Look at her!
Little did I know, when I sat down to write the following before going to the gym this morning, that this subject would be so thoroughly explored today in so many different places. Not only Butterflies and Wheels (as linked below), but also Russell Blackford’s Metamagician blog, Jason Rosenhouse on his science blog, Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True, and even Jeremy — “Look at her!” – Stangroom (credit to Jerry for Jeremy’s new nickname!) is getting in on the action (from a contrary perspective, of course — shoving it one more time to “Dick” Dawkins). And there are others, including Jean Kazez (who, at this point, I’m not prepared to take seriously), unlike Jason Streitfield, who writes on public displays of atheism in response to Jean Kazez. — And yet one more: Camels with Hammers.
Just one comment in response to Jean’s point that atheism does not provide for an objective morality, and that discussing this in public will not make atheism more publicly acceptable. In fact, the religious already think that atheists have no moral compass, and cannot have one, so it’s not going to make a lot of difference anyway. But of course religion doesn’t provide for an objective morality either. Just because you say it is doesn’t make it so. So, the status of morality will be just the same, whether you are religious or not. Besides, it is abundantly evident that religious “morality” is often sub-human, however objective religious people think their morality is. In fact, that’s precisely what I argue again and again. When religious people tell us that stoning women to death. or allowing women to die rather than perform an abortion, or forcing people to die in misery, or mutilating the genitals of boys and girls are commanded by their gods, then we need to ask them to think a bit more about morality, and what it is. Supposing that you have an objective morality is almost always a disaster, because if it really is objective, then, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians (as the Bible says), it can never change, and we must go on doing these awful things forever, and call them good. I’d like a little less objectivity, and a whole lot more sensitive humanity, anyday.
+++++++
Over at Butterflies and Wheels a discussion developed (while I slept, apparently) about atheism and politeness. If we want to make a change we have to make nice with religion … That’s the idea. We’ve met the idea before, from Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a Dick” campaign, to Mooney’s ridiculous posturing about the boorishness and unhelpfulness of the new atheism — no, the New Atheism: let’s stand proud! — done with all the artfulness of a boor — or a dick, as the case may be.
This simply misses the point. The whole point of the New Atheism was to oppose something intrusive and dangerous. It was, arguably, the religious atrocities of 9/11 that gave a fillip to atheism and made it new. Without that iconic event atheism would have gone on its boring way without making so much as a dent in the culture. But religion couldn’t stay put. It was losing ground. People were beginning to think of religion as well past its sell-by date. Church people watched with alarm as their numbers dwindled. Time for drastic action.
Surprisingly, it was the same act of terrorism that gave religion its leg up as well. Suddenly people began saying that god is not yet dead, that religion has lots to offer, and we need to cultivate good relationships with religion, even give them money so they can go on being good. But it wasn’t what religion had to offer that prompted atheism’s renewed energy or religion’s renewed claims. No. It was fear on one side and confident boldness on the other. Religion didn’t only look after the old, the dying or the homeless. No. Religion could blow up buildings and kill thousands at a stroke.
And then, after religion had done it, did people begin to recognise how dangerous religion could be? No. They began to speak of religion as compassionate and peace-loving! We were assured on all sides that knocking down buildings with airplanes filled with innocent people was atypical of that particular religion. In fact, we were told that the people who died in the twin towers were the real beneficiaries. They wouldn’t want to come back even if they could, Billy Graham told us.
It’s the old, old story. I think it was Chesterton who, when asked whether it was not true that Christianity had been tried and found wanting, replied that Christianity had yet to be tried. It’s a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy, of course. However, let’s take the events of 9/11 and ask whether they are the result of religion, specifically the religion of Islam. Someone may say — a number of people did say — that this was not characteristic of Islam. ‘Islam’ means, we were told, peace, and comes from the same root as the word ‘Salaam’ in “Salaam Alaikum”, a greeting with which you wish peace upon the other, to which the appropriate response is “Alaikum Salaam,” which extends the peace back to you. But, of course, that’s not what ‘Islam’ means, whatever its etymology. It means submission. But if submission can mean that you must kill thousands of innocent people, then, one wants to say, in a Wittgensteinian tone, that that’s simply too big of a mistake not to find some ground in the religion of Islam itself.
