About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

The Undergraduate Atheists’ Thesis

by Massimo Pigliucci

I am not particularly friendly to the so-called New Atheism. While I respect (and often respectfully disagree with) Dan Dennett, I have been a fairly strong critic of Dawkins, Harris, and the late Hitchens (not to mention other NA’s, such as Jerry Coyne). I have even written a technical paper analyzing the NA movement from a philosophical perspective. 

So it was with some interest that I recently read a piece by David V. Johnson at 3QuarksDaily, entitled “A refutation of the undergraduate atheists,” which promised to deliver some guilty pleasure for my weekend readings. It did deliver, but only in part. In the following I will outline Johnson’s arguments and where, I think, he goes astray. I have also invited him to respond here at Rationally Speaking, and he has graciously agreed, so stay tuned for a follow up.

Johnson adopts the (obviously derisive) language of philosopher Mark Johnston, referring to the NA as “undergraduate atheists” (notice that while Johnson seems to be some kind of deist, Johnson is an atheist). Since the NA’s themselves are notorious for their, shall we say, aggressive sarcasm, I think that’s a fair enough shot.

More substantively, here is the summary of the Undergraduate Atheists’ Thesis (UAT): “Humanity would be better off without religious belief.”

Before anyone cries “simplistic!” let me add that that’s also my own understanding of at the least a prominent position endorsed by the NA and their followers. So, let’s proceed to examine Johnson’s arguments against the UAT.

He unpacks the notion in the following way: “[the UAT] asks us to compare two different lines of human history, one in which the vast majority of human beings have held and continue to hold religious beliefs, and one in which they haven’t and don’t. Their argument is that the world will be better off in the latter scenario.”

Johnson’s first (and indeed, chief) objection is that to demonstrate the UAT is impossible, because it would require endlessly complex (and highly subjective) calculations, comparing the actual historical time line of humanity to the alternative world imagined by the NA. He therefore accuses the New Atheists of making a statement that is impossible to substantiate with empirical evidence, and that amounts to nothing but faith (ouch!).

This strikes me as entirely correct, as far as it goes, and it exposes the kind of simplistic, scientistic, anti-intellectual streak of self-professed “rational” thinking that too many atheists quickly and shamelessly engage in. Even though I don’t agree with Johnson’s judgment that endorsing the UAT is just as bad as “the ranting of any superstitious windbag,” it’s still pretty darn bad. We talk a lot about supporting critical thinking in the skeptic/atheist community(es), but we aren’t necessarily that good at cleaning up our own sloppy reasoning.

Johnson — again, rightly — accuses the NA of thinking that their alternative time line would have obviously been better for humanity, supporting this bold conclusion with (mostly cherry picked) examples of the evils allegedly caused by religions throughout the ages.

The problem, of course, is that some of those evils were justified using religious grounds, but more likely perpetrated because of the usual suspects: greed, political power, and the like. And similar evils — pace Dawkins’ convenient denial — have demonstrably been carried out by “atheist” governments, as recently as, well, now. Just think of Stalin’s Russia or the recent and current China. Ah, but those are not really the fault of atheism, the NA’s loudly complain, they are cases of political ideology taking up the cover of atheism. Sure, and what, exactly, makes anyone think that the same argument cannot be applied to the Inquisition, or to the various Christian massacres (often aimed at other Christians)? It’s called the no true Scotsman fallacy, you know.

There is, however, an important assumption behind Johnson’s reasoning (as well as, ironically, that of his targets), which one need not buy into. The two-timelines comparison is an exercise in consequentialist ethics, but if one is inclined to adopt either a deontological or a virtue ethical framework the whole idea of criticizing (or defending) religion on this basis crumbles into logical dust. Both Kantians and virtue ethicists, for instance, could object to religion on the grounds that they are based on untruths, as within both frameworks it is not acceptable to believe in things that are not true just because they make us feel better.

It is also a bit naive, I think, of both Johnson and the NA’s, to set up the problem as the comparison of two alternate time-lines. As Johnson says, this comparison is actually impossible to carry out, so either side can easily claim victory based on the “obvious” fact that their time-line is overall better for humanity. But if that were the only way to compare alternative scenarios affecting human wellbeing, then the same exact problem would apply to, say, political ideologies, with neither conservatives nor liberals ever being able to rationally make a case in favor of their programs. Instead, as any serious consequentialist would argue, these kinds of complex problems need to be broken down into smaller bits for which we can actually claim sufficient epistemic access to make at the least a reasonable guess as to the most likely outcome.

For instance, we can measure the effects of superstitious beliefs on people’s decision making and life quality, though the outcome of such analyses may not come down in clear favor of the New Atheist position. Indeed, it may very well turn out to be the case that atheists are better off staking their claims using deontology or virtue ethics (which is ironic, given that many of them seem to be consequentialists).

In a similar vein, Johnson points out that there are well documented cases of positive emotional effects from religion. Even though from an atheist perspective these are akin to placebo effects (and, the atheist would argue, unlike medical placebos they likely have ill “side” effects), Johnson’s argument remains valid. Remember, he is not defending the existence of gods, he is just trying to undermine the UAT.

Still exploring the alternative timelines argument, Johnson writes: “in this alternate universe, there would be no religious wars — but I suspect there would be wars. There would be no superstition — but I suspect there would be nonsense and folly all the same. But what this universe would lack is the ability of human beings to have religious faith and reap its subjective psychological benefits.” My hunch is that he is correct, but the crucial point is that we don’t know. That is, Johnson doesn’t have to show that the alternate universe would still suffer from huge problems, or even that the actual timeline is better all things considered. All he has to do is to show that the positive claim at the core of the UAT cannot be empirically substantiated, and that, a fortiori, it is far from obviously true.

In the second section of his essay Johnson takes on studies showing that religious belief comes naturally to human beings, that we are somehow hardwired for it. This is likely true (though I tend to be somewhat suspicious of any neuroscience- or evopsych-based claims to hard-wirededness), and needs to be addressed by the New Atheists. Indeed, the most astute of them, Dan Dennett, has devoted a whole book to “breaking [that particular] spell,” so to speak. (See also this technical paper of mine on the merits of various scientific hypotheses for the origin of religious belief.)

However, even if we buy Johnson’s premise of hard-wired beliefs in the transcendent, it doesn’t follow that people wouldn’t be better off without them, nor that this cannot be accomplished (you’d be surprised by how much genetically-influenced behavior turns out to be plastic, i.e. alterable by environmental influences). For instance, we are also naturally bad at reasoning about probabilities, and yet we can be taught how to avoid been duped by casinos.

But Johnson goes further and presents a thought experiment of his own, inviting us to imagine what an alternate world where people where incapable of religious faith would look like. After a brief nod of regret that such world would be unlikely to be populated by the likes of David Hume (I’m in complete agreement with that regretful sentiment!), he calls our twin-earth equivalents “Dawkinsians,” named after you-know-who: “Would Dawkinsians dread their own deaths? Would they have any capacity for mystical feeling? Would they suffer existential angst? Would they worry about the ultimate grounds of good and evil? If they did, then they would likely be worse off, I submit, than a world of human beings with religion. If they didn’t, then Dawkinsians are a species that is so unlike ours that it’s not a fair comparison.”

But wait a minute. To begin with, now Johnson seems to be making the exact same sort of unsubstantiated statements that he accuses the New Atheists of so carelessly engaging in (after all, the Dawkinsians are imaginary creatures). Moreover, we know that real human beings can and do cope with those problems, at least in part. Plenty of people in the world are non religious and yet do not seem to suffer more existential angst than their religious counterparts — for instance many within the so-called Buddhist “religion,” not to mention of course most atheists and agnostics. And religion is demonstrably not the only way to deal with these sort of problems, as plenty of philosophers and philosophical schools — from Epicureanism to Existentialism — have amply demonstrated. These aren’t hypotheticals about Dawkinsians, they are statements of fact concerning real human beings, statements that can be scrutinized and whose evidentiary weight can be assessed. Except, of course, that many atheists don’t care too much to study either comparative religion or philosophy.

In sum, I think Johnson’s main point is essentially correct: too many (new) atheists make bold claims without evidence, and they ought to be rebuked for that. However, the UAT can be refined and improved at the least to the level of a Graduate Atheists’ Thesis, if not better, by pursuing some of the lines of argument and inquiry I have outlined above.

128 comments:

  1. I agree that trying to re-evaluate history isn't going to work - but isn't an alternative view to look at the present and try to draw conclusions about how the future would be if there was more or less religion? The evidence is pretty clear - the best countries in the world to live right now are the least religious ones. So it seems a reasonable conclusion to say that a future with less religion would be better than a future with more religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The evidence is pretty clear - the best countries in the world to live right now are the least religious ones."

      Is it though? This claim rather begs the question. It assumes that "best" in this context means what people in less religious countries might consider ideal. But dedicated Islamists might feel that an Islamic country under Sharia law is clearly "the best".

      Delete
    2. Yeah I agree, "Best" is definitely a relative term in this case. I'm not religious, but I don't see religion as an evil force.

      Shardy - acknowledging that more developed countries, in terms of health, education, access to new technology (which I assume is what you mean by "best") may be genuinely secular or atheist is one thing. Saying that the lack of religion is the reason for this prosperity is completely another. >> https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause

      Thanks Massimo, for this link and all of your hard work!

      Delete
    3. Best is definitely a relative term. (I'm assuming Shardy is talking in terms of technology, healthcare and education - advancement)

      Assuming this, it's fair to say an enlightened society is less superstitious, less religious - but that doesn't mean that banishing religious thought is going to accelerate the rest of the world into a state of enlightenment.

      That is to say, the cause of these countries you may speak of being "the best" is not due to the banishment of religious beliefs - I suspect the opposite is true: As knowledge is acquired the need for superstition subsides.

      Delete
  2. "but more likely perpetrated because of the usual suspects: greed, political power, and the like."

    Though I am not a marxist, I quite agree with Marx that religion is often used as opium for the people. In that the ruling class resort to religion to mobilize the lower class to fight for upholding the status quo, or to distract the people attentions from real problems (e.g. the politicization of abortion in the US, while ignoring the social-economic problem of US society).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Plausibly, the NA position could be steelmanned into something more like

    >Humanity would be better off less religious at the margin.

    This would rescue them from making a silly historical-counterfactual claim; they would just be making a reasonably plausible moral claim about which direction is best today (no worse than any such claim from, say, liberals or conservatives).

    Johnson's thought experiment about people who are incapable of religious faith seems to miss the mark. I think a sophisticated NA would acknowledge that to do away with the entire psychological basis of religion (which is also the basis for many other, good things) would be too large a price to pay. That does not mean that it is foolish to try to suppress or circumvent humans' undesirable (according to them) religious tendencies.

    By way of analogy, the entire psychological basis of racism probably could not be uprooted without making humans into something very different and probably worse; nonetheless, it's arguably worth fighting one's racist tendencies at the margin.

    Johnson's critiques of NA's as presented here seem like weak sauce; I'm sure there are much better.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Johnson claims that NA's central thesis is that the world would have been better off had religion never existed (he clarifies that in the comments) - note it is specifically backward looking. This he says is an uncontroversial reading of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins. It appears to me however that NA is not particularly concerned with claims about what the world would have been like without religion. Who would not agree that such a claim would be impossible to validate? Isn't he attacking a strawman, at best?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It depends. I think Dawkins is basically concerned with denying that gods exist, which is immune to Johnson's criticism. His rants about effects of religion seem to be of the quality of asides.

      On the other hand, Hitchens' thesis was "religion poisons everything", which is pretty much what Johnson is critiquing.

      Harris has a foot in both camps, I think.

      Part of the problem is that NA is not a single standard set of claims to which all NA's are committed. This makes it hard to critique.

      Delete
    2. I certainly agree that consolidating the views of all the NAs is difficult, so critics would be better to focus on the individual words of each author instead of creating a collective strawman, tempting though that may be.

      To describe the horrors of the past, and to state that we can avoid such horrors in the future is not at all similar to stating "the world would have been better had religion not existed". I don't see how even Hitchens' position leads to the latter - he seemed intent on the emergence of a new enlightenment in which bigotry played a lesser role.

      Delete
  5. This is certainly not the major claim of NA. The main claim is that gods don't exist. I think the NA feel compelled to make a utilitarian argument for atheism because so many religionists are quick to say how much their religion has done for the world.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "...what, exactly, makes anyone think that the same argument cannot be applied to the Inquisition, or to the various Christian massacres (often aimed at other Christians)? It’s called the no true Scotsman fallacy, you know."

    This argument has always seemed rather straightforward to me, and definitely not a no true Scotsman fallacy. If when someone asks how you justify your morals you point to god or, more specifically, a specific religious text that process is substantially different from any atheism-backed moral justification. In those circumstances it can be, as has often is the case, that this text is considered the basis for moral knowledge so it's proclamations are considered definitive with no need for external checks. On the other hand, if in an officially atheist state like Soviet Russia when someone asks your basis for morals you can't point to atheism as it, literally, has no moral guidebook whatsoever. You can, of course, give reasons for your moral decisions, including even asserting "religion is evil for reason y, therefore x", but the strength or weakness of those conclusions then falls with those reasons and not atheism. In other words, specific religious doctrines once they are accepted can logically entail specific actions in a way atheism, or even a general belief in god or deism, can not.

    Moreover, while those reasons in the atheist state may have the mighty weight of state-endorsement (often more than enough to participate brutality) they are still subject to external checks. Even on a practical level, it's hard to argue the state's morals are absolute when everyone knows the state is composed of people who make mistakes. The same can not be said of some religious morality.

