Posted by Hemant Mehta in Recent comments:
…you’re entirely too nice and not forthright enough in your attacks on religious belief. You also seem to cozy up with the delusional too much and aren’t willing to engage them or challenge their inane ideas. Sarcastic comments like the ones you often provide don’t force the religious to examine their faith.
Cut the not-holier than thou stuff, Hemant.
I can’t believe I have to defend myself for not acting like a douchebag.
Not every discussion with religious people needs to be about how ignorant and wrong they are.
I certainly don’t believe in God and I do think those who believe in God are wrong in their thinking, but the best way to convince the majority of people that living without religion is even possible is to show them that atheists are kind, happy, and approachable– we’re not the bogeymen we’ve been made out to be for so long. If that happens, the logical reasoning behind atheism will follow.
Unfortunately, this “friendly atheist” image is not the one being presented. How often do you see an atheist on TV with a smile on his face?
Too many atheists wrongly believe that rational thinking is common sense. It’s not. It needs to be taught. And no one will listen and understand unless the teaching is coming from the mouth of someone whose trust has been earned.
Of course I’m against extreme religiosity, because it has caused so much harm in this world. I believe we’d be better off in a world where supernatural thinking didn’t play a role at all and I commend brilliant atheists like Richard Dawkins for bringing the intellectual challenges against faith to a broader audience than ever before.
But if your religious beliefs (illogical as they may be) are doing something positive for our community and our world, and in the process, you’re not trying to stop scientific progress, impede promising research, hurt my gay friends, control another woman’s body, force your beliefs upon anyone else, ask the government to give you special privileges, or make me fear coming out as an atheist in public, why should I be attacking you?
If you’re religious and you’re not doing any of that, I’ll be honest: I don’t really care what you believe. I’m glad you’re helping make the world I live in a better place for everyone. If the subject of faith comes up in conversation, I will hold my ground and challenge your beliefs. I’m confident that atheists will always have an upper hand when it comes to these discussions.
There are so many religious figures that all of us– Christian, atheist, anything– need to universally condemn. We can’t lose sight of what the real problem is. It’s not always “religion” itself. It’s the people that use religion as a tool to separate one group of people from another. Atheists know that we are all brothers, sisters, distant cousins; we’re all truly interconnected through evolution. Let’s bring down those people that use religion to ruin the lives of those who think differently, not the people that agree with us on the issues that really matter. Is our ultimate approval of others only stemming from their non-belief in God? Shouldn’t we be somewhat happy that they don’t believe the literal words of their holy books? Why not at least acknowledge that interpretation of the books might be a step forward?
For the “faithheads” who feel the same way I do, let’s start working together on the myriad of problems that religious and non-religious people agree need fixing.
When faced with those issues, there are more important things to worry about than why the good, intelligent religious people in our midst hold their beliefs.
And I’m sure there are many atheists that are reading that last sentence, ready to lash out at me because I used the words “intelligent” and “religious” together.
Being angry and antagonistic isn’t helping our cause. It never has. There are times and places when we need to be assertive, like when our rights are being violated. Usually, this is not the case.
Let’s give friendly atheism a chance here.
[Update: I removed one comment from the beginning of this post because I had misinterpreted what the author was saying. More info can be found in the comments.]
[tags]atheist, atheism, God, Richard Dawkins, Christian[/tags]
I completely agree with you. Too often us atheists run around with a smug look on our faces - that same smug look we can’t stand coming from the preachers on television. I do not believe anything can be achieved by telling someone you disagree with that they are stupid - in fact most of us learned that back in grade school.
My brand of atheism comes from the younger Carl Sagan school of atheism. In Cosmos he laid out the facts of the universe (evolution, the big bang, etc) without acting smug about it, he just taught the facts. He changed my life when I was just a kid and I still believe that knowledge and understanding are the most powerful tools a person can ever hope to obtain. That goes for people on both sides of the debate.
The only thing I would caution against in this approach, is by cozying and being friendly with liberal religious people in order to defeat extremist religious people is that many of the liberal and moderate religious people are apologists for the extremists. Many of the best arguments against religious extremism are also good arguments against moderate religious belief. They are in essence formed from the same mold in the end. In fact all of the reasoned rational arguments against belief in the supernatural apply to both camps. All you are left with are pragmatic arguments, which in the end are not as strong in my opinion. I do think it is possible to be friendly and still make the logical arguments against ALL supernatural belief however. There’s no reason to get nasty. Unfortunately to most religious people ANY criticism of supernatural beliefs is considered nasty, no matter how you say it. I believe there is a different standard applied to religious belief that is not applied to say, politics or any other ideological belief.
Theist: “I believe there are faeries in my garden”
Atheist: “That’s not true”
Theist: “Yes it is,I believe it on faith”
Atheist: “That doesn’t make it true. I’ll show you a logical proof and scientific evidence that proves the unlikelyhood of fairies in your garden”
Atheist goes on to talk and show logical proof and scientific proof.
Theist: “Quit being arrogant and a show off. I have every right to believe what I want! Quit calling me STUPID!”
Unfortunately this is what happens most of the time when the topic is personal religious beliefs. It is almost impossible to criticize the religious belief without the person who holds those beliefs feeling insulted. I don’t know what the solution is to this problem.
Bart Dorsey said,
For their beliefs, perhaps, but certainly not for their actions.
The intellectual arguments against faith apply equally well to all brands of believers, but the really nasty accusations come when the actions of believers are discussed, and that is where moderates and fundamentalists differ.
