…and this is a 
Interesting discussions that I don't have time to address right now
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: October 31, 2007 1:14 PM, by PZ Myers
How peculiar — I've gotten several requests in email to comment on this plaint from Theodore Dalrymple, a fellow who doesn't like those "New Atheists" like Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. It's peculiar because I'm here at a conference with Sam Harris and Dan Dennett (and others who do not consider themselves "New Atheists")— should I just ask them what they think? Actually, if anyone wants to pass along any brilliant questions that I can use to dazzle the luminaries with my insight, go ahead, toss them into the comments.
It's one of those annoying opinion pieces by an unbeliever who wants to make excuses for belief: the premise is "To regret religion is to regret Western civilization." It contains many strange arguments, like this one.
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies.
For my own part, I think Western civilization was built on the talent and hard work and ideals of its people, and that if you stripped religion from its greatest artists and heroes and leaders and thinkers, they still would have been great.
I detest the argument about gratitude. It's a deep error: we should exult in our life and a community of purpose that we build, but there is no one to be grateful to, and displacing our sense of obligation to our human aspirations onto a nonexistent deity represents an abandonemnt of rationality. And the reduction of reason to a mere "shopping spree" or feelings of entitlement is simply the old canard that atheists are amoral hedonists in more high-falutin' pious language.
You can all discuss this for a while. I'm going to go listen to philosophers and historians explain the Enlightenment to me.
Comments
When you are discussing the Enlightenment maybe you can come up with some ideas to get it to spread to those parts of the US it missed last time round ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 31, 2007 1:28 PM
Myabe i'm confused, but how can this guy claim to be a non believer and then make excuses for religion? Maybe you can ask Denett and Harris about that. The crux of his argument is that without religion we'd have no Western Civilizatio? thats funny because i'd be willing to argue that without religion, we'd be far so along on the tech/science advancement that we wouldn't recongnize our own planet. This is of course, in relation to the millions who would have lived long (healthy?) lives without religion at its' greatest. Ya know, things like the inquisition.
Posted by: firemancarl | October 31, 2007 1:29 PM
Stupidest thing about the argument, at least in this guys case, is that last I looked its rich assholes that thought they got rich via God that feel **entitlement** to do any damn thing they please. So, what was his point about gratitude and entitlement again?
Posted by: Kagehi | October 31, 2007 1:33 PM
There's quite a lot worth regretting in Western civilization. And most of the good stuff, like science and the Enlightenment, happened in the context of the mass importation of ideas and values from various other cultures, both ancient and distant. So maybe he's right about that.
Posted by: poke | October 31, 2007 1:34 PM
How does emptying the world of religion equate with emptying the world of purpose? Isn't purpose man-made (just like religion)?
Posted by: Cliff | October 31, 2007 1:39 PM
And most of the good stuff, like science and the Enlightenment, happened in the context of the mass importation of ideas and values from various other cultures, both ancient and distant.
um....what?
Posted by: shiftlessbum | October 31, 2007 1:47 PM
"To regret religion is to regret Western civilization."
Nope.
I'm with firemancarl on this one. To regret religion is to regret the fact that, for centuries, the overwhelming majority of creative and intellectual endeavors had to be channeled through the narrow lens of belief in non-existent supernatural beings.
Also... why Western? Why not just "civilization"? Does this guy not realize that religion -- and thus religious art -- isn't purely a Western phenomenon? I mean, what's Chinese history -- chopped liver?
And I don't need God to feel gratitude. I feel it towards other people. Alive and dead. I feel an intense gratitude for everyone who worked hard to make my life, and the lives of those around me, easier and better. And that sense of gratitude instills me with an equally intense sense of obligation to do the same for others.
Posted by: Greta Christina | October 31, 2007 1:49 PM
To regret smallpox is to regret Western civilization.
Posted by: Cuttlefish | October 31, 2007 1:53 PM
I far as I can tell, there are three reasons for the development of religion:
1. To explain what goes bump in the night
2. To alleviate the fear of death
3. To compel people to behave
"And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality" is just a flowery way of saying we need religion for #3.
Posted by: Taz | October 31, 2007 1:54 PM
How do Dennet and Harris break the ice with religious individuals? Obiously, they probably don't start hostile questioning, but how would they suggest one opens a conversation and enlightens the religious? Is it easier to provide evidence against their beliefs, or would that just have them automatically on the defensive?
As an example, and I know it's hypothetical, if Dennet and Harris were called to a conference of the religious heads of various churches to understand atheism, how would they explain their beliefs and persuade the believers? Or even if they happened to talk to a priest on a train, how would they broach the subject with such an individual?
