The Atheist (update)

Due to expert editorial advice for which I am most grateful, all updates follow the post at the end.

Yesterday Janna suggested I read The Atheist, an interview with Richard Dawkins by Gordy Slack. I did. I cannot find the words to describe how excited I was to read the things Dawkins had to say. In this evangelical, fundamentalist world of America lately I have been feeling so alone, sometimes desperate, and often concerned. Much of what Richard Dawkins said in this interview are ideas I have been thinking, or voicing quietly (sometimes passionately) alone to Tom in the confines of our personal living space.  I feel validated and hopeful.

For example, in reply to "Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does this resistance come from?" Dawkins replied:

It comes, I'm sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won't find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States. My American friends tell me that you are slipping towards a theocratic Dark Age. Which is very disagreeable for the very large number of educated, intelligent and right-thinking people in America. Unfortunately, at present, it's slightly outnumbered by the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in. But the broad direction of history is toward enlightenment, and so I think that what America is going through at the moment will prove to be a temporary reverse. I think there is great hope for the future. My advice would be, Don't despair, these things pass.

Gordy Slack asked: "Fifty years ago, philosophers like Bertrand Russell felt that the religious worldview would fade as science and reason emerged. Why hasn't it?"

That trend toward enlightenment has indeed continued in Europe and Britain. It just has not continued in the US. and not in the Islamic world. We're seeing a rather unholy alliance between the burgeoning theocracy in the U.S. and its allies, the theocrats in the Islamic world. They are fighting the same battle: Christian on the one side, Muslim on the other. The very large numbers of people in the United States and in Europe who don't subscribe to that worldview are caught in the middle. Actually, holy alliance would be a better phrase. Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them.

On the child mind and raising children in a religious tradition ... as a form of abuse [Ah - Janna knew I would adore this answer!], Dawkins replied:

From a biological point of view, there are lots of different theories about why we have this extraordinary predisposition to believe in supernatural things. One suggestion is that the child mind is, for very good Darwinian reasons, susceptible to infection the same way a computer is. In order to be useful, a computer has to be programmable, to obey whatever it's told to do. That automatically makes it vulnerable to computer viruses, which are programs that say, "Spread me, copy me, pass me on." Once a viral program gets started, there is nothing to stop it. Similarly, the child's brain is preprogrammed by natural selection to obey and believe what parents and other adults tell it. In general, it's a good thing that child brains should be susceptible to being taught what to do and what to believe by adults. But this necessarily carries the down side that bad ideas, useless ideas, waste of time ideas like rain dances and other religious customs, will also be passed down the generations. The child brain is very susceptible to this kind of infection. And it also spreads sideways by cross infection when a charismatic preacher goes around infecting new minds that were previously uninfected.

What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. It think it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim child that is is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. An yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

And finally, in answer to How would we better off without religion?

We'd all be free to concentrate on the only life we are ever going to have. We'd be free to exult in the privilege - the remarkable good fortune - that each one of us enjoys through having been born. An astronomically overwhelming majority of the people who could be born never will be. You are one of the tiny minority whose number came up. Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain and presumptuous desire for a second one. The world would be a better place if we all had this positive attitude to life. It would also be a better place if morality was all about doing good to others and refraining from hurting them, rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment.

and the scientific worldview?

... the scientific worldview is a poetic worldview, it is almost a transcendental worldview. We are amazingly privileged to be born at all and to be granted a few decades - before we die forever - in which we can understand, appreciate and enjoy the universe. And those of us fortunate enough to be living today are even more privileged than those of earlier times. We have the benefit of those earlier centuries of scientific exploration. Through no talent of our own, we have the privilege of knowing far more than past centuries. Aristotle would be blown away by what any schoolchild could tell him today. And the fact that my life is finite, and that it's the only life I've got, makes me all the more eager to get up each morning and set about the business of understanding more about the world into which I am so privileged to have been born.

Of course, there is so much more that he has to say about religious extremism and violence, evolution, delusion, belief in God and, even, "intelligent design."

And so, to conclude my past "meme" I add another question: Which book will you buy next? and reply:

I already did (through RLC's Amazon link) - The Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.

(didn't you, Pure Land Mountain?)

__________________________________________________________________

Updates:

Over at True Ancestor is more. I particularly love this:

But in the meantime, knowledge -- not just knowledge of one's own "beliefs," but literacy in more than one philosophical and religious system of thought -- knowledge, not belief -- is the best medicine.

