Ending the "long nightmare of religious belief"

The New York Times has a piece (ht: Amy Welborn) about how enlightened, sensitive, and caring atheists are calling for the extermination of religion. Reporting on "a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif," the article opens thus:

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller. ...

Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

Apparently love (meaningless, of course), joy (random, as it were) and intellectual vigor (determined by biological accidents, as we all "know"), were available in over-flowing abundance:

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

The silly and not-so-impressive thinking of folks such as Dawkins (older, seething atheist) and Harris (younger, snippy atheist) has been addressed here and elsewhere. One comment in the Times piece that caught my attention had a familar ring to it:

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

Once again we are left pondering the paucity of philosophical (as in, not necessarily religious) basics. Or just the lack of basic logic. So, let's teach our children "the story of the universe"? What story? Written/created by whom? Does anyone know of any stories—especially ones involving things of "incredible richness and beauty"—that come into being by pure chance and without an author/creator? And what of this poetic, non-scientific language: richness, beauty, glorious, awesome? If there are no transcendent meanings to such words, then they are not only completely subjective, they are ultimately completely nonsensical. "Hey, the universe may be 'glorious' to you, but to me it's simply a bunch of dirt, dust, and other matter floating around in space with no purpose or meaning behind it." So who is really brainwashed? And who is really living according to faith? Reason?

Anyhow, the comments by Dr. Porco sounded very much like those articulated by atheist Ronald Aronson in an article titled, "Thank You Very Much?," (The Philosopher's Magazine), which I commented upon back in August by asking: "Can atheists be grateful?" The question is completely serious. Now, I do believe atheists can be grateful for the universe/world/cosmos, but in doing so I don't think they can remain fully faithful (if at all) to their guiding principles of materialism, scientism, determinism, and so forth.

Here is what ultimately makes no sense: the anger of atheists. If I were an atheist, I would take this simply approach to life: leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. If you want to believe in God, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, the Easter Bunny, Santa (yeah, you know the rhetoric) — fine. Go for it. After all, I could see that Christianity and Judaism have been responsible to some degree for many good things (Western civilization, unversities, law, etc.), and I would recognize, hopefully, that all people are messed up to some degree or another. So as long as you aren't shoving tracts down my throat or hauling me off to a mega-church, I don't care if you are Christian.

I've met a few people who essentially adhere to this approach to life. Sure, I think they are avoiding some significant issues and questions, but I think they are far more reasonable and consistent in their thinking than are folks such as Dawkins, Harris, and Co. After all, if the essence of nasty religious fundamentalism is a rigid, dogmatic, strident, angry, and condemning belief system and attitude, they fit the bill just as well as many of those they regularly lambast.

Comments

[fr richard]

----So, let's teach our children "the story of the universe"? What story? Written/created by whom? Does anyone know of any stories—especially ones involving things of "incredible richness and beauty"—that come into being by pure chance and without an author/creator? ---

Well put indeed, Carl.

And the anger thing. If there's one quality that tends to mark the majority of atheists who write about their non-belief, it's anger against people who do believe.

And I wonder how they think this anger helps to convince others of the truth of their cause.

[Deacon John M. Bresnahan]

Anger against believers is putting it mildly--since the French Revolution and the Terror through present day atheistic Communism, the favorite sport of atheists when they get power is to slaughter, butcher, and torture believers of any religion. But try to find that indisputible historic truth mentioned in the mainstream media as they help build up hatred of religion through treating many atheists as wise secular gurus of impeccable atheist moral lineage---never mind the savage legacy of atheism when in power.

[Cristina A. Montes]

I agree with Carl; the anger of atheists against theists is baffling. IF they really are convinced that God does not exists, why should the "superstitious" practices of a few threaten them?

[beepbeepitsme]

let me see...

Talking snake theory or science.

Ok ya got me - science.

[Jackson]

They're angry because they believe religionists - Christians in particular - have prevented the creation of heaven on earth. Most ironic.

"And the scoffers will themselves be asked: 'If ours is a dream, then when will you raise up your edifice and make a just order for yourselves by your own reason, without Christ?' Even if they themselves affirm, on the contrary, that it is they who are moving towards communion, then indeed only the simplest of them believe it, so that one may even be astonished at such simplicity. Verily, there is more dreamy fantasy in them than in us. They hope to make a just order for themselves, but, having rejected Christ, they will end by drenching the earth with blood, for blood calls to blood, and he who draws the sword will perish by the sword....

