Agnostic.com

20 5

Michael RUSE: "Dawkins et al. bring us into disrepute"

"As a professional philosopher my first question naturally is: "What or who is an atheist?" If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly does not believe there is any God or meaning then I doubt there are many in this group. Richard Dawkins denies being such a person. If you mean someone who agrees that logically there could be a god, but who doesn't think that the logical possibility is terribly likely, or at least not something that should keep us awake at night, then I guess a lot of us are atheists. But there is certainly a split, a schism, in our ranks. I am not whining (in fact I am rather proud) when I point out that a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the "new atheists", loathe and detest my thinking.

"There are several reasons why we atheists are squabbling – I will speak only for myself but I doubt I am atypical. First, non-believer though I may be, I do not think (as do the new atheists) that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting. This claim is on a par with golden plates in upstate New York. The Quakers and the Evangelicals were inspired and driven by their religion to oppose slavery, and a good thing too. Of course there has been evil in the name of religion – the pope telling Africans not to use condoms in the face of Aids – but as often as not religion is not the only or even the primary force for evil. The troubles in Northern Ireland were surely about socio-economic issues also, and the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery. There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

"Third, how dare we be so condescending? I don't have faith. I really don't. Rowan Williams does as do many of my fellow philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (a Protestant) and Ernan McMullin (a Catholic). I think they are wrong; they think I am wrong. But they are not stupid or bad or whatever. If I needed advice about everyday matters, I would turn without hesitation to these men. We are caught in opposing Kuhnian paradigms. I can explain their faith claims in terms of psychology; they can explain my lack of faith claims also probably partly through psychology and probably theology also. (Plantinga, a Calvinist, would refer to original sin.) I just keep hearing Cromwell to the Scots. "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." I don't think I am wrong, but the worth and integrity of so many believers makes me modest in my unbelief.

"Fourth and finally, I live in the American South, surrounded by ardent Christians. I want evolution taught in the schools and I can think of no way better designed to make that impossible than to spout on about religion, from ignorance and with contempt. And especially to make unsubstantiated arguments that science refutes religion. I never conceal my nonbelief. I defend to the death the right of the new atheists to their views and to their right to propagate them. But that is no excuse for political stupidity. If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion? The first amendment to the constitution of the United States of America separates church and state. Why are their beliefs exempt?"

Matias 8 July 16
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

20 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I am an atheist. I am not interested in what Dawkins, Harris or anyone pontificating on the topic says. The simple fact is that I do not believe in any god or religion. I do not condemn people who believe in religion, I do not try to proselytize for atheism. I do not want atheism to be treated as dogma, but to be regarded as lacking dogma. Just as I do not want religious people trying to shove their ideology down my throat, I do not believe in strident activism pushing atheism.

0

"If, as the new atheists think, Darwinian evolutionary biology is incompatible with Christianity, then will they give me a good argument as to why the science should be taught in schools if it implies the falsity of religion?"

i believe i may have been charged with being a new atheist recently. not directly, which i find distasteful as i didn't even know what it was, but whatever, i'm distasteful in much of my commentary. touche.

first, i have never changed my position on evolution. period. indeed evolution has never changed evolution's position. i had no belief system when i learned about it. i already did not believe in god when it came up. it was taught to me as Science. i am really curious to know which branch of science you think it ISN'T for twelve year old children throughout history to have reasoned their ways out of religion, never looking back. logic is taught.

not to mention i don't have to argue that it disqualifies religion. i will never get to the head of the line to say my piece because i will be behind the thousands upon thousands of present christians who still take the bible literally (anectodal, but guess what about his American south? that'd be some of them that take it literally, or partially literally, or whatever they take it to be...) point is christians claim and have claimed for a century that evolution is not compatible with their religion. denounced it. some still do. some smart ones put a square religious peg in a round scientific hole after the theory is introduced or accepted (creationism?) where the god is now somehow responsible for the theory to be possible. never mind it doesn't jive with the book and took a fossil record, and year upon year upon year of the theory becoming established Science. real life repeatable experiments i think i read or heard about as well. other science advances, see nasa and how they're understanding planet formation. honestly i don't need to do this.

that book is taken less and less literally every generation. it is wrong about the age of the earth and many order of other things with respect to many other scientific and logical things in addition to evolution. further, to my earlier point that i did not change, religion did. you cannot argue for centuries something is the literal word of god and then modify it as needed in response to an ever growing body of knowledge in addition to it and against it. rather you can, but the response will be a growing dismissive.

