Dispatches from the Culture Wars

What an utterly lazy piece of pure drivel. Now I know why you didn't waste your time with it- why fisk a list of unqualified assertions? My favorite is the 'free will' assertion. He so casually states that without a god, there can be no free will. Period. Reasons? Evidence? Pfft! Here's a thought: If there is no God- billions upon billions of people will not spend an eternity in unimaginable suffering! Sounds good to me!

Posted by: tyaddow | August 21, 2008 10:03 AM

Ok, I'll start with #1.

"1. Without God, there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil." This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and "ugly."

----

Well, he's off to a good start. He's correct here, except that he doesn't insert enough "absolute" or "divine" modifiers. A mystical being could provide an absolute moral authority (if omnipotent); humans have no such thing. Morality is, philosophically, entirely subjective.

Of course, it's a moot point if you, like me, don't believe in any god or absolute authority. We still have to live together, and therefore we have to develop some set of ethics to live by. And, of course, some ethics are pretty easy for a lot of us to follow; I have no desire to kill anyone or steal.

Also he shoots himself in the foot there because if there is an objective definition of good (given to us by a god), and supposedly this would help people be moral, he admits that there are good atheists and bad believers, and that better supports the idea that religion has much less to do with people being good than he'd like.

Well, that's my take on the first point. Who wants to go next?

Posted by: David Hunter | August 21, 2008 10:14 AM

If you go to townhall.com you will find that others have taken on the task of 'addressing' his points. However - you will have to wade through the nuts that fully support his piece. But they are usually useful for a laugh or two.

Posted by: yoshi | August 21, 2008 10:23 AM

From the linked article: So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

What this seems to be saying is that even is something cannot be proven or might be wrong, we must make sure that people believe it anyway.

Sounds vaguely totalitarian to me.

Posted by: Chiroptera | August 21, 2008 10:28 AM

"Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates."

I can't help but notice he used the term "good god" not "Christian God", because if one judges by the Christian God's standards, Mother Theresa and Hitler do have different fates:

Mother Theresa goes to hell for her (involuntary) atheism, while Hitler goes to heaven for his Catholicism.

This particular line galled me because it was precisely the suffering that Mother Theresa constantly fought against that (again involuntarily) convinced her that no "Good God" could possibly be in charge of this world.

Posted by: Jason Failes | August 21, 2008 10:33 AM

All good sociological reasons which help explain why some forms of religion come into being and remains attractive to some. But in terms of showing that a particular religion is true...there's nothing there.

Posted by: Bartholomew | August 21, 2008 10:39 AM

He's desperately seeking the naturalistic fallacy.

He wants the universe to be a certain way to provide the motivations he needs.

But if only he could see that where we have come from has no necessary bearing on where we decide to go.

The past is solid history.
The future is an open-ended choice.

Posted by: Jason Failes | August 21, 2008 10:47 AM

Isn't it amazing that these people can repeat over and over that without X, life cannot be given meaning, but it never occurs to them that they then have a responsibility to explain HOW one would go about "giving" life meaning?

Prager lists a litany of things that he says others cannot explain. And maybe we can, maybe we can't. But his implication that HIS ideology can explain them is a complete non-sequitur, because he never even explains what sorts of specific capacities are necessary.

I recently wrote a piece about how this line of rhetorical trickery works. Short version: Since god is simply defined as a being that can do anything, they can get by seeming to "explain" something in much the same way a person who fills in all of the bubbles on a multiple choice test has gotten the right answer.

Posted by: Bad | August 21, 2008 11:02 AM

I will rebut #9:

if there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.

with #12.

Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

Posted by: Thoracantha | August 21, 2008 11:09 AM

Ed: I can see why you don't want to take the trouble to fisk this rubbish. Have you considered spending more time fisking similar bigots who manage to get more mainstream audiences? You might try looking into former Bush Jr. speechwriter Michael Gerson, who writes this sort of horseshit, not for some wingnut rag, but for the Washington Post.

