Cline says,
"I can understand if a Catholic doesn't want to see disrespect shown towards either, but upon what basis can they justify translating that into using force to prevent such disrespect from being displayed? No matter how much a person might personally be upset by disrespectful language, images, or ideas, there is no legal or moral basis for censoring them. Trying to do so is contrary to the entire project of the Enlightenment and the very foundations of individual liberty in the modern West. Unfortunately, it may be the case that it is precisely them which are the ultimate targets of religious censors. [emphasis added]
Then he says,,
This position of dogmatic intolerance is an Atheist standard and Austin made no revolutionary or even insightful declarations beyond the dogma.
"It's patently ridiculous to expect or demand that the Catholic Church, as an institution, be shown respect by anyone outside it."
The Enlightenment[1], we recall, was about "strangling the last king with the entrails of the last priest"; the massacres of French Revolution; the rise of the dictatorship of Napoleon; Marx; Nietzsche; Lenin; Mao etc. The Enlightenment giving the liberty to attack the artifacts of Christianity? Mais Oui!
But to Atheists, they are the victims. Here’s how that story goes.
Atheists are victims. They are victims of being in a world where there are people who are not like them, those who have belief systems that the Atheists despise. This is very annoying to the Atheists. Being annoyed is proof of victimhood. It’s not so much that they are threatened with death if they do not convert, not in the USA. It’s not so much that that they are hounded to their secular doorstep. It’s not so much that they can’t go to the mall, movies, dine out, buy groceries, find good work, live in good neighborhoods, pursue the American dream. Atheists can and do pursue all these benefits of American religious freedom. In fact Atheists excel in these pursuits. So if it is not physical persecution or financial persecution or religious persecution, what is it?
What it is, is annoyance at the existence of Christians in their world. That and the fact that the Christians don’t trust or respect them. In fact, Christians get annoyed by what Atheists do to them. The nerve!
So what exactly do we have here? First off, Christians are not likely to exit the planet just to mollify a tiny minority of Atheists. We can scratch that. So let’s take a look at the second issue: trust, and respect.
Atheists want to be trusted. Why not? They claim to be good; to do good things; to want good things; to be just like Christians, only without any absolutes to hinder them. So why can't they garner any trust or respect?
The following logic is pretty simple. You’ll probably see it right off. But Atheists don’t subscribe to the same sort of logic, so they will likely have trouble with it.
First, Atheists deny that there is any absolute ethic[2]. Most commonly they claim that each Atheist has his own code of ethics, unique to the individual Atheist, who is at liberty to ascertain what is right or wrong for him. Plus the individual code is malleable, able to change at a moment’s whim, as changing interests or priorities dictate.
So they are asking non-Atheists to give credibility to a slippery, flip-flopping, amorphous type of behavior that is justifiable by a creed-du-jour.
This is an acceptable state for them. They need such flexibility in their worldview in order to accommodate contradictory, non-coherent concepts just as if they made actual logical sense.
But to true skeptics who value rational thought over dogma and agendas, slippery illogic is not acceptable. In fact, when one confronts an Atheist, one never knows just what sort of logic – or ethic – that particular individual will have as a basis for his behavior... that particular day.
Now, trust involves building a history of known, predictable, consistent behaviors, and those behaviors must be honest. Dishonest and / or unpredictable behavior automatically breeds not trust, but suspicion. If the person is an Atheist, and given the indefinite, unpredictable, inconsistent nature of Atheist models and principles, how is a non-Atheist to know what to expect from that Atheist individual?
Certainly Christians and other theists are able to behave well outside their professed absolute boundaries of ethical standards. Such individuals will be treated with suspicion also, for the same reasons: what can I expect of such an individual? I submit that such individuals are statistical outliers compared to the 100% unpredictable ethics and behavior standards endemic to Atheism.
Now atheists such as Cline and the New Atheists feel that they are good folk. And they resent being annoyed by the existence of certain bands of non-Atheists. Plus they are victims of mistrust. So what do they do?
