Hurrah for Old-Time Atheism
Well…call me delusional, call me hasty (call me a cab, call me for dinner, yeah yeah, I know), but I can’t help wondering if Salman Rushdie has been reading B&W, at least once. I started with surprise when I started reading this article.
“Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naïvely pro-science,” says Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England in Bristol…Evans’ position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America — and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of “intelligent design” — at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion.
It’s not the Evans thing, it’s the combination of that with Michael Ruse, and then farther down in the article Richard Dawkins appears. Hit the End button and take a look at the N&Cs from the beginning of the month, and you’ll see why I think Salman may have been reading here. Maybe not! Maybe I am delusional. Only Ruse is not all that conspicuous, I don’t think; it just happens that I’m interested in him and why he thinks what he does, and so pay attention when he writes something or is reviewed. Then again…I think a review of Ruse’s new book showed up at Arts and Letters Daily, so maybe it is just coincidence. Still – ! It’s not impossible. There is Ibn Warraq’s address to the UN, for instance, and Azam’s, and there are Maryam’s and Homa’s articles. It’s not out of the question that Salman R has a certain interest in issues of this kind, is it now. Anyway, if so, if I inspired him to write about the Evans-Ruse Plan, then very good! Very useful of me. And if not, if he thought of it all by himself, also good, because I can think how clever of me to think of the same thing, and sooner.
Enough about me. It’s the article that’s interesting. Go, Salman.
Evans’ “Atheism Lite,” which seeks to negotiate a truce between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished. Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal — if the world’s religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life’s multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called “revealed” texts. No such reciprocal arrangement exists, however, nor is there the slightest chance that such an accommodation could ever be reached.
Just so. That’s one of the things that made Evans’ piece so irritating. He’s so annoyed with atheists, and so non-annoyed with theists. Wait – huh? Why do we have to do all the accomodating and sucking-up? Why are we the only ones who have to abandon what we think at the door and sit still and be quiet while the theists stomp around and tear the house apart? Why’s he yelling at us and letting the theists just do whatever they damn well feel like?! We didn’t do anything – why doesn’t he go shout at them for awhile?! In fact why doesn’t he just go shout at them, period, and leave us alone.
Nor does the current behaviour of organized religion breed confidence in the Evans/Ruse laissez-faire attitude. Education everywhere is seriously imperilled by religious attacks. In recent years, Hindu nationalists in India attempted to rewrite the nation’s history books to support their anti-Muslim ideology, an effort thwarted only by the electoral victory of a secularist coalition led by the Congress party. Meanwhile, Muslim voices the world over are claiming that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Islam.
Yeah but see that’s okay because religion is art, man, so it’s harmless, and it doesn’t matter if it tries to eviscerate science teaching. No problema.
Meanwhile religions continue to attack their own artists: Hindu artists’ paintings are attacked by Hindu mobs, Sikh playwrights are threatened by Sikh violence and Muslim novelists and filmmakers are menaced by Islamic fanatics with a vigorous unawareness of any kinship.
Yes, they are, aren’t they. As are non-Muslim novelists who ought to be Muslims because their grandparents were. I’m not naming any names or anything, but I can think of one not a million miles from this very article.
Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return. As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists. They are doing a vital and necessary thing.
Yeah! Attaboy, Salman! Sing it! Tell those bastards.
Excuse my warmth. But I do get so tired of all this rebuking of atheists even by other atheists for being too noisy or talkative or definite or ‘adolescent’ for Christ’s sake. I do get so sick of all this ‘Shh, shh, if you don’t talk too loud maybe they won’t get angry and will let us live, over here in this little corner with a heap of rags to sleep on, if only you don’t say anything – oh do please be quiet!’ I won’t be quiet. Why should I be quiet? I’m not the one who’s telling everyone there’s a giant Man in Heaven taking care of us, and that’s why the world is such a perfect place and so free of suffering, am I. They can be quiet. I’ve got stuff to say.
