Those Fanatical Atheists - Rebuttal (Thoughts)
Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen wrote what some call an 'exceptionally lucid' article on the movement stemming from popular 'New Atheist Movement' books authored by Richard Dawkins. I guess I've been living in 'darkness' for the past five years since I've never heard of the 'New Atheist Movement' until now.
Evidently atheists noted their declining numbers and needed to reinvent themselves with a cool new name. I'm one to embrace new ideas and browse the latest trends so I read the article with the expectation I'd get a heaping helping of what's really 'new' in NAM.
Same Old Atheism
Admittedly, I was disappointed with the quality of the article. Sure it was 'lucid' as one reader noted, but I couldn't help but wonder what on earth is different in the 'New Atheist Movement' compared to the 'old Atheism'. This is the same old story of God vs. Reason; depending on where your camp resides will dictate what you believe in.
Here are my thoughts on the article:
So I thought this is an opportune moment to say I think all three of these faiths -- these mighty institutions, these esteemed philosophies, these ancient and honoured traditions -- are ridiculous quackery. Parted seas. Walking corpses. Nocturnal visits to Heaven. For goodness sake, people, the talking wolf in Little Red Riding Hood is more plausible.
Does Dan Gardner really expect me to believe that he along with his reasonable buddies are so far above religious zealots (anybody who believes in a god) that for somehow his opinion and intellect becomes more valuable? Dan, I don't want to live in a world where somebody thinks their beliefs are more worthy than another's--this breeds intolerance.
In the past, I've tried to avoid talking about religion in such sharp terms. It's not that I fear giving offence (which would be something of a limitation in my line of work). Rather, I know, as all humans do, that it's scary knowing you're going to die. And if belief in angels on high eases the existential fears of some, I won't begrudge them. Whatever gets you through the night, as a long-haired prophet once said.
Congrats on holding back, you're a saint, uh, I mean a reasonable human being.
After all, we live in a time when blowing children to bits is an increasingly popular form of worship, the most powerful man on earth thinks he's got a hotline to God, and much of the electorate who gave that man his power would never consider replacing him with someone who does not believe the son of a carpenter who died 2,000 years ago sits in heaven advising presidents, fixing football games, and waiting for the day he will return to the Earth to brutally murder all unbelievers and erect a worldwide dictatorship.
What?! Fixing football games? Firstly, despite your attempts to be 'objective' you still write through the lens of an atheist (assuming you are one.) Again I ask, what makes atheism more valuable and correct over any other religious beliefs? Secondly, god cannot be, let me repeat, cannot be the same god for all. Since you stand in apparent objectivity, (looking down on the football field observing the different religious players), you will no doubt realize through your careful observations that all religions and gods are mutually exclusive. Comparing car bombers to carpenters is quite poor.
Private, quiet faith is one thing. But when the guy holding the launch codes believes the end of the world could come any day and that's a good thing, those who believe lives are limited to one per customer have a problem.
Again, since when are car bombers and president's representatives for all 'believers'? I suppose atheists are too busy helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and caring for the sick to enter into hellish games themselves too.
This frames the debate in a pleasingly symmetrical way. Over on that side are the insane religious fanatics who fly jets into skyscrapers and march around with signs saying "God Hates Fags." Over there are fanatical atheists. Between the two extremes are sensible moderates who take the Goldilocks approach to faith and reason. Not too hot. Not too cold. Lukewarm, please, keep it lukewarm.
Did you just compare a sign to a hjacked plane? Well, I do agree both are equally intolerant. However, I disagree that within the lukewarm approach faith and reason are diametrically opposed. Reason does not have all the answers. Reason is not the solution to all. In fact, reason rooted in foundationalism is eroding with the rise of post-modernism. All of a sudden it is faith and experience that permeate our core, not what reason can divulge.
The reason we cannot stand and proclaim reason to be the trump card to our disagreement/agreements is because the whole process of 'reasoning' is deeply rooted in the individual. You see and believe through your own 'lens' of understanding (like you haven't heard that before) that is completely and uniquely your own. Does that mean there are no fundamental items to fall back upon? Does that mean nothing exists other than what you personally believe in? On one hand perhaps, but I'll readily note gravity still holds my chair as I type.