They attack. They create “art” consisting of religious artifacts in urine, feces, garbage; they put religious items on pornographic models; they engage in or encourage open sexual perversion in the streets; they engage in desecration of churches and temples; they write book after book of name calling and elitism; and in the case of Hitchens for example, outright drunken violence against non-Atheists (who he didn't even know). They initiate lawsuits intended to cow non-Atheists into submission to Atheist will on the threat of financial ruin. This behavior is considered valorous in light of the annoyance Atheists incur at the existence of Judeo-Christians on the planet.
This Atheist behavior, they say, must be tolerated – “get over it” . It makes them happy, hysterically “hee hee” happy - read the blogs. But they can’t understand why it doesn’t generate trust.
What exactly is the point of a desecration? Is it just to get the camp followers to sniggering? Or is it to prove Atheism is logically true? Morally superior? More intellectual? Since it fails all these (except the sniggering), there must be another reason, and here it is:
The purpose of a desecration is to outrage as many non-Atheists as possible. It’s the same as calling them names only more-so. It’s entire purpose is to annoy and aggravate the hated people, and possibly instigate some form of similar behavior on the hated ones' part as a reaction, to be decried of course. So what does this Atheist behavior achieve? What does it earn Atheists and Atheism? How does this increase trust and respect for the Atheist?
What is trust? What is respect? How does one get it? (You mean you don’t know? have you checked with your Atheist Ethic Handbook?)
Well, you don't get it by force, not by poking your finger in the other’s eye, not by calling them stupid, ignorant, or any of the other semi- and full expletives that Atheists use for that purpose.
Here’s how you accomplish trust and respect:
It is EARNED. You deserve that which you earn; you do not deserve anything just by default. You earn it by consistent, honest, predictable, honorable behavior. You earn it by demonstration of your character through actions, intentions, and persistence.
Is it ever possible to dictate trust and respect? This is the goal of Atheists in general: “you must trust and respect me, I DEMAND IT!” Well, it just doesn’t work that way does it? What you can dictate is fear, misapprehension, distrust, suspicion. And that is what Atheists have got.
“Get over it”. This piece of juvenilia is played daily on the Irascible Atheist network. What it says is, “I am in control here; I am in control of your environment; you are NOT. So you must accept any treatment you get from us.” This behavior is seen as noble for some rationally indecipherable reason. If given in reverse, the Atheist would howl impressively.
What is not part of the Atheist equation is the "respectful attitude". This is part of one's character that is displayed when one is in the presence of a different worldview; it is also called tolerance. Atheism claims it with its mouth and rejects it with its actions. In this it is consistent: contradiction of claims compared with actions.
Why should I or anybody – including other Atheists – trust or respect any given atheist? There is no rational reason to do so; in fact there is every rational reason not to do so. If you are an Atheist and you don’t understand this, then THAT is the reason, right there.
......
[1]The Enlightenment was not instigated or run by or for scientists; it was done by and for Atheism.
[2]Some claim that an ethic evolved along with mankind; this of course leaves the ethic in the position of accommodating the fittest only, who cooperate only as necessary to excel in their niche: watch any politician. So the ethic is not absolute, it is relative to its usefulness at the moment.
12 comments:
For someone supposedly devoted to the analysis of atheism, you obviously don't have the first clue about what you're analysing.
Characterising atheists as people who want to rid the world of religion is just as ridiculous as saying that all religious people are suicide bombers.
I'm an atheist, and I'm perfectly happy for religion to exist. I wish people who choose to subscribe to religion, any religion, and this includes my parents and some of my closest friends, all the very best.
I don't even know where to start in disputing the elements of this article.
Every single thing you've said is at best biased and misinformed, and at worst incredibly bigoted.
Atheists want to be trusted? Goodness, how shocking!
Everyone wants to be trusted. Are you seriously suggesting that unless people subscribe to your particular religion, they're not worthy of your trust?
How sad for you.