The difference between the moderate and the extreme lies mostly in the pragmatic concerns, so I wouldn’t think arguments over the real-world effects of moderate vs. extreme faith are too far off.
Agreed.
I hear you. I tend to be a bit less friendly on my blog than you do here, and I’ve still been accused of not being harsh enough. Some atheists appear to believe that one cannot say anything positive about religion or religious people. I like to think that the world is big enough for atheists to adopt several different approaches simultaneously. You do not need to be a douchebag because there are many out there who are all too proud to do that themselves.
I totally agree with you Hemant. I definitely think we need to work together with religious liberals to help create a more tolerant world where science can go on unimpeded, and people keep their basic human rights that fundamentalists want to take away. For me it isn’t so much about the supernatural beliefs people have, but how those beliefs impact everyone else, both politically with issues like creationism and stem cell research, and personally when it comes to bigotry against groups who are different. I tend to agree with religious liberals on everything but the God question, so why not work with them? That why I disagree with the approach of Sam Harris, as much as I love him.
I agree very much. It is a matter of leading by example. If we want them to be tolerant of us, we need to be tolerant of them. I think on the whole, we’re pretty good at this. Many atheists are very tolerant. So tolerant — or at least so closeted — that the problems we face as a group are being underrepresented in government and appearing weak and unorganized.
We need a middle ground where we can speak out, but without being disdainful, disrespectful, or intolerant of the religious population. I believe we are starting to find this balance — with such great books as Letter to a Christian Nation and The God Delusion staying on the bestseller lists (and soon I Sold my Soul on eBay, too!) I think we are finally starting to look stronger and more organized. LtaCN and TGD are a bit on the strong side, but they’re a lot more civilized than this guy, or these people, which I am ashamed to have representing my beliefs.
Here’s one more atheist who completely agrees with you.
I’m completely out in the open about my beliefs (and disbelief), but I don’t have a problem with religious people who want to cooperate across faith lines so that we can all live in an open and pluralistic society. I’d rather have these people as allies than alienate them by constantly telling them they need to change their cosmology.
The goals of peace, tolerance, cooperation, and understanding are vitally important to me. I think a goal of “we must deconvert the whole world” is extremely counterproductive because it pushes people who should be our allies into the enemy camp.
That said, I also believe in being up front about why I believe the way I do if anyone wants to know, and if I inadvertently persuade some people to give up belief in the supernatural, well, I won’t kick them off my blogroll…
I have only a small bone to pick. I think that at times it does help to be “angry and antagonistic” — the problem is that people who have objectionable beliefs too often are able to go through life never really having those beliefs met with the kind of objection that wakes the person up to the fact that the beliefs are truly objectionable.
This isn’t everyone. This is, for instance, for the religious types who are the equivalent of people like Klansmen wannabes in racism. These people may be truly horrible people and unreachable, but they may instead be people who’ve just never seen anyone get really upset at what they spew, and so have no idea that what they are saying — day in and day out — is objectionable. They’re living in a bubble, and the bubble needs bursting, and bursting it very often requires a sharp jab of “angry and antagonistic” reaction.
Hemant,
I’m a Christian and I agree with you. In fact, you mentioned Rob Bell in a previous post and one of his NOOMA videos could very well apply in this situation, too. It is his “Bullhorn” video, which you can watch here. It probably doesn’t completely apply, but from experience I’ve found that many Christians view people like Dawkins and Harris as the “bullhorn guy.” Specifically when Bell says “…you think you are giving people the ‘good news’ but it doesn’t come across that way …”
You can’t just shout truths in any way you want and think people are going to hear them. There are also “psychological” and “social” truths that deal with how people hear and receive “intellectual” truths.
The only reason people don’t like the ‘bullhorn guys’ is due to their brutal honesty. Religious topics are either true or not and to partonize those that do not have the correct answer (e.g. the religious) is absurd. If I have a completely incorrect and illogical approach to a math problem, it does me no good for my teacher to try to reach a compromise with me. Rather, i expect that my teacher tells me straight up what I am doing incorrectly. Dawkins and Harris engage in this and the religious willingfully ignore them on the shallow grounds of their brash approach. It’s simply another cop-out for the religious. The means of which a message is spread should be of no importance when compared to the veracity of that message. The religious, in their delusion, simply do not want to hear their faith being portrayed as it is and thus prefer those that won’t fully challgene them.
A note to Hemant regarding my criticism of this blog: Don’t get my wrong. I read this blog daily and thoroughly enjoy it. Even though I disagree with your approach, I still find your viewpoints worthwhile and often times spot-on. I personally enjoy Dawkins and Harris becuase they state the ideas so often silenced and deemed taboo by the religious majority. Maybe the debate needs more people like you because I don’t think that religious belief is going anywhere. I assume you hold many of the same views about the religious that I do, but in a public forum such as a blog, you don’t find it necessary to advertise them.
No, it’s because they are obnoxious and annoying.
You honestly believe that everything came from nothing and then worry about calling Christians ignorant? lol!
I completely agree… my feelings on atheism are actually similar to me being a vegetarian- I believe I am right to believe these things, but generally won’t lecture about them unless challenged to do so. People are free to believe what they want, and it generally is pointless to tell them what they believe is heavily unlikely…
Champ:
You are a prime example of religious blindness. Let’s review your borderline retarded comment.
“You honestly believe that everything came from nothing.”
