g m g D e s i g n . c o m

Interesting article in the Journal entitled “Without God, Gall is Permitted.” The writer of the article definitely does not side with the public atheists being described in the article. Check out some excerpts:

The faith that the new atheists describe is a simple-minded parody. It is impossible to see within it what might have preoccupied great artists and thinkers like Homer, Milton, Michelangelo, Newton and Spinoza — let alone Aquinas, Dr. Johnson, Kierkegaard, Goya, Cardinal Newman, Reinhold Niebuhr or, for that matter, Albert Einstein. But to pass over this deeper faith — the kind that engaged the great minds of Western history — is to diminish the loss of faith too. The new atheists are separated from the old by their shallowness.

And another:

Naturally, the atheists focus their peevishness not on Muslim extremists (who advertise their hatred and violent intentions) but on the old-time Christian religion. (“Wisdom dwells with prudence,” the Good Book teaches.) They can always haul out the abortion-clinic bomber if they need a boogeyman; and they can always argue as if all faiths are interchangeable: Persuade American Christians to give up their infantile attachment to God and maybe Muslims will too. In any case, they conclude: God is not necessary, God is impossible and God is not permissible if our society — or even our species — is to survive.

I think that the hardline atheists described in the article are pretty silly, actually. They tend to appeal to logic (how can faith logically be justified?), but then decide to appeal to emotion, absurdly (believers are stupid and should be embarrassed). They claim (implicitly or otherwise) that not only can God not be proven, but that faith is absurd and worthy of condemnation. I dissent with that view point, and think that such stereotypes are themselves worthy of condemnation.

After 9/11, I (and many others) realized the danger of religious extremism. Zealots can be dangerous, indeed. But does it make sense to blame all American believers (actually, they mostly target Christians) due to the actions of 19 individuals on 9/11/01? Do those actions epitomize most Christians, or Muslims, or anyone of faith? Logically, such a generalization is absurd.

My argument against the anti-faith crowd is necessarily non-theological, since theological arguments don’t appeal to atheists but non-theological arguments can be appreciated by both the faithful and the non-faithful. A summary argument against zealous atheism is this:

1. Anti-faith arguments tend to be divisive and condescending. Yet, this division is produced at no appreciable gain.
2. Hardline atheists suggest that the world would be better off without religion. But how can they reasonably conclude such a dramatic statement? Arguing against faith (which can’t technically be proven) is one thing, but leaping to the conclusion that the world would indeed be better off without faith at all seems extremely intellectually irresponsible to me.
3. It’s wrong to impose beliefs (in this case, the belief in the non-existence of God) on others and to disparage large groups for their religious inclinations.

UPDATE:

A Huffington Post editorialist seems to agree with my skepticism of hardline atheists. Check out the article. The editorialist poses some questions to the anti-faith crowd:

1. Where the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion – as many experts in the field suggest?  Or is the truth somewhere in between?
2. Historically, has terrorism been driven primarily by religion – or by other forces? (See Robert Pape’s work on the subject.)
3. Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict?  (Note:  I’m not suggesting that nontheistic countries went to war to defend nontheism,” as one atheist writer characterized the argument. The question is:  Does the absence of religion as a motivator reduce the likelihood of war, as the militants suggest – or not? Suggested countries of study: Cambodia, China/Tibet, USSR.)
4. What is the extent of religion’s role in creating individual discontent and unhappiness through ostracism, sexual repression, prejudice, etc. in various world cultures? (I suspect it’s substantial, but I’d like more data.)
5. Is Islam the origin for genital mutiliation, stoning of adulterous wives, and other abusive practices? (Note: Neither practice is condoned by the Qu’ran, and both existed as tribal practices before Islam. Historically weaker Prophetic sayings, or ‘hadith,’ are cited to support them. (See Reza Aslan.)
6. Would the elimination of religion alone eliminate these harmful practices, or would additional actions need to take place?   
7. If so, how can such practices be stopped most quickly and effectively – by campaigning to eliminate all religion, or by using moderate religion as a countermeasure against extremism?
8. Can the positive influence of religion – in reducing conflict, bringing personal fulfillment, building communities, etc. – be quantified and measured against the negatives?
9. Do the social problems caused by religion stem from personal religious belief, from organized religious activity, or both?
10. Is all religious activity harmful, or just the fundamentalist variety (which one research project estimates involves roughly one-fifth of all religious populations)?
11. Is it true, as some atheists argue that Buddhism’s more peaceful doctrine propagates less violence and war than monotheistic religions with violent sacred texts?*
12. Does ‘moderate religion’ enable fundamentalism to continue?  (That’s another core militant assumption – also unproven.)  Or, does it draw adherents away from fundamentalism and thereby weaken its negative effects?
13. What’s the best way to advocate for needed changes – through aggressive attacks on religion or milder persuasion?
14. Do the internal dynamics of religious communities suggest that extremism and fundamentalism are the primary source of religion’s negative effects – or do these effects come from something fundamental about religious belief itself?
15. Would the eradication of religion lead to increased trauma, and/or decreased mental and physical health? If so, how should we prepare to address that problem as we work to eradicate religion?

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 7th, 2007 at 7:25 am and is filed under Social. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.