This says absolutely nothing about atheists, but quite a lot about your very narrow-minded view of the world.
Matt said,
"I don't even know where to start in disputing the elements of this article."
Well, you could start by actually refuting whatever you disagree with. Blanket accusations of bigotry are too easy, and are just ad Hominems, not arguments in and of themselves. By the bigotry charge I assume that you are a victim, n'es-ce pas?
I see nothing in your comment that would serve to change a single thing I said. Atheism presents nothing to the non-Atheist that would induce a feeling of trust or respect. To the contrary, it is a sliding scale of personal convenience.
On the other hand, those Atheists who co-opt the tenets of Christianity and call them Atheist tenets are being intellectually dishonest in so doing. I don't know if this applies in your case; it did in my case and in a great many casual, un-self-examined cases of which I know.
As I said, and say almost daily, the Atheist ethic is all over the map. Every individual is free to make up what ever he wants. Such an ethic cannot be expected to generate trust or respect.
I should add that over at the atheismisdead blog we recently asked Atheists about their experiences with being victimized. The respondents all had comments that were reducible to feelings of persecution at being in a non-Atheist world / culture. No actual persecutions were reported.
None had experienced personal persecution, other than that inferred indirectly. Many were openly hostile about such indirect, secondary inferences.
This is an admittedly totally nonscientific poll. It is a data point however, in support of the premise.
But to Atheists, they are the victims.
Even "high profile" online atheists like Richard Carrier see themselves as victims. It could suggest some type of delusional paranoia.
In Carrier's book "Sense and Goodness witouth God", he wrote: "
As atheists know better than anyone else on the planet, if you say you don’t believe you often become a social outcast"
An then: "For the first time, rather than being merely constantly pestered, I was being called names, and having hellfire wished upon me"
As philosopher David Wood wrote in his critical review of Carrier's book: "If Richard were to study other cultures, he might realize that there are people in the world who go through more than mere name-calling for the sake of their beliefs, and that graduate students at prestigious universities shouldn’t be calling themselves “social outcasts"
http://www.answeringinfidels.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=86
While I tend to agree that some religious fanatics would try to attack atheists, it would be more rational for atheists to examine their own conduct and actions to see if they stimulate or promote these attacks in the first place (e.g. being dogmatic, insulting religious believers, assumming intellectual superiority, being antagonistic, supercilious, etc.)
Wood exposed a mass of Carrier's inconsistences, fallacies and evident irrationalities about many topics, including tolerence and intolerance (e.g. talking about tolerance, and at the same time being intolerant and despective with christians and theists)
I see those atheist contradictions (many of them exposed by you in this excellent blog) not only as another example of many atheists' irrationality and bigotry, but as a sign of hypocresy and intentional dishonesty too.
That's another great post Stan, and I couldn't agree with you more. You actually made me laugh because alot of the behaviors you wrote about remind me of the antics of a self-absorbed toddler in their terrible twos that rebel against the fact that the world doesn't revolve around them.
Perhaps that is why atheists have fewer offspring - they don't want another 2 year-old around to compete with them.
But, seriously, it's hard not to believe that many of the posters on these militant (and petulant) atheist websites are 12 or under.
It is inexcusable for Christians to "wish hellfire upon" anyone.
Yet I wonder if that is actually what happened. The offense that many atheists take seems disproportionate to the actual occurance. Is the mention of the biblical concept of hell enough to enrage an Atheist? In some cases I'd venture to say yes. And I think this is because such a concept is a threat of consequence to a worldview without consequence; such a threat would be enraging to the receiver, even though the intent was not meant as a threat at all, but an entreaty not to suffer this perceived consequence. (I don't doubt that some "Christians" do use hellfire as a demeaning threat however, having read such things on other blogs. This is of course abhorrent and inexcusable).
Nonetheless, the interference of consequence in the life of the consequence-free will not likely be taken lightly or be productive in any conversation. While the reaction is over the top, the situation should not arise in the first place. The use of hellfire is the weakest possible Christian approach to Atheist thinking.