could we be seeing the popularization of atheism with the 'new atheist' where the second generation, or beyond or even population in the age of the internet where all you have to do is look a position up is what the theist is going to come up against? may be the day when they won't even debate a christian god with him? when the points of view of the guys in the post ruse vilifies are mainstream points of view, you will get ever increasingly dismissive responses. that is a wild ass guess, but i think you may have to get used to it. you don't even have to read the dawkins books. all you have to do as watch all of his clips. if you already don't believe, you're a certain expert.

in addition: separation of church and state was and is an idea that has been encroached on by christians since the founding of this country. status quo is not separation of church and state. what exempts my "belief"? the lack of a religion and the separation of church and state happen to coincide within the set of state (or constitutionally they should.) also there was that landmark court case in this country to teach evolution. go read that, mr. ruse.

show me separation of science and state. also qualifies it as exempt. show me the knucklehead that doesn't want to teach it... the science that is... please, show me. point them out and i will make sure my kids and anyone else that will listen hears me say that he or she is not to teach my children. with contempt.

trust christians to advise? me too. listened to both parents until the days they died. both religious christians. work with some i am sure. only ones i know for sure are the ones that volunteer it. plenty do, but NOT because i ask. i avoid it as long as i can. some friends, they know not to touch it. i accept their advice as well. i find most devout christians are offended by "i don't believe in god." it's all down hill from there for me.

i wonder where on mr. ruse's list the invoking of the bible and a snowball on the floor of congress in a debate about climate change ranks for why a growning number of people might, don't give a flying fuck if they are offensive? that is not stupid or bad? whether you believe in the science surrounding climate change or not. to use the bible as a debate point about climate science is laugable. and is both stupid and bad. i honestly will not apologize for whatever camp they lump me. i will not waste my time on "proving god does not exist." their book makes erroneous claims, without evidence for a dwindling number of other points. it used to be the literal word of god. now it isn't. these are not my claims. they are claims out of the mouths of innumerable christians. let them decide amongst their factious selves to determine who and what god is and then debate it with the agnostic theists. then when they lose that, let the agnostics come for the atheists.

0

"...that all religion is necessarily evil and corrupting. This claim is on a par with golden plates in upstate New York."

That is false to the point of being a lie. Hitchens and Dawkins go to great lengths to justify their claim by citing example after example. Ok Mr. professional philosopher, tell us all how Hitchens and Dawkings are on par with Joseph Smith.

"Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously." Yeah, right. Doesn't seem like you shy away from being condescending, except that your arguments suck.

"Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means. Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims."

Seriously? You seriously believe the 'New Atheists' to have been ignorant when they spent so much time challenging believers with, "Well, what caused God?" Yeah, I'd love to hear more of your efforts to understand the Christians efforts to explain God's intrinsic nature. Let's see just how deep that cesspool isn't.

I really, really hate trolls.

0

The only difference between old atheists and new atheists is that these new atheists don't shit up when the religious tell them to. Being silent on the matter has made this country more and more religious. No one claims that science refutes religion. It does however refute certain claims made by religion. I'm sorry if you have trouble telling the difference.

1

I so agree with this on all levels....but I have lived all over the world. Having been exposed to different cultures, having been the minority in some areas of the world, having seen both good and bad in religion, I am a seeker of knowledge rather than a berated of believers.

At the moment I’m in the process of reading Crossan’s “The Birth of Christianity”. I also enjoy reading Karen Armstrong’s books.

0

I'm one of the old atheists.

0

Yeah, facts trump beliefs. Period.

JacarC Level 8 July 16, 2019
1

Anyone who uses the phrase "the new atheists" is suspect.

I am an agnostic - anti-theist.

I'm with Penn Jillette on this:
Agnostic and atheist answer two different questions:

We cannot know fur shur how our universe started: agnostic (without knowledge)

There ain't no all-powerful invisible critters fucking with humans on the earth: atheist (there is no reliable proof of such beings)

And I agree with Sam, and Christopher,... I am an anti-theist because I oppose religionists imposing their mental illness on all us good folks.

JacarC Level 8 July 16, 2019
1

You've put a lot of thought into all that, but as a professional journalist I'd suggest to you what I would to a lot of people on here: figure out what your unifying point is, and lead with that. Then lay out your premises and build your case.

2

“Professional philosopher “ to me means “don’t pay attention to this one, (s)he has their head so far up their own ass they have lost touch with reality”

0

It seems Academia would have nothing to bang on about if we accept all Religions are clap trap.

1

Sounds like a religious apologist to me. He says that the "troubles" in NI are socio economic and not religious. Of course they are but why are there those divides. Because of one one side you have Roman catholics and on the other Protestants.
Bin Laden came from a wealthy family so if if he wanted to help the poverty and inequalities in the Muslim world why not use some of his families wealth for that instead of blowing people up.
The 9/11 terrorists were from middle class Saudi Arabian families. Would they have killed themselves if paradise didn't await for them and their families ?. I doubt it.