    This, of course, doesn't mean there would be no wars or massacres without religion but to insist that religions can't have a direct tie to morality different in kind to that of the morality given by atheists is, I think, to fail to appreciate the difference between what is being claimed by these parties.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Massimo, I generally agree with your take on the Gnus, and find them generally deserving of snark/satire, even outright sarcasm.

    Per your "two-timelines" section, this is why I don't claim to be a follower of any particular philosophical system of ethics, but do find various consequentialist theories troubling. Utilitiarianism, certainly, but also other consequentialist theories, seem to lean heavily on the slim reed of the "view from nowhere." Contra Rawls, in recent times, ethics operate in the real world; it's usually impossible to drop a veil over the whole thing.

    Besides, this all assumes that having a "view from nowhere" is ethically good. Is it? As a (for now) journalist, it's similar to the debate over trying to be (or pretend to be) "objective" in news reporting or not.

    ===

    On the ev psych-related issue, I would be more nuanced than the Gnus, and rather say that we appear to be hardwired for certain mental states and operations that are favorable to religious worldviews **and similar overarching systems.**

    ===

    Totally agree on the no true Scotsman. I have had Gnus regularly dismiss Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Totally agree on the no true Scotsman. I have had Gnus regularly dismiss Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc."

      Which tenets of atheism led to those mass murders?

      Delete
    2. "Utilitiarianism, certainly, but also other consequentialist theories, seem to lean heavily on the slim reed of the 'view from nowhere.' Contra Rawls, in recent times, ethics operate in the real world; it's usually impossible to drop a veil over the whole thing.

      Besides, this all assumes that having a 'view from nowhere' is ethically good. Is it? As a (for now) journalist, it's similar to the debate over trying to be (or pretend to be) 'objective' in news reporting or not."

      I think the two are quite dissimilar but both answerable. In journalism, whether or not to attempt objectivity is primarily a practical question about which style best informs the reader of the facts, the writer's biases, is sellable, etc. On the other hand, asking whether or not the "view from nowhere" is ethically good seems much more like a, imo, poorly formed metaethical question.

      To me, if I substitute out those words for the referents, instead of replacing them with synonyms, I think the question becomes quite answerable. If you are saying something like "Is adopting rules that could universally endorsed what I have most reason to do?" then it becomes a question about what reasons you could potentially give for favoring one group or person over others. Now you could be saying something else, but on this reading it isn't a question determined by pure pragmatics like the journalism debate seems to be. However, and more importantly, neither question is some deep unanswerable conundrum which should cause utilitarians or journalists to assume their practice is without solid foundations.

      Delete
    3. "but do find various consequentialist theories troubling"

      The most troubling feature of consequentialism is, in my eyes, how we can classify certain consequences as good or bad. If we know that a certain action X has consequence Y, how do we know Y is good or bad? It seems to me that too often consequentialists assume that it's somehow obvious that Y is either good or bad. Which is an assumption I personally find troublesome.

      Delete
    4. Stalin and Mao both killed Christians qua Christians, and sent others to the gulags and camps. Beyond killing, of course, both persecuted Christians, and other religious believers, in other ways.

      Delete
    5. Was that Stalin qua athiest or Stalin qua ruthless psychopathic ideologue?

      Delete
    6. Disagreeable, the same could be said about any Christian leader who killed non-Christians. I think it's a cop-out. Per others below, Stalin and Mao supported state-backed atheism as part of dictatorships. Period. Atheists, whether Gnu or not, who deny this, for me like Massimo, fall under the no true Scotsman. Special pleaders.

      Delete
    7. Hi Gadfly,

      >the same could be said about any Christian leader who killed non-Christians>

      Only if that leader's Christian ideology had nothing to do with the killings, because atheism is not an ideology.

      I don't think it's special pleading or no true Scotsman.

      I've tried to make this point before but let me try again.

      Let's dispense with the idea that the enemy of the new atheists is simply religion. The enemy of the new atheists is dogma and faith. Beliefs handed down by authority.

      By far the most common instance of this is religion. This is why they focus on religion.

      But communism as practiced by Mao and Stalin also meets this criteria. The fact that these regimes were atheist is incidental.

      Delete
    8. Disagreeable, what you are doing is divorcing the atheist from the belief. Atheism like religious belief is a meme. Everyone uses memes the way they see fit. St. Francis of Assisi, was certainly a more pacifistic, more communistic Christian than say Pat Robinson. The same is true for atheists. What happens with most memes is those with similar outlooks coalesce around each other. There was an article recently about the different types of atheists. One can just as reasonably say that Stalin's atheism was an outgrowth of the stridently antireligious atheist.

      Delete
    9. Disagreeable, Atheism and religious beliefs are memes that can be used by the individual in differing often contradictory ways. Certainly St Francis of Assisi was a different type of Christian than Torquemada. Recently there were articles about the various types of atheists. Since it seems that people with similar views congregate, it is not unreasonable to note that Marxism-Leninism and the various subcategories of Marxist ideology that controlled the USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam to name a few countries, were in all likelihood congregations of like minded atheists first and not simply psychopaths.

      Delete
    10. Hi MikeA,

      I would say the problem is that we are comparing apples to oranges. The opposite of atheism is not religion, but theism.

      Theism, while in my view incorrect, is probably in and of itself not harmful. Religion (and dogmatic ideology in general) is the enemy of the New Atheists, not theism.

      Conversely, communism is not atheism, but an atheistic ideology the way that Catholicism is a theistic ideology.

      I don't mean to deny that religion can be used to motivate great positive behaviours. I would just prefer if we tried to base such behaviours on reason rather than (what I view as) irrationality. If we managed to that, then I suspect the world would be a better place.

      >One can just as reasonably say that Stalin's atheism was an outgrowth of the stridently antireligious atheist.<

      I really don't think that atheism had much to do with what motivated Stalin. It was only one aspect of his communist ideology, not the origin of it.

      Delete
    11. Hi MikeA,
      >...were in all likelihood congregations of like minded atheists first and not simply psychopaths.<

      I would not say they were psychopaths at all. I would say Stalin and Mao, specifically, were psychopaths.

      Most communists under Stalin and Mao were ordinary people, motivated by a quasi-religious faith in the party rather than personal ambition and callous disregard for others.

      (I do suspect, however, that the regime offered an opportunity for psychopaths to prosper, so I suspect that a lot of the officials were psychopathic in the same way that many CEOs are psychopaths today).

      You may have heard Penn Jillette's stamp-collecting analogy. Atheism is a religion the way stamp-collecting is a hobby.

      To take this analogy a bit further (and indeed too far altogether), the New Atheists (or New Non-stamp-collectors) are opposing stamp-collecting for some reason, because, umm... let's imagine that collecting things is harmful to the environment.

      Now, to criticise atheism by pointing to the communists is like answering the New Non-stamp-collectors by pointing to all the environmental harm done by non-stamp-collecting coin-collectors.

      True, the coin-collectors don't collect stamps, but this is incidental. The real problem with the coin-collectors is that they're still collecting stuff, even if the stuff they're collecting is not stamps so they are not technically stamp collectors.

      Similarly, the real problem with the communists is that they are still promoting a dogmatic ideology, even if what they promote is not supernatural so they are not technically religious.

      Delete
  8. Hi Massimo,

    Wow. Could not disagree with you more on the first point.

    >This strikes me as entirely correct, as far as it goes, and it exposes the kind of simplistic, scientistic, anti-intellectual streak of self-professed “rational” thinking that too many atheists quickly and shamelessly engage in.<

    Claims in the social sciences, history, economics and politics are never iron-clad empirical claims to be verified by controlled experiments. The only data we have to go on are comparisons between societies past and present where different conditions prevail. This is precisely what the New Atheists do.

    In particular, nobody is claiming that it is an empirical scientific fact that we would have been better off without religion. Instead, it is their opinion that religion is harmful, and they make an argument for it with reference to historical events and cultures past and present.

    I support your efforts to critique the specifics of that argument, but this first point is to dismiss the argument prima facie, which is unreasonably censorious.

    I also think you're holding the New Atheists to unfairly high standards of certainty. Sure, their conclusions are uncertain, and not as sure as they make them out to be.

    But this is not science or philosophy, it's politics. They are trying to change hearts and minds by engaging in impassioned debate. You don't win debates by expressing at every opportunity your doubts of your own position.

    The prevailing opinion, accepted without question for hundreds or thousands of years, has been that religion is of great benefit to society and that atheists are to be feared and distrusted as a result. For too long atheists have meekly accepted the status quo and been reticent about their (non)-beliefs, calmly accepting the religious indoctrination ubiquitous in our societies.

    This is not an academic discussion. It is of critical importance that attitudes change, and the New Atheists are arguably making ground. By being acerbic, sarcastic and mean, they allow a bit of space for more gentle atheists like you to express themselves honestly without reproach.

    But I would agree with you, (and perhaps the New Atheists would also), that religion is not specifically the problem.

    The problem is faith, dogma and dependence on authority. Religion is the most common manifestation of this by far (and so focus of New Atheism), but Stalinism and Maoism are other examples. Indeed, they are so religion-like in every respect apart from belief in the supernatural that they could almost serve as further examples of harmful religious oppression.

    You can accuse me of No True Scotsman, but I have a definition for the kind of atheism that I and the New Atheists are proposing. We are not simply atheists, but also skeptics, rationalists and freethinkers. The atheism of Maoism and Stalinism is nothing like what we are promoting.

    >The problem, of course, is that some of those evils were justified using religious grounds, but more likely perpetrated because of the usual suspects: greed, political power, and the like.<

    Agreed, but don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion?"

      Religion justifies and motivates a lot of things. Definitely, there is an aspect of religion which causes bad things. But this aspect seems to be shared with other ideologies. I think, the focus should be on finding this aspect rather than criticizing the whole ideology. My take is that it's "us vs. them" attitude -- class struggle, fidels vs. infidels, iOS vs Android users, etc. This article http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.pdf provides some data to support this case. By the way, position of NA is a variety of this "us vs. them" attitude and, therefore, seems to me as dangerous as communism or Jihad.

      One can say that human libido is the cause of rape. Or point out that fire is used by arsenists. Shall we sterilize people or prohibit the use of fire? My answer is that it is unreasonable to criticize religion as a whole because it provides justification for war. Wars are justified by all kinds of things including fight for democracy and freedom. Therefore, it is clear to me that religion is not the root cause of wars.

      Delete
    2. Re: "Agreed, but don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion?"

      Religion is used to justify and motivate a lot of things. Human libido can be blamed for rape. By this logic, we should sterilize people to eliminate rape. Or we should suppress immune system because it is responsible for a number of uncurable autoimmune diseases. This logic was used in China to exterminate sparrows because they ate crops. Fight for democracy and freedom is used to justify wars. We need to be critical of these ideologies as well.

      Sarcasm aside, it seems to me that there is an aspect of religion causing bad things to happen. This aspect seems to be shared with other ideologies such as Marxism-Leninism. My take is that it's the "us vs. them" part: class struggle, fidels vs. infidels, iOS vs. Android users, etc. This article provides some data to support this opinion. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.pdf

      Delete
  9. Thanks for the summary Massimo. I haven't seen evidence that there are hard-wired concepts or inference-producing modules that produce a set of beliefs analogous to those of theology or religious doctrine. And whatever innate tendencies that people may have (attachment to kin who are dead, the need/difficulty trusting the intentions of non-kin species members, sensitivity to one's reputation in a social network) these will vary greatly from person to person. I keep coming up against this paradox: how can a rational culture be initiated and sustained that addresses the natural constitution of humanity without being religious-like or depending on a cleric-like caste of values police? A fragile, socially embedded primate might have deep uncertainty about trusting non-kin. Shared public, physical rituals like sporting events or participating in military training, or mass prayer contribute to people's sense that they are surrounded by others who share a long-term commitment to each other despite lack of any obvious shared kin features. The anthropology around that is sound, but I don't want to live in North Korea or attend a patriotic pep-rally cum prayer session mandated by my local politicians. And I don't want to encourage the Romantics or irrationalists who root for mass action and decry cautious liberal intellectual approaches. Yet the strain of New Atheism posits that everyone should be a Sam Harris, carefully watching for any collective of religious dupes conspiring to get me, honing my martial arts and shooting skills to defend me and mine, and meditating to keep any collective hysteria from contaminating my personal experience of reason, zen-like flow, and personal ecstatic experiences. That seems to me as untenable as making myself a Randian mentat operating on acute sense perception and flawless deductive logic. How would you recommend rational, science-informed philosophy take account of the very real creaturely liabilities of a species evolved to coperate and compete in groups of hundreds, now grouped into nations of millions and numbering in the billions? Or must the rational intellect always be prepared to stand outside of the movements of mass societies, just like the highly-educated and highly-IQd who find ways to be happy and sociable without being plugged into the churches, sports teams, or patriotic groups that address many people's needs?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not sure I would claim that the world would be a better place, had religion never existed. Indeed, as pointed out, that would be a difficult--if not outright impossible--claim to verify. However, I do sincerely believe that our world will become a better place, were religion's influence to diminish (even to the point of being non-existent).
    So, my claim relates to future world lines, rather than past ones. Whether this distinction is reasonable I will leave to others to decide.

