Wednesday
This is a bit scary:
Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.
The study found 54% of Americans regard atheists as dangerous or threatening.
It is not just because I am an atheist that I find this disturbing. I would like to suggest that it is an example of a more general tendency among the populations of even advanced states to react more strongly to the imaginary dangers of things they don't understand than to real threats. It is an inexhaustible fuel for authoritarian populism.
But Atheists ARE a threat to the American Dream! The GREATEST MEN who ever lived got together and came up with the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE and something called a Conftitution, and something elfe called Congreff. They were Theists. If Theism is good enough for the FOUNDING FATHERS, The GREATEST MEN Who Ever Lived, then it should be good enough for anyone. Since Theism is so deeply embedded in the start of American history, A-theism automatically seems like an assault on American Values.
Posted by nick g. at June 20, 2007 08:25 AM
Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli -
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, and ratified unanimously by the United States Senate, June 10, 1797.
Posted by Chris Harper (Counting Cats) at June 20, 2007 08:46 AM
My understanding (based on the philosophical teachings of Karl Popper, and not inconsistent with those of Thomas Aquinas) is that atheism is as much a matter of faith as is theistic religion.
Thus, it can have its fundamentalists.
And is it not the fundamentalists, with their lack of tolerance, that are the problem.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at June 20, 2007 09:00 AM
Nick,
But would the Founding Fathers have found atheists a threat? No, they were, for the most part, men of science and the enlightenment. They were not Mullahs.
It's pretty clear that Thomas Paine was an atheist, and he was a driving force for the revolution against Britain and to many his works deserve more credit in relation to the constitution than many acknowledge.
Posted by Liam H at June 20, 2007 09:14 AM
The Theists are reacting to the 30 year centralization of the US government. Now every community has to kowtow to the Federal government or have their funding cut. Political issues like abortion and the sexual revolution have left the courts in the hands of the religion neutral. This structure now makes it simple for relatively tiny organizations like the ACLU to push a few buttons and go into Podunk Junction and a thousand other rural communities simultaineously to take their Chirstmas display away, or remove the 10 commandments from their courthouses or "separate church from state". A great idea when the state was a tiny thing. When the state becomes so vastly powerful that it reaches into every part of life, it doesn't leave a lot of room for the church.
Not surprisingly, they find this a threat. They blame the tiny subset of atheists, who are actively using this fulcrum to move mountains of religious tradition. What they should be chopping at is the tenticles of the state.
Posted by K at June 20, 2007 09:41 AM
Maybe they've been reading too much Tocqueville, or possibly they just think there's a threat to their eardrums from atheists constantly whining about their none existent persecution.
Posted by Gabriel at June 20, 2007 10:06 AM
What is truly disturbing is that 97% of Americans think - or at least countenance the view - that everything exists because of some great ghost in the sky.
Posted by Tim Sturm at June 20, 2007 10:12 AM
Tim
"What is truly disturbing is that 97% of Americans think - or at least countenance the view - that everything exists because of some great ghost in the sky."
I'd say that this is an example of the trope under discussion, ie "a more general tendency among the populations of even advanced states to react more strongly to the imaginary dangers of things they don't understand"
The British equivalent of Americans finding atheists scary is Brits assuming President Bush is a scary theocon about to implement a scary Christianist theocracy.
Posted by Mike Davies at June 20, 2007 10:48 AM
Most of the founding fathers were deists, which says there's a god, but he hasn't done anything much since creating the universe.
Before Darwin published the theory of evolution, it was as close to atheism as most people got.
Posted by Gib at June 20, 2007 11:56 AM
I call B.S. on these statistics.
3% may call themselves Atheists. But the general pool of people who are 'non-believers' that include those indifferent to religion, be they "agnostic" or just don't think about the topic much at all, would be much, much larger. Maybe not a majority, but much larger.
I seriously doubt that so many people consider "atheists" a "threat".
Then again, with so much of what passes for debate on religion these days, I'm not surprised some people would think the U.S. was dominated by zealots. To understand that it isn't would require more understanding of both the secular and religious cultures within the U.S.
Faith is an important part of many peoples lives. For others religion is more of a social/cultural thing to form a community around. But in some people's eyes the few who make the most noise politically (for and against religion) tend to define reigion and atheism.
Extremes get a lot of attention and distort perceptions, for both "sides".
I question the methodology of, and possibly the motives behind, this study.
Posted by Shawn Levasseur at June 20, 2007 02:18 PM
Following the money, this study was carried out by the American Mosaic Project(Link), principle sponsors of which are the The Edelstein Family Charitable Foundation. Thats where things run dry. I can't find any more information about this foundation and whether its more general motives are theistic or not. Finding that out may give some insight into the motives behind the study.
Posted by mandrill at June 20, 2007 02:44 PM
Most of the founding fathers were deists...
Actually, of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, there "were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson and Franklin, this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith."
And Thomas Paine's works did not influence the Constitution so much as they did the war against Britain. And his works on religion were very widely denounced by many colonial leaders.
I do believe that atheism and philosophic naturalism are incorrect in their basic view of reality and will therefore prevent their adherents from making the best decisions for themselves.
I would even go as far as to say that I think that these worldviews are pernicious and damaging to society, but let me emphasize vehemently that I DO NOT support the use of force or government policy to suppress atheist beliefs. I am no theocrat. I believe in a liberal, pluralistic society and a free market of ideas.
Are atheists dangerous? Are theists dangerous? When these words have so many different kinds of people as their referents, it's difficult to really affirm that either of these groups of people as a whole are dangerous, and I'd agree with the author of this post that the statistic in the study is disturbing. But I would say that atheism as a worldview is dangerous to everyone including atheists.
But once again I think the only proper place for such a statement is in the free marketplace of ideas where individuals are free to believe in what they want free from coercion regardless of who and how many disagree.
Posted by W. E. Messamore at June 20, 2007 02:47 PM
Dear Mr. Messamore
You wrote, "Actually, of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, there "were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson and Franklin"
I say this is a made up statistic. For one thing, you are missing at least one deist. You are probably counting him as an Episcopalian. I mean of course General Washington. He was nominally a member of the C of E but he was known not to take comunion and his own priest has testified to the fact that he was in fact a deist.
Posted by Steph at June 20, 2007 03:05 PM
Whether the majority of the Founding Fathers were atheists, Deists, or whatnot, it is nevertheless quite surprising to me that such a high proportion of the US respondents to this survey (I'd like to see what the sample size was) are religious. It is funny how the word "atheism" is often carelessly attached to "liberal" or "socialist" or "communist" when there is no reason why, for example, a conservative/libertarian etc could not be an atheist. After all, conservatives like to point out how institutions evolve, which has certain parallels - not all that close, mind - with Darwinism.
Posted by Johnathan Pearce at June 20, 2007 03:12 PM
I would be interested in your reasons for atheism being dangerous, W.E.
How can not believing in a superbeing who created everything and controls everything be dangerous??
I grew up and continue to live, in a society that is suffused with the tenets and morals of the Christian religion. Just because I dont believe in the Old bloke in the sky with his barmy rulebook, doesnt make me think that thou shalt not kill is a bad idea.
Posted by RAB at June 20, 2007 03:14 PM
Around 0907 this morning (6+ hours ago), I posted a comment on this thread. It attracted the ever-impressive Smite Control zap, and has not appeared (formally clean) the other side.
