Worldview: Atheism
by A Concerned Citizen
back to the Worldview Menu
Retired on 31 December 2007
Table of Contents
Sam Harris and Rational Mysticism
Chris Hedges Denies Atheists
Richard Dawkins and Evolution
Introduction
April 06: I have noticed that skeptics in general, by which I mean both agnostics and atheists, tend to dismiss all religion as false, useless and pernicious. Their common theme is that religion tends towards dogmatism, fanaticism and intolerance. I suspect that skeptics would also dismiss my interest in Eastern religions as wooly-headed, even though those religions are remarkably tolerant and open-minded. Therefore, I would like to share a few of my thoughts on those who lack any religious or spiritual beliefs at all, that is, those who are hard-headed empiricists who can only accept what is revealed by their senses.
To begin with, I take it for granted that if something corresponding to a 'benevolent God' exists, then there cannot possibly be any punishment for failing to believe in him, her or it. This would effectively contradict any reasonable notion of 'benevolence'. The idea of a jealous God must be considered an ignorant and malignant human fabrication, considering all the harm that it has caused throughout human history.
Furthermore, even people who consider themselves 'spiritual' should be honest and frank about one thing: It is perfectly reasonable and natural to believe that only the world revealed by the senses exists. Can any sensible person fail to comprehend why another human being would think this way? And if you think this way, then you should never pretend otherwise. You should never lie to oneself or to others. A perfectly logical and decent human being can fail to see any need to believe in any kind of divinity. This is not something about which you should be either ashamed or reticent (unless you live in an Islamic country and fears for your life).
However, I also think that those hardcore atheists are being unfair and unreasonable, when they simply assume that any kind of spiritual or metaphysical belief is mere foolishness and stupidity. The truly 'scientific' attitude about such matters is agnosticism rather than atheism. And in fact there are good reasons for believing in some kind of metaphysical power resembling God, e.g., that the existence of anything at all is a kind of 'miracle'. This is simply the primordial intuition one may have that something cannot come from nothing. I am not arguing that such an intuition constitutes a proof of the divine, only that it is at least a reasonable view and should not be mocked or arrogantly dismissed. Indeed, I even think that some kind of 'argument by design' is at least plausible, in the sense in which Einstein saw the hand of God in the laws of nature. Again, this is not a proof, but it should not be dismissed as mere stupidity either. (However, in no way do I support the teaching of creationism or Intelligent Design in science class. Science should limit itself to a strictly empirical methodology.)
It is absurd to suppose the mere belief is rewarded after death and disbelief is punished, especially if that belief is forced upon you, with injury to your rational faculties. To me, true faith has nothing to do with dogma; rather, it is a certain openness to the possibility of enlightenment, to the possibility that we have a divine potential within us, that we can rise to ever higher levels of consciousness, and that our inner consciousness may be immortal. The 'meaning of life', as I see it, is to raise our level of consciousness, by having various experiences, all of which teach us something. The body and brain are a kind of soil in which consciousness matures like a plant. Even grappling with agnosticism or atheism may be part of the learning process. I feel quite sure that being an honest agnostic or atheist is more spiritually beneficial than being a hypocritical or brainwashed Christian or Muslim. The main purpose of life is to discover the truth as best we can, which may benefit from a period of skepticism, and which finally ends in realizing our true inner nature. Who can argue with that? The ultimate truth is invisible, not because it is so remote, but because it is so close. Our senses are directed outwards, but spiritual development requires a turning within. I cannot prove that here, and do not wish to. I only mention it to suggest to the skeptic that true spirituality is not quite like believing in dragons or pink elephants. It is in fact a kind of 'empiricism' in its own right, but one that requires introversion rather than extroversion. Anyway, if any reasonable divinity exists, then we surely have many lives to complete our education! Not that we should be lazy either...
UPDATE (1 Jan 07): A summary of my spiritual beliefs can be found here.
Back to Atheism Menu
Sam Harris and Rational Mysticism (27 May 07): Sam Harris is a young philosopher and author who has made a name for himself with his two books: The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. He is outspoken on the theme that religious faith, especially in the form of organized religion based on revealed scriptures, can lead to a dangerous suspension of rational thought. Indeed, the mass irrationality often promoted by religion now threatens our survival as a species, given a the invention of weapons of mass destruction. He is equally critical of Christian right-wing ignorance (evolution, stem-cell research) and Muslim fanaticism (jihad, suicide bombers).
