You Wanna Talk Bigotry, Mr. and Ms. Christian?
By Mona
So, a featured item at memorandum is a Gallup poll that headlines the percentage of voters in both major parties who would not vote for a Mormon. While I deplore the relatively small amount of religious bigotry the poll demonstrates to exist against Mormons, please note what one finds if one clicks through the rest of the poll questions. I am so effing tired of listening to the Christian right whine about how picked on they are; the same poll shows that it is we atheists who experience — by large margins — the overwhelmingly greatest levels of bigotry, even unto being more hated than teh gheys:
« « The Good News from Iraq – for the Blast Wall Industry | Main | Saving the planet, one innovative Christmas tree at a time » »
Comment by TGGP —
December 11, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
I just don’t tell people I’m an atheist and I get no discrimination. It’s not like I have to sneak off to some worship service or invent a top-spinning game. In practice atheists don’t really face any problems, so quit whining.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
I know, why can’t the rest of you just get back in the closet?
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
TGGP: Yeah, if you are any other atheist wants to run for office and questions of your/his/her religious views arise (like if, for example, they have ever admitted to lacking a belief in any god), s/he should lie. S/he should go to church/synagogue to beard themselves. Cuz otherwise more than half the population won’t vote for them.
Pointing that out is a mere whine.
Comment by josephdietrich —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Shorter TGGP: I can hide the fact that I’m a
Jewatheist so I’ve got nothing to be worried about.Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
Mona, why do you call it ‘bigotry’? The atheist has freely chosen to adopt a position many people find repugnant — why isn’t that a perfectly valid reason to reject them as a candidate?
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Atheists are still more distrusted than Muslims, aren’t they? And us disbelieving folk (as I doubt this poll distinguishes between atheists, agnostics, skeptics, etc.) don’t even have to go to the trouble of terrorism!
Ha! Beat that, Mormons. You can’t be half as distrusted as us – even with underwear and the alcohol and coffee hang-ups! – as we are doing damn near nothing.
(Well, there’s Dawkins, but I think 99% of his name recognition is online. )
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
That was a quick answer.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Gene Callahan:
Comment by Brian —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
not to forget the good ol’ “No religious test” requirement of the Constitution.
Comment by matthew hogan —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
“And us disbelieving folk . . . don’t even have to go to the trouble of terrorism! . . . You can’t be half as distrusted as us – . . . [and] we are doing damn near nothing.”
Well, um,. . . there is that Communism thing.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
That is — and should be — merely a prohibition on the state. Individuals are and should be free to hate [X religion or non-religion] and vote accordingly.
But just as the KKK has free speech rights even when much of the speech is vile, refusing to vote for a Mormon or atheist per se is bigoted and unenlightened.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
The religious test clause means there’s no legal bar if you win election. It doesn’t mean voters can’t take religion into account.
The problem with this poll is that it asks people to judge based on categories alone. Most people are going to be more comfortable with those who share more of their philosophical assumptions: God’s existence being a rather large one. These results aren’t all that surprising, and I don’t think they’re tantamount to bigotry.
A better question would be to quiz Christian liberals and conservatives whether they would vote for the atheist who agrees with them politically or the co-religionist who doesn’t.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Oops. I didn’t read the poll carefully. It does include a partisan slant, but I think the wording is still a bit vague. Specific issues should be included, IMHO.
Comment by Doug —
December 11, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Mona,
If your argument is that the “Christian Right” should not complain because Atheists are less desired for President, perhaps you should produce a comparison that includes “Christian Right” as a category for comparison. Why don’t you just replace “Christian Right” with “Blacks” in your post then we can make a comparison using the categories in your provided example.
Further, Look at the trends since Gallup has been asking this question. If you want to use this question to define bigotry against a class it looks like the US has been getting a lot less bigoted the last couple of decades. It looks like great progress has been made.
Thanks for the pointer.
Comment by ajay —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Most people are going to be more comfortable with those who share more of their philosophical assumptions: God’s existence being a rather large one. These results aren’t all that surprising, and I don’t think they’re tantamount to bigotry.
For “most people” read “most Americans”; I very much doubt that you’d see the same ordering in a poll of voters in, say, Britain. I’d guess higher numbers against “gay” and “Catholic”, but much lower against “atheist”.
It’s interesting, of course, that “atheist” is the only group of those listed about which prominent American politicians feel safe saying things like “not real Americans, shouldn’t be trusted, not moral, not patriotic”.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
For “most people†read “most Americans 
Actually, most people is correct if you really want to expand the scope of the question. There is a world beyond Europe.
Comment by Walt —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
How do you know that’s true, Derek? (I mean the first sentence, not the second.) I can believe that being an atheist might hurt you politically in Latin America, but Africa? China? Southeast Asia?
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
I can believe that being an atheist might hurt you politically in Latin America, but Africa?
You’re kidding, right? Africa’s one of the most religious places around. I think you’d be better off as an atheist in Latin America–which has a history of anti-clericism–than Africa.
China? Southeast Asia?
China and Japan might be different. I wouldn’t bet on Southeast Asia. You’re talking large Muslim and Christian populations there, along with Hindus. The Buddhists there aren’t exactly non-theistic either. Some Buddhists are, but not all.
National Geographic published a “belief map” recently. Non-believers were a minority in every region. How big a minority varied, but they remained a minority nonetheless.
Mind you, I say this as an unbeliever myself.
Comment by TGGP —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
I hold very low opinions of some people because of their religious beliefs. It would be rather hypocritical of me to be upset that they felt likewise of my lack of belief. I think that holds for a wide range of different kinds of belief, of which the religious ones are only a subset.
I have little sympathy for people who want to run for public office. Public officials are our native criminal class. If you’ve got a problem with the idiotic preferences of the electorate, your problem is with democracy. Rather than complaining about how in practice it’s not the utopia its defenders make it out to be strike the root by attacking the idea that “the people” make a perfect government.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:37 pm
Derek says:
Then why not accept as non-bigoted Catholics who won’t vote for the believers in the “wrong” god like protestants, or all the Xians who won’t vote for Jews, Muslims or theistic Buddhists? The poll questions asks about a “generally well-qualified candidate” who happens to be [all the beliefs listed, including "atheist]. Atheist is the only category for which a majority would not vote for a “well-qualified candidate.”
Wassup with that that makes any civic sense?
What is reasonable or not bigoted about that?
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Then why not accept as non-bigoted Catholics who won’t vote for the believers in the “wrong†god like protestants, or all the Xians who won’t vote for Jews, Muslims or theistic Buddhists?
Primarily because today a lot of the burning issues we face don’t really turn on these differences between these groups. First, many have better defined their faith’s role vs. other faiths. You have a lot of interfaith dialogue going on AND there have been theological changes, such as Vatican 2. Once upon a time, the Pope DID interfere in politics in a heavy way, and he did try to undo Protestant governments. Those days are gone, and pretty much everyone outside the SSPX knows it.
