The Atheist Delusion

[Cain]

I moved this from Apple Talk because I decided there were some interesting and knotty philosophical questions raised in this article.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2265395,00.html

It starts off as a fairly normal, if well written piece about newer Atheist books.  But it gets much more interesting and complex than your average newspaper article as you continue on, as you would expect from a philosopher of the ability of John Gray.  Here are some of the points I found fascinating:


A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.


In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.


Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.


Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.


But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.


Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.


Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

[Cain]

Also did a blog entry on this article on Verwirrung.

[LMNO]

Those are excellent points; they not only hit the things I was thinking about, but bring up some new ones, as well.

I especially liked the bit about Nietzche, how an honest look would critique atheism as well as theism.

[Richter]

I especially like the bit about religion's memetic nature / qualities. 

[Cain]

Gray's actually very critical of meme theory, but I believe his point on evolution/education/Dawkins is a killer blow.

And of course, this rattles the cage of traditional, positivist liberalism no end. 

[Thurnez Isa]

one thing I would like to add (not to thread jack too much) is Im not overly convinced that religion is innate in people, even in an evolutionary sense
- before I continue I would like to point out (that most writers dont point out in their books but some reason point out in their talks) that there is a difference between spirituality and religion. Religion implys an explaination for the meaning or the creation of the cosmos, while spirtuality (trying not to sound too Buddist or New Age) tries to explain feelings of transcendence
Dawkins makes a sort of unfunny joke in passing (I never blame for his bad jokes cause he's a scientist and doesn't need to be funny ; in fact I would prefer him not to even try) and Hitchens talks at length that if we had the scientific explainations on the origins of life, and as I think more importantly the progresses we made in astronomy, from the beginning of humanity that religion might not have ever really became dominate enough to survive, at least in the same compacity as it does today. And if you seperate transcendence from belief (especially the belief in a cosmic superman) then that is an idea that deserves some thought

the rest of the discusion that happens on the topic of religious belief seems to always fall into the realm of the social ramifications or the politicial of aethism or of belief. Which although interesting I have very little to add other then I find it almost inapplicable (thats a big word for me  ) cause if there is no cosmic superman... there is no cosmic superman. I noble lie is still a lie.

[Thurnez Isa]

sorry about that thread jack
but it shit that wanted to start to organize for sometime just never had the chance or time

[LMNO]

The problem is, there's too much Weird Shit (RAW calls them "Damned Things") out there that can't easily be explained through rational thought.

It really seems like Dawkins and Hitchens actually believe that the universe can be fully explained in a rational manner. 

Now, while I readily agree that there's a vast amount of stuff that can be explained rationally, there's an equally vast amount of stuff that can't.

One way or another, religion would creep back in.  Most likely something like Voodoo, if looked at as a collection of superstitions.

[Thurnez Isa]

Dawkins doesn't say we can explain everything rationally yet, but it is defeatism to just say well "well god did it" and I do kind of agree with him on this point cause the supernatural kind of belittles curiosity

but to your point that religion would creep back in, I agree with that, but first  -
superstitions can more or less be debunked with time and exposure, and at heart of something like voodoo if you take out the superstitions and the zombies as that mixture of spirituality and religion, which is why i wanted to make that distinction before about spirituality and religion, maybe the religion would die but the spirituality would remain

now to completely contradict myself and agree with your point I do see the valitidy with the argument that something probably just as rediculas (maybe a strange political ideal) if not more so would definately evolve to fill the void if religion never took hold...
this point, as well as your point, brings me to the my major disagreement with Dawkins. At heart he is an optimist, and at heart I'm actually agree with LMNO's point as Im very pessimistic to my own outlook of the world
maybe I just disproved my orginal post, but either so I rarely agree with something 100 percent anyways

[DORADA]

I think that the author is unworthy of the capacity of the man to decide that to believe, the point is not to see the religion in a political sense, or of free will catholic concept to give the illusion of which the punishment is not imposed and of which the minds are not handled. He(she) forgets that the principal point is that to have faith or is not a completely personal decision and that nobody needs to be inside a group to believe or not to forget that we are not flowed it(he,she) does not see the man as(like) the only(unique) and different and seeker of the perfection or overcoming without limits unput by religions.