See my comment to Danny over at Amba. I thought it would go well here too:

Danny, This has been a great discussion, I agree. Thanks for letting me know that I haven't offended anyone. I knew that Dawkins would have an affect on people because he sounds so harsh, unrelenting and radical. I have been honored that you all have shared your views so totally and completely. But more than that, it forced me to try and clarify what it is *I* think and feel about all of this. And I am happy to say that I still am "wandering" and don't feel "lost." I know that puts me at risk for all the sides and "isms" and "ists" to grab me for *their* camp. However, I love that people share with me what they believe and feel about stuff because that enhances the human connection and relationships - i.e. the more I know about you the more I can share about me. I guess using Dawkins to shield me, was a tad provocative. I have suffered from an extreme purist education and for now I need to bend towards confusion and against absolute truths.

I have not mistaken passion for anger in this discussion and do not lump you in with friends and colleagues who have been wanting me to take on their faith. Oh Danny, you are the least smug person I have ever had the good fortune to meet.

And why don't we get all riled up about Doris Day and Waltons, I wonder!

Danny's comment (to which I replied above) is here.

Blaugustine has an answer for us ... here

This just in - an e-mail from a friend:

You wrote on your blog: "In this evangelical, fundamentalist world of America lately I have been feeling so alone, sometimes desperate, and often concerned." Have you read this article (from NYT Magazine, Jan. 2001)? "The Bush Years; Confessions of a Lonely Atheist", By Natalie Angier
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20010114mag-atheism.html

You're not alone, but you're certainly in the minority.

Also of interest (especially the tables-- note how low the US ranked in evolution knowledge, and I think this was before the more recent pushes to remove evolution from the science curriculum): "What Americans Really Believe And Why Faith Isn't As Universal As They Think"
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html

And a family member sent this e-mail right now:

You know me. I don't have to read it all to know whether I agree with you or anyone else there. As soon as I see the word "God" in any news report, as in "my commitment before God to her was the day I bought that ring and put it on her finger, and I'm not backing down from that, Mason said," I go SOUTH! I can't bear to read any more, because I feel like I can't believe fully anything else the person says. The most sacrilegious use of "God" is when there's been some big tragedy, like a tsunami or a train crash or something and someone survived out of dozens and you hear "God wanted him to live" or some other [stuff]. What about the rest? God DIDN'T want them to live? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? Do you have an answer for that? If so, please write it in the space provided below.

Plus, check out Amba's viewpoint:

it makes you feel weary and depressed, as you sink into the barren, shell pocked quicksand of the DMZ between fundamentalist religion and dogmatic scientism, each in its own way so literal-minded. In that DMZ a subtler truth, at once scientific and mystical, keeps trying to take root, but every time it rears its head it's mistaken by each side for the other.

There's more here.

Comments

[Jeff]

Tamar,

I've just come across your blog. If I may, I'd like to comment upon three of Dawkin's statements:

1. "When you meet a scientist who calls himself or herself religious, you'll often find that ... by "religious" they do not mean anything supernatural."

I'm not sure that this is true. I've read of surveys that have been conducted in which a significant number of scientists have claimed to adhere to some form of institutional religion. Of course, statistics like these are never really reliable, but I don't think that Dawkins really can make such a claim legitimately; it would seem to be subjective.

2. "Scientists disagree among themselves but they never fight over their disagreements."

Actually, the history of science is filled with examples of jealousy, rancor, libel, theft of ideas, etc. They're human beings. They just don't pick up guns (usually!).

3. "...the ignorant, uneducated people who voted Bush in."

I certainly wish that I could agree with Dawkins here. It was easier to dismiss them in the old days (even as recently as a couple of decades ago), when all of the fundamentalists were uneducated morons. Unfortunately, in recent years, they've been breaking the rules - they've been getting educations. Now, we're actually witnessing the spectacle of fundamentalists receiving doctorates from top-tier, even ivy league universities (God help us!).

Dawkins always claims that there is no evidence to support religious belief. I'm not sure that he's correct. I believe that he also makes the same statements about paranormal phenomena, yet there appears to be a growing body of evidence in support of them. When radical materialists argue vociferously for atheism, I often come away with the impression that it's a matter of aesthetic preference. Which isn’t to say that I disagree with everything that he says about religion; on the contrary, it’s rife with idiocy and abuse. Huston Smith has been saying for years that religion reflects the best and the worst in us. I’m not sure that the former is worth the latter.

[Tamar]

Jeff,
Thanks so much for your comments and for reading my blog!

I agree with you about all your three points actually, although I think that "They just don't pick up guns (usually!)" - can not be over emphasized.

I like your quote: "that religion reflects the best and the worst in us."

The Dawkins interview appealed to me because lately I have been feeling like I'm drowning in a sea of fundamentalist evangelism, that scares me because I fear it will (might have already!) lead us into an Age of Darkness.

Before I am drowned completely, I'd like to be aware of what is happening, and capable of asking questions.