You might think that he would oppose our ill-conceived and crusade-like project to democratize Iraq with bombs, but in this 2005 article, he calls the Iraq war a 'red herring'. He claims our intentions were good and that the horrendous violence only proves the fanaticism of so many mainstream Muslims. Thus does this intelligent enemy of Republican religious idiocy fall for the fallacy behind their foreign policy. It is precisely because of religious fanaticism, and particularly the hatred between Sunnis and Shias, that it was idiotic for us to invade, like throwing a match into a powder keg. Besides, invading any country, and bombing innocent civilians, for any reason, will inevitably ignite patriotic hatred, just as it would if others were to do that to us. Pre-emptive war is simply wrong, except when faced with a verified imminent threat. National reform can only come from within; only then will it be real and take root. And if one remembers Hiroshima and Dresden, not to mention the internment of Japanese citizens, then the difference between Muslim and American barbarity is not quite as pronounced as he assumes. So we learn the interesting and ironic fact that fear of fanaticism can impede the rationality of a secular atheist. Harris has also been criticized for supporting torture in some cases.
But that is all mere politics. I am more interested in how Harris has been attacked by other skeptics for being (gasp!) sympathetic to some New Age nonsense, like Buddhism and meditation, or even the possibility of reincarnation or extra-sensory perception. Surely we all know that no scientific mind could possibly entertain such foolishness. Well, I have news for the fanatical skeptics. There is nothing intellectually criminal about entertaining the possibility of experiences other than the prosaic ones of our everyday senses. Perhaps the threshold of proof should be raised high, but it is revealing how many of the skepto-Nazis dismiss any such notions with the mere wave of a hand. Besides, Harris stresses the immediate benefit of meditation — a perfectly reasonable and verifiable claim — and seems less concerned with more arcane possibilities such as reincarnation. He is even pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience in order to study the interaction between meditation and brain processes, which is thoroughly commendable to even so metaphysically inclined a person as myself.
UDATE (27 May 07): I forgot to mention one of Harris' key points, namely, that belief in God is simply irrational, given the evil in the world. The reality of evil demonstrates that God is either malicious or less than omnipotent, and in either case he fails the qualifications for being a 'real' God. I disagree. One reasonable answer to the problem of evil is to accept that God, if he (or it) exists, is not omnipotent in any simplistic and naive sense. For one thing, he is evidently constrained by the laws of physics, which may have a mathematical necessity beyond even his control. Until we fully understand the laws of physics, we cannot pontificate about what is possible. Even the medieval scholars wondered if God could create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it.
In fact, as discussed on my philosophy pages, I do believe in the divine, as the ultimate cause or source of the 'miracle' of existence. Yes, it is self-evidently a miracle! A little reflection will make that quite clear. As Steven Weinberg admits in a video below, a mystery will remain, even after the final theory of physics has been formulated. One will always wonder why that theory is at it is. Indeed, the problem is deeper than that. Regardless of the details of that theory, the very miracle of existence cannot be explained by any possible theory. A scientific theory can only describe how the world behaves, without in any way providing a reason for why it behaves as it does. Newton's theory of gravity says that apples fall to the earth, and even provides a formula for computing the speed of the fall vs. time, but Newton was wise enough to realize that gravity itself is unexplained and cannot be explained. Einstein's conceptual innovations have done nothing to address this fundamental issue, which pertains to all of physics. Hence, some room for an ultimate divine cause is intellectually respectable, but not in science itself. For its part, science should stop arrogating to itself a monopoly over truth. (To be fair, it is individual and all-too-human scientists who step over the line, not science itself. Even the 'objective' scientist is susceptible to professional pride.)
So might there be a God who is powerful enough to create the universe and fill it with life, but who simply lacks that last increment of power necessary to prevent evil? A 98% God, or a 70% God, or a 20% God, depending on how you count? Any such number seems rather arbitrary for such a grandiose entity, and sorely suggests an 'uber-God' to account for this peculiar contingency, which leads to an infinite regress.
I do not know the answer, but I offer the following speculation for your consideration. God as unlimited Being and Consciousness simply Is. This Being must exist as the unfathomable Source of being, and one can scarcely conceive of it as a blind and unconscious principle. (Well, maybe others can, but I can't.) Such an 'infinitely miraculous' entity must be unlimited and perfect in itself. However, it wished to 'reproduce' itself, in order to multiply its blissful existence. (That was very considerate.) Unfortunately, such a reproduction entails a mathematical impossibility, since no being can exist apart from God, as no waves can exist apart from the ocean. Yet God, and only God, has the power to circumvent mathematics, but only partially. The price to pay is an evolution of all seemingly 'created' beings from darkness to light. Despite all the suffering along the way, we will be grateful in the end. All's well that ends well.