Now my purpose here is not to focus on Islam as a benighted religion — though that, of course, is what I think it is. Nor do I want to focus particularly on the benightedness of Christianity or Judaism or Hinduism either — though that, of course, is what I think they are. I simply want to affirm as clearly as can be that religion itself is a danger to us. All you have to do is to check out religion wherever it is powerful, and you can see how much danger it really is.
As Sam Harris says in his Letter to a Christian Nation, the problem with religion is the problem of dogma, that is, of beliefs which have no rational ground or justification. I would hate for Tara Bartholomew — who very bravely put her beliefs out there for all to see — to think that I am either belittling or ridiculing her, but when you list beliefs like that — which, even if they provide all the confidence in the world to go on living with hope and joy — you not only give hostages to fortune, you also make truth claims, and truth claims have consequences. Sometimes those consequences are dire. Beliefs may seem quite harmless expressed by one person. They can be seen as a kind of whistling in the dark, but their meaning vaults beyond the person, and intentionally or not, entangles other people in their web — a web of hopeful conviction and self-deception. And Sam’s point is that since religious belief has no rational ground, and is not held for good reasons having to do with the truth of religious beliefs, while it may be consoling, it is also “compatible with the most desolating evil.” (Letter, 48)
This should be blindingly obvious. Since Islam is still powerful in many of the places where it represents a majority belief, all one has to do is look and see! See how women are treated in Muslim majority areas of the world. See how people of other religions are being treated there. See how the quest for freedom has been, and is being, put down with cruelty and mindless violence. See how successfully radical Islamists have made publishers and broadcasters in the heart of free societies tremble and capitulate. This is religion in action, and all the reassuring words about religion as a source of consolation and community cannot hide this reality from us.
But the same thing applies to other religions, although, for the most part, Christianity has been forced onto the back foot — as AC Grayling likes to say. However, if we look at Chile or El Salvador, where the Roman Catholic Church is in the ascendant, and can get the absolute prohibition of abortion written into the law, we can see very clearly what it is like when religion pulls the strings and makes the rules. Read the New York Times article “Pro-Life Nation“, or the recent Guardian piece on Chile, to get an idea of what religion can do when it has the power to do it. Religion in power is an ugly thing, and religions are making a renewed bid for power.
So, let’s be clear. There is no place for religious dogma when it comes to making the rules by which we will be forced to live. No place at all! In fact, it still has too much place, too much power and influence. That doesn’t mean that we want to upset the apple cart to see where the apples will go. But it does mean that we should not make nice with religion. We should say clearly and loudly that religion has no place in the public square, even if religious believers do. Religion as a way of life and form of believing is perfectly entitled to protection, but it has no right to have its dogmas made into laws.
Of course, that’s one of the chief reasons why I write this blog, because in most countries there are laws, almost entirely religious in origin, which forbid assistance in dying. Margaret Somerville and others take the religious doctrine of the sanctity of life and try to secularise it. So we have the oxymoron of the secular sacred. Very often John Locke is dragooned into this debate, as though Locke’s liberalism is somehow authoritative for all later transformations of liberal societies.
John Locke rejected suicide, because he held that the right to life was inalienable, so, it seems, we must reject it too. But Locke’s belief in the absolute inalienability of life was based explicitly on theological grounds. We are God’ s property, and we may not dispose of our lives as we choose. The disposition of our lives is in the hands of God alone. But it is simply absurd, given Locke’s views on this matter, to suggest (as Arthur Dyck does in his book When Killing is Wrong) that society would simply fall apart if we stopped thinking of life as absolutely inalienable, even when we are suffering the torments of the damned. Nor should the fact that Hobbes based his whole political philosophy on the idea of the absolute inalienability of life determine how we should regard it now. Liberal societies are much more resilient than that, and Hobbes was simply wrong to think that the one natural law forbidding us “to do that, which is destructive of [our lives], or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that, by which he thinketh it may be best preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter XIV [p. 84 in the Oakeshott edition]) is the only basis of civil society . What can, however, destroy liberal societies — and is on the way to doing so — is the intervention of religious dogma in the context of governance and legislation. This is theocracy, and it must be opposed with all the strenuousness at our command. And that’s why New Atheism must not make nice with religion.