    However, I should say that I suspect that this bit of consequentialist thinking also motivates those amongst us who claim to oppose religion on deontological or virtue ethical grounds, rather than consequentialist grounds. Suppose a moral agent were to be convinced that lessening religion's influence on the world would entail harmful consequences for the world at large (by the moral agent's reckoning). Would the moral agent still be inclined to oppose religion for deontological or virtue ethical reasons, even knowing the harm that would come of it? I would be surprised if a majority of deontologists or virtue ethicists would claim that they would persist in their opposition to religion, if circumstances were such. Yet, if they say that they would cease to oppose religion, they too are motivated by some consequentialist concerns.

    As for me, I oppose religion primarily because of epistemological reasons. Where religion makes comprehensible truth claims, it has been refuted; where religion doesn't make comprehensible truth claims, it's just nonsensical and shouldn't be accorded any special respect. I also happen to believe that the world would be a better place if religion became less influential, and while the utility of religion isn't my primary concern, it would give me serious pause were I to learn that my efforts to oppose religion would ultimately be harmful.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Another excellent & provocative essay; just one picky comment about "unlike medical placebos they likely have ill “side” effects." Well, medical placebos really do sometimes have ill or harmful side effects, called nocebo effects!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think you will find that people like Coyne point towards very secularized European countries, and that they are quite correct when they say that those societies are less dysfunctional than very religious ones. The 'UAT' therefore does have evidence on its side. What is more, it is pretty clear that we will collectively make better decisions if we are rational instead of religious. Is that not kind of a premise of this entire blog?

    Also it is strange that you make a show of agreeing with Johnson's main argument and then utterly dismantle it yourself later, when you say that on that logic nobody could ever argue for any worldview whatsoever. Which is it?

    Your argument about atheist government also having committed atrocities really does not make a lot of sense either. This is not rocket science: When somebody goes and kills people because they aren't communist enough, they have done so in the name of an ideology. When somebody goes and kills people because they are not Catholic enough, they have done so in the name of religion. Now how often have people gone and killed others for not being atheist enough?

    But in a way you are right. Atheism is not the principle that needs defending but merely an inescapable conclusion following from the principle of rationalism and evidence-based belief formation. The latter is what it is all about, which is why you will also find the 'new atheists' opposed to non-religious forms of authoritarianism. Conversely, quite a few 'new atheists' are on the record as having said that they would accept the existence of gods given certain kinds of evidence. So saying that they are only about destroying religion but would embrace atheist nonsense is just attacking a strawman.

    Not saying that any of them are perfect, and indeed find many reasons to disagree with Harris and Hitchens in particular, but I wonder if you are not letting personal dislikes color your thoughts in this case. They are closer to you in their position than you allow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now how often have people gone and killed others for not being atheist enough?

      I'd say it probably happens quite often in China or North Korea today.

      Delete
    2. @Aaron Ginn

      You're certainly not going to be killed for not being an atheist in China. Perhaps North Korea.

      But you're not really being killed for being an atheist, you're being killed for not being ideologically pure. That's the point of Alex's post.

      Delete
    3. Distinction without a difference. If it illegal on threat of death to practice any form of religion (as it is in NK), how is that not being killed for not being atheist enough? One is either a theist or not (agnostics are not). IF you are a theist, you are likely to be killed or sent to the death camps in NK.

      Delete
    4. And I would argue that it depends on where you practice theism in China. Certainly, there is little risk in the westernized regions - they are more concerned with capital than ideology - but I suspect there are many less urbanized areas where practicing theists are killed or disappeared.

      Delete
    5. Because you're being killed for not being communist enough, an example raised by Alex in the original comment.

      "When somebody goes and kills people because they aren't communist enough, they have done so in the name of an ideology."

      To argue against his point, you'd have to find an instance of somebody being killed for believing in God but outside of the context of authoritarian ideology.

      In other words, no skeptical, anti-authoritarian New Atheist is going to kill somebody for believing the wrong things.

      Delete
    6. Posted a reply, but I'm not sure it went through.

      To argue against his point, you'd have to find an instance of somebody being killed for believing in God but outside of the context of authoritarian ideology.

      The Crusades and the Inquisition were conducted under authoritarian ideologies. How is this any different? Alex seems to think there is a difference between an ideology and a religion. If you're going to label the Inquisition as a Christian mass-murder (and I think it was), then why not label North Korean killings of theists as atheistic mass murders?

      The main point is that authoritarians will use whatever excuse they can to kill those who threaten their power. Authoritarian atheists are no exception.

      Delete
    7. >Alex seems to think there is a difference between an ideology and a religion. <

      This is not how I interpret his point. I understand him to take religion as an example of ideology, and to be making the point that ideology is bad.

      As such, he disagrees with Massimo's point about communist governments because these were ideological, not atheist in the sense advocated by the new atheists.

      Delete
    8. @Dis.me: Re: Your comment that no NA would kill someone for believing in the wrong things, be advised that Sam Harris speculated that it may be acceptable to kill people solely for their beliefs!

      Delete
    9. Here is chapter and verse:

      “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”


      Sam Harris, The End of Faith, pp.52-53.

      Delete
    10. @Tom D.
      “Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them”

      Good point. I was not specific enough.

      I do think what Harris said is defensible, but he is also not specific enough. He's not advocating murder for the belief itself, but for the potential harm indicated by the belief.

      For example, if somebody believes that it is his duty to murder as many people as possible, and is committed to act on that belief, and if it is not practical or feasible to imprison this person or to change his mind (e.g. because he has immunity from prosecution for some reason), then in those extreme circumstances it may be ethical to kill him.

      But we're not killing for the belief itself. We're killing to prevent the harm directly caused by that belief. I see that as a different context from my original comment.

      Delete
  13. When writing books for a wide audience, the cry is always going to be "simplistic!" I think the principle of charity demands that we try to take the best interpretation of what's said rather than the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The whole argument is akin to "How many angels dance..." because we will never have a world devoid of religion. I certainly think it is better to view the world as it is, accepting hard truths as they are (no afterlife, no effective prayer, etc.), but I also accept that for many people, the lack of a belief in the supernatural would be akin to a death sentence. Not everyone (in fact the vast majority) is wired to accept cold, hard truths. Most people really do prefer a comfortable lie over an uncomfortable truth.

    We only have 80 years on this rock (if we're lucky), and people should spend it in whatever way brings them the most happiness (without negatively affecting the happiness of everyone else, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  15. One of the issues I see with this debate is it tends to lump all people into one large homogeneous total and then argue about whether religion is good or bad for them, whether it's necessary or not.

    Given religiosity's near universality in poor populations (at least in the absence of some totalitarian regime), it seems to be meeting some need, most likely the need for comfort in the face of existential anxiety. As economies develop, that anxiety lessens, and religiosity goes down. Northern Europe, with perhaps the best standard of living in the world, also has the lowest religiosity. Sub-Saharan Africa has among the highest religiosity.

    New Atheists sometimes say that the poor populations would get better faster if religion wasn't there. Perhaps, but there's no real evidence for it, and it assumes that people are not already motivated to improve their lot. It also sounds suspiciously similar to the line political conservatives use about why poor people shouldn't get aid.

    There are exceptions, but trying to convince people who are in the midst of hardscrabble or uncertain lives out of their religion is usually futile, and ridiculing them for sticking with it is cruel and only creates hostility.

    Atheism is a luxury that many people can't emotionally afford. Those of us who can afford it need to be careful not to be jerks about it to those who can't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Patterns (like the handle, by the way),

      I think there's a problem with your argument. Poor education and ignorance are correlated with poverty. This may be why poor people are more likely to be religious.

      I honestly think this is more likely to explain the correlation between religiosity and poverty than the need for emotional comfort. Better education is likely the solution to both problems.

      Delete
    2. Hi Disagreeable. Thanks. Love your avatar.

      I agree that poor education and poverty are all tangled up. If you're poor, you often don't have opportunities for a good education. Without a good education, you stay poor. Vicious cycle.

      But what about poor populations that are educated? That's a pretty good description for many populations in ex-communist countries like Russia, where there's been a resurgence of religion.

      I can't really think of a rich but uneducated population, but it would be interesting to see how religious such a population should be.

      Nigel Barber, an evolutionary psychologist, has done a lot of posts on this, which you might find interesting.
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201310/why-is-mississippi-more-religious-new-hampshire

      Delete
    3. Hi Patterns,

      I'm not sure how well-educated the poor of Russia are. I think the resurgence or religion might have more to do with the relaxation of state control rather than a sudden increase in poverty. In this view, the religion was always there, latent.

      >I can't really think of a rich but uneducated population, but it would be interesting to see how religious such a population should be.<

      OK, so we want a country that somehow managed to get very wealthy without education. So we're probably looking for a country with some sort of valuable natural resource. Like oil.

      Let's check the stats on the UAE.

      According to Wikipedia, United Arab Emirates is ranked 107th of 181 countries in education but 9th of 195 countries in gross domestic product at purchasing power parity per capita (according to the CIA figures, which admittedly are the ones which most suit my case).

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

      So I think that counts as rich but uneducated. As you know, it is a very religious country.

      Delete
    4. Disagreeable,
      On the UAE, I think it's pretty tough to get accurate religious data in totalitarian theocracies. If the regimes were to ever fall, we might see the reverse of the communist countries experience. (In other words, there might be latent atheism.)

      In any case, while there are certainly outliers (the US is one), if you look at the world overall, high GDP per capita has an inverse relationship with religiosity.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/RELIGIONvsGDPperCapita.png

      I suspect the outliers are because economic prosperity and economic and personal security aren't always the same thing. For example, the gaping holes in the US safety net probably contribute to our unusually high religiosity. Political insecurity might contribute in other countries.

      Delete
  16. Shardy (and others),

> The evidence is pretty clear - the best countries in the world to live right now are the least religious ones. <

    Yes, and I think this is a good argument indeed. But I have read too much NA literature to reject out of hand that many of those people also think it a no-brainer that secularism is ipso facto better than religion. It isn’t, as the cases of Soviet Russia and China clearly show.

    I suspect, then, that there is a confounding effect at play here. What seems to work is not less religious societies per se, but open, social-democratic, societies with a strong safety net, health care and public education — which as a result lead to a reduction in religiosity.

    Ian,

    > Humanity would be better off less religious at the margin. <

    Precisely, but many of the NA’s aren’t quite that subtle.

    > I think a sophisticated NA would acknowledge that to do away with the entire psychological basis of religion (which is also the basis for many other, good things) would be too large a price to pay. <

    I’m sorry, did you say sophisticated NA? Don’t know many of those…

    > By way of analogy, the entire psychological basis of racism probably could not be uprooted without making humans into something very different and probably worse; nonetheless, it's arguably worth fighting one's racist tendencies at the margin. <

    Well, that analogy is interesting, but it works only in part. There are plenty of positive effects of religiosity (not just psychological ones), which racism entirely lacks.

    Adrian,

    > Johnson claims that NA's central thesis is that the world would have been better off had religion never existed <

    I disagree, I think that is clearly entailed by what the NA actually write. They may not have put things in terms of Johnson’s thought experiment, but that is the view of the world that people like Hitchens and Dawkins clearly seem to hold.

    > I don't see how even Hitchens' position leads to the latter - he seemed intent on the emergence of a new enlightenment in which bigotry played a lesser role. <

    But the problem is that the evils of religion aren’t the exclusive province of religion, and the Enlightenment itself had the horrors of the Great Terror as a pretty direct result. Again, the NA’s seem to see the world in far too stark colors.

    Jake,

    > This is certainly not the major claim of NA. The main claim is that gods don't exist. <

    I completely disagree. Hitchens and Harris certainly are concerned with the evils of religion, and to a pretty large extent so are Dawkins and even Dennett. Besides, for the main claim of “new” atheism to be that there is no god, well, it makes it sound a hell of a lot like old atheism. Or any atheism, really.

    Gadfly,

    > Contra Rawls, in recent times, ethics operate in the real world; it's usually impossible to drop a veil over the whole thing. <

    That seems unfair to Rawls. Surely you understand that he was talking about an ideal thought experiment to support his arguments, he wasn’t thinking that we can really seat around a negotiating table behind a self-imposed veil of ignorance.

    > Besides, this all assumes that having a "view from nowhere" is ethically good. Is it? As a (for now) journalist, it's similar to the debate over trying to be (or pretend to be) "objective" in news reporting or not. <

    Long discussion there. I have argued that if we are talking about societal rules, the view has to be impartial (I prefer some kind of Rawls-type view), while from an individual perspective it doesn’t need to be (virtue ethics). Even in journalism, while pure objectivity is impossible, surely there is some room between that and full throttle hackery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In his book Moral Imagination, philosopher Mark Johnson wrote about "transperspectivity, which is the ability of a physically, historically, socially, and culturally situated self to reflect critically on its own construction of a world, and to imagine other possible worlds that might be constructed." (pg. 241). Quoting Steven Winter (ad loc): "Impartiality"…is no longer a matter of an aperspectival position, but rather an exercise of the empathic ability to imagine what a question looks like from more than one side."

      That said, this notion of human objectivity seems more realistic to me than that of the "unencumbered self" that Rawls idealized. Still, to the degree that Rawls' thought experiment works, I suspect that it does so precisely because it draws upon these same empathic and imaginative human resources.

      Delete
    2. Massimo: I don't think it's that unfair to Rawls. I think a thought experiment has to have some degree of relationship to reality. Other than using a literal veil to suss out symphony orchestras' old anti-female bias in hiring, it's hard to do. That said, and I think I've mentioned it here before, I'm largely in sympathy with Walter Kaufmann's ideas in "Without Guilt and Justice." Basically, it's not a question of impartiality on the individual level, but that, in terns of BOTH redistributive and rehabilitative or retributive justice, no two humans are going to agree on the correct action to take. It's the trolley car experiment writ large, across every aspect of all those different subfields of justice. Now, some approximations may be better than others, but they're all going to be permanent empirical works in progress.