More to the point, we should perhaps forget about all this grandiose speculation and simply work to make the present life as good as possible, for ourselves and for others. This requires only reason and decency. I see no reason at all why religious dogma should have anything to do with it, at least at the level of basic justice, which is where we should begin and where much work remains. The emphasis on ideology is the curse of revealed religions, and the source of so much trouble, as different religions compete to monopolize the truth. To this extent, Harris is quite correct. However, he errs in trying to stamp out all metaphysical speculation and belief. Beyond simple justice for humanity, necessary as that might be, there will remain in some a thirst for a higher knowledge and experience, which might be described as 'transcendent'. The dogmatic scientist may scoff, but such ethereal adventures need not be harmful. Indeed, mystics are known for their gentle natures, with few exceptions. The evil in religion invariably comes when it is mixed with politics, in the form of organized religion and of a diabolical mingling of Church and State. We will see that Chris Hedges has much to say about this.
NOTE: Sam's most important point — the one he cares most about — is that organized religion must no longer be held sacrosanct and immune from criticism, given its tendency to foster irrational group hysteria. Religion is simply not an unqualified force for good, as so often proclaimed by our pious and self-serving leaders. I have no quarrel with that claim! I just want him and his kind to ease up a bit on us metaphysicians, especially when we are so nice and liberal! (Naturally, Sam is referring to the United States, which has been rendered culturally backward by the primitive Republicans. There is no problem criticizing religion in Europe. Indeed, it's rather embarrassing to this patriotic American that we even need a Sam Harris, but recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated that Republican ignorance knows no bounds. Too bad that Sam fell for some of it.)
UDATE (27 May 07): I was rather amused by Theroux's article, posted below. He sees the Christian emphasis on 'individualism' and conscience as the wellspring for our modern liberal democratic ideals. Further, he insists that the Greco-Platonic belief in a God of Reason, to be found in many Church Fathers, is the foundation for our modern scientific revolution. This is amusing to one who knows something about the conflict between the Pope and the emerging science of the time after Galileo, not to mention the clash between the luminaries of the European Enlightenment and the Catholic Church, or the simple fact that the Church has so often taken the side of the powers-that-be. Theroux is much too breezy in dismissing the well-known dark passages in the history of Christianity, but it is interesting to see how a well-meaning Christian can squeeze water from a rock. And there may be something to what he says, which is echoed by Chris Hedges in the article to follow. The fact remains that the Church has hardly ever been at the vanguard of intellectual development or of social progress. (And the Protestant sects have generally been quite conservative as well.) That is because organized religion favors hierarchal power and social conformity, and because the sanctification of scripture is simply inimical to free-wheeling rational thought. But the good news is that pious libertarians like Theroux are not the people we need to worry about.
UDATE (28 May 07): Let me sharpen my critique of Sam Harris, based on watching the first video clip below. He says that those who affirm God, without evidence, should be treated like Holocaust deniers, for a similar reason. Perhaps they need not be imprisoned, but they should certainly not be given positions of responsibility, such as becoming university presidents. (What about simple tenure?) Or consider the case of a senator or congressman who, in reaction to a hurricane, proposes on the floor a prayer to Poseidon. He would be laughed out of office, yet that is what politicians do everyday, with 'God' substituted for 'Poseidon'. Another favorite example is stem-cell research, which, because of a silly superstition about a mere cluster of cells, has not been allowed to fulfill its medical promise. Or take the case of the Church's preaching against condoms, which is effectively producing AIDS-related 'genocide' in sub-Saharan Africa, where the Church is the main source of information on such matters.
Sam definitely has good points with some his particular examples, but he goes a bit too far. We need some common sense here. A professor or politician can be a sensible person when it comes to specific empirical phenomena such as the Holocaust, AIDS, stem-cell research, or hurricanes. (Frankly, I have no problem with a little prayer to Poseidon. Big deal.) But when it comes to 'transcendental' matters, such as the mere existence of God, or of life after death, Harris goes too far in trying to ostracize such people. He is wrong to state that such questions are about 'reality', and hence they must be answered by the methods of science. The methods of science cannot answer such questions, which does not render them invalid. At least, this is true with the cosmic questions, like God and life after death. More restricted domains, such as telepathy or extra-sensory perception, may indeed be subject to scientific methods.
Of course, we should be intelligent and sensible about science and technology, especially when it comes to the public good. (Though paradoxically, global warming has become a bit of a hysterical 'religion'!) The real problem is that the foolish Republicans have gone too far and transgressed the boundaries of common sense. The solution is not to impose a totalitarian ban on all personal beliefs that are not backed up by strict scientific methods. People make leaps of faith all the time, such as when they get married. We can't stop being human. But we can be intelligent and sensible humans, and here the Republicans and Christian conservatives have sinned, due to their lack of education. Education is the key to a modern liberal democracy. With a bit of study, those guys might even understand Darwin. Let's be optimistic!
