I shouldn’t be amazed at the overheated rhetoric going on, but I sometimes am.
Data point 1: An outrageous outburst from Illinois state legislator Monique Davis. Apparently the governor had been shoveling money to a Baptist church, and when atheist and legal gadfly Rob Sherman took up the matter, her response was (click through for audio):
Davis: What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous–
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court—
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
Summary: Atheists have no right to be here, and are dangerous and destructive. Even the knowledge that atheism exists is harmful to children.
Data point 2: Dawkins’ website shows a new book, a bit of pushback to the New Atheism: The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness
Unpack that title: People who don’t believe in god not only threaten your life and your liberty, but also, somehow, America.
I could go on.
Why are atheists so threatening?
I like the House of Cards theory: Religious faith has no factual basis. Believers secretly suspect this, and aren’t pleased when people point it out. Remember that Monty Python sketch about El Mystico, who would put up blocks of flats by hypnosis? It’s like that; belief holds the edifice up; disbelief makes it collapse.
Another answer has to do with magical thinking: I used to hear people in church express the view that the righteous are somehow protecting the wicked just by being scattered within the population. It’s like the story of Abraham in Sodom: if only he’d been able to find a few good people, the city would have been magically saved. Conversely, atheists within a population can magically undermine it by emanating powerful waves of anti-God energy, capable of destroying countries and institutions.
But I think the most accurate view is the Meme War. Maybe believers are actually right. Atheists are dangerous — to belief systems, not to people. Admittedly, this is a distinction that True Believers have trouble making. When you’re so heavily invested in your belief system that you mistake it for your whole life, then it’s easy to think that a threat to the belief system equals a threat to your life.
What this tells me (yet again) is that religion, if taken seriously, has an unhealthy ability to engulf your entire life. It can encompass your family, your community, and your entire way of living, to the detriment of your ability to see clearly. Certainly true for ‘high-commitment’ religions.
Last year, at the start of the ‘New Atheist’ insurgence, I wondered, “When are we going to see some pushback?” Well, here it is. Unfortunately, instead of bringing good arguments, the believers are making even less sense than usual. Which makes me wonder: is it superstitious for atheists to claim that religious people are threatening?
8 April 2008 at 6:37 pm
Hey… Where did everybody go???
Daniel, I can tell you that you have converted me (oh, how I hate that word) to at least saying publicly that I am an atheist. I have to admitt that while I do beleive that is the reasonable stance I do still hold out the possibility that I am wrong. (I don’t think any of the orginized religions have anything to teach me about God if she really does exist but there may be something out there)
So am I an atheist or not? Regardless your postings have made me think and I agree that we can’t just sit back and allow people like ms. Davis to say such things without challenge and atheist should be able to argue thier side without those kinds of comments. Let the best argument win, right?
I do still have one problem with your argument, however slight. Your end game in the discussion was that if a theory isn’t testable or verifiable then logic dictates that we discount it until evidence presents itself. While I agree with you, that is still not a “proof” and so logic and science cannot “prove” that god doesn’t exist. It is kinda like getting Al Capone for tax evasion. It gets the job done but isn’t very satisfying intellectualy or emotionaly. I think that is why there are so many “atheists” like me who are willing to listen to and allow for the possability that god may exist and are far gentler in our efforts to state our point of view.
I don’t really have apoint here just some ramblings and the one last sticking point in my mind for your argument.
8 April 2008 at 9:59 pm
While I’m sympathetic to the atheist POV, I can’t help but feel it is empty in the end. Denial of everything until there is irrefutable proof leaves one with few beliefs and certainties since a lot of “what we know” just doesn’t hold up to that amount of scrutiny. However, I’d prefer a world of atheists to the set of boneheads we have in religion now days that swallow huge amounts of junk and we (and those engaged in said religion) are generally the worse off for it (either they are zealots, bigoted, hugely biased, etc – pick your poison).
9 April 2008 at 12:51 am
On a recent Skeptic Magazine podcast there is a great interview with Michael Shermer regarding the documentary “Expelled” and his own interview in the film with Ben Stein.
Stein in his questioning cut directly to the ‘Darwinism led to Hitler et al.’ chestnut and Shermer enthusiastically began telling Stein about research he did for a book which posits that Adam Smiths ‘invisible hand’ is a product of social darwinism and how some of Steins heroes of the conservative movement or free market proponents of the past, looked at Darwinism as an appropriate model. Ben seemed to be reluctant to continue on that arc however, according to Shermer.
