Wednesday 13 March 2013

Andrew Brown on New Atheism

Having been sent the link to, as usual, a rather excellent piece: Andrew Brown: The New Atheism, a definition and a quiz I was grateful to find that some of the things that arose in my first conversation appear to be valid (and some of my thinking perhaps valid too - phew).

You can read the piece for yourselves but here's a few interesting segments (italicised for clarity) that jumped out and called for my attention (and perhaps validated some of the thoughts thus far):

"I thought I would try to define the New Atheism that I, and others, so dislike. In part this is difficult because the new atheism is largely a political and social rather than an intellectual movement."

So perhaps my 'red top' readership comment is shared by others. This is rather comforting as one friend asked if I was not being perhaps a little 'snobby' when I posted it. I'm not, but what I'm saying is that it doesn't have the higher reading age of those who are philosophically atheist.

I also loved the use of the word 'synecdoche' (using a part of something to denote the whole: pointyhats for bishops, dogcollars for clergy, etc.) and that he sees in the new atheist approach religion as being:
'A synecdoche for everything that might go wrong, so that belief in the evil qualities of Faith was not so very different from belief in the evils of witchcraft.'

Yes indeedy folk - it is faith, religion, the religious (call them what you will) who are the source of all that was, is and will be wrong. Perhaps science is the new messiah?

I'm rather pleased to see Brown name the prophets, patriarchs and prime movers of the new atheist thing as: 'Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Jerry Coyne, the American physicist Robert L. Park, and a couple of blogging biologists, P Z Myers and Larry Moran.'

And more grateful too that he says of them:
'They have two things in common. They are none of them philosophers and, though most are scientists, none study psychology, history, the sociology of religion, or any other discipline which might cast light on the objects of their execration. All of them make claims about religion and about believers which go far beyond the mere disbelief in God which I take to be the distinguishing mark of an atheist.'

Taking as his model former Master of Balliol and philosopher, Anthony Kenny, t as the datum from which he defines (old) atheism, he says that he (Kenny) would reject the following

❄ There is something called "Faith" which can be defined as unjustified belief held in the teeth of the evidence. Faith is primarily a matter of false propositional belief. 

❄ The cure for faith is science: The existence of God is a scientific question: either he exists or he doesn't. "Science is the only way of knowing – everything else is just superstition" [Robert L. Park] 

❄ Science is the opposite of religion, and will lead people into the clear sunlit uplands of reason. "The real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is but one form of rationalism, while religion is the most common form of superstition" [Jerry Coyne] 
"I am not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented." [Dawkins] 

❄ In this great struggle, religion is doomed. Enlightened common sense is gradually triumphing and at the end of the process, humanity will assume a new and better character, free from the shackles of religion. Without faith, we would be better as well as wiser. Conflict is primarily a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm. 
(Looking for links, I just came across a lovely example of this in the endnotes to the Selfish Gene, where lawyers are dismissed as "solving man-made problems that should never have existed in the first place".) 

❄ Religion exists. It is essentially something like American fundamentalist protestantism, or Islam. More moderate forms are false and treacherous: if anything even more dangerous, because they conceal the raging, homicidal lunacy that is religion's true nature. [Sam Harris] 

❄ Faith, as defined above, is the most dangerous and wicked force on earth today and the struggle against it and especially against Islam will define the future of humanity. [Everyone]

Brown concludes by saying:

'All of these propositions will be found in the authors I have cited as well as in the comments to religious articles here. I sometimes think that only the last two are unique to the new atheists: you can certainly find the others in earlier authors. But those are the six doctrines which I would reject when saying rude things about the new atheists.

What would be interesting in comments is if people would score themselves out of six. I expect that one of the most common forms of disagreement would be to claim that you are a three or a four, but none the less the believers are so repulsive and dangerous that the other two points just don't matter. That's how politics works, after all, and the new atheism is interesting as a political or social movement, not an intellectual one."

Again I am grateful to Andrew Brown for adding to the discussion and increasing my understanding (even if it is his view alone :-)  ).

45 comments:

Soup D said...

I have to admit to being somewhat weary of this debate and so a little loathe to enter it, but here I go.

I am a Christian, I am also a scientist; the two are not mutually exclusive.

I am a fairly intellignet woman and I hold a faith based on reason and experience; I am insulted when my faith is dismissed as 'superstition'.

Although I am obviously over-joyed when someone accepts my faith, I do not stand on street corners and preach nor do I engage in useless argument to try to convert anyone to my way of thinking. I hope that my life shows something of the belief system I follow and am happy to share with anyone who asks. Others, I am happy to leave to their own choices.

I struggle with the final sentence in my previous paragraph because, having found something precious I don't want to simply keep it to myself; that smacks of selfishness, however, I do respect the right of others to choose - even if I fear they are choosing to die.

I cannot prove that God exists, other than through my own expericence of him (which is necessarily subjective). No-one has yet proved to me that he doesn't.

I am aware of excesses and error within the modern church and throughout its history - but I have not found a human system of which the same is not true.