Posted by: Armen | October 31, 2007 1:55 PM
I'd be interested to hear the panel participants' opinions about Expelled; specifically, how much damage they expect it to cause, and how they plan to counter it.
I would also like to know when Sam will be defending his thesis.
Posted by: J Myers | October 31, 2007 1:56 PM
I think that gratitude is necessary for a fulfilled life, but not gratitude to anyone or anything, especially not an imaginary being. The kind of gratitude I mean is the recognition that I am lucky to be where I am and to have what I do, and that many people are not so lucky nor so priviledged. This helps me to appreciate and enjoy life, and to want to help those who are not so lucky. Such gratitude requires no religion whatsoever.
Posted by: Ric | October 31, 2007 1:58 PM
I would also argue that gratitude may well be in order, not gratitude to any deity but to those who have gone before and fought for those rights and values we hold dear. The right to vote for all, the abolition of slavery, the emancipation of women, the philosophers and scientists who showed that you do not need a god to understand the world.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 31, 2007 2:02 PM
Forgetting the Dark Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition, the author of that quote seems to think that the great works of art and architecture of the Renaissance would not have come to exist absent an invisible friend. Somehow I doubt Leonardo's La Giaconda required much religious inspiration. Would the Biblical depictions from the Sistine Chapel be inferior if they depicted the equally fact-based Olympic gods or even scenes from real life?
That these were religion-inspired already assumes that the artists actually were believers and not just using claimed faith as a convenient means of avoiding being burned alive!
Much good science was done in Nazi Germany. Are we to applaud those vile creatures for "medical advances" due to Mengele and his ilk?
The author of that quote deserves whatever scorn is heaped upon him. Rational people don't need even "non-religious" religious apologists.
Posted by: marc | October 31, 2007 2:03 PM
Teddy D claims to be a "non-believer" in the unquoted portion of his writing. So I guess he's the religion-is-good-for-the-world type of atheist?
That might help to explain the confusion firemancarl. I think I'll just file him under "not very interesting" in my mind.
Posted by: Schmeer | October 31, 2007 2:04 PM
You know what? I am grateful. I'm grateful to my parents for my upbringing. I'm grateful to my ancestors for putting me in the position I was when I was born. I'm grateful to the person who gave me my first job. I'm grateful to my friends for their love and support. I'm grateful to Nye Bevan for founding the National Health Service. I'm grateful to the Suffragettes for fighting and dying for an egalitarian society. I'm grateful to Newton and Einstein and Bohr and Curie and Darwin and countless other scientists for permitting me to know more about the universe than 99.99% of humans in history. I'm grateful to Shakespeare and Dylan and Kafka for enriching my life with their words. I'm greatful to Caravaggio and Turner and Kapoor and Gormley for the beauty they have shown me. I'm grateful to Bach and the Supremes and Scientist for filling my ears with ecstasy.
What the fuck has that got to do with religion?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | October 31, 2007 2:08 PM
So we should be grateful that a pan-national, insanely wealthy, savagely violent cult wielding almost unlimited power had a virtual monopoly of talent?
Of course, no painter would have seen a mother nursing a child as a thing of beauty unless instructed to do so by the church. No composer could have explored the possibilities of the human voice without first accepting the Nicene Creed.
Should we also be grateful to the SS for all those cool Hugo Boss uniforms?
Posted by: Don | October 31, 2007 2:15 PM
One thing about this entire debate really, really puzzles me, and maybe it's OT here, but I hope we could talk about it sometime. Leaving the question of whether I believe in God alone, when someone tells me they believe in God, why the hell should I believe them? Every indicator, to me, is that "I believe in God" is nothing but some kind of verbal social signifier, but has almost meaning in itself. Since there's no agreement on what God is or isn't, how do they know that what they believe in is God? How do they (and their auditors) know what quality and quantity of thought is this thing called "belief". It seems to produce no consistent action or results. I could, if I so desired, attain a mood of sublime spiritual gratitude for the fortuitous accidents of circumstances which have affected my life for the better. I could then call it "God's grace". Or does saying "I believe in God" declare to the listener that you are prepared to accept a certain amount of fashionable cognitive dissonance in the service of social equilibrium?
Frankly, whether God is, or is not, from all evidence "I believe in God" is actually a completely meaningless statement, and useless, in practical terms.
Posted by: Mooser | October 31, 2007 2:16 PM
I see marc got there first.