Is there any chance that some Samizdatista might check for and correct any computer/administrative problems or, if appropriate, report back whether I have been labelled troll, raving looney, etc.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at June 20, 2007 03:24 PM
I was smited three times yesterday Nigel. Yes it is bloody infuriating!!
Perry's software thinks my writing style subversive for some reason.
As an atheist, I am always mindful of others feelings.Not wishing to cause offence with my outrageous views.
So the last time I was in the States, I was in a Saloon and the topic of religion came up. Wishing to hide my lack of faith, when asked, I said I was a Satanist.
I was looking forward to a spirited theological debate with my new friends, turned to pick up my beer, but when I turned back- they'd all moved down the other end of the bar!!!
You just cant win sometimes can you?
Posted by RAB at June 20, 2007 03:52 PM
Smiting in a thread about God and Atheism just seems... appropriate.
Two of the Samizdata editors have been having rather a lot of hospital time in order to discover if they came back from Ethiopia with Typhus or just some more common-or-garden Afro-lurgy, so comment moderation may be a bit slow for a day or two.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 20, 2007 04:14 PM
"“Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,”"
Nonsense. Social tolerance is no greater than it ever was, perhaps less. The in and out groups have changed, but intolerance is as robust as ever.
Posted by back40 at June 20, 2007 04:22 PM
Thomas Paine was not an atheist. He opens his book, "The Age Of Reason" with a "profession of faith":
"I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
Posted by Billy Beck at June 20, 2007 05:07 PM
Nonsense. Social tolerance is no greater than it ever was, perhaps less. The in and out groups have changed, but intolerance is as robust as ever.
I agree. Instead of 'Catholics, Queers and Niggers' the fashionable hate objects are different nonconformists such as free thinkers, gun owners, smokers (and anyone else who dares think they own their own body or property) and skeptics who dare challenge the preposterous environmental orthodoxy. The only accetable 'old style' bigotry that has carried over is dislike of Jews, just so long as you pretend it is anti-Zionism.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 20, 2007 05:12 PM
Well,
If atheists were better behaved they might have a better reputation. Communists (100M dead), Nazis (30M dead), ethicists like Singer, and cultural relativists like Rorty, don't do much to give me faith in atheism. And I am an atheist myself. I think few can handle atheism, their inner spiritual needs driving them to find some half-baked rational substitute.
Posted by chuck at June 20, 2007 05:32 PM
Perry,
Julie Birchill (yeah, I know!) nailed that one in an article about Prince Charles embracing(ish) Islam. Basically she argued that Islam is in this day and age the last refuge of the reactionary who wants to be seen as in some way as "progressive" whilst still believing the sort of stuff that people who right angry letter to the Daily Mail believe.
Messamore,
I'm an agnostic. Yet, I'm also married, faithful, (reasonably) responsible and fulfill a useful role in society. If the fact that a lack of religious belief is corrosive to society then how do you explain that given that I have never believed in any form of religion? Moreover, how do you explain how our devout Anglican/Catholic PM has been enormously corrosive to our society?
If you're making some half-assed "the family that prays together stays together" type argument then I really couldn't give a monkey's chuff. Because, oddly enough, amongst my friends I have counted outright atheists and the devoutly religious.
So, if it's possible to be a perfectly decent person without believing in God/Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah et al. then I suspect your "argument" is holed below the waterline.
Let's just hope there's enough lifeboats.
Posted by Nick M at June 20, 2007 05:46 PM
If atheists were better behaved they might have a better reputation
Sure. Why did I not think of that?
Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 20, 2007 05:47 PM
First, I would like to point out that the doctrine of religious separation is entirely a judicial construct and does not appear in the Bill of Rights. The injunction of religious establishment pertains only to the Federal Government, not the States; the Commonwealth of Virginia had an official State church until the 1830s, the Epicopalian Church naturally.
Second, many of the founding fathers were deists or agnostics; however, their belief or lack thereof in no way resulted in a diminished appreciation of the value of religious belief in the maintence of public morals and order. Jefferson may have tidied up his Bible and Koran, but he still considered the books' best bits valuable works of moral philosophy.
Third, I think Truman or Ike once remarked that 'America was built on faith. We just dont know what it is'. This ambiguous religious mythology is at the heart of the American self-conception: Connecticut is called the 'Constitution State' because of its written constitution based on the first chapter of Judges; Mormonism; Lincoln's great speeches; Cotton Mather and John Winthrop's sermons; and William Jennings Bryant. Every political party uses this fuzzy religious rhetoric with its main tenet of America as the new Israel, promised land, and eveny schoolchild imbibes it repeatedly at school. Another example is the ludicrous lengths the Armed Forces go to to retrive the dead from foreign shores. Political exgencies may force soliders to leave America's shores, but no American or serviceman should suffer the indignity of eternal rest, if possible, from their heimat; hence, every American military graveyard abroad is American soil. The entire concept is atavistically religious. Consider regional slogans as well, such as "Live Free or Die", "For God, for Country, For Yale" or my fav "American by birth, Southron by choice, Alabamain by the grace of God". Dworkin et al.'s public campaign to re-educate the benighted threatens these two very important conncetions of the founding myth and loyalty to your birth State.
That's why most Americans dont like atheists. It runs contrary to founding myth and Dworkin does not help himself or his cause by being a smug pratt either.
Posted by bob at June 20, 2007 05:58 PM
BTW, I do not for one second actually believe only 3% of the USA are atheists. Possibly 3% are self described atheists but I suspect a great many more are 'shoulder shrugging' atheists who simply get on with a God-free life without much thinking about it.
Of all the people I know very well in the USA (i.e. people I am very confident I know what they actually think), I have done a back of the envelope calculation and come up with 2 practising Christians (one is a Catholic priest), 1 practising Jew, 2 nominal Christians (i.e. "deaths-and-weddings only"), 2 nominal Jews, 5 completely non-practising "indifferents", 1 self-described agnostic, 2 self-described atheists.
15 people is a small sample so take it for what you will.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at June 20, 2007 06:12 PM
That's why most Americans dont like atheists. It runs contrary to founding myth and Dworkin does not help himself or his cause by being a smug pratt either.
How is he more smug than a person of faith? Dawkins doesn't think he's special enough to have to be the product of a divine, supernatural will. You don't have to believe him, but he speaks with more reason, more humility about the extent of his knowledge, and threatens his audience less than the average priest.
Posted by Ham at June 20, 2007 06:17 PM
Why do god-believers always argue for religion on the basis of its outcomes rather than whether or not god actually exists?
Surely the point about Nazis and Communists is that they are as anti-reason and as deluded about reality as those who think there's a god in the clouds?
The disturbing point about the 97% statistic is not that it implies Bush is about to implement a theocracy, but that so many people in the most advanced country in the world can be so divorced from reason and reality.
Posted by Tim Sturm at June 20, 2007 06:22 PM
I never said he was more smug than a person of faith. I remarked that his on-screen demeanor is supercilious and often rude and denigrating to those espousing different view points. A confrontational snide style is expected in the UK, but doesnt wash in America. Dawkins may be light to enlighten Americans' igorance, but he is not humble by any strech. As for threathening priests, I have heard of the church militant, but the church 'argy-bargy'?
This thread is about why Americans, religous and non-religious, instinctively distrust atheists, not about atheism itself.
Posted by bob at June 20, 2007 06:27 PM
It's pretty clear that Thomas Paine was an atheist, and he was a driving force for the revolution against Britain and to many his works deserve more credit in relation to the constitution than many acknowledge.