I am affronted by the vitrolic nature of many of the commentaries against faith; denegrating people of faith as stupdid, superstitious or evil does not do justice to the atheist cause, nor is it true.

When will opponents of faith accept and acknowledge the good that faith groups achieve (in social justice, and other world issues)? That is not to say one has to have faith to do good, but so often all that is highlighted is the 'harm' of religion. Surely an honest debate will admit there is some good?

I admit to not having read widely of New Atheist literature purely because that which I have come across is neither balanced nor kind but begins from a stand point that all religion is in some way mindless or evil. I am neither, and see no point in discoursing with people who assume that I must be because I own a faith.

If a person genuinely wants to know what I believe and why, then I am happy to discuss; but when it is simply a case of trying to prove how clever they are, then I am not interested. Hence my weariness.

I may well regret having posted...

UKViewer said...

I have to make some statements of non-belief:

I don't believe that there isn't a God.

I don't believe that Atheists don't have a God, they just don't recognise that their pursuit of science and reaslism as two Idols as being divine in their eyes.

I don't believe that Atheism isn't as dangerous and extreme as any religious extremist or terrorists.

I don't believe that Atheists don't engage with the supernatural, they just don't have the imagination to recognise it for what it is.

In this great age Atheism is doomed to fail on the double edged sword of pseudo science and human instinct for something greater than themselves.

Helen said...

The comments from Soup D sum up where I stand in this debate hence my earlier cynicism about your attempts to instigate a discussion. I'll continue to watch and to warm my hands :-)

Fil said...

I am affronted by the vitrolic nature of many of the commentaries against faith; denegrating people of faith as stupdid, superstitious or evil does not do justice to the atheist cause, nor is it true.



You wouldn’t believe the vitriol that has been seen by me in person because of my lack of faith. It may be that in this world of New Atheism the believers are beginning to find out what it is like to be on the receiving end of what has been thrown at us for a long time.





“I don't believe that Atheists don't have a God, they just don't recognise that their pursuit of science and realism as two Idols as being divine in their eyes.”



…erm no. We don’t actually worship anything and all that we do say is either opinion or based on objective evidence. No faith involved,

“I don't believe that Atheism isn't as dangerous and extreme as any religious extremist or terrorists.”



This can be a grey area. Whilst there are atheists that are dangerous, and atheists may break the law, and there are mass killers that are atheists such as Stalin, atheists do not kill people in the name of atheism. The doctors killed for giving abortions and the people killed on 9/11 all died in the name of God. This is much more extreme than anything an atheist has done in the name of atheism.


“I don't believe that Atheists don't engage with the supernatural, they just don't have the imagination to recognise it for what it is.”



Present us with objective evidence. If you can do that and we refuse to listen then you have a point. Whilst it is all about personal experience, it will not be possible for us to verify anything you say.


“In this great age Atheism is doomed to fail on the double edged sword of pseudo science and human instinct for something greater than themselves.”



I agree that we have an instinct to believe in something greater than ourselves. As humans we have the ability to rise above our instincts. What, exactly do you see as being pseudoscientific?

DrJ said...

Fil - your first response, to Soup D, seems to me to be arguing that two wrongs Do make a right - or at least that one injustice justifies an equal and opposite injustice.

Of course, the Bible records Jesus as saying:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well".....“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
(Matthew 5, 38-40, 43-45)

It is true that some (OK, all, at some time) Christians fail to live up to this command, but if your "two wrongs make a right" is representative of atheist morality, I would rather have an imperfect implementation of Jesus's ideal.

DrJ said...

Fil - you finished by saying:
"I agree that we have an instinct to believe in something greater than ourselves. As humans we have the ability to rise above our instincts."

I quite agree that we have the ability to rise above our instincts - this world would be an even nastier place otherwise. The question that needs to be asked is, in the absence something greater than ourselves, why on earth should we bother?
If we, as humans, arose through the long process of chance mutations with the driving forces of natural selection and survival of the fittest, which seems quite reasonable to me, but without the presence of any "higher power", then where does any expectation or obligation to behave in any particular way come from? Just because we have evolved the ability to do something does not mean that we should - Le Petomane had evolved to the point where he could fart La Marseillaise, but it would be farcical to suggest that, just because he Could, he Should. And, of course, if we are gene-replication machines And Nothing Else, then it is hardly surprising if we use the tools that evolution has made available to us to gain advantage over those of our species who are less fit - what is genocide except natural selection by a less acceptable name?
Yet few New atheists would dare to argue that genocide was just the natural working out of our genetic heritage (though a fair few old-fashioned ones found it, at the very least, a convenient scientific rationale for their ideologies). They expect us to rise above those instincts, and I quite agree that we should, but I have never heard an argument from them as to why we should bother which was consistent with the rest of their purely evolutionaliry-based worldview.

Bertrand Russell was honest enough to admit to the bleakness of it, so much so that I often wonder why he got so worked up about things. He described mankind thus: "his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms" and said that all we ever achieve is destined to end in "the debris of a universe in ruins." Maybe, but if so, why bother about an individual human enough to say "No one can sit at the bedside of a dying child and still believe in God."? Having, professionally, sat at the bedside of a few dying children, my own emotions and those of others present make far more sense when one views that child as having been made in the image of God, than them being the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms.