(her,your) intentions had been the religion or the atheism, forgetting that it was a part(report) of a mental training to fix in the population ideal chords with his(her,your) interests of domain(control) of the world. The racism and the top race you design that they unify and the communism and the equality another idea that it(he,she) unifies and his(her,your) abstract form displaces any religion as consequence. The world without the absolute power of the classic religions is a degeneracy for those who not evolucionn and stick to concepts of correctly or incorrectly or well and badly(wrongly)
The fear of knocking down former schemes and of not knowing what will bring this new conception of the world for the man and his(her,your) freedom of believing in his(her,your) own(proper) ones and prsonales or not gods without this takes consequences as the burning d bewitching it is what makes cover the Sun with a finger and give him(her) importance to religions that in ralidad her(it) do not have mas that by means of washes of brain. The return to the former gods mas according to the human being or to a god thought(regarded) as a beginning(principle) almost impossible to conceive for the human ment it(he,she) is not acceptable for and because of it he(she) denies it. Very little I target what sorrow(sentence)

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Iason Ouabache]

Dammit... he is right and I hate him for that.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I really think that RAW hit the nail on the head when he tied religion to a social evolutionary acceptance within the tribe. The individual needed the tribe for survival. The tribe believed that GREATBOB the lake demon watched over the harvest and needed sacrifices. People that could accept such nonsense, stayed in the tribe and survived. Those that, perhaps, said... "Umm, you snorted too much root bark" to the shaman, was prone to get tossed out on his ear... less likely to survive, less likely to breed.

Maybe not true, but a pretty interesting theory.

[Cain]

Jack Cohen put forth a similar theory.  Religion was to distinguish tribes from outsiders.  If you ate fish on a Friday, or couldn't make the sign of the cross etc....you are clearly an outsider and so potentially dangerous.  Religion allowed for people to recognize those beyond their immediate family/friend ties as part of the tribe and so not dangerous.

[atrasicarius]

A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism practice tends to have priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam. Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into an explanatory theory.

Well, I cant speak for any other atheists, but I dont have a problem with religion unless they try and dictate how other people should live their lives. If you want to do religion, thats fine with me, just dont try and make me do it. I have pretty much the same view of drugs. If you want to do crack and heroin and meth, thats your call, as long as you dont come near me while you're high.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of religion in terms of the theory of memes, vaguely defined conceptual units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection. He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education. From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this. Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.

What Dawkins actually said about evolution and religion was that it was advantageous for young children to believe what adults told them without question. The value of this is pretty obvious (dont go out in the forest alone, there are saber tooth tigers), but it explains why religion has stuck around for so long. Also, humans have a natural need to explore and understand the things around them, which makes sense evolutionarily. Religion got started as a way to explain how the world worked before we could answer the question with science. However, there's no natural need for religion like there is for sex. If a child grew up never hearing about religion, chances are the idea wouldnt just randomly occur to them. The only thing that would make that happen is the question, "What happens after we die?" which is another example of the drive to explore and understand.

Contemporary opponents of religion display a marked lack of interest in the historical record of atheist regimes. In The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, the American writer Sam Harris argues that religion has been the chief source of violence and oppression in history. He recognises that secular despots such as Stalin and Mao inflicted terror on a grand scale, but maintains the oppression they practised had nothing to do with their ideology of "scientific atheism" - what was wrong with their regimes was that they were tyrannies. But might there not be a connection between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom? It is unlikely that Mao, who launched his assault on the people and culture of Tibet with the slogan "Religion is poison", would have agreed that his atheist world-view had no bearing on his policies. It is true he was worshipped as a semi-divine figure - as Stalin was in the Soviet Union. But in developing these cults, communist Russia and China were not backsliding from atheism. They were demonstrating what happens when atheism becomes a political project. The invariable result is an ersatz religion that can only be maintained by tyrannical means.

If atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

Nowadays most atheists are avowed liberals. What they want - so they will tell you - is not an atheist regime, but a secular state in which religion has no role. They clearly believe that, in a state of this kind, religion will tend to decline. But America's secular constitution has not ensured a secular politics. Christian fundamentalism is more powerful in the US than in any other country, while it has very little influence in Britain, which has an established church. Contemporary critics of religion go much further than demanding disestablishment. It is clear that he wants to eliminate all traces of religion from public institutions. Awkwardly, many of the concepts he deploys - including the idea of religion itself - have been shaped by monotheism. Lying behind secular fundamentalism is a conception of history that derives from religion.

A secular state in which religion has no role is two different things. Right now, we have one (sort of), but obviously not the other. If any atheist liberals do believe that religion will automatically decline in a secular state, they need to take a look at the numbers. America was founded by Puritans, and it would take another revolution to get rid of them.

But the belief that history is a directional process is as faith-based as anything in the Christian catechism. Secular thinkers such as Grayling reject the idea of providence, but they continue to think humankind is moving towards a universal goal - a civilisation based on science that will eventually encompass the entire species. In pre-Christian Europe, human life was understood as a series of cycles; history was seen as tragic or comic rather than redemptive. With the arrival of Christianity, it came to be believed that history had a predetermined goal, which was human salvation. Though they suppress their religious content, secular humanists continue to cling to similar beliefs. One does not want to deny anyone the consolations of a faith, but it is obvious that the idea of progress in history is a myth created by the need for meaning.