Well said. Former atheism fought on the same ground as religion, writing wonderful refutations of the argument for God, while drinking tea and eating cucumber sandwiches. The enemy was always the God concept, or faith or atheists would play the sceptical or naturalist or humanist position in the friendly game of philosophy of religion.
But 9/11 began to wake atheists up from their undogmatic slumbers. Suddenly a whole moral landscape opened up to them, we gained our own intellectual space and territory as… something else. We were not only rejecting god and faith, but religion altogether as positively harmful and wrong. We don’t want anything to do with religion or the irrational, because we have seen its results, and its results are bad bad bad. We are not religious we are something beyond it.
And not quiet knowing what we are yet, we’re stamped with the label new atheism and a social menace. But what we are is, at least, free from the idea that religion is a little bit crazy but otherwise harmless. We’re free from the idea that religion is required for a moral society. We’ve walked away from the surreal parallel reality of a multicultural co-existing liberal society that embraces religion and alternative beliefs, and we’re now forming our own religion free space, a new rational thinking community: something else. Something better.
How far should that rejection of religion take us? Is it enough to oppose religion’s being given a special place of influence and privilege in the public square? That at least may yield benefits on matters such as choice in dying. (And it’s odd that in the UK, religious influence is still seen when formulating laws, even while it’s rejected in the court – see “Laws’ Law”.)
However, it would still leave us as vulnerable to acts of violence by religious extremists. How should we oppose that? It worries me that no matter how loudly or eloquently we expound the virtues of a rational, naturalistic worldview and a secular society, we will never reach the hearts and minds of the faithful that would kill and die for their beliefs.
Pingback: Atheist squabble update « Why Evolution Is True
In response to Jean and Jeremy, one just needs to say “I don’t believe” and be done with it. Either evidence for gods exists or it doesn’t. We cannot forever sit on the sidelines with the thought that maybe we just might find some evidence in the future – so we must not say anything at all.
I am baffled by this idea that if something is hard to understand, then we just shouldn’t try. Really? – Jean is a professor – is this what she tells her students? The worse thing one can do is preface a conversation with “this is really hard” – talk about condescending – let the listener be the judge of its difficulty and your ability to make it understandable. What we need are better explanations – let’s work on simplifying our arguments so we can reach more people. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the specialized jargon of our professional lives that we forget it is not needed. The idea that we should not need to work to make sense of our lives really is self-defeating.
And even one more, Dan Fincke at Camels With Hammers.
http://camelswithhammers.com/2011/02/28/is-it-too-risky-to-debate-moralitys-foundations-in-the-public-square/
Thank you Eric. I do understand now how you’ve arrived at your logic for achieving the greatest moral good.
See how successfully radical Islamists have made publishers and broadcasters in the heart of free societies tremble and capitulate.
Just today, Lars Vilks posted on Facebook an article he did about the latest pseudoleftist guy accusing him of “Islamophobia.” The people who published Does God Hate Women? in Sweden were promptly accused of “Islamophbia.” On and on it goes.
Very good post. It’s my first comment here, and though I have little to say I’ll say it anyway: congratulations!
Jeremy’s behavior in all this just saddens me, really really saddens me.
As someone who’s only just finished Why Truth Matters and Does God Hate Women? It saddens me to see one of it’s authors being petty, closing comments on his blog and generally missing the freakin point.
I’m just starting an OU subject on philosophy, and already I feel the need to reread Why Truth Matters, or possibly mail it to some of my fellow students.
This idea that NAs should be held to some unrealistic ideal decorum is just plainly ridiculous.
