I’m so looking forward to The Rise of Atheism. But it’s with trepidation and a wry smile, because I’m going to the convention as an under-cover heretic. Yes, I’m one of those true believers in science who has the temerity to believe also in God.
Will they guess my secret? So far so good: I still receive friendly emails from the convention organisers thanking me for my support. I’m told that just by being there I will have contributed to a more reasoning society. And the latest letter finishes with a benediction, “this is a wondrous time to be alive.” Amen to that.
But seriously: why would an infidel throw himself to the lions when he could be going to church this Sunday?
I am professionally interested in things of faith and belief. I have spent some years in Christian work, other years teaching engineering, and still others in the philosophy of science. Currently I am writing a doctorate on science, faith and reason.
So I’m going to the conference with four questions in mind:
1. Is the ‘new atheism’ a religion? Richard Dawkins’ rhetoric reverberates with fundamentalism, and ‘intolerance of religion’ is his credo. Will I hear reason or rhetoric? Will I hear war mongering or peace talk? And how representative are the ‘four horseman’ of this crusade—Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens?
2. What is the new atheist’s psyche? Why are people at the conference? Are they predominantly agnostic or crusading apologists? Are they looking for answers or entertainment? Are they angry anti-religionists, reluctant non-believers or the mild mannered suburbanites riding next to me on the bus this morning?
3. Is conversation possible? Or is conversion the only option? Will there be a spirit of self-critical dialogue? Will I hear speakers who are capable of recognising that all world-views, including atheism, have serious challenges to their beliefs?
4. Where will it all end? I’m no prophet, but I will be checking the new atheism for its use-by date. There is no shortage of thoughtful atheists who are reluctant to weigh in with this branch of their faith. Will the new atheism become the new world religion or will it temper itself and blend into the diverse planetary mix of worldviews?
In short: will I hear a message of hope for human well-being or will I hear echoes of the worst excesses of my own Christian heritage?
Let the games begin!
Chris Mulherin has degrees in Engineering, Philosophy and Theology and is currently writing a doctorate on scientific and religious knowledge. He is an Anglican minister and lives in Melbourne.
When I heard Steve Fielding (Federal parliamentarian from the Family First political party) on the ABC TV show Q&A the other night I was gob-smacked that what appeared to be an intelligent person was a creationist (ie literal interpretter of the christian Bible). Such religious-based illogic mixed with political clout in the decisions for this country leaves me very worried indeed.
An updated version of the Bible – clearly converting literal interpretation back to parable and dropping out the obvious outdated killing and sodomy bits – could never be more warranted for this day and age. With the Bible around been 2000yo, today’s users forget that things have changed, other things are better understood, and cherry-picking at the highest levels of the christian deity only confirms the outdated nature of such a document as an Owner’s Manual to living a good life. Encyclopaedias change, dictionaries change, street directories change, tax laws change, even traffic lights change…things change. To not change the Bible or clarify the way it is to be used in this day and age is a worry. The Vatican self-inflicts a big problem for itself by its silence towards fundamentalism (including creationists).
DaddyC, you have hit upon a novel approach to dealing with the attractions of literalism. It would be interesting to try extrapolating that kind of ‘translation’ exercise to other literature.
I’m not sure what you mean by the Vatican’s silence on fundamentalism including creationism. Check this letter out – it makes clear that from the perspective of the Vatican’s Academy of Sciences there is rich prospect in a dialogue between theology and science around the light an evolutionary perspective can bring to bear on the meaning of the human person in a theological sense. And for your interest, here also is an ABC Radio National Encounter program that dealt with this theme.
1. Only if you stretch the definition to a point of meaninglessness. Furthermore, what is different about the current wave of atheism from previous waves? Was Hume really more respectful or did he have to temper his comments in order to avoid the repercussions that were a real threat? Many commentators have noted, as if it mattered, that the arguments the Four Horsemen have proposed against the arguments for God are not new at all (although I do think Dennett’s book “Breaking the Spell” was a more original work with the discussion centering around a natural evolution of religion).
2. I’m not attending the conference so I can’t comment or be considered representative of those who attend yet.
3. Conversation is possible, depending on who the conversation is between. All worldviews require self-critiquing and this is entirely within the spirit of the enlightenment put forth by the more prominent atheists I have listened to or read. The point is, atheists don’t know – we are not the ones who have drawn a conclusion beyond the limits of evidence.
4. Considering, the lack of “newness” around “New Atheism” I suspect its use by date is similar to that of the old atheists (where ever you put them, is it Epicurus? Hume? Spinoza?).