UDATE (28 May 07): I'll give Harris credit for arguing that Muslims are much likelier to be terrorists than Buddhists, based on their religious ideology. This is more honest than Chris Hedges' typically liberal attempt to argue that there are Buddhist terrorists too, so that extremists must be considered a fringe in any religion (see below). This is simply not true. However, it is a big mistake to jump to the conclusion that we must fight WW III against 'the Muslims'. The conservatives in America have been all too willing to feel this way, based on the very religious irrationality that Harris condemns. Yes, Muslim violence and intolerance are fostered by the many militant passages in the Koran, but we too have bombed the hell out of innocent people, based on a misguided and imperialistic foreign policy. It is sheer hypocrisy to sweep that under the rug by appealing to our good intentions. The point is that one can also commit atrocities without religious inspiration, say, based a primitive and ignorant patriotic fervor.
AFTERTHOUGHT (28 May 07): You gotta realize that I come from a most un-Biblical part of America. Hence, my insouciance about that particular book, which I chucked long ago. Like Harris, I look for my spiritual wisdom in Eastern scriptures, which are far superior, at least from the moral point of view (but in other respects as well). Perhaps I should try harder to appreciate the paranoid feelings of thinking Americans, who have to live cheek-by-jowel with our more primitive, Bible-thumping brothers. And there are supposedly a lot of them out there! I'd have trouble believing that, except that there must be some explanation for the fact that the intellectually challenged Republicans keep winning elections. So let's work on converting those red-state red-meat Americans to Buddhism! Oh wait, I forgot. I'm against conversion as a matter of principle. Shucks.
MY COMMENT ON ALTERNET: This critique of Sam Harris is unfair. Briefly, I would make the following points:
(1) One could conceive of a 'ticking nuclear time bomb case' where some suspect is known to be a bad guy with sufficient certainty that it makes some kind of moral sense to use some form of torture. This is at least a logical possibility. However, I am against any use of torture simply because of the inevitable government incompetence and bias [not to mention that information obtained from torture is unreliable].
(2) Eastern religions have the inestimable virtue of tolerance, which is sorely lacking in the orthodox versions of the three 'Abrahamic' faiths. The Eastern religions do not demand blind faith. At their best, they say to try something like meditation and see if it works for you. Believing in some kind of deity is an option. There are rational reasons for believing in some kind of deity, such as 'Why is there a universe?' You may not agree, but it is fanatical to deny someone else the feeling of a great mystery that needs to be explained. Stop being so pedantic about any trace of metaphysical speculation.
(3) Christianity has a violent history, but Jesus didn't set the example. Mohammed most defintiely set the example for the violence in Islamic history. That's an important distinction, which continues to this day. Where are the right-wing Christians sawing of heads and blowing stuff up? — unless you think this is what Bush policy amounts to! I think the war was an irresponsible gamble and blunder, but it was at least superficially in the name of democracy rather than religion.
(4) A little psychic research won't hurt anybody. Of course, it needs to be verified by independent teams again and again, but getting hysterical about it is another kind of fanaticism.
There is much to dislike in the Iraq war, in the current Republican party, in conservative Christianity, and so on, but don't let your hatreds turn you into fanatics in your own right. Well, I guess that wasn't so brief. Sam Harris - End of Faith (1 of 4)
Sam Harris at Idea City 'A05
Beyond Belief 'A06 - Sam Harris (Clip 1)
Beyond Belief 'A06 - Scott Atran vs. Sam Harris
Back to Atheism Menu
Chris Hedges Denies Atheists (27 May 07): Chris Hedges, who has written about right-wing 'religious fascists' in America, has started a debate on Truthdig with Sam Harris over the value of religion. Hedges has a theological degree from Harvard Divinity School and is not averse to Christianity, despite his typically leftist credentials in other respects. (Hey, I'm in favor of diversity!) However, his definition of God seems a bit slippery, as it is based more on our ideals than on any transcendent reality. Now I realize that traditional anthropomorphic notions of God are mostly untenable, but can a mere ideal count as any kind of a real God? Why introduce the word 'God' if we are only talking about ideals and inspiration? But let us see what he says. He starts off the discussion with Harris by posting an article with a provocative title.
What he fails to grasp is not simply the meaning of faith — something I will address later — but the supreme importance of the monotheistic traditions in creating the concept of the individual. This individualism — the belief that we can exist as distinct beings from the tribe, or the crowd, and that we are called on as individuals to make moral decisions that at times defy the clamor of the tribe or the nation — is a gift of the Abrahamic faiths.
[. . .] I'm sure that Hedges is a decent and sincere person, and I must accept that religion is what people make of it. I just hope he isn't enthusiastic about proselytization. I consider all such attempts at mind control to be highly obnoxious. Changing one's faith should be a slow and thoughtful process in which the convert takes the initiative. (To be more accurate, I don't even believe in 'conversions' or religious labels of any kind. I simply believe in wisdom, which can come from any wise person or source.)