That jeremy, in his comments section (which is back open again, though he’s already saying he’ll close it if he wants to, so nerr) is saying Coyne is morally responsible for some barely unsavoury comments is over-sensitivity of the highest order.
I’m not saying that coyne isn’t responible for the management of his comments section, or that there isn’t concievably something that could be said that’s probably beyond the pale, but you know what, I really think that leaving the comments open and as unfettered as possible is the best way of doing things.
Some uncomfortable and unfortunate things may get said, but the long term openness demonstrably leads to more honest and productive discussion. (Check the comments at Jeremy’s site, compared to B&W, WEIT, and PZs. There’s a reason less people post there.)
I post on a forum with next to no moderation. We have managed to discuss all manner of contentious issues in mostly civil fashion, including a God thread that is now 275 pages long, and that’s largely because we’ve been left to sort ourselves out. The language is a lot bluer than it is here, on occasion, but anyone who actually gives a toss about the truth gets over it, and deals with substance.
I posted over at Russell’s site about an earlier incident that destroyed my respect for the “lets play nice” stance.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=24761391&postID=1214367575263843955
When you bend over backwards to play nice to the point that the truth and your arguments get so mangled as to be almost nonsensical, check your perspective.
I strongly disagree.
Religion is a toxic meme. It poisons everything.
It has no more “right” to be protected than does polio.
Well, Michael, this is simply a point about liberal freedoms. We cannot in justice outlaw religion, no matter how poisonous, but we can surely limit its influence. It is a toxic meme, or memeplex, and hopefully we can reduce its effectiveness, but that’s going to take time, and in the meantime we need to be quite open about its toxic effect.
I agree with you Eric. As toxic as religion is, liberals betray their noble heritage if they banned religion. This is one reason why the politics and culture of countries like Turkey can present a dilemma for liberal secular humanists/atheists. Do we stand with the illiberal secularists who want to ban Islamist parties and enforce anti-religion laws (e.g. banning headscarves in universities)? Or do we support the Turkish people’s democratic right to elect a government of their own choosing, even if it’s Islamist? A similar dilemma applies to Egypt, both during and after Hosni Mubarak’s reign. Secular dictatorship, or liberal democratic Islamism?
I mention all this not to disparage the atheist desire for religious influence to diminish. The world would undoubtedly be a better place without religion. But the world is also a terribly complicated place, and the choices liberal secular atheists face in terms of where to lend their support aren’t always cut-and-dried.
Excellent post BTW, Eric.
“Since Islam is still powerful in many of the places where it represents a majority belief, all one has to do is look and see!”
Let’s look at Egypt. It’s a big muslim country and there has been a non violent, anti-totalitarian popular revolution.
“See how women are treated in Muslim majority areas of the world.”
Like in pre-war Iraq, with women having professional careers and teaching at the university and being part of the government. Like pre-revolution Algeria, until islamic extremism showed up in the 80s. Like the democracy they used to have in Iran, until America decided the Iranian president had gone too far by saying that the country’s oil belonged to the country, not to America.
“See how people of other religions are being treated there.”
Like in Egypt, with muslims protecting christians and vice versa. Normal religious people protecting normal religious people against the extremists who put a bomb in a church. Of course, the extremists got more attention than the protectors, because they fit better into the narrative.
“See how the quest for freedom has been, and is
being, put down with cruelty and mindless violence.”
Like in Egypt, where a non violent revolution has overthrown a dictatorship.
Mubarak’s government wasn’t actually secular, it played favourites with religion – for example if you look at his government’s treatment of the Coptic population.
Eric,
On the relation between religion and violence, are you familiar with Rene Girard? I’d be interested to know what your take on him is. My understanding is that he says violence is at the heart of all religions, but that there is a way out (for which we can read “Jesus”…).