Posted by: Don | October 31, 2007 2:17 PM
/how can this guy claim to be a non believer and then make excuses for religion?/
This seems to be a standard ploy in Xian circles. I confess I don't know anything about Dalrymple and must take him at his word, but my experiences with the religious( when I was religious) was that many pious, zealous people claimed to be something they weren't: skeptics, formerly heinous sinners, backsliders, etc., when in actuality they were always bootlicking, suck-up-to-authority, goody-goodies who felt the need to embellish, overexaggerate or out and out lie in order to appear credible.
His slippery slope rationale is that none of the authors objections to religion is new or groundbreaking and that publicizing these arguments will destroy all the good religion has accomplished. Huh??? He seems to more of a Xian apologist in the guise of a skeptic than a truely rational atheist.
Posted by: Jsn | October 31, 2007 2:21 PM
I think this statement is about an order of magnitude too modest.
Yes, there are definitely those among us who accomplished great things despite growing up in a household with a abusive, terrifying father who saw every slightest accomplishment by his children as a threat to his own ego - a father who constantly spied on them, glowered at them, hectored them, instantly and habitually moved to stamp out every sign of their individuality or tentative exploration of personal gifts.
But imagine the comparative accomplishments of those who grew up with parents and mentors who loved and encouraged them.
Strip the poisonous influence of religion out of our history, and there would have been a thousand times more "greatest artists and heroes and leaders and thinkers."
How many minds have been repressed, terrified, abbreviated, driven into a lifetime of fearful cowering, because of religion? How much have we lost because the thousand DaVincis and Newtons-who-might-have-been were killed in the cradle by repressive priests and holy handmaidens who brutally forced those young minds to focus on holy horrors rather than real things? (And in the same vein, how many of those kids molested by priests, over how many hundreds of years - priests who were in turn shielded and protected by church authorities -- achieved their full creative potential?)
How much artistic creation has been devoted to the sterile, phony depiction of gods and angels - and demons - rather than the beauty of nature, or the magnificent possibilities of Man?
How much science DIDN'T happen because religion always stamped out innovation like it was a forest fire, and innovative minds like they were child molesters?
How many people with new ideas of all kinds, over and over and over through thousands of years, were met with threats or torture or excommunication? And how many times did their fates serve as cautionary tales to others, who fearfully self-repressed the best within them, never daring to even THINK their own creative ideas, much less explore or develop them?
What has the world lost because religion discouraged us from grappling with our own numbers, so that we fly past 6 billion, approach 7 billion, expect 8 billion, rather than stopping at some indefinitely sustainable number that would leave the earth living and we ourselves living with it?
I'm all for honoring those few productive geniuses who have shone out in the midst of religion over the centuries. But I want a spotlight also aimed at the millions of equally good minds which have been driven literally insane by those same forces.
In the midst of the cheerleading over what religion has given to human history, I want it noted what religion has COST.
Posted by: Hank Fox | October 31, 2007 2:23 PM
I just read Dalrymple's article; it is chock-full of stupid, and does not merit discussion here. I would not waste any time on it at BB2.
Posted by: J Myers | October 31, 2007 2:27 PM
What Marc said too. What the friggin heck did religion contribute again? I am going to have to ask Mr. Theodore Dalrymple to kiss my Big Red A.
Posted by: J-Dog | October 31, 2007 2:30 PM
Obviously, as we are constantly shown in this blog, belief in God does not ensure or cause veracity.
So what does it do?
I think they're lying! They no more believe in God than any atheist, but for any number of reasons, feel compelled to tell that lie.
Is there a theist who would like to tell us how belief in God can be verified, or tested? Not God, just the belief in Him. (Using the conventional Divine Gender)
Posted by: Mooser | October 31, 2007 2:32 PM
Of course, no painter would have seen a mother nursing a child as a thing of beauty unless instructed to do so by the church. No composer could have explored the possibilities of the human voice without first accepting the Nicene Creed.
Nicely said, Don.
Does this then mean we can blame religion every time we've got to sit through some relative's boring slideshow of their Caribbean cruise?
'Cause clearly Aunt Gladys would never have taken 15.6 billion photos of Raul, the Lido deck Lifeguard, if it weren't for the gratitude she feels due to her belief in God.
This guy is five flavours of dumb.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 31, 2007 2:39 PM
Jake Young over at Pure Pedaresty covered the Dalrymple article rather uncritically. As I pointed out over there, Dalrymple lapses into Creationist drivel:
Why is this necessary? Religion, unlike believe in evolution, has persisted despite a lack of underlying truth. This is why exploration into its causes is so intriguing.
Reads like Creationist drivel to me. Some beliefs are backed up by voluminous experimental data, some are not. This is a false equivalence.
Bold added for emphasis. I'm sorry, when you start throwing around phrases like "faith in evolution," you flush any credibility you might have had down the toilet.