In fact I don’t believe that. I believe the universe began (let’s assume a beginning is even a viable concept) with a big bang. String theory is approaching how to explain the origins of this event. Yes science seeks to explain natural phenomena, unlike religion which does nothing of the sort. And of course you so conveniently allow God to escape the cause and effect law that you impose on the universe. Did God come from nothing? Did God magically appear? Oh I forgot, God is eternal and outside the laws of nature. I’d call that a massive cop-out, but stating the obvious might come off as arrogant. Of course, I’m not doing justice to the wealth of philosophical opposition to your inane comment above. You should read Russell or Mills or Dan Barker for refutations of this arguement. Well after you put down C.S. Lewis.
“and then worry about calling Christians ignorant.”
Umm I never specified Christians in any of my comments. Funny how you added that in there yourself. My comments could be applied to any religious group (including Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc..).
I know Harris likes to make this claim as a justification for his hostility towards all people of faith, but do you actually find it to be true? Have you ever known a Jim Wallis to defend the rhetoric of a James Dobson? Have you ever heard a Brian McLaren make excuses for the intolerance of a Jerry Falwell? Do you ever hear a Bishop Spong or even an NT Wright defend the theology of a Tim LaHaye?
Let’s use unbiased empirical observation here: when have these kind of liberal and moderate Christians ever been apologists for the politics or the theology of extreme fundamentalists?
If you use too broad of a brush, you end up painting a lot of things the wrong color.
To Bart Dorsey,
Do you really argue with theists that way? Why are you working so hard? That tack puts the onus of proof on you. Lots of luck proving a negative, especially about something that’s supposed to be invisible and evasive like faeries.
I would respond to your theist’s initial statement with a series of levels of interest, depending on how much time I had and how looney the person seemed to be:
Theist: “I believe there are faeries living in my garden.”
My response, level 1: “Oh.”
That usually ends the conversation, and I have enough time to escape or at least look around for something I can use as a weapon if need be.
My response, level 2: “Oh? That’s an extraordinary thing to say. Can you show me what causes you to believe that?”
Theist: “I believe it on faith.”
My response, level 1: “Oh.” (Conversation probably ends.)
My response, level 2: “Oh, so you don’t have any physical evidence?” (said calmly)
Theist: “No I don’t need any physical evidence, my faith is enough.”
My response, level 1: “Oh.” (Conversation probably ends.)
My response, level 2: “Oh, so if I were to disagree with your claim of faeries living in your garden, and if I were to base my disagreement only on faith, would you accept that as a sufficient argument, or would you require me to prove it with physical evidence?”
Theist: “Of course I’d require you to prove it, because you’re wrong.”
My response, any level: Oh, so when you make a claim based on faith you don’t have to prove it, but when I make a claim based on faith I do have to prove it. Is that what you’re saying?”
Theist: “Well, yes, because my faith is true and yours is not.”
My response, any level: “I see. That’s why I never make any claims based on faith.”
Theist: “Oh.” (Conversation probably ends.)
Never defend your disbelief. Make the other guy defend his belief.
For my part, I never engage in conversations like this in the first place because they’re almost 100% futile. Nobody’s coming out of it with changed beliefs or views.
I encounter similar problems as an atheist and a vegetarian … there are so many aggressive proselytizing vegetarians and atheists who give the rest of us a bad name. Just because I neither eat meat nor believe in god(s) doesn’t mean I have a problem with people who do. Thank you for your cry for polite and friendly atheism!
The Unbrainwashed, nothing good ever came out of regarding those who disagree with you as stupid. I think there’s a useful line to be drawn between attacking someone’s belief on the one hand and attacking them as a person on the other.
Hello Mr. Mehta.
I am Christian minister. I just wanted to post a quick hello to thank you for your blog and let you know that I’ve linked to you on my blog which is http://awaitingrain.typepad.com.
I appreciate your voice. We Christians need to hear it to be driven to deeper places of understanding why we believe what we believe. I will enjoy following your posts.
Bill
Not having read any of the above and as a happy atheist I’m keenly aware of major benefits the world gets from having religious believers. Religion has helped bring people together (unless your against that) instead of remaining in small klans/tribes units. I can walk amongst all kinds of people groups without worrying about being shot (I was thinking arrows however guns can apply). And while some may argue that religion has cost the world many deaths I wouldn’t be at all surprised that religions has probably saved even more lives. Now while religion may be one of the biggest factors why the human population exploded on this planet, it doesn’t address how others will argue that religion has cost the world the natural places that we’d all prefer exist as in a pristine condition. I don’t ever want to let the religious right know that they’re wrong, you can’t argue with them and win. They do help us get along with our neighbors, without killing each other outright. Oh well, supposedly that’s progress.
Unbrainwashed,
Would it do you any good if your teacher started by saying that your mathematical approach is “borderline retarded,” as you said to Champ? If your teacher went even further and deeply humiliated and discouraged you, would you then be more likely to hear and understand his correction of your approach?
Simply refraining from ridiculing and insulting someone is not “compromising.”
Perhaps we should ask Champ if your approach with him helped him to see things your way.
Unbrainwashed– Don’t get me wrong, either. I know what you’re saying is just a general difference of beliefs. But you’re not the first to say such things to me, so I just wanted to address it altogether.
As a vegetarian, I’m not a huge fan of PETA either, for what it’s worth.
While I certainly agree that civilised discourse and a positive environment are of paramount importance, there are those among us that believe all religiosity is inherently dangerous. Therefore, ‘encouraging’ the liberal theists may allow it to survive longer.
The pragmatic counterbalance is that there is a good possibility that first teaming up with the liberals to eradicate radicalism and then gradually leaving the religion-light behind would be more effective and faster.