"The world has proclaimed freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs: only slavery and suicide!.... We are assured that the world is becoming more and more united, is being formed into brotherly communion, by the shortening of distances, by the transmitting of thoughts through the air. Alas, do not believe in such a union of people. Taking freedom to mean the increase and prompt satisfaction of needs, they distort their own nature, for they generate many meaningless and foolish desires, habits, and the most absurd fancies in themselves. ... But soon they will get drunk on blood instead of wine, they are being led to that. I ask you: is such a man free? I knew one 'fighter for an idea' who told me himself that when he was deprived of tobacco in prison, he was so tormented by this deprivation that he almost went and betrayed his 'idea,' just so that they would give him some tobacco. And such a man says: 'I am going to fight for mankind.'... And no wonder that instead of freedom they have fallen into slavery, and instead of serving brotherly love and human unity, they have fallen, on the contrary, into disunity and isolation.... And therefore the idea of serving mankind, of the brotherhood and oneness of people, is fading more and more in the world, and indeed the idea now even meets with mockery, for how can one drop one's habits, where will this slave go now that he is so accustomed to satisfying the innumerable needs he himself has invented? He is isolated, and what does he care about the whole? They have succeeded in amassing more and more things, but have less and less joy."

-Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, From Talks and Homilies of the Elder Zosima

[Kevin V]

I saw attitude this on a philosophy blog I visited last week.
Lots of angry, haters kvetching about "fundies". Their rhetoric was completely self-indulgent and nihilistic. I left quickly lest I catch whatever horrible disease they had.
An athiest who is angry at something that, as far as he is concerned, does not exist is a sad sight indeed. This is not reasonable doubt, but rage.

[Judith Muehlbauer]

Personally, I think the rage is the natural result of those who turn their back on reason and the natural law. Who can look at the universe and not see the amazing order in it? And yet there are certain features that allow enough "slack" that it is not completely being controlled (free will, anyone?) What we can observe does not argue for randomness but for a creator. We can argue about who or what that creator is but to pretend that it is logical that things come from nothing does damage to one's brain.

[Caryl Johnston]

Agree with you, Carl, but I think the atheists' campaign has a more sinister agenda. Religion is the chief barrier to the machinations of corporate scientism, and if you can get rid of religion, these people will have a blank check to do whatever they want. Militant atheism is a great tool to preserve the status quo and to make people morally complacent and totally manipulable.

[Bill]

Hey Carl,

Nice article. This crap really ticks me off. Richard Dawkins is a complete idiot who has no understanding of theology. All of his arguments are sophomoric straw-men nonsense. The fact that he is respected by anyone claiming to be an intellectual... shows how little they know. Their rage blinds them. And we have to ask, why are they raging against a belief in something they do not believe exists?

If I were to meet an ancient Greek today, I wouldn't be angry at him for believing in Zeus and Hera....

I truly fear a future world where secular humanism becomes a state religion, and all "heretics" (me) are persecuted. Frankly, I believe it is already starting in America and some of Europe. Already it is illegal to say certain things in churches. (i.e. preaching on Romans 1:27 - banned somewhere in Scandanavia)

This is my second post on here and I noticed that once again Cristina Montes completely missed the point of the article. Either that or it is a bad joke.

[Tony Jordan]

Richard Dawkins and others of his ilk, who seek with vengeance to write Almighty God out of the Universe that He created and sustains; then propagate their true agenda, which is in fact, a philosophical ideology of rampant atheism, couched, veneered and convoluted in maze of pseudo-scientific jargon, which then continues to deceive many who simply have not taken the time to examine the true facts, the prepondence of which overwhelmingly support and confirm the creationist model as outlined in God's Word, the Bible, in Genesis 1 and 2.

The fact of the matter is that The Fossil Record, from Microorganisms to Fish, from Fish to Reptiles, the origin of Mammals, and the origin of Man, are al distitute, devoid of any true factual support for this vile, dispicable and contemptible theory of evolution. The blatant lie of evolution is hogwash, and when the window dressing is stripped away, every manlack will know that these angry anteist are masquerading under the guise of counterfeit bogus science.

Tony Jordan