This is one of the reasons that I choose to engage Atheism on its own logical deficiencies, rather than on theodicies or biblical principles, which Atheists reject a priori. They cannot very well walk away from their own logical errors, though.
No, I'm not a victim of religion at all. But thanks for your concern.
I just want to live in a secular society (which is not the same as an atheistic society . . . there's actually a big difference) where if I choose not to subscribe to a particular religion, then I am free to live my life without having that religion thrust upon me.
As a Christian, I'm sure you feel that way about Islam, for example. I don't imagine you want to live under Sharia law.
Well, I feel that way about every religion.
I'm interested by this comment you made:
"Atheists who co-opt the tenets of Christianity and call them Atheist tenets . . ."
Whatever could you mean? Kindness? Humanity? Community spirit?
These aspects of humanity predate Christianity by many, many thousands of years.
They're not Atheist, though, and are they're not co-opted. They're just human traits, and common traits to atheists and theists alike.
I thought about what you said, Stan, and you're right. Ad hominem attacks are pretty useless. So here's a point-by-point analysis of this post, from the point of view of a stock-standard atheist.
Apologies for the length of the comment, but hey . . . it was a long post.
Atheists want to be trusted. Why not? They claim to be good; to do good things; to want good things; to be just like Christians, only without any absolutes to hinder them. So why can't they garner any trust or respect?
Matt: Actually, they want to act like courteous and productive members of society, much like everyone else on the planet, except for the sociopaths. This sort of behaviour is hardly restricted to Christians.
The following logic is pretty simple. You’ll probably see it right off. But Atheists don’t subscribe to the same sort of logic, so they will likely have trouble with it.
First, Atheists deny that there is any absolute ethic[2].
Matt: A lack of any absolute ethic is a self-evident fact. Even Christians, who claim there is an absolute ethic, can't seem to agree on what it is. It varies by generation, by geography, by culture etc. etc.
Most commonly they claim that each Atheist has his own code of ethics, unique to the individual Atheist, who is at liberty to ascertain what is right or wrong for him. Plus the individual code is malleable, able to change at a moment’s whim, as changing interests or priorities dictate.
Matt: I'd go even further and say that every single person has their own code of ethics. While there's some pretence at uniformity within a religion, that uniformity is more related to the society and culture from which the religion has grown. Atheists and theists from the same society tend to act in very similar ways.
So they are asking non-Atheists to give credibility to a slippery, flip-flopping, amorphous type of behavior that is justifiable by a creed-du-jour.
Matt: No, we're not asking that at all. That's your bias against people who don't share your beliefs shining through. We're just asking for normal garden-variety common courtesy, and for our decision to reject religion as a lifestyle choice to be respected.
This is an acceptable state for them. They need such flexibility in their worldview in order to accommodate contradictory, non-coherent concepts just as if they made actual logical sense.
Matt: We're not asking that at all. We're just asking for normal garden-variety common courtesy, and for our decision to reject religion as a lifestyle choice to be respected.
But to true skeptics who value rational thought over dogma and agendas, slippery illogic is not acceptable.
Matt: Agreed. This is precisely why I reject the dogmas of virgin birth, miracle healings, God creating the universe, infallibility of the clergy, the divine inspiration of scripture . . . need I go on?
In fact, when one confronts an Atheist, one never knows just what sort of logic – or ethic – that particular individual will have as a basis for his behavior... that particular day.
Matt: This is just meaningless rhetoric. When one confronts a person, one never knows this. Why single out atheists? You yourself admit (three paragraphs down) that this is true for Christians.
Now, trust involves building a history of known, predictable, consistent behaviours, and those behaviours must be honest. Dishonest and / or unpredictable behavior automatically breeds not trust, but suspicion.
Matt: So if I understand you correctly, you only trust in group behaviours and not individual behaviours. And if there's an amorphous group with which you're unfamiliar, you automatically don't trust them because you don't know their motivations. Have you tried talking to them? People can have very different motivations and still get along just fine.