Here's my fisking of Gerson:

http://motherwell.livejournal.com/89217.html

Self-promoting excerpt:

Gerson: So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma. It cannot reply: "Obey your evolutionary instincts" because those instincts are conflicted. "Respect your brain chemistry" or "follow your mental wiring" don't seem very compelling either. It would be perfectly rational for someone to respond: "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." C.S. Lewis put the argument this way: "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."

Me: Of course "atheism" provides no such answer: "atheism" is merely a lack of belief, or a negative belief, not a unified philosophy, ideology, body of knowledge, or set of rules. People, on the other hand, do indeed provide an answer, which Gerson fails to mention: using those large brains of ours, we are able to observe the consequences of our actions, distinguish beneficial actions from harmful ones, and label the former "good" and the latter "bad." Gerson may not have noticed this while working for Bush Jr., but people -- theist and atheist alike -- do this all the time, with varying degrees of skill and vision.

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2008 11:14 AM

I'll rebut #14 with two images.

http://rationalrevolution.net/images/lateran-ratified.jpg
http://www.remnantofgod.org/NaziRCC/hitler_cardinal4.jpg

Posted by: Thoracantha | August 21, 2008 11:20 AM

Religious freedom in a cultural comples is inversley proportional to the strength of the strongest religion. Robert Heinlien - "Glory Road"

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 21, 2008 11:23 AM

"If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that God, was created in the image of humans do humans have any greater intrinsic sancity than baboons"

Fixed it.

Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | August 21, 2008 11:35 AM

"Gerson: So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? ....... Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma."

Sure it does. We choose between good and bad instincts by observing several thousand years of human history, which has shown us that some patterns of behavior tend to lead to stable, peaceful, prosperous societies, while other patterns of behavior tend to lead in the other direction.

We have evolved our morality, just as we have evolved the ability to domesticate cattle, the ability to grow wheat, and the ability to dig rocks out of the ground and melt them and pound them into spaceships.

None of this proves that God does not exist, but it suggests strongly that he is either not there or hiding really, really well.

Posted by: anon | August 21, 2008 11:48 AM

David Hunter:

A mystical being could provide an absolute moral authority (if omnipotent).

No. An omnipotent being could provide an ultimate force, rewarding or damning as he chooses. But that is moral authority only under the moral premise that power defines what is good.

Posted by: Russell | August 21, 2008 11:56 AM

BTW, God has no god, so what makes God "good," "just," or "objective?" Appealing to "God" really doesn't answer the question, does it? It just puts a "God" into the same situation in which we find ourselves, existing without an owner's manual.

Posted by: Kristine | August 21, 2008 12:02 PM

Most of his 'points' had me answereing "and?" to them, like he made some statements, but had no real point.

I also spewed soda on my keyboard when I read in #7 "Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology)"
It seems to me most of his drivel boiled down to whining about it wouldn't be fair if there isn't a god. Last I checked, Prager didnt make the rules.

#8 "If there is no God, the human being has no free will" is a non sequitor in my opinion.

And about #10, I thought a lot of the religous art was done by non belivers who were just in it for a big fat church paycheck. I would also argue that alot of art is done, not to satisfy some diety, but to impress the ladies-probably why us guys do most of the things we do.

Lastly, Jason, read his closing paraghraph. The xtian god is exactly what he is referring to.

Posted by: Mr P | August 21, 2008 12:06 PM

Raging Bee:

Thanks for the Gerson quote.

Yes, I've always wondered why I should be more respectful of someone who behaves 'good' because he/she is commanded to, rather than someone who behaves well because they have come to a realisation about the world.

The latter sounds like a much deeper and more stable reason for behaviour than the former.

Posted by: Dan | August 21, 2008 12:15 PM

I couldn't even get past this without rolling my eyes at this fabricated statistic.

"For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, the Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies."

