NEW ATHEISM: More misunderstandings

As promised the continuation on addressing what I a number of misperceptions of New Atheism and New Atheists.

Statements such as "a lot of their (red: religions’) assertions are provable false and must be discarded by reasonable people" can only come from a fanatical mind.”

Statements such as these are common-place both in standard conversation and more specifically in science, it seems unreasonable to claim that one is a fanatic for voicing an opinion that is consistent with the evidence provided by our scientific community. At worst, the sentence can be accused of being a generalisation, but I digress…

Even if my assertion where to be false there is no reason to presuppose that I am a fanatic for claiming most religious assertions to be false (I could merely be misinformed). However, I happen to be correct in my statement as Victor Stenger shows when he takes the Judeo-Christian God through scientific testing in “God – The Failed Hypothesis”. Stenger summarises his approach:

By dealing in terms of models of God that are based on human conceptions, we avoid the objection that the “true” God may lie beyond our limited cognitive abilities. When I demonstrate that a particular God is rejected by the data, I am not proving that all conceivable gods do not exist. I am simply showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with the specific, hypothesized attributes does not exist. Belief aside, at the very minimum the fact that a specific God does not agree with the data is cause enough not to assume the existence of that God in the practices of everyday life. (Stenger 2008, 228-229).

I invite the reader to read the book and consider each proof in detail but to summarise some main points that show the religious tenets of most major faiths to be demonstrably false (below is summarised from Stenger 2008, 230-231):

1. The universe looks as it should look in the absence of design
2. Human memories and personalities are determined by physical processes and no nonphysical or extraphysical powers of the mind can be found nor do evidence for an afterlife exist
3. No independent evidence exists for any reported miraculous events and most of the important biblical narratives never took place
4. No violation of physical law were required to produce the universe, its laws or its existence rather than non-existence and it bears no imprint of a creator
5. The universe is not congenial to human life, is tremendously wasteful of time, space and matter and is mostly composed of particles in random motion
6. No claimed revelation has ever been confirmed empirically while many have been falsified. No claimed revelation contains information that could not have been already known to the person making the claim
7. Evidence shows that morality and human values are defined by humans for themselves. Believers and nonbelievers agree on a common set of values and morals. Nonbelievers behave no less morally than believers
8. The existence of evil, and particularly gratuitous suffering, is logically inconsistent with an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent God

To add one of the simple examples given in the book: “If praying worked, the effects would be objectively observed. They are not.” Therefore we can rule out a personal God that answers prayers.

Believers will attempt to dismiss this evidence on the grounds that science cannot account for supernatural phenomenon. This is a diversion: “…the God of each of the three great monotheisms plays such an important role in in the working of the universe and in the lives of humans that the effects of that deep involvement would be observable by the human senses and the instruments we have built to increase the power of these sense.” (Stenger 2009, 38)

Another common argument is that God could choose to hide his presence if he so chooses. Victor Stenger shows how this is would both be a logical fallacy and inconsistent with an omnibenevolent God but again I refer the reader to the original text.

Religious apologists have often resorted to pseudo-science or wrong information to back their claims such as when Dinesh D’Souza tried to dismiss Stenger’s claim that the universe is “uncaused” and “emerged from nothing” and quotes David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian) to back him up. As Stenger retorts: “Hume can be excused from not knowing quantum mechanics in 1754; but D’Souza cannot be excused in 2007, over a century since it’s discovery.”  (Ibid.)

This is an example of Believers basing their beliefs and claims on facts that have long been disproved and falsified or on out-dated models of reality (politicians also favour this strategy). This lends no credence to their views but rather highlights the need for better education of our populations and the need to put a stop to the dissemination of fallacious religious propaganda over established scientific fact.

Finally, to bury the argument that New Atheist “fanaticism” can be in any way compared to religious fanaticism. Atheists trusts in science which is described thus by Victor Stenger in “New Atheism” (p. 15):

A good scientist does not approach the analysis of evidence with a mind shut like a trap door against unwelcome conclusions. If and when anyone finds evidence for the existence of God, gods, or the supernatural that stand up under the same stringent tests that are applied in science to any claimed new phenomenon, with no plausible natural explanations, then honest atheists will have to become at least tentatively believers.

So in essence it may be fair to say that atheists are indeed fanatical: fanatical about evidence and in this we do differ from most religious (except the “culturally religious” who respect the traditions but do not necessarily accept any unproven tenets or claims of their religion).

Also note that interpreting things around you through the scientific method makes you anti-dogmatic by definition as dogma consists of assertions and beliefs that are unproven or are held to be true regardless of evidence to the contrary.