Anyway, let us proceed to his understanding of 'God':
Really, what we call 'God' is a wellspring of inspiration and meaning that arises deep within us, as the Hindus so wisely say, and which they call the 'Self'. Moreover, as proclaimed repeatedly by the ancient Upanishads, this Self is intimately connected with the universe, in the sense that one Reality is the basis of All. (How is that for a tautology?) In the realized yogi, this knowledge (or perspective if you prefer) leads ultimately to an ecstatic mystical vision in which our finite consciousness seems to expand and identify with the entire cosmos. But of course, none of this can be proved or disproved by science. It is a deep and life-transforming experience, not some petty measurement with instruments. It is an overall state of consciousness and not some isolated fact within that conscious experience.
So what about death and reincarnation? I'll admit that I cannot 'prove' that my consciousness survives the death of my body. The very question of what constitutes 'my' consciousness is far more subtle that most people realize. Most of our sense of 'identity' is involved with transitory experiences that flicker across the screen of consciousness, like a movie. Clearly, those experiences arise and disappear, like bubbles, while the underlying screen remains. But does that screen survive even the death of the body?
Even to ask this question presupposes the materialistic assumption that the body is a more fundamental reality than the mind it supposedly 'contains' (in the brain). How do we know that the body even exists 'externally' to the mind (i.e. to consciousness) as it seems to? All we are aware of is our immediate consciousness, and what we call the 'body' and the 'world' might very well be a dream within that consciousness, as I have argued at length on my philosophy pages. (At least, I have the amiable Berkeley and Chuang Tzu on my side!) In that case, a sequence of 'lives' becomes far more plausible, as a sequence of dreams within the consciousness. A consciousness, I might add, that simply 'floats', everywhere and nowhere.
At any rate, there are fundamental problems with trying to reduce consciousness to brain chemistry, though there is no doubt a close relationship. I have also discussed this on my philosophy pages, and it amazes me that so many modern philosophers and neuroscientists cannot grasp the obvious problems involved in trying to reduce consciousness to supposedly insentient matter. At any rate, the impossibility of this reduction should be a powerful reason to hope that consciousness does not disappear with the death of the body. Enough said. We should focus on the present reality and let the distant future take care of itself.
As for the existence of an honest-to-God God, with the customary unlimited consciousness and creative powers, I have argued that such an entity must exist, in some sense, or at least most likely exists. In my opinion, the very 'miracle' of existence presupposes something of the sort. Not a very fashionable thought in current academic circles, but there you have it. Of course, I realize that such speculation is outside the realm of empirical science, and no scientist should introduce the kind of reasoning into his work. But one is not necessarily stupid or wrong for thinking this way. Does Hedges really need to be content with a vague and bloodless principle based on intentions and ideals? Is he, perhaps unconsciously, feeling peer pressure from his supercilious Ivy League environment, where metaphysics is simply not respectable? (Let us say of academic fashion what is often said of British weather: If you don't like it, just wait a bit.)
Yet the issue is not quite so simple. Hedges' redefinition of the verse from Exodus as 'I will be what I will be' is somewhat reminiscent of Hegel. The whole of human experience may be the unfolding of the divine consciousness in evolutionary stages, reflected in countless individual minds striving towards the same goal. In this sense, atheists and theists, conservatives and liberals, priests and prostitutes, all have a role to play. Our idea of God can only reflect the state of our consciousness at a given time. Indeed, the true reality, from an existential point of view, is not the hidden God of speculation but the immediate God of life itself, imperfect as it may be, as it strives from darkness to light. This 'God' includes all of human experience, including the skepticism of the atheist. What matters is that we be striving towards a goal of truth, to the best of our ability, which means eschewing the imperfections of the past, even when encoded in hallowed scripture.
We have here an answer to the problem of evil. God is not omnipotent. Our path from darkness to light must proceed by stages, just as life must evolve from the primitive to the advanced. However, the goal is as perfect as we can imagine, and there is no reason to believe that our imagination is in any way limited. If we can conceive of God, then we can conceive of perfection. So let us stop indulging in fruitless speculation about the hidden God of absolute truth and get to work making the divine an immanent reality. That, I believe, is what Hedges is trying to say, and it's not such a bad idea. It may even be what the ultimate hidden God wants, insofar as one can speak of it as having desires.
Sam Harris responded to Hedges' article with:
My comments to Sam Harris Strikes Back:
Good grief! Hedges was giving an enlightened view of religion, which some religious people do in fact hold. The fact that millions of others hold to superstitions that both Hedges and Harris reject is another matter. People like Harris and Dawkins are too totalitarian in their denial of different forms of religion.