The first problem for the moderate believer comes from those who like their faith hot. You've agreed God exists and that He mucks about in the world. You've agreed this book contains His holy commandments. So how do you respond when the mad religious zealot says, "hey, here on page 23, it says we should slice open unbelievers and use their guts for garters. And over here on page 75, it says we should bury homosexuals up to their necks and stuff olives up their noses. If God exists and these are his holy commandments, then shouldn't we get serious about the gutting and stuffing?"
Gutting and stuffing? Sad, sad stuff my friend. Those people represent themselves. If you don't believe me then I guess I'll conclude all criminals who are atheists means all atheists are criminals.
Well, it goes something like this: If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.
That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.
Oh man, this is a childish argument. Is it yours? You just threw reason out the window! Prove that a mother loves her child. If you can't show me evidence that I can examine than you are a foolish and gullible person for believing she does. (And to anybody who says that everything is a chemical reaction you are certainly male, have never had a kid, and need to walk up to your own mother and tell her everything is/was chemicals. Let me know how it goes.)
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.
??? What? Prove that something, nothing, 'that thing', happened 3 whatever-illion years ago that to make us today. In fact, I'll go one up, prove it in its entirety. The difference between atheism and a belief in a creator (in some form of the process) is one has 'some hand waving' and the other has none. I suppose your reason and evidence prove all sorts of things.
By the way, before anybody starts getting huffy about the creation v evolution debate save your time. What say we to the person who adopts the 'evidence' in big bang (is that what we call it now?) but still says a big wavy hand started the whole process. Oh wait, totally forgot, you can disprove that too with incredible reason.
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit.
This is completely contrary to how we live the rest of our lives. We demand proof of even trivial claims ("John was the main creative force behind Sergeant Pepper") and we dismiss those who make such claims without proof. We are still more demanding when claims are made on matters that are at least temporarily important ("Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" being a notorious example).
If anything we're becoming more skeptical of 'proof' (case in point your Saddam example and half of America). My goodness, you place so much credence in 'proof' and 'reason' that it borders along faith! Modernism and it's rationalism are on the way out. Don't be surprised if more people start wondering, 'what about that supposed proof?'
So isn't it odd that when claims are made about matters as important as the nature of existence and our place in it we suddenly drop all expectation of proof and we respect those who make and believe claims without the slightest evidence? Why is it perfectly reasonable to roll my eyes when someone makes the bald assertion that Ringo was the greatest Beatle but it is "fundamentalist" and "fanatical" to say that, absent evidence, it is absurd to believe Muhammad was not lying or hallucinating when he claimed to have long chats with God?
I dunno, talk to a Muslim and see what he says. Again, I don't think you can proclaim that your reason and intellect somehow trumps the fundamental beliefs of another.
Of course I realize that by asking this question I may be contributing to mass depravity and a crisis of civilization. But I thought I'd risk it. That's just the kind of fanatic I am.
We are all depraved Dan 
It should also be obvious from this that the supposed link between Dawkinsian atheism and Stalinist butchery is pure nonsense. Yes, Stalin did not believe in God. But he believed in History, Marxism, Leninism and all sorts of Hegelian mumbo-jumbo for which he had not the slightest evidence.
Ah yes, history, another victim of postmodernity.
He was not a religious man, but he most certainly was a man of faith.
Something tells me that rooted behind your reason and intellect there lies a man of faith as well. Faith in something, anything, even nothing, but faith nonetheless.
Popularity: 91%
If you found this page useful, consider linking to it.
Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site (Ctrl+C to copy)
| 
Stumble it!
Ajax said,
May 9, 2007 @ 12:11 am
"In fact, reason rooted in foundationalism is eroding with the rise of post-modernism. All of a sudden it is faith and experience that permeate our core, not what reason can divulge."