This is a pet peeve of mine: why is the phrase in fact more often followed by an opinion than an actual fact? In this case it's not a particularly well-reasoned opinion.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM
Posted by: Taz | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM
Thomas Jefferson disagreed with this Dalrymple fella, and if we're picking sides, I'm on Jefferson's side, along with Washington and Franklin. I just like to win.
Posted by: QrazyQat | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM
I suspect that the only reason great Western art is so religious is that the churches were the only ones paying! Everybody has to make a living.
SG
Posted by: Science Goddess | October 31, 2007 2:44 PM
Bravo, Hank Fox.
Posted by: sphex | October 31, 2007 2:47 PM
Theodore Dalrymple, a physician, is a contributing editor of City Journal and the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
I hope he's grateful for all the contributions to medicine made in the name of religion.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 31, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 31, 2007 2:50 PM
To argue that gratitude has anything to do with religion is bizarre. One thing that has always struck me about the religious is how lacking in gratitude they are. They thank their imaginary god for their food, totally ignoring the efforts of the real cook, the real farmer, the real (possibly illegal) farm worker, the real truck driver, etc. They thank their imaginary god for their recovery, totally ignoring the efforts of the real doctors, the real nurses, the real medical researchers, etc. They thank their imaginary god for their surviving a disaster, totally ignoring the efforts of the real emergency workers, the real engineers, etc.
Posted by: Margaret | October 31, 2007 2:55 PM
Hmmm, not a well-written article. Are we still appealing to Stalin these days?
I tend to agree that attacking religion as the source of the problem is to miss the mark slightly. The problem to me is that there is a general trend among human social groups to seek dominance over others and using self-deceptive methods to justify it in the process (possibly a trend that has certain evolutionary advantages when it comes to competing for resources).
So, I think the battle is not really between reason and religious dogma so much as between reason and what appears to be a very widespread and instinctive trait in humans, whether it came about due to providing a distinct evolutionary advantage at some point in the past or that it is the side-effect of some other evolutionary trait.
I think it's important to make that distinction because I do think that the urge to control and dictate are not unique to theists, but readily apparent in all human social groups. Even those among our own atheistic group. In short I think the net needs to be cast wider and an attempt made to show that this is more than a God-bashing crusade.
Perhaps this is just a rather touchy-feely position, but I think our frustration with the stubborn refusal of others to acknowledge, accept and curb the more destructive passions of human nature should be tempered with some compassion given that, although we might arguably be better at controlling them, those same frailties are still inherent within us also.
Of course, for those on the absolute wings of sanity braying about hell and God's wrath, no amount of compassion is going to be useful at all. But at least we might be able to assure some of the more moderate among our oppnents that you really don't need dogma, religious or political, to dictate morality. That such appeals are... well, primitive.
Posted by: DS | October 31, 2007 2:55 PM
I take offense to associating Religion with Western Civilization. In my opinion religions of the Western World are buried in the ruins of Mexico, South America, Greece etc. What Western Civilization and especially the New Atheists consider as religion is only a cult in my opinion!
Posted by: Balaji | October 31, 2007 3:04 PM
Once again, people are trying to divide the world into science and religion, and they forget the little area called philosophy. Atheists call dibs on secular philosophy, secular ethics, secular aesthetics, and secular epistemology. That's the wisdom, morals, beauty, and understanding of the natural universe - absent the stuff that is specifically attached to belief in the supernatural. In other words, that's pretty much the entire Western canon, including anything in religion that ever made sense in the world, too.
Ours!! It belongs to us! The religious can use it if they want, that's okay. Of course they can. It's secular ground where everyone can stand. But don't start going on about love and meaning and ethics and art and history and tradition and forget that atheists have and have always had and always will have the discipline called PHILOSOPHY on our side. Thank you very much.
Posted by: Sastra | October 31, 2007 3:07 PM
#26 - Science Goddess nailed it. The artists were working for their patrons. Much like commissioned work today, you produce what your employer wants. You look for your inspiration within the subject matter specified. You'd be hard-pressed to find any significant work of religious art that wasn't commissioned by the church. And many of the most significant artists producing these works were apostate, or outright unbelievers.
Posted by: Rod | October 31, 2007 3:11 PM
And I like Science Goddess's point. So much art was done for religion because they took money from the poor people and used it to pay artists to make stuff for them - Cathedrals, paintings, all of that.
Posted by: Eric | October 31, 2007 3:15 PM
The thinness of the new atheism...
You can never be too thin or too rich, they say.
Posted by: Jud | October 31, 2007 3:18 PM
The purpose of life is to enjoy it while you can. I certainly won't waste it on superstitious nonsense.