@Moravian @Healthydoc70
Are you saying that Humans would no longer find any cause worth dying for, if they had no religion?
Careful how you answer; it’s a trick question. 😉

@skado Mohandas Gandhi , probably the most famous pacifist in history, advocated that his followers let themselves be butchered for the sake of a free India, nothing to do with religion.

Personally speaking I can think of no cause worth dying for.

@Moravian no kids?

@skado Most humans do not naturally look for causes to die for but for options to make a good living!

@JacobMeyers Kids are definitely a "cause" worth dying for. However, wouldn't they also, technically, be a manufactured cause? Seeing as if you didn't already have them, you'd have to create them to feel like they were worth dying for? Or, at least, to fully understand why they are worth dying for?

The situation in Northern Ireland is extremely complex and both Mr,Ruse and you have not grasped that it’s also, and much more importantly, connected to national identity....Irish or British. There are many middle class Catholics who vote Unionist and consider themselves British....there also some Protestants who are happy to call themselves Irish...but far fewer of them. The “troubles” was a largely working class war, the professional classes never had a problem with mixing. It’s over simplistic to just label it Catholic v Protestant or just Socioeconomic, because it was both of these plus much more. In that respect I did disagree with the author’s analysis.

@Marionville Of course you are right it is a very complex situation, although I wasn't aware that there were many RC unionists.
There was certainly discrimination of the RC side of the population. I knew quite a few guys from the province when I worked in London in the '60's. In fact I shared a flat with two guys from Portadown, one RC and one protestant plus a Welshman to make up the UK contingent.

One young RC guy I knew was a "pioneer" which meant he was teetotal and he wore a little badge to proclaim this. He said on a few occasions he was denied entry to a dance if it was Protestant run with the comment "you're drunk you are not getting in "

@Moravian Yes...there were many things that happened that shouldn’t have, I have a lot of sympathy for RC grievances...it’s really that sort of thing that kicked off the troubles in the first place, they were treated like second class citizens by some prods. The RUC was a sectarian force..not entirely their fault, as RC officers were singled out for attack by IRA. to discourage other RCs from joining. The RC unionists are called Castle Catholics and are mostly drawn from the professional classes, judges, lawyers, doctors and leading business people.

1

YOUR WORDS: the young men who flew into the World Trade Centre towers were infected by the alienation and despair of the young in Muslim countries in the face of poverty and inequalities.

May I add that you seem to dismiss the fact that their belief in Allah and having many virgins in their heaven was a great motivating factor in their suicide and murder of thousands, so what someone believes is extremely relevant and excuse me if I use the word DELUSION to describe their belief and hold them in contempt.

These are not @Matias’s words....he has posted a piece written by Michael Ruse and invited us to post our opinions. He doesn’t say whether he is in agreement with them or not.

3

Their "beliefs" are not exempt. But the understanding of the theory of Evolution is not a belief. It is fact. It can be measured and verified and observed and calculated and otherwise known or predicted with amazing accuracy. It is a hard science. That is why it should be taught in school over religion, which is NONE of those things. Tell the author to quit being obtuse. It's unbecoming.

0

Weird statement:

"Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.

I think you are confusing the poster with the author of the article....they are not one and the same.

@Allamanda I have to fix this!

@Marionville I did indeed … Didn't see the headline! Thanks for the astute observation.

2

“Jonathan Sacks, author of The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, feels the new atheists miss the target by believing the "cure for bad religion is no religion, as opposed to good religion". He wrote:

Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.”
[en.m.wikipedia.org]

skado Level 9 July 16, 2019

@Allamanda
I think religion was a lot more than just the science of another time. It was also the philosophy, the medicine, the politics, the law, the psychology, the sociology, the dietary advice, the interpersonal relationship advice, ad infinitum, but it was also, and maybe primarily, a practice that acted as a counterbalance against our evolved animal instincts, which then enabled us to live in large, cooperating groups.

All those other aspects of early religion have specialized and split off (now disowning their parents, in effect) except for the last function of training us to be “human”, which we now need more of, rather than less.

To suggest that the “religion” of the 21st century is identical to the “religion” of two thousand, let alone ten thousand years ago, is just not consistent with historical fact. Religion has never not upgraded to meet the needs of ever “modernizing” Homo sapiens.

Religion is not in competition with its offspring. It has delegated many of its responsibilities to its children, and they are doing an excellent job, so that the parent can now focus on its most important task: keeping us human.

Science tells us how to make bombs, but it doesn’t teach us why we shouldn’t use them. It’s not science’s job to tell us how to behave, let alone provide the training.

Some field of human discipline needs to carry on that final responsibility of religion’s, and to say, oh we can just leave that up to the individual, is like saying the same thing about science, or law, or medicine; good luck with that.

