Richard Dawkins on 18th November 2006 says (I quote verbatim):-
Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour (The God Delusion), the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.
I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience.
1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers.
2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need?
I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example.
3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture.
At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God."
Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . .
" . . . to marvel at the spiritual commitment of the Inca priests and to share with the girl on her last journey her pride and excitement at having been selected for the signal honour of being sacrificed. The message of the television programme was in effect that the practice of human sacrifice was in its own way a glorious cultural invention – another jewel in the crown of multiculturalism . . ."
I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: -
"Yet, how dare anyone even suggest this? How dare they invite us – in our sitting rooms, watching television – to feel uplifted by contemplating an act of ritual murder: the murder of a dependent child by a group of stupid, puffed up, superstitious, ignorant old men? How dare they invite us to find good for ourselves in contemplating an immoral action against someone else?"
It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs.
4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point?
There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh.
A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded.
There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents.
That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is.
5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language.
Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject.
Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."
Read the hundreds of comments on this viewpoint.
I've read the first 100 of 323 @ 19th November - here are my pick of them. All of these comments are unedited:
4. Comment #7272 by Dom on November 18, 2006 at 2:43 am
I think it is a fair, realistic (and difficult) question to ask what do we replace religion with. Not everyone (I'd even say the majority of the public) and not wowed by the mysteries and the wonders of science. If we're to change that (and we need to consider if thats something that we should change) we have to change the mindset of the pubic at large from the most basic levels and reinvigorate the image of science to schoolchildren, which is a Herculean task. This will also take many years, possibly even decades.
In the meantime, the question about how we replace God with awe of nature is a valid one, in my opinion and although we should and have made a start to addressing this, its something that we're going to have to keep returning to in the short and medium term
6. Comment #7275 by robzrob on November 18, 2006 at 2:59 am
I don't understand this 'what are we going to replace religion with' thing. Millions of us in Europe are not religious and we're getting on perfectly well without it already.
10. Comment #7282 by maryhelena on November 18, 2006 at 4:26 am
Richard Dawkins wrote:
" 1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!
I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. "
Well, I certainly think that religion is here to stay. I say this with no gleeful tone or even with a self-satisfied smirk. Nor do I have regret or concern that religion is here to stay. For me, it just is. A fact of life, a fact of the human experience of life. There is not the slightest evidence available upon which one could base the possibility that religion will disappear.
Where there is possibility for change is within theology. Theology does change as time moves on, as history clearly testifies. Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static. Religion is the foundation, theology the superstructure. The change, the mutations, occur in man's theological/intellectual structures. It is within these theological structures that lies the potential for good or evil. The evil potential is realized when theology seeks to operate as something other than theology - when it seeks to operate either as morality or as political ideology.
So yes indeed, I have great concern for any society that allows theological ideas to dangerously infiltrate the fabric of the social/political environment. On the other hand, I do have respect for religion, respect for it's insistence that spiritual value, as opposed to purely material values, are what enable us to reach the heights of our humanity.
Knock theological ideas by all means - in whatever language suits. Theological ideas are fair game, they come and they go, in fashion out of fashion - kick one to the sidelines, another will pop up. That's the nature of theology, never a one size fits all. Religion, from it's history back to whenever, is indeed a one size fits all. All known people having some sort of religious expression/experience. Hence, knocking religion is a waste of time - it's inbuilt immune system is able to ward off any attack.
Attack theology, get specific - specific not about some invisible skygod or another - but about the real reality of theology seeking political expression in the here and now….
13. Comment #7286 by Donald E. Flood on November 18, 2006 at 5:02 am
I am an atheist, BUT...
1) I am not happy about having to "wake-up someday and then die, pass into nothingness, nonexistence, etc..."
2) I am not happy about little children dying, especially, needless deaths that could have been prevented. What do I, as an atheist, say to a sobbing mother at the funeral of her dead infant? All I could ever say is, "I'm very, very sorry..."
This list could go on and on. As an atheist, I believe that an objective reality exists, independent of what we believe (or do not believe) about it. When faced with Reality, we can have but two choices: 1) Accept it and deal with it the best you can, 2) Have it impose itself upon you. As an atheist, I choose the former.