Apparently the critics of the "New Athiests" haven't actually read their books. Their descriptions just don't jibe with what I read (God Delusion and God is Not Great; I'm only 1/3 though Breaking the Spell).
Posted by: Davis | October 31, 2007 3:19 PM
"if you stripped religion from its greatest artists and heroes and leaders and thinkers, they still would have been great."
Perhaps, but their works - theories, books, speeches, actions - cannot be divorced from the context of the cultural constructs that informed their private worldviews, even if they were reacting against them. Some worked entirely within these constructs, sometimes they rebelled and tried to replace them with something else (which often was informed by a rival - perhaps a pre-Christian or Eastern - system). There is no reason to believe that they would have arrived at their greatest breakthroughs in thought without them as either positive or negative totems. No one can completely transcend the mytho-ideological framework of their era, as if he or she were a island of untainted reasoning. Anyone who understands Developmental Systems Theory should appreciate that.
"we should exult in our life and a community of purpose that we build"
There is no alternative to a structuring, value-laden mythic system - no matter how secular or "scientific" - which is partly non-naturalist in derivation, based on tradition and ultimately, unprovable assumptions.
Belief abhors a vacuum. Kill God, the soul, the heavenly kingdom, and secular versions of these - the enlightened elect, the downloadable mind, the Singularity, and even more subtle substitutions - will arise. The myth of eternal progress, of advancement towards greater social perfection, of the acquisition of knowledge that will allow us to transcend earthly suffering - these may be "true" myths, but are myths nonetheless.
Posted by: Colugo | October 31, 2007 3:22 PM
To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.
To regret Santa Claus is, in fact, to regret our childhood and it's memories, its achievements, and its legacy into our adulthood.
He sounds like a six-year old who was just told by a teenager that there isn't any Santa. Humans are growing up. We no longer require the help of deities just like adults no longer require the comfort of their childhood invisble friends.
Posted by: sinned34 | October 31, 2007 3:24 PM
Ya gotta hand it to the Creationists! They just worship Darwin in a way no rational person ever worships another. I mean, if Darwin's theory doesn't answer every physical, metaphysical, philosophic, moral question ever posed that makes it invalid. I guess if they can't tell their kids at bedtime "Don't worry, Darwin is watching everything and he'll see it comes out all right" evolution has let them down.
The fact that science has ferretted out answers which a lot of nature conspires to keep hidden, to our great improvement, is not good enough. They want more from Charles. He's gotta tell them why we're here. Sorry, no can do.
Posted by: Mooser | October 31, 2007 3:24 PM
#33
I think you've hit a good nail right on the head there; in fact, I consider it damn insulting when a theist attributes the hard work of men and women to some imaginary sky fairy. It is insulting to be told you are talented or that you have a gift; what people see is the end result, they don't see the hours, days, months, or years it may take to master your particular craft. To talk about being gifted or talented is an insult, a slap in the face to the hard work you've put in to something.
In our local paper this week there is a woman who is celebrating one year of being cancer free; she had a case of breast cancer which was diagnosed and treated by medical professionals. Those people saved her life, bottom line. Their hard work, their knowledge, their abilities saved her from a very painful death. And what does this stupid, stupid woman do? She says that she attributes her recovery solely to god. Are your f*!$ing kidding me?? I'm glad she's alive as I don't wish that type of suffering on anyone, but quite frankly if I were her doctors I would be very tempted to give her a call and remind her that her cancer could very well come back. And of course my advice would be, if it did return, to simply go to church and pray. I mean, papa smurf cured you once, right? Obviously didn't need us.
Suffice to say, I am going to write a very lengthy letter to the editor. I'm sure it won't be posted. In this area of southern West Virginia, there is a single hospital and right about two dozen churches, all within a roughly 8 mile radius.
This would be such a beautiful state if it wasn't for all of the idiotic hillbillies.
Posted by: Richard Wolford | October 31, 2007 3:30 PM
More than ever convinced that when someone says: "I believe in God" they are lying. Irrespective of God's actual existence or non-existence.
How the hell would they know? Cause it "feels so good"?
Lies on top of lies, that's what they've got.
Posted by: Mooser | October 31, 2007 3:31 PM
Clearly, Cuttlefish's Molly-winning recent commentary was no fluke!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 31, 2007 3:32 PM
You know what? He's right. Let's return to the roots of the religion that brought us our civilization.
I'm willing to pay annual tribute to Caesar as long as we're talking about tossing Christians to the lions in the bargain.
Posted by: Warren | October 31, 2007 3:34 PM
What's with religious people and this font of purpose they think they exists? Subscribe to Christianity now, and you get a complementary purpose bucket! Draw out as much purpose as you'll ever need! Order now, and you get a free purpose thermos, for purpose on the go!