I only fault Hedges that he reduces God to a mere 'ideal'. It is quite reasonable to hold the view that there is some mysterious infinite power that holds the ultimate explanation for the universe, which science cannot provide. Science can only tell us how the laws of nature are, not why they are. I suspect Hedges really believes in this more substantial notion of deity but pulled his punches in order to be intellectually respectable. At any rate, he is not lumbering and dishonest and all the other things Harris said.
Harris should get off his high horse. He is the one who made a big deal about Islamic sucide terrorism while completely ignoring the 650,000 Iraqis who died for nothing due to an American invasion based on deception. Let's have a bit of honesty here. At the same time, I fault Hedges for his piety that Buddhist have terrorists too (e.g. WWII Japan). The track record of Buddhists is very much better than Muslims regarding religious violence. My comments posted on the Truthdig audio link above:
Back to Atheism Menu
Richard Dawkins and Evolution (29 May 07): Richard Dawkins is an Oxford biologist who has become famous for insisting that religion is generally pernicious, and that evolution disproves God, so that we should do away with religion altogether. I accept that organized religion is often directly involved in social strife and has been throughout the ages. The question remains whether even the well-behaved religious person should be pressured into giving up belief in God, simply because it may seem foolish and irrational in light of evolution.
I have already argued on this page that, despite all the marvels of modern science, a rational person may still entertain some notion of God. Science can only describe how nature behaves, not why it behaves as it does. This may suggest to some a transcendent ultimate cause for the laws of nature, and the idea is not obviously illogical. At an even more basic level, the very miracle of existence, regardless of its wondrous behavior, may similarly suggest an idea of God as some sort of ultimate cause that transcends nature.
One argument against such a transcendent cause is that it can neither be proved or disproved, and given that there is no 'evidence' for it, one should err on the side of skepticism. Bertrand Russell famously compares belief in God to belief that a teapot is orbiting Saturn. It cannot be disproved, but it is entirely unreasonable. Actually, this is a poor argument, because a teapot around Saturn would be rather inconsistent with the laws of nature (litterbug aliens?), which no sane person would want to deny. The idea of a transcendent cause for those laws is something entirely different, which is at least not inconsistent or inharmonious with those laws, but rather is proclaimed as necessary for their very existence.
As for evolution itself — Dawkins favorite topic — we should surely discard the notion that God actively intervenes in nature as some kind of sculptor or engineer. Clearly, science forces us to move beyond Genesis, and the most we can say of God is that he causes the laws of nature and then lets them run as they will. Note that this cause is not in time, as so many suppose. The existence of the laws of nature must be sustained at all times, as must the very matter and energy whose behavior the laws describe. If it is some kind of a 'miracle' for nature even to exist, along with its 'beautiful' laws, then that miracle must be sustained as long as nature does exist. So God is a sustainer rather than a creator. In a sense, he must be eternally omnipresent, as the ocean sustains the waves.
So we can dispense with the red herring that all religious or metaphysical thought must be banned, simply because evolution disagrees with Genesis. Rather, the philosopher who is inclined to believe in a deity must then try to understand evolution in light of the deity. It seems most natural to me to adopt the viewpoint of Teilhard de Chardin and interpret the entire history of the universe as an evolution from darkness to light, with thinking man as its goal. It is all a magnificent procession from darkness to light, from chaos and insentience to order and intelligence, starting with the Big Bang, continuing on through the formation of stars, galaxies and planets, and then with the evolution of life on sufficiently hospitable planets, and culminating in humanity. With man, the merely physical evolution proceeds to an intellectual and spiritual evolution, as recorded by history, through ever higher states of consciousness, and culminating in reunion with the Infinite Consciousness from which it all proceeds. Such a sweeping panorama is rather Hegelian, but without any opportunistic respect for Prussia.
By the way, this cosmic evolution 'explains' the problem of evil, to some extent. God evidently cannot create perfect humanity in the blink of an eye. The path must proceed from darkness to light, which is what evolution is all about, and which sounds like an almost 'mathematical' constraint (if one can establish the necessity of continuity). Dawkins' beloved evolution is part of a grand spiritual saga, not something that negates spirituality. Even the flaws of ancient scriptures are explained by evolution; they codified an early and imperfect stage in man's spiritual journey. (The Hindu and Buddhist scriptures fared rather better.)
I do fear that Dawkins bears rather too much animus against any and all religious expression, no doubt based on personal circumstances of his life. You may insist that all metaphysics is speculation at best, but please accept that its grand and beautiful ideas are not stained by the sins of mankind. Nor can they be disproved or even rendered implausible by mere logic and observation. An intelligent person is certainly entitled to consider the Divine Source as plausible, though you need not agree. It largely depends on how 'miraculous' you consider it to be that anything at all exists. I consider it manifestly miraculous, and that does it for me.