Thomas Paine was a Deist - like many of our founding fathers - that's not the same as an atheist by a long shot. He believed in God, not religion - a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.
Among Washington and Franklin in the Constitutional Congress, were 9 other members of the Freemasons. The 'masons *used* to teach/believe in a deist concept which they refered to as the "Divine Architect." IMHO, the 'masons were a *secret* society specifically because they taught non-christian ideas of a "Divine Architect" that set the universe in motion and that's it.** It would be in the interest of *any* such person to continue identifying himself as protestant.
**Note, I don't think they do this anymore, but I'm not sure.
Posted by D. Monroe at June 20, 2007 06:33 PM
It's pretty clear that Thomas Paine was an atheist, and he was a driving force for the revolution against Britain and to many his works deserve more credit in relation to the constitution than many acknowledge.
Thomas Paine was a Deist - like many of our founding fathers - that's not the same as an atheist by a long shot. He believed in God, not religion - a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.
Among Washington and Franklin in the Constitutional Congress, were 9 other members of the Freemasons. The 'masons *used* to teach/believe in a deist concept which they refered to as the "Divine Architect." IMHO, the 'masons were a *secret* society specifically because they taught non-christian ideas of a "Divine Architect" that set the universe in motion and that's it.** It would be in the interest of *any* such person to continue identifying himself as protestant.
**Note, I don't think they do this anymore, but I'm not sure.
Posted by D. Monroe at June 20, 2007 06:43 PM
Not only is your sample small, Perry, but I suspect it's anything but random, as they're your acquaintances.
I'm inclined to sympathise with Bob. Perhaps the best reason people think atheists are "dangerous" is that the vocal atheists tend to be complete asshats who propose daft or actively threatening things.
The issue, it seems to me, is more that those who actively (or even professionally) profess atheism might actually be dangerous, at least to the social order as it stands.
In other words, that majority who think atheists are dangerous are wrong perhaps only because they confuse "those idiots who do nothing but rail at God all day, and Stalinists, and anarchists who throw bricks through windows in protests" (all either actively professing atheism or reasonably associated with it as an almost necessary condition of their behavior or beliefs) with atheists-qua-atheists.
Perception bias, that is.
(It's often occurred to me that people who make a religion of hating God do more damage to "atheism" than anyone else...)
(Full disclosure: I'm an atheist, myself.)
Posted by Sigivald at June 20, 2007 06:51 PM
I'm with Chuck. I consider atheism to be a threat (different than a danger) because of its history. In the only states where it has been the Established Religion (i.e., ones that usually contain "People's Republic"), the people have been treated very poorly.
At least other religions have some positive examples of where they were the Established Religion and they didn't run rampant murdering and torturing.
Posted by Phelps at June 20, 2007 06:52 PM
A plague o' both your houses. Faith belongs in one's personal sphere and among people who share a particular one. This applies to fundamentalist Atheists as well.
Militant Atheism is just one more fundamentalist theology making assertions and demands about something not known and probably not knowable. Whether 'God' or 'no-God' true believers, all 'true knowledge' theologies are just a bunch of flat earthers making cosmic claims based on their visible horizons and things they feel inside. The Christian definition of faith applies to atheists as well.
Do I have personal feelings and intuitions based on what I see and what I feel inside? Of course. And that is what they will stay. Personal. Anybody here is welcome to hold me to a strict standard of agnosticism because it is the only way for people for people to interact in regard to things not proven.
Perry, I'm guessing that 3% figure is about right for militant atheists. I think the big numbers claimed for atheists are actually people who could better be described as agnostics but have never cared enough to self identify accurately.
Posted by Midwesterner at June 20, 2007 07:00 PM
Ah, Perry,
We are not talking about the 17'th wars of religion or the anti-Albigensian crusade , we are talking about *our* time.
Apart from the 3% figure, which I think is totally bogus -- I suspect the true believers are probably more like 60-70% -- the reason for distrust is clear: people trust those they know and those who belong to the same cultural traditions because they know what to expect and where the loyalties lie. There is really nothing strange about that, it is a nasty world, full of scams and deceptions, groups seeking power and what not, and knowing whom to trust is important. It is not an infallible guide, of course, many a con artist poses as devout and honest, but it is a clue in a diverse world. People are inherently tribal for good reason and, although that facet of humanity is obscured in the modern state, it still pays to know who is family, clan, tribe, or ally. Indeed, the Samizdata parties from which you post pictures no doubt serve a similar social purpose in a less formal way.
Posted by chuck at June 20, 2007 07:05 PM
It's pretty clear that Thomas Paine was an atheist, and he was a driving force for the revolution against Britain and to many his works deserve more credit in relation to the constitution than many acknowledge.
Thomas Paine was a Deist - like many of our founding fathers - that's not the same as an atheist by a long shot. He believed in God, not religion - a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with.
Among Washington and Franklin in the Constitutional Congress, were 9 other members of the Freemasons. The 'masons *used* to teach/believe in a deist concept which they refered to as the "Divine Architect." IMHO, the 'masons were a *secret* society specifically because they taught non-christian ideas of a "Divine Architect" that set the universe in motion and that's it.** It would be in the interest of *any* such person to continue identifying himself as protestant.
**Note, I don't think they do this anymore, but I'm not sure.
Posted by D. Monroe at June 20, 2007 07:08 PM
RAB said:
I was smited three times yesterday Nigel. Yes it is bloody infuriating!!
Perry's software thinks my writing style subversive for some reason.
It's God. He's filling in as editor, I guess.
"God, Root, what is difference?"
So the last time I was in the States, I was in a Saloon and the topic of religion came up. Wishing to hide my lack of faith, when asked, I said I was a Satanist. I was looking forward to a spirited theological debate with my new friends, turned to pick up my beer, but when I turned back- they'd all moved down the other end of the bar!!!
And yet, when the time came to give back some of that watered-down psuedo-pilsener, I bet you didn't have to wait too long in the washroom. The only thing that would clear that line out faster than claiming to be an atheist is announcing that one is gay and out loud and proud. Which works quite well, ask me how I know.
I never could keep straight (dagnabbit, there's that word again) which ear got the earring, though.
Posted by Sunfish at June 20, 2007 07:17 PM
This thread is about why Americans, religous and non-religious, instinctively distrust atheists, not about atheism itself.
Your belief that Richard Dawkins has a personality fault is integral to this issue. I don't know him personally, but, from what I've seen of him, he does not appear especially smug relative to anybody else who talks about faith.
And, so, here's a simple, relevant question: Dawkins does not tell people that they'll go to Hell and burn for eternity if they don't do what his book says (more or less in direct contrast to, say, an imam), so why are do most Americans think he is smug and dangerous?
My working assumption is that most people are intellectually conservative. I do not believe you could generate mass faith in modern America if you started from a point of mass disbelief. The argument has little more to it than 'it's what we believed yesterday.' It goes some way to explaining why Americans would associate a revolution in spirituality with genuinely dangerous political revolutions.
Posted by Ham at June 20, 2007 07:22 PM
Well there is some support for Paine being an atheist.
Who cares? In the Judeo-Christian tradition one's path to God is a personal one. I am a lapsed Catholic and I am agnostic. Perhaps an atheist. I am not sure. I question myself over it constantly.
