Kelly O'Connor
Feb. 7, 2008
Not all Christians are supercilious, of course. Many are
content to live and let live, and some even grant that science (despite
its lack of supernatural entities) does some good. But Christianity as
an organized, evangelizing movement has been on the offensive lately.
Witness the new wave of evangelicals and their leaders such as Rick
Warren, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig with their aggressive
stance against scientific materialism and their bestselling books
attempting to refute science. So, assuming you're an atheist, what do
you say to the theist who asks, "You don't (chuckle) believe in a god (snicker)?"
Anybody familiar with the original article will see that the
preceding paragraph is the same paragraph as the opening to "How to
Respond to a Supercilious Atheist" by Alan Roebuck. By changing a few
words, the same attack can be launched right back at him, and the rest
of the article isn't much better. It appears to be a primer in
projection. After all, when in doubt, just accuse them of being just like you.
Roebuck advises his fellow theists to take a different approach to
defending the faith-instead of coming up with actual evidence, you
should just tell atheists how our worldview is the one that is based on
assumptions and presuppositions. He eschews using the First Cause
argument and the defense of miracles because, "No matter what evidence
you give, the supercilious atheist finds a way to dismiss it." I wonder
if he has ever considered that it may be dismissed because it is not
valid evidence.
The First Cause argument doesn't work because, at best, it can only
be used to show that something created the universe, and that something
is not necessarily Yahweh. It could be another god or a multitude of
gods. Even that is questionable, though, due to the fact that they have
yet to show that the universe itself is contingent upon some necessary
being and not the necessary "being" itself. I would also advise theists
to drop this argument from their arsenal, but not in favor of Roebuck's
plan.
Roebuck states that, "it is not the case that your evidence
for God is valid but nevertheless is cancelled out by his superior
evidence against God." Gee, Sherlock, where can I find this "evidence
against God?" How about the absolute penury of evidence for god?
Theists have not yet grasped the concept of the burden of proof,
apparently. It's really simple, so I find it astounding that it is so
easily dismissed-the one who makes the positive claim (ie-god exists)
is the one who has to prove that claim, not the person who is in the
default position of suspension of belief due to lack of evidence (ie-as
far as we know, god does not exist). As much as I hate to be the bearer
of bad news, if you believe something without sufficient evidence, you are irrational.
Roebuck claims that atheism's vulnerability lies in the "false
worldview" that we hold that only material, objectively verifiable
things exist. First of all, this is not true. Not all atheists are
scientific materialists. There are many who believe lots of different
wacky theories that don't involve a god and there are others with other
notions of how the universe operates. This argument is only applicable
to a portion of atheists who also hold a materialistic worldview.
Roebuck then claims that scientific materialists assume this and
have come to their conclusion before examining the evidence. (Is the
projection evident yet?) The only evidence that exists is physical,
material, verifiable, and falsifiable. The existence of god is none of
the above. Any religious statement can be considered factually
meaningless by virtue of the fact that it doesn't meet the
falsifiability criterion. The only assumptions being made here are that
god exists and it's up to atheists to disprove that. Obviously, Roebuck
doesn't understand that this is impossible, and that is the very reason
why we can say that no evidence for such an entity exists.
He uses an example of a blind man dismissing the existence of color
because he cannot sense it, and likens that to the atheist who can't
sense god. First of all, the blind man knows he is blind. He recognizes
this sensory deficiency and doesn't believe that everybody on earth is
also blind. Furthermore, Roebuck is demonstrating his lack of
understanding of the functioning of the brain by asserting that color
exists in some more than abstract sense. Color appears as it does to us
in the small portion of the light spectrum that we are able to
perceive. For other creatures, the world around them is entirely
different, and we can study how this process operates, what causes
disorders such as blindness or the inability to perceive color and from
where it stems.
Is Roebuck suggesting here that atheists suffer from a sensory
deficiency as well? Does he believe that theists have been endowed with
a "sixth sense" that enables them to make contact with the
supernatural? If so, I'd like him to demonstrate what part of our
anatomy is causing this problem so that it can be rectified. Blindness
stems from either the brain or the eye itself not operating properly.
Where does "spiritual blindness" originate? Seen as how all of our
senses are processed in the brain, and also have an external organ by
which the information is received, he should be able to show where our
malfunction is occurring.