Anonymous said...

Objective - isn't that a two-way street and yet I rarely find the same objectivity that non-theists deploy on their views afforded to the other, theist, side of the fence.

Claiming that those with faith demand special treatment and possess a lack of objectivity is not made to look isolated when one sees the non-theists doing the same.

As one who neither denies nor supports the existence of deities I find them more palatable than some of those who oppose.

The Brown piece is a fine example of informed and skilful writing and I can understand why those of faith would indeed be affronted. But of course the tit for tat approach is useful in that it demonstrates lack of reason, charity and the fact that attrocities are done in man's name . . . a chilling and grim specter

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

I would agree that claims for special treatment and the like like are wrong (on all sides of the argument) and can also see that objectivity is difficult (again for all sides) but the key to dialogue is 'playing nice in the sandpit' (as John Wimber used to say).

Thank you for your comments and observations - all really helpful and brings dimensions that I have never considered previously.

Pax

Fil said...

"It is true that some (OK, all, at some time) Christians fail to live up to this command, but if your "two wrongs make a right" is representative of atheist morality, I would rather have an imperfect implementation of Jesus's ideal. "

That isn't quite what I was saying. The way that people are currently being taught to blow themselves up to get to heaven is several orders of magnitude greater than being rude to a Christian.

I am DEFINITELY(!) not going to talk about sex abuse scandals and the like which are hideous people doing hideous things and which can be found in areas of faith and not-faith. I do not expect a higher level of morality amongst believing people because, like non-believing people, they are people.

What I am talking about is things being done in God's name. There are many examples, the most obvious being 9/11 and the doctors too.

What is the atheist equivalent of a suicide bomber?


"They expect us to rise above those instincts, and I quite agree that we should, but I have never heard an argument from them as to why we should bother which was consistent with the rest of their purely evolutionaliry-based worldview."


Dr J. -
You raise some interesting points, but they haave been answered before by better people than me. It is said that religious people have a problem with the question of evil and non-religious people have a problem with the question of love.

You have found reasons to justify the existence of evil that I would disagree with, but you must have that justification for your own worldview to make sense. I've done the same with the question of love but you would say the arguments are weak.

We have arisen through natural selection and "survival of the fittest" this is not a great phrase – it’s actually a tautology but it has the right feel, The fittest survive, but which are the fittest? That is defined by the fact that they do survive.

This discussion is relevant because it is the creature best fitted to its environment that survives. What is the environment for our ancestors? If we ignore the physical environment of Africa they were also living in a community environment. The ones most likely to pass on their genes are the ones that can live best in their community.

Another, related issue, is the selfish gene theory. The thing that is “trying” (for want of a better word) to get passed down to the next generation is the genes, not the body. If I die to save two sibling, then that has the same value from the genes’ point of view. When we were living in small bands it is likely that some of our genes would be in anyone we met and hence a simple rule “be nice to anyone you meet” would have benefits for the genes.

It would seem logical that looking after people we meet would get passed down in our genes. If this is the case, it is one instinct we shouldn’t try and overcome.

Tim F said...

"What is the atheist equivalent of a suicide bomber?"

Bloody silly question!

A suicide bomber

and they'd stand alongside the Assassin

the despotic tyrant

those who act wrongly to propagate their new world orders and to see their rationalism, views, desires enacted.

The only difference between an atheist and a believer is the presence of a deity. One might seek to act for their God whilst others, perhaps more honestly, merely act for themselves even though they might try to skew logic and corrupt true philosophical values to do so.

Bloody hell, I'm almost on the way to believing something here because it's become a more rational position!!!!!!!!

Soup D said...

'You wouldn’t believe the vitriol that has been seen by me in person because of my lack of faith. It may be that in this world of New Atheism the believers are beginning to find out what it is like to be on the receiving end of what has been thrown at us for a long time.'

I would indeed believe it - there are some nasty people ou there in all walks of life, but schadenfreude is never an attractive trait!

I don't deal with people that way, and I ask only for the same courtesy.

I do feel it is necessary to say that people of all faiths have been subject to persecution throughout human history (and acknowledge that the church has been a perpetrator itself!), so those without faith are certainly not alone in that. It still doesn't make it an acceptable argument :)

Fil said...

"What is the atheist equivalent of a suicide bomber?"

Bloody silly question!

A suicide bomber

…not quite. This is the subtle but important point that to me is VERY important. No atheist kills or dies in the name of atheism (That I am aware of, I would not be completely surprised if an actual answer came back from the question above.

Yes, there are people that will kill and die for the state of any belief and none, there are terrorists of many description, but there is a level of action that only occurs in the name of belief.

9/11, the doctors killed at abortion clinics, children refused medicine by their parents for diabetes, people being stoned or beheaded for adultery.

If I Googled for examples, I would find many, and each of Them are done in the name of belief alone. I don’t want to sound like I am making any list out of a mission to show how evil believers are and how great atheists are, or even that belief should be rid from the world.