If the person is an Atheist, and given the indefinite, unpredictable, inconsistent nature of Atheist models and principles, how is a non-Atheist to know what to expect from that Atheist individual?
Matt: Again, how is any person to know what to expect from any other person? Talk to them and get to know them. Don't saddle them with your own preconceptions which are going to immediately put both you and them on the defensive. That's precisely the sort of nonsense that starts unnecessary wars.
Certainly Christians and other theists are able to behave well outside their professed absolute boundaries of ethical standards. Such individuals will be treated with suspicion also, for the same reasons: what can I expect of such an individual? I submit that such individuals are statistical outliers compared to the 100% unpredictable ethics and behavior standards endemic to Atheism.
Matt: Of course they are, and they're not statistical outliers at all. A human being is a human being. While certain aspects of behaviour may be publicly modified when a person is involved in a group with a defined code of behaviour, it's no guarantee it's being privately modified. Believe me, I grew up in a Christian environment. I know what goes on in the back rooms.
Now atheists such as Cline and the New Atheists feel that they are good folk. And they resent being annoyed by the existence of certain bands of non-Atheists. Plus they are victims of mistrust. So what do they do? They attack.
Matt: They're not annoyed by the existence of non-Atheists, but rather by the encroaching of religion on their lives, which they, quite reasonably, choose to reject. If the demands on them to accept what they reject get stronger, it's understandable that they will increase the power, volume and offensiveness of their rejection.
They create “art” consisting of religious artifacts in urine, feces, garbage; they put religious items on pornographic models; they engage in or encourage open sexual perversion in the streets; they engage in desecration of churches and temples; they write book after book of name calling and elitism; and in the case of Hitchens for example, outright drunken violence against non-Atheists (who he didn't even know). They initiate lawsuits intended to cow non-Atheists into submission to Atheist will on the threat of financial ruin. This behavior is considered valorous in light of the annoyance Atheists incur at the existence of Judeo-Christians on the planet.
Matt: Art is just as valid a method to shock and offend as it is a method to inspire and comfort. I love art that shocks and offends me, because it makes me examine my principles and ask why. But unless the production of that art involved bringing harm to someone, I could never conceive of asking for it to be censored. Such a request shows a ridiculous amount of self-importance.
Besides, I could give you a list just as long of violence and offensive garbage foisted upon the world by people claiming to act in the name of God. What's the point of this? It says precisely nothing about whether or not the claims on either side are true. it just says that people have the capacity to be offensive and belligerent regardless of what they believe.
This Atheist behavior, they say, must be tolerated – “get over it” . It makes them happy, hysterically “hee hee” happy - read the blogs. But they can’t understand why it doesn’t generate trust.
Matt: What is this "Atheist Behaviour" that you keep going on about? Some atheists are jerks. Some theists are jerks. Jerks shouldn't be tolerated.
What exactly is the point of a desecration? Is it just to get the camp followers to sniggering? Or is it to prove Atheism is logically true? Morally superior? More intellectual? Since it fails all these (except the sniggering), there must be another reason, and here it is: The purpose of a desecration is to outrage as many non-Atheists as possible. It’s the same as calling them names only more-so. It’s entire purpose is to annoy and aggravate the hated people, and possibly instigate some form of similar behavior on the hated ones' part as a reaction, to be decried of course.
Matt: Close, but not quite. The point of desecration is to show the inherent ridiculousness of religious belief. When believers start throwing around death threats for putting a nail through a cracker, the ridiculousness is thrown into sharp relief.
So what does this Atheist behavior achieve? What does it earn Atheists and Atheism? How does this increase trust and respect for the Atheist?
Matt: To continue with PZ Myers' recent shenanigans as an example, people believe that a cracker literally turns into human flesh when consecrated. This is obviously nonsense, but this belief drives to people to threaten death on the man. This is insanity and it needs to be shown up for what it is. When religions start making fantastical claims about the real world, then they invite open mockery, and that's what they get.
