In the ongoing conversation via Intense Debate after my article Honest Compassion reader Jared Smith suggested I read two blog entries, one by Michael Buss and the other by Roy Hattersley in The Guardian. I said I would and that I’d most likely blog my impressions. I did and I am.
First let me say to both Buss and Hattersley/The Guardian. You’re all cowards. Neither of you allow comments to your posts. Blogs/Editorials that only “talk” and refuse to “listen” are rude and don’t deserve the readers they get. Sure, I can email Buss (and debate in private) or write an editorial response to The Guardian, but neither option is as easy or elligant as allowing comments. Sure you have to moderate them, maybe cull a spammer or two, but for no god’s sake, is that all that much work? If you want to earn the respect of your readers and your peers in the medium, tear down the walls around your opinions and let us respond directly to you. At the very least you may learn a thing or two, like I did in following up on Jared’s suggestion.
Hattersley writes:
Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers’ clubs and atheists’ associations – the sort of people who not only scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.
He presumes (for no stated reason) that atheists behave like theists, forming little social circles around our common disbelief in gods, then when called out to answer to an emergency, we all don our “No Gods!” teeshirts and arrive en masse to save the day. Sorry, Roy. I know a fair number of atheists, both online and off, and they aren’t rabid joiners. But they do volunteer, often at gay health clinics or Planned Parenthood clinics, you know, the places most Christians don’t ever want to be seen. And when atheists do join aid organizations, they usually do so as individuals, not “in the name of Dawkins” or “doing our duty to Darwin”. I know atheists who work with ostensibly religious organizations without reservation because they consider the good done to outweigh the motivation. So Roy, unless you know the religious beliefs of everyone who spends time or money helping the needy and what motivates them to help, you’re shooting in the dark.
Yes, we do scoff at religion’s intellectual absurdity, and with good reason. But “religion” is just the lipstick on the pig, the attempt to organize an otherwise chaotic hodgepodge of attitudes toward the gods into some semblance of order. The “force” of religion is directly proportional to the degree of belief of its followers. As belief diminishes, so does its power. We have historical evidence of the power of religion when belief increases, especially when it increases litterally beyond reason. Though as an atheist I wouldn’t use the word “evil”, I would certainly say that much of that history was detrimental to the health of humanity. The term “barbaric” would apply, and be ironic when applied to theists.
Then Roy spends several paragraphs relating little life snippets that he seems to believe lend credibility to his contention. It does no good to challenge “true life” stories on the internet. Of course all these stories appear to support his conclusion. Would he have mentioned them if they didn’t?
Then Roy says,
The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God’s children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt’s Abu Ben Adam, as “one who loves his fellow men”. Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor – right at the other end of the theological spectrum – did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.
First of all, correlation does not imply causation.
The belief that you are god’s children is one of your more divisive beliefs. It’s what allows the religious to feel superior to and separate from the rest of humanity, even other god believers. Charity is promoted among your own kind in order to reinforce the image of community and provide for your common survival, and to others on condition of their acceptance of your conditions (belief). Religious charity is enforced by dogma and motivated by fear and guilt. Is that healthy for anyone? What about the gay man caring for his dying partner or the young woman who cares for a parent? No, they aren’t out there in front of the cameras in their little red jackets with the white mathematical symbol for “plus” on it. But their sacrifice is no less noble than any nun’s. That’s humanity, not religion.
Hattersley/The Guardian
Roy:
It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian…
Did he proofread this? Does he know this sentence is nonsensical? Yes, Mr. Hattersley, in fact it’s possible to live a life of great charity and compassion without a belief in gods. It is indeed possible to be ethical, empathetical and compassionate without entertaining nonsense.
The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me.
See, world, not all atheists are geniuses. I don’t know how that happens. Once and a while one slips through the initiations and the background checks, manages to become one of the elite corps of atheists, yet exhibits the critical thinking skills of plankton.
“The only possible conclusion…” Really? No other conclusion can ever be drawn? It’s not even remotely possible that there could be another explanation for the situation? Can you defend such an absolute position? Is it statements like this that are the reason The Guardian doesn’t allow replies to its comments?
And if you truly are an atheist, you ought to realize that no one is “morally superior” to anyone else.
–^”^–_________—^”^–____________
Michael Buss’ argument is based on his understanding and interpretation of the theory of evolution. His post indicates that his interpretation misses one factor crucial to the theory.
Buss hangs his theory of the “survival of the fittest” on an erronious interpretation of Darwin’s writings.
Darwin credits Herbert Spencer for conceiving of the term “survival of the fittest”. But fittest wasn’t used to mean the most highly trained and physically energetic.
Although Darwin used the phrase “survival of the fittest” as a synonym for “natural selection”, it is a metaphor, not a scientific description. It is not generally used by modern biologists, who use the phrase “natural selection” almost exclusively.
An interpretation of the phrase to mean “only the fittest organisms will prevail” (a view common in social Darwinism) is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any organism which is capable of reproducing itself on an ongoing basis will survive as a species, not just the “fittest” ones. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be “survival of the fit enough.” Furthermore, the term “fittest” or “fit enough” refers only to an organism’s ability to survive, and not necessarily to physical strength, intelligence, or any other characteristic regarded as positive by human beings. Thus, “survival of the fittest” could simply mean “survival of those who are better equipped for surviving,” which is a tautology. (Source-Wikipedia)
M. Buss
So when Buss reaches his conclusion:
The law of the survival of the fittest will inexorably have its way. The high risk takers will be eliminated in time until their number is so reduced that the remaining members of these groups will change their behavior or die the same way. Treat them with all the drugs they can afford to prolong life, they will still die of AIDS related diseases. Sexual hedonism will be hit so hard that eventually there will grow a wisdom – a morality if you like – that reverts to the old traditional sexuality of both Muslim and Christian traditions.
His misunderstanding of the actual meaning of “survival of the fittest” renders his conclusion rather odd. He predicts the deaths of millions of people, gay and straight, and appearently thinks that will eliminate AIDS from the gene pool. And as a lesson from this modern plague, people will flock out of fear and ignorance toward “a wisdom – a morality if you like – that reverts to the old traditional sexuality of both Muslim and Christian traditions”. Isn’t that what they do now?
What if AIDS patients evolve a tolerance for the disease and become immune to further transmission or infection?
And what is wise about the traditional sexuality of both…traditions? You don’t think that the sexual morays and practices of the religious are just a bit irrational and inconsistent? Pleeeaze.
These two writers claim to both be atheists. Perhaps they are, I have few means and no interest in tracking evidence of that down. If nothing else, they illustrate the less-than-glamorous reality of atheism; it’s just a disbelief in gods. Whatever you choose to believe beyond your disbelief in god is the choice of every atheist.
A good politician is one who lies less than most and is more transparent and obvious about it. Parents lie to their kids (Santa?). Spouses lie to their significant other. Theists see that as a negative. Realists accept that it’s an undeniable aspect of being human, one that can be employed for good ends as well as bad. We believe the context dictates the nature of a lie.
No doubt it makes the religious feel all smug and self-righteous to envision atheists as grumpy, mean old bastards.