Posted by: Royale | August 21, 2008 12:19 PM

I like the footer:

Like this columnist?
(No, he's as thick as two short planks and writes drivel)

Would you like to see him in your local newspaper?
(I'd like to see him a tank of hagfish)

Call your local editor.
(Call him what? Bob? Call him a taxi)

Posted by: Peter Mc | August 21, 2008 12:33 PM

#8 "If there is no God, the human being has no free will."

Say what? Every religion has prophesies that cannot be prevented from coming true, Gods whose power can never be trumped by human choices, and supernatural beings and forces we can never understand or control. How does REMOVING all of that deprive us of free will?

Posted by: Raging Bee | August 21, 2008 1:13 PM

Without God, you have nothing BUT freewill. If there is no creator, and the only willful consciousness on Earth is that of the individual, then the only will an individual can possible accept, the only will that exists for them to follow, is their own. Nature may provide the conditions of human will; the physical presence of the body, the specific attributes of flesh and muscle, the capacities of the eye, but nature cannot control the decision making process as what it provides are the outlines and predilections, not the details. Even when faced with the most natural and basic commandments, like hunger, humans still must choose their actions, and choosing is simply the act of willing.

In fact, #8 of his arguments commits the rather typical conservative mis-statement of projecting onto what the disagree with the properties of their own thinking. If god exists, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, and has a plan laid out at the beginning of time in which everyone has a place and purpose which they cannot help but play, if, in other words, the Christian world view of an involved and perfect deity is correct, then human beings cannot have freewill, merely the illusion of it. If that is the way of the universe then none of us are anything but tiny cogs in a gigantic, ineluctable machine.

The great contradiction of this is that, even if it were true, it wouldn't matter. Even if humans were nothing but deluded cogs in the plan of god, we wouldn't know it, and since reality is what we experience; what we see, hear, fell, think, and taste, the reality of human experience would still be that of an isolated individual, presented with the decisions of others in the natural world, and forced to choose his/her actions in relation to both. Even if god existed and our decisions were not our own, they would seem so to us because we would still have to make them. True free will can only exist without God, but even if God were real, we would still live as if our decisions rested solely in ourselves.

Posted by: Julian | August 21, 2008 1:44 PM

Be sure to bury this link at:
http://digg.com/people/If_There_is_No_GOD

There's also room for more commentary! :-)

- Dave

Posted by: Dave | August 21, 2008 3:22 PM

Well clearly, we have a very big problem on our hands.

To which the only rational solution is to jail every person of faith that we can find. Why? Because that faith and that fear of a non-existent God is the only thing that keeps them from killing raping and pillaging, not to mention embezzling, sleeping around, and ripping off mattress tags in the dark of night. Hence, should their faith falter, we are in for a lot of trouble. So, as a precautionary measure, all people of faith should show up at the nearest police station, so we can nip this in the bud ASAP.

Posted by: CityzenJane | August 21, 2008 3:36 PM

The problem with the argument that "Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different faiths" is the fact that I have had numerous Christians tell me that if Hitler honestly embraced God and Christ before he died he would be forgiven all of his sins and go to heaven. These same people told me that an atheist who dedicated their entire life to helping others would still go to hell for denying Jesus.

Now if that isn't a F'd up belief system, we need a new definition.

Posted by: dogmeatib | August 21, 2008 10:41 AM

That is true. And it reminds me of some stuff Hitchens said:

"Quite a number of atheists will tell you that they wish they could believe; they just can't make themselves do it. I don't understand that. [They] say, "Well, it's a shame it's not true." And I say, "No it's not, it's a good thing it's not true." Because if it was true, you would be permanently supervised from the moment you were born until forever after you were dead. You'd always be someone else's creature. And the only duty you would owe him, he having done nothing but casually create you, would be constant adoration that would lead to eventual bliss and the dissolution of the personality. Well, I can't imagine anything more horrible. It's a really ghastly idea. It's worse than hell."

When christians describe their beliefs to me, or try to proselytize, it usually reminds me how ghoulish their god is. The most recent time, this guy on a bus in Raleigh was really working hard to convince me that I deserved eternal torture cause I shoplifted a Creedence CD when I was 14. I put up with it for a while, but ended up telling him his god should pick on somebody his own size.