Spirituality seems to be an innate trait for a good portion of mankind. Redirecting it to some buddhist-type inner ascension or simply study of philosophy could be an important part of the weaning process.
The Unbrainwashed wrote:
The Unbrainwashed, if I didn’t know you were an atheist I would have guessed one of the more extreme conservative Christians I’ve encountered wrote these comments.
You sound so much like them.
Hemant, I appreciate your approach. In some ways, it’s what sets you apart from other atheists. I firmly believe that being at peace with oneself means one feels no need to control the thoughts and feelings of another. That belief meshes well with your approach, in my mind. I don’t like fundamentalists of any kind - religious, atheist, vegetarian, organic, etc. Scientists humble themselves to the data - they think critically, not dogmatically, about the world around them.
We learn from example. When we see someone who is living/thinking differently than we do and experiences happiness, we take notice. We learn from example when we’ve developed our observational and critical thinking skills. I think this is the most “culturally competent” way to spread rational & scientific values. Keep up the good work. There is great potential for you to help others understand atheism.
Let natural selection take care of the rest…
For those who think it is so important to get others to agree with your particular metaphysical beliefs (whether theist, atheist, or something else) I’d ask: will it greatly love and justice in the world? In a world where millions are still held in slavery so that we can have cheap chocolate and coffee and clothes; where women are sold into forced prostitution by the thousands; where we are plagued by war and racism, and systemic economic inequalites, should belief or disbelief in God really be where we draw our battle lines? Aren’t there much bigger fish to fry? Billions of people don’t have access to any kind of education at all, and yet we still act as if those who want to teach intelligent design are the biggest enemy to be faced? If there are progressive “liberal” Christians out there whose primary expression of faith is to fight these great social evils, will you really continue to shun and attack them merely because they still happen to believe in God?
What, really, is most important? Is this really what ought to be dividing us?
Mike C,
I’ll stand shoulder-to-shoulder with a Christian who fights the injustices you mentioned.
In the meantime, “Intelligent Design” won’t get by me either, because that threatens to undermine science, and without a strong public understanding of science we won’t solve many of those other problems.
roo,
Exactly. If your house is on fire, you put out the damn fire before you go about all the other things your house needs, like a coat of paint or redecorating.
Radicalism-fundamentalism-extremism is threatening to consume the world. Fires on one continent light fires on another. I’m concerned with civilization physically surviving the rising lunacy over the next 20 years. If we can do that then the weaning process, as you call it, off of religion will take the next 500 to 1,000 years.
Very much along the lines I am thinking/working. Some great comments, Devika and I are on the same wavelength. Control, and meddlers is what I avoid now. Much of my life I was an angry atheist, screaming at the wall of others glacial movements. Letting it all go freed me. Now I concentrate mostly on myself, how I can become a better person, to most effectively change the world through my actions.
Where I can do good I do it. Where I can help change anothers ideas by them seeing what I “do” so much the better. When does pushing ideas on people work? Real belief in anything comes from a persons desire to investigate. Thus I try to be a spark, silent in the night.
Right now I work at a Methodist church. It is one of the best jobs I have ever had. The office politics and drama are very low level. The social programs and thoughtful examination evinced by the church (and by church I mean congregation, staff, and clergy) are amazing. These are real, nose to the grindstone, Christian’s who for the most part make the world a better more peaceful place everyday.
What has struck me the most is how invisible those who are following their faith, and are making a positive impact on the world go unnoticed. Another interesting tidbit is that although I have been, and continue to be, up front about my atheistic beliefs not once has anyone tried to convert me, not even subtlety.
Taking this job was a concious challenge of my atheism. It has made me a stronger, more peaceful, less controlling atheist. As you would challenge those of belief with science, maybe you to could gain from exposure to others sentiments.
It’s to bad when a group you are “part of” gives you a bad reputation. Being an athesist and you get lumped in to the group of “angry ” athesists because they are the ones the public get to know about.
It ’s unfortunate that moderates don’t get noticed. “hey look over there. it’s a group of people going on with their lives and being respectful and reasonable.” doesn’t quiet get headlines.
As far as I can tell many of the angry athesists treat athesim similar to a religion.
The Unbrainwashed laid down a perfect example. He feels that his faith in science gives him an unassiable position and that anyone with sense will have to bow to the absolute truth of his argument. If they do not agree then they can be tossed aside as stupid. So anyone that doesn’t see his side is less than a person. When you deal with everyone who disagrees with you as below you it is hard to hide your feelings of superiority and contempt. Many people don’t even bother to hide it.
Richard Wade illustrated a great point about the religious versus athesist argumnet. I’m not sure all to that was his intent. No side can win the argument.
I am a corporate research scientist. I can say without doubt that science can only answer simple simplistic questions with certanity.Even then the answers come from abstract science that is seperate from the real world. Eventually any argumnet in science comes down to the fact that you have faith in the scientific process and while theories can not explain every detail of a situation you have faith in the general results of the theory. If a religious person were to produce a device that science couldn’t explain and claimed it was from God, people who are reason based athesists would not fall on their knees and convert, they would simple wait for science to offer an some sort of reason.
The exact same can be said for religion. In the end it offers no more proof than science. I believe in god because I look at all of the scattered evidence in the world and choose to have faith, even when other people look at same evidence and choose not to.
When you realise that the only thing the seperates your argument from the other side is a simple act of faith it’s a lot harder to be angry.
I just want this to end. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and should not try to enforce theirs on anybody else.