Next, the BIG issue underlying a lot of debates is whether life has a purpose beyond this world or if it doesn’t. Compared to that question, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary and your view on confession and transubstantiation takes a something of a back seat.
And to take exception with the list, let me point out, I’d say voting for a Muslim would be a dodgy issue for me. If you want to call me bigoted for that, feel free, I don’t really care.
Finally, someone who gets worked up about bigotry ought to reconsider using “Xian” when she has no problem spelling out every other religion’s name in full.
(Yes, I’m aware of the Chi thing. Still, it annoys Christians, and the only atheists who use it do so for that reason.)
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Wassup with that that makes any civic sense?
The job of president is more than just a 9-to-5 position. The man occupying the Oval Office is seen as the First Citizen. He sets the tone, both officially and unofficially. True, we haven’t exactly been picking winners for a while, but there it is.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Nonsense. Xian, Xtian, Xst, Xtopher & etc. have been used by Xians for millennia (including in church baptismal and burial records), and I picked it up from a Xian who used it as shorthand on the blackboard in my New Testament class as an undergrad.
As for the rest of your comment, it is incoherent as a “non-bigotry” defense of one group of religionists who won’t vote for a member of another group, when the question asked specifies that the candidate is “generally well-qualified.”
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Nonsense. Xian, Xtian, Xst, Xtopher & etc. have been used by Xians for millennia (including in church baptismal and burial records)…
You can bullshit the fans, Mona, but not the players. You know very well a lot of Christians resent it. Why on earth should they vote for someone like you who tweaks them when she can?
As for the rest of your comment, it is incoherent as a “non-bigotry†defense of one group of religionists who won’t vote for a member of another group, when the question asked specifies that the candidate is “generally well-qualified.â€
That’s because you’ve either failed to really absorb the full implications of your atheism or how others perceive it. There’s a huge gulf between disbelief and shades of different belief, and that’s important to people when they’re selection someone to act as their First Citizen.
Comment by Hesiod —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
What about a black, gay, athiest? I guess James Baldwin would be screwed.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Derek, this is sheer bunk:
Have you any experience in genealogy? Or course syllabi in theology/religious studies? If so, you would find Xian, Xtian, Xst & etc. all over the place. Anyone who seriously has any issue with that is on the same level as those who think there is a “War on Christmas.”
If you have a problem with me on that score, then you also have one with rectors of Xian churches going back hundreds and hundreds of years.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
A lot of Christians resent “Happy Holidays”. That doesn’t make it an anti-Christian slogan.
Mona points out people expressing their distrust of atheists and considers it unjust. Your “First Citizen” counter-argument is that…people don’t trust atheists, and Mona needs to wake up to that.
WTF?
Comment by Thoreau —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
That’s because you’ve either failed to really absorb the full implications of your atheism or how others perceive it.
Derek, it strikes me that your general idea on how believers should/must/will/whatever view non-believers is similar to how you think Muslims must view non-Muslims.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Just googled at random, Derek, here is a “page that contains some commonly used abbreviations and acronyms found when researching genealogy.” Which often involves church records.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
When the scariest thing about a belief system is an Oxford don repeating arguments that weren’t that exciting, for all their truth, in 1850, that’s a bit sad.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Agreed.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Derek’s just trolling, Mona. He’s got a hate-on, and nothing’s going to stop him. Least of all reason – that’s an atheist trick.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Or course syllabi in theology/religious studies? If so, you would find Xian, Xtian, Xst & etc. all over the place.
Actually, Mona, yeah, at St. Mary’s Seminary in Houston as part of my Masters with St. Thomas University. I took a course in Church History and on the Christian View of Human Nature. Beyond the “XC” you see on icons, I never saw anyone spelling “Christian” “Xtian” or any other variant.
Anyone who seriously has any issue with that is on the same level as those who think there is a “War on Christmas.â€
I don’t have an issue with it. But you seem to have issues with them while not bothering to care enough about their feelings to write out five letters.
…page that contains some commonly used abbreviations and acronyms found when researching genealogy.â€
That’s nice, and I already told you I’m aware of the use of Chi. However, in common usage it’s seen as offensive. It doesn’t matter to me if want to do it, but don’t complain about others’ insensitivity when you do.
Here’s a Usenet FAQ that points this issue out (including your take)? However, I hardly think it necessary to point all this out as I damned sure you’re well aware of it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Your “First Citizen†counter-argument is that…people don’t trust atheists, and Mona needs to wake up to that.
No. It’s not a matter of trust. It’s a matter of making a statement. When we elect a president, we’re not electing an accountant. We’re electing a person who represents the people of the nation, their beliefs and their values. It says something about the nation at large, and belief or disbelief in God is one damned big issue on that score.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
Derek claims:
1. Which god(s) does a candidate’s belief or disbelief in say anything about the nation if s/he wins; and
2. What is it that is said?
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Derek, it strikes me that your general idea on how believers should/must/will/whatever view non-believers is similar to how you think Muslims must view non-Muslims.
You’re right, T.
I take people’s belief systems seriously. When they accept certain things as givens, it has an impact on their life.
When they say Book X is holy and comes from God, it means they’re saying commandments in that book are binding on them. The greater their religiosity, the more binding those commandments become.
If you have no belief in the supernatural, then you get to act as your own god. You make the rules for yourself to the extent you can get away with it.
Many people still haven’t really got it because they’re on cruise control, relying on the mores of past ages. But as belief goes, those mores are fading, and rules are being rewritten. That’s a disturbing thought to a lot of people, and it probably should be disturbing.
Of course, I’m not exactly the first person to say these things either. You can find a whole hell of a lot smarter people, like Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche, making the same points.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
1. Which god(s) does a candidate’s belief or disbelief in say anything about the nation if s/he wins; and..
For the U.S. it’s largely an affirmation of the god from Judeo-Christian tradition, and that it’s still the regnant moral framework. That’ll probably change after while.
2. What is it that is said?
That we remain “one nation under God.” That when we die we’re going to answer for our actions, so what we do in this world will have lasting meaning.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
I’m a Catholic, but I don’t really care what a candidate’s stated faith is. The ones who talk the most about their faith always seem to think that the Pharisees were the good guys in the Gospels.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
I take people’s belief systems seriously. When they accept certain things as givens, it has an impact on their life.
When they say Book X is holy and comes from God, it means they’re saying commandments in that book are binding on them. The greater their religiosity, the more binding those commandments become.
Except that there are lots of different interpretations of Book X. It does no good for somebody who doesn’t even believe in Book X to come up with his own interpretation (or choose the craziest interpretation that somebody else offers) and then insist that everybody who professes believe in Book X must accept that particular interpretation.