Roebuck claims that the theist must challenge our "assumptions" to
properly expose the atheist as a pedant, and says that first we have to
define our criteria for making the determination that there is no valid
reason to believe in god and how we know they are correct. He must be
talking to different atheists than I, as most people that I know would
respond with the criteria being objectively verifiable evidence, and
that we know this method of validation to be the most accurate due to
hundreds of years of making advancements as a society thanks to the
scientific method.
He moves on to what kind of evidence would be needed to verify the
occurrence of an actual miracle. This would be a difficult question
because most people with a scientific mindset would not know what it
would take because even unexplained phenomena could potentially be
explained in the future. Not knowing the answer right now doesn't imply
that the answer is unknowable. Besides, an omniscient, omnipotent being
would know exactly what was necessary and could provide it if he chose.
Unless, of course, we are his "vessels of wrath" created only to go to
hell and demonstrate god's wonderful mercy.
He again misconstrues the position of atheists who allow for the
possibility of the supernatural, although I personally feel that any
knowledge of such a plane of existence is impossible to ascertain, by
positing, "How do you know that a super-naturalistic explanation,
involving a God who intervenes from time to time, cannot be the correct
explanation? Wouldn't one have to be, for all intents and purposes,
omniscient in order to know that God could not have been involved?" We
don't know for sure that it couldn't be the correct explanation, and he
is shifting the goalpost from his particular god to "a
super-naturalistic explanation." This is a common tactic in
apologetics, and it should be pointed out that he doesn't know that the
supernatural being that started it all wasn't Zeus. As far as the
omniscience goes, we can answer that we do not have to be omniscient to
say that at this time, there is no evidence for such a being and no
need to appeal to one. Making up an answer when there is none is called
argumentum ad ignorantium.
He attempts to take on the issue of the logical contradictions
inherent in the attributes that his god is given but misses most of the
salient points. He deals momentarily with omnipotence and claims that
god can do "anything that can be done." Didn't god make the rules to
begin with? Could he not have made them different than they are? What's
the point of having an omnipotent creator of the universe who was
beholden to some other rules, and from where or whom did those mandates
come?
He dedicates a measly three sentences to theodicy, and just says
that a god who allows evil for some unknown reason could exist, but
never ties it back into the real contradiction, which is how could that
god be considered omnibenevolent? Again, god either created atheists
specifically to be tortured for all eternity by no fault of their own,
having been given the gift of faith or not, or he just chooses not to
intervene for some mysterious reason. Either way, how can one argue
that this being loves me? He will send me to hell purposely, either
because it's my destiny, or because he just doesn't intervene because
we need faith, which is a gift from him that we are supposed to somehow
give ourselves. That's not circular or anything.
He moves on to what he calls "arguing presuppositionally", and
gives an inadequate explanation of an axiom, which he then changes
slightly to allow for the existence of god to be a non-axiomatic axiom.
He claims that all knowledge is based upon one foundational principle
that cannot be proven, but is intuited. He is muddying the waters here
by the use of the word "intuit", as an axiom is just something that is
self-evident. I feel he chose that word for the specific purpose of
misleading the reader and priming them for the upcoming shift in
definition.
He claims that axioms can be tested by deducing whether or not the
system is "logically, morally, and existentially consistent." He
asserts that the atheist worldview fails because the "nature of
knowledge cannot be validated empirically." People have many different
epistemological views, and the use of scientific methodology to
determine the validity of anything is necessarily going to have some
starting point and then system of experimentation. That is all we have
with which to work, and he is attempting to negate the materialist
worldview by using a point that he himself believes regarding his
own-that not everything can be empirically validated.
He claims that one cannot live a purely naturalistic life as that
implies that you define your own meaning, and that makes everybody's
meaning invalid. We couldn't "stick to it when the going gets rough." I
have no idea what kind of data he is using to determine this, but the
search for meaning is an individual endeavor-even for the religious.
People may claim that they "live for god", but in reality, nobody does.
If all they are living for is the promise of an afterlife in paradise,
then they logically would all just commit suicide to get there faster.
Instead, what we observe is christians not following the dictates of
their own belief system and living their daily lives in much the same
way that we heathens do. They also use their families, their
responsibilities, their hopes, dreams, and future endeavors as
"meaning." Being handed a blanket "meaning" for your existence only
serves to cheapen the very concept.
He claims the existence of god is axiomatic, but cannot be
"intuited" like other axioms. These are, after all, "subtle and cosmic
questions." If it is not self-evident, it is not an axiom. Period. He
says that any proposition "must be judged true or false in light of
what we already know to be true." I'm with him there, but how on earth
does that prove the existence of god as axiomatic? His writing goes
from merely ignorant to absurd at this point.