*Stands up applauding Hemant. Good work, brother.
Right on. I don’t go around bragging about my (lack of) belief. And when people find out about it, they’re always really surprised because I don’t seem like I’d be “that kind of person”. (A mean old jerk, I guess?)
And the more rabid brand of atheism begins to look suspiciously like an intellectual crusade, which only reinforces the theistic notion that atheism is indeed a religion. Atheists betray themselves by casting their arguments in the same “I’m right and you’re wrong” mold that the theists have been using for millennium. Not only have the theists had much more practice at defending their beliefs in such arguments, but it suggests either laziness or a profound lack of creativity on the part of those atheists making the argument. If atheists are so sure that they are smarter than theists maybe they should prove it by arguing their points smarter and not harder.
Very well said Darwin’s Dagger!
Oliver, that was beautiful. I’m very encouraged to hear about your experiences. Thank you.
Sam Harris understands this and would appreciate your point, which is accurate.
However, his objection is to the broader promotion of “faith” itself. So where he objects to liberal believers, it’s not because they support the fundamentalists’ theology or politics (he knows they don’t), it’s because they persist in defending faith as a legitimate way to understand the universe.
As a pragmatist, I don’t see that we have any choice in the matter. Nontheist numbers are growing, which is great, but we still don’t have clout to make a difference without the support of liberal believers of all stripes who are also committed to the ideals of separation of church/state, promotion of science, nondiscrimination and civil rights for all. Those angry atheists who want to piss everybody else off and go it alone are terribly impractical, if nothing else.
Anybody familiar with geneticist Spencer Wells, who recently did a National Geographic special called the Journey of Man? I think his tone - calm, polite but unyielding when he talks about scientific fact - gets it just right. He doesn’t ridicule people who believe inaccurate ideas about their genetic origins (like Native Americans who insist their people arose on the plains of Arizona, when genetics show they came from Asian nomads), but he also isn’t deferential to that mythology in an effort to “respect” something that’s an error. He strikes a really nice balance.
I would say that in a limited manner that’s already starting to happen, and it’s an encouraging trend.
Joe,
Thanks, Joe. I make a lot of great points so I’m not sure which one you’re referring to. So I’ll just make another:
“Winning” a typical theist-atheist argument is not universally agreed upon because both sides use completely different criteria for defining what winning is.
The only outcome where most people would agree that someone won would be where one side concedes, “You’re right, I’m wrong,” and unconditionally converts right then and there to the other side’s views.
Don’t hold your breath for that one.
The atheist criteria for defining winning is usually something like, “Did the atheist build a rational, logical argument based on credible evidence, and/or did he show the other side’s argument to be illogical or not based on credible evidence?”
The theist criteria for defining winning is often something like, “Did the theist show steadfastness in his faith, even when faced with credible evidence contradicting his belief?”
This is why both sides can come out of it thinking they won.
What has actually happened is that both sides have lost time, breath, and respect. They have only won more contempt for and from the other side.
Occasionally theists try to use the logic-evidence criteria, as in the recent “intelligent design” court cases. When they do, they invariably get pulverized.
Occasionally atheists, especially the really pissed off ones get too shrill in their statements, and stray from their logic-evidence base. They come off looking like unhinged asses.
None of these arguments are really for changing the views of the participants. They’re usually very entrenched and intractable. It’s the fence sitters watching from the sidelines who might be swayed one way or the other. That is why one’s tone and tactics are so important. Even if one side’s argument is weaker, if it has a respectable delivery it is more attractive to people who are still trying to decide.
Here’s the problem I see with your argument. I disagree that religious people, even very liberal people, aren’t part of the problem, and here is why. Every time a form is filled out and a person ticks the Christian box, every time a person tithes to a church that is more conservative than their personal beliefs, every time they wear a fish shirt, they are helping to spread more conservative Christianity. Supporting the Bible supports an unedited book, and that unedited book is always going to inspire fundamentalists. These fundamentalists are going to do whatever these liberal Christians won’t- being mean to your gay friend, stopping me from controling my body, stopping our children from learning about science.
I also hate the idea that we need to be quiet about our atheism. Sometimes, people need to run smut-for-smut campaigns to draw attention to their cause. Emphasizing the need for rational thought in regards to religion or anything else is a wonderful thing to spread.
Joe- Science is not a religion, its a method.
Mike C- I agree that there are more important things in this world than arguing religion, and certainly it is a modern, first-world thing that we can waste our time doing rather than helping people in the millions of ways people need help. On the other hand, there are many ways we spend our free time besides helping people, because one can’t just burn themselves out with causes. If I spend the morning at the soup kitchen, can’t I spend the afternoon arguing religion, politics, vegetarianism, whatever I want? Its a false idea that one can only argue religion or help people.
Eh. You’re probably right that religion won’t go away in your lifetime, and that there are religious progressives working for the good of freedom. Good for you.
What I want to do is to destroy religion’s cloak of immunity to discussion and criticism +5[/geek]. It disgusts me that belief in gobbledygook nonsense is so fetishized that any hint of non-reverence towards it causes a pandemic of the vapors. NOMA nicey-niceness won’t help tear down their shroud of ill-gotten deference.
Plus, any belief in a god is still pretty silly, even if the believer is one of those ‘good progressive liberals’. But there are a lot of silly things in the world. Oh well.
Richard Wade:
“What has actually happened is that both sides have lost time, breath, and respect. They have only won more contempt for and from the other side.”
I do not believe this to be necesarly true. Unless you have more contempt for me then when we started; since you do not know me I can only assume you had none.