      Speaking of, don't we really need a neo-Humean theory of ethics?

      ===

      On journalism, agree. An honest disclosure of biases, with a controlled use of them, is much better than a pretended view from nowhere, which in mainstream American journalism, is often instead the "view from the establishment."

      Delete
  17. Michael,

    > Which tenets of atheism led to those mass murders? <

    Which tenets of the Gospels justified the slaughtering of fellow Christians? Besides, atheism doesn’t have *any* tenets. It is not a philosophy, it is simply a metaphysical statement. You need, say, secular humanism to make meaningful comparisons with religion.

    DM,

    > The only data we have to go on are comparisons between societies past and present where different conditions prevail. This is precisely what the New Atheists do. <

    Where? I’ve never seen a systematic study done by NA’s about these things. They simply do a bit of hand waiving toward the well being of more secular societies. But see my comment above about the many confounding factors that would require a serious sociological analysis to be disentangled — if they can be disentangled at all.

    > it is their opinion that religion is harmful <

    And it’s also beneficial. And secular doctrines can be harmful and beneficial. That’s not much of an argument.

    > But this is not science or philosophy, it's politics. They are trying to change hearts and minds by engaging in impassioned debate. <

    Oh so because they are a political movement (since when?) they get to take liberties with facts and reasons? I don’t think so.

    > For too long atheists have meekly accepted the status quo and been reticent about their (non)-beliefs <

    I guess you never heard of, say, Bertrand Russell? Do you seriously think that NA’s invented public criticism of religion? Or anything else, really?

    > By being acerbic, sarcastic and mean, they allow a bit of space for more gentle atheists like you <

    I heard that argument before, and I just don’t buy it. (Evidence?) I think they make it more difficult for the rest of us because they contribute to the stereotype of the atheist asshole. See, for a similar example, the current nasty public campaign by American Atheists.

    > The problem is faith, dogma and dependence on authority. <

    Indeed. And you haven’t noticed a significant number of atheists falling into the same trap?

    > don't you think that providing a justification for war is reason enough to be critical of religion? <

    Well, no, not per se, since one can also justify acts of charity and kindness with religion. There is nothing intrinsic in religion that has to lead to wars — except the ease of manipulation of people when they believe in dogma and authority, but then see comment above.

    > But you're not really being killed for being an atheist, you're being killed for not being ideologically pure. That's the point of Alex's post. <

    See my response to Alex below, but you are wrong. Christians kill other Christians precisely because they don’t think they are sufficiently ideologically pure. No difference that I can see between the two cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Besides, atheism doesn’t have *any* tenets. It is not a philosophy, it is simply a metaphysical statement.

      Agreed, but don't the NA's seem unusually worked up over a metaphysical claim? After all, it's one thing to counter the fallacious arguments of religious dogmatists; it's quite another to function as their mirror images.

      Delete
    2. >Where? I’ve never seen a systematic study done by NA’s about these things<

      They're not doing science, they are making an argument. They're not claiming to have proved anything.

      > if they can be disentangled at all<

      And maybe they cannot be. But the New Atheists are entitled to present their interpretation of the facts we do have. You're entitled to point out the specific problems with that interpretation, but that first point seems to be saying that to even make the argument at all is irrational.

      >> it is their opinion that religion is harmful <

      And it’s also beneficial. And secular doctrines can be harmful and beneficial. That’s not much of an argument.<

      OK. Let me rephrase. It is their opinion that religion does more harm than good, that we would be better off without it. They provide reasons for this belief.

      Again, the specifics of the argument are up for grabs, but I think it is wrong-headed to criticise them for attempting to make the argument at all.

      >Oh so because they are a political movement (since when?) they get to take liberties with facts and reasons? I don’t think so.<

      I don't mean they are a political party, I mean they are attempting to influence policy and public opinion. Activism might be a better word.

      They don't get to take liberties with facts and reasons. Their specific arguments are open to criticism. What I think is unfair is calling them irrational just because they have not proven beyond doubt the beliefs they present.

      >I guess you never heard of, say, Bertrand Russell?<

      Bertrand Russell is a great hero of mine. How would you distinguish him from (for example) Daniel Dennett with regard to who counts as a New Atheist?

      Bertrand Russell can be seen as an early New Atheist. This quote is from his Wikipedia page:

      "For most of his adult life Russell maintained that religion is little more than superstition and, despite any positive effects that religion might have, it is largely harmful to people. He believed that religion and the religious outlook serve to impede knowledge and foster fear and dependency, and are responsible for much of the war, oppression, and misery that have beset the world."

      Isn't that essentially the view you're criticising?

      >And you haven’t noticed a significant number of atheists falling into the same trap?<

      Sure. And those are No True Atheists ;)

      I'm not saying atheists are inherently superior to theists, so this argument is not relevant. I'm saying faith and dogma are harmful, and the fact that atheists are also vulnerable to it is no counter-argument.

      >one can also justify acts of charity and kindness with religion. <

      Charity and kindness need no justification. They feel good naturally. War is different. The more spurious justifications for war we can eradicate the better. To roughly paraphrase something Hitch said, it takes religion (or other dogmatic ideological systems, granted) to make a good man do evil things.

      >except the ease of manipulation of people when they believe in dogma and authority<

      Precisely.

      >Christians kill other Christians precisely because they don’t think they are sufficiently ideologically pure. No difference that I can see between the two cases.<

      Nor I. I think you're missing the point. Nobody is making the point that religion is worse than ideology. The point is that ideology is bad. Religion is bad because it is a kind of ideology.

      Delete
  18. Marcus,

    > If when someone asks how you justify your morals you point to god or, more specifically, a specific religious text that process is substantially different from any atheism-backed moral justification. <

    Sure, but that was not at all the point of my bringing up the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    > specific religious doctrines once they are accepted can logically entail specific actions in a way atheism, or even a general belief in god or deism, can not. <

    I wish more NA were convinced of this. I agree that atheism is no doctrine about anything, at all. Except of course the denial of the supernatural. *Nothing* else follows from it, but you wouldn’t know it by reading the NA literature or listening to their followers on blogs and social networks.

    > doesn't mean there would be no wars or massacres without religion but to insist that religions can't have a direct tie to morality different in kind to that of the morality given by atheists is, I think, to fail to appreciate the difference between what is being claimed by these parties. <

    Again, I agree but it doesn’t seem to address my point about the fallacy, because religious doctrines can be used just as easily to endorse peace as war. So the Christian can honestly say that those that brand Jesus’ words to massacre people are not true Christians, just like Dawkins claims that the Soviet or Chinese regimes are not “really” atheistic. Indeed, one can use your reasoning and turn things around: since no moral doctrine at all follows from atheism, on what basis do the NA then claim that an atheistic society would be “better”? (Remember, of course, that I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here. I do think that less religion is good, other things being equal, but I tend to adopt the sort of more nuanced approach described by Ian above.)

    Erik,

    > How would you recommend rational, science-informed philosophy take account of the very real creaturely liabilities of a species evolved to coperate and compete in groups of hundreds, now grouped into nations of millions and numbering in the billions? <

    Darn good question! But definitely another conversation, I think. Of course my general answer would be more teaching of critical thinking and of philosophy more generally, together with a decent dose of science literacy and education in international literature. But that’s just me.

    Björn,

    > my claim relates to future world lines, rather than past ones. Whether this distinction is reasonable I will leave to others to decide. <

    Well, I think it is reasonable if cashed in the kind of “marginal” sense outlined by Ian above. Otherwise it becomes indistinguishable from the sort of argument that Johnson is critiquing.

    > Would the moral agent still be inclined to oppose religion for deontological or virtue ethical reasons, even knowing the harm that would come of it? <

    Good question, and I’d say yes, up to a point. Kant, for one, was famous for claiming that the moral law ought to be upheld even if it means the end of the human race. But that’s going a bit too far, I think.

    > if they say that they would cease to oppose religion, they too are motivated by some consequentialist concerns. <

    We need to be careful because it is a common misconception that only consequentialists care about consequences. That is not true, certainly virtue ethicists do too. The difference is that for a consequentialist consequences are *all* that matter, while for a virtue ethicist they are part of a broader equation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's clear I was missing the main thrust of your point and that we agree more than we disagree here. However...

      "...it doesn’t seem to address my point about the fallacy, because religious doctrines can be used just as easily to endorse peace as war. So the Christian can honestly say that those that brand Jesus’ words to massacre people are not true Christians, just like Dawkins claims that the Soviet or Chinese regimes are not “really” atheistic."

      Sure, religious believers can claim whatever they like but that doesn't mean anyone should believe them about who isn't really a member of their religion (which seems to me to come down largely to personal profession and ballpark beliefs with some mainstream version). If some position is clearly stated in a religion's sacred texts, or is a clear part of the tradition by any other means, to claim that this religion doesn't endorse that position can largely be put down to sophistry or lying.

      For example, Mormons can claim whatever they like about the early history of their church but no one should be fooled if they say "any so-called Mormon who saw blacks as inferior to whites before 1978 is/was no-true Mormon." On the other hand, when someone like Dawkins says those regimes aren't "atheistic" I'm fairly sure they mean that 1) atheism wasn't and can't be responsible and 2) such regimes had different dogmas and NA oppose dogma in all forms (even if they don't always live up to this standard). The truth of 1 is all that matters to whether they are engaging in a no True Scotsman fallacy as the same could not be said for the Mormons above and, as we both agree, 1 is true.

      "Indeed, one can use your reasoning and turn things around: since no moral doctrine at all follows from atheism, on what basis do the NA then claim that an atheistic society would be “better”?"

      Finally, an easy one. They would say such a society would be better according to their own ethical viewpoints which oppose, for example, poor epistemologies.

      "Remember, of course, that I’m playing Devil’s Advocate here."

      No worries, I'm not taking this personally for you or me and I was thinking something similar. I don't actually endorse the strong view Johnson attributes to NA. Indeed, I don't much care for Dawkins or Hitchens and don't even like the term "New Atheists."

      Delete
    2. *Nothing* else follows from it, but you wouldn’t know it by reading the NA literature or listening to their followers on blogs and social networks.
      Not true. if the reasoning for several beliefs is religious and you give up religion , it follows that those beliefs go away. For e.g. why would any sane person believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old?

      Delete
  19. Alex,

    > I think you will find that people like Coyne point towards very secularized European countries, and that they are quite correct when they say that those societies are less dysfunctional than very religious ones. The 'UAT' therefore does have evidence on its side. <

    Not exactly, for the distinctions drawn above.

    > it is strange that you make a show of agreeing with Johnson's main argument and then utterly dismantle it yourself later, when you say that on that logic nobody could ever argue for any worldview whatsoever. <

    I don’t make a show, I try to take his argument seriously and find flaws after giving them the most charitable interpretation. Which is more, I think, than most NA’s bother to do.

    > When somebody goes and kills people because they aren't communist enough, they have done so in the name of an ideology. When somebody goes and kills people because they are not Catholic enough, they have done so in the name of religion. <

    I honestly see no difference whatsoever. Religions *are* ideologies.

    > saying that they are only about destroying religion but would embrace atheist nonsense is just attacking a strawman <

    I don’t think anybody said that, and certainly not I. But boy have I seen NA’s endorse a lot of nonsense, like Harris’ Moral Landscape, for instance.

    > I wonder if you are not letting personal dislikes color your thoughts in this case <

    You know, I’m getting a bit tired of this. I have never met either Hitchens or Harris, so there can’t be any personal dislike. I personally like (a lot) Dennett. And I’ve met Dawkins several times and have come away with mixed personal feelings, depending on the occasion. So let’s stick to the arguments and leave out imaginary personal dislikes.

    Kel,

    > When writing books for a wide audience, the cry is always going to be "simplistic!" I think the principle of charity demands that we try to take the best interpretation of what's said rather than the worst. <

    I agree, but I really don’t think there is any straw man been set up here. I’ve read enough NA literature to be pretty intimately familiar with what it claims.

    SelfAware,

    > Given religiosity's near universality in poor populations (at least in the absence of some totalitarian regime), it seems to be meeting some need, most likely the need for comfort in the face of existential anxiety. As economies develop, that anxiety lessens, and religiosity goes down. Northern Europe, with perhaps the best standard of living in the world, also has the lowest religiosity. Sub-Saharan Africa has among the highest religiosity. <

    Precisely, see my comment above about the existence of many confounding factors and the need for serious sociological studies. That’s why when the NA point to, say, Norway, it’s just not good enough. More likely then not religiosity is a result, not a cause, of the differences between that country and sub-Saharan Africa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I agree, but I really don’t think there is any straw man been set up here. I’ve read enough NA literature to be pretty intimately familiar with what it claims."
      I'd agree that you didn't write a straw-man, Massimo, but I do think there is a difference between an uncharitable reading and a charitable one. If the points the NA are making can be cleaned up in such a way as to make them more defensible, then it seems to me that's the interpretation one should focus on. From a rational point of view, we just don't know whether the world would be a better place now if we abandoned religion altogether. We could be encouraged by the strength of secular societies where religious belief is (or is fast becoming) a minority like in the Scandinavian countries or New Zealand, and we could condemn certain religious practices as being downright antithetical to the flourishing of people and cultures, but there aren't grounds to say it would all be necessarily better.