I must also second Jeffrey’s comment about feeling freer to identify publicly as an atheist. Even if its just here and to a few new areligious friends, its a big step for me. Even if I am wrong, I’m not sure I’d want to hang with God.
I do hold out the hope that if I am wrong,we find that God may actually be Eric Clapton.Then I can hold my head up knowing that my early teen years and all my old taped-up Trapper Keepers will not have been used in vain!
9 April 2008 at 2:57 am
Thanks, all, for the good comments.
I think a lot of this discussion hinges around proof vs. evidence. Proof is better. Take Fermat’s famous equation. It’s one thing if you say, “Well, so far I’ve seen no evidence for any numbers such that a^n + b^n = c^n, where n > 2.” But it’s not settled until someone can say, “I have a mathematical proof that no such numbers exist.”
To settle the god thing, we’d have to have proof of god’s non-existence. Surprise, surprise, you can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Which is why, outside of mathematics, we say that theories are never proven, only disproven.
But if we allow evidence instead of needing proof, yeah, it weakens our case somewhat, but we can at least go forward with a reasonably high degree of certainty. We may just need to update our view with new evidence. I’m not really saying anything new here.
So a bit of Tobin’s comment: Denial of everything until there is irrefutable proof leaves one with few beliefs and certainties since a lot of “what we know” just doesn’t hold up to that amount of scrutiny.
That’s how it looks when you need proof. Paralysis. But a lot of what we know actually looks pretty good if you’re able to take evidence into account.
So with the god theory, we have no real evidence on the plus side, and lots of cases where we can use naturalistic theories to explain things perfectly well without god. It’s a strong approach that yields tangible results.
I’m currently reading Victor Stenger’s book, “God: the Failed Hypothesis” Worth looking at.
10 April 2008 at 9:39 pm
I agree with Ted – even if I’m wrong I’d rather not have sided with God. I think the Pope deciding that there wasn’t, actually, any such place as Limbo really confirmed that for me, if the whole ‘if you don’t believe you’ll burn’ nonsense hadn’t already done so. So if we can do away with Limbo why don’t we just do away with the whole lot? Listening to those Catholic mothers who’d been mourning their poor ‘lost’ babies and were suddenly told they hadn’t needed to live out that life of distress and guilt should be enough to convince anyone that the whole enterprise is unethical and deeply flawed.
11 April 2008 at 1:28 am
Oh, sure. Mormons get to disavow anything as doctrine, but if I try and do it? Hell breaks loose! If we still believe in hell.
And all I did was to get rid of Limbo! People should be happy! No more infants outside the gates of heaven, listening to muzak. Your unbaptised babies are fine. You’d think people would be grateful or something, but no!
Honestly, you people are never satisfied. Why can’t you just have faith? It’s that original sin coming out in you. Or at least, I think we still believe in original sin. Let me get back to you on that.
11 April 2008 at 3:04 am
Dear Pope,
At least Mormons don’t believe in original sin, so we don’t have to dispose of that. Hopefully you’ll make a pronouncement soon and we can dispense with all that silliness too. 🙂
11 April 2008 at 5:01 am
Well, you came along years later when Christianity had evolved. By that time, we were hidebound, so what can you do?
By the way, you should refer to me as ‘Dear The Pope’.
11 April 2008 at 5:59 pm
Ahhh, silly ones. This has all happened before and will happen again. No need to disavow doctrine when we all know its just symbology for the reality we find ourselves in.
And The Pope is so very cute when he says that Christianity has had time to mature. I just love it when adolencents start to feel all grown up.
Thank the gods there are so many pathways to heaven.
11 April 2008 at 10:04 pm
Oh wise sage,
Speaking of silly questions –
Why isn’t the word palindrome a palindrome, or better, why don’t we just have a synonym for palindrome that is a palindrome? In fact, there aren’t any good synonyms for palindrome at all. There is one for thesaurus (onomasticon), which seems rather odd.
13 April 2008 at 9:19 am
Sorry, we don’t actually answer any questions. You’ll just have to find the answers inside yourself. Try some kind of Rorschach test, like scriptures or any unusual events. I’m sure you’ll find something.
13 April 2008 at 3:13 pm
Amateurs!