Rushdi on Atheism Lite

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

from the Toronto Star



Just Give Me That Old Time Atheism

by Salman Rushdie


May*23, 2005. 01:00*AM

"Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naïvely pro-science," says Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England in Bristol.

Evans has written an article for the Guardian of London deriding the old-fashioned, "19th-century" atheism of such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, instead proposing a new, modern atheism which "values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art."


Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as "a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false."

Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America — and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of "intelligent design" — at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion.


A staunch evolutionist himself, he is nevertheless highly critical of such modern giants as Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson.

Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished.

Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal — if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts.

No such reciprocal arrangement exists, however, nor is there the slightest chance that such an accommodation could ever be reached.

It is among the truths believed to be self-evident by the followers of all religions that godlessness is equivalent to amorality and that ethics requires the underpinning presence of some sort of ultimate arbiter, some sort of supernatural absolute, without which secularism, humanism, relativism, hedonism, liberalism and all manner of permissive improprieties will inevitably seduce the unbeliever down immoral ways.

To those of us who are perfectly prepared to indulge in the above vices but still believe ourselves to be ethical beings, the godlessness-equals-morality position is pretty hard to swallow.

Nor does the current behaviour of organized religion breed confidence in the Evans/Ruse laissez-faire attitude. Education everywhere is seriously imperilled by religious attacks.

In recent years, Hindu nationalists in India attempted to rewrite the nation's history books to support their anti-Muslim ideology, an effort thwarted only by the electoral victory of a secularist coalition led by the Congress party.

Meanwhile, Muslim voices the world over are claiming that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Islam.

And in America, the battle over the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. schools is reaching crunch time, as the American Civil Liberties Union prepares to take on intelligent-design proponents in a Pennsylvania court.

It seems inconceivable that better behaviour on the part of the world's great scientists, of the sort that Ruse would prefer, would persuade these forces to back down.

Intelligent design, an idea designed backward so as to force the antique idea of a Creator upon the beauty of creation, is so thoroughly rooted in pseudoscience, so full of false logic, so easy to attack that a little rudeness seems called for.

Its advocates argue, for example, that the sheer complexity and perfection of cellular/molecular structures is inexplicable by gradual evolution.

However, the multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do evolve together, gradually expanding and adapting — and, as Dawkins showed in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, natural selection is active at every step of this process.


But, as well as scientific arguments, there are others that are more, well, novelistic. What about bad design, for example? Was it really so intelligent to come up with the birth canal or the prostate gland?

Then, there's the moral argument against an intelligent designer who cursed his creations with cancer and AIDS. Is the intelligent designer also amorally cruel?

To see religion as "a kind of art," as Evans rather sweetly proposes, is possible only when the religion is dead or when, like the Church of England, it has become a set of polite rituals.

The old Greek religion lives on as mythology, the old Norse religion has left us the Norse myths and, yes, now we can read them as literature.

The Bible contains much great literature, too, but the literalist voices of Christianity grow ever louder, and one doubts that they would welcome Evans' child's storybook approach.

Meanwhile religions continue to attack their own artists: Hindu artists' paintings are attacked by Hindu mobs, Sikh playwrights are threatened by Sikh violence and Muslim novelists and filmmakers are menaced by Islamic fanatics with a vigorous unawareness of any kinship.

If religion were a private matter, one could more easily respect its believers' right to seek its comforts and nourishments.

But religion today is big public business, using efficient political organization and cutting-edge information technology to advance its ends. Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.

As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists.

They are doing a vital and necessary thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salman Rushdie is the author of The Satanic Verses, Fury and many other books.

[groover]

The irony here is that atheism is no more intellectually defensible than belief. Both require absolute certainty of something that can't be proved.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by groover

The irony here is that atheism is no more intellectually defensible than belief. Both require absolute certainty of something that can't be proved.

Sorry, the conventional useful definition of atheism simply implies a lack of belief in gods. The version you invoke above would be some sort of extreme "strong" atheism, and I challenge you to find a single proponent (i.e. an atheist with faith that gods don't exist).

Anyone who lacks a belief in a god or gods (including many self-labeled agnostics) earns the label 'atheist' in my usage.

Most self-identified atheists are of the "sounds like bullshit to me" type. Faith-free. There's no irony at all.

[groover]

I was referring to this definition, Vince:

a·the·ist Listen: [ th-st ]
n.

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.


Lacking belief and denial are subtle but significant distinctions, I guess.

[Vince Kargatis]

That's why I emphasized "useful". I sincerely doubt you'll find an atheist that arguably has faith that gods don't exist. They simply relegate them to magical unicorn status.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Vince Kargatis

That's why I emphasized "useful". I sincerely doubt you'll find an atheist that arguably has faith that gods don't exist. They simply relegate them to magical unicorn status.