Perhaps the most amusing quote is this one: "...some people are
content to believe without having any proof of their beliefs, and you
can't argue with someone like that." You're telling me. Again, this is
an example of projection at its finest. He claims that theism excels at
"accounting for the facts of reality", but I'm not sure exactly what
type of reality to which he refers. Reality is that which can be
observed and generally agreed upon. Imaginary sky-daddys don't fall
into that category.
His final snafu is that he comes around full-circle to admit that
the foundation of religious belief is faith-that which is believed but
cannot be proven. Did he not just spend 5 pages attempting to prove
that his god belief is logically superior to a naturalistic worldview?
I feel as if I missed the middle ten pages of this argument and walked
into the conclusion of a completely different one. He claims that by
pointing out our assumptions, theists can claim victory over atheists,
but all he is really saying here is that he has the opinion that we do
the same thing that they do. If that's true, why is it acceptable for
them and not for us? It seems to be a very odd contradiction to say
that atheists are wrong because we work from our presuppositions, but
then to base your own worldview on presuppositions. How exactly can you
determine whose presuppositions are correct? If they cannot be proven,
how can anybody know? Given his own argumentation, how does he know
that our supposed presuppositions, while I don't believe that a
naturalistic worldview implies presuppositions, aren't the correct
ones? Can we not take every argument here and turn it around on
religion with no difficulty?
To put the nail in the coffin, his endnotes declare that the true
impediment to our belief is that we hate god. This laughable notion is
constantly used against us and is by far the most ridiculous assertion
in their repertoire. It is nothing short of an attack that attempts to
discredit our use of rationality by claiming that it is an emotional
issue at its core. If anybody is rationalizing their emotions, it is
the theist whose fear of death overwhelms him to the point that he
makes up fairy tales to assuage the constant anxiety that life in an
unknown, unpredictable universe can induce. This article was a pathetic
attempt to discredit atheism, or more accurately, scientific
materialism, by ascribing to it all of the properties of religion. That
alone is enough to demonstrate the intellectual vacuity of their
belief.
How to Respond to a Supercilious Christian
WARNING! Religion may cause…
By: Kelly O'Connor
...hypocrisy; cognitive dissonance; higher rates of STD infection, teen pregnancy, abortion, and poverty; mass societal dysfunction; early mortality; homicide; and, in rare cases, delusions and psychosis. Is Living Under the Influence (of religion) less dangerous than Driving Under the Influence?
In the news this week, we have the case of Eunice Spry, a British woman who systematically tortured her adopted and foster children because of her religious convictions. She did pleasant things like forcing the children to eat their own vomit for being greedy, and making a child with nighttime enuresis (bed-wetting) at the age of 4 wear a sign reminding everybody that she was an evil attention-seeker. It doesn't stop there, either. She also prevented a teenaged girl who was injured in a car accident and temporarily confined to a wheelchair from walking in order to collect more compensation money, despite the fact that the prognosis was she would regain ability to walk within 6 months. After moving out, they children submitted to medical examinations which showed evidence of internal scarring due to Eunice's punishment of choice-forcing the children to vomit and then eat it.
If you aren't sick by now, you should be. Obviously, this woman's problems extended beyond her religious beliefs, but her absolutely inhumane treatment of those children was done under the guise of punishing them for what would seem to be the seven deadly sins. All she would need to do is chop somebody's pregnant wife's head off and send it to them and we could make a movie. Oh, wait, somebody already did. In my opinion, crimes like these should be a more serious offense than murder. Going Andrea Yates on them would have been merciful. I almost wish that a hell existed so she could go there.
Don't go away yet, there's more. A Washington, D.C. woman, Banita Jacks, sat in her home for over two weeks with the decomposing bodies of her 4 daughters who were apparently "possessed." Now tell me: Where would she get this idea of demon possession if it hadn't been planted in her mind by religion? I realize that before mental illnesses were understood, demon possession was a common diagnosis, but we're living in the 21st century here, people. That concept would not have survived the Enlightenment if it wasn't for the eternally ubiquitous presence of that festering boil we refer to as religion.