I mean, sure, you could insist that, but you’ll gain very little insight into the people who profess belief in Book X, and any decisions that you make based on that lack of insight will probably be bad ones.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Least of all reason – that’s an atheist trick.
Troll, reason with thyself. I am an unbeliever. Are you saying there are no differences between a theistic and an atheistic world view? That doesn’t seem like a very rational position to me.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
Derek, I don’t have time for a detailed criticism of your argument that `we’re on cruise control’ from earlier ages religiosity right now. I’ll just say it’s a left over attempt to justify functionalist descriptions of religion even after it has become apparent that religion’s social functions are perfectly duplicable by irreligious eans.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
Except that there are lots of different interpretations of Book X.
Yes, you always have groups of dissenters, but for them to be taken seriously, they need to represent a serious portion of the population.
Let’s take Islam’s view on apostasy. All four Bunni schools and the Shia say it’s punishable by death. That means about 95% or so of Muslims fall under an interpretation of Islamic belief that diametrically opposed to our system.
Now, not all Muslims want to kill apostates you say. True, but only to the extent that they are non-religious. When they take their religious seriously, this view on apostasy comes into play.
It does no good for somebody who doesn’t even believe in Book X to come up with his own interpretation (or choose the craziest interpretation that somebody else offers) and then insist that everybody who professes believe in Book X must accept that particular interpretation.
But, Thoreau, these are not my interpretations. These are interpretations from the leading theologians in the religion. These theologians that are still viewed as authoritative on these matters.
Maybe this will change down the road, and people like Al-Ghazali will be given the same treatment as St. Thomas Aquinas: Good on metaphysics, bad on civil rights. However, until that day, I have to go with what they say.
I mean, sure, you could insist that, but you’ll gain very little insight into the people who profess belief in Book X, and any decisions that you make based on that lack of insight will probably be bad ones.
With respect, perhaps you’re the one pushing your view on them. You cited your colleagues as examples. I know a few Muslim professors, too, who aren’t into religion. However, they represent a rather small and sometimes irreligious part of the demographic.
Hopefully, some day they’ll be the majority, but that day isn’t here yet.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 11, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Now, not all Muslims want to kill apostates you say. True, but only to the extent that they are non-religious.
No, a lack of desire to kill apostates means that they deviate from one form of the religion. Whatever it is that these non-killers believe (not just pay lip service to, but actually believe, as evidenced by what they do and what they choose to refrain from doing) is itself a belief system, one related to but still distinct from the versions of Islam.
It may not have the sanctions of whatever clergy you cite, but it is nonetheless a belief system that these people subscribe to. And since it is a belief system tied to supernatural beliefs and (one particular) interpretation of a sacred text, it seems reasonable to call it a religion.
Comment by Mona —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Derek: How did we survive this Founder and president?:
Comment by Doug —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Here Mona, let me help:
You Wanna Talk Bigotry, Mr. and Ms. Black Person?
So, a featured item at memorandum is a Gallup poll that headlines the percentage of voters in both major parties who would not vote for a Mormon. While I deplore the relatively small amount of religious bigotry the poll demonstrates to exist against Mormons, please note what one finds if one clicks through the rest of the poll questions. I am so effing tired of listening to the Blacks whine about how picked on they are; the same poll shows that it is we atheists who experience — by large margins — the overwhelmingly greatest levels of bigotry, even unto being more hated than teh gheys:
Note that in the sampling before 1971 the Gallup question referred to Negro’s and not Blacks so using a historical usage basis, along the lines of your Xtian argument you’d be perfectly justified replacing Negro for Black.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
I’ll just say it’s a left over attempt to justify functionalist descriptions of religion even after it has become apparent that religion’s social functions are perfectly duplicable by irreligious eans.
No, I disagree. I don’t think it’s apparent at all. I don’t see a secular alternative to the positive morality and social glue promoted by religion.
You can keep people from committing crimes with the state (to some degree), but you can’t use the state to make them love each other, or make sustaining sacrifices for each other. I know a number of irreligious alternatives have been tried, but none I know of has taken off. People like Daniel Dennett have even gone so far as to suggest coming up with some sort of atheistic taboos and sacred values (however that will work).
In Darwinian terms, irreligion isn’t exactly being selected for, either (ironic, isn’t it?) Yes, this is a process and may change in the future, but for now the more religious are outproducing the more irreligious.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Given that Muslims who don’t want to kill apostates don’t see it as falling away from an ideal, but as a consistent part of their religion, then calling it irreligion is misusing the word.
Muslims who act contrary to their understanding of Islam are irreligious. Muslims who differ on interpretation are merely differently religious.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Derek: How did we survive this Founder and president?
First, I never said it was a matter of survival for the country. I’m only answering why believers don’t want a non-believer in the Oval Office.
Secondly, Jefferson didn’t go around saying things like that in public. In fact, during his campaign (IIRC), he had to insist on his belief in the existence of a God.
There are other non-believing presidents in our history. Lincoln is a prime example, but he made sure to use religious language and affirm his people’s beliefs.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Given that Muslims who don’t want to kill apostates don’t see it as falling away from an ideal, but as a consistent part of their religion, then calling it irreligion is misusing the word.
That they refuse to adhere to tenets of their faith means they’re chasing after another ideal, not the one put out by their own faith’s founder and later interpreters. That’s very definition of being irreligious.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Derek, maybe what you can’t imagine is a function of yourself, not society?
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Note that in the sampling before 1971 the Gallup question referred to Negro’s and not Blacks so using a historical usage basis, along the lines of your Xtian argument you’d be perfectly justified replacing Negro for Black.
If you were apostrophizing “Negro”, then yes. That’s not what she’s doing with “Xtian.”
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Derek, maybe what you can’t imagine is a function of yourself, not society?
Prove it.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
Sorry, Doug. I missed your point on the first run through.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Muslims who act contrary to their understanding of Islam are irreligious.
Again, all four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence command death for unbelievers. The same goes for the Shia. It’s not very hard to understand, Jean, and it’s very common knowledge.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:24 pm
It may not have the sanctions of whatever clergy you cite…
I’m not citing the local imam, Thoreau. I’m citing their canon, a canon that’s enforced throughout the Muslim World in one form or another.
Comment by Jean —
December 11, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
To Derek @ 49: no, it isn’t the very definition of irreligious. There is no singular definition of irreligion.
But that’s not the main point. What you just don’t get is how full of it you look. You don’t get to define Islam. In fact, you’re engaging in an act of breathtaking arrogance, asserting the right to split the sheep from the goats. I look forward to your decision on which branch of Christianity is correct. Will it the Copts? The Russian Orthodox? The Roman Catholic? The Quakers?
Given that if you don’t adhere to the principles of the founder of the religion you’re irreligious, and that those groups make mutually contradictory claims about those principles, they can’t all be religious. So who’s it going to be that gets the blessing of orthodoxy?