In other words, possible but not probable. That's significantly different than denial, meaning the existence of a Creator is impossible. Only a fool would say that.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by groover

In other words, possible but not probable. That's significantly different than denial, meaning the existence of a Creator is impossible. Only a fool would say that.

I think the word "possible" is misused here. It's "possible" that 12 pink elephants are silently cavorting in the cubicle next to mine but I do, in fact, deny that this is the case. That may be considered an act of "faith" by some, but I think it's denigrating the term. For me, there's absolutely zero greater reason to believe in the existence of a god than in those elephants. If anything less, as elephants, the color pink and silence do, indeed, all exist!

[groover]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

I think the word "possible" is misused here. It's "possible" that 12 pink elephants are silently cavorting in the cubicle next to mine but I do, in fact, deny that this is the case. That may be considered an act of "faith" by some, but I think it's denigrating the term. For me, there's absolutely zero greater reason to believe in the existence of a god than in those elephants. If anything less, as elephants, the color pink and silence do, indeed, all exist!

The elephants may be possible, but not probable. Why deny the possibility without proof? Not very Panglossian of you, Brian.

[groover]

Descartes attempted to logically approve the existence of God in his "Meditations on First Philosophy", which I hope we've all read at least once. He concluded "Cogito ergo sum", "I think therefore I am", and thus there must have been an initial Creator. Don't make the mistake of putting Descartes before the horse!

[Chaz Longue]

Oy -

Utter certainty is, I suppose, going to be difficult to ascertain. But what of it? Utter certainty is also not needed. I think the possibility of the existance of Brian Olewnick's elephants so remote as to be laughable. So too with your gods.

Groover - if your criteria for believing something does not exist is so terribly strict, you're going to argue strenuously for the possibility of some pretty silly things. I think you'll be making a mistake.

Neither gods nor pink cubicle dwelling live elephants exist. Of that I'm as certain as I need to be, thanks very much.

To believe otherwise is to be eternally and on principal - credulous.

Not only do I not believe in god - I believe affirmatively that no god exists.


btw - While we're at it, homeopathy is bunk too.

;-)

[groover]

One thing I am certain of: Only a fool is positive. Welcome to the club!

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Chaz Longue

Not only do I not believe in god - I believe affirmatively that no god exists.

Much of these differences are semantic, but hey, I think semantics matter more often than not. I assume you mean "operational belief" here, which generally maps to a conclusion of excessive unlikelihood. Otherwise, you blunder into an insistence that you believe without evidence, which then gets mapped to an equivalent "faith" by naysayers such as groover. Which helps public discourse none at all, imo.

There's nothing wrong with the accurate description of "lack of belief" for all manner of nonsensical scenarios, imo. I think that description helps because it then begs the question of the source of active belief and puts the burden on the believer to justify their propositions.

[Brian Olewnick]

chaz sums things up well for me. It's more than enough certainty to enable me to live in this all-too-brief, non-afterlife-including life!

groover, do you deny the existence of Thor, including all his vast storm-bringing powers, golden locks and Mjolnir?!?

Of course you do.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

chaz sums things up well for me. It's more than enough certainty to enable me to live in this all-too-brief, non-afterlife-including life!

groover, do you deny the existence of Thor, including all his vast storm-bringing powers, golden locks and Mjolnir?!?

Of course you do.

No, I'd say Thor's existence is possible, but highly improbable. Significantly less probable than the existence of a much less defined Creator.

And I guess you guys also think Descartes' logic was flawed? Have you read his "Meditations"? I guess you're all smarter than old Rene. It's possible, but not probable.

[Brian Olewnick]

It seems--correct me if I'm wrong--that you're of the opinion that anything a human brain (maybe not limited to humans) can imagine, is necessarily "possible". Why do you think the universe "cares" what gets imagined inside the crania of humans?

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

If anything less, as elephants, the color pink and silence do, indeed, all exist!

Silence exists? Where?

[Chaz Longue]

Descartes denied animals had souls, Groover.
He denied they felt pain and had some crucified as a demonstration.
He was smart, but that doesn't mean he wasn't also capable of being very very wrong, time after time. In fact he believe shit that was simply not TRUE.


I am CERTAIN you're not playing bass right here at my house now, Groover. In fact I'm POSITIVE about this. Does that make me a fool?

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Silence exists? Where?

I knew one of you eai-cultists would grab me on that one! OK, silent enough that I can't hear it four feet away, smarty-pants.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Chaz Longue

I am CERTAIN you're not playing bass right here at my house now, Groover. In fact I'm POSITIVE about this. Does that make me a fool?

No, I'll have to grant you certainty on that one, Chaz. You'd undoubtedly feel the floor rumbling if that was the case.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Chaz Longue

I am CERTAIN you're not playing bass right here at my house now, Groover. In fact I'm POSITIVE about this. Does that make me a fool?