16. Comment #7292 by Jonathan McKenzie on November 18, 2006 at 5:52 am
For some people, it's hard to disbelieve a lie that's been laid on thick for years and years and years. Especially in American culture, where groupthink is ever present. Popular conceptions of beauty, intelligence, sophistication, music, literature, and other forms of media are largely the result of wanting to fit in. As you so rightly point out, atheists don't fit in. The quote of Julia Sweeney's mother you use in your book is pretty apropos, here, too. Set aside not believing in god, that's one thing. But atheism is an inferior caste; being atheist means being untouchable. I think America's obsession with popularity is what stifles the de facto atheism of a lot of people. The melting pot is more like oil in water. Not to be trite, but you're really shaking things up. And perhaps, like a vinaigrette, we do have to be shaken up from time to time. Religion, after all, is the lazy alternative. It's atheism that's hard. Atheists are willing converts, if only there were evidence. The same can't be said about most religious folk, unfortunately.
19. Comment #7297 by J on November 18, 2006 at 6:26 am
You are an athiest AND an anti-religious proselytizer. Fine, but these are two separate things. The question of the existence of god and of the whether organized religion or belief has had a net positive affect in human affairs are two separate questions, as of course you know.
You seem to be suggesting here that those of us who are athiests BUT have no desire to proselytize are somehow not quite genuine. Sorry to dissapoint, but it's hard enough, when surrounded by religious people, to stand up to ones parents and in-laws to keep one's kids out of church; or to stand up to a fundamentalist's grilling and calmly explain ones atheism.
It's been hard enough for me to come out of the Atheist closet and teach my kids to make up their own minds about things.
You telling religious people that they are ignorant, delusional fools has NOT helped around here, but fed into their fears of atheists.
21. Comment #7300 by Randy Ping on November 18, 2006 at 6:47 am
I always get the whole "Well, I'm an atheist, but you don't have the right to tell other people that thier imaginary friend is imaginary because they hve a right to believe in...." kind of arguments.
I try to tell them that if it was a holocaust denyer, they would never make that argument.
They say "You can't tell people what top teach their children".
Richard, Do we not have the DUTY to our fellow humans to strip away false beliefs and the fairy tales?
25. Comment #7305 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 6:55 am
MaryHelena wrote,
"Religion, as the fundamental desire/need/orientation for man to seek spiritual values is static."
I agree, and therein is the seed of its demise. The fact that the tales of religion are static (and cannot be updated for obvious reasons) is a fatal weakness, which I think, will result in its natural death sometime in the future. That is why religion needs to indoctrinate children; the godites know that reality will tell a different tale and so they must inoculate kids against reason as soon as possible, the collusion of parents helps them greatly. However, as I've said before on this website, this is a dynamic evolving planet, upon which change is inevitable, that which is static and unable to change eventually dies.
Religion only needs replacing for those afflicted with it, one doesn't miss what one's never had. My father, by accident of birth, was nominally Catholic but atheistic in reality. When he judged my intellectual capacity to have reached the stage where I could understand, he took me aside and explained how he had had religion forced upon him and wanted to make sure that the same did not happen to me. He assured me that whatever religious or non-religious path I chose in life, would be fine with him. So, I've never had a god and never felt the need for one. If this situation was the case for all children, religion – far from being a fixture – would be gone in a few generations.
Mystics and religious fanatics held back human development for almost 1500 years, imagine where we might be now if the ancient tradition and reverence for knowledge had not been destroyed, perhaps many major causes of current human misery would have been eradicated long ago. Unfortunately, last time round the mystics won, they burned the written work and murdered the scientists; we can't let that happen again, and it's entirely possible that it could.
In a recent article AC Grayling remarked that educational standards in the UK have fallen, I agree with him; returning home after ten years in the USA, I noticed that worship of dumb-assed celebrities and various forms of so-called New Age nonsense had reached insane levels, crappy subjects like Media Studies and Theology are favourite educational pursuits of young people. The UK is becoming like the USA but we seem to take only bad Americanisms, not good ones. This pathetic situation must cause religite leaders to wring their hands in glee.
Of all the nutty religious sects around (including the major league), the Amish are the only group I have a teeny measure of respect for. They fail, but at least try to live "the old way" without benefit of modern technology; can you imagine Falwell or Robertson clip-clopping their way to the bank with the proceeds of another successful fleecing of their flock?
We need to do two things: prevent the religious indoctrination of children and raise public consciousness with regard to the virtues of science. Far too many people use the products of science but decry its method, these mega-hypocrites must be made aware that science, not religion, is the reason they're not living in caves and grubbing in the dirt for their next meal.