Is there anyone else here who doesn’t think this is a fvcking stupid way of determining religiosity?
While there are many definitions of both irreligion and religion, under most of them, the Muslims that you claim to be irreligious are religious.
Also `muslim world’? There’s only one world. You can’t pretend that Muslims only live on Mars.
Derek, what you’re doing is the equivalent of me saying that Luther is religious, and you responding, no, he’s not, look, the Pope says he’s wrong.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 11, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
Look, Derek, you can call the non-violent self-described Muslims whatever you want. But the bottom line is that they’re good people who have religious beliefs. Their beliefs may not be in accordance with what certain clergy say, but they are nonetheless religious beliefs of some sort.
Here’s what I’ve always wondered about the non-Muslims who go on the internet and argue that Muslims are required to do all sorts of violent shit: What would happen if Derek actually won the argument? What if he actually managed to persuade a Muslim that this is what his faith requires?
Derek, do you really want to win that argument? Do you really want Muslims to understand Islam the way you think you do?
Comment by matthew hogan —
December 11, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
“Now, not all Muslims want to kill apostates you say. True, but only to the extent that they are non-religious. When they take their religious seriously, this view on apostasy comes into play.”
Actually, this rather otherwise conservative dopily reactionary standard Sunni teacher from the main Islamic academic place el-Azhar, and who is famous for being yelled at (right there!) by secularist Wafa Sultan, says that apostates are not even to be mildly harmed (search “apostas”):
http://aqoul.com/images/wafa_sultan.pdf
I realize you are trying to say that people are driven by ideas, they aren’t. (It’s the fundamental error you are making). Religion is poetry with a playbook; people rarely embrace it for the playbook even if many do try to follow it. Trouble is, there’s many playbooks and many coaches attached to the same poet.
Are Reform Jews not really religious Jews because many believe in FIGHTING the stoning, or even the mildest exclusion or persecution, of adulterers and homosexuals and idolaters, despite divine canons to do so?
In the end, the doctrines are neither as important nor as rigid as you claim.
Even the Roman Catholic church, with the weight of infallibility and tradition and Scripture, has few if any moral dogmas (teachings and rules, yes).
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:24 am
I look forward to your decision on which branch of Christianity is correct. Will it the Copts? The Russian Orthodox? The Roman Catholic? The Quakers?
None, IMO. But you can’t deny transubstantiation and still be a Catholic. There are ground rules with these sects.
Also `muslim world’? There’s only one world. You can’t pretend that Muslims only live on Mars.
I hardly invented the term. It doesn’t mean separate planets, as you well know. It describes different world views.
Derek, what you’re doing is the equivalent of me saying that Luther is religious, and you responding, no, he’s not, look, the Pope says he’s wrong.
Luther didn’t pretend to be a Catholic, at least in his later years.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:26 am
What would happen if Derek actually won the argument? What if he actually managed to persuade a Muslim that this is what his faith requires?
One would hope he’d dump his religion.
Derek, do you really want to win that argument? Do you really want Muslims to understand Islam the way you think you do?
This is like asking me if I want it to be true that the Earth goes around the Sun. It does, and my feelings one way or the other have nothing to do with it.
At any rate, what I’m describing is how the overwhelming majority of Muslims practice their faith.
Comment by Avram —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:27 am
Derek, your argument seems to amount to: Religious people have predictable beliefs (from their big old Book o’ Religion), but atheists are just making up whatever, so atheists might do any crazy thing, boogity-boogity-boo!
A few years back, on Usenet, I got into an argument with an obnoxious atheist who made the inverse of your argument: Atheists behave for rational reasons, but religious people claim to be getting orders from imaginary spirits, so they might do any crazy thing, boogity-boogity-boo!
I’d like to take the two of you and lock you up in a room together.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:31 am
Are Reform Jews not really religious Jews because many believe in FIGHTING the stoning, or even the mildest exclusion or persecution, of adulterers and homosexuals and idolaters, despite divine canons to do so?
Not really religious? I don’t know about that, but they are not practicing the same religion. Their current views were excommunicable a few centuries ago. They don’t keep kosher or segregate themselves to the degree that orthodox Jews do.
The fact is Catholics and other Christians are a lot less religious. In fact much of what they practice would be unrecognizable to Christians of a few decades ago.
You say Muslims will do the same thing? Sure, it’s possible, but considering the trouble and violence involved in our history, I don’t really want that fight brought over into our world.
Comment by Derek Copold —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:34 am
Derek, your argument seems to amount to: Religious people have predictable beliefs (from their big old Book o’ Religion),…
Well, that is why they keep a “big old Book o’ Religion”. It’s a guide.
but atheists are just making up whatever, so atheists might do any crazy thing…
No, I didn’t say they might do any crazy thing, only that they’re not tied to any transcendental system. That means they have to make up the rules for themselves, and let’s face it, some of them have gone to crazy extremes.
Comment by Jean —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:47 am
Luther said his positions were consistent with the tenets of Jesus Christ, and that the Pope’s weren’t. The Pope said Luther was wrong, and that the Pope’s positions were consistent with the tenets of Jesus Christ.
They can’t both be right. One (or both) must be going against Jesus’ tenets. According to you, then one (or both) of them aren’t really religious, because they’re going against the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by Jean —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:49 am
Um, Derek, have you met the Buddhists? They don’t have a transcendental system (not in the way you mean) and they get on ok…
Comment by TGGP —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Then why not accept as non-bigoted Catholics who won’t vote for the believers in the “wrong†god like protestants, or all the Xians who won’t vote for Jews, Muslims or theistic Buddhists?
I wouldn’t have any more problem with them than the base-level from them voting at all.
I have only read the term Xian from people who had a problem with them.
The ones who talk the most about their faith always seem to think that the Pharisees were the good guys in the Gospels.
They were, don’t be fooled by anti-judaism propaganda. Jesus himself was not of the Sadduccee faction but fits the model of a Pharisee rabbi.
I don’t know if some people got the impression that I’m jewish or of jewish background, but I was baptized Catholic, raised mainline Protestant and until I stopped believing in God and became a Stirnerite (hard to disentangle the two) I was theologically an ultra-calvinist somewhat like Fred Phelps, only more apathetic/quietist. Near the end my conception of God resembled nothing so much as H. P. Lovecraft’s Azathoth. I discussed that a bit more here.
Comment by Stevo Darkly —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:35 am
Hey, is it really that awful that “only” 46% of voters would vote for an atheist, and all of 48% would not?
I mean, in 1992 only 43% of voters were willing to vote for Bill Clinton and all of 57% would not. In 1996 only 49% of voters were willing to vote for him, and all of 51% would not. Does that mean that a Bill Clinton couldn’t get elected to office?
