…and this is a 
AC Grayling on the growing resentment of and towards religion
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: March 26, 2007 2:21 PM, by PZ Myers
Juicy stuff from AC Grayling, who writes on the futility of faith and why we're all getting a bit peevish:
Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.
Where politeness once restrained non-religious folk from expressing their true feelings about religion, both politeness and restraint have been banished by the confrontational face that faith now turns to the modern world.
This, then, is why there is an acerbic quarrel going on between religion and non-religion today, and it does not look as if it will end soon.
It does have a bit of an "it's all their fault" tone, but I think it's fair. The religious may have felt threatened first, since secular progress was leaving them behind, but the only side damning the other is that of religion.
Comments
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 26, 2007 2:30 PM
I don't even know how to damn somebody.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 26, 2007 2:40 PM
From the excerpt posted, it looks like he's missing the power to oppress that religion is slowly losing. It seems like it was less polite and more survival instinct to avoid bad-mouthing religion until recently, when our growing understanding of the universe has begun shining an unavoidably bright light on the sheer insanity that is belief in God/gods.
Posted by: Todd | March 26, 2007 3:04 PM
Amazing. Seriously how the devil (; do you find the time to do all this blogging, in addition your regular professorial duties, family, etc..? And where the heck do you find all this great material? You set too high a standard, damn you!! (;
Well, keep up the good work anyway. It's getting late over here.
Posted by: Francesco Franco | March 26, 2007 3:06 PM
I think this is right on target. Since the fundamentalists have positioned the choice as between stupidity and atheism, they really do have only themselves to blame if increasing numbers choose atheism.
Posted by: Nathan Parker | March 26, 2007 3:09 PM
This article is spot on. Great find.
Posted by: Alex | March 26, 2007 3:27 PM
The reason for that, I think, is that they know they have the most to lose. Any member of their flocks can, in theory, shed superstition and dogma, losing only whatever comfort the faerie-tales afforded them.
The faithful, however can no longer afford to fully relinquish science and the benefits it grants. The times have grown too complex. Their alternatives are limited to aping the scientific rationale to give their ideas a veneer (any veneer) to conceal the folklore it's always been.
Posted by: F.Jardim | March 26, 2007 3:50 PM
Good article. And "good" to see some suitably dumb comments. How about:
I should like to know how you 'realised' this. The two are completely different, in that it can easily be proved that Father Christmas is not real, yet nobody has offered any strong evidence that God does not exist.
Now evolution, that's a fairer comparison with old Father Christmas. I should like to know how flowers evolved to produce nectar for bees, and to make use of the bee for the spreading of pollen: given that flowers have no idea of what a bee looks like, or that it liked nectar in the first place, how could they evolve to work with them in this way?
If God is so hard to believe in then surely evolution is even harder to believe? Even so, people are happy to 'believe' in evolution, even if it is extremely far-fetched, because it takes away their guilt while allowing them to continue in their sinful ways.
Anyone here ready to pitch in on that one? It's hard to know where to start, don't you think?
Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2007 3:56 PM
It's simple.
You're told to believe in Santa Claus by your parents. Which is a lie.
The other magical being is God. Not a big step to stop believing in God
when the only real reason you believe is that the lying adults told you to.
There's evidence for evolution.
God and Santa Claus... not so much.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 4:00 PM
In "Breaking the Spell" by Dennett, he explains that empirical knowledge enables those who have it, to demonstrate it. For example, science does more that just talk about what it thinks about how something works. Science can demonstrate the knowledge, and furthermore, use that knowledge to gain more knowledge.
World views requiring faith or belief have no ability to demonstrate anything effectual. The only thing they can demonstrate is their belief. Hence the proselytizing, ritual, etc.. It's all those views have that can be used to show the outside world that they are "real" and meaningful.
This could be why we see religious people constantly trying to foist their view onto others. It's the only way for them to make their beliefs "real".
Posted by: Alex | March 26, 2007 4:01 PM
F.Jardim, #7 - agree completely. Kind of like Christian rock, where something they rail against as tool of devil then try to coopt for Jesus. They are losing culture wars and know it, so try to figure out where they can be relevant.
Posted by: bc | March 26, 2007 4:01 PM
OK so my html didn't come out the way I thought it would - all of the comment block from the Telegraph was supposed to be in blockquotes, not just the first paragraph. So PLEASE don't be thinking that the rest of that comment, except for the last paragraph, are my opinions. Please.
I'm embarrassed to show my face around here now, and I'll be sure to use the Preview button in future.
Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2007 4:05 PM
it can easily be proved that Father Christmas is not real
Please do so. Do so honestly, and thoroughly. Prove that the old fellow is not real. I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 26, 2007 4:05 PM
I damn thee! *ducks*
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 4:07 PM
Please do so. Do so honestly, and thoroughly. Prove that the old fellow is not real. I'm sure we'd all like to see it.
Oh, he's real, he just don't like poor kids, Jews, atheist's and Muslims.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 4:11 PM
"It's simple.
"You're told to believe in Santa Claus by your parents. Which is a lie. The other magical being is God. Not a big step to stop believing in God when the only real reason you believe is that the lying adults told you to."
Absolutely. Santa Claus is training wheels for adult God belief.
Posted by: notthedroids | March 26, 2007 4:13 PM
Are we talking about Santa Claus or Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 4:17 PM
I can even personalize my problem(s) with religion: Robertson, Falwell, Dembski and Hovind. A slimier bunch would be hard to find.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 26, 2007 4:18 PM
I dunno, AC Grayling's haircut seems like pretty strong evidence for the abscence of a loving god.
Posted by: Sophist | March 26, 2007 4:22 PM
OK, I'll bite (sorry, I know don't feed the trolls.
Now evolution...It's hard to know where to start, don't you think?
Well, I guess a good place to start would be an elementary book on biology. Your arguments are borne of ignorance (please note, I'm being polite and didn't say stupidity; I have no way of knowing whether your ignorance is honest or willful and am giving the benefit of the doubt). Really though, read a book (I mean another book, the bible alone doesn't count. If you want to know about engineering, do you read the bible/q'ran? How about if you want to know how to upgrade the RAM in your PC? It's not in the bible, it's in the manual. You want to know about biology, read a book on biology.)
Here's a listing of 239,936 on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sdp_tx_ky/?search-alias=stripbooks&rank=%2Brelevancerank&field-keywords=Evolution&x=0&y=0
Posted by: AlanW | March 26, 2007 4:41 PM
If God is so hard to believe in then surely evolution is even harder to believe?
Show me a god fossil or maybe even a god who isn't offended by the idea of being under the microscope and maybe we can talk business.
Even so, people are happy to 'believe' in evolution, even if it is extremely far-fetched, because it takes away their guilt while allowing them to continue in their sinful ways.
Yeah, tell that one to Mr. Ken Miller, or even to the Pope. (The previous Pope, not the current one.)
Okay, well think it over and come back if you have any more questions. These are all some very friendly and nice people here, I can assure you. They will make a 'believer' out of you yet!
Posted by: 386sx | March 26, 2007 4:57 PM
I'm am curious about something. Is there a single atheist here that is against first trimester abortions on moral grounds.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, I am sincerely curious.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 5:16 PM
Yeah. You don't want to go there.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 5:22 PM
Steve C
It is not a trick question or a trap and there won't be any follow up. So I take it your answer is yes, you are against abortions in the first trimester for moral reasons.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 5:27 PM
I am in favor of abortions in the first and second trimester, and I'm an atheist. I have personal qualms about final trimester abortions, but since I'm male, it has never been an issue for me -- I leave it to the women involved to make the decisions.
I also think there are legitimate moral arguments for infanticide, not that I'd be willing to participate in one.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 26, 2007 5:37 PM
I eat babies. I thought all atheists did.
Posted by: Alex | March 26, 2007 5:40 PM
No. First trimester abortions are fine by me. I prefer better birth control, and Plan B to abortion. I think most people do.
I also am in favor of premarital sex.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 5:46 PM
"Is there a single atheist here that is against first trimester abortions on moral grounds."
The word "against" is ambiguous. Do you mean against their legality? Against having many of them? Preferring selective partner selection and birth control to having them?
Arguments against the legality of elective first-trimester abortion always distill to one or more of the following:
- ensoulment
- fate
- punishment
Posted by: notthedroids | March 26, 2007 6:07 PM
So to respond to Steve C (#9), QrazyQat (#13), AlanW (#20), 386sx (#21): please see my follow-up post (#12) stating that the questions about Santa/God and about evolution (flowers and bees) were quotes from an anonymous commenter on the Telegraph site, and not from me. It looks like they came from me because of my poor use of blockquote tags. The reason I wrote that "it's hard to know where to start" is because I was throwing up my hands in disbelief that someone could be asking such basic questions about evolution and still be a functioning human being in 2007.
Of course you're all welcome to do the same to me about my commenting skills :) Hope I don't sound too defensive here, but you know.