The below description of the scientific worldview should further highlight that it cannot be considered a “faith-system” competing with religions:

Science is a methodical system for acquiring knowledge about nature, about how the universe works, about the characteristics of reality.
It is systematic and logical - based on ideas, experiments, and observations that are testable, repeatable, predictive, and disprovable. It is also self-critical and self-correcting, and therefore progressive. It is the best thing we have for discovering the things we need to know about ourselves and our environment.

It does not presume a designer or any kind of supernatural entity.

Fundamentally, the only assumption made in science is that there is only one reality - one, unique truth that can be known about any particular phenomenon or process. There are things that are unknown (and may forever be unknown), but not things that are unknowable. (Unknown poster on message-board).

I invite anyone to show how insisting on evidence for claimed phenomena will not lead to a better world than failing to do so rather than taking any claim, particularly extraordinary claims, at face value.

So, in a way, perhaps we are trying to claim the moral high ground? And perhaps we should? Join me in the final instalment on this topic…

NEW ATHEISM: Some misunderstandings

I’ve stopped posted on this Blog mainly due to time constraints, but a recent discussion on Facebook brought up some points on the so-called “New Atheism”.

Defining New Atheism – the starting point

Let me start by addressing the term New Atheism which is very important in the context of the discussion of the points brought up. I believe these to be incongruent to the facts, yet they were raised by a fellow atheist. This is not new:

Not all nonbelievers – atheists, agnostics, humanists, or freethinkers – have been happy with the approach taken by the new atheists, especially our unwillingness to take a benign view of moderate religion. They would like to maintain good relations with the religious community , especially with regard to the public acceptance of science….While new atheists sympathise with these concerns, we do not consider them as serious as the even greater dangers imposed by the irrational thinking associated with religion. (Stenger 2009, 14-15).

Stenger goes on to quote geneticist Gerry Coyne’s view that the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science forms part of the former and religion part of the latter.

We do we think our thoughts have relevance when some like Stephen J. Gould have claimed that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria”:

“We agree with most reviewers that Gould’s interpretation is incorrect and amounts to a redefinition of religion as “moral philosophy” . Religions make statements about all kinds of phenomena that are legitimate parts of science, such as the origin of the universe and the evolution of life. Even the principles of morality are subject to scientific investigation since they involve observable human behaviour. Furthermore, we do not see morality as god-given but rather as the result of humanity’s own social development. (Ibid, 14)

Finally, Stenger (Ibid, 15) explains the critical stance of New Atheism:

“Perhaps the most unique position of New Atheism is that faith, which is belief without supportive evidence, should not be given the respect, even deference, it obtains in modern society. Faith is always foolish and leads to many of the evils of society. The theist argument that science and reason are also based on faith is specious. Faith is belief n the absence of supportive evidence. Science is the belief in the presence of supportive evidence. And reason is just the procedure by which humans ensure that their conclusions are consistent with the theory that produced them and with the data that test those conclusions.”

Sadly, we should not even need to define atheism as Sam Harris sharply points out:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."  (Harris 2007).

Thankfully, nonbelief is the fastest growing and either second or third largest “belief system” so things are moving in the right direction.

 

Point 1: Atheist fanaticism as bad as religious?

Note the original points have been slightly rewritten here for clarity, if the original author feels misrepresented, please leave a comment to clarify:

You people still don’t understand that you are as fanatical as the theists that you keep writing about. I am a atheist myself but with the wisdom, and without the arrogance to preach that my idea is the right one.

Firstly, its important to understand that atheism unlike theism has no “ideas” associated to it, it simply defines a person as not believing in the proposition of God or a god.

Secondly, if you browse definitions of “fanatic”  and “fanatical” you find the word “irrational” embedded and this is the crucial difference between proponents of New Atheism and believers:

• having an extreme, irrational zeal or enthusiasm for a specific cause
• Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. .
• a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill

There are other more benign definitions of fanatical which generally amount to being “excessive” or “extreme” in support of your views and beliefs.

New Atheism, by the definition given in the earlier section, is critical and rational, so we need to accept that those elements of fanaticism cannot apply to it. This leaves the question whether we are “excessive”, “extreme”, “overzealous” etc. in our views.

What is more relevant, however, is whether our views are dangerous for if not an excessive enthusiasm for them will not cause any harm, unlike those of religion.

However, let us not be fooled into accepting a moral relativism that claims all beliefs as being equal. As Sam Harris’ has often stated in debates: We can measure what beliefs are must conducive to the welfare of human beings (a thesis which can be fully explored by the interested reader in “The Moral Landscape”).