I know the next argument that you're going to make, too. "Well, she was insane, so she would have done something horrible anyway." How do you know that? How do you know that she would have had any concept of a "demon" if it wasn't placed there? The bible clearly states that this is a war not of flesh and bones, but of spirits and the forces of good and evil. One is to arm themselves for battle and prepare to deflect the attacks of satan and his minions. People still believe in this stuff! Does anybody get this? The Pope is calling for mass exorcisms, and some evangelical christians believe that sicknesses are caused by satan and that you can "cast them out in Jesus' name." It is a travesty that the more obsequious among us have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Anybody who cannot see the correlation here is either blind or indifferent and will allow these things to continue to happen. All because we can't talk about religion like that-it's just not nice.
Obviously, the vast majority of religious people do not commit these kinds of crimes, but there is an overwhelming amount of violence perpetrated upon people that is religiously motivated. I've already pointed out the child abuse that occurs in the name of religion, and some christian parenting sites teach you how to "switch" your children with PVC tubing from the age of 9 months. Incidentally, a devotee of theirs was charged with first-degree murder when she wrapped her 4 year old son tightly in blankets because he kept getting out of bed and he suffocated to death.All because god is a god of order, not chaos, and you must maintain order in your home. Talk about fragile egos on these people who won't be manipulated by the cries of a hungry newborn baby.
I said this in my first post on this topic, and obviously I need to repeat myself for the either dense or dishonest critics, but even if religion only exploits existing mental illnesses, should we not give people one less reason to kill or harm others? Imagine a scenario in which small groups of racist people are still terrorizing anybody with darker skin than them, but since the vast majority of white people don't act that way, we just shouldn't address it.
In all honesty, the reason that most religious people do not act like the Phelps family is because they are nominal (insert religion here) only. A study done by the Barna Group, a christian research firm, showed that many young Americans see christians as hypocritical, and that they really are hypocrites. They surveyed 1003 adults on 20 "lifestyle elements," including things such as altruism, sexual behavior, and substance abuse. The results: on 15 of the 20 behaviors, evangelical christians were indistinguishable from us heathens, and the areas in which they do differ (porn consumption, cursing in public, playing the lottery, and music piracy), the difference is minor (One-third of heathens vs. one-quarter of christians) except for the music piracy, in which there is a 7% difference. That is not likely because of the commandment to not steal, but rather that resisting the urge to download music is much easier than resisting the urge to have sex. If that's not causing cognitive dissonance, I don't know what will.
On a larger scale, we have three studies on the impact of religion on society, and neither of them is going to vindicate religion. The first was published in the Journal of Religion and Society and authored by Gregory Paul, a social scientist. He concluded that:
"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
"The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so."
"The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.
"The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted." (TimesOnline.co.uk)
The next was a Pew global survey that graphed the correlation between religiosity and wealth. Although the U.S. was an outlier, there was still an inverse statistical correlation between rates of religious belief and wealth. Attached to that article was a site you can use to determine rates of religiosity in different areas of the US and the corresponding population data. (It is slightly dated with 2000 as the year the data was collected.) There is a similar correlation in the US among different areas as there is among countries worldwide. Below are the two graphs plotting the data.
The third and final study is perhaps the most comprehensive. Phil Zuckerman analyzed levels of organic (not coercive) atheism and how the countries scored on the "Human Development Index," which rates countries on various indicators of societal health such as homicide rates, gender equality, poverty, literacy, and infant mortality. Not surprisingly, higher levels of atheism have a positive correlation to better levels of societal health as measured by these statistics. The top 25 countries all have very high levels of non-believers with the exception of Ireland. There was an increase in suicide rates among some of the atheistic countries, but the author notes that all of those countries were formerly parts of the USSR and are still suffering from the effects of that.
(nb: The link to the study itself is gone, but it is available in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism)
So, due to the insistence of numerous people, I have been working on a more official thesis on theism as a mind disorder, but getting the actual studies often requires expensive memberships or trips to the library. Don't worry-it's coming. Even if you disagree on that point, I think that there's enough data here to support the claim that religion has deleterious effects on society. One should use caution while using religion until one is certain of its effects.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Kelly - Still Don't Think that Theism is a Mental Disorder?
