I wrote up a response to a rather lame article that I read on BeliefNet: Atheism and our inhuman nature, and I wanted to post the ideas here.
The article criticizes the "New Atheists" because they present a Utopian view of humanity and its future.
My response:
I have read all of the popular "New Atheist" books. I'm not sure where you get this idea that they have a Utopian view of humanity's future. Perhaps you could provide a quote to give me some idea what you're referencing.
Each of the New Atheists points out that believing claims without evidence, believing you have the One True Magic Book from the Creator, eschewing rational thought in general, and welcoming the end of the world as a glorious future to look forward to -- these are definitely bad ideas. And, as nasty as human nature is already, aren't helping pull us from any potential dangerous brink.
Think of it this way. A doctor might say, "Hey, don't get hundreds of chest xrays for fun -- it's a dumb idea and you'll probably end up getting cancer..." A critic who writes for beliefnet might ask whether this doctor thinks he has cured cancer! No, he doesn't. But he has helped identify a rather dangerous way to live.
People are nasty creatures? Ok, I'll bite. How does promoting superstition help address that? Starting with the Old Testament, First Samuel 15 has God ordering His followers to kill every man, woman, child and infant of a neighboring tribe with swords.
Moving on to the New Testament. Jesus says love your enemies -- an easy thing to say. What actions back up those words? Well, consider that I'm an atheist, and an enemy of superstition in general. How will Jesus treat me as his enemy? By throwing me in a lake of fire to burn in torment for eternity... Sure, humans might be nasty creatures -- but wow, can you come up with a nastier human than that?
------------------------------
Comments?
Technorati tag: P66R3FMZBWGR
{ 2 comments }
There is one passage in the BeliefNet article I find rather odd:
These savage combatants [in The Congo] need no religious justification for their killing, any more than the Nazis did. If religion gives them an excuse to dehumanize their enemies, they'll take it. If it doesn't, they'll find something else.
This is not a matter of religion, or no religion. This is a matter of human nature, and what human beings are capable of absent civilized restraints. If you think people are bad with God, just imagine what they're capable of without Him.
I've tried to understand just what the author means, but I am at a loss. On the one hand, he's asserting that the horror occurring in The Congo has nothing to do with religion – that it would be just as bad with or without religious justification – but then immediately goes on to assert that bad as things may be with a belief in God, it would be worse without such a belief. It is a contradictory implication based on the author's previous statement. It just makes no sense.
rr on beliefnet responded. I quote and respond to rr here (as a mirror)
rr: "Yet all the evidence of twentieth century, from the world wars, to the Holocaust to the creation of the atomic bomb clearly shows that humans are quite capable of killing each other for reasons that have little or nothing to do with religion."
And which New Atheist would disagree with that statement? You almost seem to be saying, "Why study cancer to improve a person's health? Don't you know heart disease kills more people?" Seems like both are fine things to work on.
It's strange to me that society shields religious wishful thinking from criticism that might otherwise go to work on changing a person's mind — to a perverse extent that is not mirrored in any other area of discourse.
One of the biggest points that each of the New Atheists HAVE actually made is that there is this terrible double standard when someone criticizes another person's religious beliefs.
Criticizing racist thought, for example, is not shushed because stupid ideas should be criticized. Also, stupid ideas can cause many Very Bad Things.
Criticizing religious thought is not shushed because there seems to be some sort of respect for religious wishful thinking. Also, it should be pointed out, stupid religious ideas can cause many Very Bad Things.
Comments on this entry are closed.