Dear Lord, why do philosophers, who are supposed to be in the business of thinking analytically, rationally, and deeply, write such stupid stuff about atheism? The latest set of dumb lucubrations on the topic was published, in of all places, Business Insider, which becomes even weirder when you see the arguments about the impotence of atheism when dealing with the byproducts of capitalism. The piece at issue is “Atheism must be about more than not believing in God“, which was written by Patrick O’Connor, a lecturer in philosophy at Nottingham Trent University.
Here are O’Connor’s two main points:
1. Atheism is grounded in humanism, and humanism is impotent before many of the world’s most important problems. O’Connor:
Yet atheists – rather than flippantly dismissing the insights of theologians – should take them seriously indeed. Humans, by dint of being human, are confronted with baffling questions about meaning, belonging, direction, our connection to other humans and the fate of our species as a whole.
The human impulse is to seek answers, and to date, atheism has been unsatisfactory in its response.
Why is that? Because for some unspecified reason, naturalism and reason itself can’t deal with the world’s problems:
Atheist values are typically defined as humanistic. If we look to the values of the British Humanist Association, we see that it promotes naturalism, rational debate, and the pre-eminence of evidence, cooperation, progress and individual dignity. These are noble aspirations, but they are ultimately brittle when tackling the visceral and existential problems confronting humanity in this period of history.
When one considers the destruction that advanced capitalism visits on communities – from environmental catastrophes to war and genocide – then the atheist is the last person one thinks of calling for solace, or for a meaningful ethical and political alternative.
In the brutal economic reality of a neo-liberal, market-oriented world, these concerns are rarely given due consideration when debating the questions surrounding the existence or non-existence of god. The persistent and unthinking atheist habit is to ground all that is important on individual freedom, individual assertions of non-belief and vacant appeals to scientific evidence. But these appeals remain weak when confronting financial crises, gender inequality, diminished public health and services, food banks, and economic deprivation.
Seriously? Who can deal with issues like starvation, global warming, and population control better than scientists? And in Western countries, scientists are likely to be atheists. To suggest that we turn to theologians for answers about the disasters inflicted by capitalism is one of the dumbest claims I’ve ever seen. What do the goddies have to offer? Have Catholics helped us with population control? No, for they’ve helped create overpopulation. A lot of global-warming denialism, too, springs from religion.
O’Connor’s Big Problem, above and throughout his piece, is his total and abysmal failure to explain how theism, that is, the acceptance of deities who interact with the world, provides better answers and responses. In fact, some of the best responses to questions about how to deal with the inequities of capitalism come from philosopher like Peter Singer—a staunch atheist.
O’Connor again repeats his claim, but adds no evidence:
The writings of atheist poster boys Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett do not offer solace to the existential and political realities of our world. In some cases, they can make them worse. Calls for reason and scientific inquiry do not offer any coherent sense of solidarity to those who suffer. The humanist might argue the world would be a far more progressive place if scientific values guided our governments. But the reality is that humanism, together with its ethical correlate of individual dignity, remains ineffectual when it comes to offering a galvanising purpose, or inspiring a meaningful sense of belonging.
It’s not clear how atheist writings (and much of the work cited above doesn’t even attempt to offer solace, but rather to point out the evils inflicted on humanity by religion) make things worse. Presumably O’Connor is referring to Marx’s dictum that religion is “the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” But turning to a nonexistent God, while it may provide some solace or community, has done precious little to solve the world’s problems, particularly those inflicted by industrialization, capitalization, and overpopulation. For many, religion simply eliminates the drive to solve your problems because you’ll be fine in the hereafter. For real solutions to material problems we must turn to science. Purpose itself (and it’s not clear that religion has provided more altruistic “purpose” than nonbelief), won’t solve problems.
And seriously, are the largely atheistic nations of northern Europe and Scandinavia befeft of meaning, purpose, and a “sense of belonging”? I don’t think so. In fact, those countries have solved social problems much more successfully than have religious countries like the U.S. or Iran.
Then O’Connor argues, contra what he said above, that our most pressing concerns aren’t material but philosophical:
The most pressing concerns facing humans are philosophical, and sometimes even metaphysical. Humans have genuine fears that life is excessively cheap, a sense that the collective good is waning, that political action is equivalent to apathy and cynicism, and that any solution to any political problem is the ubiquitous idea of the entrepreneurial human.
I don’t think the poor, starving, and oppressive people of the world are that worried about philosophy. They’re worried about filling their bellies and having decent health care. As for “metaphysical concerns”, O’Connor doesn’t specify any that haven’t been discussed by secular philosophers.
The one point on which O’Connor and I agree, is this: if you’re an anti-theist atheist (and not all of us are), and want to actively promote the demise of religion, that requires us to embrace the kind of liberal social reforms that remove the inequities and suffering that undergirld religiosity:
. . . atheism, if it is to be relevant, must shed its humanism. The future vitality and relevance of atheism depends on its ability to broaden its focus away from on the validity of god’s existence and narrow concerns over individual freedom. Instead, it must turn to address questions about economic causality, belonging and alienation, poverty, collective action, geo-politics, the social causes of environmental problems, class and gender inequality, and human suffering.
Obviously, the best person to consult on the rapidity of climate change is the scientist. But these kind of appeals to science as a way of understanding the world around us must be supplemented by the core philosophical considerations of humans existing in the world, who grapple daily with the enormity of undeniable problems. Atheism needs to renew itself if it is to be considered relevant for the new century.
What O’Conner is talking about here is not atheism but antitheism. Atheism itself is simply the refusal to accept the existence of gods. Anti-theism implies a program of action: getting rid of religion. One can do that in two ways: by attacking religion itself and pointing out both its theological and evidential weaknesses as well as its tendency to do bad stuff, or by undermining the social conditions that promote religion. Regardless of which kind of atheist you are, though, atheism will remain relevant “for the new century” so long as people make unsupported statements based on faith.
Finally, O’Connor gets to his second Big Point. This one is familiar to us all.
2. Modern atheists aren’t as serious as the Good Old Atheists like Nietzsche and Camus, who realized the nihilism and despair that atheism truly entails. Dear Lord, how many times do we have to hear this? This is really a call for modern atheists, who of course have thought about the implications of their rejection of gods (yes, I am worm food when I die, and that’s all), to become more dolorous and miserable. But beyond that, O’Connor implies, wrongly, that New Atheists are less concerned with human welfare than were Old Atheists. I see no evidence that this is the case. The bolding in the bit below is mine:
But this is not to say that atheism must embrace an insipid, watered-down spiritualism. Instead, we can look to a different breed of atheism, found in the work of continental, anti-humanist philosophers. For example, we can turn to Nietzsche to understand the resentments generated by human suffering. Meanwhile, the Marxist tradition offers us the means to understand the material conditions of unsustainable capitalism. Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus allow us to comprehend our shared mortality, and the humour and tragedy of life in a godless universe.
There is a whole other philosophical vocabulary for atheism to explore. Both Nietzsche and Sartre observe a different atheism, one embedded in the context of genuine questions of cruelty, economic alienation, anxiety and mortality.
Atheism needs to be attentive to what it means to live with the consequences of violence, senselessness and suffering. The trouble with atheism in its more conventional guises is a nerdish fetishism for all things that work: what is accurate, the instrumental and the efficient. The trouble is, many aspects of our world are not working. Because of this, the atheist is in danger of being perceived as deluded and aloof from the violent mess of the real. Atheism, if it is to be vital, needs to reconnect itself with the more disturbing, darker aspects of the human condition.
