“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”
– Albert Einstein
You won’t find many non-tech-related articles on Graceful Flavor, but this one deserves attention. Partially because I consider myself an agnostic of sorts (the worst label of all, right?), but also because it strikes in me a chord that I consider to be the ultimate flaw of not merely god, but faith in god.
Wired has a very thought-provoking article on traditional religion versus atheism, but not in the context you might expect. It’s not about common religion versus the philosophy of atheism; it’s not about which concept with which you more closely align. Instead, it’s a call to arms by three luminaries — writer Richard Dawkins, scientist Sam Harris, and philosopher Daniel Dennett — to not only shun the delusion of god, but also faith in god as exhibited by others.
The aspect of faith, they argue, isn’t merely a spiritual/emotional avenue to whatever god in which one believes, but instead downright evil.
That’s right: faith itself is evil. It is not good nor benevolent nor neutral. It and its effects on humankind are, in fact, evil. Dawkins et al don’t just disagree with religious myths — they disagree with belief in these religious myths, myths that belief often helps colonize in the unwitting minds of children. What about bringing children up to believe manifest falsehoods, viral memes? At what point does intelligent society step in? Bad ideas foisted on children are moral wrongs. We should think harder about how to stop them, Dawkins argues.
That’s a harsh condemnation, and no doubt will cause endless controversy among those inclined to seriously debate such things. And the article goes on, suggesting that a Rational Religion be formed to combat the notions coming forth from traditional religions.
For me, 9/11 was a flashpoint that finally pushed into my consciousness what I had always thought all along: religious faith has caused more blood to be shed, wars to be fought and lives to be lost than any other single impetus in history. Following 9/11, The Independent in London said that 9/11 proved it was time to outlaw religion. Veteran observers of Northern Ireland, Lebanon, Gaza and everywhere else that extremists claimed that God was telling them to kill innocents, or steal land or commit whatever horror said it was time to end religion, citing centuries of horrors from the crusades and Inquisition to suicide bombers and the 9/11 pilots. Evidence is literally everywhere to support a notion such as this.
So, is the call to arms by Dawkins, Harris and Dennett close-minded reactionary extremist horseshit, or is it a lucid call to mankind to wake up and stop living in the shadow of a myth that perpetuates judgment, violence and conflict?
My problem with this warcry is that it seems to be extremism in response to extremism. I don’t feel that gets anyone anywhere. I think a religious mini-reformation is in order to help better moderate and mediate behavior (and, as a precursor, moderate thinking), but calling for an outright ban on religion is a bit strong for me to stomach, no matter how much I might agree with some of the underpinnings of the movement.
Anyway, interesting article. I’d like to know where others stand on this.
Technorati Tags: religion, christianity, atheism, faith
2 responses so far ↓
DB // November 20, 2006 at 11:09 pm
I read a defence of the Koran the other day that pointed out in total earnestness that far from being a brutal religion, Islam outlaws killing/decapitating/etc. anyone of faith — meaning anyone who believes in God. The argument went that this is supposed to be interpreted to include Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. There was absolutely no sense of shame or even mention of the fact that atheists are totally fair game, and that is apparently okay. This westernised muslim writer felt that by pointing out that the Koran only prescribes death for atheists, that somehow he was making the pont that the Koran is a peaceful religion.
Because atheism and atheists don’t matter, right? He was taking it as read that prescribing the killing of atheists is not as bad as prescribing the killing of Christians, and he expected his western English-speaking readership to agree with them. And you know what? Probably a lot of them did.
This is how very, very poor a job atheists have done promoting their own views and convincing the believing world that their views deserve just as much respect as any other.
Another example: a Christian will have no trouble arguing passionately in mixed company that atheism is the root of evil and that there must be a God, but if an Atheist tells a Christian in mixed company that his religion is false and has been the root of evil, he’s considered insensitive and a boor — even a bigot. The Christian will never be called a bigot for saying exactly the same sorts of things about Atheism.
In polite society today it’s okay to be an atheist it’s just not okay to express it. Unlike every other belief system out there.
This is a very sad state of affairs, because Atheism is clearly the only belief system actually supported by what we can prove and what we can prove alone. Basically we have a situation in which our society is geared to devalue those who take the most logical and dispassionate approach to understanding the world. Why do you think we have so much trouble interesting our kids in the Sciences?
It’s time for Atheism to stop playing the shrinking violet, with most people retreating to agnosticism to avoid the scarlet letter. Agnosticism is not just suspending judgement or saying ‘I don’t have enough evidence.’ A true agnostic believes not only that the power behind the universe is unknown, but that it is UNKNOWABLE. So you strongly believe, if you are an agnostic, that by their very nature these things cannot be known by man, and NEVER will be. So if you are an agnostic, you don’t just value everyone’s beliefs equally. The person who says that we can know God (have him speak to us, etc.) is just as dead wrong to an agnostic as to an atheist, for different reasons. Most people who say they are agnostic just don’t see any valid reasons to believe in God. That makes you an atheist — not an agnostic. You don’t believe. That’s it. If you’re not sure whether to believe, then you DON’T believe. Full-stop. There is no difference. That’s the way belief works. It has to be held positively in order to exist. Not being sure whether to believe is equivalent to not believing, not “agnosticism”. There is no “not sure” philosophy. An agnostic not only doesn’t know but believes that no one can ever know. As such, agnosticism actually goes even further than atheism, and is less supportable with logic. An atheist will look at that positive claim that we can NEVER know whether there is a God and treat it with the same ‘where’s your evidence of that claim’ shrug as the idea of God in the first place.
Most self-professed “agnostics” don’t believe in any such claim, anyway. They are just confused atheists, or atheists who don’t like the word ‘atheist’ because it describes on of the largest deprecated classes in modern society. Atheists often don’t want to identify or want to tell themselves they’re something else. Why?
It’s time to stand up and start actually saying what we believe, instead of just believing it in silence. I’m not going to preach to anyone, but anytime someone mentions God to my face, they always get back “I don’t believe in God because I don’t see any reasons to that meet my rigorous standards of knowledge or debate.” That may be a little harsh for some Christian to hear, almost as if I called him stupid (without actually doing so), but it’s not different than being told that without God there is no basis for ethical behaviour, as if I am being called immoral, and it’s something I am told with regularity.
It’s time for atheists to stand up and just say so. If they did, and they were honest, I think the sheer number of us would stun the Christian world, which tends to think of atheists as a single-digit demographic.
ubertech // November 21, 2006 at 8:02 pm
why can’t we all just be friends? the playa haterism that infuses public debate today is just plain boring.