      That said, I think this is a straw-man:
      "Just think of Stalin’s Russia or the recent and current China. Ah, but those are not really the fault of atheism, the NA’s loudly complain, they are cases of political ideology taking up the cover of atheism."
      The NA response, as far as I can tell from my familiarity with the NA literature, wasn't that atheism was merely a cover, but that the atheism was irrelevant to the nature of the act. That is to say that unlike the religious motivation where religious people do things for religious reasons, the reasons for those acts weren't for atheistic reasons. On the face of it, someone engaging in an act because of their faith is different to a faithful person doing something for reasons external to their faith. Now whether or not this point is correct, it seems a different point to the defence that Dawkins et al. use to the one you specified. And that one doesn't seem to fit the No True Scotsman fallacy, as it's not the identity of a belief for the action, but the reasons for the action that are under question. Usually that Steve Weinberg quote about "religion makes good people do bad things" would be a good summation of the point they are making. It's not denying that there are atheists who do bad things, but denying that atheism is a motivator for doing bad things, since atheism lacks the doctrine that theism has. Again, not saying this is necessarily right (I'd call it simplistic myself) but it does seem to be somewhat different from the way you portrayed it.

      Delete
  20. Massimo,
    Just a question regarding virtue ethics and consequences... Do you think a case might be made that a consequentialist ought to adopt a virtue ethical perspective as a method to bring about better consequences?

    An analogy could be made with ontological and epistemological reductionism. Suppose one believes that all macro-phenomena ultimately reduce to some kind of fundamental physics; however, at the same time this person recognizes that for the special sciences to function, they must use their own terminology, and not always try to speak in the language of physicists. E.g., it would be folly to discuss ethology in terms of quantum physics. Similarly, one might be an "ontological" consequentialist, maintaining that ultimately only consequences matter, while one is an "epistemological" virtue ethicist, as that might be the superior method to realize better consequences. (The reasons might include complexity of utilitarian calculus--similar to the difficulty of yielding predictions about animal behaviour by calculating molecular interactions in animal brains. The virtue ethical approach, however, incorporates tried and true heuristics, which might not be optimal, but are nevertheless effective.)

    In other words, perhaps acting as a virtue ethicist yields better consequences than acting as a consequentialist would. Therefore, the consequentialist, if he or she really only cares about consequences, is obliged to adopt virtue ethics. In this context, virtue ethics can be viewed as akin to an instrumental "hack" to circumvent the problems with implementing a consequentialist morality.

    (The reason I ask is because I am concerned that virtue ethics isn't as "grounded" as consequentialism is, and therefore really difficult to justify. And I am saying this as someone who has become increasingly attracted to the notion of virtue ethics.)

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't understand why atheists like you and David Johnson write articles defending religion from the attacks of other atheists, since religious institutions have spin doctors, or should I say, "apologists" who do that as a full-time paid job. Why don't you start writing articles defending an article defending libertatianism or another ideology from you don't subscribe to those who argue that they argue are pernicious?

    I don't think you are being very fair to the NAs neither, as far as I see it, in our actual times the evidence seems to point out that the more destructive and irrational movements that threaten the progress of civilization are religious in nature. That seems to be the common denominator of the Republican party in the US. the recently anti-gay laws passed in various countries from Russia to Uganga. The extremist movements that have created chaos in the middle east, the growing number of creationists in the US, etc... What more evidence do you need?

    Also, I think you should also ask the same standard evidence from people that proclaim the positive benefits of religion that you ask for those who say that religion is harmful. And why people think those benefits cannot be achieved by no believing in the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ paco

      The second paragraph of this article shows it's intention to be an philosophical analysis of David Johnson's 'UAT' - it is not an article 'defending religion'

      I believe you have selected 'religion' or 'religious belief' as your common denominator under a very heavy bias. I would suggest any organised group of people could abuse their power and act in destructive and irrational ways.

      Some religious texts advocate killing your enemies, others say you feed the hungry. The standard of evidence (reading the texts) is the same. Surely your not suggesting I can only feed the hungry if I don't believe in god?




      Delete
    2. Well, I don't think this is a simple "analysis" since the author himself declares that he finds pleasure in bashing other atheists, as opposed to focusing his time and energy on criticising other groups of irrational people who do greater harm than just being obnoxious, or writing in a style that he does not prefer.

      > I believe you have selected 'religion' or 'religious belief' as your common denominator under a very heavy bias. I would suggest any organised group of people could abuse their power and act in destructive and irrational ways.

      Yes that may be, but as I said, nowadays the groups that are putting the most political pressure (as is the case of creationists for instance), and doing the most harm(such as the theocratic societies) are being motivated by religious fanaticism. And they don't seem to be motivated by power or money, since they often do things that harm them as well.

      As others have said repeatedly, religion has the special characteristic of claiming absolute certainty and claiming that all of the things that are done in the name of it are good (even when the evidence seems to point the other way).

      Yes, obviously I know religious people can have good intentions and do good things. But their good intentions fall flat when they operate under false beleifs, Do you really think that pope Francis prayers are going to get rid of world hunger? , do you really think that the billions of people that each year make pilgrimages to "holy places" asking for a "miracle" to get out of their misery are better of thanks to religion? Even though their are getting ever poorer and more miserable despite their best efforts? What if those people could invest all that time and energy in doing things that actually will help?

      Delete
  22. What you are doing is not so much drawing distinctions, it is more like throwing around red herrings. The fact that Stalinism was bad does not say anything about secularism as such. Seriously, this is remarkably close to arguing that foot binding is open for discussion because the Maoists abolished it and the Maoists were bad people.

    I agree that the chain of cause and effect is likely the other way around: in poor, unstable societies the religious community is one's social insurance, and that forces people to adhere to dogma. In prosperous, stable, secure societies people have the option of walking away from religious dogma if they get fed up with it.

    But that does not change the fact that when you list "open, social-democratic, societies with a strong safety net, health care and public education" as the aim, the "open" and "public education" parts must by their very nature be anti-religion. Education and religious belief are anathema, as are open discourse and religious belief.

    Also, as for the aims of the New Atheists, as far as I understand hardly anybody thinks that we can every entirely get rid of religion or that we should force everybody to be non-religious. The major point appears to be that religion should cease to have a privileged role in public discourse and policy, that it should be considered just another idea as open to criticism as any else, and that organized religion should lose all governmental subsidies. In case it needs to be spelled out, that is not at all the same as walking up to an individual who has just lost a loved one and telling them that they are an idiot for believing in the afterlife.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Within the spectrum of Protestant denominations in the US, those who are religious enough to go to church get reenforcement for their political leanings, from the most progressive Democrat to the most conservative Republican. Someone who doesn't like a conservative church will go to a progressive church instead. The religious and political orientations are pretty aligned. This just tells me that a political leaning precedes a religious affiliation, to a large degree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Massimo, you said "The problem, of course, is that some of those evils were justified using religious grounds, but more likely perpetrated because of the usual suspects: greed, political power, and the like. And similar evils — pace Dawkins’ convenient denial — have demonstrably been carried out by “atheist” governments, as recently as, well, now. Just think of Stalin’s Russia or the recent and current China. Ah, but those are not really the fault of atheism, the NA’s loudly complain, they are cases of political ideology taking up the cover of atheism. Sure, and what, exactly, makes anyone think that the same argument cannot be applied to the Inquisition, or to the various Christian massacres (often aimed at other Christians)? It’s called the no true Scotsman fallacy, you know."

    I dare to say that most of us "New Atheists" don't endorse State enforced atheism. We (as far as I perceive from several discussions between NA's) want true secularism instead. That is, we recognize the right of people to believe in the fairy of their choice, as long as those beliefs don't harm others by action or inaction (as buffering the actions of fanatics).

    That is very different from Stalin and the likes. Most of us think, though, that even moderate religious people could do better without religion, and here's where many dissent. I say the priority is fighting the true loons with harsh words that even the moderate can agree with. Moderates can be approached in a more mild manner, by debate, philosophical and scientific discussion, but not to push it to their faces. I do think most people would do better without religion, as even many moderates feel, for instance, that abortion is bad because the soul exist. By denying the existence of the soul, you're denying them the very basis of their belief (afterlife), so you got to engage the pointlesness of religious belief at some point.

    It is really hard to think of ways of promoting what we see as the best choice without being a nuisance to others. In that respect, I don't think NA have done much worse than the Catholic Church, which thinks it's acceptable to indoctrinate children (something NA's despise generally), or the Jehovah's Witnesses, who besides, like to knock to your door, and ostracize you if you abandon their community.

    Writting books, posting signs and giving conferences that criticize an ideology (even using strong language) is far from the indoctrination, ostracizing, the mental torture of hell, etc. that religions do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. About the claim that we baselessly assume that a world without religion would be better: yes, people can be bad with or without religion. But religion can make people that are otherwise good, do harmful things (i.e. religiously motivated witholding of medical treatment, opposition to abortion, etc). And I say "harmful", and not "evil", because from their perspective they're doing the correct thing.

    People that do "evil" do so regardless of religion, but perhaps these evil people find a convenient cover in religion for their misdeeds. One cover less (and even more if it's a cover that demands dogmatic adherence) is better than one cover more.

    Another way I think the world would be better without religion, is that we'd stop giving prominence to religious leaders as leaders of opinion. Again, there are many quacks that don't need religion to feed stupid bullshit to the masses, but the less quacks the better, don't you think?

    Anyways, I think being a NA is just a part of the lives of many of us. I'm against any kind of irrationality (though aware that I'm not immune to it), and try to fight its many faces (bad politics, antiscientifics, bad personal relationships), recognizing I have a certain philosophical stand - but at least trying to be congruent, and willing to question my own guidelines in face of serious challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Which tenets of the Gospels justified the slaughtering of fellow Christians? Besides, atheism doesn’t have *any* tenets. It is not a philosophy, it is simply a metaphysical statement. You need, say, secular humanism to make meaningful comparisons with religion."

    Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.
    35 "For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law';
    36 "and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

    One off the top of my head, but the OT is full of that kind of stuff.
    Not to mention many protestants are big on war themes "Onward Christian Soldiers" and "Battle Hymn of the Republic" - God and vengeance.

    If atheism has no tenets then why would atheists need to answer for Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out, but when we ask counterfactually what the world would be like without X, we usually have in mind some thing that would naturally replace it. So like, if I said to my friend "you should really stop playing video games," I'm imagining him doing something I think is better for him, like working longer hours or getting exercise or getting a date. But that doesn't mean I don't think in principle he could do things worse than play video games, like shoot heroin or go to neo-Nazi conferences. The trouble with counterfactuals is that, because most important facts are related to other facts, the current state of affairs is not arbitrary and so it's hard to form an accurate picture of what an alternate world would be like. So if we asked what Massimo Pigliucci would be like if he weren't an intellectual, the question would be strained by the fact that his being an intellectual is not some random fact, it's a pretty natural result of his having certain cognitive traits and being born in a first world country.

    So when Sam Harris says the world would be better without religion, the alternative he's imagining is, of course, one in which people "rationally" "maximize well-being". The thing that replaces religion is "come on, people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try and love one another right now." What fills the gap left by religion is a race of calm, Dzogchen practicing people who embrace "science," "common sense," and "discourse".

    But of course, you could imagine that without religion we'd have more gangs, or more extremist political ideologies, or more mathcore metal bands. As with Massimo's career path, the existence of religion isn't some arbitrary fact about the human species, so there's a kind of forcedness in thinking about what the world would be like without religion.

    But isn't the implied argument "the world would be better with secular humanism instead of religion"? I haven't read Harris and Dawkins in a while, but I've always thought that that was the implied argument. You shouldn't remove something unless there's something better to replace it, but is it really so self-righteous, so pretentious, to say that secular humanism is better than religion?

    I agree with Massimo that there's something essentially speculative about this sort of thinking. But there's another question. Massimo, like many critics of the New Atheism, seems to deflect attention away from the truth of religion to the value of religion as a social amenity. Even my Dad, in discussing religion, implies that it's really not that big a deal if religion is false as long as it makes people, including him, happy. I just don't get it. A lot of the point of science and philosophy is just so that people will know more of the truth, even if it doesn't tickle their fancy. When we ask if the world would be a better place without religion, shouldn't we at least factor in the whole "believing things that are manifestly not true" part of religion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Religion vs. Secular Humanism is the same as saying "Unreason vs. Reason". You can prove that in most, if not all, types of problem solving (being scientific, moral, or day by day decisions), using reason is better than unreason. Unreason is like a coin toss, you have a certain chance to get to the right answer by bad reasoning, but there's also a big chance in getting it wrong. With reason you bias the outcome of the toss to the true/better answer. And even if you get it wrong, you have a better chance to rectify, than with unreason.

      Making the effort to refine reason and to discard bad arguments is the best we can do. If not, what is people like Massimo and Jerry Coyne (and me) doing by wasting their time studying and advancing science and philosophy? If there are philosophers who think that reason isn't better than unreason, their choice of career is nothing but irrational. They rather be priests.

      Something these people should ask themselves: If I was given the choice to re-convert to theism, would I? I know you can't believe-back something by will, but imagine something like the Matrix blue pill. Would you take it? no? then why deny the chance of having the red pill to others?

      Delete
  28. @ Massimo

    > Johnson adopts the (obviously derisive) language of philosopher Mark Johnson, referring to the NA as “undergraduate atheists” (notice that while Johnson seems to be some kind of deist, Johnson is an atheist). <

    Mark Johnson (the philosopher) subscribes to "panentheism," not "deism." (More specifically, he apparently subscribes to some form of "Whiteheadian process theology." )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Alastair Paisley

      Charles Hartshorne has said "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations"

      So when Massimo says 'some kind of deist' to describe Johnson he is not really at fault. More importantly, it does not add value to this particular discussion to get specific with regards to Johnson's beliefs.