The first question posed by Chris is quite interesting for what it reveals about the idea of religion. Not only is the trope of ‘new atheism’ (whatever that means) being a religion trotted out, but it seems in his explanation of this question there is a definition of what religion is all about: fundamentalism, intolerance, war mongering and rhetoric, with the absence of rationality and peace-talk. Is that really the essence of what religion is about? Is this really this inference Chris wants the reader to draw?
And then in his fourth question Chris refers to atheism as a faith. Sigh. An absence of belief in gods does not require faith, just as an absence of belief in unicorns, elves, fairies or leprechauns does not require faith.
Sadly, this kind of thinking seems to be par for the course amongst the religious and the critics of atheism.
Chris asks if conversation is possible. Certainly it is, and it is important to engage in such. Is argument to be avoided? Absolutely not. One does not preclude the other. Each is useful, in their context.
Thanks David and Stephen for the comments above.
Concerning the newness of the ‘new atheists’, the term is being deliberately used by Dawkins and Co. in a way that conjurs up a global movement of ‘freethinkers’ and ‘reasonable people’. I use their term and ask whether this movement will have strong similarities with other, religious, movements. (Note the placement of the commas.)
As for the use of ‘faith’ and ‘belief.’ I think the irony in my tone was clear. But there’s truth there too. It’s naive to talk of religious people having beliefs while others don’t have beliefs. We all live according to our beliefs which we hold with varying degrees of conviction. In a strict philosophical sense, proof is impossible to come by. That leaves us committing ourselves to what we believe. As much for the atheist who believes there is no deity as for someone like myself who believes that there is.
Finally I agree with Stephen: argument and conversation are compatible. But that position is based on a view about the dignity or worth or respect due to other people with whom I disagree. Unfortunately some proponents of the new atheism often seem to turn to ridicule and belittling of those who they disagree with rather than respecting them. Such attitudes certainly make for good publicity and no doubt sell books but I’m not sure whether they are helpful for their cause.
In my opinion the line between agnostic and atheist is here blurred. Chris, i speak only for myself but i do not believe there is no god, i have just never seen any evidence of one or had any reason to invoke one. I call myself an atheist. This is the same opinion held in The God Delusion.
Chris, before you start throwing the ‘New Atheism’ term around, you may just wish to know that the term first gained prominence in 1986 (hardly new), and was like now, used to smear atheists who spoke out of turn, alleging intolerance (where none was demonstrated), declaring dubious, totalitarian motives and so on. The author of the book first publicising the term, ‘The New Atheism’, Robert A. Morey, went on to brag about his advice to the Bush administration that they should nuke Mecca and Medina – and he was serious.
The contemporary usage of the term doesn’t seem to vary much in recent times either, as Tina Beattie’s ‘The New Atheists’ (2007) demonstrates – Just read the claim she makes about Daniel Dennett trying to keep the religious out of discussion of religion – by way of misquoting the opening chapters of his book ‘Breaking The Spell’. (Ostentatious in that properly quoted, she’d be forced to admit the contrary – that Dennett is engaging and encouraging religious people to participate in an exploration of religion as a natural phenomena). At least she isn’t asking anyone to nuke people, which I guess is something.
Madeleine Bunting used the term in a controversial article in The Guardian, where she used Sam Harris as an example of a ‘New Atheist’, misquoting his ethical speculations on torture and ethnic profiling to make it look like he supported torture and ethnic profiling. This rubbish is par for the course with critics of the so-called ‘New Atheism’.
And Chris, Dawkins is skeptical of the term ‘New Atheist’ himself, calling it ’so-called’ on several occasions. He did not, as you wrongly claim, use it to deliberately do anything – it’s not his device at all.
Here’s a hint for your stay at the convention – people at the convention will probably tend not to like being called a ‘New Atheist’, except perhaps ironically, subversively or tongue-in-cheek by in-group members. Think of it as kind of like another ‘N’ word that you probably wouldn’t want to yell out in Harlem, except not quite so extreme.
Furthermore, in future could you please give us some meaningful examples of where ‘…proponents of the new atheism often seem to turn to ridicule and belittling of those who they disagree with rather than respecting them.’? And no, I don’t mean ridiculing ideas – a reductio ad absurdum does that necessarily, and we wouldn’t equate that with a lack of respect.
(And I don’t mean friendly jabs either.)
The atheist as angry, disrespectful and intolerant is a stereotype, so you’re going to be more specific and give specific examples if you want to come across as trustworthy, much less propagate animus.
And for pity’s sake, when you talk about being throw to the lions when you’ve been invited by a bunch of friendly people, it makes you look like the kind of person who feels guilty for crossing the street to avoid someone who’s black – something that can be avoided by throwing out prejudicial assumptions and not crossing the street in the first place.
I’d wish you luck at the convention if I were a wish-thinker, so I’ll just hope you take some of this on-board instead.