Thank you, Dr. O’Connor, for telling us how we should believe and behave. But you’ve provided not a scintilla of evidence that atheists aren’t “attentive” to the world’s problems. In fact, scientists, who by and large are nonbelievers, are working hard at solving many of them. What has the church done lately about economic alienation and mortality? Has the church helped cure disease, or extend our lives? Hell no: what it does is tell us that we needn’t worry about mortality because, if we embrace Jebus or Allah, we’ll live forever.
The three paragraphs above are arrant nonsense. In fact, the bold parts seem incoherent and unintelligible. How else do we fix what is not working without “a fetish for things that work”?
O’Connor is a philosopher who has wasted his time on a mess of word pottage that is not only poorly written, but, when one can dimly discern a point, is wrong. And people tell me that you can’t do good philosophy without a philosophy degree! O’Connor demonstrates the converse: even a philosophy degree—and a philosophy professorship—is no guarantor that you’ll produce good philosophy.
I hereby nominate Professor Ceiling Cat as an Official Poster Boy for Atheism ™.
You know as soon as you come across O’Conner’s snide “poster boy” crack that you’re in for a dull ride. It doesn’t illuminate; it’s hardly a fresh turn of phrase. It’s merely a hackneyed attempt to belittle.
I definitely think these anti-atheist writers are just imitating each other. It appears they slightly reword the same shallow arguments or pick one or two from what’s out there and embellish it a little.
This was a great takedown.
Crystamity! Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.
aka: sub
It’s obvious that someone has nothing to offer when their entire argument consists of unsubstantiated attacks on anothers’ viewpoint. As for that, “meaningful sense of belonging”, ISIS has that, in spades!
He sounds bitter. I wonder what set him off, that his book sales aren’t as good as those “atheist poster boys”?
Anyway, what a bunch of nonsense. It’s hard to dissect because there isn’t anything solid to any of his arguments. It’s just some vague, unfounded and snide remarks about how those atheists aren’t fixing anything.
Agreed. Also many contradictions. If this is an example of how philosophy is the art of constructing rational, logical arguments, I think this philosopher should get his money back.
Dismissing any consideration about whether or not his positions (whatever exactly they may be) are agreeable or not, merely from a technical perspective his arguments here are a hot mess. He’d likely fail if this were a philosophy exam.
+1. I was going to write about this load of incoherent rubbish myself, but had commitments.
He correctly identifies much of what’s wrong with the world, but fails to see that most of those problems were caused by theism, and that more humanism would have prevented them in the first place.
I’ve just deleted a long rant about Huckabee and Charleston and Jesus and guns and racism. I got a bit carried away. You can imagine what I wrote!
Oh yeah. Huckabee, Charleston, Jesus, guns and racism? Time for a drink!
CHEERS!
No one approaches the certitude of a conservative Southern Baptist.
Ha, I read the article (if you think it worthy of the name) and it annoyed me enough to write a similar blog post.
O’Connor seems to expect atheism to come up with a comprehensive world view and a solution to everything from banking crises to existential dilemmas.
It’s ridiculous to expect that.
Sad to see what passes for philosophy these days. But good to see that others share my annoyance.
Once again we have the claim religion offers answers to everything regardless of how wrong they are, so atheism must do the same. Like many theists, he’s upset over the quantity of solutions instead of the quality. It’s the same argument against evolution, it doesn’t explain x.
Good point.
This expectation that atheism needs to solve the world’s ills in order to legitimize itself is nonsense.
“Aleprechaunism needs to be about more than not believing in leprechauns. It stands impotent before the world’s most important problems.”
Again, it seems it needs to be explained to many people that atheism is not a positive worldview and makes no positive claims. It is neither potent nor impotent. It is not the kind of thing that solves problems in the first place, just like admitting there are no leprechauns doesn’t solve problems.
Things like empathy and cooperation solve problems. Most people who make the argument that atheism needs to transform itself into an ersatz religion think religion is the only thing that fosters empathy and cooperation, which is mistaken. Religion may sometimes help precipitate those things, but usually at too high a price in terms of deleterious side-effects. But atheism doesn’t need to replace religion. We can simply come to the conclusion that there are no gods and then point out that there are plenty of other precipitants for empathy and cooperation.
Exactly. Atheism isn’t an entity. It doesn’t “need” to do anything.
And this:
is a strawman. Whether he means that atheists try to base all important decisions on their disbelief or that atheists think that the only important issue is whether God exists or not, it’s a mischaracteruzation either way, and I think it’s made knowingly. This article is full of unsupported assertions (“cooperation is ‘brittle’ in the face of big problems.” It is? How so?) and childish rhetoric like the strawman I just noted.
Apple autocorrect programmers must be religious, or at least faitheists. Usually I catch it when my phone wants to give “god” the undeserved respect of being capitalized.
Also I forgot to say that the article is not written well in general. Which of the two meanings I came up with for the bit I quoted could’ve been made clear, but wasn’t.
(Oh, Muphry. “Which of the two meanings I came up with for the bit I quoted *is correct*…”)
I do wonder about whether or not to capitalise God/god. I’d like to just choose the latter variant as a mild anti-theistic fuck-you, but since it could be argued that God is a name, just like Jack, Cuthbert or Chuck, I write God(as in the monotheistic god) with a capital g, and gods(as in non-specific gods) with a lower-case g.
Re. the terrible, terrible article that Jerry replied to – it’s one of the worst anti-atheist pieces of writing I’ve read in a long time. I want to write something more substantive but Jerry’s already exposed the guy’s shamboloc(sic. I prefer this misspelling) arguments. The same ones that come up time after time in these rote articles.
The lack of honesty, consistency, fairness and scepticism in this anti-atheism piece is typical. It feels more and more like the biggest divide today in religion and politics is not so much right/left – after all Jerry spends plenty of time detailing ‘the flight of the intellectuals’, the illiberal behaviour of nominal left-wingers who cosy up to the world’s most conservative, authoritarian religion – or even believer/non-believer: rather, the biggest divide seems to be between people who care about what’s true and people who don’t – people who are prepared to change their mind if evidence or reasoned argument persuades them, people who engage honestly in debate, people who refuse to bend the truth to breaking point in service of wishful thinking. And that divide is much more substantial and important than any political or religious one.
While “God” has a certain historicity and, let’s admit, it has a ring to it, I could definitely see going with “Cuthbert” on a routine basis. It combines a bit of respectful deference with a bit of mild fuck-you, and will keep the uninitiated gamely guessing.
😀
Yeah, Cuthbert has real possibility…
I like Ciprian and Tarquin too. I’d like the unitiated to be put in mind of some blond, epicene, airhead-Revisited slip-of-a-thing. The kind of young chap whose bare arse is seen vanishing through the open window as various Conservative ministers’ wives come home unexpectedly. It’d be great if those kind of uncomfortable connotations sprang up in the minds of believers.
Style comment: consider replacing “shamboloc[sic] arguments” with “shambollocks”.
On point 2 above, I am a nihilist myself, but I think that you would be hard put to find one more cheerful than I am who is a follower of a god… I am a cheerful pessimist.
+1
You mean life sucks so you might as well enjoy it? OK, I can do that.
Since he wrote in Business Insider, maybe he can prevail on the penultimate, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipotent Romneyesque MBA/JD corporate tyrant type (for whom STEM types are handmaidens, and philosophers and theologians are irrelevant) to solve all the problems that ail us.
Or, maybe he can pull out a Ouija board.