Posted by: Andrew | March 26, 2007 6:22 PM
PZ. Love your website, and refer to it everyday. Don't make many comments.
I have to fault you on this one, however. You say: 'It does have a bit of an "it's all their fault" tone, but I think it's fair.'
I think it's more than fair. It actually tries to explain why the non-religious are becoming so forthright, something they had not been up till now. Dawkins' book really seems to have taken religious people by surprise. That's why there are so many new religious books with 'Dawkins' in the title! Grayling is simply pointing out why the non-religious think the growing religious assertiveness, responding to the example of Muslims in Western societies, is dangerous (and providing historical examples). It's not so much a matter of 'It's your fault.' It's not really about fault at all. It's simply an explanation of why non-religious people are increasingly concerned. I think we're right to be. Not only are our freedoms threatened, but our lives are too.
Posted by: Eric | March 26, 2007 6:23 PM
Andrew, I caught that after I gave my argument.
No worries.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 6:34 PM
Interesting find, AC Grayling seems like another good read. Who can resist an author with such adequate titles as "Life, Sex and Ideas: The Good Life Without God"? In spite of his odd taste in hair cut and glasses, and his problems to formulate strong sentences - the first sentence in the quote above is one of his best here.
Besides the rest of his analysis that may or may not be good, Grayling points out two things that I feel is relevant observations. First, we can observe that mollifying religions, or even supporting their activities as in tax reliefs or schooling, doesn't work. "history teaches that appeasement never satisfies appetites, it only feeds them."
Second, secular people of all stripes has less of a concentrated support, organization and public voice. But Grayling seems to forget the consequences of the recent history, where individuals such as Dawkins or PZ have also opened up such public avenues where people can meet and interact.
Btw, Grayling mentions Northern Ireland several times, so it is enjoyable that Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams just restarted the Belfast assembly and agreed to share power.
Alan, 386 sx:
Perhaps you haven't updated the page or otherwise missed it, but considering Andrews comment #12 and the Telegraph page, your discussion is probably with one "Anonymous" on the later site.
TP:
Besides the moral grounds of individuals, you should also consider the practices of society. It is IMO illustrative to observe how abortions are handled in countries where it is common.
For example (which I know about), in Sweden abortions are rather infrequent used and have a stable statistic, probably since contraceptives are ubiquitous and accessible to all. Abortions are chemical or manual depending on the timing, and for late abortions the cost and the bureaucracy involved becomes more severe in order to suppress them.
Abortions around and after the weeks when an aborted fetus can be saved is only allowed for medical reasons, which IMHO removes the moral question altogether. (Well, some religious parties thinks otherwise. But we all know how well they handle morality and real life. :-)
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 26, 2007 6:39 PM
Now, if I only could follow advice myself... ;-)
Sorry about the confusion.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | March 26, 2007 6:43 PM
The word "against" is ambiguous. Do you mean against their legality? Against having many of them? Preferring selective partner selection and birth control to having them?
I said on moral grounds, that is quite specific, and PZ, thanks for the answer.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 7:12 PM
Actually that's a very broad term.
On moral grounds I think first trimester abortions are important and necessary.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 7:16 PM
OK Steve I missunderstood your first post on it, so you do not think that first trimester abortions are morally wrong. Morally wrong means that it is unethical, if that helps.
Sorry for the confusion, Steve.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 7:28 PM
I would argue that it would be unethical to ban abortion.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 26, 2007 7:32 PM
Thanks Steve C
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 7:37 PM
remember the old bumpersticker...
dont pray in my school i wont think in your church.
Posted by: su | March 26, 2007 9:42 PM
Alan, 386 sx:
Perhaps you haven't updated the page or otherwise missed it, but considering Andrews comment #12 and the Telegraph page, your discussion is probably with one "Anonymous" on the later site.
I'm glad to see he finally came around. Some of the commenters here can be very persuasive.
Posted by: 386sx | March 26, 2007 9:43 PM
morals are a set of rules a group of people decide to impose.. religion plays no part, really.
Posted by: su | March 26, 2007 9:44 PM
remember the old bumpersticker...
dont pray in my school i wont think in your church.
Posted by: su | March 26, 2007 09:42 PM
That just an insult and noting more, and you are a loser to make such a commment
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 10:12 PM
morals are a set of rules a group of people decide to impose.. religion plays no part, really.
Posted by: su | March 26, 2007 09:44 PM
That's just stupid, care to revise your remarks?