Christian, I don’t know a lot about Girard. At one point some years ago I began reading him, but when I realised it was all a lead in to the idea that Jesus solves the problem it seemed to me that his whole theory is tendentious, and I lost interest. I do not think that religious ritual can be resolved into the idea that it is intended to sublimate violence. That just doesn’t work for me. In fact, if anything, religion tends to increase the level or the intensity of violence in a population. Perhaps, contrary to Girard, religion does not so much provide for scapegoating sublimation, as a means of privileging parts of a population, intensifying relations of inclusion and exclusion, and diverting violence away from the favoured group onto the excluded group. While I have not studied this, and have no evidence for it, I suspect it is closer to the truth than Girard’s theories. In fact, Girard’s theory may be an explicitation of the point of view I have just adumbrated. I would add that most scriptures show the formation of privileged groups and the exclusion of the non-privileged groups, which tends to confirm my own sketchy thoughts on the matter.
Ah yes, you’re correct Bruce. Just read that Egypt actually has Islam as a state religion. And you’re right about the religious discrimination against the Copts.
From Wikipedia:
“Egypt ranks among the 12 worst countries in the world in terms of religious violence against religious minorities and in terms of social hostilities against Christians.”
I guess the mainly secular nature of the recent revolution somehow made me think that Egypt was similar to Turkey; Muslim majority but secular.
As someone who’s only just finished Why Truth Matters and Does God Hate Women? It saddens me to see one of it’s authors being petty, closing comments on his blog and generally missing the freakin point.
As the other author, it makes me pretty sad too! Or perhaps irritated is the better word…
I have some sympathy for what you’re trying to get across here. I certainly agree that US foreign policy, and probably British and French foreign policy before that, have had too much of a say in the middle east, leading to unpopular leadership that has gone on to be very bad news. Looking at the (generally poor) state of a country with heavy religious influence in public affairs it seems too easy to place blame on religion to the exclusion of other factors, and maybe that is too easy and simple, but I reckon a case can still be made, and has been, that religion isn’t helping, and/or is the major factor, even if we have to look at others.
I can only imagine! The clarity of thought and justified anger seems to be missing from his current writing. Certainly what I’ve seen of his blog.
I tempted to say he should read his own book again!
Thanks for the reply. I came across Girard recently when a theology lecturer was raving about him from an “interfaith” perspective, saying that his ideas are currently being looked at to see if they can help promote dialogue between religions. My problem is that it seems so obvious that he’s pushing Jesus as the solution to the violence that he talks about that, even granted his arguments up to that point, I struggle to see how he helps. But it’s early days in my reading, so maybe I’m missing something. Thanks again for your take on it.
Thanks. I’m just a little tired of people picturing every muslim country in the world as a sandy shithole controlled by Al Qaeda. I understand it if Fox News says it, but I expect better from fellow atheists.
Come on Jose, I didn’t treat all Muslim countries as shitholes controlled by Al Qaeda. I asked you to look and see what religions in power do, and I suggested you look also at places where the RC Church has some control. If you don’t think this indicates something about religion, explain it. I’m getting a bit tired of people responding like you have just done, atheist, religionist or not.
Yes Eric MacDonald, I know you didn’t. It’s annoying when people strawmanize reality in order to strengthen a point, isn’t it? Especially when mischaracterization is completely unnecessary. That’s what I did, and that’s what you did.
I have looked at muslim majority areas of the world and I have seen all kinds of different backgrounds, cultures, mentalities, and societies. Those areas are as diverse as the traditionally Christian areas of the world. Morocco is not less different from Afghanistan than Brazil is from Poland.
“the problem with religion is the problem of dogma, that is, of beliefs which have no rational ground or justification”
Like Religious morality. And atheist morality. And – you know – morality in general. Unless of course there is a new empirical theory of morality no-one has mentioned. What’s the fundamental particle of “right”?
“There is no place for religious dogma when it comes to making the rules by which we will be forced to live”
Quite right. Like “killing is wrong” and “blasphemy is wrong”.
Also: Atheist dogma. Like “killing is wrong” and “paedophilia is wrong”
Basically you seem to have a hard on for denigrating religious morality and ‘dogma’ but don’t seem to see that either atheism tells us nothing about morality or it has dogma, as morality is not empirically testable.