Kelly lays down the pwnage as she lets the world of theism know what she thinks of their latest charades. Read it here
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Infallible Pope Benedict Releases Bigoted Encyclical Vilifying Atheism
Kelly O’Connor
http://www.rationalresponders.com
The Catholic Church has officially ended their campaign to improve the public image of the Church with the latest papal encyclical, Spe Salvi, which means “saved by hope” for the Latin fans out there. The Catholic Church’s history is littered with crimes against humanity, and Pope Benedict XVI seems to desire the return to pre-Vatican II Catholicism. This was a concern voiced by many at the time that the former Joseph Ratzinger* was canonized to this position. The former pope, John Paul II, had made great strides in the modernization of the Church, and many were reluctant to elect somebody who would reverse that trend. Despite John Paul’s dogmatic adherence to the sexual proscriptions of Catholicism, he at least officially accepted evolution, admitted Protestants into heaven, and eliminated limbo. (Where was that place anyway? I may have been there once…) Pope Benedict is turning out exactly as predicted.
The attempt to correlate atheism with violence, hatred, and genocide is the faithful fall-back argument for theists looking for a scapegoat. As in many other situations, their best defense for their beliefs and the resulting atrocities throughout history is something like, “Atheists did it, too! Just look at Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. You’re just like us!” Well, I beg to differ. Those three well-worn examples did not commit those crimes because of their lack of god-belief. That is where the fundamental difference lies. The communist regimes wanted to eradicate religious belief so that the sole allegiance of the populace would be to the government. It was not driven by an atheistic agenda per se, but rather a power struggle with the religious ideologues who would seek to thwart their dominance over the people. Regardless of what those particular despots may have done, though, Ratzinger’s claim that atheism is the cause of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history falls flat on its face when one thumbs through the annals of history.
A stroll down memory lane with Catholicism gives us the Crusades, the Inquisition, the violence during the Protestant Reformation (some of which continues to this day), and the more recent clergy sex scandals. Obviously, this is a woefully incomplete list, and it doesn’t include Protestants and their scandals, not to mention the conflict that has been inspired by religious beliefs throughout history up until the present day, not separating by specific deity.
Despite the irony of religious people claiming that atheism has been the bully throughout history, the most problematic issue with this argument is the least salient, which explains its prevalence in the world of apologetics: Whether these crimes were committed under the banner of atheism or not does not prove that their god exists in the first place. The crux of the rational position rests not on what atrocities were committed for any reason, but rather on the existence of their deity.
The fact is that the most recent studies show that organic atheism (ie not imposed by the government) has a positive correlation with societal health when measured by various indicators, such as level of education, affluence, and violent crime rates. (See study by Phil Zuckerman, PhD, in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism.) The data show that the so-called “deluding” to which man so frequently falls prey is in fact not “technology, wealth, or political ideologies,” but is religious in nature.
The pessimism that he sees in the world is more likely to have been caused by the precepts and edicts of the religion into which a society has been indoctrinated. If I believed that this life, this planet and its inhabitants were all a part of some kind of cosmic game in which the rules and outcome were already determined, I would be pessimistic as well. For them, all of this is a waiting room for your “real” existence in eternity—whether or not it will be in paradise or perdition. Ultimately, it’s not even up to you or me to make that determination. The Catholic Church has always stood by the doctrine that the status of your salvation is unknown even to you. Does anybody else see how that might cause psychological distress? You’re chosen, or one of the elect--one to whom god has revealed himself--or you’re not. The bible states it clearly:
“Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory…” (Rom. 9:21-23)
I don’t see the hope of which Ratzinger speaks. I see the violence, division, and psychological terrorism that religion has perpetrated upon humanity since its inception. I see a group of power-mongers struggling to maintain control of an increasingly skeptical society by demonizing their opposition. I see a populace disillusioned with the traditional power structures of government and religion but feeling incapable of affecting change in a society where money buys power and influence, and the only thing that they are sure of is that atheists are evil communist despots. So, I would like to personally applaud Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, for projecting the actions of his religion onto atheists. At least we know that the long-standing tradition of sacrificing an innocent being to atone for your own sins is alive and well. (Lev. 16: 9-11) After all, Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
*I will refer to him using that name for the remainder of the article.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Kelly Resonds to Michael Brendan Dougherty
One of the methods used by the religious to marginalize atheists and our increasing visibility is to accuse us of becoming that which we originally opposed, or in other words, just like them. It’s even better if they have the convenience of one experience with these so-called “secular fundamentalists” from which they can draw unfounded conclusions as to the validity of this argument and, ultimately, the character of all those who have no belief in gods, goddesses, or other mythical creatures.
This is the route taken by Michael Brendan Dougherty in the November issue of The American Conservative. His article, entitled “Secular Fundamentalists: Can atheists form a movement around shared disbelief”, uses this year’s Atheist Alliance International convention as fodder for his clumsy attempt to represent atheism as a new phenomenon comprised of the dogmatically anti-religious.