Thanks Bruce for the advice. I’m sorry you seem to have taken some of my humour so seriously. References to angels and lions etc were tongue in cheek. As for the New Atheism: you’re right, I wasn’t aware of the history and was going by the websites that Dawkins and others are happy to be associated with.
I’ve just arrived home from the convention. On the one hand I’ve had some good conversations with people who were not angry, disrespectful or intolerant. On the other hand, the whole night’s program, involving 5 presenters, was dedicated to humour of the stereotyping, ridiculing sort. Funny it was at times, and I personally did not take offence: but that’s not the point is it?
I’m serious about everything, Chris. Positively joyless.
I’m glad you’ve interpreted me in exactly the same light. We should get on just fine.
I’ve had some Catherine Deveny jokes from today repeated to me. While I wish her well, I’ve always wondered why she was booked. I’ve found her attempts at satire, whatever the topic, to have an element of cruelty.
Like the schoolkid who changes “gang” and tries too hard to fit in by bad-mouthing her prior company. That’s the way I’ve found her material on the working class, and what I’ve seen of her post-atheist-conversion material, I’m left wondering if that’s all she has.
At least with Sue Anne Post, there’s a kindness and a wink of the eye that tells you that it’s just a joke, even if the content is scathing.
Ok Bruce: tit for tat. I didn’t see the wink of your eye.
As for tonight: my post is now up revealing (some of) my reactions.
These lines from T. S. Eliot’s poem Buirnt Norton encapsulate much of my thinking about faith:
‘… human kind
Cannot bear very much reality …’
For me reality has two main domains. First there is, for the want of a better term, the biophysical reality of ecosystems, climate, solar radiation and mortality etc. Second there is reality as perceived by the mind of humans, which is an extension of the (non-human) biophysical reality. Note that this categorisation is predicated on the view that humans are both part of nature and distinct from it – increasingly so as industrialization subsumes more and more of nature.
Our human capacity to accurately describe and understand the biophysical reality is now at an incredibly high level, dwarfing the level attained just a generation ago. When this capacity is used, the gap between the biophysical reality and human perception of reality is thus at an all time low. This means that an ordinary Australian of today can have a better understanding of the biophysical reality than Aristotle or other great thinkers of Classical Greece.
The trouble is that the hard won knowledge about the biophysical world is being spurned. This knowledge probably peaked globally a decade or more ago; in the intervening period there has been a resurgence of inaccurate human perceptions of biophysical realities. So we now live in a world of reduced vaccination rates, denial of anthropogenic climate change, creationism and the like.
What has the above discussion got to do with religious faith and atheism? The link that I see is that ingrained tolerance of religious faith, which is of course incomparably preferable to religious persecution, sets the scene for tolerance of (other) inaccurate perceptions of biophysical realities. Put simply, no wonder many people believe convenient lies told by climate change deniers when many Christians believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead from the dead so that good believers would have eternal life in heaven (and equally implausible stories of other religions).
I fear that as long as there continues to be excessive and meek tolerance of religion and manifestations of it – such as prominent politicians publicising their prayers made in response to tragedies – fuzzy thinking – in general will flourish. Quite the opposite is required in the face of the multiple global challenges of the 21st century: clear thinking is required now more than ever. Thinking that integrates ancient wisdom from cultures all around the world with contemporary wisdom. This question is therefore prominent in my mind: What potential is there to reduce the role of religion in encouraging inaccurate perceptions of biophysical realities in general? I am hoping that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention will provide some enlightenment about how society can better bear reality.
I agree with much of what you say Don. But there is a danger of scientism: of assuming that all that science says today is simply ‘the truth’ without recognising that things are not quite so clear. But don’t get me wrong: to take the climate debate as an example, while there is not an absolutely knock down argument, there is no question of what the great majority of scientists believe and on that basis we have no options but to act and act fast. I’m not siding with the deniers, just with those who recognise the complexities of science (especially climate science). But that is no excuse for lack of vigorous and costly action now. Of course as a Christian I might offer different reasons for caring for the planet.
Chris, I think the ‘danger of scientism’ is overstated. Although this is a common argument raised by theists when they challenge science (and atheists generallY), I don’t think you’ll find too many atheists who make this assumption. There’s no replacing of ‘religion’ with ’science’ as an ‘absolute truth’ (as some seem to suggest) – but there’s an open acknowledgment that science does not provide all the answers. Atheists are quite happy with that because it’s what makes life interesting – the journey of discovery – without resorting to replacing gaps and imperfections in scientific knowledge with a deity.
