The news never disappoints. Every morning when I wake up I tour a number of online newspapers. My internet homepage is aldaily.com, managed by the Chronicle of Higher Education. I start with the Globe and Mail and then work down, through the Guardian, Indpendent, Telegraph, National Post and New York Times. Life is short: I can’t do them all. Every morning, without fail, there is some religious madness or other. Very seldom do atheists make the news: but religion is always there in living colour. And yet it is the new atheists who are called strident, uncivil, contemptuous — and other terms intended to be opprobrious, though actually pointing out the refreshing candour of nonbelievers. No mysteries for them to skulk behind. Set alongside the iterated idiocies of religion atheism turns out to be surprisingly civil and compassionate and refreshingly honest.
Take Andrew Brown’s CiF Belief piece from last Friday. With wonted hyperbole he says that
… anyone who spends time with decent Christians will know that they are aware of all the atheist arguments against God.
Notice that ‘all’ and suppose it true. What does that say about Christian believers? Before answering that question, consider the following statement: “Despite all the evidence against the theory, Dr. Dread Dimwit still believes that Aristotle’s theory of spontaneous generation is true.”
Now consider Brown’s claim. Christian believers know all the arguments against belief, and yet continue to believe. Turn to a couple more articles from this morning’s news. Start with:
The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way
Stem cell research, evolution — as Cardinal Schönborn puts it:
Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of ‘chance and necessity’ are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.
All the evidence points the other way, but it is an abdication of human intelligence to draw any conclusions from it. It’s nice to know that the Vatican knows, without evidence, what can be known only with it.
And that leads us to the Devil — who else?
The Devil’s own work: Why do priests still perform exorcisms?
Every diocese of the Roman Catholic Church must have a “trained” exorcist on staff. The question about how you train someone to expel from people the Spirit of Evil itself in the absence of any evidence whatever that this entity exists poses something of a problem, but the church seems to take it in its stride. It is a part of Catholic doctrine, therefore it must be so, whatever the evidence. Again, one has to ask the question. Knowing all the arguments against something, does it still make sense to believe it true?
Well, let’s take one more step into the realm of dogmatic certainty. Let’s go to
Chile: where abortion isn’t an option
The Roman Catholic Church, whose believers know all the arguments against belief and yet go on believing, have made it impossible for women to get an abortion. Why? Well, just because. Because God injects souls into entities smaller than the eye can see, just as soon as an egg and a sperm join to form what might someday, if it manages to navigate all the perils, become a human being. For the Roman Catholic, belief — that precious thing that is held despite knowing all the arguments against it — is enough to determine what a woman must do, no questions askable, no doubts entertainable, no arguments allowable. Does this still make sense to you?
Well, then, consider this. In Liverpool, Nova Scotia, not far from where I live, a man was living with the pain of guilt. His wife, Barbara Bolton, was dying of stage 4 breast cancer. It was well known in the community, according to the report in the newspaper, that she was very ill and in great distress. Her husband, Stephen, “gave her a lethal injection of two medications — morphine and Nozinan.” However, he could no longer live with the guilt, so he turned himself in to the local RCMP. He notified the Halifax Chronicle Herald first, telling them that he did not have an agenda, just a guilty conscience. “I am racked with guilt,” he said. (Shouldn’t that be ‘wracked’?) (I have just been called by the CBC for an interview about this story.)
Lest you are thinking, “What has this got to do with religion?”, the truth is that the reason for our laws against assisted dying being so strong and unbending just is religion. Margaret Somerville may try to argue that there are all sorts of secular reasons to forbid it, but the fundamental, underlying reason, is religious, and remains so, despite all the trappings of secular argument with which the religious continue to festoon it. The Roman Catholic Church is, once again, the chief offender. It stands guard over the doors of life and death, and it doesn’t matter what individuals believe, they are largely governed by those who believe that God forbids such things as abortion or suicide or euthanasia, and who know all the arguments against their beliefs, and still hold to them. Such determination has its rewards. People really think that it means that they really know.