A lot of that hinges on precisely how one defines “religion” and “morality.”

There are only two domains that I can discern: our naturally endowed altruism, which I don’t believe is adequate, alone, to cope with modern challenges, and our invented cultural or personal practices that enhance and expand our evolved altruism.

I don’t see how or why we should call any behavior, that is a result of only our biological altruism, religion... and I don’t see why it would not be proper to call any invented augmentation of that natural altruism “religion”.

In my view, any society that has “'lost' religion” and “have a social morality far in advance of ours” insofar as such is more than just our evolutionarily inherited altruism, has actually just lost “bad religion” and gained “good religion” exactly as Sacks recommended. The only questions remaining might be, will it become institutionalized, and will those institutions be recognizable to us as institutions? Another question might be, will it work? It’s too recent a development to know.

The only “transmitters” I am aware of are evolution, culture, and personal practice. The first is involuntary, the second partly involuntary and partly voluntary, and the third wholly voluntary. If you rule out the involuntary, what you have left must have a name. Historically, it has been called religion. If we can no longer abide that word we will have to invent another, but that’s the domain I’m talking about.

"the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion" Who says?
So instead of curing a mental disorder one ought to just replace it with another disorder? Imagine a doctor telling a patient: "How about replacing your lung cancer by a neat pneumonia?"
Replacing a bad religion by a better one has always been the marketing strategy of new brands.
Are electric cars really so much better than car equipped with infernal combustion engines?
I don't know many people who are really into religion who are even willing to think about atheism. And let's face it atheism and absence of nationality are the natural default settings of all beings at birth.

@Matias
Thank you for the kind words!

@Matias [journals.sagepub.com] and spiritual factors are increasingly being examined in psychiatric research. Religious beliefs and practices have long been linked to hysteria, neurosis, and psychotic delusions. However, recent studies have identified another side of religion that may serve as a psychological and social resource for coping with stress. After defining the terms religion and spirituality, this paper reviews research on the relation between religion and (or) spirituality, and mental health, focusing on depression, suicide, anxiety, psychosis, and substance abuse. The results of an earlier systematic review are discussed, and more recent studies in the United States, Canada, Europe, and other countries are described. While religious beliefs and practices can represent powerful sources of comfort, hope, and meaning, they are often intricately entangled with neurotic and psychotic disorders, sometimes making it difficult to determine whether they are a resource or a liability.

@Matias ok! Here something for your research into religions: [en.wikipedia.org]

3

An Atheist is someone who finds no need to capitalize the word ‘god.’

Varn Level 8 July 16, 2019

Stupid ipad does it automatically … it even capitalises "angel"

@PontifexMarximus I have to override my laptop, too 🙂

4

Thanks for posting. Ruse nailed Dawkin's irrational tribalism. As a former educator in biology, I find the last paragraph particularly germane. God is not a falsifiable concept. Tell students up front that scientists cannot take a stance on the existence or nonexistence of god because it's an idea that can't be experimentally tested. It is only within a framework of mutual respect that you can hope that students will be open to hearing all the evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

Gmak Level 7 July 16, 2019

"God is not a falsifiable concept."

Neither are fairies and leprechauns. Should science and educators spend time teaching the improbability of those types of beings. Should society find ways to accept them in modern educational institutions as viable concepts because they cannot be shown not to exist?

I have as much respect for anyone's god as I do for Santa Claus and no one has ever given me a single reason why religions or the gods they create should be respected in the least given the harm they've caused. There just seems to be this "feeling" that it has some relevance that cannot simply be discarded like when you stop believing a jolly man dressed in red delivers presents to your house once a year.

4

I think that there is a great deal of truth in what Mr. Ruse writes in this piece. I wouldn’t say I agreed with him on every point, but with the vast majority of them, I do. It’s quite wrong to think that everything that has been done in the name of religion has been bad, there are countless examples of the benefit to humanity which religion has brought. There is a balance to be made though, and the benefits must be weighed against the deficits of religious indoctrination....and in my opinion the deficits outweigh the benefits. I believe there is a religious expression which we should use as an analogy...” hate the sin, love the sinner “. I believe we shouldn’t demonise believers, because they are our fellow humans and as such deserve respect, even if we feel they are misguided. They are not all stupid, and many learned people do have a belief in god, how they manage to reconcile their belief I marvel at, but they have obviously thought it through, so it’s no good us just telling them that they have not used reason. We should however, thoroughly condemn the institutions and hierarchy when they prey on the ignorant and less well educated who have no defence against their dogma and superstition, especially in poorer countries.

3

Is the basis of his argument not semantical? I think he is saying that atheists are agnostics and new atheists are atheists.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:374679
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.