There is a saying that goes something like “with or without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but to make a good person do bad things, you need religion”

An oversimplification, and I do not want to defend it but it gives the flavour of what I am trying to say.

Anonymous said...

'There is a saying that goes something like “with or without religion, good people do good things and bad people do bad things, but to make a good person do bad things, you need religion”'

If this is an oversimplification that you do not want to defend, then why post it?

Can you please define what makes a person good and what makes them bad? Who sets the criteria? What makes an act good or bad? Who decides?

There have undoubtedly been atrocities committed in the name of religion, but also in the name of many other things. Are you really saying that none of those involved started out as 'good' people but only those who used religion as their excuse? Where is the evidence?

There are too many variables, too many assumptions, and too little that is factual about that statement; but as you say, it shows what you actually think.

Anonymous said...

'No atheist kills or dies in the name of atheism '

A rather naive statement that seeks to defend your position through something that appeals to an OCD like legalism. It is both correct and fallacious in one for it relies for its proof in the presence (or absence) of words and ignores the proof that is to be found in the actions of the person and those whom they control too perhaps?

So how can we assess Stalin, who put people to death because they had a faith which conflicted with his atheistic views? I know he killed others but the root of dealing with the religious was atheism and so tacitly the finger points towards atheists.

Whether the words are spoken or tacit - the outworking is that this was a man who killed to support his own political and belief structures and that belief was atheism.

Democide is more often than not to be found in the history of those non-faith (i.e. atheistic) cultures and governments - something that history will support.

Of course you can (probably will) reply that atheism does not dictate morality and in the same act cause the words and attitudes of the modern heroes of the [non] faith to fall hollow to the ground. If it is not something that influences or controls morality what the new order it brings possesses is amorality.

Truly 'few, rather than none, kill in the name of atheism, but many kill as an outworking of belief in it as a system - including the extrapolated words of Harris regarding those who pose a threat through religious beliefs'.

You tread along thinly rational and pedantically imposed (to others) lines whilst walking along an extremely broad one for yourself and your views.

WTF

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

I can only say that I'm 'watching with interest' at the moment.

Let's play nicely :-)

Back soon (ish)!

DrJ said...

Fil - a lot to respond to, so I might break this up into more than one post.

My "two wrongs making a right" comment was in response to Soup D mentioning vitriol towards faith, and your own response about experiencing vitriol because of your own lack of it. No-one, at that stage, had talked about anyone blowing themselves or anyone else up - though I might come back to that later if what I laughingly call my memory reminds me.

To get a bit philosophical, I would be cautious about appealing too much to "people better than me", assuming that you mean people cleverer than you (I hope that you don't just mean "people more persuasive than me, as many have been taken in by charismatic charlatans). There are two reasons for my caution. Firstly, I too can call on those cleverer than me who see things the same way that I do. We could end up in a surrogate IQ willy-waving contest, to no practical end - imagine that we could agree who was not just better, or cleverer, but best and cleverest. Would you, were that person to come down on the side of God, drop your own views and side with me? I doubt it, nor would I were the situation reversed, nor would I really expect you to because I would regard any such conversion as suspect. Of course, it is a highly artificial scenario, and what would really happen is that we would simply change our debate about whose "expert" was more expert, and such assessments would inevitably include judgements based on our own preconceptions, and take us nowhere useful.

Secondly, I am going to appeal to the Royal Society, and its motto "Nullius In Verba", approximately, "take nobody's word for it." True, I think that this can be taken too far. How many of us (How many Fellows of the Royal Society, for that matter) have actually carried out the astronomical observations that allowed Copernicus, Gallileo, Keppler, Newton et al to suggest and confirm that the heliocentric system fits the subtleties of observed facts better than the Ptolemaic system? Newton, despite being notoriously difficult with his contemporaries, acknowledged his debt to the shoulders of giants, but which giant, facing in what direction, do we make the choice to clamber up for our vantage point? therefore, Nullius In Verba remains an important cautionary, sceptical, if you will, attitude.

More later, perhaps.

Fil said...

Wow!

Great responses. Really.

Yes, I'm being pedantic, I know that and I'm not going to defend that particular saying in the same way if I had said "Too many cooks spoik the broth" I wouldn't try and work out how many cooks, what broth etc.

Yes Stalin was bad and he was an atheist but I would not have brought up the crusades as many do because there was a lot of political reasons behind them plus they were a bit before my time.

What I have accomplished is to learn something from yourselves. I didn'think you would be able to give me an example and now I know.

The next question will now follow and once again, as is so often the case with ethics, I'll take the extreme position. Before I do, I must reiterate that I do not think that belief necessarily leads to extremism and while the argument I'm trying to put forward starts at the extreme it is in order to use what I've found out to find out what can be done in these circumstances and what this means for the nature of belief in a more rational setting.

Are the beliefs that lead people to kill in the name of God correct beliefs? Are suicide bombers correct in thinking they'll go to heaven? Are the Christians that do kill the Doctors that carry out abortions correct in their beliefs?