[Jeff]

Yes, I understand completely. I'm something of an amateur student of religion, and fundamentalism, particularly of the Christian variety, upsets me terribly. I'm forced to agree with them that we are engaged in a culture war, and lately, I've been telling my friends that I no longer think that it's a question of whether or not the Right (religious and secular) will win; I think that they have won. We just don't realize it yet. They usually reply that these things are cyclical, that the pendulum will swing back to the Left, but I’m not sure that we have enough time. It seems that our civilization has reached a certain threshold of complexity – technologically, and in terms of sheer number and our effect on the environment, etc. – and I don’t know that we have much time left.

I've been discovering lately how pervasive the fundamentalist influence is - even more than I realized. You may be interested in this series of reports presented recently on NPR (if you haven't already heard them):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4631923

Also, here are recordings of two segments aired last week on Fresh Air. The first is an interview with D. James Kennedy, the fundamentalist minister/activist; the second is with Frederick Clarkson, an author and journalist who writes about the Religious Right and their growing influence in government. They're quite disturbing:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4656600

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4656603

[Tamar]

Jeff, thanks so much for those links. I have not heard them actually so this is interesting indeed.

So, isn't it time for a blog of your own?
and

What do you mean by an "amateur student of religion?"

[Jeff]

Hi Tamar,

You may also find this interesting:

http://www.frederickclarkson.com/

It’s Clarkson’s blog, and contains an archive of some of his articles, as well as links to sites that he considers relevant.

I wanted to say something about Hume and infinite regression, which you mentioned in a recent posting (I think that Aquinas had a problem with it as well). The Buddhists, especially the Tibetans who have a long tradition of debate, have some elegant arguments in which they maintain that infinite regression is the only logical conclusion. They argue that a moment of consciousness can only be caused by a previous moment (otherwise the principle of “dependent origination”, one of their core beliefs, would be violated), and that this process is infinite in both directions. The interesting thing is that they feel that this in itself invalidates the idea of a creator. For them, mind, which is the basis of all reality, has always existed. (Yeah, I know – “Where does mind come from?” I can’t get a straight answer.)

I have to confess that I find this to be counter-intuitive. I feel that there has to be a point of origin. It needn’t be “personal”, as we would understand the term. It could be a creative absolute, such as the Hindu conceptualization of Brahman, or the Kabbalistic idea of Eyn Sof, or Infinite Being.

The reason that I bring it up is that it refers to what I mentioned the other day about aesthetic preference. I’m certainly not qualified to judge between all of the various arguments, East and West (I’m not familiar enough with all of them, to begin with), but the farther along that I go with all of this, the more I come to feel that rational argument, while important, only takes us to a certain point. Beyond that, it may be impossible to say that one argument is “better” than another, especially when one takes into consideration worldviews that are the result of thousands of years of separate cultural development. Eventually, you get Hume and the Buddhists – one arguing for infinite regression, the other against it – yet each side feels that its line of reasoning dispenses successfully with the idea of a creator god. I think that ultimately, even with minds as sophisticated as those of the great philosophers, one of the most important determining factors is what appeals to us, intuitively - what is attractive to us.

Regarding your two questions:

> What do you mean by an "amateur student of religion?"

I’ve been studying it, as best I could independently and outside of the academic arena, for about thirty years. I probably have an above-average level of general knowledge by now, but I am by no means a scholar.

> So, isn't it time for a blog of your own?

Thank you for the compliment. In fact, people are always telling me to write. The thing is – I have such a pessimistic, cynical view of life that I find it impossible to believe that most people would be interested in what I have to say (It isn’t a self-esteem issue; it’s just that, as I’m sure you know, people want to hear what they want to hear). And as far as the few who might be interested go – I don’t feel that I should encourage their masochism!

Also, having a blog means posting on a regular basis, replying to comments, etc. It’s a commitment.

I don’t know. Maybe.

[Tamar]

Jeff:
Thanks for the Clarkson link!

"I think that ultimately, even with minds as sophisticated as those of the great philosophers, one of the most important determining factors is what appeals to us, intuitively - what is attractive to us."

Yes I definitely agree with that. However, I think that what appeals to us isn't only influenced by intuition. We are deeply influenced by early childhood, family, social and cultural experiences. As well as biases formed by being taught how to survive from people we loved and depended upon. (I develop the theory of how survival influences our biases more in-depth in my book Confronting Our Discomfort: Clearing the Way for Anti-Bias in Early Childhood).

Re: your own blog: Yes indeed, "people want to hear what they want to hear." You surely can't be more cynical than many of the bloggers *out there.* Is cynicism not a good thing, do you think? Does it matter how many read your blog? I don't have that many readers, am not on any *important people/bloggers'* blogroll and am still termed a "crawly amphibian" at TLB ecosystem! And yet here you are, reading my blog and making a contribution.

Besides - you don't always have to reply to comments. Not everyone does.

Let me know when you decide to start your own blog. I'll read it and probably link to it! [for what I'm worth : ) ]