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

[Richard Lawrence Cohen]

I'm with David and Danny here. Scientists who oppose religion usually oppose a caricature of religion, a straw man with a white beard sitting on a cloud, disapproving of sex and fighting against the laws of nature. And their view of design is so simplistic -- because it's based on the metaphor of the automobile designer, the rocket designer, not the artist. God has much more in common with the latter. (Norman Mailer, in a recent talk here in Austin, called God an "imperfect artist." I would say that, perfect or not, God is a self-evolving artist who continually refines and revises his work. (And so do car and rocket designers, actually, if you look at their process over a long timespace.)) He's not working from an immutable blueprint that was thought up all at once 15 billion years ago and remains locked in place. No designer works like that.

In fact, Tamar, your view of some universal transcendentalism and Dawkins' enthusiasm for the miracle (though he doesn't use that term) of being alive are much closer to religion than the primitive cultism that Dawkins opposes. Einstein once said somewhere that there are two possible ways of looking at the universe: as if everything is a miracle or as if nothing is a miracle. I choose the former. And it's not a matter of proof through evidence. How do we decide what constitutes evidence? I think the fact that we're here, doing this, is evidence. We can spend a lifetime refusing the obvious, like children refusing their cereal. That's a kind of child mind too.

William James, I think, is a lot better guide on these matters than Dawkins. And as far as European secularism is concerned, that's a culture that is currently in the process of reasonably lying down so it can be trampled to death by the unreasonable.

[Richard Lawrence Cohen]

I meant timespan, not timespace.

[Tamar]

Richard,
"How do we decide what constitutes evidence? I think the fact that we're here, doing this, is evidence."

Yeah! For me human connection and relationships is wherein my "spirituality" lies.

I respect your, Danny's and David's faith even though I am sure each of you believe and value different things in different ways and with differing degrees of complexity.

Here I will reiterate part of my comment that I posted over at Amba's today for those who won't get there in the hopes that you are able to respect my view, as misguided as you may believe it is:

As I said at Amba:

I was amused by the story you tell of your friends trying to convince you that there is no god. I was amused because the reverse has been happening to me so much lately. Not only from the media, our administration and colleagues at the end of my presentations. But really close friends have been begging me to see the light - to believe in an afterlife and they *all* are convinced they have been with me in a former life, even though their religious beliefs differ. In a way it has been touching and flattering because they truly care about me and want what is best for me. Plus I understand that they have found something really wonderful that has enriched their lives and they want to share it with me. They don't come at it in arrogance or a "holier than thou" manner as your friends seem to have done. I usually sit quietly and listen. I even attend their churches, synagogues or whatever they are into. I chant with them, and accept that this is where they are in their lives, feelings, ideas. I am even happy for them that they are happy. But there just seems to be so little respect for my view or, even, any interest in if I have a different view at all. And if I do talk about it (and I seldom do with friends) there seems to be so much anger at me.

A blogger friend once wrote this to me:
"I seem to be in a minority on this, most particularly now during America's trend toward Christian McCarthyism, but I believe one's faith, religion or lack thereof, to be at least as personal as one's sexual practices and for anyone to try to persuade another to his/her beliefs without being invited is out of human bounds. I don't have a lot of rules about other people's behavior, but that is one I don't tolerate and have been known to be quite 'un Christian' in my response."

I guess I agree with that blogger about this except that I am more accepting when people come at me with religion. Like the time I wrote to my colleague who had given me a bible:
http://tamarika.typepad.com/in_and_out_of_confidence/2005/02/today_i_was_rea.html

I guess my post on Dawkins was offensive to some people and I am truly sorry about that. It was not my intention. As my friend wrote to me in my "update" today, I am in the minority and perhaps have been hiding frightened in the closet. My "coming out" might have been a shock to some. But I'm not a bigot, even though some people have suggested that some people who come out of closets are bigots! Gee, I so hope they are not refering to me.