However, I recognise and respect my Judeo-Christian upbringing and I certainly respect Christianity and most of the other faiths. I see Islam as a threat to my way of life and in that respect probably share a lot in common with some American Christians. I would describe myself as a Republican in political outlook. I have no desire to impugn Christianity at all.
And I am a threat? Or close to being a threat? Funnily enough both my last and current boss are devout Christians, one an evangelical protestant the other a traditional Catholic. We share the same views on abortion and many other issues. Neither of them have a problem with me at all. And yet the sentiments I have read somehow place me in a category with mad Islamists.
Perhaps I am being lumped in with militant atheists? What a terrible shame.
Posted by Liam H at June 20, 2007 07:29 PM
Good to see some people sticking up for agnosticism and deism here, concepts which often get forgotten in the athieist-religion brawling.
You see, what I find odd in that survey is that pretty much 100% of Americans have made up their minds about the presence or absence of an intelligent agent behind the creation of our Universe based on no evidence whatsoever (the existence or otherwise of an interventionist deity is another matter entirely).
D. Monroe's post is interesting. Although the Masons have constructed a downright weird set of ceremonies around it, their central idea of a non-interventionist "Divine Architect" comes closest to what I will only go as far as saying are my suspicions about the origins of the Universe. I don't know. The current state of scientific knowledge means nobody knows. We may never know. I accept this, shrug my shoulders, and get on with something else. The religious accept it, but believe in a creator, and call their belief "faith". Atheists don't accept it, believe there was no creator, and call their belief "reason". Sorry, but I like reason, and that ain't it. Reason tells us simply that we don't know. Perhaps my fellow fans of rationalism find it hard to accept there is a limit to our capacity to know.
Posted by Sam Duncan at June 20, 2007 07:33 PM
so why are do most Americans think he is smug and dangerous?
I suspect the vast majority of Americans have never heard of the man and don't care. People, by and large, have better things to do than attend to the academic tempests stirred up by folks with too much time on their hands.
Posted by chuck at June 20, 2007 07:37 PM
Can I boil this down for you all.
The Big Bang is the start of all life and existence.
But who lit the blue touchpaper?
God ?
Nope. Still dont buy it. Sorry!!!
Posted by RAB at June 20, 2007 07:42 PM
de re Ham: 'And, so, here's a simple, relevant question: Dawkins does not tell people that they'll go to Hell and burn for eternity if they don't do what his book says (more or less in direct contrast to, say, an imam), so why are do most Americans think he is smug and dangerous?'
What I attempted to thresh-out above was the political aspect of aetheism amongst the citizenry and its relationship to the American national self-conception. Accepting a complete aethiest worldview, separates Americans from the motives of the founding fathers and the very reason for America's founding. It is seen by the majority as a political attack, not non-religious proselytizing. That is why I cant imagine an outed aetheist in the House or the Senate. They did a pole a few years ago which reported that amongst independents, dems and republicans only five or ten percent would vote for an aetheist.
As for Dawkins being dangerous, he is not. It is a political judgment. Half of America is protestant. Ergo, the other half of America is going to hell. Yet somehow block parties continue and the PTA survives.
See Dawkins on Charlie Rose or Booknotes with Charles Lamb. Tit.
Posted by bob at June 20, 2007 08:07 PM
Sorry, but I like reason, and that ain't it. Reason tells us simply that we don't know. Perhaps my fellow fans of rationalism find it hard to accept there is a limit to our capacity to know.There's a whole world of difference between reason and rationalism.
Posted by Gabriel at June 20, 2007 08:07 PM
Oh yeah I was a little non-specific on Thom Paine and perhaps I was too strong on him being an atheist. However, he would probably be lumped in with me.
Paine did believe in God, but said of the Bible: "[it] is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind"...and yet Paine understood that Christianity kept alive an ethical tradition vital for nurturing republican democracy.
I think Paine saw the dogma of militant atheists in decreeing the death of God (when he was in St Denis) as another means of corrupting man.
Perhaps I like Paine because he would never be a mullah.
Posted by Liam H at June 20, 2007 08:10 PM
See Dawkins on Charlie Rose or Booknotes with Charles Lamb. Tit.
Very nice. And Chuck, too, with that dig about people being interested in hearing Dawkins having 'too much time on their hands,' also good.
Have a nice day.
Posted by Ham at June 20, 2007 08:13 PM
Sorry. That was meant to be a semi-colon, referring to Dawkins. I apologize.
Posted by bob at June 20, 2007 08:18 PM
I hate to generalize, but I honestly have not met or read about an atheist who could simply say, "I am an atheist" without almost immediately beginning to rant about how anyone who wasn't an atheist was stupid, evil, foolish... that is, when they didn't start whining about their religious parents. If a Protestant started ranting about how Catholics are wrongevilbad, even Protestants would probably think twice about voting for him.
I mean, just glance above: "Big ghost in the sky," "all Founding Fathers were actually not religious, just like me, despite everything they ever wrote to the contrary"... All that is okay on a blog comment, but it's not going to put you in the Oval Office or 10 Downing. "Vote For Me, You Superstitious Fools, So That I May Destroy You!" doesn't work as a slogan, except maybe in Latveria.
Posted by Just John at June 20, 2007 08:26 PM
Just John,
Do you know anyone who could just say "I am a Libertarian" without immediately going on to rant about big government, socialists, nanny-statism, politicians, people who want to ban guns, ... ?
:-)
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 20, 2007 08:39 PM
"I hate to generalize, but I honestly have not met or read about an atheist who could simply say, 'I am an atheist' without almost immediately beginning to rant about how anyone who wasn't an atheist was stupid, evil, foolish..."
Well, you have now. I have no use for religion, and I never have. Oh, you'll see me use a phrase now & then like, "God bless 'em," but that's nothing but connotation: I personally think it might be nice if there were some almighty entity looking down on human affairs with at least some sort of interest that goodness be taken care of, somehow, at one point or other. I do not believe it, however. Never have.
Nonetheless: my father was a lifelong Catholic. I and bless the Church for whatever comfort it brought him at the end of his life, which was considerable.
When it's a harmless and innocent faith, I have no serious problem with it, and am content to leave it alone. I'm with Christopher Hitchens when he wrote, "Those who persecute religion are to be avoided at all costs. Antigone taught us to trust the instinct that is revolted by desecration."
("Letters To A Young Contrarian", 2001, p. 65)
Liam -- "Well there is some support for Paine being an atheist."
I guess so, if we ignore what the man actually wrote about his own life and beliefs.
Posted by Billy Beck at June 20, 2007 09:08 PM
If atheists are such a threat, where are the atheist suicide bombers, threatening to blow themselves up in order to force people to believe that there is nothing after death....oh, wait, atheists believe there is nothing after death.
Posted by pietr at June 20, 2007 09:56 PM
What I find persistently fascinating about this whole "debate" is that many people examine the manifest flaws of one particular religion (e.g. Christianity), and then generalize out from there that the entire concept of a God is flawed.
One does not imply the other. Nor does abusing a particular religion do anything to prove the validity of atheism in general.
One advantage of the times we live in is that the question, "What is so dangerous about atheism?" should be conclusively answered within the next century. Some of us might even be around to see it.
Posted by Mastiff at June 20, 2007 09:59 PM
1) I'd be interested to see the actual methodology of the phone survey.