“The theist criteria for defining winning is often something like, “Did the theist show steadfastness in his faith, even when faced with credible evidence contradicting his belief?””
Yeah some thesist aren’t that bright. I guess than can be said about anyone. It’s more important for faith to be questioned and for the believer to reconcile what has been presented. That should be a part of intellegent discourse any any topic even religion.
Jen - as someone who argues against religion you need to realize that the bible is an extremly edited and condensed book that has been subject to traslation and rewritting over a great deal of time.
Here is a great argument to use against people wo do not speak ancient greek. Any time the pull out a bible quote as truth tell them that the original texts were written in ancient greek or hebrew. Since most people who literally interpet the bible are not Catholic remind them that a bunch of papists decided what books to pick and choose to assemble as a “bible”. Also nowhere in the bible does it say that God wrote it. So it could just be a pack of lies.
Also science is very much treated as a religion by many. The scientific process is sound. The interpertaion of the results of that process are highly flawed. A large amount of faith is placed in scientific research. Any theory that is used without personal rigorous testing and reproduction of the results of that research is simply faith.
Even within working theory there are quite simply large gaps of information that must be bridged by faith in the process as being able to provide an answer. Evolution has large holes in it, that doesn’t make it untrue in any sense. The gaps require a leap of faith in the theory of evolution for research to continue.
Most people are highly ignorant as to what the results of scientific research actually mean and when they do and do not apply.
I agree… but my point was not about wasting time or only being able to focus on one thing. You’re quite right to say that we all have to potential to engage in many different causes and issues.
My point was that we are dividing over the wrong things and losing potential allies for the fight over issues that are far more important than differences in metaphysical beliefs. Some here have suggested that it is a good idea to attack and ridicule theists, even the more progressive ones. But if you do that, I suspect that many of us will then be far more hesitant to work together with you on any of these other issues that matter far more.
In other words, while your time may be a resource that you can afford to “waste”, collaborative friendships are not - those kind of friendships are some of the most valuable resources we have in the fight against poverty, injustice, war, and ecological catastrophe. If you undermine and destroy them through pointless hostility, what will you be left with? Will you be able to change the world if the only help you’re willing to receive is from those who already think exactly like you?
Joe- Of course I realize the Bible has been edited by people over time. This is why I do not believe it to be a sound document on which to base my life. However, certain people, such as many Christians, either don’t realize this, think the editing doesn’t matter, think God directs the edits and translations and whatever. My point was not that, it was that Christianity takes a particular book and, to various degrees, holds that book up to be the basis for laws, thought, and morals. The problem arises because that book is full of incidences where God is morally suspect (for instance, take the story in Judges where God commands a man to slaughter his daughter in exchange for a victory) or full of laws and rules that we as a general rule no longer believe in (say, that rape victims should be stoned to death, or that slavery is AOK!) There will be some Christians who explain away these types of things, and can somehow turn out alright. However, as long as verses like those stay in the Bible, people are going to read them and be inspired to follow them, to the detriment of others. Therefore, it does not matter how many people can read the Bible and turn into liberal, loving people- my point is that there will always be the Jerrys and the Bennys and the 700 Club, because that is the natural path for someone who reads the Bible and believes it to be the Word of God, No Really. Because these people are, in my opinion, following the Bible closer than the my liberal Christian friends (YMMV).
There, you may agree or disagree with that, but this is what I was trying to get across.
For me “winning” a discussion usually only means that the other person said something like “I can see where you’re coming from. I still may not agree, but you have a valid perspective even if it’s not mine.”
Of course, very few people (whether atheists or Christians) are willing to give an answer like that because it requires a kind of postmodern humility that believes there are often multiple potentially right answers to a question depending on one’s foundational starting assumptions (all that “worldview” stuff we talked about in the other thread) or on one’s particular interpretation of the limited set of data; and that because of our epistemic limitations as human beings, we often can’t know what the ultimately right answer is.
If one does have that postmodern perspective it is easy to say to someone “Your point is valid, I just don’t share your presuppositions.” For instance, even though I am a theist, I do not think that atheists are wrong in their rationale for being atheists. I just think they’ve chosen to interpret the data differently than I have - probably because they share a few different foundational presuppositions from me.
However, in a more Modern (black & white) mode of thinking, there can only ever be one right answer to any question, and you’re either right or you’re wrong (there’s no room for differing interpretations) and thus you can never admit that someone you think is wrong still may have a valid way of looking at things.
I’ve found it so fascinating this past year to discover how many atheists think that the Fundamentalists are essentially correct in their interpretation of the Bible and subsequent practice of Christianity. It’s strange to me that they’d be willing to let the Fundies frame the debate in this way. And it’s also strange to me how unsupportive most atheists are of more “liberal” (I would say more historically and culturally contextual and therefore more accurate) interpretations of the Bible.
Here’s what’s so weird about it: most atheists will say that they value intelligence and education - and yet when it comes to biblical interpretation they trust the people who are the least educated and most ignorant about history and culture and literary context. Why would you take their word for it? Why not trust the more progressive Christians who tend to interpret the bible through a much more educated lens?
could it be because you’re a pussy and can’t atack religion for what it is? I mean c’mon grow a fucking spine…
Hemant, what did you do to call out the trolls?