I was a very “decent” Christian for quite a while. I was homeschooled until 11th grade, finished high school at a Baptist High School, went to an evangelical college for 3 semesters, and taught Sunday School in a Baptist church for 3 years. I’ve only recently (within the last 6 months) deconverted due to a couple years of exposure to critical thinking through the skeptical movement and about 6 months of specific study on the question of God.
I can honestly say that I didn’t fully understand ANY of the arguments against God until about a year before I became an atheist, much less understood all of the arguments, and I can say with absolute confidence that none of the 100s of decent Christians I’ve worshiped with and talked to about this issue has even fully understood a few of the atheist arguments (including pastors, youth leaders, and college Bible teachers). As a new atheist I’m been surprised to regularly find even more arguments against theism the more I study science, philosophy, psychology, comparative religions, and just think about things logically, so for Brown to claim that all decent Christians know all the arguments is innane. Many atheists aren’t even aware of all the arguments against god’s existence!
I just read that Liverpool story. One detail that bothers me is that (according to the story) he didn’t ask her before he administered the drugs, and she was depressed but not in pain (but it’s too early in the investigation to be making judgements about what might have happened).
ISTM that, in the absence of a legal framework for allowing terminally ill people a graceful exit under their own control, you’re going to see this sort of unilateral action — and in some instances, it will either be technically botched, or shouldn’t have happened at all. It’s like abortion: it will happen anyway, all that making it illegal does is drive it underground, and increase the risk to those involved.
I agree, that’s a problem. He should have discussed it with her first. On the other hand, it may turn out that she had already spoken about it, and lamented that this could not be done, and that he must not do it, because it would be breaking the law. Much too early to speak about this in detail
This is happening all over the world. Unfortunately, people get arrested and charged with serious crimes, because they helped a loved one end serious pain and suffering.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Prof-who-helped-mom-die-wants-SA-law-changed-20101222
Any data on back alley abortions deaths in Chile? I won’t be suprised if someone is trying to sweep that under the rug. In some central American nations like Nicaragua, it is even worse: any woman suspected by her doctors to have had an abortion may be arrested, her body treated as a “crime scene”.
Here are two letters to the editor in my local paper this morning:
“Many parents have responded to the need for quality [sic] education by home schooling their children or enrolling them in private and charter schools.
Why? Public schools are rife with problems such as terrible schoolbook selection, education that denigrates the family and expert opinions that are bereft of any practical knowledge.
Many of our Inland-area educators do have high standards, as evidenced by many of our young people, for which I am thankful. But, unfortunately, too many educators are in lockstep with the teachers unions.”
“I hope to be wrong, but I don’t think I will be. Soon, Mexican drug cartels will burst through our porous borders. Extremist Muslims will be using our free-speech laws to rally in our streets, just as they use Europe’s laws against it. Americans like those in Wisconsin will resort to Cairo-style chaos to protect their interests. More universities like Columbia will deny freedom of speech to conservative and Christian causes.
Dark days are coming. I only hope our children and theirs have the courage and the fortitude to prevail.”
The belief in an idyllic past where everyone was Christian and straight – leaders were white capitalist men and women were barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen still reigns in the US.
The buzzwords are all there: family, expert (surprised it wasn’t elitist), practical, unions, extremist, Muslim, Christian.
In a way, the X-files lead directly to my becoming an atheist. I found myself as a young adult interested in the paranormal and accidentally checked out a book that was a pretty stirring debunking of all things paranormal. I hungered for more, which lead me to Sagan, which lead to Russel, and after a while I realize I was always arguing on the side of the atheists. And I never looked back.
All my time as a Lutheran, they only very rarely mentioned atheism, and then only do dismiss it out of hand. I think most Christians rely on the fact that their pastors have dismissed the arguments (that they don’t know, or haven’t thought hard about). There is also the problem that pastors who are trained about textual criticism, biblical archaeology, which shows some very real and significant disparities with most of the Bible’s narrative, never share that sort of thing with the children. My observation was that that indoctrination and pat explanations were always the way with children, so that when they are adults, they have too much invested to actually look at the evidence critically. One of my good friends actually refuses to listen to me talking about some of the Biblical archaeology books that I’ve read… I feel bad, because she is a very smart person, and shutting her ears to it seems a very cowardly way to live life.