He starts off on the wrong foot… by asserting that atheism *should* be addressing the questions
I don’t think that is a reasonable expectation. Some atheists address these things, some don’t. Not accepting the existence of god(s) does not carry any other obligations.
And it’s not as if the questions concerning whether or not God exists are all boring, settled, or insignificant. I’m immediately suspicious of faitheists and faithists who demand that we change the topic to something else, anything else, because it’s so empty/pointless/futile/silly to focus on the existence of God when there’s so much pain and suffering in the world and — look! Squirrel!
My kid: “I see…a man in a red hat”. I look. “Made you look”. This is a game for children not for philosophers (well, good ones).
Correlating the truth, cf here,
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=8630
is like looking for the squirrel, or better, finding the squirrel is not even relevant to solve a problem.
‘My kid: “I see…a man in a red hat”. I look. “Made you look”. . . .”
When some students (go out of their way to) decline to pay attention, I call out either or both “Caaaanndy!” and “Monnnnney!” Works every time.
My philosophy prof used to shout “sex!”.
When I was on a USN ship, a junior officer colleague wrote his department confreres a memo with the subject line, “NAKED WOMEN.”
Then said, “Now that I have your attention, I need each of you to provide a list of materials and consumables you need to perform maintenance in accordance with the Planned Maintenance System requirements.” I still have that memo in my “navy” manila file.
I watched a photographer on television taking a picture of maybe a dozen or so people. Instead of “say cheese,” he said, “say orgasm.”
There were a lot of genuine smiles.
This has been first published on a website called “The Conversation,” which promotes itself as offering “Academic rigour, journalistic flair.” A lot of the writing is sophomoric and really bad journalism.
Agreed, though I’m happy to report that the article there is receiving the drubbing it deserves in the comments.
Yes, but you see also how some of the commentators there try pulling the wool over people’s eyes with supernatural and pseudo-scientific claptrap.
It’s like deja vu all over again. Is there really anything new to be said by these types of god-pandering sophists? or by the goddies themselves? Every “new” article against atheism, new or old or whatever, is just an exercise in regurgitative verbal recycling; they just dig an argument out of the compost heap and fling it about with a big shit-eating grin, proudly proclaiming that they’ve really got us this time!
I agree that atheism is only one component of a world view, and I agree that capitalism (indeed, all non-steady state economies) has a lot to answer for. But the “you should be depressed!” and “science is unfeeling” tropes get *so* old.
How does one expect to design a better (more just) economic system except through scientific research and a technology based on it?
Philosophy!
Read Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre, and Camus, and really really inhabit their words and… voila! A world of happiness and meaning. Or sadness and meaning. Or whatever the hell it is we are aiming for.
And, BTW, who said we haven’t read all of these things anyway?
Of course, I don’t draw any dividing line between science and philosophy, but only for philosophy that is science-oriented, of course. This rules out Sartre and Nietzsche, and likely Camus. It doesn’t rule out Marx, as he is a good example of how they are connected. (That he was wrong about certain matters and later Marxists turned these into dogma is of course besides the point.) This sort of attitude is anathema to the squishy, but …
Typo in my email above, Jerry, if it matters.
Because most of them, like theologians, determine their beliefs first, then look for arguments to support them? And because, like theologians, most of them them are trying to answer “why?” questions for which there are no good answers?
Yep.
O’Connor seems to be saying, “We need philosophy!” and then claiming Humanism isn’t a philosophy. And that, IMHO, is just wrong.
Oh he defintely has a hate-on about Humanism. But animosity between different schools of philosophy is not a rare thing. A lot of philosophy sure seems to be post facto rationalizations in support of an already held ideology.
That sort of thing is common in humans of all varieties of course, but aren’t philosophers supposed to be trained not to do that? That defines one entire major branch of philosophy, theology.
Probably unfair to expect better. I’m not sure scientists are better on average at avoiding that type of rationalization, though the processes of science are effective at countering it.
O’Connor doesn’t know his Camus. The whole point about ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ was that Sisyphus was happy in the struggle. x
I gather that Sisyphus is the inspiration for:
“Keep On Doing The Main Thing in order to Keep On Doing The Main Thing in order to . . . .”
Filippo, you’ve lost me! Where does the ‘main thing’ quote come from? x
I’m not sure. I heard some self-absorbed minister utter the sentiment. I think its just a comment to the effect that “The Job” never gets fully, totally done; there’s always more to do, whatever it is.
Wtf.
So if we’re looking for solutions to problems in this world, then evidence, reason, debate, cooperation, progress, and a focus on human dignity are OUT. There’s no way those ideals are going to help guide us in generating useful alternatives. I mean, being reasonable is the last thing we want to do. Right?
So what’s in? Solace? “Pie in the Sky When You Die?” “Your life sucks, but remember that Everything Happens for a Reason?” “Jesus is crying with you?”
And supernatural alternatives… like what? “Let’s pray away environmental catastrophes and wars.” “The opposition is of the Devil.” “Magic really works — hey guys, we can use THAT!” “Let’s all bond tightly together into a self-reinforcing and dogmatic religious force against Evil — one which rests its beliefs on a mystical faith which can’t be wrong so that nobody else can reason with us. We’ll all feel so strong and righteous if we know we’re all humble little warriors on God’s side.” Sure, that will work. No way that can go wrong.
I also love (no, not really) the way he tells atheists to reject “humanism” and concentrate instead on things like social justice, poverty, the environment, and peace. Oh for Pete’s sakes. When you fail at the level of definitions, you fail early and you fail big.
Exactly. So if an atheist is unqualified to offer ethical and political alternatives, who is? By his definition, only a theist. Well, how’s that working out?
I think you have maybe missed the point. The author is himself an atheist and this is clear in the article. That’s why he recommends following other atheists like Marx and Nietzsche.
Perhaps he should have done more than skimmed the BHA website. From the “Amsterdam Delcaration” 2002:
/@
Or perhaps he could read “The God Argument: the Case Against Religion and for Humanism” by Anthony Grayling.
Oh, good recommendation!
/@
You really took us to snarksville with that one! 😀
I’m still fuzzy on how lies and fairy tales solve problems, unless a Sophisticated Theologian has addressed this and I lost the explanation in the salad.
Don’t you know? There is a book by a Sophisticated Theologian that totally refutes all the simplistic arguments of the atheist. Now if only a Sophisticated Theologian could point to that book…
Sophisticated Theologians are like quantum entangled states. As soon as you look at one it’s either Sophisticated or a Theologian but not both.
I know you are being sarcastic and not asking this as a serious question, but I absolutely believe that “lies and fairy tales” can help solve problems, in that they are one way to provide the social glue necessary for social cohesion. Religious institutions have long been instrumental in the modification and regulation of social behavior required for successful societies.
Dr Coyne points out that Scandinavian countries are both largely atheist and also economically and socially successful. I don’t believe that this success is because of their atheism. Relative to their overall history, atheism in Scandinavia is quite recent. Like all other countries in Europe, when the countries of Scandinavia developed into modern nation states, Christianity influenced all aspects of life, from governments to courts to police to army. At the very least, it is clear that “myths and fairly tales” do not prevent societies from becoming successful.
I want to go one step further and claim that theses “myths and fairly tales” provided the necessary social glue to enable this development. Scandinavian countries are small, ethnically homogeneous, and ethnically distinct from surrounding countries. I think their sense of nationalism essentially replaced religion as an identity marker.