Yes, much ill has come of "reason" (eugenics, soviet communism come to mind) but only when fanaticism steps in the way of skepticism. It is SKEPTICISM that makes the rational/scientific process so powerful - never take something as true because you're told so. Faith sounds benign enough, and in practice we're forced to accept some things on faith, but where does the faith come from? Typically from what others tell us to believe. But who told them what to believe? It's turtles all the way down!
(And yes, experience can be quite valuable. Say, feeling the power of God. But it's impossible to throw out the explanation that these feelings are shaped by what we've been told. A Christian, a Buddhist and an Atheist may have radically different responses to the same experience, each feeling that the experience reinforces their existing understandings of the universe.)
And for the record, I'm devoutly agnostic (skeptical of any supernatural/metaphysical claims of a religion, but open to the idea [and in fact convinced] that all of the world's religions have important lessons to teach us).
ro said,
May 9, 2007 @ 8:57 am
Thanks for your input Ajax. Skepticism is certainly a welcomed attribute. I would suggest that it's still possible within the 'faith' realm. In fact, there is even reason within faith. Furthermore, when we tackle experience and faith, here skepticism may exist, but it's hard to divorce yourself from personal experiences. Nobody can come into your face and say you're wrong. (This can be a good or bad thing.)
I'm curious about your agnosticism. Why do you pick and choose what's good for 'you' from religions that are themselves mutually exclusive? I'm honestly interested, thanks
Kathryn said,
May 9, 2007 @ 11:17 am
It sounds like someone's had a bad day (I'm referring to the article and its writer here). This guy, Dan, comes across as rather intolerant and begrudging to me. I don't even know who he's writing to - he's ranting. To whom, I'm not sure.
"That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package." I don't think he even knows what he's talking about. This guy is all over the map. He's talking about ideals and theories and fanatics and history and news and who knows where he's going or what he's going to do once he gets there.
And when did Marxism become a faith?
Pockets said,
May 10, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
I rofled at this one. Seriously guys, on the floor laughing. At first I was confused then I saw the "Blog Categories" and it all made sense.
ro said,
May 11, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Brilliant, thank goodness the world has brilliant people who make resounding comments like you.
Pockets said,
May 12, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
I just can't take this thing seriously enough to make an argument, all I can do is assure you how heartily I laughed.
chad said,
May 13, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
I don't get people who think they're better than others.... At least engage in some brief dialogue. Obviously you're nerdy enough to cruise around looking for blogs to post quick quips about so it shouldn't be too hard.
Pockets said,
May 16, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
"I don't get people who think they're better than others.... At least engage in some brief dialogue."
From point A to point B with nothing in between! I love how you just assume I hold myself higher than others when I didn't even post a "brief dialogue." The reason I didn't want to post is because this article is ridiculous, and does not require an argument to prove how mistaken the author is. Additionally I love how you assume I search the internet for blogs just so I can drop a one-liner on them all. Just to let you in on the secret, I frequent the website Digg.com and this article (or maybe one linking to it?) was posted on there recently.
Finally, just so that I have some reference to the article at hand:
"Gutting and stuffing? Sad, sad stuff my friend. Those people represent themselves. If you don't believe me then I guess I'll conclude all criminals who are atheists means all atheists are criminals."
The argument being made was that some people claim to believe in god, but choose not to follow all of his commands. Also that the people who do follow all of his commands would be willing to do such terrible things. Concluding that all atheists are bad because one atheist is bad is very different, because there is no higher power directing atheists to be bad, but which some of us choose to ignore.
"My goodness, you place so much credence in 'proof' and 'reason' that it borders along faith!"
We have faith in proof and reason because they have proven themselves to be reliable. For example, what if we were making wine and each chose two separate methods. You chose to invoke your god to turn some water into wine. I chose to ferment grapes and blah blah blah (I don't even know how to make wine). You had faith your idea would work because Jesus did it. I had faith my way would work because it does, and it has been proven.
"Oh man, this is a childish argument. Is it yours? You just threw reason out the window! Prove that a mother loves her child. If you can't show me evidence that I can examine than you are a foolish and gullible person for believing she does."