Yes, it is stomach churning to live in a world controlled by laws that are the fruit of worldwide fideism. When those baseless controls affect me personally, they become more than the subject of philosophical contemplation and discussion; I experience the physical reaction of repulsion. I just “know” that something is wrong without having any scientific evidence other than the repulsion I feel. I claim that every individual is free to die provided that, in the exercise of that freedom, the life of another is not taken except if by the other’s choice. And, I claim that every individual is free to live provided that, in the exercise of that freedom, the life of another is not prolonged, except if by the other’s choice. To support my claim, I find myself in a difficult spot; the onus is on me to provide scientific evidence where no such evidence exists. My claim’s truth is nothing more than common sense. A common sense that is in complete contradiction to the “common sense” of the control that I’d like changed.
It seems my only alternative is to appeal to the opposing “common sense” and point to the religious basis for the repulsive control and appeal to the first amendment of the United States Constitution. This constitutional law is not being exercised as a universal in the United States. Protection of religious expression is a legal “right”. The problem in the United States is that this protection is doled out subjectively. The subjective opinion too is grounded in religion and is thereby protected. It seems a vicious cycle. In the United States, the individual at the precipice of death/life being the catalyst for the protection of the law should have the first right of that protection. It is only logical that the burden of “proof” (protection) be given to the first claimant of death/life.
If I am the catalyst for the exercise of the protection under law, I have the first right of protection. Therefore, I am protected against any interference of my right to death or life.
The person wishing to interfere is the respondent and secondary under this same protection. I am the initial claimant thereby making the burden of protection mine. This is true of any valid argument.
Due to the established U.S. law of protection of religious freedom, I have the benefit of the theistically based Lex Rex. I am questioning the reality of the law. I am saying that the law is illusory until it is objectively enforced.
I have great compassion for those who don’t have the advantage of the established, albeit illusory, law as the first step to the protection of the freedom to die. My proposal is they take their own repulsion as the catalyst to question the personage of that control, and avoid any counter claim of non-provable “fact”.
Yes, I am a “believer” in God. And, I’m not hoping this self-identification to cause repulsion in the body of any Atheist. In other words, I’m not hoping to enter into a non-provable argument. I’m simply letting it be known that “believers” too can be moral animals and consequent allies in the ethical fight for the right to die.
I think most people have no idea what a common occurrence it is for hospital medical personnel to decide controversial end of life issues one way or another and act accordingly. The patient’s wishes is just one factor among many considerations – especially family members who insist that he or she speaks on behalf of the patient (and who can make a medical person’s life an absolute hell if treatment – or lack of it – is dissimilar to the one favoured by that family member) – unless signed paperwork from the patient is made available to the medical team. From my experience, most medical people fervently wish that such a large black ethical hole was made smaller by a policy of respecting the patient’s wishes first and foremost.
I agree; the power of thinking skeptically was really important in my deconversion. If I had to point to the two individuals who are most responsible for my atheism it would have to be the skeptics Steven Novella and Michael Shermer. They really gave me the tools I needed to start to think critically and logically about life, and I eventually decided to reread conservative theology books and the Bible more critically to make sure I was right in being a Christian. My faith pretty quickly fell apart once I honestly treated religion with the same skepticism I had learned to treat pseudoscientific and paranormal claims with.
I certainly don’t want to come across as criticizing the new atheists, because different tactics are effective in different situations and the new atheists certainly played a part in my deconversion (especially from going from wishy-washy agnosticism to atheism), but just teaching skepticism and critical thinking skills and then encouraging people to use those tools on religion for themselves can be a very effective way to stamp out religious beliefs, at least for some people.
These should be taught in all secondary schools!