(I should add that vandalism of another's private property in the name of desecration is, of course, unacceptable).
What is trust? What is respect? How does one get it? (You mean you don’t know? have you checked with your Atheist Ethic Handbook?)
Matt: One gets it by being a whole, self-actualised person, by being personally trustworthy, and by treating others with respect and kindness. You certainly don't get it just because you happen to subscribe to one particular religion, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
Well, you don't get it by force, not by poking your finger in the other’s eye, not by calling them stupid, ignorant, or any of the other semi- and full expletives that Atheists use for that purpose.
Matt: Of course you don't. This is one of the reasons I don't respect religion. Threatening people who would question their beliefs has been a very common tactic throughout our history.
Here’s how you accomplish trust and respect: It is EARNED. You deserve that which you earn; you do not deserve anything just by default. You earn it by consistent, honest, predictable, honorable behavior. You earn it by demonstration of your character through actions, intentions, and persistence.
Matt: I agree wholeheartedly. But this doesn't explain why you grant automatic respect to a person if they claim to believe in the same ancient text that you do, and automatically consider anyone who doesn't to be worthy of deep suspicion.
Is it ever possible to dictate trust and respect?
Matt: Apparently it is. You're dictating that Christians should be trusted and respected just because they're Christians.
This is the goal of Atheists in general: “you must trust and respect me, I DEMAND IT!” Well, it just doesn’t work that way does it? What you can dictate is fear, misapprehension, distrust, suspicion. And that is what Atheists have got.
Matt: We have not dictated fear, misapprehension, distrust and suspicion. These things have been thrust upon us by people like you. You said it yourself. You mistrust atheists as soon as you meet them, before they've had a chance to open their mouths!
“Get over it”. This piece of juvenilia is played daily on the Irascible Atheist network. What it says is, “I am in control here; I am in control of your environment; you are NOT. So you must accept any treatment you get from us.” This behavior is seen as noble for some rationally indecipherable reason. If given in reverse, the Atheist would howl impressively.
Matt: I've never heard an atheist say anything remotely like what you've just described. Can you please provide a link?
What is not part of the Atheist equation is the "respectful attitude".
Matt: It is not part of every atheists' equation, but neither is it part of every theists' equation. This has nothing to do with a person's beliefs, and everything to do with a person's personality.
This is part of one's character that is displayed when one is in the presence of a different worldview; it is also called tolerance. Atheism claims it with its mouth and rejects it with its actions. In this it is consistent: contradiction of claims compared with actions.
Matt: I am exceedingly tolerant of every religion. I have no problem with people believing whatever they want. What I do have a problem with is these same people expecting the whole world to conform to their beliefs, or expecting we who do not subscribe to their moral code to change our behaviour.
Why should I or anybody – including other Atheists – trust or respect any given atheist?
Matt: This is just more meaningless rhetoric. Why should you or anybody trust or respect anybody? You answered this question yourself above. You trust and respect those who earn your trust and respect, but this is earned by an individual's actions, not by their subscription (or failure to subscribe) to some religious belief.
There is no rational reason to do so;
Matt: There's every rational reason to trust someone who has shown they can behave in a trustworthy manner. It's incredibly irrational to mistrust someone purely on the basis of whether or not they believe in a supernatural deity.
in fact there is every rational reason not to do so.
Matt: No, sorry. See previous comment. That's just flat out wrong.
If you are an Atheist and you don’t understand this, then THAT is the reason, right there.
Matt: I understand it perfectly. You are ensconced in a cloistered Christian community, where you are taught to fear and loathe anyone who does not subscribe to you belief system. You have taken on a tribal mentality where anyone outside your chosen tribe is feared and mistrusted. I genuinely pity you for this.
[1]The Enlightenment was not instigated or run by or for scientists; it was done by and for Atheism.