      I had hoped you would have had more to say on this, as you are the most prominent theist contributor to this blog (if not the only.)

      Delete
    2. @ Dan

      > Charles Hartshorne has said "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations" <

      You're taking this out of context.

      "Hartshorne acknowledged a God capable of change, as is consistent with pandeism, but early on he specifically REJECTED both deism and pandeism in favor of panentheism, writing that "panentheistic doctrine contains all of deism and pandeism except their arbitrary negations.[3]" (source: Wikipedia: Charles Harthorne)

      > So when Massimo says 'some kind of deist' to describe Johnson he is not really at fault. <

      He's incorrect. And I corrected him.

      > I had hoped you would have had more to say on this, as you are the most prominent theist contributor to this blog (if not the only.) <

      I'm sorry to have disappointed you.

      Delete
  29. If NA's are undergraduate atheists , I wonder what that makes sophisticated theologians - kindergartners? And the normal religious folk must be embryos or something , hmm? Why is there no similar conclusion drawn about the normal believer? The one who believes in miracles and makes bold assertions?

    [the UAT] asks us to compare two different lines of human history, one in which the vast majority of human beings have held and continue to hold religious beliefs, and one in which they haven’t and don’t
    The defeat of Nazism in WW2 was better for humanity. Clearly I am asking David P Johnson to travel back in time, change history and then compare the results, no?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'd also add that people seem to classify New Atheists differently to suit their prejudices. I'd rank
    a. Asking questions like Is Religion True? What is the evidence for it ? - many would agree that even if demonstrated that religion provides more benefit than good ,we'd reject it if is untrue.
    b. Being visible about being a non believer
    c. Usually responding to (even harmless) religious claims
    So my top 3 NA characteristics don't even have UAT (disclaimer : i consider myself a new agnostic)

    ReplyDelete
  31. This from an article by Chris Mooney in Mother Jones extends my point: Atheists are notorious for loving to debate and argue, but perhaps they should focus less on trying to convince people that God doesn't exist, and more on bettering people's lives all around them. "Strong safety nets is going to be a much more powerful incentive in the long run that will lead to the decline of religion," says Norenzayan. Libertarian atheists like Penn Jilette may not like that conclusion, but the evidence suggests that if atheists want to give a gift of irreligion this Christmas, they should think about how they're going to vote.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Björn,

    > one might be an "ontological" consequentialist, maintaining that ultimately only consequences matter, while one is an "epistemological" virtue ethicist, as that might be the superior method to realize better consequences <

    Intriguing suggestion, though I don’t think a consequentialist would go for that, since it would be essentially giving up on consequentialism as a relevant ethical framework. Then again, some utilitarians (which are a type of consequentialists) do adopt what is called “rule utilitarianism” (as opposed to act utilitarianism), which really borrows from a deontological approach.

    Alex,

    > What you are doing is not so much drawing distinctions, it is more like throwing around red herrings. The fact that Stalinism was bad does not say anything about secularism as such. <

    I really don’t think I am. A Christian could just as easily respond that the fact that X (where X is whatever bad thing someone did in the name of Christianity in the past) says nothing about Christianity as such.

    > that does not change the fact that when you list "open, social-democratic, societies with a strong safety net, health care and public education" as the aim, the "open" and "public education" parts must by their very nature be anti-religion <

    Not really. One can educate people in comparative religions and still have a significant number of people choosing to be religious. While I agree that broadly speaking there is an inverse correlation btw education and religiosity (as well as btw education and beliefs in pseudoscience), once one gets out of fundamentalist nutcaseism that correlation is very weak.

    > hardly anybody thinks that we can every entirely get rid of religion or that we should force everybody to be non-religious <

    I disagree with the former, and the latter sounds like a straw man. Nobody I know has accused the NA’s of wanting to *force* people not to be religious.

    > The major point appears to be that religion should cease to have a privileged role in public discourse and policy, that it should be considered just another idea as open to criticism as any else <

    About which I completely agree, and none of which is at all new.

    Marcus,

    > If some position is clearly stated in a religion's sacred texts, or is a clear part of the tradition by any other means, to claim that this religion doesn't endorse that position can largely be put down to sophistry or lying. <

    That’s correct, as far as it goes, but would only have bite if religious had a coherent textual basis. They don’t. The Old Testament is full of internal contradictions, and it is of course quite different from the New one. So Christians can *honestly* say “that’s not really Christianity,” and even back that up with scriptural verses. For atheism, incidentally, it’s even worse, since there are no sacred texts, and because atheism implies precisely nothing in terms of ethics.

    > They would say such a society would be better according to their own ethical viewpoints which oppose, for example, poor epistemologies. <

    Atheists oppose bad epistemologies when it’s convenient for them. Have you seriously never met an atheist who believes in (non religious) woo? I’m about to go to a Solstice party tonight, where there will be several such characters. Let’s not pretend that atheism is anything more than it is: a simple, very reasonable, metaphysical position about the supernatural. And nothing more.

    Michael,

    I hope you realize that all those passages from the New Testament are open to somewhat benign non-literal interpretations, and that they directly contradict other passages in the NT, see my comment above. I agree that the OT is an easier target, but again, very few non-fundamentalist Christians these days take anything in those books literally.

    > If atheism has no tenets then why would atheists need to answer for Pol Pot, Stalin and the rest? <

    Because they pretend to have tenets, so they need to be called on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You asked, I offered. Oh of course, everything in the Bible is open to interpretation - it is the beauty of it - you can justify any action with a verse taken out of context. Just look at Christians taking sides on any issue using the same book to justify polar opposite conclusions - from sex to war to the economy and the environment.

      I asked the original question because there is no direct link between atheism and action, but the issue is not that Mao and Stalin were atheists, but that they imbued it with something else - something it didn't have. I guess you could say the same with religion, but I think it is more difficult.

      Delete
  33. Joseph,

    > As with Massimo's career path, the existence of religion isn't some arbitrary fact about the human species, so there's a kind of forcedness in thinking about what the world would be like without religion. <

    Precisely.

    > You shouldn't remove something unless there's something better to replace it, but is it really so self-righteous, so pretentious, to say that secular humanism is better than religion? <

    No, I don’t think it is. But many NA’s are not secular humanists. I certainly wouldn’t count Hitchens among them, for one. And at any rate, the secular humanist project falls more along the lines of Ian’s “marginal” improvement project than the radical assault of the NA’s. Which is why I count myself a secular humanist and not a new atheist.

    > Massimo, like many critics of the New Atheism, seems to deflect attention away from the truth of religion to the value of religion as a social amenity. <

    Not at all. I take it than in this forum we can take for granted that I agree about the untruth of religion. Therefore its value is the only thing worth talking about.

    > When we ask if the world would be a better place without religion, shouldn't we at least factor in the whole "believing things that are manifestly not true" part of religion? <

    Correct, and as a virtue ethicist I certainly do think that is a very good basis for rejecting religion *even if* it has positive effects. But I did mention that in the main post.

    Paco,

    > I don't understand why atheists like you and David Johnson write articles defending religion from the attacks of other atheists <

    First, nowhere am I defending religion. Second, the answer is because we value honest and vigorous intellectual debate, not closing ranks to defend one’s own at all costs.

    > in our actual times the evidence seems to point out that the more destructive and irrational movements that threaten the progress of civilization are religious in nature. <

    I seriously don’t think the evidence is at all that clear. As argued above, it very much depends on what you count in (or out) as “religion” as “atheism.”

    > The extremist movements that have created chaos in the middle east, the growing number of creationists in the US, etc... What more evidence do you need? <

    I’m sure you realize that every single example of that sort can be matched with the evils of a secular society (Russia, China, etc.), and countered by enormous humanitarian efforts made possible by the existence of religious organizations. I am not defending religion, but it is simply intellectually dishonest to cherry pick examples to make one’s case, as the NA’s regularly do.

    > religion has the special characteristic of claiming absolute certainty and claiming that all of the things that are done in the name of it are good <

    Seriously? Then you’ve never heard a nazi or a Marxist talk.

    > Do you really think that pope Francis prayers are going to get rid of world hunger? <

    No, but Catholic charities are doing a hell of a lot more than atheist charities in that regard. Again, I don’t like it, but it’s something we need to honestly acknowledge.

    Thomas,

    thanks for the link to the article on the politics and sociology of the NA movement, I’ve downloaded it and look forward to reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. butthead,

    > I dare to say that most of us "New Atheists" don't endorse State enforced atheism. <

    Agreed, but there is no escaping from the fact that the Stalinist state arose directly from Marxist atheistic ideology. Before it became a dictatorship it was the hope and light of secularism. The point is simply that just getting rid of religion isn’t going to do the trick.

    > Moderates can be approached in a more mild manner, by debate, philosophical and scientific discussion, but not to push it to their faces. <

    Indeed. Now when was the last time you could honestly put the words “moderate” and “Hitchens” (or “Dawkins”) in the same sentence without feeling a bit ridiculous?

    > It is really hard to think of ways of promoting what we see as the best choice without being a nuisance to others. <

    I disagree. Compare the current billboard campaign being promoted by CFI (moderate) with the one being promoted by American Atheists (obnoxious, as usual). It can be done.

    > I don't think NA have done much worse than the Catholic Church <

    Lowering the bar until we can easily pass it?

    > But religion can make people that are otherwise good, do harmful things <

    Agreed, but so can secular ideologies. This is an empirical question, and a difficult one. But the NA’s talk as if it were self-evidently obvious. It is not.

    > Another way I think the world would be better without religion, is that we'd stop giving prominence to religious leaders as leaders of opinion. <

    Probably, but even that isn’t a slam dunk. I’d rather people turn to, say, the Dalai Lama (a religious leader) than to Christopher Hitchens, at least when it comes to international policy.

    > You can prove that in most, if not all, types of problem solving (being scientific, moral, or day by day decisions), using reason is better than unreason. <

    Broadly speaking yes. But you are begging the question if you focus only on problem solving. What about emotional responses? Feelings of meaning, and so forth? There it is *empirically* obvious that religions have done better than secularism, hands down. I think it’s unfortunate, but it’s something we need to honestly admit.

    Gadfly,

    > I don't think it's that unfair to Rawls. I think a thought experiment has to have some degree of relationship to reality. <

    With due respect, I think you are missing the point of that particular thought experiment, and possibly of thought experiments in general. Rawls’ veil is meant as an argument, not a description of actual possibilities. It’s something along the lines of: “IF we honestly cast aside our specific vantage point, which is related to our socio-economic status, education, gender, ethnicity, etc. THEN we would rationally agree that a society such as I am describing would be the worthy goal.” I have felt the force of Rawls’ argument the first time I’ve heard it, and I didn’t think for a second that it is actually possible for real human beings to literally put themselves behind the veil of ignorance.

    > don't we really need a neo-Humean theory of ethics? <

    Perhaps we do, shall I work on it during the winter break? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, please, on the neo-Humean ethics? I'm thinking of something based on his theory of how there's no identifiably conscious I ... the famous "stream" ... and similar ideas in modern philosophy. (I won't say the word "subselves.") But, in general, how our ethics is a particular outcropping of consciousness as embodied cognition based on how that embodiment is interacting with all the different social networks and relationships we have.

      Call it, if you will, a modern psychology/philosophy of mind riff on on situational ethics, almost.

      ===

      On Rawls, I've never felt the force of his argument. And reading Kaufmann, I understood why. If you haven't read "Without Guilt and Justice," I recommend it.

      Beyond that, the stances, ideologies or whatever that drive a thought experiment drive a person's relationship to reality, too.

      Delete
  35. DM,

    > They're not doing science, they are making an argument. They're not claiming to have proved anything. <

    They seem pretty damn sure that they are right for someone who has little empirical evidence on his side and yet claim to uphold the highest standards of scientific evidence.

    > the New Atheists are entitled to present their interpretation of the facts we do have. You're entitled to point out the specific problems with that interpretation <

    I think that’s precisely what is happening with this post. I don’t think I ever said the NA’s are not entitled to voice their opinions.

    > It is their opinion that religion does more harm than good, that we would be better off without it. They provide reasons for this belief. <

    Yes, and those reasons are particularly good, even though I suspect that, broadly, they are right. And they are far too cocksure of themselves given the difficulties of coming up with good quality evidence one way or the other.

    > What I think is unfair is calling them irrational just because they have not proven beyond doubt the beliefs they present. <

    I don’t think I’ve ever called them irrational, but they are making an argument based on much opinion and relatively little evidence, not exactly the highest standard of rationality.

    > How would you distinguish [Bertrand Russell] from (for example) Daniel Dennett with regard to who counts as a New Atheist? <

    A lot more mild mannered and open to doubt than Dennett. And Dennett is by a long shot the most mild mannered and open to doubt of the NA’s.

    > I'm saying faith and dogma are harmful, and the fact that atheists are also vulnerable to it is no counter-argument. <

    But by now you should know that I am concerned by the faith-like and dogma-like of many atheists on a variety of topics. I have been in the community for years, and while broadly speaking it is certainly better than religious fundamentalism, it is also marked — ironically — by a lot of groupthink and a dearth of critical thinking.

    > Charity and kindness need no justification. They feel good naturally. War is different. <

    Really? Because violence against perceived threats seems just as natural, even “good” to many as kindness. Different feeling, for sure, but I think you are assuming too much too quickly.