Comment by Thoreau —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:36 am
OK, fine, there’s only one true Islam. Everybody else who practices Islam without trying to kill me isn’t a Real Muslim. Can we just stipulate that they’re practicing some other religion, a religion that we can call “That Faith That Closely Resembles Real Islam”?
Then we could shorten the name of this other religion, the way nutritionists did with calories and kilocalories.
And, well, there you go: We can say that all the self-described Muslims who aren’t trying to kill me are indeed practicing a religion, just not the one that Derek upholds as the One True Islam.
Comment by not a linguist —
December 12, 2007 @ 4:46 am
This reads a lot like the “debate” between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics. Is a language(religion) what its speakers(adherents) in fact say(believe), or is it some codified ideal to which they can merely aspire to conform.
Of course it’s the former.
Comment by GinSlinger —
December 12, 2007 @ 5:49 am
YDNRC. No meaningful campaigning for president until the election of 1808. See: The Electoral College. “Campaigns” were largely carried out behind the secenes, and by third parties. In 1796, Adams and Jefferson virtually holed up in Braintree and Montecello, respectively, with Hamilton and Madison doing the real work.
Comment by ajay —
December 12, 2007 @ 6:53 am
When they say Book X is holy and comes from God, it means they’re saying commandments in that book are binding on them. The greater their religiosity, the more binding those commandments become.
If you have no belief in the supernatural, then you get to act as your own god. You make the rules for yourself to the extent you can get away with it.
Illogical. A religious person makes a conscious decision to follow one particular code of behaviour (if he’s brought up with it, he still makes a conscious decision to keep following it). And he chooses that code because he thinks it’s right – in other words, because it’s congruent with his own moral sense. Look at all the otherwise-devout Catholics who disagree with their church on divorce. Why? Because their own moral sense tells them that this particular part of the Catholic code is wrong. The sense of right doesn’t come from religion; it’s the reason why we pick one religion or another.
Now, atheists do exactly the same – they pick a code of behaviour according to their own moral sense.
Your argument only makes sense if you’re saying that religious people follow the teachings of their gods, not because they think the teachings are morally right, but simply out of fear. And I don’t think that’s the case.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 12, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Very cute with the ‘valid’ definition, Mona.
Let’s say I am faced with a Creationist candidate. Creationism doesn’t directly impact his job, perhaps, but surely the fact that he has reached such a confused conclusion on an issue like this should make me question his judgment, shouldn’t it?
And if I find atheism to be an exhibition of gross metaphysical confusion and ultimately destructive of our civilization, then wouldn’t that, perhaps, give me a reason to not vote for the athiest?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 12, 2007 @ 8:19 am
“You can keep people from committing crimes with the state (to some degree), but you can’t use the state to make them love each other, or make sustaining sacrifices for each other. I know a number of irreligious alternatives have been tried, but none I know of has taken off.”
And there’s a good reason — the irreligious versions are irrational. They have removed the floor of Western Civilization and are claiming that it can be held up if all of us just cling to the drapes.
Atheism is first and foremost a terrible confusion about what theism means. To a sophisticated theist (Aquinas, say) ‘God exists’ means ‘The is a unity and rationality to the universe.’ (R.G. Collingwood has shown that this is an historical fact that they meant this.) To say ‘God doesn’t exist’ is to deny that rationality and take away the very basis of science and morality. The fact the atheists continue to practice science and behave morally does not ’show’ these things don’t depend on God; it shows atheism is inconsistent and incoherent: it both denies and postulates God at the same time.
‘I don’t believe in gravity and yet I remain on the ground; therefore, gravity is unnecessary to remaining on the ground!’
Comment by borehole —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:00 am
“The fact the atheists continue to practice science and behave morally does not ’show’ these things don’t depend on God; it shows atheism is inconsistent and incoherent: it both denies and postulates God at the same time.”
Yeah, Gene, I’M the one who’s incoherent.
Comment by ajay —
December 12, 2007 @ 10:18 am
“You can keep people from committing crimes with the state (to some degree), but you can’t use the state to make them love each other, or make sustaining sacrifices for each other. I know a number of irreligious alternatives have been tried, but none I know of has taken off.”
So non-religious people cannot love each other or make sustaining sacrifices for each other? Really? No atheist’s ever died to save someone else’s life? No atheist ever died for an idea? (Historians of Communism might find that last one a bit surprising.)
Atheism is first and foremost a terrible confusion about what theism means. To a sophisticated theist (Aquinas, say) ‘God exists’ means ‘The is a unity and rationality to the universe.’
Gosh, talk about lowering the bar! That’s not really using the English language in the way that everyone else who speaks English uses it.
I’d love to hear that argument used in court.
“This is all the result of a terrible misunderstanding! When my client said ‘Yes, I hate black people – in fact, I just went out last night and killed a whole bunch of them’ he meant ‘Puppies are cute!’”
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:25 am
‘Yeah, Gene, I’M the one who’s incoherent.’
And I bet you smell bad too.
Now do you have an actual counter to my argument, or only a middle school comeback?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:33 am
‘So non-religious people cannot love each other or make sustaining sacrifices for each other? Really? No atheist’s ever died to save someone else’s life? No atheist ever died for an idea?’
‘I don’t believe in gravity and yet I remain on the ground; therefore, gravity is unnecessary to remaining on the ground!’
‘Gosh, talk about lowering the bar! That’s not really using the English language in the way that everyone else who speaks English uses it.’
I just gave you an example of someone who uses language that way: Aquinas. You could also look to Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, and many others. I bet the last two popes, very philosophically sophisticated men, would agree with my statement as well. I am claiming that, historically speaking, this is what sophisticated Western thinkers have meant by ‘God exists’. I am either factually right or factually wrong. Since you don’t claim the second, I assume you grant the historical point. Your complaint about what I’ve said then comes down to, ‘That’s not what the yahoo down the street from me means by “God exists”, and I’d sure rather argue with him then with Aquinas, cause it’s a whole lot easier’!
Comment by ajay —
December 12, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine etc did not, of course, speak English…
I’m willing to accept your description of what Aquinas said arguendo. In that case, I’m not an atheist (sensu Aquinas) because I believe in the law of magnetic induction.
In fact, I don’t think you could find a self-described atheist who disagreed with Aquinas – someone who didn’t believe that the Universe operates on rationally comprehensible principles. Go on, name one.
But God, as most people understand the concept, does not mean “the rational basis of the universe”. For most Christians, God is a personal being, omnipotent, who created heaven and earth, whose only son was incarnated in Palestine as Jesus Christ, was crucified, and rose again from the dead. (That’s not me; that’s the Creed.)
That’s the God most people talk about. That’s the God that atheists refuse to believe in.