I would imagine you would say they are wrong. They have an incorrect belief. If you do think they are wrong, is there a method for changing an incorrect belief into a correct one?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to pick at details, Fil, but you lay down the rules that everything must be backed up by evidence.

'Too many cooks spoil the broth' is an idiom, a linguistic device. What you wrote about good, bad and reigion is a philosphical stance and needs to be qualified. The two sayings have no comparison!

As for this: I didn'think you would be able to give me an example and now I know.

The answer has been given, but you have decided to discount it!

At least play by your own rules. You would be quick to complain if anyone else did the same.

Fil said...

Dictators, nationalists, psychotics.

There are both believing and non-believing versions of these.

It is entirely possible that atheistic dictators have killed more than believing ones.

With all these groups, there are none that say "I do this in the name of atheism" but there are many that say "I do this in the name of God"

Pedantic? possibly, but this is the rule I have applied from the start. One of my first comments was Whilst there are atheists that are dangerous, and atheists may break the law, and there are mass killers that are atheists such as Stalin, atheists do not kill people in the name of atheism. The doctors killed for giving abortions and the people killed on 9/11 all died in the name of God. This is much more extreme than anything an atheist has done in the name of atheism.

I have applied the same rule all along.

Anonymous said...

Yay! Always best to be true to your own views and better still to set the parameters and rules that support your own stance and logic no matter how flawed.

Please tell me you're just bringing loads of straw and facile stuff into your positional statements to wind everyone up.

I think you're a red-herring or troll

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

He's neither - merely stating his beliefs and setting his own parameters.

(Of course whilst watching and assimilating the material before me I wonder if I too might set my own Term of Reference (ToRs) for my engagement.

Play nice, try to apply reasoned logic and (regardless of position, belief or prejudice) remember that God (or if it suits your (un)belief structure that the gods, the great Pumpkin in the Sky or the faeries) love you :-)

Fil said...

Who's that trip trapping over my paradigm?

I'm not trying to wind people up, and I am not trying to claim any moral high ground.

Vic is right, I am merely stating my beliefs.

The people that say we are only a form of animals do not say that people should die in the name of that idea.

A tiny minority of the people that say each one of us is a sacred life actually take that life in the name of that belief.

What is going on there?

For that minority of people, how can that be justified?

In the same way that, though you think my views are illogical and badly formed, I think they are perfectly logical. Each of us thinks our own views are self consistent.

The minority that kill in the name of belief think their views are self consistent and right.

How is that possible?

Soup D said...

They think they are right because they are deluded or misinformed.

But I've just spent the day with a wonderful group of people, learning, talking and praying and watching God make a very positive difference in their lives... so I'm happy, joyful and thankful.

Fil said...

Truly, Soup D, that is wonderful. I know that faith has helped so many people. As a member of the Atheist Conspiracy(tm) I am obliged to say that I've also heard of faith hurting people (including direct - not just Facebook - friends)too but making that poiny is a contractual obligation which isn't worth going into further here.

With the 'deluded' people, how is it possible to tell the difference between a deluded believer and a non-deluded believer?

Obviously, the killers have deluded beliefs, but are there other beliefs that are deluded that don't lead to killing?

In the spirit of Holiday Showdown, we can find two opposing groups of believers such as Westboro Baptist church and the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

Which of these is deluded? Possibly both? How can we tell which is the deluded one?

I've been thinking about this and the verse from Matthew (I know it's Matthew because of Google ;-) ):

By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

These people that are deluded, they think that they are bearing good fruit. How can we tell which is which?

Soup D said...

You have to add to the Matthew reference a quote from Galatians 5:

But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

Are the groups you mention exhibiting these?

Fil said...

That sounds like Paul was preaching about Buddhism. Those are the fruits of the Four Noble Truths.

What would one of these people that commit these crimes say to that?

I don't know, but they must self justify their actions as being in line with Biblical teachings in some form.

How can these people do what they do and still say they are following the Bible?

What is going on inside their heads?

Soup D said...

I'm afraid I can't get inside their heads to answer that.

As for Paul preaching Buddhism, don't think it had reached 1st century Palestine :) There were other religions around, but Paul was a thoroughbred Jew!

You do make an interesting point though: if proponents of the same 'religion' can have such differing views and attitudes, is it religion that causes the problem? Would those people have the same attitudes anyway, and just find another way to justify them without religion?

Fil said...

I don't think so. While on the subject of Buddhists I assume that you know of the ones that burned themselves in protest about the Vietnam war because their religion has the precept that no life should be harmed.

The religions that kill in the name of God seem to be Christianity and Islam.

There seems to be something in these faiths that makes people do these things. A minority, I know, but in Islam I am aware of the call to holy war (although, allegedly, the Qu'ran only says that this should be done to protect ones homeland and only soldiers should be killed).

Obviously there is the genocide of Joshua in the Bible, and Jesus talks about it being better to bash childrens' heads against a rock than let them live through the end times but these things don't seem to be a general call to arms.

The people that kill, they must justify it to themselves and it is only by seeing things through the eyes of these people that we can ever hope to deal with them at a level that they will understand.

DrJ said...

Fil - I've been busy, so going back a few comments here.