(Some restrictions apply. See your Bible for details.)
Posted by: Jon | October 31, 2007 3:34 PM
#9:
You just confirmed my theory that religion was invented at a stone age campfire, to keep the kids close.
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | October 31, 2007 3:38 PM
Yes, bravo Hank Fox. A stand-out comment among some really great comments in this thread.
Posted by: Max Udargo | October 31, 2007 3:42 PM
Yes, religion is woven deeply into the fabric of our cultural past.
Guess what: if we could track human genealogy in full detail, there are few if any of us who wouldn't find that many of our ancestors were conceived as a result of rape.
So, without rape none of us would be who we are. Shall we all therefore be grateful for the institution of rapine, and strive to carry that tradition forward for the increase of future generations?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 31, 2007 3:50 PM
Theodore Dalrymple, if anyone is interested, is the long-time pseudonym of a British psychiatrist, now retired and living in France, IIRC. He is somewhat off-piste here; his usual themes include the lack of sense of responsibility for their own lives of members of the underclass of the UK (with whom he has had extensive professional dealings).
You could ask Dan Dennett about TD's point about teleological language, not so much because TD has raised it, but because the egregious Steve Fuller seems likely to be saying the same in his new book in the spring.
Posted by: potentilla | October 31, 2007 4:04 PM
Here's something a wee bit more interesting:
The Atheist's Dilemma: Live Right or Live Large?
by Jacques Berlinerblau
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | October 31, 2007 4:04 PM
Aks them if they think there is the possibility of having a "jump the shark" moment for religion. Som moment so humiliating or damaging that a precipitous decline follows. It should be possible in an age of YouTube.
Though, I think the biggest obstacle is the equation of atheism to the violence of Communism. Unless we talk them down off this somehow the meme won't go away. Are there any prominent historians who could offer up the next "New Atheist" volume? I think we need one with some real credentials to take a swipe at this.
Posted by: Bill C | October 31, 2007 4:33 PM
It's a totally specious argument. Some of the best art and literature of the world has been in service of some power hungry tyrannical autocrat. Virgil's Aeneid, written in the service of the emperor Augustus. Michelangelo's paintings and sculptures, made to glorify the power-mad pope Julius II (Michelangelo's life's work was to be sculpting the massive tomb for Julius, which was to be placed in St Peter's). I could go on and on. Being grateful and appreciative of achievements like those DOES NOT mean we have to endorse the causes they were created for. Also, in the case of Julius II, a pope, we have a good example of art that's SUPPOSEDLY in a Xian cause, but is much more about secular power! So suck on that, theists! Motives are never as pure as that. It's naive to think so.
Posted by: madaha | October 31, 2007 4:37 PM
I regret that, after 2000 years of progress in almost every area of knowledge, Christians insist on stubbornly clinging to their idiotic religious beliefs.
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 31, 2007 4:44 PM
Specious.
Posted by: Kseniya | October 31, 2007 4:46 PM
I'm usually the contrarian here, but I agree that all the artists, musicians, writers... deserve the credit, not
religion.
And keep in mind that the religious themes of many of these works were there because that's what their patrons wanted, not necessarily because the artist found religion inspiring (with exceptions like Dante and Rembrandt, of course.)
Vaughn Williams, a composer of much religiously themed choral music, was described by his wife as a "cheerful atheist".
Posted by: Rudy | October 31, 2007 4:54 PM
Hank, you just gotta write more. Hitting nails on heads is your trademark.
Posted by: Tom | October 31, 2007 5:03 PM
That's right, Rudy! It's in the service of the patron. And the patron's motives were often mixed, to say the least - even religious patrons may not have had "god" in mind, but rather their own cult of personality may have been the impetus.
Posted by: madaha | October 31, 2007 5:04 PM
I think that Dalrymple is being somewhat misrepresented and unfairly criticized here (though not entirely). Could everyone who posts here at least actually read the Dalrymple article first?
With regards to Dalrymple's "graditude", Myers says "there is no one to be grateful to". But why does one need to be grateful to anyone in order to feel gratitude? Why is it so unthinkable, for example, that someone could be grateful towards an inanimate object like the cosmos? Especially one that is responsible for your very existence and most heartfelt emotions! And there are other paths for gratitude as well, as Greta illustrates in #7. And it is clear (to anyone who actually reads the article) that Dalrymple never says that atheists must be grateful towards religion.