The title alone is an oxymoron—would Mr. Dougherty mind explaining the fundamentals of secularism before he starts labeling us as adherents to them? He tries to use Sam Harris’ speech about the word “atheist” and the subsequent reaction as proof of this claim, pointing out the discomfort of the audience during his speech. He goes on to assume that Sam Harris would prefer that there be no AAI conference next year, which is only true in one scenario—that in which religion is no longer a menace to society and has been effectively stripped of its power.
Of course, according to Mr. Dougherty, the only reason we get together is to tell jokes about pedophile priests and fight the morality imposed upon us by the “prudes and prigs” who surround us, it is really unnecessary since all of this can be done online anyway. As a matter of fact, most of the conference attendees or those with whom I have spoken regarding Harris’ speech, which was reprinted in The Washington Post, were pleased to see a dissenting position presented, even if some may have disagreed with that position. This is an example of the very thing that makes atheism different from religion; we’re allowed to ask questions and present our differences of opinion. There’s no excommunication from atheism. Apparently, he hung around for the Q&A, but failed to mention that in my question to Sam, I stated that I agreed conceptually but see no other way to gain any influence as a group by avoiding the one word under which we can unite. Harris agrees with that, and furthermore, I think that as atheists, we all agree that we would prefer to live in a world in which the word was not even necessary.
Dougherty goes on to the addition of Harris’ somewhat controversial affinity for meditation. He adds the jab frequently used against us, that we hate all religions, rather than just not believing in them, and goes on to misrepresent Daniel Dennett’s comment that he himself had been practicing meditation. Of course, in his mind, the audience was deeply troubled by this, despite the fact that meditation does not necessarily have a religious connotation and does have scientific evidence to show that similar contemplative practices have health benefits. Meditation may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but there were certainly some in the audience who understand this point, but mentioning that would undermine his initial claim that we are “fundamentalists.” So he chooses to be dishonest instead, proclaiming that “the leaders of unbelief are exposed as potential monks and mystics.”
At least we still have Hitchens, whom he briefly addresses by using the well-worn “he’s just angry at God” argument. He then finds it humorous that conference attendees are excited by the opportunity to meet these distinguished individuals, and points out a person that had a conversation with Hitchens and was ecstatic, claiming that this is a form of “idol worship” and a religion of its own. If that is true, then Christians are assuredly in violation of their precious commandments by idolizing their own batch of celebrities such as Rick Warren, Dinesh D’Souza, or Lee Strobel. Being happy to meet a person that you admire and respect, who has potentially influenced your life through their work, is now a religion, folks. Again, nothing other than juvenile and amateur attempts to disparage atheists and a simple restatement of that childish taunt, “I know you are but what am I?”
In an egregious violation of journalistic objectivity, he goes on to personally insult Margaret Downey, referring to her as a “dippy hostess.” Margaret has fought for the rights of atheists and gays to join the Boy Scouts, has given a presentation to the United Nations on the discrimination of atheists, and is still the UN expert on atheist discrimination in the US. She has worked tirelessly for years on end and put her own life at risk to make separation of church and state a reality, not just some words on an aged document· The fact that he would have the audacity to refer to one of the most influential women in the world of atheism as he did displays the utter lack of respect and contempt that he holds for those who do not worship his imaginary friend, yet he wonders why we feel the need to rally together, speak up, and rattle cages.
The fact that, in his opinion, holding a conference qualifies your group as a “movement” is mildly amusing. I guess that makes attendees of “Star Trek” conventions members of a pro-Star Trek movement. In much the same way that the aforementioned “Trekkies” are chided for having their apparel, costumes, and merchandise, Dougherty goes on to more trivial evidences of this subversive “atheist movement.”
Apparently, Dougherty finds “young men with haircuts fit for their mother’s basement” a valid point upon which to base an argument that we are nothing more than a “cranky subculture” that wants to ridicule religion much as a teenager wants to rebel against his/her parents. He interestingly notes that we did not view “The Passion of the Christ” and instead chose “Life of Brian”. I take it he didn’t consider that we atheists have no desire to watch a man brutally tortured and ultimately murdered for two and a half hours. I consider that to be a good thing, and would certainly allow my children to watch “Life of Brian” before that snuff film of which he apparently approves.