I grew up in a conservative Mennonite family. While I have never had a born-again conversion experience and I am not religious, I have come to appreciate how much the church community means to many of my family members who are religious. Young-Earth Creationists are not stupid (well, some are). Many are very successful in farming, in business, and other endeavors. Young-Earth Creationists often have less formal education than the average, but are very intelligent and creative, notwithstanding some beliefs in “myths and fairy tales”.
Having just completed law school in Canada, I can tell you that legal institutions borrow heavily from religious institutions in their make-up. Throughout the twentieth century, the highest court in the UK was the House of Lords, and judges were referred to as “my Lord”. Petitions made to court are called “prayers for relief”. Parties asking the courts for some kind of relief are quite literally “praying to a higher power”.
Furthermore, in most commonwealth countries, the government is composed of “ministers”, and the leader of the country is the “prime minister”. This language comes straight from religious institutions. I think this is because these institutions are playing a similar role for society: modifying and controlling behavior, sanctioning and punishing unwanted behavior, etc. Things that every effective society needs.
I have not always been able to convince my friends of the importance of Judeo-Christianity in the development of the modern world, and I know that not everyone here will come on board, but I remain convinced.
The ‘tragedy of life in a godless universe’? How about the tragedy of existence in the universe described in the Bible? Christians believe in a god that committed a global massacre in Noah’s flood, commanded his chosen people to commit genocide throughout the promised land, then sent Jesus to somehow forgive people, but only those people that believe in Jesus and love God, and everyone else gets to suffer eternal torture in Hell. And he’s an omnipotent all-knowing god, so you can’t even fake allegiance. Your groveling and worship have to be sincere, or you end up in Hell with all those other poor souls. And somehow atheism is supposed to inspire despair.
Sure, the Bible god is a tyrant, but on a personal level that tyrant absolves you of your individual responsibility, of having to make meaningful choices in the world because the world is rigged. It may be an awful world, but it’s out of your hands.
I think existentialism is less about tragedy than the shock of responsibility, the realization everything, including meaning, is in your own hands.
He’s also pretty good about giving you carte blanche to smite Moabites, Midianites, and Canaanites — and then letting you have at their virgin daughters. Let’s not overlook those kinds of fringe benefits.
“I think existentialism is less about tragedy than the shock of responsibility, the realization everything, including meaning, is in your own hands.”
Very nicely said, good characterization.
But it’s to heavy for me, and in my opinion not true. Life purpose and meaning isn’t in any objective way in your hands except maybe for some elbow room.
Moreover, it would be a depressing thought: people would be responsible for their own misery.
The only shock I’ve had concerning responsibility is its nonexistence. It’s an illusion, sometimes useful, sometimes harmful.
Yet omniscient state legislatures assign “in loco parentis” responsibility to public school teachers. (I wonder if it extends to private school teachers.) I subjectively perceive that that has extended – “de facto” if not “de jure” – to colleges and universities, what with this fatuous “trigger warning” thang.
I’m banking on Hell being one hell of a place, because all the people I’d want to hang with for eternity will be there.
Life can be very rough, do we really need anyone to tell us that?
“When one considers the destruction that advanced capitalism visits on communities – from environmental catastrophes to war and genocide….”
Do people ever think about the world for one second before spouting this infantile, sub-Marxist drivel?
“Advanced capitalism”, for all its faults (and yes, there are plenty), is the most effective economic system for advancing human well-being that we’ve yet devised. The most prosperous, innovative, stable, humane and peaceful countries in the world, most of which are magnets for untold numbers of would-be immigrants, are those with advanced capitalist economies – the USA, Canada, the nations of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea. Or does the good philosopher think that things are better in North Korea or Somalia?
Far from visiting environmental catastrophes on society, advanced capitalist nations have the most stringent pollution controls and the best-enforced environmental protection laws. Quality of life for virtually everyone is better than it ever was in the old Soviet Bloc or in Maoist China, both of which had nightmarish environmental records. When catastrophes do occur, advanced capitalist nations are the best able to deal with them, relieve or remedy the worst effects, and hold to account those responsible for them.
And as for advanced capitalism being responsible for war and genocide, both of those have been features of human societies since prehistory, long before anyone ever invented money, let alone founded a multinational corporation. Again, the least warlike, and least genocidal countries in the modern world are those with advanced capitalist economies.
Three cheers for Advanced Capitalism – and three more for New Atheism.
As I said elsewhere, it is advanced capitalism moderated by socialism that are good.
Also, the old Soviet Bloc is no more and China is coming along too. Things change. There were a certain class of people back in early capitalist America that may not have been so enamored with it.
All of the capitalist countries you mention, except the US, are also amongst the least god-fearing and the strongest examples of humanism run rife. They prove humanist values work.
Capitalism is great at raising standard of living, but what I worry about is that it seems to be driven by growth, which is unsustainable.
O’Connor must be that guy driving around in the rusty, old Volga sedan, smoking stank Belarusian cigarettes, looking for a food line to stand in.
What kind of cars do the massive underclass of poor in your country drive?
Yep. I was rather bemused by his suggestion that the Marxist tradition is a solution to excess capitalism. Perhaps he’s interviewed too many refugees fleeing to Cuba from the capitalist hellhole that is the USA, or South Koreans escaping to North Korea.
Cuba is somewhat different than North Korea.
It may have even more somewhat different if it hadn’t been crushed by US sanctions of one kind or another.
Fidel Castro was no doubt a vile power monger. But obviously, the U.S. preferred the no less equally vile dictator Fulgencio Batista, who I gather agreeably enough took his orders from the masters of the universe in Washington.
It won’t do for that corporate “person,” General Electric (among others), to pay no corporate income tax (2010?), yet its flesh-and-blood working class servants who clean the executive toilets be required to pay income tax. Ought GE have to pay at least one penny, if no more?
Had no idea that within the definition of Atheist or Anti-Theist was there a requirement to solve all the worlds problems. Had he listened to Hitchens, I believe he said that we anti-theist were against all g*ds and religions because they were the cause of much damage to society. So by promoting what we are is a great help in solving many of these problems. Very odd that a educated person such as this would not get that.
> Modern atheists aren’t as serious as the Good Old Atheists like Nietzsche and Camus, who realized the nihilism and despair that atheism truly entails.
I guess it doesn’t really matter that Nietzsche thought of the Christian God as a concept born out of nihilism and despair. Here he is in The Antichrist, Chapter 18:
“God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the “here and now,” and for every lie about the “beyond”! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy!…”
The writer seems to think Camus and Nietzsche should “inspire” all atheists to be depressed and moody, and is angry that we aren’t.
I’m fast coming to the conclusion that an ex-lover, who happens to be an atheist, is getting on with their life happily without him, which he’s struggling to accept.
Yes, and while I haven’t read much Nietzsche, I think the writers trotting out how he got moody and depressed by realizing the full implications of atheism … probably have read even less. You see how much he extols the earthly life, and describes as nihilistic not unbelief, but on the contrary belief, especially belief in the afterlife, in that quote I gave above.
Good thing Dude is dead, huh Fred?
I off to sleep, but I must comment.
My atheism has always been in conjunction with a materialist understanding of the world.
He did mention Marx, incidentally and rightly so.
It is a god free materialist philosophy that gave rise to people being awakened to the possibility that it was not all god ordained. That people could and should organize and think together to make the society they want. That is socialism, simply put.
This gave rise to trade unions which have provided resistance to unfettered capitalism.
It has given rise to secular, part socialist mixed economies like northern Europe. Where conditions seem fairly good.
Or here in Australia despite some push back.
Christopher Hitchens was a Trotskyist who did work all over the world fighting those battles.