    > to roughly paraphrase something Hitch said, it takes religion (or other dogmatic ideological systems, granted) to make a good man do evil things. <

    That was actually Steven Weinberg.

    > I think you're missing the point. Nobody is making the point that religion is worse than ideology. The point is that ideology is bad. Religion is bad because it is a kind of ideology. <

    Forgive me, but I believe it is you who is missing the point. Atheism and other forms of secularism (e.g., Marxism) can also be an ideology, and just as nasty in terms of consequences.

    > Was that Stalin qua athiest or Stalin qua ruthless psychopathic ideologue? <

    Was it Torquemada qua Christian or Torquemada qua psychopathic ideologue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Massimo,

      >They seem pretty damn sure<

      If they are certain beyond what is supported by the evidence, then they are wrong, sure.

      I do think however that you may be confusing rhetoric for certainty. The activism they are engaged in calls for strong statements, and I think this is perfectly appropriate. Different arenas call for different styles of expression.

      An attorney arguing in court does not emphasise the reasons for doubting her own side. Religion has had defenders for a long time. It's high time there was a prosecution.

      >I don’t think I ever said the NA’s are not entitled to voice their opinions.<

      You said it was wrong-headed to argue that the world would have been better off without religion because this cannot be proven. That's the point I flatly disagree with. The rest of your points are more debatable.

      >But by now you should know that I am concerned by the faith-like and dogma-like of many atheists on a variety of topics.<

      Me too. Where such dogma exists, it should be criticised, certainly. We are agreed that dogma is the enemy.

      >Because violence against perceived threats seems just as natural, even “good” to many as kindness.<

      Sure. But first you need to get your people to perceive the other guys as a threat. Ideology (e.g. religion) is very helpful in this regard.

      >That was actually Steven Weinberg.<

      True, I had since realised this and been kicking mysefl. Thanks for the correction.

      >Atheism and other forms of secularism (e.g., Marxism) can also be an ideology, and just as nasty in terms of consequences.<

      Religion is an ideology. Atheism is not an ideology, it's simply disbelief in God. Some ideologies incorporate atheism, but these ideologies are not atheism itself.

      >Was it Torquemada qua Christian or Torquemada qua psychopathic ideologue?<

      Torquemada's ideology was Christian. The two options are inseparable.

      But he may not have been a psychopath. Weinberg again: he may have been a good man caused to do bad things by religion.

      Stalin's ideology was not atheism, it was communism (which incorporates atheism), and the only authority he recognised was himself. It's much clearer that he was a psychopath.

      Delete
  36. Alastair,

    > Mark Johnson (the philosopher) subscribes to "panentheism," not “deism." <

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Deepak,

    > If NA's are undergraduate atheists , I wonder what that makes sophisticated theologians - kindergartners? <

    Not at all. Some theologians are a hell of a lot cleverer than many NA’s. Of course they are also hopelessly misguided, but that’s a different issue.

    > The defeat of Nazism in WW2 was better for humanity. Clearly I am asking David P Johnson to travel back in time, change history and then compare the results, no? <

    No. You are engaging in the sort of reasoning at the margins that Ian outlined above.

    > if the reasoning for several beliefs is religious and you give up religion , it follows that those beliefs go away. For e.g. why would any sane person believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old? <

    First off, I was clearly talking about *values* following from atheism, not factual beliefs. *Obviously* if one believes that the earth is 6000 years old because he believes in the supernatural, then it follows that the atheist is denying both beliefs, the former as a consequence of the latter. Second, nobody — neither I nor Johnson — is defending the factual beliefs of fundamentalists, so why are we talking about it?

    Kel,

    > If the points the NA are making can be cleaned up in such a way as to make them more defensible, then it seems to me that's the interpretation one should focus on. <

    Not if the NA’s themselves refuse to buy into that more polished position. That’s a major difference between the NA’s and so-called “accommodationists,” or secular humanists like myself.

    > The NA response, as far as I can tell from my familiarity with the NA literature, wasn't that atheism was merely a cover, but that the atheism was irrelevant to the nature of the act. <

    And you really think that religion per se was not just a cover for countless persecutions by religious authorities throughout history? It’s just not that easy to make the distinction, and the NA’s would be much better off, and more intellectually honest, if they were to bite the bullet on this one.

    > And that one doesn't seem to fit the No True Scotsman fallacy, as it's not the identity of a belief for the action, but the reasons for the action that are under question. <

    But this doesn’t fit the above mentioned fact that horrible things (like the Reign of Terror or Stalin’s Soviet Union) actually arose out of sincere, atheistically-based, beliefs by — respectively — French revolutionaries and Marxists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Massimo

      > Thanks for the clarification. <

      You're welcome.

      Delete
    2. "And you really think that religion per se was not just a cover for countless persecutions by religious authorities throughout history?"
      In some cases, no doubt. But others, I'm not quite sure. I'd struggle to see acts done for religious reasons, such as the crusades or witch-burnings, or the crusades, for example, as being divorced from the religious belief. Though when it comes to Northern Ireland, the Catholic / Protestant battle seems to be a cover like you mentioned.

      "But this doesn’t fit the above mentioned fact that horrible things (like the Reign of Terror or Stalin’s Soviet Union) actually arose out of sincere, atheistically-based, beliefs by — respectively — French revolutionaries and Marxists."
      Perhaps there's a bullet to be bitten in that case. Though going back to the principle of charity, the discussion surrounding Hitler et al. is usually framed in terms of the proposition that it was their lack of belief that caused their atrocities, i.e. they didn't have God to guide them as to what's good. Answering that context (which is a fair charge to answer) doesn't seem like a good basis to see how it gels with a different question (whether political doctrines such as Marxism could be said to be atheistic). I'd personally find it really uncharitable if I was trying to answer one charge, and then was attacked in a different context on that question. It's hard enough to give a good account of what we want to say without it being taken as inadequate for another point we weren't making.

      Delete
    3. >Though when it comes to Northern Ireland, the Catholic / Protestant battle seems to be a cover like you mentioned.<

      To be fair, it's not even a cover. That dispute has nothing to do with religion. It's purely tribal. The religions are just labels.

      Delete
    4. (by which I mean I largely agree with you, but I'd say religion isn't *even* a cover)

      Delete
    5. Some theologians are a hell of a lot cleverer than many NA’s.
      That may be - but we are referring to their theological explanations. Those might win imaginative or creative categories but it's hardly clever to be completely misguided and rationalise that.

      You are engaging in the sort of reasoning at the margins that Ian outlined above.
      Nope. But anyway the point is David's central accusation is just silly. If you are going to evaluate all opinions on the state of two universes(with and without the choice) then you can't have an opinion on anything.

      , I was clearly talking about *values* following from atheism, not factual beliefs
      And values do not depend on factual beliefs? I believe you are mixing the fact that Non-Belief MUST imply certain values with Belief does imply certain values for some people and so non-belief would too. So to make a bold statement like *Nothing* follows from Atheism misses how hhumans behave or think.

      Delete
  37. On the larger issue, defenders of Gnu Atheists on things like claiming Stalin's atheism had no influence on his mass murders simply aren't doing the trick.

    That said, I've seen even worse special pleading by Gnus, such as claiming Stalin wasn't an atheist because he went to a seminary. In that case neither am I (graduate divinity degree) or John Loftus, or many a minister who has left his or her pulpit.

    As Massimo said, you need to just bite the bullet. Pure and simple.

    Or, as I repeatedly say: "Atheism is no guarantor of either moral or intellectual superiority."

    Specific to Gnu Atheists, I told Massimo they often remind me of the observation that Camus made in "The Rebel," namely, that some people need a God to rebel against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And in your superiority, what do you need?

      Should religious people be required to justify the murders committed by adherents?

      It seems Massimo is arguing that atheism had nothing to do with it - are claiming that it did?

      Can you point to how specifically atheism was used to justify mass murder? What was it exactly about not believing in gods that drove them on?

      Delete
    2. @ michael fugate

      > Can you point to how specifically atheism was used to justify mass murder? What was it exactly about not believing in gods that drove them on? <

      I believe I can. It's called the "League of Militant Atheists." (It basically carried-out an anti-religion inquisition for the Soviet communist party.)

      Delete
    3. Thank you Alastair. I guess it is quest for utopia either on earth or in heaven that drives these people to the ends justify the means mentality - where if you just ban, destroy or kill something, then all will be perfect. Much more moral being cynical.

      Delete
    4. Michael, I nowhere claimed to be superior. Don't know where you got that from. Alastair, thanks for the link.

      And, Michael, where you got the idea that Massimo was claiming that atheism had nothing to do with any deaths ordered by Stalin, I don't know. In the paragraph of this piece where he references the "no true Scotsman," he rejects that idea just like I do.

      Delete
    5. @ michael fugate

      > I guess it is quest for utopia either on earth or in heaven that drives these people to the ends justify the means mentality - where if you just ban, destroy or kill something, then all will be perfect. Much more moral being cynical. <

      I think it may also have something to do with having power.

      "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

      Delete
    6. So is it power or atheism? I really can't quite make sense of these arguments. Can atheism cause people to kill just like religion can in some instances? Or is it neither atheism nor religion that is causal, but something else like power, sociopathy, psychopathy, etc.? What is the thesis here?

      Delete
    7. @ michael fugage

      > What is the thesis here? <

      I'm simply arguing that it involves both some kind of ideological belief-system (whether it is theistic, atheistic, or something else) and the obtaining and maintaining of political power.

      Delete
    8. So even though the Christian message is supposed to be love (as I have been told here by people who think they know what it truly is) - give Christians power and they will be corrupted by it - stealing, killing and etc.?
      Not a very powerful message - is it?

      Delete
    9. @ michael fugate

      > So even though the Christian message is supposed to be love (as I have been told here by people who think they know what it truly is) - give Christians power and they will be corrupted by it - stealing, killing and etc.? Not a very powerful message - is it? <

      It sounds to me like you're having a difficult time accepting the fact that atrocities were also carried out in the name of atheistic ideologies.

      Delete
    10. No. I have no problem with that. As I mentioned before and you did too - ideology and power can lead to disasters. We need to be sure that ideologues don't have that kind of power. Maybe you are the having trouble accepting the atrocities carried out in the name of a loving god?

      Delete
    11. @ michael fugate

      Atrocities have been carried out by the religious and the irreligious. (There have been militant "believers" and militant "nonbelievers". History testifies to this.) But the real problem, IMHO, is when an individual or group (regardless of beliefs) obtains dictatorial political power.

      Delete
    12. I am just wondering whether we should hold secular humanists and Christians to a higher standard - why weren't the humanists more humane after the FRench revolution, for instance. Or why wasn't someone like Thomas More more humane - as a Christian humanist - when confronted with the reformation? The ideology of these groups really is supposed to be about love of their fellow humans.

      Delete
    13. @ michael fugate

      Well, now that you bring it up. I think we've seen this act once before. "New Atheism" seems to be another incarnation of the "Cult of Reason."

      Delete
    14. The problems of atheistic regimes are not caused by the "atheistic" nature of those regimes per se, but are related with the sacralization of abstractions (and the arbitrary behavior from those in power that may arise from those type of abstractions) such as "the interest of the people, or the working class or the fatherland". Plus it is not even directly related with the totalitarian nature of the regimes, as it may well happen in democratic regimes, if the majority of the people don’t care to protect the rights from minorities, or see that as a minor problem.

      Delete
    15. I would like to add that this is an intrinsic problem of the utlitarian aproaches to ethics

      Delete
  38. Another thing that bugs me about these anti- articles is that they treat new atheists, in this instance, as monolithic - when even the authors admit (read Johnson's replies to Coyne) they are not. Notice how Dennett is treated differently than Harris and Dawkins. Or sometimes Grayling is included as a new atheist, but he is never criticized for being one. Yet if someone criticizes a religion, then the first argument against that is - surprise - not all Christians or Muslims or whatever are like that - nobody except fundamentalists would believe that. Instead of criticizing new atheism, let's criticize individuals and be specific so we can read what is being criticized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I criticized Dennett for his "brights" idea when he first brought it out. In fact, when he then claimed that this did NOT imply theists were "dims" (or "dumbs" or whatever) I called him a liar on my blog.

      So, I, at least, don't treat him differently when he acts in what might be called a stereotypical Gnu Atheist way.

      Delete
    2. I think he was looking at the progress made by the gay community and trying to emulate it.

      "Gay" is a positive term that connotes happiness and well-being. It does not imply that straight people are unhappy.

      I can see how you interpreted it the way you did, but I think there is a plausible innocent explanation of Dennett's choice. I would be inclined to interpret him charitably.

      Delete
    3. Not to mention - the term wasn't coined by Dennett.

      Delete
    4. @michael

      Umm, that's kind of an excellent point. Crucial, even.

      It seems Dennett's contribution was to suggest a name for the non-brights. And it wasn't "dims" or "dumbs" but "supers".

      Any comment, Gadfly?

      Delete
    5. It was popularized and promulgated by him (and Dawkins). And, he's the one who issued the denial that it implied that theists were "dims" or whatever.

      And, IIRC, he only proposed "supers" after the "implied" angle was publicly brought up, including by plenty of atheists and secularists besides me.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_movement

      Even though (and I agree with Massimo totally) he's the most conciliatory of the Gnus, uhh, on this issue, I'm not that inclined to be that charitable.