[...] I caught an article on another site that simply forced my hand in this regard. A guy who runs a site called Friendly Atheist wrote an article entitled “Why I’m Not an Angry Atheist”. In it, he attempts to explain, as the title says, why he’s not an angry atheist, apparently equating passion with anger. Such as here: But if your religious beliefs (illogical as they may be) are doing something positive for our community and our world, and in the process, you’re not trying to stop scientific progress, impede promising research, hurt my gay friends, control another woman’s body, force your beliefs upon anyone else, ask the government to give you special privileges, or make me fear coming out as an atheist in public, why should I be attacking you? [...]
“I can’t believe I have to defend myself for not acting like a douchebag.”
Me neither, considering I doubt that anybody who has ever commented here wants you to act as such, Hemant. The comments you quoted at the beginning of this post certainly don’t support that view.
As for some of the people (and I’m not talking about Hemant here) who think they are so very friendly, unlike those “angry” atheists over there…I dunno, you yourselves sound pretty angry about those so-called angry atheists who annoy you. Does that mean that somebody should label you as “angry”? Of course not, because you are merely expressing frustration with somebody who you disagree with in some manner. Which is exactly what they have done.
If the friendly atheists are going to split atheists into “friendly” and “angry” camps, I’m going to have to think long and hard about which side to join (if I’m even given the option). I’d rather not have a label forced on me though.
Mike C- I didn’t see your earlier comment directed towards me, and I would also like to respond to your second comment, so here goes.
I wasn’t trying to support the idea that we can ridicule theists, so I think I misinterpreted what you said. I was arguing that religious debate is important and will not get in the way of doing good things as allies. You were saying the same thing, except I thought you were against all religious debate, and now I am understanding you really were focusing the problems with spuring your allies over theological differences. I think we are on the same page, here, then.
On to the Bible- again, I think we are on a similiar page here, but correct me if I am wrong. I am saying that the Bible is full of objectional material, and so are you. You are saying that educated Christians can explain away certain verses for historical, theological, etc, reasons, and I am saying that people I know tend to ignore those verses because they know these verses don’t make sense for some reason, but can’t really put their finger on why. This is probably because you are a pastor and I am a recent college grad, so your Christian friends are more educated about religion than mine, and thus can know all the historical, theological, etc ideas. I suppose I just don’t understand how a God who is supposedly guiding the writing (and rewriting and translating and etc) can allow his scribes to include passages allowing slavery when it was the culture allowing it, not the God. Wouldn’t he stop these things from being included? Its like this when I see progressve Christians telling me that they are ok with gay people- I like it, because I am pro-gay, but on the other hand, I don’t really think all six verses against it can be explained away so easily, so it makes more sense when Phelps is protesting it than when Christians are ok with it.
Richard Wade:
snicker, snicker … you really need to bolster that ego, y’know?
Hmm. That may be true for virulent back-and-forth online arguments between atheists and theists, but it’s certainly not true in the “friendly” discussions we’ve had here and at some of the related sites in the past year or so. I would say in many cases both sides have gained respect and new understanding, while in other cases people on both sides have become more hardened in their original positions.
The real impact, which you alluded to, is on the sidelines lurkers who are pondering silently and whose minds are often more open to new information. I know firsthand because I was one of them a few years ago!
This is such a great post. It’s so annoying when people seem to interpret atheism as automatically being antagonistic toward religion. I agree so much with this — my philosophy is simply this: if you’re using religion to make yourself a better person or to improve something about the world, good for you. If you’re using it to condemn or control or opress others, shame on you.
You make an excellent point when you say it’s not the religion that causes the most trouble, but its practitioners.
This made my day. The next time someone lumps me in with angry atheists, I’ll point them towards this blog, because, unfortunately, people don’t hear about the friendly ones enough.
say it with me: AGNOSTICISM
Not the act of faith: THERE IS NO GOD
Not the act of faith: THERE IS GOD
No, the middle path: I don’t see any overwhelming evidence for there being a god, and until some shows up, I happen to believe X, Y or Z.
You can’t go beyond the evidence and still claim to be a scientist. You can’t - as a scientist - ignore the fact that religious beliefs are as universal in humankind as sex. Something - even if it’s neurological - is going on, and it demands at least enough respect to say “religious belief is an unexplained phenomena.”
Whether you think that the eyewitness reports recorded in religious texts are hallucinations does not change that these things are still reported, over and over again, particularly in countries like India. The phenomena that caused the formations of religion still occur, which is why the Indians keep producing new stuff.
But that’s an aside: agnosticism is rational. Both atheism and religious belief involve staking a claim on something unseen and demanding it be accepted as truth.
Jen,
These are some great questions. I wish it were possible for me to explain to you how I look at each of these difficult passages in the Bible, but obviously I don’t have the time to go issue-by-issue and verse-by-verse with you. However, I hope I can explain just one of the biggest “lenses” that I use when interpreting scripture.
I don’t view scripture as a word-for-word dictation of God’s unchanging will for all time. The Bible, IMHO, is primarily a story, a narrative of God’s constantly evolving interactions with humanity. God doesn’t deal with all people in all cultures and time periods in exactly the same way. Instead he meets us where we are at, communicates only what we are able to handle at that time, and gives us just enough to keep us (individually and societally) moving on an upward journey of moral development. God doesn’t just give us absolute rules for all time - her goal is to form us, shape us into his agents of love, justice and reconciliation. Thus, the Bible, IMHO, should be seen as a record of this ongoing social and spiritual transformation, and should also be seen as one of the tools God continues to use for our ongoing formation - again, not by telling exactly what we’re supposed to do, but by telling us a provocative story of God at work in the world and then inviting us to write our own selves into the story and imagine together what the next chapter might be.