Biologist Richard Dawkins on Atheism
Richard Dawkins interviews the Bishop of Oxford
Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath
Beyond Belief 2006 - Session 1 (includes Richard Dawkins)
Richard Dawkins in Lynchburg VA - Q&A Session
Back to Atheism Menu
Websites
Back to Atheism Menu
Articles
As I was pondering whether any of these practices could be reconciled with rationality, the religious gloating of the conservative intelligentsia only grew louder. The onset of the Iraq war expanded the domain of religious triumphalism to transatlantic relations: what makes America superior to Europe, we were told by conservative opinionizers, is its religious faith and its willingness to invade Iraq. George Bush made the connection between religious beliefs and the Iraq war explicit, with his childlike claim that freedom was God's gift to humanity and that he was delivering that gift himself by invading Iraq.
I need not rehearse here how Bush's invocation of the divine gift of freedom overlooks the Bible, the persistence throughout history of hierarchical societies that have little use for personal autonomy, and the unique, centuries-long struggle in the West to create the institutions of limited government that underwrite our Western idea of freedom. Suffice it to say, the predictable outcome of the Iraq invasion did not convince me that religious belief was a particularly trustworthy ground for political action. Back to Atheism Menu
Note: This video presents some intriguing ideas that are more or less consistent with the facts, but also makes many false statements, especially regarding evolution. There is no scientific consensus in favor of intelligent design! However, the fine-tuning of physical constants does seem a bit more perplexing. Other metaphysically-inclined physicists have written on this.
The Jesus Unknown To Atheism and Humanism
Beyond Belief 2006 - Session 1 (includes Steven Weinberg)
Mr. Deity and the Messages
Atheist Girl Pays Price in Oklahoma
Atheism: A Rough History Of Disbelief - Part 1
Ursula Goodenough on Biology and Religion
Why Religion is Delusional
Back to Atheism Menu
Sam Harris: There is No God (and you know it)
Sam Harris: Reply to a Christian
Sam Harris: Bombing Our Illusions
Sam Harris: 'Mired in a religious war'
Sam Harris: Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists
CAP: Author Sam Harris chats on religious fundamentalism
Chris Lehmann: Review of Sam Harris' The End of Faith
David J. Theroux: Believing in Almost Anything
Christie Schaefer: Atheism in the service of political reaction
Alternet: Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith
SAM HARRIS' FAITH IN
EASTERN SPIRITUALITY AND MUSLIM TORTURE
John Gorenfeld, Alternet, 5 Jan 07
Sam Harris's books The End Of Faith and Letter To A Christian Nation have established him as second only to the British biologist and author Richard Dawkins in the ranks of famous 21st century atheists. The thrust of Harris's best-sellers is that with the world so crazed by religion, it's high time Americans stopped tolerating faith in the Rapture, the Resurrection and anything else not grounded in evidence. Only trouble is, our country's foremost promoter of 'reason' is also supportive of ESP, reincarnation and other unscientific concepts. Not all of it is harmless yoga class hokum — he's also a proponent of waterboarding and other forms of torture.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISTS
Chris Hedges, in a debate with Sam Harris,
Truthdig, 5 Jan 07
Sam Harris has conflated faith with tribalism. His book is an attack not on faith but on a system of being and believing that is dangerous and incompatible with the open society. He attacks superstition, a belief in magic and the childish notion of an anthropomorphic God that is characteristic of the tribe, of the closed society. He calls this religion. I do not.
That last statement attracts my attention, since I have argued on my India and Hinduism pages that the 'Abrahamic' faiths have exploited the monotheistic concept to wield religion as a political and tribal weapon, as Hedges admits. (There is only one God and one true religion — ours!) We saw this in Deuteronomy and in the long and bloody history of Christianity, with its persecution of infidels, mass conversion of 'pagans' by force, use of religion as a prop for colonialism, and missionary activity, which even today sows dissension in countries like India. And of course, all of this was echoed by Islam, where it persists to this day.
God is a human concept. God is the name we give to our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world's chaos, randomness and cruelty. To argue about whether God exists or does not exist is futile. The question is not whether God exists. The question is whether we concern ourselves with, or are utterly indifferent to, the sanctity and ultimate transcendence of human existence. God is that mysterious force — and you can give it many names as other religions do — which works upon us and through us to seek and achieve truth, beauty and goodness. God is perhaps best understood as our ultimate concern, that in which we should place our highest hopes, confidence and trust. In Exodus God says, by way of identification, 'I am that I am.' It is probably more accurately translated: 'I will be what I will be.' God is better understood as verb rather than a noun. God is not an asserted existence but a process accomplishing itself. And God is inescapable. It is the life force that sustains, transforms and defines all existence.