[Richard Lawrence Cohen]

Tamar, I share your concern about the new fundamentalist McCarthyism. I'm saying that to take that as coterminous with religion is a mistake, a rhetorical error that atheists falll into because it gives them an easier argument. To reject religion because of Pat Robertson and his ilk is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't think God cares what you or I believe, but that's just my opinion.

On the other hand, look at it from the fundamentalists' perspective. If you were convinced that you possessed an absolute truth and that without it, all your friends and loved ones would suffer horrible eternal punishment, wouldn't you want to rescue them even if they considered it a gauche imposition?

[Tamar]

Ah Richard, here is what I think: I don't know what to think because everything that has been taught to me by women, men, society and religion is a patriarchal world view. This god of which you speak is always male, for starters. It was determined eons ago by a bunch of men that all the well-known prophets and divine gods are male. So, for one, I want to work this out for myself. I want to read everyone's view, think about what works for me inside my psyche, taking into consideration who I am, how I came to be whom I am and what kinds of choices, decisions I want to make for myself as a responsible, moral, mature adult who is able to think for myself in the future. This process has been so difficult because of the deeply patriarchal socialization that has taken place. It is, indeed, a constant struggle.

And no, I do not agree that someone else who is sure of an absolute truth has any rights over what I believe, nor do they have the right to determine what is best for me. To begin with, it is undemocratic. I have lived in a country for close to twenty years where there is no separation of church and state (Israel) and believe me it is horrific - and usually for women.

I am not throwing anything out with the bathwater but I want to be very careful before I just go ahead and accept some sort of male deity or practice riutals that men have determined as the truth or dictated for years - without question and with blind faith. Intolerance of gays, women, and other points of view or ways of believing is what I see much of organized religion as doing. I don't want people to be suspicious of me or pity me as misguided and lost because I don't agree with their belief system or world view. I want to be accepted, respected and taken seriously. Somehow, when the god belief thing comes into play all that stuff that I want gets thrown out with the bathwater.

I believe in human connection and relationships, not hurting others and compassion. I believe in doing good, discipline and freedom. I work, struggle hard at accepting diversity and surely understand that everyone believes differently, personally, deeply, spiritually (though not necessarily through religion), in very different ways. I believe that it is all very complex and there is still so much mystery for which I am content in not knowing the answers. I believe in emotion - lots of it - and expression of it - lots of it - in death and dying and pain. If you want to shake your head bemusedly and say, "well that's god, kiddo, and you just won't admit it," that's your prerogative - that's where you are at right now and that's what fits with your belief. For me it is what it is, and I surely don't want to hurt anyone with it.

[adrianabliss]

Although I'm late to the party, I wanted to say, Tamar, congratulations on coming out of your atheistic closet! Your post, the follow-up discussion, and all the provocation has been an amazing read.

So much so, I'm going to blog about it, I think. I started a lengthy response and decided it was so "me" oriented that I better save it. :)

I'm in between extremes. I consider myself an agnostic.

[Tamar]

Adriana, thanks for joining in. I can't wait to read what you have to say about all this and learning more about the *you* you will be sharing.

[Richard Lawrence Cohen]

Tamar, I don't want anyone to have any rights over what you, I, or anyone else believe. I believe in the Constitution of the United States. I was saying that although we don't want to be badgered by proselytizers, we can try to exercise some empathy for them as for any other person who is different from us.

As far as the issue of patriarchy, I fully understand how that could turn a woman away from organized religion. That fits in with one of my themes: that we shouldn't mistake the fallible, primitive, contingent, adulterated forms of human religion for the ineffable thing that has inspired those religions. As Zen says, don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.

And now on to Adriana's site...

[Tamar]

Richard, I understand what you mean about exercising empathy for people different from me. Have become alert though to how insidious the religious right (of any religion)can be as a "body" that takes over our rights based on taking advantage of everyone's fear of the word "God."

I like the Zen saying that you use here and thanks for the James recommendations over at T.A. Thanks too for this discussion.

[amba]

Gamble everything for love,
if you're a true human being.
If not, leave this gathering.
Half-heartedness doesn't reach
into majesty. You set out
to find God, but then you
keep stopping for long periods
at mean-spirited road houses.

---Rumi