We are seen as “insensitive” for telling believers that they are fooling themselves. New atheists have good reasons not to be quiet, and few sum it up better than Sam Harris:

“Patrick Bateson tells us that it is “staggeringly insensitive” to undermine the religious beliefs of people who find these beliefs consoling. I agree completely. For instance: it is now becoming a common practice in Afghanistan and Pakistan to blind and disfigure little girls with acid for the crime of going to school. When I was a neo-fundamentalist rational neo-atheist I used to criticise such behaviour as an especially shameful sign of religious stupidity. I now realise – belatedly and to my great chagrin – that I knew nothing of the pain that a pious Muslim man might feel at the sight of young women learning to read….” (Stenger 2009, 78-79).

Point 2: Dogma and Religion

“Dogma is not inherent to religion but to faith.”

“I am an atheist and yes I am religious.”

Religion without faith is not religion by any common definition of the word or any definition that most religious would recognise. A quick web search of the term “religion” will show the word “belief” and “supernatural” propping up repeatedly, but even sociologist Phil Zuckerman admits in his book “Society without God” that defining religion has proven notoriously difficult over the years.

He goes on to offer his own regardless, and it is instructive: “Religion refers to the concepts, rituals, experiences, and institutions that humans construct based upon their belief in the supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual. For me, it is the supernatural element that is the key. I agree with Stark and Bainbridge that “a religion lacking supernatural assumptions is no religion at all…for something to be “religious”, there must be an element of supernatural, otherwordly or spiritual belief. (Zuckerman 2008, 153-154)

Zuckerman goes on to define the “cultural religion” he observed in Scandinavia:

“cultural religion is the phenomenon of people identifying with historically religious traditions, and engaging in ostensibly religious practices, without truly believing in the supernatural content thereof.”

It’s helpful to employ the new term rather than attempting to redefine the existing. Obviously, New Atheism and atheism in general have no quarrel with culturally religious people and it would be possible to be both and atheist and “culturally religious” whereas it is an oxymoron to claim to be both atheistic and religious without engaging in some serious rhetorical gymnastics.

Point 3:

“And where is the proof that fanatics are acting in ways that is consistent with the teachings of the religion or philosophy? Don’t turn the preaching of a few into a religion.”

Firstly, I will answer this as it pertains to religious philosophy and not philosophy in general. Non-religious philosophy has in some cases led to dogmatism, but these would be exceptions and are outside the scope of this discussion.

In the End of Faith Sam Harris shows convincingly how “Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance,"  in other words, in order not to be a fanatic you need to apply the basic human values you already have and wilfully ignore the teachings of your religion, we’ll see why below.

Let’s start with the sources of religious teachings: In general holy books and priests (or other holy men) who interpret them.

Let’s begin with the Bible or the Q’uran, and you will find most of the practices fanatics are engaged in positively recommended, to give a sampling:

• If a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).
• Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lyingwith him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Deuteronomy, Numbers 38:18)
• …ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves. For thou shalt worship no other god… (Exodus 34: 13-17)
• Those that deny God’s revelations shall be sternly punished; God is mighty and capable of revenge” (Q’uran, 3:5)
• Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not (Q’uran 2:216)
• Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise” (Q’uran 4:55-56)

On a final note Leviticus 20 lists the following offences as meriting the death penalty: cursing your parents, committing adultery, making love to your stepmother or your daughter in law, homosexuality, marrying a woman and her daughter, bestiality.

This is just a taster for a fuller account I refer the reader to chapter 4 in the End of Faith, Chapter 7 in “The God Delusion” and chapters 7 through 9 in “God is Not Great”. A good summary of the eventual outcome of current religious faith in the US can be read in the chapter “Toward the Apocalypse” in Stenger’s “The New Atheism” (p. 53-57).

It need not be so, a few religions have more benign teachings, such as Jainism, again back to Harris:

Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence: "Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being." Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible. (Harris, 2007)

To summarise it, the actions of religious fanatics are perfectly consistent with the core dogmas that make up the major monotheistic religions.

When moderation occurs, it’s a result of not following the scriptures or the teachings as they are described, so why do you need religion in the first place, rather take Sam Harris’ advice from “Letter to a Christian Nation”:

Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. So why not take it less seriously still? Why not admit the the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings."

Tomorrow, I’ll continue this article series with a look at whether religion is inherently dogmatic, whether the statement “a lot of their assertions (red: religious’ people’s assertions) are provable false and must be discarded by religious people” is the product of a fanatical mind, and whether we “New Atheists” are just trying to occupy the “moral high ground” when remarking on religion and should rather just be content with the ideas and knowledge we hold.

I’ll be travelling over the weekend so join me for more on Monday…