And, frankly, you know that perfectly well, and switching to a philosophical definition of God-as-order-in-the-universe followed only by a tiny number of people is a rather daft debating trick.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
December 12, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
“The universe is rational” god is the one traditionally associated with Spinoza. To most of us actual theists it looks like atheism unless you attach a personality to it. (Not that I think God is the universe with a mind–I think that’s pantheism). But anyway, Gene, as a Christian I’d actually be sympathetic to a workable proof for God’s existence, but my understanding is that nobody has devised one that seems compelling to most philosophers.
As for Derek, he’s painting himself into a corner unnecessarily. All he has to do for his case is claim that most Muslims really do want to kill unbelievers. Arguing that if they don’t, they’re not religious is just silly. The funny thing is he knows perfectly well that devout Christians used to think their religion sanctioned the killing of heretics and now most Christians hold a different view without thinking we’ve abandoned the faith. Now maybe we’re illogical, but in this case that seems to be a good thing.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
‘In fact, I don’t think you could find a self-described atheist who disagreed with Aquinas – someone who didn’t believe that the Universe operates on rationally comprehensible principles. Go on, name one.’
And that is why I said atheism is incoherent — it both postulates and denies the same thing.
‘And, frankly, you know that perfectly well, and switching to a philosophical definition of God-as-order-in-the-universe followed only by a tiny number of people is a rather daft debating trick.’
Arguing with the man-in-the-street instead of the great theists of history is a rather cheap debating trick.
Comment by Mona —
December 12, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Assuming, arguendo, that all of the above is so (and I’m working and cannot get into why I do not accept these assertions), that an idea is useful does not make it true.
Comment by TGGP —
December 12, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Derek’s been going on about the doctrine of executing apostates in Islam, so I think he might be interested in this. Razib’s pretty good on religions not as platonic ideals but actions taken by people who do not have a complete understanding of even their own thoughts/beliefs and statements.
Comment by Mona —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Derek writes:
As the Usenet bit you linked to notes, the Xtian, Xst things etc. derive from Xians themselves going far back in history. Those Xians who don’t know that are ignorant about their own faith tradition, and my using the term thus introduces a teaching moment.
And as I said, I’d never seen these abbreviations until a Xian NT professor introduced me to them. I’m not anti-religious per se, and object especially to attacks on new or culturally foreign faiths.
Comment by well, actually —
December 12, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
If someone really wants to get elected, they may as well get used to saying whatever people want to hear. “I believe in the same God you do.” “You deserve more.” “The American people are smart.”
I think the reason Christians are so concerned about atheism is because it ultimately represents a real challenge. Other religions play the same game of making empty promises and threats. Atheism calls this bluff and overturns the standard for what is believable. If people accept a rational standard, the big enforcer in the sky is clearly a useful construct.
Heaven and Hell are very crafty too. “Believe us = best thing ever. Disbelieve = worst thing ever. Want proof? As soon as you’re dead.” It’s a little blatant, even condescending, but I can’t argue with success.
Comment by Avram —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Derek, I can’t quite tell whether you’re claiming that Reform Jews don’t keep kosher, but you definitely seem to believe that Orthodox Jews “segregate themselves”. In either case, you clearly don’t know every many Reform or Orthodox Jews.
It’s true that Judaism has changed a lot in the last few centuries, but it’s been steadily changing all along. Hassidism — the movement most non-Jews probably think of as the most religious in Judaism — started in the 18th century. Non-Hassidic Jews of that time regarded the Hassidim as weird mystical cultists, and even heretics.
Many practices considered traditional in Judaism actually date to medieval times, and would have been considered strange by the Jews of, say, Jesus’s time. This doesn’t mean that the Judaism practiced modern, or medieval, or ancient Jews was more “real”.
And even among the most Orthodox branches of Judaism, the belief that the Torah must be followed literally, without recourse to the millennia of modifying commentary and interpretation, is considered heretical.
Comment by Avram —
December 13, 2007 @ 12:40 am
Gene, that’s one of the most stunning examples of argument-by-redefinition I’ve ever seen.
Aquinas was a smart guy. If he’d wanted to say “there is a unity and rationality to the universe”, he was perfectly capable of saying it (though probably not in English). Even a casual skim of the Summa Theologica reveals that Aquinas believed not just that the universe is rational and orderly, but also that God was three people, one of whom shed blood for the redemption of mankind, that God is a spiritual being, is perfectly good, loves every being, and many other things.
In other words, the word “God” comes with a whole lot of baggage, even when used by sophisticated theologians, and “orderly universe” doesn’t carry that same baggage.
Comment by ajay —
December 13, 2007 @ 6:07 am
Truly, Gene, you have a dazzling intellect. And I use that phrase, not in the sense that the ordinary, ill-smelling lout on the street would use it, but in the sense that the great philosophers Marcus Aurelius, Mencius and Leibniz used it – to mean “you are a complete loon”.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 9:04 am
“ssuming, arguendo, that all of the above is so (and I’m working and cannot get into why I do not accept these assertions), that an idea is useful does not make it true.”
“God exists” is a presupposition, not a proposition, and as such is neither true nor false.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 9:11 am
‘Aquinas was a smart guy. If he’d wanted to say “there is a unity and rationality to the universeâ€, he was perfectly capable of saying it (though probably not in English). Even a casual skim of the Summa Theologica reveals that Aquinas believed not just that the universe is rational and orderly, but also that God was three people, one of whom shed blood for the redemption of mankind, that God is a spiritual being, is perfectly good, loves every being, and many other things.’
Here’s the brilliant Roderick Long on this point:
‘It may be objected that the “reconciliation†I offer really favours the atheist over the theist. After all, what theist could be satisfied with a deity who is merely the logical structure of the universe? Yet in fact there is a venerable tradition of theists who proclaim precisely this. Thomas Aquinas, for example, proposed to solve the age-old questions “could God violate the laws of logic?†and “could God command something immoral?†by identifying God with Being and Goodness personified. Thus God is constrained by the laws of logic and morality, not because he is subject to them as to a higher power, but because they express his own nature, and he could not violate or alter them without ceasing to be God. Aquinas’ solution is, essentially, theological logicism; yet few would accuse Aquinas of having a watered-down or crypto-atheistic conception of deity. Why, then, shouldn’t theological logicism be acceptable to the theist?
‘A further objection may be raised: Aquinas of course did not stop at the identification of God with Being and Goodness, but went on to attribute to God various attributes not obviously compatible with this identification, such as personality and will. But if the logical structure of reality has personality and will, it will not be acceptable to the atheist; and if it does not have personality and will, then it will not be acceptable to the theist. So doesn’t my reconciliation collapse?
‘I don’t think so. After all, Aquinas always took care to insist that in attributing these qualities to God we are speaking analogically. God does not literally possess personality and will, at least if by those attributes we mean the same attributes that we humans possess; rather he possesses attributes analogous to ours. The atheist too can grant that the logical structure of reality possesses properties analogous to personality and will. It is only at the literal ascription of those attributes that the atheist must balk. No conflict here.’