I think Don was simply saying that if you can get people to believe evidence doesn’t matter (through claims of resurrections and heavenly eternity) then they feel free to disregard an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence if it doesn’t accord with their world view (evolution = case in point). Absent religion, nobody today would doubt evolution – they might still be open to a different or modifying theory should our knowledge and understanding of the universe continue to expand, but on current evidence evolution is it. The problem with religion is that it denies that openness – that ability (and even the desire) to question the existing theories and suggest improvement which is what is essential to knowledge and progress.
Scientism is just a nonsense term used to discredit science.
jc it’s not gaps and imperfections in our knowledge, it’s a bit worse than that.
We simply don’t (and can’t ever) know what was the origin of this world. Science my be able to help us understand the physical processes and laws underlying them that we find operating in the world, but really has nothing to say about the big question.
Of course, I’m not saying any particular religion has the answers either, but each individual must choose for themselves what view of the world most enriches their life and provides moral and spiritual guidance for them.
The rest is “pouring from the empty into the void” as Gurdjieff used to say.
Sysyphus – how do you know we can’t ever know what the origin of ‘this world’ was? (I’ll assume you mean the universe since we have a pretty good evidenciary basis for the formation of the Earth)
If ‘the big question’ is why, which seems to really be where you’re heading, you need to demonstrate there needs to be a reason for in order to justify the question of why.
David, the ‘big question’ should have perhaps been the ‘big questions’. Why,Where-from and How and probably others.
‘Why’ is a big question because we ask it and have always asked it, there certainly is no definitive answer, but the question exercises the imagination and the intellect and leads to many ideas as it has all through human history.Won’t we become pretty boring creatures if we cease to ask, “WHY?”
I don’t see how we could ever know the origin of the universe because it must lie beyond the universe itself, if there was an origin in time (or OF time) as in the Big Bang Theory. If the Big Bang is true then the origin lies in Eternity or Nothingness,or something else incomprehensible, take your pick! Or, if it has always been there then how could we ever know THAT? For that matter, we can theorise, but how could we ever know, FOR SURE, what were the processes which formed the earth iself, since they happened, we believe, so long ago and we weren’t there to observe it?
I’m sorry sysyphus but I don’t presume there is anything outside of this universe (I lack evidence to do so). So the very answer to the origin of this universe remains potentially within it – the singularity physicists speak of is composed entirely of all that comprises the universe today. For the very reason science has revealed the radiation that remains from the the big bang we could discover the orgins of our universe. Even if we can’t find the answer, what can we find along the way? Is the journey automatically not worth the effort if we don’t know exactly where we are going?
I find “How?” is just as fascinating and often the only question with a supportable answer if you remind yourself of all the explanations to “why?” religion has offered and been shown to be utterly false.
I admit the question of “why?” does exercise the mind, but so does “how?” in fact any question does the difference between “why?” and any other question is it is far too open to fantasy and fiction being mistaken as fact. I have no issue with ideas, I love fantasy, science fiction and general fiction novels but I don’t have to tell anyone that Hobbits and Orcs aren’t real. Ideas are only potentially relfective of reality with evidence. It is only with evidence that scientists accept that time is not only dependant on speed but also relative to the position of objects within a gravity well – this concept is beyond common sense and stretches credulity but the evidence is immense.
Why are we here? Because the Great Ju-Ju in the dark sneezed and droplets of his primordial snot collided forming a singularity and sparking our universe in to life. Now we must give praise to the Ju-Ju! Avoid chicken on Saturdays, eat chocolate chips with orange juice (symbolising the two components of snot which collided) every wednesday and keep the monday sacred and avoid all sport activities. Ofcourse it is all just symbolism and analogy (we aren’t stupid!) but nonetheless my followers expect the government to legislate according to our moral values over people who do not share our views on the beginnings of the universe.
David, Thanks for your reply, that’s fair enought that you are not inclined to speculate about what lies outside, before or whatever, but surely you must acknowledge the mind has a natural tendency to want to ask: “What before the Big Bang”?, and since we think in terms of causality to wonder what might have caused it. I know some cosmologists tell us it is not a meaningful question because causality came into existence with the big bang like space and time did. But I can hardly see how anyone would imagine themselves to be in a position to know this. And even if we knew for sure the big bang was the cause it constitutes an event horizon beyond which we cannot see if the laws we rely on in studying the universe came into existence at that point.
I certainly believe cosmology is a worthy endeavour, but whatever it discovers will have no bearing on metaphysical questions, which I admit bore some people and fascinate and inspire others.
Newton was mostly concerned with bizarre biblical questions according to what I have read. Didn’t inhibit his scientfic genius.
And I don’t think there is much in law today which reflects specifically christian prohibitions, except in the broader sense that the legal system and in fact our whole culture developed along predominately christian lines for better or worse.