Matt: This is untrue. The Enlightenment was driven by men who believed in God, and were seeking to better understand his Creation. Theism was so much a part of western culture at that time that the concept of atheism was virtually unknown. It just happened to turn out that as understanding grew as a result of Enlightenment principles, the need to resort to God as an explanation for anything became increasingly unnecessary.
[2]Some claim that an ethic evolved along with mankind; this of course leaves the ethic in the position of accommodating the fittest only, who cooperate only as necessary to excel in their niche: watch any politician. So the ethic is not absolute, it is relative to its usefulness at the moment.
Matt: You're twisting the meaning of your terms here. The "fittest" does not only refer to individuals, but also to whole communities. The attitudes you're so keen to ascribe purely to a Christian ethos, such as co-operation, kindness and charitable behaviour all evolved because the communities that had them worked together and survived, while the ones that didn't have them died away.
Matt, thanks for your considered comments.
You seem to assume that I have no experience as – or with – Atheism in our culture. I was an Atheist for 40 years, in a culture far, far less secular than today’s media dominated secular culture. Your assumption that I live a “cloistered” life is incorrect.
Next, I do not argue Christianity from any of its ecclesiastical positions. I argue against Atheism from positions of logic and rational thought. Arguing that, “well Christians are not perfect”, is not a meaningful argument when the discussion is about whether or not Atheism is rational. It is actually a Tu Quoque Fallacy.
One point I would like to make again, though. Christians do, in fact, have a written code of ethics; it is denialism to claim that it is not so. Atheists have no such thing. Even the humanists change their “manifesto” every 40 years or so.
Matt said: “Atheists and theists from the same society tend to act in very similar ways.”
The concept of co-opting Christianity is not something I made up. Famous Atheist Friedrich Nietzsche addressed this issue head-on over 120 years ago:
“When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian Morality our from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands.”
Friedrich Nietzsche (emphasis in the original); from McGrath, “The Twilight of Atheism” 1st Ed, 2006.
More recently, Atheist Michel Onfray wrote the same thing:
“More disturbingly, militant secularism leans heavily on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which it is often content to copy. Immanuel Kant writing “Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone” often serves as a breviary for secular thinkers. The gospel virtues, the message of the Commandments, the testamental recommendations are all merely represented in a new guise. Preservation of the substance, modification of the form… This secularization of Judeo-Christian morality often corresponds to an immanent rewriting of a transcendent discourse. What descends from heaven is not erased but reacclimatized for earth.”
And,
“Secular thought is not de-Christianized thought, but immanent Christian thought. Couched in rational language, it nevertheless preserves the quintessence of the Judeo-Christian ethic.”
And,
“Let us leave behind us a secularism still too imprinted with what it claims to oppose. We may sincerely applaud it for what it once was, offer homage for its past struggles, propose a toast to what we owe it. But let us push forward in a dialectical mode.
Michel Onfray; “In Defense of Atheism”; Viking, Canada; 2005
There is more, of course, and I suggest a thorough reading of all Atheist writers of ethical positions.
Matt said,
“We're just asking for normal garden-variety common courtesy”.
And,
“I am exceedingly tolerant of every religion.”
And,
“When religions start making fantastical claims about the real world, then they invite open mockery, and that's what they get.”
Apparently not deserving of “garden variety common courtesy”. By the way, the claims of religions are not generally about the “real” world in the physical sense, are they? They are actually concerning an expanded reality which atheists deny because it is not tangible to the human sensory system.
At any rate, the mockery is an accepted procedure so long is it is mockery by Atheists, NOT mockery of Atheists. How many standards exist within the Atheist book of ethics? At least two….
Matt, most of your objections are to things that I didn’t claim. You object to Christians and to ecclesiasticism. This in fact makes my point: Atheists don‘t like the fact that there are Christians in the world.