Posted by: steve s | August 21, 2008 3:57 PM

That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with "art" that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo's art in the Sistine Chapel. The latter elevates the viewer - because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.

Michelangelo? Really, Prager when there? I mean, isn't the statue of David just the world's first example of gay porn?

Posted by: CPT_Doom | August 21, 2008 4:26 PM

If there is no God...

...the churches have been taking money under false pretences and all the preachers should go to gaol.

He never mentioned that.

Posted by: Peter Mc | August 21, 2008 5:18 PM

There are three basic things one ought to bring up in response to these kind of arguments.

The first is to note that God doesn't actually make sense of or add anything to the metaethical views he wants to favor. Usually, the theist in these situations is invoking God as a magical explanation for something without giving any thought to exactly how God explains the problem.

The second is the bring up the Euthyphro Dilemma, which besides refuting Divine Command should also help further flesh out the first point.

The third is to discuss the field of metaethics and various secular theories that, unlike divine-based morality, are actually taken seriously by theist and atheist philosophers of ethics alike.

Posted by: Jason S. | August 21, 2008 7:26 PM

Re tacitus

"Well, according to the Prager's version of Christianity, Hitler has plenty of company in Hell. Namely the hundreds of millions of kindhearted, wouldn't-hurt-a-fly deceased people (including untold millions of young teens and children) who just happened not to have heard of Jesus where and when they lived.

Prager doesn't care about the "kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder" if they are not Christians. They can suffer an eternity in Hell along with Hitler -- just as long as the mass murderers doesn't escape punishment."

Since Prager is Jewish, I suspect that he probably doesn't believe this.

Posted by: SLC | August 21, 2008 8:34 PM

I destroyed this claim today: "Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced."

I'm doing a remodel job for a young couple with three children. They just bought their house and have decided to redo the kitchen and a bath. First thing my crew and I did this past Monday was to move the existing kitchen into the basement and make it functional. Then we began demolition of the kitchen and today have it nearly completed.

But here's the important part of the job. The stairs down to the basement are free standing, that is, not against any walls. There are walls that enclose the underside of the staircase to create a storage area, the ceiling of which is the underside of the stairs. It is plain to see that children have inhabited this small space for some time. Children that no longer live in that house. The space is decorated with bright paint and sparkles and homemade decorations were left behind. Now, the little boy, Will, told me that the space needed a window. Will is about six and a sharp little man. So, this morning, he and I built one.

Together we decided just where the window should go and how big it should be. Then we agreed to make it a window that opens by sliding a plywood panel. Together we measured, laid out a square opening (being careful to not cut out the part that had the hand prints of an unknown toddler rendered in blue tempera paint), and cut it. Then we made the sliding panel and the top and bottom slides, the handle and the stop. At each step I explained to him what needed to be done and how to accomplish it. He understood most of it and when he didn't he could still follow my coaching. Like holding that end of the board on that mark while I move this end to center the bubble in the level. After an hour and a half (alone it would take me thirty minutes) we had a working portal from which a child can look out upon the world of adults and necessity from the safe hold of a secret place.

I cannot put into words how much I enjoyed the entire process! It was a sheer delight to show this boy how to take his desire for a window, his vision of being able to open (and close!) a window on the world and, using reason, a bit of tool savvy, and some effort with sandpaper, make it so! Why, his younger sister showed equal enthusiasm and asked questions and made suggestions nonstop throughout the effort! Those kids will never forget the experience. Nor will I. And here is why.

When I was young I had the good fortune to be in the company of older men. Many of them were skilled craftsmen. Some were ranchers and horsemen. Some were welders, some were bankers or merchants. But they all spent time with me, telling and showing me how to do stuff. The knowledge they exposed me to has formed the foundation of my worldview and my livelihood. I grew to honor them as time went by, for I found myself applying the things they taught me and having success thereby.