Chaz, you can't possibly know this. I can come up with dozens of scenarios where groover could be playing bass right under you nose, right now, with you blissfully unaware. In fact, I'd watch where I'm stepping if I were you.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

groover, do you deny the existence of Thor, including all his vast storm-bringing powers, golden locks and Mjolnir?!?

Excuse me, Brian, but you are forgetting my son. His hair's white, but the rest holds.

In semantic discussions like these, I do find it best to be as accurate as I can, and will deny nothing but my nonexistence, which is the only thing I actually believe. The rest, strictly speaking, is mostly convenient assumption, in order to live constructively at all.

[Monte Smith]

Christ, I hate metaphysical arguments.

[Pete C]

Chaz, can we add chiropractic?

[Squaredancecalling Steve]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Christ, I hate metaphysical arguments.

The posts here notwithstanding, I don't think Rusdhie's point was metaphysical as much as sociological and political.

[crawjo]

I think the Christian response to Mr. Rushdie's attacks on intelligent design would be that things like AIDS, cancer, the prostrate gland and the birth canal are all a result of the original sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Anyway, I find myself moving more toward Rushdie's position on these things. For the last 3 1/2 years, my cousin and I have been engaged in an endless debate and argument over the divinity of Christ, the accuracy of the Gospels, the correctness of the Catholic Church's teachings on contraception, masturbation, abortion, IVF, the death penalty, etc. etc. This came about because when he and I were living together, before I was married, he "found God" and returned to the Catholic Church. Since then he's acquired a Masters in Theology and is now a Catechist in a parish in Illinois.

Part of his belief-system is that he is absolutely required to evangelize others, to spread "The Good News." And because we were so close prior to his conversion, I have been target #1 for 3 1/2 years, receiving almost daily emails containing complex theological arguments, exhortations, insults, rebukes, etc. etc. For a while it was interesting to duel him on these matters, kind of as an exercise for my mind. It definitely sharpened my understanding of the Church's teachings.

But there's only so much of this sort of thing you can take. Finally, last week I told him that I didn't want to discuss it anymore, i.e. didn't want to argue anymore about God and the other issues listed above. I was tired, I had had enough: you can only beat your head against a wall so long before your skull gets sore. So I told him I was finished, and didn't wish to discuss these things anymore.

He took this as the greatest insult imaginable, called me all sorts of names: I was stupid, naive, ignorant, arrogant, "wallowing in depression" etc. etc. He demanded that I apologize. I had no idea for what I should be apologizing, so I declined. So last night, I received a "Goodbye, have a nice life" email from him, in which he basically said that since I wouldn't discuss Christianity with him anymore, we couldn't be friends any longer.

In one sense, I feel liberated by this course of events, but in another, it is rather painful. He and I have known each other since we were two years old, and we used to be very close, right up until he "found" God. We spent most of our summers together growing up, but I guess because I won't accept the Catholic faith all that doesn't matter now. I guess we weren't really friends these last few years, if it was all contingent upon my willingness to continue to be subjected to his proselytizing.

So I woke up today with probably a greater feeling of animosity towards organized religion than I have ever felt in my life before. I think that in many cases religion is a way for one person to exercise control over another, to dominate another.

I think this statement by Rushdie is particularly true:

Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.

[Brian Olewnick]

See you in hell, Dave.

[Pete C]

I'm liking the *new* Crawjo.

[Il Anto]

Originally Posted by crawjo

So I woke up today with probably a greater feeling of animosity towards organized religion than I have ever felt in my life before. I think that in many cases religion is a way for one person to exercise control over another, to dominate another.

I think this statement by Rushdie is particularly true:

Thank you for such a brutally honest post, craw.
I would only replace the "one person" in your post with "a group of people" to sum up my views on organized religion.

Much of my hatred of religion stems from the hierarchal nature of most faiths - leaving very little room for personal freedom in interpreting God's word.

I think this was most evident in the recent passing of John Paul II and the beginning of the new papacy of Benedict XVI. The amount of importance placed on how one man views God, which is how all followers of that faith should also view God and live their lives according to those views is absurd and illogical.

To me its a spiritual dictatorship.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Squaredancecalling Steve

The posts here notwithstanding, I don't think Rusdhie's point was metaphysical as much as sociological and political.

Yeah, I mean more the endless god debates we see on this board. This group is surprisingly nattersome on the topic for being so top-heavy with atheists.

[Enforcer]

If people stand to gain power or control by encouraging you to believe in something you can't demonstrably prove the existence of, then extra suspicion is warranted. I don't know what Brian would have to gain by trying to convince me that pink elephants are cavorting silently around in the cubicle next to him, but I know what church leaders have to gain by getting me to believe in a creator. So I'm more likely to doubt someone's assertions about the creator than about the pink elephants. Ulterior motives and what not.

Dig?