To be sure, Dalrymple can be faulted for claiming we should not "regret" religion. Many believers regret much of the history of their own religion (and many believers of course regret entire religions, so long as they are not their own!) and so it's simplistic to suggest that even atheists are obligated to respect religion. Nevertheless, I think Dalrymple has a point, however, poorly he states it.
He just means that religion is a part and parcel of the human character, and is indeed the source of much good, as well as much evil. To deride "religion" in general is as much a mistake as to honor it in general. You can say that human accomplishments are purely human, without need for reference to religion, but this is to black-box the human psyche, to ignore the whole, complicated being that all humans are. Religion is the cause of evil behavior, of course--but it is also the cause of good behavior. To ignore this is to ignore that which makes us human--even to ignore that which makes us excellent humans.
Of course, the atheist will counter that we can accomplish all this without religion. Perhaps so--Dalrymple's point is just that some have accomplished this *with* religion. To pretend that religion had nothing to do with it is, I think, to turn a blind eye towards the reality of the human psyche. What if I were to argue that the evils of religion had nothing to do with religion--that it was all just human behavior? How would this argument be any different than the reverse--that all human good is independent of religion? So I think Dalrymple has a very good point--religion is indeed the source for much that is good, as well as evil, and it doesn't hurt anyone to say so. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that (even though it probably is!)
Posted by: mzed | October 31, 2007 5:24 PM
Dalrymple's point sounds just like Dennett's idea of people who "believe in belief."
And there's nothing wrong with a sense of entitlement, provided you feel your are merely entitled to be treated decently, something that many religions have so often eroded with its promise of "don't worry, everyone gets their just deserts in the afterlife" stuff.
The comments here have been particularly good all round.
Posted by: cm | October 31, 2007 5:26 PM
Colugo (#41) wrote:
I'm curious here -- I'll grant the "unprovable assumptions" part on the assumption that you're working off values and irreducible fundamentals -- but what do you mean by derivations which are "non-naturalist?" Supernaturalist? I don't think you mean that ...(And, come to think of it, what do you mean by 'mythic systems?')
I'll agree those are certainly myths if the belief is "this is what is going to happen because this is the way it must happen." But falsifiable hopes don't sound like myths to me. "We can try to do better, and might fail, but might succeed." That doesn't sound like much of a "substitute" for the explanatory reassurances of religious faiths.
Of course, it might depend on what you mean by "myth."
Posted by: Sastra | October 31, 2007 5:32 PM
Ok I know this will get me kicked out of the scarlet A club, but I do so enjoy playing and singing religious music, like the "Messiah" etc. What do you think?
Posted by: Dior | October 31, 2007 5:36 PM
mzed wrote:
The difference lies in conflict between how an action is labeled. What the hypothetical "reasonable secular person" would consider secular evil coming from religion is usually considered a religious good by the religious person doing it. They have different "facts" from a supernatural source which reveals truths above the common ground, and these facts aren't shared with either atheists or people in other religions (or with different interpretations of the same religion).
However, in most cases the reverse is not true. A non-believer will agree with the religious person on what's good. If they don't, then we're back to the first situation.
In other words, your question assumes an agreement on what is "good" and "evil" in religion from a secular stance, independent of religious interpretation. The religious themselves need not take that stance.
It comes back to Christopher Hitchens' question on "is there any good which a believer can do which a non-believer would not?" and the same question on evil. He says nobody has answered the first, but they can answer the second.
Posted by: Sastra | October 31, 2007 5:54 PM
Imagine what western civilization would have been like WITHOUT religion -- with the addition of an entire sex and a large minority contributing to it without artificial constraints.
Damn the evidence -- Christians know what women/blacks/gays/atheists are REALLY like. Uppity atheists, thinking they know what's best for them.
Posted by: Suze | October 31, 2007 5:55 PM
"I feel an intense gratitude for everyone who worked hard to make my life, and the lives of those around me, easier and better. And that sense of gratitude instills me with an equally intense sense of obligation to do the same for others."
huMAN!
Word!
Posted by: Amy | October 31, 2007 6:00 PM
I dunno, that you're
a terrible heretichardly the only one?As penance, you might read up on the neurology of music appreciation. Oliver Sacks has a new book out called Musicophilia. There's also This Is Your Brain on Music, by Daniel J. Levitin.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 31, 2007 6:14 PM
The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core.
Democracy? Equality before the law? Freedom of conscience? What fucking religion inspired these core ideals asswad?
Modern western civ is as much, if not more so, a product of Hellenic humanism as it is of Levantine monofaith. In fact, a vast amount of our history is the conflict between the two competing ideals. From, at least, the Greeks of the Age Of Pericles against the Zoroastrian Persians to, hell I doeknow... the Spanish Civil War (if not our own current little dustup in Persia).