I think that you are getting rather hung up on somewhat academic distinctions of what "in the name of" means. Maybe people do not kill or die in the name of atheism, but that is partly because they don't define themselves by their lack of belief in God - but they kill in the name of a political ideology that is opposed to religion. Certainly I think that your distinctions would be lost on someone who died in the purges of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many more, just as much as those who died in the crusades or on 9-11.
Of course, claiming to do something "in the name of" some cause or other does not mean that your actions are approved of by other followers of that cause. Once again, I can go to Matthew's gospel, Ch7 vs 21-23:
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"

How does one define the term "Christian"? Self-proclamation clearly isn't enough. If I told you that I was a teapot, you would probably disbelieve me, unless you noted that I was spherical, had a handle and a spout, and could cope with having boiling water poured in me without screaming. So why do you take at face value the claims of people to be Christians without checking them against the source documents? And even then, the fact that real Christians do things that they should not is not simply hardly news, it is an inextricable part of the entire concept - "It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick" (that chap Jesus again, recorded by Matthew again!)

bother, too long, got to split it here.

DrJ said...

Part 2:

We could, of course, also have a discussion about whether religion is what God wants from us, or what we do in the mistaken belief that we can put God in our debt, which makes any attempt to defend religions somewhat problematical for me anyway - but explains why I chuckle when I hear Prof Dawkins on the radio attacking religion in terms deliciously similar to those that the Bible records for Jesus and John the Baptist attacking the religious heirarchy of 1st century Palestine.

But I would rather ask whether you think that Bad Things done by (or 'in the name of') science (or at least by science's bastard and oft-disowned offspring, technology) discredit science in the same way that bad things done by those claiming a religious justification discredit God? Take Bhopal and Union Carbide as an example, estimates of deaths (to say nothing of the awful chronic health damage for the survivors) vary wildly, but certainly are many times the death toll for 9-11 and all abortion clinic attacks put together.
A couple of years ago, the new President of the Royal Society, geneticist and Nobel Laureate Paul Nurse presented an episode of Horizon, "Science Under Attack", asking "why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded", in particular talking about scepticism about climate change and humanities involvement in it. All very reasonable, but he never once acknowledged that the mainstream scientific view is that man-made climate change is a result of our use of the technological fruits of scientific advances. Science was presented as a source of solutions - I was reminded of the old limerick:
There was a young lady from Leeds
Who was constantly doing Good Deeds.
When she bit her young brother,
She said to her Mother:
"I'll bind up the wound if it bleeds."

Don't get me wrong, I am a scientist, I love science for the fascination it brings me as well as for the good things it can do. But are you prepared to cut religion the same slack, when some of its proponents do bad things, as so many want to allow science when its proponents do, or unleash, bad things? I hope that you are not going to do any special pleading for science here!

DrJ said...

Fil - what else? You say:

" It is said that religious people have a problem with the question of evil.."

I don't have a problem with evil, not in the sense that it threatens or makes me doubt my faith. What puzzles me is when an atheist gets worked up about evil, even if they avoid using that actual word, when the acts they decry are, from their world view, only the acting out of natural selection or selfish genes. Never mind you dying to save two siblings, if I kill you And your siblings there would be more food for my kids to eat. But if, in a situation of famine, I suggested that as a solution to the problem, I suspect that you might suggest that it was not "fair", or possible downright evil if I were to try it. Where on earth does any notion of fair come from in evolutionary terms? Tough luck, buster, my Big Stick is bigger than yours.

"The people that say we are only a form of animals do not say that people should die in the name of that idea."
I can't offhand think of any definite killings, but there are certainly animal rights activists who have advocated killing, and others who have commited acts of sabotage which could easily have led to deaths (cutting car brake hoses, IIRC, for one).

What else. I will accept your inclusion of Westboro Baptist Church as in any way representative of Christianity on one condition: That you will equally accept non-doctor Gillian McKeith as representative of science. Deal? No? Of course, Fred Phelps and co are wrong in their theology - God does not hate fags, God so loved the world etc, even Fred Phelps, which I must say is more than I can manage.

Finally, I have tried to find anything like your claim of Jesus talking about bashing childrens' brains on rocks, and can't think of anything. Is this one of those "everybody knows that the Bible says x" times, when in fact it says no such thing, or something that uses the same words, but not necessarily in the same order?

Fil said...

"I would rather ask whether you think that Bad Things done by (or 'in the name of') science (or at least by science's bastard and oft-disowned offspring, technology) discredit science in the same way that bad things done by those claiming a religious justification discredit God?"


Thanks Dr J. I think the comment above summarises your thoughts on my opinions. I don't think that those claiming a religion and doing bad things discredit God. I am not saying that these people have any bearing on how other people choose to live their lives.

I'm trying to make a distinction of that minority of people that do bad things in the name of God alone to get to the point where their psychology can be considered.

The people that do shoot doctors because they provide abortions, for example, must think that what they are doing is right in the name of God. They must be using the Bible in such a way to justify their actions.

How can they do that? I spoke of the tree bearing fruit and Soup D pointed me in the direction of Galatians 5 to back that up.