One last comment. Making up stories about how stuff evolved is not a logical procedure. It is a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. Equivalent stories can be made up to justify any belief. You will likely counter that Christianity is also all a "Just So Story", Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy. I will maintain that first there is plenty of actual evidence, archaeologically speaking, that must be refuted for you to justify that statement. And I will also maintain that the irrationality of Atheism is untouched either way.
I think I should address the Enlightenment issue. Which of the following Enlightenment figures were Atheist Philosophers?:
La Mettrie
Hegel
Hume
Feuerbach
Mill
Rousseau
Diderot
d'Alembert
Voltaire
d'Holbach
Liebniz
Schopenhauer
Kierkegaard
Comte
Marx
Nietzsche
Were there Enlightenment scientists? Of course. They did not influence the culture near as significantly as the philosophers. Science spread along with the materialistic cant of the Atheists; but it had been continuing well with Christian influence too. Newton for example was not an Atheist. Nor were many other significant scientists. Atheism doesn't have a lock on science, and never has had.
". . . claims of religions are not generally about the “real” world . . . "
Actually, they almost exclusively are about the real world. This is confirmed when you go on to say:
". . . there is plenty of actual evidence, archaeologically speaking, [which confirms Christianity]
Actually, there isn't, and this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Atheists are only concerned with religions' claims about the real world. That's the whole battleground.
ID vs Evolution debates are not about extra-dimensional philosophising. They're about quality of science education in the here and now.
If religious claims were genuinely restricted to philosophical musings on other dimensions or other realities, nobody would care.
But they're not restricted to that at all, and it's ridiculous to try to pretend that they are.
Religions have made it manifestly clear that they want control of our real world education systems, our real world governments, and they want to have authority over real world people in this real world.
And it is this that atheists are resisting.
On the co-opting of Christian tenets, I'm afraid you have it completely backward.
Atheists haven't co-opted these tenets. They existed long before Christianity existed, and they will still exist long after Christianity is forgotten (along with all the other forgotten religions that claimed they too had the monopoly on ethical behaviour).
It is Christianity that co-opted these attributes and called them their own. We as a society need to take them back. This was the point that Onfray and Nietzche were making.
And on the Enlightenment, I agree that those philosophers have driven atheist thinking, but they were a product of the Enlightenment, not a cause.
The Enlightenment was not begun for this purpose or by these people, as you claimed. It was begun by pious men and women who wanted understand God's creation. The works of these philosophers was merely the inevitable result.
Matt said,
"Atheists are only concerned with religions' claims about the real world. That's the whole battleground."
As I said your problem is with ecclesiasticism, not with religion (theism). Theism claims there is a sentient first cause existing in an unknown set of dimensions; Atheism denies that, without any possible evidence for support. That is the material vs non-material argument.
Your argument reduces to this: the ecclesiastics are trying to retain their control of the social ethic, and Atheists don't want that. So from your annoyance one might conclude that conflict over the control of the social ethic is inevitable, a battleground in fact. I agree.
As for Atheists co-opting Christian ethics, even the major Atheists agree that this is the case, your argument notwithstanding.
If you are saying that prehistoric Judeo-Christianity co-opted Atheist ethics, we can go through the evidence there, if you wish. (it's without evidentiary merit).
I have never ever read such a theory as your statement that the philosophers were created by the Christian Enlightenment. References please.
I doubt that Hobbes would have agreed; I doubt that La Mettrie would have agreed; I doubt that Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx would agree; nor any of the others whose original works drove things like the French Revolution, which contributed to Russian insurrections and Lenin's thought process.
Atheists even deny that the American Revolution and the resulting republic were founded by religious men. A handful of founding fathers are conceded by Atheists to have been, maybe, deists. So the revisionist history insists on primarily Atheist Enlightenment roots even for the USA.
As always, the position taken is presumed to depend upon the particular Atheist, and the particular day the statement is made. Relative values preclude truth statements that are actually known valid by an absolute logic process.
Any way, references please.
Until then I'll stay with the concept of the Enlightenment having been and remaining a materialist, Atheist movement first, scientific secondarily.
Post a Comment