I need to read more to comment more but just finally, there was atheism plus. It failed, partly, I think because many atheists already have a social conscience and didn’t want be herded where they were going already. But the sentiment was there.
It is advanced capitalist economies moderated by socialism that are good.
Imo, Atheism plus failed because they were as controlling as any religion in deciding behaviour, and like religion created an in and out group. If someone even used certain words they disapproved on Twi**er, they put their handle on a website of names of atheists not to follow. They were into making public spaces, safe spaces.
And not in a good way – they sought to curtail freedom of speech.
Yes you are right. That was the other, much larger failing.
It was part of the start of this mess the left is in that we have been talking about a lot recently.
“They’re only words and words are all we use when we have sod all to say.” Eric Bogle.
Dr O’Connor is confused.
What else works but things that work?
How does one find solace in a belief system bereft of evidence?
It is not the purpose of atheism to offer solace. That’s what family, friends and animals do if you are lucky
A fellow Eric Bogle fan! All hail! And let me second this with Goethe:
For just where fails the comprehension,
A word steps promptly in as deputy.
With words ’tis excellent disputing;
Systems to words ’tis easy suiting;
On words ’tis excellent believing;
No word can ever lose a jot from thieving.
Do you know any Dylan?
How many times have I told you no?
A thousand?
Oh DR J Thanks for two new words for me, lucubration and dolorous.
Cheers
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it may be that “atheism is the worst of all possible systems, except for all of the others.” Thus, even if O’Connor’s criticisms of atheism were legitimate, that would do absolutely nothing to validate theism. Moreover, O’Connor seems to presuppose that theism is doing a lot of good things, such that atheism will need to step in and do those things if theism goes away. As I think Jerry points out, that presupposition is entirely unjustified.
“The human impulse is to seek answers, and to date, atheism has been unsatisfactory in its response.”
Better to just make up some palatable answers instead and build a belief system on that, I mean, what could go wrong?!?!?!
“The persistent and unthinking atheist habit is to ground all that is important on individual freedom,”
No, that would be a libertarian. Not all, most, or even many atheists, to my experience, are libertarians but there is nothing about atheism that excludes any political doctrine, except militant theocracy I suppose, from it and to assert that atheism need have a unifying political doctrine is to miss the point of atheism entirely.
“a sense that the collective good is waning”
A sense that should be quickly dispelled by even a cursory glance at history. Perhaps Professor O’Connor is watching too much TV.
In the end, it’s another, “let’s tell atheists how to atheist” piece. The most surprising thing about it was that it wasn’t originally published in Salon.
The human impulse to seek answers is often wrong. “Shit happens” may not be helpful in dealing with a tragedy but understanding it – that no one’s steering the ship – is helpful when one realizes it. Knowing the truth is good, at least because one can stop worrying about gods and goblins and get on with the things that actually will affect how things turn out.
O’Connor is an example of why Neil deGrasse Tyson and Lawrence Krauss dismiss philosophy altogether.
This dismal piece is an example of how academic disciplines are affected by fashion. In Britain these last few years (and I suspect in most of the rest of Europe and the USA too) it’s fashionable for philosophers to diss the Enlightenment project, humanism, progress, and new atheism. It would take a task force of historians, sociologists and psychologists to figure out why this should be so. But it’s fairly clear that O’Connor isn’t doing much thinking for himself in this piece, but simply running with the pack. The unoriginality is expected of him; if he started defending new atheism (and progress and humanism and the Enlightenment) he would probably damage his standing in philosophical circles.
At least humanism, progress, and the Enlightenment project are making all the right enemies.
What a great critique of absolute drivel!! Amazing how easily scientists can spot the BS!!
This piece should be retitled to “Another Collection of Musings From Another Very Confused Philosophy Man”, for honesty.
“Soo, Mr. Philosophy Man, what is atheists?”
/@
Thank you, Ms. Cunk, may I have another?
Right…because atheists never point out that religious fanatics are intent on assassinating everyone on the fucking planet. This grasp of reality isn’t dolorous enough? I’d hate to be O’Connor’s drinking companion.
At the risk of sounding elitist, Nottingham Trent University is not one of the U.K.’s first-rank academic institutions, so it’s perhaps not surprising that it should employ such a third-rate philosopher.
That’s not to say that you can’t also get half-baked nonsense from philosophers at Oxford or Cambridge, of course!
“[N]aturalism, rational debate, the pre-eminence of evidence, cooperation, progress and individual dignity” — O’Conner dismisses these values of British Humanist Association as “brittle.”
This recalls for me the time a colleague and I went out of state, to a court we had never been, to try a case before a judge neither of us knew. During his opening statement, my colleague availed himself of the courtroom chalkboard and wrote down the words “truth” and “justice” and “fairness.” The judge — who unbeknownst to us had a rule against using the chalkboard during opening statements — jumped up from the bench and ordered my colleague to erase the chalkboard, stating: “We won’t have any of that in this courtroom.”
And “brittle” compared to what? Making a good confession? Partaking of communion? Tithing the clergy? Engaging in supposed mental telepathy with a being we have no evidence to believe exists? Celebrating as “holy” the anniversary of events that probably never occurred by people who likely never lived, on dates they almost certainly didn’t happen?
Give me “brittle” every day of the week, and twice on the Holy Sabbath.
He has a modest point re solace and solidarity, but re meaning I go with Viktor Frankl (who seems to anticipate the Buddhist concept of mindfulness here)
For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person’s life at a given moment.
“…humanism is impotent…”
Because praying isn’t just like wishing…
It’s like wishing real, real hard.
sub
Regarding antitheism, there seems to be some variation in how people interpret the term. I’ve always considered it to be the position that, overall, religion does more harm than good (though ymmv), which is often seen as a belligerent statement to make.
There are of course plenty of people who take it a step further and say that therefore all religion should be removed from the world, but that doesn’t inherently mean that their definition is automatically the right or the only one that counts. I’d say this applies as much to the term ‘antitheism’ as it does to the terms ‘atheism’ and ‘agnosticism’.
For d*gs sake I wish people would check their dictionaries more often! His mischaracterisation “Atheist values are typically defined as humanistic” gets up my nose. It’s a common fault, but inexcusable for someone purporting to be a professor of philosophy.
Just because many atheists also describe themselves as humanist doesn’t mean that humanist values are those of atheists.
I am an atheist because I don’t believe in god. Full stop! I’m also Australian, but that doesn’t mean all atheists are Australian, or that all Australians are atheist (but we are rid of Ken Ham). I don’t even consider myself a humanist, although I am sympathetic to what I understand humanist ideas. To be frank I don’t think I know enough about humanism to call myself one.
Gimme Grayling any day. I think he is an atheist humanist philosophy professor, but worth reading whatever.
That should be “Just because many atheists also describe themselves as humanist doesn’t mean that humanist values are those of atheism.”
Indeed. There’s a long tradition of religious humanism as well.
What a complete and utter fuckwit. “Not even wrong” probably fits.
He seems to be saying that the world is so fucked up that only assholes can make a difference. I’m sure Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot would rush to agree with him.
If humanist values and reason can’t do any good, what’s his answer – fanaticism and voodoo?
Jerry, you seem to have read a completely different article than the one I read. There is nothing anti-atheist about it, nor is it either poorly written or poorly thought through. If you read it carefully, you will see that O’Connor’s article is clear, makes some suggestions as to how to expand the scope of atheism, which will help it to fill some lacunae in its thought, and is generally a fair assessment of the limits of atheism today. An exceedinglz unfair critique of a perfectly reasonable point of view. If you disagree, you should explain why, instead of tearing its author to shreds. Very disappointing.