They are all dead now. And I am about as old as I remember them being. Now I take it upon myself to emulate them by passing on to kids good, sound, usable skills. I showed Will and his sister how to think about an idea and how to make it a reality.

Some great circle of humanity, or a process that creates awakening in young minds, came full circle today. And the point is, there is one, and only one, reason that it happened at all: I decided on my own that it was a good idea! Just me, myself and I and the memories of rough hands and rough voices that were sure and steady and patient, showing me something of value and usefulness. Now the hands are mine, scarred and rough, seldom clean. And the voice is mine, changed from my youth. And another young man has come along. He's got an idea but lacks the means to do anything for it. Our paths cross . . .

The day will come when he will be like me today, like those other old men from back then. And the circle will come round again. He will be the teacher then. Youngsters will always yearn to learn, whether anyone notices or not. And oldsters will still feel that they need to pass on what they know, and will take a deep and calm pleasure in doing so.

I say with blithe and deeply calm confidence that what happened this morning not only did, but will continue to, bring more good into the lives of two urchins, their mother and her mother (who took pix; must get some) and their dad (USAF active duty, just transferred) and I than all of the prayers and rituals offered up to date by anyone, anywhere. Nothing at all in anything that happened was connected to prayer or ritual, nor was any mention made of any higher purpose than simply making a window for the kids. No Invisible Supernatural Spooks (ISS) were invoked, nor were particular moments reserved for special observance or consideration. It was all simply people doing what people have always done; and for the same two basic reasons: 1)Because we can. 2)Because we like to. I defy (in action as well as word) anyone to tell me that this morning's events were miraculous. They were common, though, I see, not quite common enough.

My, he does run on, duntee?

Of course, this is going to just kill my appetite for pureed infant milk shakes for breakfast. Oh, well. Life is so full of compromise.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | August 21, 2008 9:49 PM

If we should believe in one false god because of the advantages such beliefs yield to us, perhaps we should invent an even better god than Prager's -- like one that opposes slavery and sexism and homophobia from the very start -- so that we have even more reasons to believe in it?

Ah, but to hear Prager tell it on my local morning news show, no religious tradition ever condoned slavery. You see, Prager already invented a god that has always been opposed to slavery. It's much more convenient to keep reinventing your god than to have to explain his bizarre behaviors. (That clip is actually about gay marriage and is a hoot to watch if you can keep your head from exploding.)

It seems to me that Prager's morality is determined primarily by what is currently popular among his circle and he twists scripture, philosophy, etc. to support whatever that conclusion is. He is constantly railing against whatever he thinks is new, predicting that it will cause society to crumble. Now it's atheism and gay marriage. If this were 1908 he'd be yelling about women's suffrage and how it would be the end of the American family and society as we know it.

Posted by: peaches | August 22, 2008 12:50 AM

Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

"Without God," Dostoevsky famously wrote, "all is permitted." There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes - specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes - dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.

What?!?!?!?!?!? With god, these don't exist either. Inalienable rights? Throw them away because of "the war on terror". Really, do even have to answer the ridiculous second claim???? all is permitted? hello, w?

Posted by: blurdo | August 22, 2008 1:25 AM

""1. Without God, there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil."
----
Well, he's off to a good start. He's correct here,"

Not sure I agree. Good and Evil are based on a couple of objective things: the instincts encoded into our genes that make us social animals, and the mathematics of society-supporting behaviours. Any species that forms societies is going to have much the same ideas of good and evil as we do. For instance, individual dogs that abuse the "play face" and play too roughly get shunned, much as do humans who bring out the old "it was only a bit of a laugh!/don't you have a sense of humour?" defence.

Posted by: Paul Murray | August 22, 2008 2:36 AM

ARE YOU SAYING WE'RE NO BETTER THAN DOGS???? There'll be baby-raping in the streets, mark my words!

Posted by: Matthew | August 22, 2008 6:52 AM

Given his stance on number 1 he has clearly never heard the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

I couldn't be bothered reading anymore.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 23, 2008 7:59 AM