Well generally you can tell a mother loves her child by all of the nice things she will do for them, and possibly from all the years she is willing to devote to the child. That's just common sense, not to mention its probably coded into human instincts.
Well shucks look what I did. I only meant to debunk one of these points to counterbalance my rebuttal to chad. Seems I've gone farther than intended, how's that for "some brief dialogue."
ro said,
May 17, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Hey thanks for the thoughts, I don't want to come across as attacking cause I'd rather the 'dialogue'
I'll work backwards in my comments. I can tell you either don't have kids or are not a mother. I really don't think you'd ever say a mother's love is completely coded in human instincts. I personally wouldn't tell any mom that!
Post-modernism to me is merely noting changes going. I would never discard reason, not a chance, I have a degree in Economics.... But within economics I know two things. A) You can describe economic activities with formulas and maths (follows logic and reason,) but B) You can't describe other things like consumer confidence, how people feel.
Descartes tried find a foundational form of reason--he wanted to devoid himself of all outer influences so he could 'reason' at the ultimate level. Unfortunately, he never succeeded, why? Everyone is influenced and can't escape their influences. Hence the argument in postmodernity of 'why reason'? What makes one form better than another?
I wrote the article in a sleepy haze mainly to provide some form of alternative to what I thought was a bash against all of Christendom.... stop labeling me a fundamentalist when I'm not one! (At least I don' think so :D)
Dave said,
June 11, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
Have you watched The Hour lately?? Yeah I know it's George on CBC, neither of which I previously took seriously. But he has had a host of interesting people on the show over the past two weeks, including Richard Dawkins (Maybe the world's most famous athiest), Chris Hedges and Alistar McGrath.
ro said,
June 12, 2007 @ 8:43 am
Yea he's ok that George Snufalufagus. Thing with Atheists is they need to provide some evidence/proof for their claims--haven't heard any good ones.
Trent said,
November 14, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
What was the point of this fatuous "rebuttal"? It was just a long, drawn-out "I disagree!" If you have something of substance to say, say it. If not, don't bother posting anything at all.
I find it hard to take someone seriously when they "rebut" arguments they themselves made up. You can't even attempt to rebut an argument until you've taken the time to actually understand it.
ro said,
November 15, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Thanks for you rebuttal. And yes we can post anything we want since it's our blog. But we'll put 'thoughts' to the title to aid in your consternation. BTW, it's a commentary on the article, not the book. I find it hard to take someone seriously when all they do is complain about other people without making an argument. (Which you can write out if you want and we'll post it here.)
Trent said,
November 15, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
My hot frustration (which I apologize for) stems from your criticism of Dan Gardner's arguments *without actually understanding what he is saying*. I am baffled as to why you think Gardner wrote that "car bombers and president's representatives for all 'believers'". Is it because you consider your concept of the arguments that someone who rejects Christianity and Islam surely must make is sufficient for forming counterarguments?
You can't be blamed for not having read the recent objections to dogmatism, written by the "fanatical atheists" who are the subject of Gardner's article. What is the "New Atheism Movement"? Well, you're right when you say it's no different than "the old atheism." It's simply a term coined to (inaccurately) describe the recent success of books that criticize the world's various religions. The term "New Atheism" might have been invented by Gary Wolf in a 2006 article in Wired (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html), but no one's quite sure. The "New Atheist" meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme) just sort of crept in. Unlike the Brights' Movement (see http://tinyurl.com/yk8grs), it isn't a conscious effort to name non-religious people. I don't like the term "New Atheism" because it's a) nonsensical and b) automatically gives people the wrong ideas.
Nonetheless, the zeitgeist seems to be shifting. Here's a brief list of recent bestsellers:
The End of Faith by Sam Harris (published 2004 -- Harris started writing on September 12, 2001)
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett (published 2006 -- Dennett also wrote the successful 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which I thought of when I read "everything is/was chemicals" and "big wavy hand")
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (published 2006 -- sold over 1.25 million copies in its first year, was on the New York Times bestseller list for 51 weeks -- Dawkins also wrote the successful 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker)
Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris (published 2006)
God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens (published 2007)
God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor J. Stenger (published 2007)
See also: http://www.amazon.com/Top-Atheist-Books/lm/R1QQU6NEXE8GMO, http://richarddawkins.net/books, and http://www.samharris.org/site/book_category_reading_list/C36/.
