m having a baby” to “I’ve grown a foetus” then it’s ok to kill it.
If you are outraged, chances are that you are a true atheist. If you are saddened chances are that you aren’t.
The separtion of church and state is the main doctrine of the atheists, and serves then well.
There is only one thing you can say to ‘David’:
Don’t be so jejune!
Johnathon, Why do you feel the need to bring a straw man of “cod-science” into this?
What do you think maths is – do you really have so much faith that you think it cannot be wrong under any circumstance- do you see it as some sort of God?
Math is just the encoding of scientific process data – nothing more.
Under our earthly physics 1+1 (generally) = 2 but that is only a general “constant” that appears to satisfy the basic physical processes around us… it doesn’t by any means necessarily hold true in all forms of mathmatical process under all physical circumstances.
In fact it is the failure of maths under test in most circumstances that leads to the breakthroughs in science, because new theories then have to be created to account for the failure! Without failures in these mathematical “certainties” there would be no understanding of the maths used in all the scientific fields.
The most likely place where 1+1=2 is going to lead to disaster is any geometry involving vectors. If you add one step north (x co-ordinate) to one step east (y co-ordinate) you most certainly are not a distance of two steps away from your point of origin. Yet that is a mistake I have seen happen many times.
Even simple binary laughs at mathematical encoding with its 1+1=10
No “cod-science” is necessary to find circumstances under which 1+1 does not equal 2. When scientific theory meets real life it happens all the time.
John,
You’re not by any chance the Duke of Kent?
Joe, you have lost me. A simple sum in math has its own internal logic. As I said, if you have two numbers, add them up, then you get a sum. To say that maths is just the encoding of scientific process data is gibberish. Not even the father of relativity, Einstein, thought otherwise.
David, unbelief in something that cannot be validated, tested, measured or counted like physical matter is not “faith”. That is why I say the burden of proof should rest on those who make claims for the existence of God or gods, miracles, the ability to walk on water, rise from the dead, part seas, give birth to kids without sex, and all the other stuff. The opposite of belief is not faith, just unbelief.
Certainty in the existence of the universe, and confidence that our sense organs can apprehend the world and that our brains can process the information is also not “faith”, since these things can be also be tested, measured and analysed. Indeed our knowledge in this area is constantly expanding.
Jejune..?? where sophistry meets the real world?
Johnathon, Thanks for your reply. Your belief/unbelief argument is very persuasive, the mistake I have made is that I have always viewed this as agnosticism as opposed to atheism – which implies to me a very active even aggressive stand against belief in a God system.
Re your second paragraph, I found that when I did as you said, (and I am a scientist) to me it didn’t make sense ie my observations were not consistent with my knowledge, hence lack of certainty. Once this process starts there is no turning back, and a quest for truth begins. In this context I have not been able to find “truth” accompanying secularism as it seems to evolve or mutate with global commerce – if that makes sense
Joe,
Why don’t you shut up. You are out of your depth. Your comments are excruciatingly facile. Learn when to stop.
Johnathon, to say that “a simple sum in math has its own internal logic.” means what? That sums are beyond the possibility of change? Simple maths sums aren’t a law unto themselves… they are dependent upon the reality of any process in which they are used. You are ignoring the use of maths and attributing maths itself with a truth equal to divine right! That is faith in the absolute. Maths is just the encoding of scientific processes…likewise maths sums are just the manipulation of numerical encoding when it is used to process scientific data…. We make observations and encode them in numerical form – then we use that encoding to manipulate ideas in a scientific manner. Thats why mathematics is described as an ABSTRACT science….. what on earth do you imagine it is?
It appears that you are attributing absolute certainty to an abstract process. Yet at the same time you are claiming with “certainty” that no faith is involved! Something there doesn’t add up.
Steve Borodin, I was going to say how much I admired the wit and intelligence of your comment…. but I’m told its wrong to mock the afflicted.
Joe, your grasp of math makes me wonder if you are a former Enron accountant!
You ask if I contest that sums are beyond the possibility of change?
My answer: yes. A sum is what it is.
Ahh Johnathon, if on£y!
And you are correct – A sum surely is what it is… provided we retain faith in our senses and our ability to reason! 😉