      Beyond that, I'll once again repeat what I have said more than once before, because it refutes the heart of the Dennett/Dawkins meaning,t the whole movement, etc.:

      >> Atheism is no guarantor of either moral or intellectual superiority. <<

      And, that's one of my strongest dislikes of Gnu Atheism, the assumption that atheism IS such a guarantor.

      Delete
  39. Gadfly, This is not about you. This about an article written by Johnson criticizing all new atheists as amateurs - except when he isn't. He is only criticizing some as his comments on Coyne's site make clear.

    whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/one-more-attack-on-new-atheism-from-an-atheist-who-should-know-better/

    David Johnson
    Posted December 10, 2013 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
    Yes, they [Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens] are amateurs. Whereas Dennett, e.g., is a professional.

    How do you know Dennett was lying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You believe Dennett wasn't? I got beachfront property in Nevada to sell you if you do. No, I don't know him personally, so I couldn't ask him personally. But, I have no doubt he was.

      Delete
    2. Great non-answer. So no evidence other than your hatred of all things new atheist.

      Delete
    3. We all, as human beings in a modern, heavily populated world, have to make assumptions about people and their motivations all the time without being able to personally talk to them. And, so, we act inductively on the evidence available.

      It wasn't a non-answer. It was the answer I gave, and continue to give. As for whether I hate all things Gnu, or 90 percent, or 82.4 percent or whatever ...

      Delete
    4. There are other reasons, though, to dislike other Gnu actions. Like claiming that the rise of the "nones" shows the rise of atheism when it does no such thing. That's not the only playing loose with statistics, but it's one good example.

      See you in the funny pages.

      Delete
    5. There are always reasons to hate - it is the easiest thing to do. I don't see your commentary here as any less desperate than those you condemn. You are trying to justify your views by running others down rather than having yours stand on their own. I am not sure why you find the new atheists so threatening.

      Delete
    6. I don't find them "threatening" nearly as much as "laughable." And, "hate"? Funny, I got accused of being a "hater" of a "movement"/"scientific" skeptic, Brian Dunning, recently. Modern "movement" skepticism reminds me of Gnu Atheism in ways -- tribalist and cultish. Anyway, to show you that I don't just dislike Gnus (and who ever said "hate," I didn't) here's what I wrote on that:

      http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/12/i-can-see-why-gnu-atheists-dont-like.html

      Beyond that, you seem to certainly be some defender of Gnu-dom as well as chiding me for hate, so, I won't worry about trying to persuade you further, etc.

      Delete
    7. So there is another group you don't like - any group you do like?

      This seems to be your logic:
      New atheism is bad.
      Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris are new atheists.
      D,D,H & H are bad.

      No much nuance there, is there?

      How is this any different than the argument for which you try to condemn them? Just replace new atheist with religion.

      Or if you think religion itself causes no or little harm - substitute fundamentalism or creationism for religion. I laugh when, new atheists are criticized for criticizing religion, by the very people who call fundamentalists stupid, ignorant, liars and the like.

      I am not here to defend new atheism or new atheists - I certainly don't agree with everything the four above say - that would be silly. I certainly wouldn't read Dawkins to understand religion or theology, but he does have a knack for explaining parts of biology. Do I agree with him 100% - no. I like Dennett and if the only thing you can fault him for is "brights" - then I can live with that.

      What many new atheists get wrong is not being able to see the world from a theistic perspective. If one believes in gods, then it changes everything. One sees a world in which intelligent agency is expected. What is logical or reasonable is fundamentally different. Eric MacDonald got me to see that when discussing Thomas Nagel's commentary on Alvin Plantinga. Even though, neither Nagel or Plantinga seem to have much clue when it comes to evolutionary biology - nor would I expect them to have one.

      Anyone who would go to a theologian to learn about science - probably isn't going to learn much. Anyone who goes to a scientist to learn about theology isn't either. An outsider might have an interesting insight, but the details will probably be wrong.




      Delete
  40. Massimo, you yourself said atheism is only a metaphysical position about the supernatural. It has nothing to do with political ideologies. Arguments can be made that criticize religion for its use as justification for harmful acts. Arguments that atheism has been used to justify harmful acts cannot be made. No ethical framework follows from atheism. To justify an action with atheism is to misunderstand atheism. You can criticize utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, liberalism, communism, or conservatism for their implicated exhortations but none of those are prescribed by atheism. This confusion stems from the fact that religion is often a combination of metaphysical and axiological claims. Religion, qua ethical system, is subject to criticisms of its harmful application regardless of whether religionists countenance those applications.

    Claiming that this UAT is the primary claim of the NA is just intellectually dishonest. And if it was, I don't think anyone would call themselves a NA. Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett think we should expostulate with religionists because their creeds are wrong. And you can say the argument that the world would be better off with less or without religion is an empirical question, but there certainly is an argument that it's not. Perhaps atheism is just a higher good that all persons ought to value.

    Most of the arguments against the NA seem to be merely intellectualized displeasure with their tone. Their rhetoric is too arrogant or too harsh or too derisive. Well many religionists are exquisitely arrogant, harsh, and derisive. It's powerful and persuasive to a lot of people. This is public argumentation. It's dirty. Efforts to sanitize it are largely futile. I appreciate the more careful theological arguments but their just not as cogent as a good quip. We can have both subtle and provocative atheistic disputation. Let's not be priggish about it.

    ReplyDelete
  41. >Johnson’s first (and indeed, chief) objection is that to demonstrate the UAT is impossible, because it would require endlessly complex (and highly subjective) calculations

    It's fairly obvious that the Münster Rebellion wouldn't have happened if religions had never been invented. It's not so clear that Stalin wouldn't go around killing people if atheism had never been invented.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As far as I can see, there is an objection not mentioned here that spiritual people can make in all sincerity. Some of the basis for religion is not faith but experience and memory of experience. If you want to do minimalism as appears somewhat in the post: It will not matter that most so-called spiritual experiences are explained away as madness or confusion or at least not repeatable at will and so on. Even if that is 99.99% the case. If there are (and here insert some minimal number) truly spiritual experiences then the whole denial thing crumbles.

    Now the problem reforms around issues of sincerity and generosity and the like and veers away from faith as the basis. Certain people claim to "know" by which they at least mean "remember" God or some other more comfortable term. That they cannot share that information is painful (as they almost universally claim for more than one reason) but that in the end in no way refutes the truth that this was one big event located in time and space for them, and is not an attitude. There are other people who claim that small events of a similar nature build into conviction. The many small event line is less convincing but not totally unconvincing. Sometimes sincerity and truth telling concerning subjective experience actually match up no matter that such stuff is unprovable.

    To leave the facts and events of subjective experiences out of the meta-argument has always seemed to overvalue so-called objectivism in my opinion. Tough and too bad if you don't like this. There is nothing to be done about it. Humans are subjective as well as somewhat capable of objective thought. I am a retired engineering tech by trade and scientist by much of my inclination. I think following modern science a joy in my life. But I am also a poet and musician. It's great to commit to the rational practice, the methods of doubt and the care of scientific scrutiny but at the end of the day one had better take a broader view of things and leave room for Rilke and Cummings and Frost (and me) along with Feynman, Sagan, Fermi, and all those others sung and unsung. My poetry blog: northernwall.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Christopher,

      I'd say that whenever theistic belief is founded on personal experience, it's not so much of a problem. The NA crowd is mostly focused on faith and organised religion. Personal theism is not the target.

      That said, I would dispute that theism based on such experiences is not dependent on faith. Most religious experiences are quite vague - a sense of well-being or of a great outpouring of love. To believe that this is because you have been in communion with a supernatural entity rather than some earthly neurological misfire is, to me, an act of faith.

      As such, I don't think we overvalue empiricism as a way of knowing about the world (what you describe as objectivism I would describe as empiricism, to distinguish it from Ayn Rand's so-called philosophy). Empiricism works. Due to our faulty perceptions, other approaches are far less reliable.

      Music and poetry are different because I don't think they are a way of learning facts about how the physical world works. They are works of art, either abstract or interpreting something about the human experience. A commitment to empiricism does not take away from the value of art.

      Delete
    2. Maybe or maybe not, as for personal theism being the target of at least the Gnu Atheist thought leaders. From individual people who would probably be identified as Gnu Atheists, or perhaps, to revive an old term, village idiot atheists, uhh, no. Via the wonderful world of social media, there are cases where Gnu types have focused on personal theism.

      Delete
  43. Interestingly, I wrote a critique of some woo-woo article written by 3QD staff and was then banned from their website. Shows how much they are open to dialogue. A first for me.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Excellent!
    It inspired a who post on my blog, thanx.
    Confusing Ethics and Language.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I find the alternative history thought-experiment to be incoherent because of a problem I find in most all such discussions: a naive and simplistic concept of what "belief" means in religious contexts. This leads one to think of the "belief" as a simple object either present or absent in someone's mind. In ordinary contexts ("I believe that the moon orbits the earth") that's fine. But in religious contexts "belief" can connote acceptance of certain values ("I believe in animal rights"), solidarity with an affinity group ("Of course I believe in Jesus, I'm a good Christian"), or a hazy notion of half-mythic, half-historical realities (most Jews believe Moses was real, but talking snakes exist only in parables--or again, Christ is real, Santa Claus isn't). In real life, "religious belief" doesn't pick out a clean class of phenomena. There is a vast continuum of taking religious stories more or less literally.

    Thus the idea of histories in which "religious beliefs" as a homogeneous category are absent, is incoherent. It must assume that in the course of development of literature (which includes fantasy and myth) and ritual, and especially in the way culture is presented to young children, no one would ever mistake cultural phenomena as being grounded in physical, metaphysical or supernatural realities. That's just not plausible, especially if you think that metaphysics, as many philosophers from Kant to Derrida have told us, is an ineradicable tendency of thought. (Nor is it plausible that superstition-free cultural institutions are immune to the evils of corruption and violence.)

    Would a more advanced culture, with better educational system, etc., be able to prevent serious literalistic misreadings of its literature/rituals/slogans? I don't see why not. I just think that it won't be accomplished by anything like what NA writers provide.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Massimo

    >Agreed, but there is no escaping from the fact that the Stalinist state arose directly from Marxist atheistic ideology. Before it became a dictatorship it was the hope and light of secularism. The point is simply that just getting rid of religion isn’t going to do the trick.

    It is hard to say an ideology arises from atheism, because atheism doesn't have central tenets/dogmas other than "god most likely doesn't exist". It doesn't have a central institution like, say, catholicism, nor bishops that demand strict obedience and unquestionable authority (maybe some atheists regard Dawkins as archbishop, but that's another story), or a central unquestionable document.

    I can argue that Stalinism and such arised from bad, unbased reasoning, while christianity has a whole document full of rules and dogma. Within the only statement atheism has (there is no god) there is no "you should have an authoritarian state", but in christianity you have the base document explicitly talking against homosexuals.

    Both in atheism and christianity you have different ideologies: ethical postures in the former and interpretations of the Bible/ sects with the latter. The advantage with secular ideologies (in principle) is that you can use logic, discussion, and even empirical evidence to reach the best answer possible at the moment. It can go awry of course, but at least people can discuss it and rethink it. That's what you do with godless philosophy, and if you say that isn't better than baseless discussion on a primitive document of dubious origins, then you should quit Philosophy!

    >Indeed. Now when was the last time you could honestly put the words “moderate” and “Hitchens” (or “Dawkins”) in the same sentence without feeling a bit ridiculous?

    What is so extreme about them? They don't promote hate against groups of people, they strictly talk against ideologies. Maybe they talk strong and loud, but I'd like to know where do you personally draw the line between the appropiate and what's not appropiate.

    >I disagree. Compare the current billboard campaign being promoted by CFI (moderate) with the one being promoted by American Atheists (obnoxious, as usual). It can be done.

    Again, where do you draw the line? I agree the CFI campaign is softer in form, but their core message is as godless as the AA one, and it can be as "hurting/offensive" to many religious people. So, when do they have the right to not be offended?

    When I talked about obnoxious, I was thinking about active vs. passive promotion. Should we deny the existence of god and its implications (discussion of dogma-based ideas) publicly? Should we try to reach people directly, or wait until they engage us? Should we differentiate between say, political (in which we cuss against politicians with no consequence) and religious matters?

    Religious promotion is obnoxious times when the religious indoctrinate children, knock directly to your door like vacuum cleaner salesmen, talk people out of rational things like vaccination and blood transfusion, etc.

    >Probably, but even that isn’t a slam dunk. I’d rather people turn to, say, the Dalai Lama (a religious leader) than to Christopher Hitchens, at least when it comes to international policy.

    Curiously you chose the most secular of religious leaders. Anyways, you're right in that many religious leaders are better persons than non-religious ones. I was thinking more about religious leaders pushing dogma against topics like abortion in media, or as part of a lobby.

    >Broadly speaking yes. But you are begging the question if you focus only on problem solving. What about emotional responses? Feelings of meaning, and so forth? There it is *empirically* obvious that religions have done better than secularism, hands down. I think it’s unfortunate, but it’s something we need to honestly admit.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Massimo (cont.) I'd like you to elaborate on this. I don't think it's really obvious that religion is better in average. Religion can be a source of confort to many, and a source of guilt and desperation to others. As I said in the first point, it's hard to demand emotional support from atheism, since it only has one statement. Don't you agree that it's more mature to find reasons other than a (most likely) non-existent afterlife, to live happily?

    I and many others (and I'm guessing, you) can live nice meaningful lives without religion. Thinking that less educated/intelligent/fortunate people (or any other advantage you fancy) can't is rather irrespectful and condescending. You probably didn't mean this, so if you can elaborate it'd be great.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.