So, perhaps, more than a ‘casual skim’ of the Summa is needed, since a serious scholar of it like Roderick disagrees with you! Or perhaps he’s just a loon as well.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 9:15 am
And, oh yes, Avram, the view I’m expressing here I learned from the great Oxford historian and philosopher R.G. Collingwood, who taught this material at Oxford for many years. Hey, but you’ve skimmed a few of these books, so what does he know?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 9:21 am
‘“The universe is rational†god is the one traditionally associated with Spinoza.’
Spinoza was only stating what the science of his time already assumed. And, as Roderick notes, this was Aquinas’s view.
‘To most of us actual theists it looks like atheism unless you attach a personality to it.’
Aquinas held God had a personality only by analogy and that should not be misunderstood as a naive view that he is some sort of giant, powerful person. Is Aquinas ‘an actual theist’?
‘But anyway, Gene, as a Christian I’d actually be sympathetic to a workable proof for God’s existence, but my understanding is that nobody has devised one that seems compelling to most philosophers.’
Neither proof nor disproof are possible — God is a presupposition, not a proposition. That is why creeds begin with things like ‘We believe in one God…‘
Trackback by A Stitch in Haste —
December 13, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Questions…
–Is it a proper function of government to implement tax breaks to subsidize video game development, so long as the games contain “cultural content”?
–What……
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 10:49 am
And besides, Avram, I never said ‘God exists’ is the only thing theologians have said about God. I just stated what they meant by that one statement. The fact that they also said some other things about God besides that He exists is utterly irrelevant as to whether my historical claim is correct.
And Mona, I think you can see that someone might have reasons not to vote for an atheist. (BTW, I would not consider it an automatic disqualification, but more like a minor negative, like finding out the candidate drinks too much.) Now, my reasons here might be wrong, but rather than being the result of ‘bigotry,’ they are the result of 40 years of hard thought on this topic. (An analogy: Someone might say ‘I’m not voting for Ron Paul because he’d pull out of Iraq.’ We here might think the guy has missed the best reason to vote for him, but it’s clear he’s not voting for him for a sensible reason, and not because he hates Texans or something like that.)
Comment by Avram —
December 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Gene, perhaps Long doesn’t go far enough. We could say that Aquinas doesn’t actually believe in God, but only in something analogous to God. Or perhaps even that something analogous to God doesn’t so much exist as do something analogous to existing. Maybe the Trinity doesn’t consist of three persons, but some number of something analogous to persons, that number also not being three but something analogous to three.
But then, does Aquinas actually believe that the universe is rational, or just that it’s something analogous to rational?
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
‘Gene, perhaps Long doesn’t go far enough. We could say that Aquinas doesn’t actually believe in God, but only in something analogous to God. Or perhaps even that something analogous to God doesn’t so much exist as do something analogous to existing. Maybe the Trinity doesn’t consist of three persons, but some number of something analogous to persons, that number also not being three but something analogous to three.’
Uh, yeah, you could say those things, if you care nothing about historical accuracy. How does being wittily sarcastic substitute for actually looking at Aquinas’s text to find out what he really did say? Long doesn’t say, ‘I think Aquinas was speaking analogically’, he said ‘After all, Aquinas always took care to insist that in attributing these qualities to God we are speaking analogically.’ He’s not imputing analogical thinking to Aquinas, he’s noting that Aquinas himself specifically says he means these things analogically. So, Avram, where in Aquinas’s actual text does he says ‘God does something analogous to existing’.
The fact is, I am historically correct here. And the fact that others wish I wasn’t and can make silly witticisms that have nothing to do with my historical claims only goes to show that they cannot dispute those claims.
Comment by Phalanx —
December 13, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
This doesn’t seem like “bigotry” to me. People vote for candidates based on their views and beliefs and so forth. If a person’s beliefs are diametrically opposite to mine on taxes, crime, education, role of government in my personal life, etc…then I am probably not going to vote for that person, so why shouldn’t a person’s spiritual beliefs have an impact on how people vote.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 13, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
’so why shouldn’t a person’s spiritual beliefs have an impact on how people vote.’
Of course they do and will, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The fact that Mike Huckabee thinks the Earth is 6000 years old makes me think he’s a crackpot, and God knows what else he will dream up — nuke Iran, etc.
Comment by Mona —
December 13, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
I don’t want any of the GOP front-runners to win in ‘08, but if one must, I’d rather it be Huckabee. He has some moral constraints.
Paul — not a front-runner — is a devout, born again Xian, and for all I know a creationist (but I do not know). Yet I’d vote for him because, as the poll question posits, he is a “generally acceptable candidate” and his views on evolution, in light of his overall political philosophy, are irrelevant.
Why should not it be the same for atheists? Unless invalid bigotry makes sense to you.
Comment by Avram —
December 13, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Gene, that’s because you’re drawing a false assumption from your historical correctness. Even, for the sake of argument, granting the historical accuracy of your claims, the mere fact that a handful of mystics like Plato, Maimonides, Aquinas, and Einstein considered “God” synonymous with “the rational comprehensibility of the universe” does not mean that everyone everywhere is bound by that definition of the word “God”.
As I said above, the word “God” comes with a lot of baggage.
In order to claim, as you did above, that atheism is incoherent because atheists seem to both assert and deny the comprehensibility of the universe, you would first need to prove that atheists mean the same thing by the word “God” as Aquinas etc did. In my experience, when atheists (and most non-atheists) say “God”, they’re referring to one of the baggage-carrying ones.
Comment by Master Cranky Hucklebubble —
December 13, 2007 @ 11:47 pm
Mona,
God is dead. The universe is a chaos. And all you desire from our brief, pathetic existance is a presidential candidate from a minor planet in a mediocre solar system in an insignificant spiral galaxy who is “generally well-qualified.â€
I love you, kiddo.
Comment by ctw —
December 14, 2007 @ 4:59 am
Although I suspect that “bigotry” (essentially not-one-of-us-ism) applies to the typical poll respondent, in order to credit the responses with some minimal intellectual content, I’d prefer to say that they are based on “ignorant prejudice”.
People who have negative views on atheists routinely ascribe some “belief” to them that applies to none I know. Eg, in addition to redefining “atheism” as a posture unrecognizable to me (and apparently to others), Mr. Callahan also ascribes (implicitly) to atheists a belief in “the unity and rationality of the universe”. This ignores the oft repeated observation that atheism is purely a rejection – it has no positive content. While I assume that most thoughtful atheists would assent to the ascription, I also assume that many never actually had that specific thought. The “unity” part seems to have some significance to those who describe themselves as “spiritual” (eg, my wife), but means nothing to me. The “rationality” part suggests the scientific mentality, but many atheists presumably aren’t science-oriented (only because people in general aren’t). Thus, IMO it’s Mr. Callahan’s concept of atheism is that is incoherent.