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 10:25 PM
My neighbor lost her dod, he got out and we went about the neighborhood looking for him. We could not find him, so I prayed to to St Anthony , the ST of lost things, that she would find him. I told her she would find her dog, and that St Anthony had never failed me and to be patient.
When we got home after looking for him, she asked the neighbor boy (16 years of age) about him and said that a red van picked him up. They drove around and found the van, and she rang my doorbell a few minutes ago holding her dog in her hand coincidence? could be., faith led me, and she found her dog.
Posted by: The Physicist | March 26, 2007 11:05 PM
That's nice, dear.
Posted by: Raincitygirl | March 26, 2007 11:16 PM
First trimester abortions are not immoral; allowing oneself to become pregnant due to negligence of contraceptives illustrates a severe lack of responsibility and sense--qualities without which no one should become a parent. Even if the pregnancy is not a result of stupidity, in general I believe it to be immoral to have a child one is not able and willing to be a decent parent to, and if abortion is the only remaining way to prevent this, then it is morally incumbent (adoption I'm ambivalent about; it seems likely to be more emotionally wrenching to most women, and increases the number of children finite societal resources must be spread among, reducing what is available to those already born and in need of assistance, and I hear plenty of horror stories about foster care, but it may provide a tolerable option for women whose position on abortion is as shallow as "it's not the baby's fault blah blah blah").
A while ago there was one atheist who argued against abortion on moral grounds. I forget what his argument was, though.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 27, 2007 12:10 AM
I'm gonna guess that quite a few people did quite a lot of praying on 9/11.
phat
Posted by: phat | March 27, 2007 12:35 AM
I'm gonna be a bit callous and guess that most of the people who fell on their knees relied on god's intervention to save them instead of getting the fuck out of the Twin Towers wound up smashed under tons of rubble. I'm also gonna guess that the 19 people who hijacked those planes were doing A LOT of praying both during and in preparation for that day.
Two of the biggest reasons atheists cite for considering religion not just untrue but harmful are that it is used to justify atrocities and it teaches people to rely on miracles rather than doing what they need to for themselves and their fellow humans. Assuming your comment is the conceptual bastard child of the classic arrogant slander "there are no atheists in foxholes" that it seems to be, you should quit while you're merely behind. If it isn't...well, what is it?
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 27, 2007 12:49 AM
Oh, I agree with you completely. I didn't mean to imply the "foxhole" thing at all. The Physicist was claiming that his prayers worked. I was trying to point out that I would guess that lots of people (millions, really) prayed very hard on that day. I can't say as I see much evidence that any of those prayers did any good for anybody and as you point out, it's possible quite a few prayed very hard and died because of it.
phat
Posted by: phat | March 27, 2007 1:12 AM
Oh... *puts the battleaxe away, tries to look nonchalant* x.x
Sorry about that. Pattern matching error x.x
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 27, 2007 2:05 AM
They drove around and found the van, and she rang my doorbell a few minutes ago holding her dog in her hand coincidence? could be., faith led me, and she found her dog.
Well, 1st off, there's a thing called a dog collar. Having an address, etc. 2nd off, if you prayed, you really did nothing at all. 3rd off, that's 1 tiny 'dod' to be able to hold in 1 hand. 4th off, if you feel obliged to share these schmaltzy cute little anecdotes (that prove nothing at all, but Reader's Digest will give you 5$ for as a submission), then by all means, start your own little blog, they're free you know. 5th off, I'll bet it was a nice neighborhood. Likelihood is good that you'll not hear those kinda stories coming out of the Projects.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | March 27, 2007 2:44 AM
Some of the comments on the Grayling article are wonderful. I particularly like the one that starts 'Don't be ridiculous'!! Could only be a Daily Telegraph reader.
Posted by: Andrew Cooper | March 27, 2007 4:52 AM
physicist - interesting. Of course if she'd been dyslexic she'd have lost her god. Now where woudl she have gone to look for that?
Andrew - I couldn't even bear to read the comments, but it's good to see something like this in the Torygraph, just as a I like to see Max Hastings or Nick Cohen riling people in the Guardian and Observer.
Posted by: csrster | March 27, 2007 5:39 AM
I agree with Andrew that God and Father Christmas are quite different, but not for the reasons Andrew stated.
No one was ever burned alive for denying the divinity, or failing to assert the triune nature, of Father Christmas.
Posted by: Elliott | March 27, 2007 10:08 AM
"My neighbor lost her dod, he got out and we went about the neighborhood looking for him. We could not find him, so I prayed to to St Anthony , the ST of lost things, that she would find him. I told her she would find her dog, and that St Anthony had never failed me and to be patient."