Of course all civilizations fall eventually. What I would hope is that a civilization such as Dawkins and co describe would last long enough to get us past the point were we could easily blow ourselves up. It could last for 200 years, it could last for 200,000 years, as long as it lasts long enough to get us past the danger zone. Also, I'd kind of prefer it if it could last until after I'm dead.

Belief in progress is a relic of the Christian view of history as a universal narrative, and an intellectually rigorous atheism would start by questioning it. This is what Nietzsche did when he developed his critique of Christianity in the late 19th century, but almost none of today's secular missionaries have followed his example. One need not be a great fan of Nietzsche to wonder why this is so. The reason, no doubt, is that he did not assume any connection between atheism and liberal values - on the contrary, he viewed liberal values as an offspring of Christianity and condemned them partly for that reason. In contrast, evangelical atheists have positioned themselves as defenders of liberal freedoms - rarely inquiring where these freedoms have come from, and never allowing that religion may have had a part in creating them.

I havent heard this before. How did liberalism come from Christianity? Was it from some offshoot like Quakerism or something? Anyway, liberalism and atheism arent really connected for me. I'm an atheist because that's the logical conclusion of the scientific method, and I'm a liberal because I believe that people deserve to be free and able to make their own choices.

Religion has not gone away. Repressing it is like repressing sex, a self-defeating enterprise. In the 20th century, when it commanded powerful states and mass movements, it helped engender totalitarianism. Today, the result is a climate of hysteria. Not everything in religion is precious or deserving of reverence. There is an inheritance of anthropocentrism, the ugly fantasy that the Earth exists to serve humans, which most secular humanists share. There is the claim of religious authorities, also made by atheist regimes, to decide how people can express their sexuality, control their fertility and end their lives, which should be rejected categorically. Nobody should be allowed to curtail freedom in these ways, and no religion has the right to break the peace.

The attempt to eradicate religion, however, only leads to it reappearing in grotesque and degraded forms. A credulous belief in world revolution, universal democracy or the occult powers of mobile phones is more offensive to reason than the mysteries of religion, and less likely to survive in years to come. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold wrote of believers being left bereft as the tide of faith ebbs away. Today secular faith is ebbing, and it is the apostles of unbelief who are left stranded on the beach.

I dont want to repress religion, I just want religion to stop repressing me. Remember, there are more religious people who want world government than secularists. It's not an atheist thing. The only real thing standing in the way of world government is barriers of ethnic and religious hatred. Now, that's obviously a rather large roadblock, but if you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

[e]

If atheism becomes a state project, it becomes just like any other religion, that can be used to manipulate people. The whole point of atheism is that it's nothing. If you never heard of religion, you would automatically be an atheist. If you turn atheism into something, it becomes just another religion, with beliefs, priests, sacred laws and the whole thing. Not that I dont think Stalin and co genuinely didnt believe in God, but for them, it was Atheism, whereas for us, it's atheism. The real point was Communism, of which atheism was just a part. Our atheism doesnt imply anything about our other beliefs and principles.

This is an especially interesting rebuttal, and one I have to agree with.  However, I would point out that in most of those XTREME totalitarian communist regimes, the state because the religion.  So the idea isn't so much "Don't worship a god because that's silly.  Worship no gods", but more "Don't worship a god because the State IS the only god you need."  After all, you can't have people running around believing in things when you're trying to run such a tight ship.  It leads to all kinds of tomfoolery, and people not doing what they're told.

The distinction between capital-A and small-a atheism is also something to think about.  Thornley talks a little bit about the power that names can have in Zenarchy.  He spends some time talking about the hippy generation, and mentions that it was "not the same" before and after the media "discovered" the hippies and named them.

In 1967 in California something existed that has since been characterized as the Love Generation, the Hippie Movement, the Counter-culture and Flower Power. But those were names given it by the media. Before then it was more or less unconditioned, and it consisted of people who believed in being unconditioned - in finding their faces before birth. They hadn't decided to be the Love Generation; they had decided to put aside striving for appearances.

...........

Becoming hung up on avoiding names, of course, can be as misleading as being named, classified and forgotten. We were not making an effort in either direction. We intended, however, to avoid abstractions that short-circuit thought. An unborn face entailed a naked mind.

Zen is called Zen, but when the monk asks the master, "What is Zen?" he does not receive a definition but a whack on the head, or a mundane remark, or a seemingly unrelated story. Although such responses might baffle the student, they did not en courage him to glibly pigeon-hole the Doctrine.

I found this quite fascinating.  "Atheist" and "Anarchist" both have connotations that are probably quite quite different from what many practitioners of both consider themselves to be doing.  For instance, in the bible belt of the south-east USA, I was once asked in all seriousness whether I was really an atheist, because I seemed like a nice guy and not somebody who worshipped satan.