So when I come to the parts of the Bible that offend me - the violence, the intolerance, the injustices - I don’t assume that was God’s perfect will for all time. I assume that that was where the story was at back then, and how they understood God and her will from their own historically and culturally limited points of view (just as we do from ours). It was perhaps a phase we had to go through to get to where we are now.
I know that’s just a rough sketch but I hope it’s a little helpful. Believe me, I’ve wrestled with a lot of these same issues that you raise here. This is just how I have come to make sense of them. YMMV.
Peace,
-Mike
Vinay, scientists have been undertaking very good attempts to understand why religious beliefs are a human universal for quite some time now. Maybe you should take a look at books like Pascal Boyer’s Religion Explained or Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. I fail to see why they should regard it as simply unexplainable. No scientist worth his/her salt would say “this is unexplainable” about a certain phenomena and give up. The whole point of science is to investigate that which is unexplained to see if one can discover how it works.
I wrote the ‘politeness carbs’ comment and I think you’ve taken it the wrong way. It was meant to be a light-hearted remark pointing out that eating all that bread to be polite, instead of contradicting or arguing with your hosts meant you might put on weight.
I am a materialist atheist who also gets annoyed with horoscopes, crystal power etc.
This is the only atheism website I bother to read, precisely because I am tired of self-righteous atheists who keep turning up when I use StumbleUpon, and who appear to be under the illusion that Christianity will collapse once we demonstrate that the Bible has contradictions in it.
I fully support the ‘friendly’ approach of this site, which seems to me to be one of the very few atheist sites actually thinking about what strategies might be sucessful, instead of promoting smug agreement about how smart we atheists are.
For more of an idea about how I think atheists need to approach those with religious beliefs, you can read a 900-word comment I wrote over 6 months ago , as a response to an article called “Religion, Theocracy, and the Left“.
David– Wow. Ok. You’re right. I completely misinterpreted that one. (In fact, now, it’s downright funny.)
Perhaps the “ambiguosity” of it all just shows how easily comments can be taken the wrong way even if it’s not the author’s intent.
I apologize. I’ll remove the comment from the piece.
– Hemant
David,
Please join us at http://off-the-map.org/atheist/ where we continue the positive tone of discussion.
Yeah, I’m not unfamiliar with Penrose, Dennett, Blackmore etc. However, if you take the standards of proof expected in physics, and apply them to the work done so far on human religiosity, I think you’ll agree that we’re not really dealing with “science” here quite yet. There’s a lot of speculation but very little actual insightful experimentation and still less verifiable result. I think it’s a gross overstatement to stay that anybody has a solid handle on these phenomena or tendencies yet.
“We don’t know” is a really powerful foundation for science. Consider the evolutionary biology of homosexuality - from our current models, it just makes no damn sense. Could it be like sickle cell anemia? If so, what’s the pressure equivalent to malaria? Why the prevalence across species?
“We don’t know!”
Same with questions like the origin of mass, or the particle zoo.
It’s an act of FAITH - yes, faith - to assume that the scientific method will continue to solve all of these problems.
The “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” for example may have simply come from mining a particularly deep vein of correspondence between the physical universe and our mathematical models around the Calculus. Work by guys like Chaitin (see Omega Numbers) casts real doubt on whether we can *assume* that mathematics will *always* tightly couple to physical phenomena.
Nowhere does the scientific method get a “by” - we can’t assume it goes on forever, we can’t assume is solves all problems. We can only look at what has been done and guess - and hope - that we’ll continue to make progress.
But I think we can agree that if we look at the woeful state of physics right now: stuck in the intractable quagmire of the particle zoo, string theory falling to pieces and little hope of a direct theoretical replacement… what if that situation simply never resolves because either
1> the problem is too hard
2> the assumptions about modelability and predictability which lie at the heart of science turn out to be local to areas of experience like relativity or thermodynamics, but don’t generalize to QM
in either case, science runs aground.
If you can think about that clearly as something that really *could* happen, I think you’re still on solid ground as a scientist.
If it seems unthinkable, really ask yourself why? If the answer is “I have faith in the scientific method” then it’s time to declare Science a religion, get non-profit funding for the churches, and turn out the lights in the lab.
It’s a mode of inquiry which has produced very good results so far. Nothing more, nothing less. You’ll find, if you read the esoteric texts on yoga (see, say, Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra - BKS Iyengar translation) that they also have a rational procedure of inquiry, where observed mental states are modified by a series of experimental practices. It has it’s areas of utility.
Joe,
I have no contempt for you, not at all. We haven’t even been disagreeing much, if at all. Even if we were, I don’t form hard feelings because of someone’s opinions, beliefs or arguments; I only disapprove of someone if their methods, tone or tactics are impolite, rude, vulgar, unkind, snide, or the rest of the host of negative stuff that I so often see over at places like OnFaith. So much of that venom is both distasteful and boring.
Karen,
Yes, I was referring to those annoying playground style arguments of “Is not.” “Is too.” “Is not.” “Is too.” ad nausea using the same tired handful of arguments for and against the existence of God that don’t work either way. If the only thing that gets these masterpieces of tedium interesting is someone getting snotty, then it’s time to change the channel. That’s why I hang out over here. People here generally use their brains for more than creating clever put-downs.
Wow! You just blew my mind. I had never really thought about it in these terms before. Thanks for this Vinay.
History and philosophy of science, mate
The *real* revolution of science is the idea that the universe is regular: that if you do the same thing in two places, at two times, the result should be the same.
That was, as I understand it, a pretty major innovation. These axiom