He comes back to the worst insult Christians have to offer, which is the conflation of atheism to a religion itself. It is about time that atheists come together at conferences and stand up for ourselves in a country dominated by irrationality. How ironic that the best argument he can muster is that we’re just like them. He claims that the conference “provides plenty of evidence” by “[resembling] an evangelical retreat weekend.” Wouldn’t any conference probably have similarities; such as there were speakers, there were meetings, and an amalgamation of people hanging out conversing? Again, if the Church of Star Trek hasn’t been founded already, it is now, whether the fans agree or not. He completely ignores the valid criticisms of religious belief and insists on using ridicule and insults to make the entire concept seem silly, much like Christianity. Is he projecting his own feelings regarding the absurdity of his own religion, maybe?
He attacks Julia Sweeney as a “D-list celebrity” eager for a second career as an atheist spokesperson. The fact that she does a monologue based on her personal experience with religion escapes him, and once again, he sardonically quips that she must be fun on dates after she recounts a story about debating evolution while out with a former romantic interest. Watch out ladies and gentlemen—we’ve entered the “no-humor” zone.
The ad hominems don’t stop there, either. His next target is Greydon Square, and Dougherty can’t stop himself from painting him as a thug with a rap sheet. We all know that getting arrested completely discredits a person despite the validity of their beliefs or lack thereof in this case. Any journalist with credibility would at least have done his research and known that Greydon was released that day—his only charge being an unpaid ticket. We can add this to the list of half-truths purposely written by Dougherty and designed to deceive the readers.
Coming full circle back to Sam Harris, he quotes Sam from The End of Faith as saying, “Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.” Not only is this completely skewed and out of context, he presumes that nobody would contemplate this statement. If you had the ability to stop the 9/11 hijackers before they boarded the planes that eventually slammed into buildings, killing thousands, would you have? What if lethal force was the only means by which it was possible? It is certainly a delicate subject, but it is not presented accurately in Dougherty’s piece. Dougherty’s defense then consists of the absurd claim that, “The Inquisition at least allowed defendants the chance to recant—often many times.” Yes, they did, offer a choice between keeping one’s integrity and dying or lying about one’s lack of belief and remaining alive. What a stunning example of Christian generosity and kindness. Maybe we should watch two and a half hours of that at next year’s AAI conference.
Finally, we have Richard Dawkins. Even this criticism isn’t bereft of superficial personal attacks, as he refers to Prof. Dawkins as “owl-faced” and “ignorant of religious people as a species.” Apparently, a speciation event occurred that officially separates the logical from the illogical; the reason-based from the faith-based. Unfortunately, it’s not true (sorry if he got anybody’s hopes up).
He argues that Dawkins’ proposition that religious indoctrination is tantamount to child abuse and that we should refrain from labeling our children as a particular religion is reductive and tendentious. Dougherty claims that religion is not a “mere set of mental propositions” and is, in fact, a way of life started at birth. I don’t imagine that Dawkins would disagree with the latter, but the issue is one of choice and the autonomy of children. It concerns the routine obfuscation that occurs when parents lie to their children with regards to evolution, history and the value of faith as a reasonable methodology. Many who have suffered from this treatment do not possess the ability to deprogram themselves as adults, and thus logic and rationality have been suppressed for yet another generation.
If he has no problem with that concept, why is it that he aims to make Julia Sweeney look like a child abuser for telling her daughter that they don’t believe in God? If the general consensus is that pushing religion on your children is not an issue, then why is the advocacy of non-religion? Why was there such a backlash to our own Blasphemy Challenge, largely because teens were being “targeted” by the evil atheists? It is the obvious hypocrisy that is most problematic here—indoctrination from Christian parents is fine, but atheist parents need to keep their lack of belief to themselves. The hazard represented by this mode of thought is actualized in the many cases of discrimination against atheist parents in child custody cases.
This article was nothing short of a long list of intellectually inept claims peppered with personal attacks which do more to reveal the character of the author than his intended targets. Michael Brendan Dougherty should be ashamed of himself for exploiting the kindness of the atheists at the conference who spoke with him in order to purposely malign and misrepresent us. His penchant for focusing on irrelevant, superficial details, such as age, clothing or hair-style, was deftly demonstrated in this piece, which I can only describe as being a supremely dishonest polemic aimed at the continued marginalization of atheists. Hopefully, his lack of journalistic integrity will prevent him from getting a press pass at any future events.
Here is the original article.
Posts