2) As has been touched on before, when people thing of atheists, they tend to think of (A)theists, those people who insist on scrubbing religion from every aspect of the State landscape. More alarming, of course, to the average believer is they see most Atheists as a type of political/Statist movement, with an agenda of their own to force on others, and most of the time I think they are right. Many, if not all Atheists, are socialists who support a large State construct. So it is a double whammy of wanting the State to have a far reach and be invasive, but must be scrubbed clean of religion.
But then again I'm not brimming with sympathy for the average religious supporter of a wide and invasive State either, certainly not wanting a Theocracy to develop. In fact I think most of the antagonism between Atheists and the religious in the halls of power is the power struggle of what axiomatic philosophy is going to be shoved down people's throats by force. The most depressing thing is that during these mulitfaceted struggles it doesn't occur to anyone that since life and property are not directly at risk, then perhaps they should quit using the corridors of power to debate philosophy and which will be the order of the land.
3)I do believe that atheism and philosophic naturalism are incorrect in their basic view of reality and will therefore prevent their adherents from making the best decisions for themselves.
I am 180* to the opposite in that a belief in God is a manifestation of superstition, and superstition is the product of a clouded mind. If one has a clouded mind, and draws incorrect conclusions, they will likely make poorer decisions for themselves. Of course people are welcome to whatever they need to motivate themselves through life. It is when one's own affirming constructions become so adored that they wish that they be accepted by all, even so far as to legislate it.
Posted by Brad at June 20, 2007 10:07 PM
Quite right, Gabriel. Slip of the brain. :) I don't like repeating myself and I'd already had three "reason"s in a row, so I plucked the word out of the air, only realising what I'd said after I posted it. I don't think it invalidates my point, though.
Posted by Sam Duncan at June 20, 2007 10:13 PM
Mastiff,
We can quite cheerfully analyse the flaws of Astarte, Odin, Zeus, or Isis if you like - would that help to convince? Or Danu, Adrammelech, Apocatequil, Kamarong, Tumatauenga, the Jade Emperor. Why not check out GodChecker.com, your guide to over two thousand eight hundred Gods, deities, immortals, heroes, and mystic pixies.
Such an argument would have no point, since Christians would readily admit that a firm belief that Mictlantecuhtli does not in fact exist is not outrageously unreasonable, especially as he appears to be "a grinning maniac with a bit of liver hanging from his chest" which sounds quite unlikely. Granted, we can't prove absolutely that he does not, but I think that to give believers in such a figure a privileged voice in our governance might be taking 'respecting beliefs' a little too far. It is only the current Gods that are still believed in, and so it is only current Gods that there is any point in criticising.
If you are going to respect religion, then surely you must respect all religions equally? The podium at the next public debate is going to be a little crowded...
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 20, 2007 10:33 PM
Well, I hope Perry and Adriana are diagnosed with the least of illnesses, and recover speedily.
Concerning Perry's:
Smiting in a thread about God and Atheism just seems... appropriate,
could this be interpreted as at least slightly more in favour of the God camp?
Concerning Dawkins, clearly a rational man (and perhaps no more), I just think he is just selling a book.
Finally, my comment of June 20, 2007 09:00 AM has now been released by Smite Control, and is in its place as third comment on this thread. It is good to see much agreement, unsolicited, in several of the intervening 55 comments.
Best regards
Posted by Nigel Sedgwick at June 20, 2007 10:55 PM
By the way, there are said to be 330 million Hindu Gods. At least one of them must be real, surely? What are the odds that every single one of them doesn't exist?
This is one of the problems with the Pascal's wager type of comparison where you are offered a choice of Christianity and Godless Science - it makes it look as if the alternatives are comparable or even equal. If instead you put up this whole range of thousands of monkeys and beetles and people with the heads of elephants and six arms each, against Godless Science, the theism/atheism debate takes its proper perspective. You can't argue for theism but only put Christianity up as a representative example of it. Theism is a far broader phenomenon.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 20, 2007 10:56 PM
My wife mentioned to a neighbour that I didn't go to church because I was an atheist. The neighbour responded "but he seemed so nice."
On a long car journey with a co-worker I was asked what my religion was. I answered that I was an atheist. Three weeks later I was fired.
I now avoid answering these type of questions.
Posted by Resident Alien at June 20, 2007 11:08 PM
There are two kinds of atheists in the US, and I expect, elsewhere. The first is the non-believer who gets along with his neighbors and is comfortable talking to, interacting with or dating religious people. They go to Lutheran fish fries for the food. They attend wedding and funerals, participating in social interactions in a religious context without being upset about it. They send their kids to private Catholic schools because they are better than public schools. They politely remain silent while other people pray. One would never know they were an atheist unless it came up in conversation, and then they would express the view that freedom of religion is a good thing - part of freedom of concience, and that religious people can certainly vote or believe however they chose like anyone else.
The second kind of atheist is what I will call the "proslytising atheist". This type of atheist has a bug up the ass. They are not comfortable in social situation with Christians in particular even when God isn't even being discussed. They are usually rude, condescending, insulting, and talk endlessly about their atheism trying to convince others - generally not politely or effectively. Often, their atheism is coupled with a belief in some other -ism. Communism, socialism, statism, etc.
Madolyn O'Hare was one of this type. She was the founder/president of the American Atheists and an outright communist. She made a living begging other people for money to spread atheism, and at one point tried to 'defect' to the USSR with her family. They wouldn't take her, I suspect, because she was an obnoxious loudmouth with no useful job skills.
"He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him." - George Orwell
"The various left-wing ninnies who are running around bleating about theocracy are, in effect, hoist on their own petard. Having spent generations destroying the idea of limited government and creating an all-powerful national state, it ill becomes them to complain now that their tool is being turned to different ends." - Robert Clayton Dean
"chuck" in an above post makes a good point. Atheism is tarred by its open adherents.
While one can point to religious persecution and persecution BY religious types. Atheists have no grounds to claim moral superiority on these grounds. Further, as I noted above, many open atheists really were threatening, because they were commies. Frankly, if I have a choice between the Baptists and the Reds, well, splash the water on, praise the Lord and pass the ammo.
It won't come to that, of course, I have NEVER felt threatened because I am an atheist. From the article: "Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism." Cultural elitism, that means they are snots.
Posted by LargeCanine at June 20, 2007 11:17 PM
OK, I take back until further research my claim that "most" founding fathers were deists...
W.E. Messamore's comment "I would even go as far as to say that I think that these worldviews are pernicious and damaging to society" at first surprised me quite a lot. But, I suppose if you believe in the big sky fairy, then you might believe that he casts hurricanes and other disasters at the earth, trying to hit atheists..
chuck, bringing up the Nazis ? Really ? That wasn't the outcome of being atheist by any stretch. You should really investigate that. Hitler claimed to be a Christian, mentioning god many times in Mein Kamf. The hatred of the Jews is historically due to the whole killing Jesus thing (not the reason they gave at the time, true). The catholic church gave their blessing to Hitler. Many of the Nazi leaders were Christians, as was the populus....
bob, Dawkins only seems rude and denigrating because he's talking about religion. If he was talking about any other belief, like economics, his tone would not be seen as rude at all. Why should religion have a special respect granted to it ?
Sigivald, how can you claim that there are any atheists that make a religion of hating God ? You know that atheists don't believe in god, right ?
Midesterner, claiming that atheists have faith is mixing up a couple of meanings of the word "faith". Your claim that agnosticism is "the only way for people to interact in regard to things not proven" is also quite wrong. It's not proven the sun will come up tomorrow. Do you go around interacting as a sun-coming-up-agnostic ? I don't, I go with the overwhelming odds.