Molto Bravo! to Salman Rushdie, a man who has put his life where his mouth is. We need more human beings with his eloquence and commitment to truth.
Tell it like it is, Salman. Good to see all that hanging around with Bono hasn’t warped your brain.
Like Evans and others, I tried the “atheism lite” approach. After all, I had been raised in a religious school and had friends and family who were still believers (happily, their numbers are dwindling)and it was more a matter of common courtesy not to disabuse them of their imaginary friends.
But, Rushdie hit the nail on the head when he says they will never make an accomodation for us. Since they (the believers)have declared there will be no mercy or quarter, we may as well go down fighting.
It’s called triangulation?
“I…had friends and family who were still believers (happily, their numbers are dwindling)”
Because they’re all becoming atheists right, not because they’re all dying?
“But, Rushdie hit the nail on the head when he says they will never make an accomodation for us.”
Just so. And one of the infuriating things about the line of nonsense that Ruse and Evans – atheists themselves, remember! – peddle is that it just encourages them! It just gives them yet more cause to tell themselves that everyone, simply everyone, my dear, thinks they’re right and the few tattered obstinate holdouts of dreary old ’19th century’ atheism are wrong wrong wrong. They don’t need more encouragement – they’re already getting far too much.
PM:
Actually, both. When I rejected my faith (mind you, this was while I was at a seminary school!) they sort of rolled their eyes and said I would someday come to my senses. It was fortunate that my family was not terribly fanatical about the church, many of them have since told me that I was right all along.
I’m in complete agreement that atheists shouldn’t try to dumb down their ideas or pander to organized religion. I’m torn, though, because I also understand the sentiment between the “noisy” and “adolescent” put-downs. I’m going to use Dawkins as my scapegoat here, but I’m no expert on him, so forgive me if I screw up any facts. I see Dawkins talking all the time about how religion is irrational, religion is the root of all evil, etc. etc., but I never see him kindly say, “creationists, please read and consider my books.” The intense anti-religion pep talk can make atheists feel good, but that’s preaching to the choir; if Dawkins and friends want to spread atheism, how they affect the already atheistic is irrelevant. On the other hand, it’s easy for religious people (or agnostics with religious sympathies) to get turned off by the hate, which guarantees that they’ll never, e.g., read Dawkins’ books. For a Professor For the Understanding of Science, this doesn’t seem like a good strategy. I’m NOT saying Dawkins should alter the scientific ideas he presents or start extolling the virtues of religion, but that he should present himself in a way that makes him more appealing to those who haven’t already bought his case. Asserting that your goal is to eradicate religion doesn’t necessarily help you eradicate religion.
Creationalists are not interested in finding out how much sense Darwinism makes. They are just interested in nice quotes (which have to be taken out of context). I have never read Dawkins harshly attacking non-dogmatic secular religious believers, just the fundamentalist, dangerous (anti-science) sort. This shouldn’t seem so outrageous, its just common sense. The problem isnt Dawkins, its the people (atheists as well) who think religion needs special treatment.
Oh my goodness – it’s happening here in the UK. See these numpty letters in the Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1625988,00.html
MikeS
Check this out:
http://www.e-n.org.uk/2001-06/1500-Genesis-for-today.htm
It looks like one of these guys is a young earther!
And the other is a fan of panspermia:
http://www.shef.ac.uk/mbb/academic/staff/wainwright.html
Thanks chaps. Wonder if he is a young earth fan of panspermia? OK, OK, just a thought.
Incidentally, Rube might not be very prominent but I came across several references to your critique out there (Orac certainly mentioned you, as did PZ)… so it’s not unreasonable to suppose that if Salman haunts the blogosphere he’s come across your stuff.
True enough, but that’s a big if; somehow I doubt that Salman does haunt the blogosphere – I doubt he has the time. But if he ever reads stuff on the Internet – it might not be too unreasonable to think he’d seen some B&W articles. (It’s the move from the articles to N&C that would surprise me. I can easily imagine him reading Ibn Warraq; much less easily imagine him reading me.)