Please, Eric. Do you have any idea how condescending the “if you read it carefully” gambit is?
Talk about disappointing.
Not condescending in the slightest. Unfortunately (and few of us are innocent in this regard), the internet makes careless readers of most of us. It was simply an appeal to go back and read again. O’Connor’s article is not opposed to it, but believes it has taken a wrong turning of late (a point of view I share). Indeed, he seems broadly in favour of atheism. What he misses is some emphasis on what might be called the existential issues which face most people in their lives. For example, a number of psychologists now think that fear of death is what drives a great deal of human culture, a fear that develops very early, is mostly unconscious, and has multiple ramifications throughout our lives, whether we will or no. I am just reading Camus’ ‘The Rebel’, and find his use of religious themes (despite his atheism) quite impressive. I can see no reason whatever why atheism should leave out the very important social dimensions of our lives, which tend to be given such short shrift amongst atheists today, and the failure to respond to O’Connor’s perfectly reasonable concerns about atheism and existentialist issues are very carelessly and pointlessly dismisssed both by Jerry and by other commenters here. ‘If you read carefully’ was not a ‘gambit’, but a reasonable comment on what showed multiple deficiencies in reading and comprehension, which is reflected in so many of the comments as well, which reinforce my conviction that the new atheism has become a new dogmatism.
Consider, perhaps, that you were the careless reader.
If you read it carefully, you will see that O’Connor’s article is a muddled mess.
Does that work in both directions or only when you make the statement?
Had you demonstrated what you claim, that the article is a muddled mess, then you might deserve to be taken seriously, but, failing that, this is simply a trial balloon with a very frail skin.
Reread your own original comment, Eric. Show us where you demonstrate that the article has any of the attributes you assert.
I at least pointed to some of the issues that o’Connor addressed, and that Jerry failed to acknowledge. It was not my task in a comment to spell that out in detail. However, if you want to say it is a mess, you have some responsibility to say what the mess consists in.
I think Jerry did a perfectly good job of explaining “the mess”. Really, though, my complaint here simply that an “argument” consisting almost entirely of “I didn’t read it like you did so you must have not read it well enough” is not worthy of you.
Oh, well, I did add something to that. If you wish to take notice, that is up to you.
@ Eric
Explain again why atheism /qua/ atheism must address “the existential issues which face most people in their lives”.
That’s the rôle of [secular] humanism and other agnostic/atheistic life stances, not of atheism /per se/.
New atheists are the demolition crew; there’s no compulsion for us to be the architects of any reconstruction. Once the debris has been cleared, ometimes letting the land green over is enough.
/@
The new atheism is rooted in science. Even the most careless view of religion would hold that it has performed some evolutionary function, which new atheists conspire to ignore. If the new atheism is only a matter of demolition it has no intellectual interest whatever. In order to show some relevance it must address some of the most pressing of existentialist questions. If it does not it is just spinning its wheels.
Spinning its wheels? Nonsense! When so much of the rotting edifices of religion remain. (And I mean that *only* metaphorically; I’m more than happy to preserve the physical edifices that are worth preserving.) That’s relevance enough.
Of course religion has performed *some* function (but I’m not sure in what sense that would be an “evolutionary” function), else it wouldn’t exist. I hardly think that atheists of any stripe “conspire” to ignore religion of the function it performs (but many /apathetic/ atheists don’t even think about it, so clearly that function can never have been very important to them, or they are easily finding it elsewhere). And there are, very clearly, new atheists who do pay explicit attention to it, including Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris among the “horsemen”, as well as our host.
/@
PS. It’s like insisting that a literary critic write a better novel than the one she’s reviewed!
No, it’s like asking a literary critic to take notice of the novel as written.
Oh, right; you’re saying the critic should pay more attention to the æsthetically satisfying prose style rather than simply focussing on the shoddy plotting and feeble characterisation.
/@
I read Camus and Sartre and others at the age of 16 and was very impressed. It took the issue, very much alive at the time, of the nonexistence of God and analyzed potential consequences and meanings. As I have aged and matured, I find their serious concerns of historical interest but not so relevant once atheism has had time to brew. I’m guessing you are still caught up in the existential angst, as if you had not gotten over a long ago heartbreak.
I can’t agree with you Eric. O’Connor is clearly being critical of “atheism”. He writes “Atheist values are typically defined as humanistic” and then proceeds to tell us of humanisms failings, at some length. O’Connor’s real beef seems to be with humanism, but he keeps calling it atheism. I was unaware that atheism was a necessary part of humanism. There are religious humanists. Perhaps his beef is with some atheists, however it is not their atheism he objects to but other philosophies they espouse.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, and anything more that people want to attach to it, say “atheist values” for example, are extraneous and not anything that atheists would necessarily accept. Atheism does not entail humanism, nor does it include a whole lot of other stuff people attach to it (apart from eating babies of course, because, YUM! ;-). Atheists eat, breathe, sleep and poop too but obviously eating, breathing, sleeping and pooping are not part of atheism. And just to be clear we don’t actually eat babies.
I feel this is an important distinction because it leads to confusion about what atheism is, to the extent that the real core of atheism (lack of belief in gods) is obscured. I have watched The Atheist Experience for a few years now and one common theme is theists who ask the hosts “What do you believe?” and the hosts always answer the same “We don’t believe in gods” (or something similar). Some people believe atheists believe there is no god, and while some atheists might believe that, importantly it is not what defines atheism. How can there be such ignorance and misunderstanding of such a basic concept if not for misleading (sometimes deliberate) characterisation of atheists and atheism?
I understand some atheists believe that their atheism requires a broader philosophical stance with regard to the wider world. Fine, good idea, but please, don’t think it is part of atheism because it isn’t. It might result from atheism but it is something extra. You will probably find a lot of other atheists as fellow travellers which is great but I think calling atheism a movement is a misteak.
This technicality, that atheism isn’t humanism, isn’t much of a defense though.
Understanding what is true and real and living accordingly is obviously better than living according to false models of the world.
@ phil
“I was unaware that atheism was a necessary part of humanism. There are religious humanists.”
Which always puzzled /me/; in Europe at least “humanism” almost always means “secular humanism”. See the BHA’s definition:
» the word humanist has come to mean someone who … trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic) … «
But then international humanist manifestos take the same stance…
“Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. … I understand some atheists believe that their atheism requires a broader philosophical stance with regard to the wider world. Fine, good idea, but please, don’t think it is part of atheism because it isn’t.”
Try telling that to PZ Myers! 😆
/@
“Which always puzzled /me/; in Europe at least “humanism” almost always means “secular humanism”.”
–Wikipedia
I think we’re back to differing definitions of “religion”. Is ritual enough? Secular humanism seems to have the same ethical goals.
/@
Yes, seems to me “religious humanism” has usually meant the sort of ultra-liberal religion that allows followers to believe whatever they want, God-wise, while coalescing under shared humanist ethics. That still leaves room for too much godiness for most secular humanists.
Since when was PZ Myers the arbiter of atheism?
From where I stand, both PZ and O’Connor are equally worng, the one demanding atheism incorporate humanism and the other demanding atheism reject it.
I strongly approve of humanism (insofar as I understand it to be), it’s wholly compatible with atheism, it just ain’t the same thing. And on the other side, O’Connor’s attack on humanism is pathetic and deplorable. It may not have the answer to all the world’s problems (nor does science, nor does free speech, nor does ‘democracy’ whatever that is interpreted to mean), but that’s no reason for abandoning it.
cr
Re PZ, since he said so. (In his mind.)