Mastiff, the entire concept of a God is flawed not because Christianity is flawed, but because the concept of a God is flawed in itself. The universe doesn't need one. Claiming we might be around to see what is dangerous about atheism ? I really hope some of us are around when there's enough atheists in the world to enable us to answer that question. I'm betting on the answer being "nothing". And if there were something dangerous about atheism ? There's something to be said for living dangerously with knowledge, compared to safely in ignorance.
Posted by Gib at June 20, 2007 11:31 PM
LargeCanine,
Yes, of course. But doesn't that go for any belief?
There are some quiet and unassuming Libertarians who believe in small government, but uncomplainingly pay their taxes, meekly obey totalitarian laws, fill in the forms correctly and promptly to put themselves on the databases, and nod politely when their neighbours extol the virtues of the welfare state and forcing people to recycle their garbage.
And their are other Libertarians who are not comfortable in social situations with Socialists. Who proselytise for gun ownership, mention it even when politics isn't being discussed, are rude about people who want the government to ban things, and are generally pushy and obnoxious with their beliefs. Some of them even set up blogs to get a bigger audience for their rants. ;-)
If it is just a matter of personal belief - it doesn't matter to a Libertarian whether you believe in Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Where the issue arises is when believers get privileged seats in the government (the British House of Lords has a number of Bishops), when legislators consult the churches for their opinion on new laws, when any public debate on a topic of ethical controversy has representatives of the religions, whose opinions are respected and ethical expertise and authority unquestioned, when you can insult someone's political views freely but will get a visit from the diversity police if you slag off their religious ones.
Believe what you want. But don't ask for any special privileges over the rest of us because you do so.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 20, 2007 11:43 PM
Glib,
"Your claim that agnosticism is "the only way for people to interact in regard to things not proven" is also quite wrong. It's not proven the sun will come up tomorrow. Do you go around interacting as a sun-coming-up-agnostic ? I don't, I go with the overwhelming odds."
So I must presume from your statement and its context that you place the same probability on the sun not "coming up" (you have heard of Copernicus?) as of there being a God. And you have the same quality of knowledge available to make those two presumptions?
Care to share it?
Posted by Midwesterner at June 20, 2007 11:53 PM
For those of you who aren't from the US, it should be pointed out that for most of the 20th century, and certainly since the late 1940's, two words were almost always found together---"godless communism".
I know the european attitude was that Americans were hysterical about communism, as it now is that we are hysterical about islamic fundamentalism, but it is worth noting that most churches in the US preached against godless communism on a regular basis.The Catholic church held May Day rosary marches every May 1st to counter the soviet celebrations.
Going to church and participating in a faith community are second nature to the vast majority of Americans. The condescending attitudes of cosmopolitan elites, whether from the US or elsewhere, only reinforces the feelings of commonality and solidarity among those who find great inspiration and solace in religious faith.
A great many of the world's most renowned philosophers and scientists have also been devout believers in some religious community. There is nothing about faith that is automatically incompatible with intelligience and rationality, except for those who define the latter in terms of opposition to the former.
My advice to atheists is the same as my advice to Jehovah's Witnesses---if you don't want people to cringe when they see you coming, just keep your pamphlets in your pocket and your beliefs, no matter how passionate, to yourself. Religious debates are pointless, and pointlessly antagonistic.
Argue about books or movies instead. Everybody pretty much accepts that those are just matters of opinion anyway, so there's not such a big emotional investment.
Posted by veryretired at June 20, 2007 11:56 PM
"My understanding (based on the philosophical teachings of Karl Popper, and not inconsistent with those of Thomas Aquinas) is that atheism is as much a matter of faith as is theistic religion."Of all the nonsense usually bound up in a discussion like this, that is surely among the most completely despicable for its equivocation of a rational dealing in the facts at hand with manifestly irrational dreams.
There is not one fact demonstrating the existence of a supernatural deity, and to have plain observation this fact called "a matter of faith" is a grotesque outrage upon the principal device that we have for making our way through this world.
Now; someday, somehow, there might be discovered a fact which demonstrates the existence of god. Until that day, however, people who believe, now & nonetheless, would do well to not go about insulting their counterparts' stand on what we know of reality with such rubbish. If there is a case to be made, then let them bloody make it with evidence, but nobody with a brain in their head is obligated to stand for such ridiculous assertions without taking offense.
To call atheism a "faith" is to destroy both the concepts of "faith" and "reason".
This is the part where I could get goddamned mean about some religious people, but they started it. Not me.
Posted by Billy Beck at June 21, 2007 12:05 AM
Mid,
I can give you mine, if you like.
Suppose for any particular God(ess), we can assert that (s)he has a probability p of not existing. Then ask, as I did above, whether it is possible that every single one of the 330,000,000 Hindu deities does not exist. The probability is of course p raised to the power of 330,000,000 which means that either p is a really teensy tiny number, I mean really mind-bogglingly tiny, or that it is virtually certain that the many Gods that do exist are Hindu ones. And since Christianity (or monotheism generally) is inconsistent with both the belief in millions of Hindu Gods and the very tiny p, Christianity is necessarily false with ultra-high probability.
I expect devotees of the Goddess Namagiri might be able to poke holes in that argument, but it is certainly as good as any argument given for theism.
I call this argument "taking the p out of theistic belief". Enjoy!
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 21, 2007 12:15 AM
Sorry, I mucked that one up, didn't I? The first two p's should be (1-p)'s.
Nevermind.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 21, 2007 12:34 AM
This thread sums up why, no matter how bad the UK becomes, I would never emigrate to the US.
Posted by The Last Toryboy at June 21, 2007 12:36 AM
So let's see if I'm getting this right.
You are asserting that the same quality of knowledge can be had about the ultimate nature of the possibility of existence that can be had about the Newtonian mechanics that predict the motions of the planets?
Incidentally, you left out one God. 'None of the Above'. Which I believe is infinity minus your 330,000,000.
That kind of makes the uncertainty of it all a little more obvious.
Posted by Midwesterner at June 21, 2007 12:43 AM
Quite right, Gabriel. Slip of the brain. :) I don't like repeating myself and I'd already had three "reason"s in a row, so I plucked the word out of the air, only realising what I'd said after I posted it. I don't think it invalidates my point, though.But the slip illustrates an interesting point. Reason doesn't cause atheism, there is nothing especially reasonable about it, but rationalism certainly can and does. Theists are perenially being told thay are irrational because they do not describe to the delusions and hubris of rationalist philosophy.
Analagously advocacy of the free market and a voluntarist society is the most reasonable position one can take, but it is no surprise to find that most people who whitter on about 'Reason' are advocates of central planning because it is the logical consequence of viewing human societies in a rationalist manner.
I may be getting ahead of myself, but I think establishing the clear distinction between the two intepretations of reason, reasonableness (though I'm not sure that's quite right either) and rationalism, may be the single most important intellectual task of our age. Or not, I don't know, but it's pretty important, even Popper got confused about it from time to time.
Posted by Gabriel at June 21, 2007 12:58 AM
No, I'm saying that if your only evidence for God's existence is that you can't prove he doesn't, then the same principle applied to the Hindu Gods implies either that a large part of the Hindu pantheon is virtually certain to be true, or that the probability of any particular God existing has to be a number smaller than 0.0000000... a little bit short of 330,000,000 zeros... 0000001 for there to be any reasonable possibility that the Hindu Gods might not exist.