These murderers must think that their actions are producing good fruit. In what way is this possible?

Soup D said...

'While on the subject of Buddhists I assume that you know of the ones that burned themselves in protest about the Vietnam war because their religion has the precept that no life should be harmed.'

Except their own, it seems! Just shows that anyone can twist a precept to illogical outcomes. I hardly think you can argue that that is only true in religion! Just read a tabloid :)

Soup D said...

'While on the subject of Buddhists I assume that you know of the ones that burned themselves in protest about the Vietnam war because their religion has the precept that no life should be harmed.'

Except their own, it seems! Just shows that anyone can twist a precept to illogical outcomes. I hardly think you can argue that that is only true in religion! Just read a tabloid :)

Soup D said...

Like DrJ, I am struggling to find any reference to Jesus talking about bashing children's heads against rocks - can you provide a reference? Perhaps you are thinking of an Old Testament prophet warning the Israelites about the coming atrocities at the hands of the Assyrians or Babylonians?

Unbelievers and Atheists love to return to the genocides in the OT, but there is a question of context here. The land that the Israelites were returning to was originally theirs (part of the promise to Abraham). They left it when they went to Egypt during the famine, in the time of Joseph. They became a slave race in Egypt until the were released at the time of Passover (the ten plagues, parting of the Red Sea etc) At that time, they returned to their ancestral home, which was now resettled by other tribes and nations.

The Ancient Canaanite tribes were not a pleasant bunch, but were war-like and prone to some 'detestable practices' such as child sacrifice. They were not going to sit back and let the Israelites walk in and settle in their land. Had the Israelites left any living witnesses, then those survivors would have been bound to avenge their dead, leading to a blood feud, resulting many more lives lost. The retribution of the Canaanites would have been far more terrible than the swift death they received at the hands of the Israelites.

It is easy to sit with our 21st-century morality and condemn; but it was simply a matter of life or death:kill or be killed; wipe out the Canaanites or be wiped out themselves. Proponents of 'survival of the fittest' must surely have some understanding of this ? ;) Unfortunately, there is a lack of teaching and understanding within some sections of the Christian world (as well as the secular world) that take these events as a caveat to commit similar acts against those they perceve to be 'enemies'. They completely miss the context of this history.

As for Islam, I am aware that there are two forms of Jihad: the lesser and the greater. The lesser Jihad is that with which most people are acquainted: the struggle against the infidel or unbeliever. The greater Jihad is the struggle with self; to become
a better person, more fitting of the title "Muslim'. Just like in Christianity (or any philosophical system including atheism) there are those who take sections of teaching and misapply it by an over-emphasis of that which suits their cause.

It is simply untrue to limit this disposition to religion - and in particular Islam and Christianity. Nazi-ism taught that all non-arians were sub-human and therefore not afforded the same considerations as others. This was not based on religion.

There are those in all walks of life who will twist and pervert any teaching to justify their cause or aims. It is not the teaching that is at fault but the application - and that is down to the individual. Haters will hate and will find a way to defend themselves; but orthodox Christianity teaches love, tolerance and defence of the weak.

I appreciate that you are trying to understand the mindset of a small number of 'religious fanatics'; I am not one and therefore canot help you in this quest because I don't understand them either! :)

Fil said...

You're right, the comment about bashing children against rocks is in the OT. Jesus didn't say it.

My apologies for not Googling that one first.

It seems, though, that this conversation cannot proceed any further without going into the old "God can't be all Good if he lets bad things happen" argument that is pointless.

Thank you for all your comments Soup D and Dr J.; though it may not seem like it I have read and taken your words on board. You've both made some well put, intelligent comments.

Soup D said...

Thanks to you too Fil.

The argument about a good God letting bad things happen is always a good one, and revolves around free will.

For me the interesting part of this argument is whether God CAN do evil, and can hate?

Many of my fellow Christians will baulk at this, but I believe it is within God's capacity to both hate and do evil. I believe that he does neither because he CHOOSES not to.

Consider: God gives mankind (that includes women and children) the gift of free will; the ability to reject him, if they choose - what an act of love! If we are made in his image, then he must have that same freedom to choose. Indeed, if God can do nothing but love, then isn't his love worthless? That value in love is surely in the act of will that accompanies it; we are talking here of a conscious sense of affection, tenderness and desire to care for another, not romantic or sexual feelings.

Likewise, If God has no choice but to do good, then how can he identify with fallible humans? How can Christ have experienced temptation, unlesss he had the ablility to choose to do wrong?

The question of free will, then, is not a cop out but integral to creation because it is part of the creator.

DrJ said...

Cheers, Fil. I generally appreciate a good, reasoned debate. If nothing else, it forces me to examine my own beliefs, and sometimes to adjust them, I hope.