Then there's also Richard Dawkins' film Root of All Evil? from January 2007, Julia Sweeney's upcoming film Letting Go of God, and Bill Maher's upcoming Religulous. You can find some excellent articles on richarddawkins.net, samharris.org, and buildupthatwall.com. On richarddawkins.net, there's also a section called "Debate Points" which includes "You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God": http://tinyurl.com/2wqyfd
I especially recommend this article: http://tinyurl.com/yv2dc6
Hope that helps!
ro said,
November 19, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
My impression is that Gardner is comparing extremes of two mutually exclusive religious beliefs and treating them as representative of all of that particular religion. I don't see how he wasn't making that inference.
I haven't had time yet to review the rest of your post and hope to soon.
Trent said,
November 19, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
"My impression is that Gardner is comparing extremes of two mutually exclusive religious beliefs and treating them as representative of all of that particular religion." Dan Gardner isn't that stupid. Neither are writers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
Here's an article that was recently published in the Ottawa Citizen: For the glory of God by Dan Gardner (http://tinyurl.com/2d2tvo).
ro said,
November 19, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
I would doubt he is but that's what the article is communicating so that's what people read and understand. Doesn't matter what he believes in 'real life', he's reporting to the masses and is mindful of that.
Trent said,
November 19, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
From "Those fanatical atheists": "[Moderate religion] is neither faithful nor reasonable. Still, as a practical matter, it will do in times of religious quiescence. But with religious zealotry in the ascendant, this non-answer is not going to keep the ranks of the nutters from swelling. And that's dangerous to us all."
That obviously implies that faith exists on a spectrum.
Lo and behold, he writes in "For the glory of God": "Faith exists on a spectrum." He continues to write: "At one end are atheists like Dawkins who say they'll take a look at whatever evidence anyone cares to offer but they will not believe that which is not proven. A little further over are the folks who may see valuable moral instruction in religion but whose sense of reality is similar to what was called "deism" in the 18th century: There exists a creator of things but rather than a bearded old man on a throne who smites unbelievers, he is more like -- to use the classic metaphor -- the watchmaker who set his creation in motion and does not interfere with its operation.
Atheists don't agree with deists, but Dawkins and the other new atheists have almost nothing to say about them. A god who does not intervene in the world does not write books -- not even with the help of ghost writers -- and cannot inspire mischief.
Further along the spectrum, we come to the many variations of an interventionist God. In moderate form, it typically involves a vague belief that God somehow inspired the Bible -- although not the nasty bits about killing homosexuals, enslaving enemies, punishing sons for the sins of their fathers, or anything else that grates on the sensibilities of the moment. Miracles are possible, in this view, but only in the distant past -- thus avoiding blatant contradiction between scientific observation and faith in the present.
And finally, there is the muscular version of the interventionist God, the one who penned the Bible -- or the Koran, if you prefer -- and who delights in fiddling with the world in ways that defy all reason. In a side street next to the hole in the ground that was the Twin Towers, there is a monument to this brand of faith."
He also cites statistics that show that fundamentalists constitute over half of the American electorate.
Curtis said,
April 3, 2008 @ 7:58 am
All your rebuttals are invalid, what makes athiesm better than beleiving is logic, you can argue that god gave us logic and freewill, but that is like argueing that unicorns exist, you can tell me all day that they exist, but if they aren't in some tangeble form what does logic tell you? No they don't. You can't disprove a negative.
chas said,
April 3, 2008 @ 9:11 am
What makes your logic views better than someone else's? People like you need to stop elevating your North American 'logics' over the beliefs and faiths of the world. It's just plain arrogant. And we don't believe in unicorns not because of logic but because there's no evidence for them.