In other words, the argument for theism on "you can't prove otherwise" probability grounds predicts either lots of Gods, or none at all (when p=0). It's not an argument that works for monotheism, unless you cheat like Pascal did and only consider the two options: Christianity or bust.
A mere absence of disproof is no basis on which to found or even allow a particular belief - only beliefs based on positive evidence can be rational.
Posted by Pa Annoyed at June 21, 2007 12:58 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I find atheists "dangerous" or "threatening." But, as pretty much of an atheist myself, I will say that I perceive an increasingly strident atheist sub-culture developing that I'm uncomfortable with. I think the zeal with which some atheists now state their arguments, and the extreme intolerance some have for other points of view, are not only damaging to the debate itself but also to the cause of atheism overall.
With even respected atheists like Richard Dawkins promoting "militant atheism," the word "atheist" may be re-acquiring the emotional baggage that prior generations of atheists managed to throw off. At one time the word "atheist" provoked the kind of response that "feminist" or "environmentalist" sometimes do today. I'd hate to see those days return.
Posted by Tedd McHenry at June 21, 2007 01:24 AM
I wonder how the findings of this survey affect views toward atheists and agnostics:
The nationwide survey by the Ventura-based Barna Group reported that 56% of atheists and agnostics believe that "radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam."
Posted by Alan K. Henderson at June 21, 2007 01:50 AM
only beliefs based on positive evidence can be rational.
So where is your "positive evidence" that there is no god? You are in the same boat as the theists. You are making claims for which you have no positive evidence. Unless you are arguing for agnosticism.
You and I have had this debate before. Mathematics is your theology. Your 'proofs' that there is no god are circular. They are of equal merit with angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin debates in other centuries. Any claim to knowledge of the origin of the possibility of existence that starts by analyzing human beliefs is prima facie a waste of time.
Posted by Midwesterner at June 21, 2007 02:04 AM
In the first place the original post constructs a straw man based on a poll or suryvey, which may or may not have any validity whatsoever.
Secondly, if there is validity I would suggest that atheists may be viewed as a threat because there is a militant element to present-day atheism. They are not content to believe in their non-belief, they must attack the beliefs of others. They find any historical symbols that are contrary to their non-belief offensive and attempt to use the power of government to obliterate them. Perhaps some folks think that if you destroy a nation's historical identity and symbols, you are on the path to destroying the nation.
Anyone who pays any attention to history knows that the United States of America was founded on certain principles. These principles have been modified, some might say eroded, over time; still the atheist wants to obliterate the principles from the history book and pretend that they have no role in the development of the country.
English folk may justifiably look at the role of religion in their origins differently, as it was so often an excuse for power grabs and strife--not to mention intolerance of he worst sort. Hmmm! Although revisionists try so very hard to deny it, I believe that these different views of religious (freedom) played a significant role in the early settlement of my country.
Posted by OldflyerBob at June 21, 2007 02:13 AM
Midesterner, claiming that atheists have faith is mixing up a couple of meanings of the word "faith". Your claim that agnosticism is "the only way for people to interact in regard to things not proven" is also quite wrong. It's not proven the sun will come up tomorrow. Do you go around interacting as a sun-coming-up-agnostic ? I don't, I go with the overwhelming odds.
Critical difference: It's possible to explain the mechanism by which the sun will come up somewhere around 5:30AM tomorrow. This explanation has been consistently reliable every day for decades if not centuries, with no exceptions known.
I have yet to see any firm and unequivocal evidence at all that would illuminate the God-vs-no-God debate. So far, the best that the pro-God side has produced is "look at how complex the eye is" and "here is my book of Hebrew fairy tales from long ago." The best that the atheists have produced is "it's a book of Hebrew fairy tales from long ago" and "Genesis bears no relation at all to the actual fossil record."
That's not enough to have an intelligent discussion. Plenty of deeply-held belief, sure, but nobody actually KNOWS a damn thing. None of this is subject to empirical proof or disproof, or can even be tested in such a manner. Nobody's hypothesis about God has yet been shown to have predictive power.
In other words, the argument for theism on "you can't prove otherwise" probability grounds predicts either lots of Gods, or none at all (when p=0). It's not an argument that works for monotheism, unless you cheat like Pascal did and only consider the two options: Christianity or bust.
..or when you consider that any one of the X number of gods may exist and the others don't. Where this gets sticky is, there is no empirical method for assigning probability to one over the other, nor for assigning probability to polytheism over monotheism. The whole thing makes assumptions and the assumptions can't be tested either.
The atheists who act like everyone else, but sleep in on Sundays tend to be normal human beings like everyone else, I've found. So are the Catholics, the Protestants, the Jews, the Mormons, the Buddhists, and the Pastafarians who get up on Sunday/Saturday/whenever and do their thing and take whatever they get from it and act like civilized human beings like everyone else. The ones who insist on driving competing belief systems from the market of ideas tend to be the same sorts of assclowns as the ones who wave signs like "Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet Muhammad" at rallies.
Posted by Sunfish at June 21, 2007 02:47 AM
What makes me mistrust atheists is that, with rare exceptions, whenever a current radical Muslim atrocity comes up, their response is only that religion is the problem, not radical Islam in particular. They seem not to realize that if radical Islam does triumph, they will be in as much hot water as believers. In addition, their mention of any specific religion is almost always Christianity. The Inquisition and the Crusades are often mentioned; but the Muslim domination of the mideast, north Africa, and Spain isn't, as if it came about by reasoning or elections.
In practice, atheists seem to be anti-Christian, not anti-religion. To a slight extent, that effectively favors radical Islam. That's why I (as an agnostic) mistrust them.
Posted by Jim C. at June 21, 2007 04:22 AM
Gib:
"bob, Dawkins only seems rude and denigrating because he's talking about religion. If he was talking about any other belief, like economics, his tone would not be seen as rude at all. Why should religion have a special respect granted to it ?"
What I said was:
" I remarked that his on-screen demeanor is supercilious and often rude and denigrating to those espousing different view points. A confrontational snide style is expected in the UK, but doesnt wash in America. Dawkins may be light to enlighten Americans' igorance, but he is not humble by any strech."
Hence experimental spelling aside, it is not Dawkins' arguments per se that I objected to but his condescending manner and swotty patronisation. Somewhat similar to people who tell me that my appreciation of the man is inherently colored by my own patent ignorance and that like a spotty four former, working herself into a lather at a Robbie Williams concert, my emotions have gotten hold of me.
Posted by bob at June 21, 2007 05:11 AM
I didn't set out to start a debate on the relative merits of atheisim and faith. I was much more interested in the popular misperception of threat. If I had pointed to a survey appearing to show a majority of Americans believe that Jews or Koreans are a threat, would the point have been missed so comprehensively, I wonder?
Jim C,
I suggest you've not been paying attention. Atheists tend to be rather more robust in standing up to Islam than believers, who frequently have the soppy attitude that the nasty Islamists are categorically different from ordinary peaceable believers, when actually there's a continuum and complexity. Christian upon Christian talks about Islamist belief as "a perversion" of Islam, when it starts from precisely the same basis in revelation as other forms.
It is in that context you'll often find athiests pointing to Christianity's murky past, when Christians start making excuses for Muslim savagery on the ground that faith itself is a good, and that the faithful should be respected for it. If you start from the position that religion is false - or even that monotheism is false - you are in a considerably better position to evaluate particular cults and believers against one another.