- Charles
Comment by ctw —
December 14, 2007 @ 5:25 am
BTW, I thought Avram’s “silly witticisms” re “analogous” were not only silly and witty but also on target. We have to use language to describe abstract things, so it seems fair to say that where our language is inadequate, the thing in question is “indescribable”. Theological arguments seem often to assert transcendence but then try to describe the indescribable by abusing language. Avram just took abuse to the level of torture.
- Charles
Comment by Avram —
December 14, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Well, ctw, as I pointed out above, Albert Einstein was one of those people who used the word “God” to describe the rationality of the universe. Clearly such rationality includes the knowledge necessary for constructing nuclear weapons. So tortured analogies were justified; we don’t want theological enlightenment to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 14, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
‘The “unity†part seems to have some significance to those who describe themselves as “spiritual†(eg, my wife), but means nothing to me.’
Well, consistent atheism is possible, but even more troubling, I think, than the inconsistent kind. The unity of existence is a basic postulate of science since Galileo, .i.e., the same laws apply in a remote galaxy as do in my backyard. (This was not true of Aristotelean science.)
Comment by bad Jim —
December 15, 2007 @ 12:39 am
Gene Callahan, your argument seems to boil down to this:
1) Aquinas said that God is the orderliness of the universe;
2) The universe appears to be fairly orderly;
3) Therefore God exists.
But then, you already admitted to assuming your conclusion by saying “God is a presupposition”.
Comment by Doug —
December 15, 2007 @ 2:25 am
If you could prove faith in God was justified you wouldn’t need to call it faith.
Comment by Comment —
December 15, 2007 @ 11:38 am
If you could prove the purity of reason, you wouldn’t need crazy Kant types to walk back and forth on the same street their whole lives thinking up tendentious and lengthy arguments.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 15, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Well, bad Jim, by saying ‘God exists’ is a presupposition, that is saying that it’s not the conclusion of any ‘argument’ — certainly not the one you put forward. Modern science assumes the universe is orderly; it certainly does not prove that or offer evidence for it. (Just like Newton had to assume his laws of motion.)
Oh, and to the people who continue to chastize me for telling them to argue with the great theists and not the man in the street:
Atheist: Relativity is a load of rubbish.
GC: What do you mean?
A: Look at this junk. (A hands GC a D+ freshman physics paper.)
GC: No, man, you have to read Einstein and address his arguments.
A: Hey, that’s not what the man in the street means by relativity!
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 15, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Contra bad Jim, I have not once in this thread even tried to put forward any argument for God’s existence. I have made the following historical claims:
1) Many atheists choose to address a vulgar theism that is not that of the great theists;
2) What the great theists meant by ‘God exists’ underlies all Western science; and
3) Many atheists themselves assume and deny the existence of God (once that phrase is properly understood) at the same time.
And that’s it. No arguments for the existence of God at all — I think those are just as impossible as arguments against His existence.
Comment by Jean —
December 15, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Um, Gene, there’s no such thing as western science.
When your entire argument is predicated upon an non-existent thing, maybe babbling about the cosmic wholeness of the universal is a bit ambitious?
Comment by Mona —
December 15, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
Gene Callahan: I lack a belief in god(s), and so am an atheist. In particular, and because of a thorough lack of evidence, I lack a belief in a personal deity who intervenes in the lives of human beings (on occasion, however, I do flirt with deism — but never a belief in a personal god, miracles and all that). Nothing about those non-beliefs implies squat about my position on the rationality or lack thereof of the universe.
And, again, that a belief in one of these personal god systems is culturally useful, does not make it true. Atheists simply lack a belief; there is no elaborate, substantive content to that lack of belief per se. Some of us are communists, others are libertarians, and some are even conservatives.
Few of us slaughter newborns and eat them for breakfast. The animus against us as a group — merely for a lack of belief — is invalid and bigoted.
Comment by ctw —
December 15, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
“Many atheists choose to address a vulgar theism that is not that of the great theists”
OK, I’ll give you that self-labeled “atheists” are typically being a bit careless in not providing an accompanying definition of what they mean by the term. Which is why – not withstanding some allusions above that would suggest otherwise – I don’t so self-label.
FWIW, my operative definition is essentially the position that existence of an entity that created the universe and manifestly interacts with it, in particular with human being, is unsupported by credible evidence and consequently is so improbable that acting as if no such entity exists is a “reasonable” policy.
Clearly, this is not a popular definition, so I try to avoid the term entirely. In general, I don’t like labels precisely because of the communication problem we’re having. It strikes me as easier to state one’s position vis-a-vis an issue than to self-label and then have to refute all the misinterpretations of the label. (I don’t self-label as “liberal” for the same reason. The word has been so corrupted by political demagoguery that it is rendered largely meaningless.)
As in the definition from dictionary.com, the intent of my definition (attained or not) is to exclude deism. Ie, the closer one’s definition of “God” comes to a deistic god, the less resolute the “atheism” is. Since your (Aquinas’s?) theism (excluding the “analogous attributes”) strikes me as insignificantly removed from deism, rejecting it wouldn’t fall under my concept of atheism. Hence, no “incoherence”.
But my real point has been and remains that the typical poll responder obviously has not given this much (actually, any) thought to what “atheist” means. Their reaction is almost certainly “atheist equals bad”, or “atheist equals not-one-of-us”, or both. I call the former “ignorant prejudice”, the latter “bigotry” – take your pick. It is ridiculous to assume that the typical responder has been boning up on the giants of theology. (According to Stephen Prothero, many haven’t even been boning up on the books they claim to live by and think Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife!).
- Charles
Comment by Jean —
December 15, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
Aquinas’ God wasn’t the inherent order of the Universe. Aquinas’ God was the Hebraic tribal deity who was incarnate by the Virgin Mary in Palestine, who walked on water, turned water into wine, and brought Lazarus back from the dead. Aquinas’ God suffered on the Cross for the salvation of mankind, died, was buried, and rose on the third day.
Any definition of Aquinas’ theology which leaves out the fact that Aquinas believed in the miracles of the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection so misses the point as to be meaningless. It’s like saying that Mussolini’s ideology centred around winning sports events. It’s true Italian Fascism heavily emphasised sport, but that wasn’t the point.
Comment by Kip W —
December 17, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
I have no belief in the supernatural, which means I act as my own unicorn, my own vampire, my own tooth fairy, my own Santa Claus, and so on. The supernatural takes in a lot of territory, and I don’t see that failing to believe in it makes me somehow diminished or self-aggrandizing.
Trackback by Soma. —
November 12, 2008 @ 3:07 am
Soma….
Soma….