However…
I heard of one teacher who tried this at her school, but was obliged to stop because of the number of complaints from parents — and other teachers! — that the children were applying those skills too ably…
I also suffer from information overload. I try to keep up with current affairs while also deeply researching various fields of knowledge that are sometimes desperately incoherent and badly explained.
What usually brings me back to sanity is that I still retain my sceptical ability to reason and a few remaining braincells devoted to my imagination. I can cut a lot of information to pieces by dismissing it as bullshit. Of course, constructing an argument in the form of an article or blog post is far more problematic–and hence why I currently avoid it–because you have to know a bit about what’s going on and you have to check your evidence and sources.
Having said that, I’ve noticed something a bit disturbing. Arguments are not only constructed in an attempt to arrive at some greater approximation to truth by honest people. No. Arguments are also made to arrive at what is morally right by dishonest people. Shock horror.
There seems something dubious about the latter; something almost immoral. We’re so accommodating with the idea of intellectual fellowship that we seem to process all arguments as if they merit the same analysis.
But when we’re attempting to discuss topics with people who are dishonest or people who are morally suspect, we may in fact be better off in dismissing them altogether as intellectually dishonest, or morally bankrupt.
However, in the popular media, the voice of the morally dubious making moral arguments about what is right is so loud and so listened to, that the voice of reason is simply ignored or even held in contempt as immoral.
This is something that disturbs me greatly. That perhaps our largest problem is that nobody is listening, that the truth is like a footprint in the sand being continually washed over by the tide.
For over a year I have been trying to keep tabs on as many daily religious atrocities and lunacies as possible on my blog:
http://religiousatrocities.wordpress.com/
It’s a depressing task, but it has its lighter moments.
Oh, excellent Jon… thank you so much.
It never hurts to have a living will (advance health care directive) signed and available. It can empower the medical staff to act as the patient’s advocate.
I’m inclined to agree, however a thorough rebuttal is often warranted for the most obvious rubbish. (As I’ve posted elsewhere) Grayling gives a pretty good explanation of why he spent so much effort rubbishing Steve Fuller. It was obvious he would have preferred to have been doing something else.
I can’t help but admire those who have the dedication for the task. It’s not unlike being a garbage collector or “subterranean sanitation engineer”, it’s dirty work but where would we be without it? (Deeper in sh1t)
Andrew Brown usually requires a lot of shoveling, I’d only read him for a laugh, but if nobody thought he had anything worth writing (I don’t) then he would have to find some other employment, so until he falls silent he should be challenged. (By comparison Grayling was both entertaining and enlightening, a delight to read. I can’t get enough of his stuff.)
Philosophy as waste disposal. Nice.
I agree with you about AC Grayling. A very wise and thoughtful man. I’ve got almost all his books.
Definitely. When my parents were in their decline the only thing I had to go on was a brief item in the Power of Attorney about “no heroic measures” (as it turned out, we never got into a borderline situation where I might have had to figure that out — they both went fairly straight from “reasonable level of care” to “deceased”). The last time my wife and I revised our wills, the lawyer included Advanced Directives — a fairly detailed list of what we’d like done in a given level of medical distress.
(But if I wind up with dementia and advanced Parkinson, like my Mom, I want any cardio and stroke-prevention drugs I’m on discontinued, and an ironclad DNR. Better a quick, clean exit than the slow mindless decline.)
critical thinking through the skeptical movement
In my mind this is more important than atheism per se. It’s the essential process, the universal acid that corrodes all poorly-founded claims equally. In religion, it leads, if not invariably to frank unbelief, at least to the most moderate and thoughtful varieties of faith.
I sometimes run across atheists who are eg. into alt-med crap — is that so much better than, say, Martin Gardner, the theist who is considered the grand-daddy of modern skepticism? Not in my book. Whatever the reasons for atheism, these are people who have not thought things through.
Another example of Fr. Frank Pavone abdicatiing human intelligence:
“We Must Address the Bioethical Issues of Our Day”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/index.php?p=3565