Now THAT'S stupid. You're praying to a dead person? Not even a god... to find a dog that's running around your neighborhood? Does everyone get superpowers when they go to heaven or just the "Saints". Just listen to yourself.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 27, 2007 10:25 AM
physicist
- Why not just cut out the "middle man"? If you crossed your fingers and sang the star spangled banner while turning around three times for good luck, all other details held constant, the result would have been the same. Forget some long dead saint and simply attribute the success of the dog search to the fact that your neighbor and yourself had the good sense to LOOK for the pooch. To ASK the neighbors. At least you didn't follow the lead of many fundies I've met and expect the dog to magically materialize in front of you while you stand around with your thumb up your rear, remaining "strong in your faith".
Azkyroth summed it up well above in that religion "...teaches people to rely on miracles rather than doing what they need to for themselves".
And what is this "patron saint of lost car keys" bit? Some kind of division of labor in heaven? St. Frances handles the vet stuff. St. Christopher takes care of the lost causes. Hey, since it was a dog you were looking for, shouldn't you have prayed to St. Anthony AND St. Frances? Get them both working the issue? Coming from a protestant background, I've never been able to fully grasp the patron saint concept. It just seems so strange.
Lastly, the "don't pray in our schools and I wont think in your church" bumper sticker you showed such disdain for above is quite accurate in my experience.
Posted by: paleotn | March 27, 2007 10:52 AM
And this week, on "The Amazing Power of Prayer"...
I came home from work, and was really starved, as I hadn't had time for lunch. So, I poured out a libation to Demeter, asking her to ease my hunger. Then I chopped up some vegetables and cooked them with a nice steak, and after eating the meal, I wasn't hungry any longer!
Yet more amazing evidence for the powers of the Greek Pantheon...
Posted by: Greg Byshenk | March 27, 2007 2:01 PM
paleotn -
yep, that's what it was - celestial division of labour. But it's St. Francis (male i, not female e) of Assisi (someone please correct my spelling) who likes pets; St. Jude, not St. Christopher, who is the patron of hopeless causes. St. Christopher is the protector of travelers, or rather he was until he was declared bogus in the late 1960s. Any catholic sixth-grader could have told you this back then.
Being catholic certainly made things interesting in an age before movies, TV, and the intertubes. It was a lot of mental work to keep the saints straight. I think it explains the catholic prediliction for Bingo. I can't quite explain it, it just seems right. Or a mystery.
Posted by: rugosa | March 27, 2007 4:18 PM
Regarding the abortion question; Ian Spedding, who occasionally comments here, is an atheist, but is opposed to abortion. I think his argument had something to do with fate — his argument seemed to be that the development of a unique cell line into what would eventually become a human if not interfered with, should not be interfered with. His opposition was not absolute, since he agreed that a medically dangerous condition was reason to permit abortion. My memory may be off, and I don't particularly feel like digging up the thread.
I disagreed with his reasoning on early-trimester abortions, myself.
I argued in favor of a compromise suggested by Carl Sagan, that the defining point where a fetus developed a functioning nervous system and brain was the point where it would actually be wrong to harm that fetus (without cause), which as I recall was something like 24 weeks.
I note that that appears to be very similar to Sweden's current de facto abortion policies.
I think many atheists would agree with Sagan's reasoning, although not all would, obviously. At least one other individual in that earlier thread thought that birth was the best defining point of when a fetus became an independent human with rights.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 27, 2007 4:21 PM
Regarding the prayer to St. Anthony -- this is a perfect example of the psychological phenomenon called Confirmation bias, or perhaps the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc ("it happened after the thing, therefore it happened because of the thing").
Either way, I am nearly entirely certain that if actually subjected to rigorous testing, prayer to St. Anthony would work no better than chance. It's already been shown that prayer actually works worse than chance at healing the trauma from heart surgery, in some cases. Other studies of prayer have either shown no difference from chance, or have been exposed as frauds.
Posted by: Owlmirror | March 27, 2007 4:42 PM
Praying to anything... especially saints is laughable.
Posted by: Steve_C | March 27, 2007 4:53 PM
Azkyroth, no big deal.
phat
Posted by: phat | March 27, 2007 11:20 PM
If you're going to be swayed by 9/11 as an example of the power of prayer (and let's face it, it's a tad more dramatic than finding a lost dog), I assume that converting to Islam is the only logical choice?
The Catholic communion of saints is just crypto-polytheism.
Posted by: NC Paul | March 28, 2007 7:16 AM