Much as I think that I have found something immensely valuable that it would benefit you, and everyone else to find too, I also don't believe that I will ever persuade anyone of the truth of it by pure reason. Broadly, I think that reason can argue a reasonably internally consistent theistic worldview, and an equally consistent purely materialistic view, the point of decision is where faith comes in, somewhat as described in Hebrews 11. But I also believe that there is a leap of faith involved, but generally unrecognised, in accepting the naturalistic, science-based view, that there is nothing extra to, outside, nature. I do not believe that such a metaphysical question can be answered by, or from within, science itself.
But I hope that I can honestly say that I have respect for those who have carefully chosen that option.. Where I struggle is with those who have taken the lazy route which so often boils down to the circular argument of taking the assumption that there is nothing more than nature as the proof of that assumption, and furthermore that those who choose differently are a suitable source of ridicule (and worse - though of course much the same can apply to the religious fundamentalists). And I think that it is this group who are being described in the article Vic originally linked to.

As for us, I wonder if this small part of the debate has run its course (though always happy to be proved wrong!) If so, I wish you well!

DrJ said...

PS - Fil, I commend your courage in coming to such a forum. I hope that we have not given in to the temptation (sorry, just can't escape that sort of terminology!) to jump down your throat with our point of view. I read a recent comment that God calls us to be witnesses, not lawyers, but it is hard to remember that sometimes....

Fil said...

This is the sort of thing I mean. There is from an organisation called the Army of God. They will kill people to prevent abortions.

There is the Westboro church too, of course.

There are the many Islamist groups that kill for Allah.

If I had a few moments I could find many such groups. You all know this.

Find me an equivalent atheist organisation operating today.

If you can't, stop saying that extreme atheists are as bad as extreme believers.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

Confused?

Well I am now - where did that come from ?

Happy Sinday all :-)

Fil said...

Sorry, Vic, this has been brewing for a while. You lot just happened to be standing in your way.

I do get tired sometimes when told that fundamentalist atheists are just as bad as fundamentalist believers.

Young girls being shot because they want an education which some religious people think women shouls not be allowed due to religious law is not in the same league as Dawkins saying "Religious people are stupid."

DrJ said...

Oh dear, I thought that we had at least been getting some mutual understanding.

Who has tried to equate Dawkins' pronouncements with young girls being shot - for Any reason? I am going to struggle to take you seriously if you try to suggest that anyone here would take anyone else seriously if they claimed those two things were in any way equivalent. And the reverse is true - Westboro Baptist church, vile as they may be, don't go in for murder.

I will once again say that, if you suggest that it is in some way less bad to be shot by a bullet fired in the name of communism of some other ideology, or blown up by a bomb planted in the name of that ideology, that to be shot or blown up in the name of religion, then you are being insulting to the memory of many, many people. But let us take the case of Albania, which I know a bit about as some friends spent some time as teachers there (with the church) in the mid 90's.
In 1967, Albania declared itself the world's first atheist state. Or look at article 37 of the 1976 constitution here:

http://bjoerna.dk/dokumentation/Albanian-Constitution-1976.htm#C.%20Education,%20Science,%20Culture

For Hoxha, Eradication of religion was central, and brutal.
This is a Catholic source, and whilst I have little or no interest in beatification, it makes grim reading:

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/beatification-process-begins-for-albanian-martyrs

From the dating system quoted, I doubt that this is a religious source, yet rates Hoxha's victims in the thousands:

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hoxha.html

and here is another Catholic source:

http://archive.catholicherald.co.uk/article/3rd-september-1954/8/aged-bishop-tortured-and-killed

It is suggested that, by the end of communist rule, there were fewer than 100 Orthodox and Catholic priests left alive in the country, though many had fled, not been killed.

And don't try and argue that the communists gave it up voluntarily. Alia was just as enthusiastic as Hoxha, until Gorbachev withdrew his protection, and they saw what happened to Ceausescu in Romania, with a similar popular uprising developing locally. My friend was interviewed on Radio 4's Today programme from the deck on an Italian warship on which they were being evacuated after the hard-liners had an abortive attempt at regaining power.

So please don't try to imply that the victims of mass murder done in the name of atheism or any other secular ideology are somehow luckier than the victims of religiously motivated mass murder. If you continue to try and argue that, or that atheists are not just as capable of using atheism to justify brutal actions, then you are only showing yourself to be just as hidebound by dogma as any religious fundamentalist.

I had hoped, and thought, that that was not the case. But if so, then there is little point in me contributing more to this exchange.

Vic Van Den Bergh said...

What is obvious is the fact (and I wish I could underline that word) that those thinking people who believe, whether it be as theists or atheists, must stand against any, and all, wrong acts and oppose those who commit them - regardless of dogma, doctrine or (un)belief.

Oddly, those who neither believe not disbelieve appear to see the two extremes as equally annoying!

No need to fall out or become entrenched (after all people assumed that science background meant I wouldn't have a faith and look what happened to me :-). )

Pax

Fil said...

We can count states that do this for religious or atheistic purposes. I could mention flogging or stoning for adultery by theistic states.

But I am not talking about states.

Can you find me an example of an atheistic organisation like the Army of God.

Surely you can see a difference between a government making a statement like "All people that believe X will be killed" and the people living and working there going along with it and organisations created for the function of killing in the name of God?

We can discuss state sponsored discrimination later. You have a point about Albania but government level murder is a different kettle of fish.