Well, frankly, that won't satisfy those who want to know whether life has a purpose and whether we will survive this life, all of which presuppose a more traditional notion of God, if we are honest about it. At the same time, there is no doubt that most traditional notions of God have been contaminated with anthropomorphism, tribalism, superstition and other kinds of error. This being said, Hedges has a point. Skepticism and atheism do lead inevitably to a dismal view of life as transitory and meaningless. The inevitability of death and of annihilation can only be depressing to the candid atheist. As Voltaire said, 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.'
Truthdig, 29 May 2007
#73658 by Benjamin on 5/29 at 6:47 am
The comments here are generally pretty good. Here are audio excerpts from that debate:
Truthdig audio debate (excerpts)
COMMENTS (7 Jun 07): These comments are based on the audio debate above. Despite Chris Hedges' obscurity regarding his notion of God, I think he shows rather more wisdom that Sam Harris (who is starting to seem a bit overrated to me). Harris can only harp on what any intelligent person will accept: that Genesis is incorrect, that Deuteronomy violates the Geneva Conventions, and so on. As discussed, he has proven himself the victim of neocon propaganda by subscribing to the disastrous Iraq war, which demonstrates that religion is no precondition for poor judgment. Moreover, his tunnel vision regarding Islamic violence is evident. He's stuck like a broken record on the 72 virgins, while remaining oblivious to the real misery and desperation of the Palestinians, which might cause even secular rationalists to lose their minds and seek solace in some form of religion or fanaticism. In a way, the armchair warriors like Harris are playing an easy game of preaching to the choir on superstition, yet serving as witting or unwitting accomplices to the right-wing Zionist agenda of putting the spotlight on 'terrorism' while ignoring Israel's contribution to the conflict. Harris' rationalist credentials are further tarnished by the fact that he hasn't yet realized or accepted that there is a considerable amount of politics and relativity in the very label 'terrorist'. It is becoming a bit of an Orwellian word in its own right. Does starting a war on false pretexts and contributing to the unnecessary deaths of 650,000 innocent Iraqis count as terrorism? Why not? And has the right-wing in Israel not been slowly trying to squeeze the Palestinians out of the occupied territories? The world's problems are not only about religion — though religion also ironically has a role to play with the supposedly 'rationalistic' and 'modern' right-wing Israelis.
Hedges has more wisdom and humanism that Harris, who can only harp on the 72 virgins, while favoring the idiotic Iraq war and ignoring the desperation of the Palestinians. You or I might become a bit fanatical if we were living as they are. As a Hindu sympathist, I am a bit worried about Hedges' praise for monotheism. Does he realize that that might offend Hindus? Does he care? Does he have any missionary fervor? I hope not. Missionaries are obnoxious.
Richard Dawkins: Why There Almost Certainly Is No God
Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Disrobed
Patrick McNamara: Dawkins, Dennett and the God Gene
Beyond Belief 2006
Bertrand Russell: Why I Am Not a Christian
Paul Kurtz: Why I Am a Skeptic about Religious Claims
Freeman Dyson: Religion from the Outside (on Daniel Dennett)
Ben Rutter: The New Agnosticism?
Dinesh D'Souza: Atheism is behind the mass murders of history
Judith Reisman: Darwin's Fairytales Have Led Us to Savage Waters
Jeff Jacoby (Boston Globe): Atheists' bleak alternative
Lakshmi Chaudhry (Alternet): An Atheist Bullies the Faithful
Tobias Jones: Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians
10 QUESTIONS FOR HEATHER MAC DONALD
Gene Expression blog, 02 Jan 07
I also wondered at the narcissism of believers who credit their good fortune to God. A cancer survivor who claims that God cured him implies that his worthiness is so obvious that God had to act. It never occurs to him to ask what this explanation for his deliverance says about the cancer victim in the hospital bed next to his, who, despite the fervent prayers of her family, died anyway.
Website: Victor J. Stenger: physicist and atheist
John Clayton: Video: Evidence for God
Steven Warshawsky: Atheists, Conservatives, and Christianity
Christopher Orlet: Skeptical conservatives emerging from closet
E.J. Dionne: On Atheists and Easter
Jack Miles: Review of Hitchens' God is Not Great
Jack Miles: Review of Dennett's Breaking the Spell
Christopher Hitchens: Religion Poisons Everything
Ronald Aronson: The New Atheists
Daniel Lazare: Among the Disbelievers
Dan Gardner: Those fanatical atheists
Mary Eberstadt: How the West Really Lost God
Michael Gerson: What Atheists Can't Answer
Christopher Hitchens: An Atheist Responds
Boris Kachka: Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens.
Erasmus Root: The Hollow Men: Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris
Hilary Putnam debates Alvin Plantinga on God (audio)
Mark Oppenheimer: The Turning of an Atheist (Anthony Flew)
Jim Holt: Can you prove God doesn't exist?
Jim Holt: Beyond Belief (on Richard Dawkins)
Beyond Belief 2006