Posted by: Sarcastro | October 31, 2007 6:23 PM
In Brainstorms, Dennett describes his adoration for Brahms, and from personal conversation, I know he's read and enjoyed Borges. Dawkins praises the big names of art and literature repeatedly throughout The God Delusion, and in fact he spends more time eulogizing his friend Douglas Adams than he does calling people "Neville Chamberlain atheists".
So, yes, I'd say that Dalrymple is another critic who has read the books of the Uppity Atheists with his eyes closed. Perhaps Dawkins should feel honored that people are treating his book the same way that they treat the Bible?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 31, 2007 6:24 PM
Will one of the theists please give us a single example of religion working the way it's supposed to? That is, the prayers of the faithful or the intercessions of religious priests or pastors caused GOD to do something. That people together in a group can do anything from play music to opening a hospital to feeding the hungry and clothing the naked... we know that. I thought religion was about God doin stuff.
Can anyone supply me with an instance where the efforts of a religion caused God to do something? When was it? Where was it?
You know, I don't think they believe in God any more than I do. Why they espouse that particular canard is beyond me, but they do. They don't believe it themselves.
I challenge anyone to prove that they believe in God. Cause they don't.
Posted by: Mooser | October 31, 2007 6:29 PM
Justice!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/31/funeral.protests.ap/index.html
BALTIMORE, Maryland (AP) -- A grieving father won a nearly $11 million verdict Wednesday against a fundamentalist Kansas church that pickets military funerals in the belief that the war in Iraq is a punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.
Albert Snyder of York, Pennsylvania., sued the Westboro Baptist Church for unspecified damages after members demonstrated at the March 2006 funeral of his son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq.
Posted by: MikeM | October 31, 2007 6:37 PM
Matt Penfold, #13: Exactly.
We allow Christians into our house (I say that with a wry smile because, in fact, I happen to like our many Christian friends; I want to roll my eyes at some of what they say, just not most of it), and let them pray at key moments.
Heck, even I listen.
But when I hear them thank the Lord for all the wonderful food, the companionship, the laughter... Mostly the food. At the end of these prayers, I always feel like adding, "And I'd like to thank the laborers who picked this food, the truckers who drove it, the loading dock people for moving it, the stocker for displaying it, and the cashier for selling it. Amen."
Just because it seems way more relevant to thank people we are absolutely certain exist, than to spirits for we have zero proof of their existence.
Posted by: MikeM | October 31, 2007 6:49 PM
"what do you mean by derivations which are "non-naturalist?"
That's a bad construction on my part. I mean beliefs (about the way things should be, about the point of it all, about what will most assuredly work) which are not wholly determinable by knowledge gained through the scientific method or more broadly naturalism (rationalist investigation). Of course all things, including supernatural belief systems, have a naturalistic base - since all is natural, as are we. Goals and values require a leap of faith, or at least an imposition of tradition, sentiment, scientifically undecidable propositions.
In addition, when it comes to social policy, some systems are too complex and understanding of them too tentative to have certain knowledge about which policies will achieve particular goals. So even though these arguments are superficially about empirical data, they are actually rival philosophies which have not yet been fully vindicated nor falsified. For example, it is safe to say that the extremes of socialism and libertarianism have been historically falsified. But given particular goals, where is the correct policy located on that continuum? So these arguments sometimes have an implicit philosophical - or even mythic - element.
I mean by "myth" a meta-narrative that informs, structures, simplifies, a totemic story that is not just just descriptive but prescriptive. It relates future aspirations to past struggles and accomplishments. A myth is not simply a social model but is infused with heroic and romantic themes. It can be secular or religious, nationalist or universalist, progressive or reactionary... It's not dissimilar to Sorel's conception (keeping in mind that Sorel was a terrible human being).
While some are too dismissive of the constructive role of religion, Madaha is right about Dalrymple's error in arguing that we should honor religious institutions simply because of their historical role. There might be valid reasons for appreciating religion, but that their influence in the production of creative, scientific, and social accomplishments is not one of them. Some thinkers who were deeply informed by Marxism, or even Leninism or Volkism, have come up with what arguably are admirable works, but we need not admire Marxism. For example, Antonio Gramsci, Eric Wolf, Heidegger (maybe Heidegger is crap, but you get the point...), Carl Jung and so on, and those who they influenced.
Did Darwin the theist first have to be enchanted by, and then demolish, Paley's theological argument in order to become Darwin the great scientist? Perhaps so. To paraphrase what one scholar told me, sometimes we honor our intellectual ancestors by crucifying them over and over again.
Posted by: Colugo | October 31, 2007 6:55 PM