/@
And “some lacunae in its thought”. Oh please! I think the lacunae really exists in the thought of those that think that atheists have a god shaped hole somewhere or that if we get rid of religion we need to replace it with something. As has been pointed out the question “If we abolish religion what will we replace it with?” has the same answer as “When we cure cancer for good what will we replace it with?” I can’t see that the world is any poorer because we haven’t replaced smallpox. Nothing has expanded to take its ecological niche.
The mere existence of atheists is proof enough that religion doesn’t have to be replaced with anything. And if your thinking is so riddled with lacunae about what to replace religion with you can start by replacing charity (which is optional) with decent state supported social security systems (which already provide more “charity” in most modern western countries than religious organisations do), or football clubs, chess clubs, community based child care facilities. Got to concerts, take up a hobby, exercise, visit your relos or people in a retirement village. Hell, get another job and give the money to a secular charity.
I think the problem is that some people think that atheism means more than it does.
Well, if atheism is not going to be more than a fairly empty negativism, not to say nihilism, then, as a worldview it has little to commend it.
I think that’s the whole point – atheism isn’t a worldview by definition.
Some people believe that it *should* be a worldview then argue with their own straw man creation.
It isn’t a world view, it is a *component* of one. And there are many atheistic world views: various branches of secular humanism, Nietzschianism, Marxism, Epicureanism (sort of), many forms of libertarianism (original and American) and anarchism, etc. all different.
Doesn’t Epicureanism have wine and good food? Then that.
Sign me up. 😉
Eric,
Atheism is NOT a world view! As others keep saying: that’s the point of most of our objections to O’Connor’s confused article.
It’s not that atheist’s don’t have world views – certainly many do – but you have to ask atheists individually what their world view is. You can’t just assume it from, nor should it be conjoined with, the position of not believing in a God. Yes you can often find similarities in the views of many atheists, especially in what type of thinking leads them to the conclusion God belief is unwarranted. But atheism is just one CONCLUSION – it’s not a “world view.”
As an atheist I may be a moral realist, subjectivist, relativist, nihilist, deontologist, consequentialist etc. I may have views on metaphysics, or not. I may
hold to scientific realism, or not. I may be a coherentist or hold to a correspondence theory of truth. I may be a political conservative or a liberal. May be against abortion or for it. May think life is absurd and meaningless, or may think it is rife with meaning. I might think God belief could be in principle rational, or not. I might believe in the supernatural or not.
The list of significant differences goes on and on and on.
Since all atheists don’t agree on many issues, WHICH atheists do we elect to represent “The Atheist World View?”
As an atheist I don’t WANT people assuming all sorts of possibly wrong things about my view by having atheism erroneously bound up with some OTHER atheist’s views – whose “world view” I may have disagreements with – as if atheism entails only some particular group of atheist’s views.
“Well, if atheism is not going to be more than a fairly empty negativism, not to say nihilism, then, as a worldview it has little to commend it.”
It’s about demolishing the dependence of so many on irrational, untrue, immoral religious worldviews. Once that happens–i.e., people see atheism as not just a possibility but as the only reasonable approach, the liberated are free to examine the entire panoply of other world views.
That a lot find that doing so leads to humanism is a positive outcome, but not something one needs to embrace to be atheist.
Good point. Atheism, when extended to a position of sorts, becomes a negative position in relation to godliness with the intent of freeing us from the “irrational, untrue, and immoral”. What could be more positive. Love it!
I can highly recommend nihilism 🙂
I see only positives:
Atheists don’t have to worry about the god.
Nihilists don’t have to worry about anything.
Humans are built by evolution in a certain way. Helping other people comes natural to us. To do good things you don’t need false believes.
To do bad things on a big scale you generally need justification from religion, nationalism, fascism, communism, racism, existentialism …
Nihilism prevents you from believing in that sort of nonsense.
Daytime again down under, and I was thinking of commenting more on Eric’s replies but you guys have written most of what I was going to.
I have read a fair bit of Eric’s writings over the years and quite enjoyed it. He offers the rare insight of a theologian exposing theology, and his advocacy for assisted dying is outstanding. I welcome his contributions to these discussions, I just diasgree with him about this. Except …
“Well, if atheism is not going to be more than a fairly empty negativism, not to say nihilism, then, as a worldview it has little to commend it.”
Well yeah! it’s not a worldview, it’s really just a view about one thing. It *is* a doorway to a much bigger house (worldviews), but although the doorway isn’t the house, a house isn’t much use without a doorway. I think therein lies a lot of the problem: some people find atheism inadequate for the task they expect of it, but that task is not part of the purpose or intent of atheism (a la DiscoveredJoys, Keith Douglas, Vaal, cabbagesofdoom).
(cabbagesofdoom, I have to ask, where do you stand on/with broccoli and other brassicas?)
But that is not to say that atheism is of little value. The contrary is true. If we are convinced of religion’s damaging effects and believe they should be remedied, atheism offers perhaps the single most potent idea for combatting it (“Your entire philosophy is groundless”). It is widely agreed that the main source of opposition to marriage equality, reproductive freedom, dying with dignity, along with a lot of ACW denial and opposition to stem cell research, etc, etc, et bloody cetera, is religiously motivated. If we all woke up one morning and everyone had “miraculously” (they aren’t scare quotes, they’re irony quotes) become atheist overnight we would find that opposition to solutions for many social problems would largely evaporate as previously religious people would find their objections null and void. How good would that be for the world? Sure there would be some who would have to find new reasons to support worthwhile causes, but I think they already exist. The difference between good and bad effects would be greatly in favour of the good IMHO.
I am quite aware of how some (e.g. PZ) feel about atheism, but lets reflect on the usage of “brights”, and how’s that Atheism Plus thing going these days? Let me ask where the emancipation movements in the US and Europe are these days? What are the suffragettes doing? And although equal rights and human rights are still issues we are grappling with in modern western countries (Australia is certainly not immune) they are not really, of themselves, worldviews, but they are components of worldviews many atheists would support.
(The Cabbages of Doom, from which my username is derived, did not feature any broccoli, as far as I recall. Of more relevance to this forum, a squirrel and and cat did feature quite prominently.)
“And if your thinking is so riddled with lacunae about what to replace religion with you can start by replacing charity (which is optional) with decent state supported social security systems…”
Especially this! Well said, phil.
“I can’t see that the world is any poorer because we haven’t replaced smallpox. Nothing has expanded to take its ecological niche.”
The anti-vax movement?
I’m sorry, Eric, but I did provide a critique; you just didn’t read it. I have no idea why you’ve acquired a newfound dislike for atheism and a sneaking respect for religion, but I’m truly ticked off that you don’t even see the response I provided. The point of view he advances is reasonable only to those who share his love of goddiness, which apparently includes you.
You’ve had your say; if you want to criticize me from now on, please do so on your own website.
Vaal: “Your comment compelled me to read O’Connor’s article to give it a fair shake (as I hadn’t read it yet).”
Me too, but it didn’t change my mind. My initial comments were based solely on what Jerry quoted, and (as past performance indicated) I don’t think he has misrepresented Dr. O’Connor.
One small point of difference though is that I didn’t get much sense that O’Connor was pushing some religious line as much as he was criticising humanism while calling it atheism. On further reflection I now see what you are getting at.