28. Comment #7308 by stefanc on November 18, 2006 at 7:08 am
I'm definitely an athiest - AND I understand where some parts of religion come from:
- I think there is an innate urge toward the transcendent - whether or not the "transcendent" actually exists (personally, I think it's an extension of the brain's ability to make connections between ideas - sort of a meta-aha!. But I'm open to the idea that there's a transcendent aspect that's an artifact - not a controlling intelligence - of reality).
- Religion is deeply connected to tribalism and community, and its relationship to authority. Those are deep human needs whether or not there's a God involved. Of course there are other and often better ways to serve those needs, but religion serves as a useful built-in default.
I think religion act as a kind of catch-all system for several real human needs. Since it serves several functions - some useful - it becomes difficult to argue about; if you argue one aspect (e.g. cause of the Universe) then the rebuttals come from another aspect (e.g. morality).
- Religion seems to be related to immaturity. My daughter believes in God and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and fairies, and that's completely fine. As she gets older she hopefully will drop all those beliefs and exchange them for deeper understandings. God-belief is tougher since there's social pressure to conform, but I think that just adds to its complexity and requires more maturity and courage from her. I think many people newly confronted with the atheism concept simply aren't ready. In that sense I think of religion as a big pit with a sign nearby saying "real thinking coming soon!".
I've had a few "religious" experiences, which is why I'm open but not committed to the transcendence idea. I know this sounds contradictory, but one of those experiences consisted of "seeing God" and having God tell me "there's no God". Thus if there is no God then it was an interesting experience, and if there IS a God then who am I to argue?
S.
42. Comment #7324 by Anonymous on November 18, 2006 at 8:21 am
I have one more constructive "but" suggestion perhaps.
I'm an atheist, but I prefer to focus on what I do believe in, not what I don't. True I don't believe in some almighty anthropomorphic god and the supernatural and so forth. I tend to replace "god" with "nature". Instead of wondering at the supernatural, wonder at all the marvels of nature and science. We are part of nature, and should do what we can to preserve nature and ourselves.
But that's not to say I am simply replacing religion with science, or simply replacing "god" with "nature" in the bible and still believing that book. There is no institution or dogma involved.
44. Comment #7326 by Yorker on November 18, 2006 at 8:24 am
Comment #7317 by Walter Yergen
We didn't come from nothing Walter, as Sagan said:
"We are made of starstuff"
So, we came from the stars and to the stars we shall return. Your atoms have at least in some sense, a kind of immortality.
46. Comment #7328 by Torbjörn Larsson on November 18, 2006 at 8:32 am
"That's what it's about! Unlike religion and other foolish doctrine, science constantly corrects its own errors, thereby advancing and adding to the body of knowledge that it is."
Exactly. It is such a powerful method that someone said words to the effect that 'science is not to prove but disprove theories', I think.
In fact, while many clings to the century old idea that science is induction ie extrapolating from known cases, it is probably more apt to describe it as hypothesis testing. (Induction is still powerful when suggesting hypotheses.) And hypothesis testing is putting a hypothesis and its negation to test, and disprove either by contradiction with evidence.
Further, the related concept of falsifiability is so powerful that Popper tried to define science by its use. Cue evolution - the cambrian rabbit fossil is a falsification by principle. (No one expects the Rabbit Inquisition, though... :-)
asdf:
I don't agree with Dawkins on the need to defer pantheism from any other supernatural claim. But if one does, one can still make the argument that the label may be scrubbed off nature by Occam's razor. That argument is however not so powerful as soon as one drops the idea of using observations. (Parsimonity is part and parcel of observationally based models.)
So I need to read Dawkins book. :-)
49. Comment #7331 by Seamus7 on November 18, 2006 at 8:42 am
I am an Atheist. The enormous evolving mystery of existence is more than enough for me. I don't need any silly inadequate man-made theosophies to dumb it down for me. Thank you Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins for coming so unwaveringly to the atheists' defense.
51. Comment #7333 by vega on November 18, 2006 at 8:52 am
Thank you for the article Richard. These are good points to ponder.
My take is that people will, in time and of their own accord (with a little help from those such as yourself), be attracted less and less to religious belief and the organised religions as science seeks to answer/answers more and more of the questions that led them to religion in the 1st place: why, what, how, when etc.
As it stands, anyone with a basic understanding of the modern scientific disciplines will have little excuse to turn to religion for answers.
I look forward to the day when children will stroll, hand in hand with their parents, through the Museum of Religious Belief, giggling at the silly things people used to believe...