I am anti-Christian; but I am rather more anti-Islamic. They are both wrong. But it is pretty clear which is more dangerous at the moment.
To Midwesterner's argument, which I hope I don't too unfairly characterise as, "But we just don't know," my answer is that we know very little with the implied firmness of knowledge, but God is a very unsatisfactory theory, because - contrary to Billy Beck's demand for just one fact proving the existence of God - to a believer the entire world is a demonstration of the existence of God. The trouble being that any state of the world would do as well, and God would be just as necessary and sufficient to explain them. (The same goes for morals: Muslims hold that Jews and Christians have spotted God lurking in the universal woodwork correctly but misinterpreted what He wants and mislaid the instruction manual - but they can't fuly agree among themselves either.)
An answer that's the answer to any question whatsoever is of no value. It isn't that there is specific information missing that the existence of God might supply - or something else might. God has entirely arbitrary and contingent properties and supplies no information.
Posted by guy herbert at June 21, 2007 07:26 AM
I seriously doubt that so many people consider "atheists" a "threat".
That correlates with my experience. Many people consider atheists- especially the militant atheists who file lawsuits to have religious symbols removed from public places- to be quite obnoxious, but a threat? Not in any sense but a very abstract 'damaging the fabric of our society' sense (right up there with Grand Theft Auto and if Britney shaved this week).
-----
I hate to generalize, but I honestly have not met or read about an atheist who could simply say, "I am an atheist" without almost immediately beginning to rant...
We exist, we just don't think religion is something worth arguing about. You're not going to change our minds, we're not going to change your mind, what's the point of arguing about it? It's a lot easier to just let other people assume you're like most of the other people out there ('generic xian', in the US), especially when most people consider the militant atheist types to be obnoxious pr!cks.
As far as the 'atheist' commies and their murderousness are concerned... those guys aren't atheists, they just claim to be atheists. You see, it's an easy way to deny the premises of their ideological competitors (religions) without getting into a detailed debate.
The commies have a god (the state), a high priest (Marx), numerous prophets (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc) a holy book that predicts the end times (Das Kapital/Communist Manifesto), they punish heretics harshly (numerous examples), they don't like competition (also numerous examples), and they're completely willing to kill vast numbers of people to spread their faith (millions and millions of examples).
You say Communism is a science? Okay. Where are the testable hypotheses? Where are the reproducible results? Do they correlate to what the Manifesto or Das Kapital predict? No? So you're taking Marx's word on faith, then?
.....
Posted by a.sommer at June 21, 2007 07:31 AM
The best that the atheists have produced is "it's a book of Hebrew fairy tales from long ago" and "Genesis bears no relation at all to the actual fossil record." Nobody's hypothesis about God has yet been shown to have predictive power.Of course, there's also disproofs of Noah's flood, the sun standing still... The God hypothesis doesn't help explain anything about how things work, there's no proof of him, and there's no explanation for where he came from if he were to exist...
In practice, atheists seem to be anti-Christian, not anti-religion.The ones you meet and talk with mostly would be, because they'd be from Christian countries, quite possibly ex-Christians. When it's one religion that is dominating them, or that they escaped from, and they know best, then they will tend to focus their energies on that one...
So I must presume from your statement and its context that you place the same probability on the sun not "coming up" (you have heard of Copernicus?) as of there being a God. And you have the same quality of knowledge available to make those two presumptions? Care to share it?Sure. There's just no evidence for a god, and very few places he can hide in the gaps in our current knowledge. Evolution gives him nothing to do in creating us, abiogenesis gives him nothing to do in creating life, and astronomy gives him noting to do in creating the galaxy, sun, our planet. The only thing left in his hypothetical job description is to create the universe. And there are many hypotheses about how that happened that are much more likely than a complex god already existing to do it..
And, if god paid any attention to human affairs, things wouldn't look as random as they are now, and one religion would have some knowledge that doesn't look the same as human invented fairy tales.
Posted by Gib at June 21, 2007 08:30 AM
Guy,
To follow your lead back onto topic, you said:
Atheists tend to be rather more robust in standing up to Islam than believers,
and in support of whoever said
In practice, atheists seem to be anti-Christian, not anti-religion.
Alan K. Henderson, in his June 21, 2007 01:50 AM comment, linked to this far more current article (yours is well over a year old) that contained some interesting and very on topic information.
The nationwide survey by the Ventura-based Barna Group reported that 56% of atheists and agnostics believe that "radical Christianity is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam."
and
Researchers found that people without faith are less likely to be registered to vote than believers (78% versus 89%), and less likely to help a poor or homeless person (41% versus 61%) even though they are more likely to be college graduates and make more money than believers.
which certainly could suggest that atheists tend more towards big government and redistributive programs.
To your's and Gib's related beliefs that we know enough to know God 'ain't so', I've had four year olds tell me how cars work. They were interesting theories and fit well enough into the limits of a four year old's knowledge. But when you or anyone else can explain gravity, not describe it but explain it, you have my attention, and when you have understanding not of a mere big bang, but of how possibility itself came to be, I am most definitely listening.
In the meantime, you can drop the "but" and attribute the rest of the sentence to me if you like. "We just don't know." It is a matter of personal intuitions, not scientific knowledge.
Posted by Midwesterner at June 21, 2007 02:37 PM
"...contrary to Billy Beck's demand for just one fact proving the existence of God - to a believer the entire world is a demonstration of the existence of God."
No thinking person can take that seriously. That's simply out of the question. It's ridiculous. The word "believer" appears in that proposition for a good reason: it's because of the difference between faith and rational conviction on a foundation of facts.
Posted by Billy Beck at June 21, 2007 04:15 PM
"I've had four year olds tell me how cars work. They were interesting theories and fit well enough into the limits of a four year old's knowledge. But when you or anyone else can explain gravity, not describe it but explain it,..."
One obvious difference is that there is no question but that gravity exists.
Posted by Billy Beck at June 21, 2007 04:19 PM
It is a matter of personal intuitions, not scientific knowledge
Which colour is more pleasing, what the best type of car is, whether that girl loves you, which football team you should support. These are things that Personal intuition will help you with.
The existance of gravity, life on other planets, phsycic powers, flouride in your drinking water, god, the flying spaghetti monster. These are all scientific questions, which scientific enquiry is extremely valuable to help figure out.
Whilst some things are defined in such a way to make them impossible to disprove (especially when the goalposts keep getting moved), it doesn't mean that they can't be ruled out as unlikely, or their known properties can't be constrained.
In the case of a god for instance, traditionally he was seen as having created the world recently. Geology and astronomy shows that's not true (or he's deliberately tricking us). He was seen as having created humans, which evolution shows isn't true. When you take away all the stuff that we now know isn't in the domain of a god, then all we're left with is a small gap in which a useless god can live. What's the point in believing in that ?
Posted by Gib at June 21, 2007 06:02 PM
Billy,
It was a nod to Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
A four year old can very accurately predict what will happen when you push various peddles in the car. But they generally don't have a clue about internal combustion engines or turning friction into heat to slow a car. That is the difference between describing and explaining.
My point is that the origin of possibility is not known, and may not be knowable. Any claims to knowledge of that origin are indistinguishable from religion.
Gib,
Perhaps you missed my earlier statement, "Any claim to knowledge of the origin of the possibility of existence that starts by analyzing human beliefs is prima facie a waste of time."
Posted by Midwesterner at June 21, 2007 06:09 PM