The exchanges prompted me to reread Jerry’s post, and I have to agree, Jerry did provide a critique and I don’t understand why Eric says otherwise. Furthermore, on the basis that Dr. O’Connor has confused atheism with humanism, or atheism as a worldview, his article is poorly thought through. O’Connor equates atheism with humanism, criticises humanism, and suggests atheists should take theists more seriously as a remedy. The argument is structurally flawed.
“Dear Lord, how many times do we have to hear this?”
Too often, but it needs to be refuted when presented. Thanx for your efforts.
“O’Connor equates atheism with humanism, criticises humanism, and suggests atheists should take theists more seriously as a remedy.”
I think that’s a fair summary of O’Connor’s article, and why it’s not only invalid but also patently absurd. This seems to be one of those cases where the initial impression is confirmed on more extended reading of the article and the comment thread, as a number of people have found (including, obviously, me).
Sorry your answer is simply a refusal to consider the fact that you may be wrong, Jerry, as well an unwillingness or inability to engage with disagreement. If what you want is a cheering section, certainly I don’t belong here. It’s not, by the way, that I have found a newfound dislike for atheism. I simply think that atheism is heading down towards a dead end. O’Connor is proposing another direction, and you have attacked him as though he were a theist. However, I now, regretfully, take my leave of Why Evolution is True, and return you to your cheerleaders. Don’t other expelling me. I won’t be back.
At least, not for another 45 minutes or so.
I do recall a similar sentiment on a post several months back, but my Googling failed me, but I think this is the more likely result.
“I simply think that atheism is heading down towards a dead end.”
Atheism simply is, it has no trajectory.
But is new atheism heading towards a dead end? Well, we hope so! Once no one privileges faith over fact, superstition over rationality, revealed “knowledge” over hard-won understanding of how the cosmos actually is, new atheism has no further to go. It’s not so much that we’re heading towards a philosophical cup-de-sac, more that the path will have petered out …
/@
‘other’ should read ‘bother’
Eric,
Your comment compelled me to read O’Connor’s article to give it a fair shake (as I hadn’t read it yet).
After reading it all I can say is I felt the same head-slamming-against-table frustration as Jerry and others found with it. There are just so many problems that follow from O’Connor’s reasoning it’s hard to know where to begin.
The conflation of atheism with a world view that ought to solve more of the world’s problems is just the fatal assumption of the piece. “Atheism” is but ONE conclusion atheists share, and which unites us. There will be a variety of arguments, and reasons, individual atheists may give. We will often differ on many other issues.
When Black people mobilized against discrimination did they have to produce solutions financial crises, gender inequality, diminished public health and services, food banks, and economic deprivation, alienation, poverty, collective action, geo-politics, the social causes of environmental problems, class and gender inequality, and human suffering? – the type of list O’Connor lays on atheist’s lap? Of course not. They were different people, with many different views, but shared the problem of “being black in a society that discriminated against being black.”
Atheists who speak up for non-belief in a world that has generally castigated non-belief are no more obligated to solve all those other problems by dint of being atheists* than black people are in speaking out against their discrimination.
Further, this boogeyman that vocal atheism is facile and leaves some empty hole where God was is just unsupported. Again, atheists are not monolithic in “world view”, but as individuals virtually all the atheists I’ve seen don’t simply “tear down” religion; they argue FROM positive positions in order to show the religious belief untenable. To the degree I argue with theists I argue from the benefits of coherent, consistent reasoning – against the liabilities of the reasoning they allow themselves for their religion. This isn’t simply taking the ground out of the feet of a theist; it’s offering a solid ground “over here” to step upon. As you know, secular philosophers – ATHEISTS – have been doing this for many years.
As for the most visible New Atheists, you seem to just ignore that Dennett has written on better understanding the nature of consciousness, on morality, and has provided detailed defense of free will. Sam Harris has produced works on Moral Theory, about human relationship issues like the liabilities of Lying, and has written a book on Spirituality, meditation and his approach to finding sources of well being. In arguing
against religion Dawkins has argued FOR human conversation, political, social etc, in forming societal ethics, and has argued for a scientific understanding of life on earth and the universe, writing in ways that have inspired awe and wonder for a huge number of people.
Jeeze, do these guys have to solve EVERY damned issue bedeviling humanity before you give them a break or any props?
When atheists are arguing for the rationality of non-belief, or against religion, many of us do so from positive moral positions – either from a moral theory we hold ourselves, or from pointing to consistency with the ethics that already exist in civilized society: “look, insofar as THESE ethics seem to be good ideas we’ve arrived at, and seem to reap good results, let’s apply that criteria to your religion.”
The same goes for “life is meaningless without God” where many of us argue there is plenty of meaning, religion just misidentifies it’s source. (Same with morality – Harris and new atheists argue this all the time).
In other words, in either case a ground is being pointed to, upon which we can or already do stand.
This is one reason why this canard, that new atheists just destroy and leave nothing beneath one’s feet is utterly baseless.
Are all the atheists HERE left in a nihilistic or existential funk, unable to find reasons to go on? Clearly not. Most of my friends and family are non-believers, and are as fulfilled and happy as any Christians I know (when we have family get-togethers, you certainly couldn’t tell the Christians from the atheists apart in terms of their demeanor or the joy they evince in life).
As Jerry points out: have countries going mostly secular shown some downward spiral in spirits, motivation, meaning, well-fare, etc?
No. In fact, many of them go better than the nations in which religion rules the day.
I’ve read many, many de-conversion stories and the most common sentiment expressed is that, once someone has fully dispatched with their religion, they express great relief, and typically describe their new life as at least as, if not more fulfilling. Not that atheism automatically = great life. But this “little people” argument that if you arguing for consistent rational thinking that dissolves religious belief is going to leave people drifting in a despairing ocean of unanswered problems is just bogus. Go read “Convert’s Corner” at Richard Dawkins’ site and see if the sentiments expressed by de-converted – often people who’d been truly submerged in religious answers – support this prediction. No, you’ll find most people
expressing gratitude and satisfaction.
There’s just so much wrong with O’Connor’s reasoning….and some of what you seem to be arguing as well. I find Jerry’s response to the article to be bang on.
★★★★★
You said it.
The problem is, you cannot make atheism something more than atheism. Atheism is exactly what it says – lack of belief in gods. Athiesm+something is atheism+something. You cannot make atheism include that something otherwise what do you call atheism without that something? If you want to attack secular humanism, attack secular humanism. If you want to attack nihilism, attack nihilism. Don’t call either atheism.
Whether O’Connor has any good points or not if you read “carefully” (i.e. between the lines), the style of talking about “Atheism” and “Atheists” is just plain wrong. Write “Atheists who X” if you think X is bad. It is not a failing of atheism itself.
Atheism is not a religion. It is not a community. It is a lack of belief. It can only be failing if god(s) actually exist.
+1
+2
Oh, FFS, just the title is enough for a head desk slam. Atheism cannot be about more than not believing in God. That’s what atheism is. For the other stuff, we have Humanism or whatever other ideology you choose to adhere to. Atheism and Humanism are not the same thing.
This is terrible (the original article, I mean, not this excellent critique of it). Quite apart from the stupidity of the arguments, the writing is atrocious. He doesn’t seem to know what ‘vacant’ means (I think he means ‘vacuous’?) or what the difference is between ‘spiritualism’ and ‘spirituality’ (clue: do you have a ouija board and is there ectoplasm involved? If yes, it’s spiritualism. If no, it’s spirituality).
Also I find it very hard to believe that any of the anti-atheist writers who describe Nietzsche and Camus as gloomy or miserable have read either of them. Which is a bit of a weakness in a philosopher. I’ve read both, and am definitely not a philosopher.