52. Comment #7335 by Charley on November 18, 2006 at 8:57 am
"Are you suggesting that old people who have lost the plot or never had it should be respected and or patronized? Surely if you look at them it is evident that they aided and abetted wretched family values such as saying it's ok to hate Italians or Catholics since they are dirty?"
Maybe some, but not the ones I know. This is like lumping atheists together and judging them based on Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin. The people I am talking about tried to live morally and raise their children the best way they knew how, based on limited education which sadly lacked Enlightenment values.
I'm sorry if your world doesn't include people like this. They are worth knowing and worthy of respect, even if their religion is based on nonsense.
58. Comment #7342 by Steven on November 18, 2006 at 9:26 am
I don't believe that a god exists.
I agree with Sam Harris when he says that he doesn't see why he has to label himself atheist. I don't call myself an afairyist or aghostist or apsychist because I don't believe in fairies, ghosts and psychics.
77. Comment #7367 by mspreij on November 18, 2006 at 11:54 am
@ #7329 by Some dude
"But the biggest theory that's just an utter let down is the big bang theory of how everything just came to existence. So, how does complete nothingness just come into complete living ability?"
We don't know - no one does. The *theory* of the Big Bang is based on observations and calculations (there be books about this stuff).
But to explain it away by saying there was a god who made it all, that's just pushing the question away. Where did *he* come from, who made him, or it? "Always been there" ? Well, then the big bang that created our universe was just triggered from another universe. Yup, it's turtles all the way down!
(i'm not even an atheist. dunno exactly what, though)
80. Comment #7370 by asdf on November 18, 2006 at 11:59 am
"Religion fills no fundamental human need and can be very safely abandoned"
As someone who has regularly been around religious people, i'd have to disagree. People often turn to religion for support after some kind of psychological trauma (breakup, death, injury and disease etc), depression on feelings of loneliness (as well as indoctrination as a child). Religion will need to be replaced with something else, perhaps the likes of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and the like?
87. Comment #7377 by EntropyFails on November 18, 2006 at 12:22 pm
#7370
We may have CREATED a need for religion, but I see no reason to believe it to be fundamental. To be a fundamental part, you have to be an essential, can't live without part. Many people cope with the things you mentioned without religion. Therefore, religion isn't fundamentally required to fulfill that need.
I personally would argue that religion doesn't fulfill ANY need because it replaces logical thought with irrational belief. In that way, it covers reality with gibberish. I believe that takes away the beauty of our world. It also is dangerous both to the believer and those who come into contact with the believer.
So from my view, religion isn't fulfilling the needs of the religious people dealing with their problems. Religion COVERS UP the problem with pleasing sounding promises that it never has to deliver on because of "evil." Covering up problems digs you into a DEEPER hole! Even if you replace religion with NOTHING, you do better.
So I think one can make an argument for replacing religion with nothing at all and still cover the things you mentioned.
88. Comment #7379 by Think! on November 18, 2006 at 12:29 pm
To the blind followers of Dawkins: To me, the greatest proof that God exists is me. Myself. Take a hard look in the mirror and ask yourself: "How can I not believe that this is a perfect creation?", "Could I have evolved from a slug?". How can anyone insult one's intelligence and actually buy into this farce of 'chance' and 'random selection'? There is nothing random about the human body, just as there is nothing random about the works of Shakespeare. It doesn't need a rocket scientist to figure that out. Just remove all prejudice and preconception and think it over. You will get it, trust me. Just free your mind. Peace.
89. Comment #7380 by asdf on November 18, 2006 at 12:31 pm
#7377
I'd certainly agree that religion is an illusion though some find it a comfort. However, this does not change the fact that people DO turn to it. Just because some people can cope with trauma etc. without religion, it does not follow that everyone can cope without some kind of replacement support mechanism to replace religion.
95. Comment #7386 by Kyle on November 18, 2006 at 12:43 pm
What do we replace religion with? The answer is as simply as saying "reason". That question is not the problem. As with so many other things in the world the problem is the question of "How do we do that?" Thankfully we have sites such as this one to help in that goal.
98. Comment #7390 by Davin on November 18, 2006 at 12:52 pm
I'm an atheist but it's difficult being an atheist.
As an atheist I have to defend my non-belief with reason, knowledge and facts, I need to be informed, back up my arguements with sound rational reasoning, this is not so easy for the mentally challenged, admittedly Prof. Dawkins et al have recently made it easy with their book, but by being an atheist you choose the hardest path since irrationality and fantasy are tools you are not allowed to use, we are restricted to reality. Ignorance is not a virtue, what to do with the majority of religious people who are incapable of reason?
