More Straw
Nicholas Buxton. Why don’t I beat up on Nicholas Buxton a little. I’ve never heard of him before, but I think he’s silly, or else slyly rhetorical (it can be so hard to tell which). More of the same old gabble – why atheism is wrong and confused and befuddled.
It is a secularist article of faith to maintain that religion will soon be eliminated as a by-product of “progress”.
No it isn’t. Next?
No but really – how stupid. Of course it isn’t!
Atheists complain that religion proposes unprovable accounts of life and death. But this is uninteresting.
No we don’t.
What a berk. We criticise religion for not proposing but dogmatically asserting and shoving in all our faces accounts of various things that are not supported by evidence and are highly implausible. That’s quite a different matter from ‘complaining’ about ‘unprovable’ accounts of anything.
Death is obviously a fact, but how we make sense of that fact is not the sort of question that could be subject to “proof” any more than a painting could be judged “wrong”. Insights into human nature derived from the plays of Shakespeare may be equally “unprovable”, but that doesn’t mean they’re not meaningful, useful or true. The atheist’s first mistake, then, like the fundamentalists they often object to, is that they completely miss the point.
Oh, Christ. No kidding, no kidding, and no we don’t, because we know all that, you fool. God I hate it when people put quotation marks on their own wildly erroneous versions of what other people say or think. He’s the one who says we say ‘unprovable’ when we don’t and then he drops in all these bogus citations of ‘unprovable’ with the quotation marks as if he’d gotten that from somewhere other than his own stupid assertion! What a mess of an ‘argument’.
Faith has nothing to do with certainty: it is not a set of closed answers, but rather a series of open questions with which to engage.
Oh really. Maybe in the circles you hang out in, but not in all circles where ‘faith’ is considered a virtue. To put it mildly.
I recognise that life’s potential for meaninglessness requires us to give it a meaning it would not otherwise have. This is the function of religion.
No it isn’t. One, it may be one of the functions of religion, but it’s not the function of religion, and two, it’s not the function or a function of religion alone. Other ways of thinking also give life a meaning it would not otherwise have.
The alternative is nihilism. If we truly believed that life was meaningless, we would have no reason to get up in the morning – ultimately, the most rational thing to do would be to jump over the edge of a cliff.
Oh, please. Why would that be rational? ‘Hey ho, life is meaningless. Whaddya know. Well, here I am, I’ve just finished writing this book, I’m going to Italy tomorrow, next year I’m going to China, I’m learning to play the cello, a friend is coming over for dinner tonight and afterwards we’re going to the theatre, this afternoon I’m going to go for a walk in the mountains, I have a bowl of fresh peaches for breakfast, the coffee smells good, the Trout Quintet is playing on the radio, it’s a gorgeous day, oh look, there goes a bald eagle – but life is meaningless, so obviously the most rational thing to do is go jump over the edge of a cliff.’
Without religion’s insight that human beings are essentially flawed, we lose all checks on our hubristic pride, and risk making a false god of our own scientific genius, even though there is no evidence to support the belief that society advances in tandem with science.
Oh? That depends on what you mean by ‘society advances’, I suppose. If you want to live in a world without antibiotics, anaesthetic, dentistry, electric light, efficient heating, sewer systems, public transport, efficient agriculture, abundant cheap books and music – well, go ahead, but I think of all those things as social advances. That does not however mean that I make a ‘false god’ (whatever that means) of our own (our own? certainly not mine!) scientific genius.
Can religious arguments really be as deeply unimpressive as the ones we keep seeing in the newspapers? Can they really not do any better than this? Surely that’s not right. Surely they can say something persuasive and somewhat sensible. Surely…
Didn’t you more or less complain a few days ago that you don’t have better opponents? Well, it looks like there was no one there to hear your prayer…
Yeah, well, he is doing a PhD on buddhist philosophy.
His must be about the weakest set of arguments for religious belief I have read.
“atheist regimes pursuing enlightenment ideals inflicted massive suffering on their own people.”
Who? Stalin, Hitler, Mao – pursuing enlightenment ideals?
I fear we will all be in total agreement on this subject, OB. Can’t even nuance you…
“Without religion’s insight that human beings are essentially flawed, we lose all checks on our hubristic pride, and risk making a false god of our own scientific genius … ”
A few more points about this egregiously preposterous statement:
We need religion for this insight? Perhaps religion provides us with yet more evidence that humans are essentially flawed, but that point seems plenty obvious even without religion.
As for a check on hubristic pride, what better than science for that? Science tells us that we are but one of millions of currently living species that happen to have evolved on one planet by an average star on the edge of an average galaxy … What could be more humbling than that? Religion, however, tells us that we humans are the crown of God’s creation, that this entire universe was put here for us to be in it.
Scientists don’t need to teach humility to their students; science does that just fine on its own. Preachers, however, have to continually preach humility, lest the inherent hubris of religion’s view of humans’ place in the cosmos inflate our heads too much.
“Without religion’s insight that human beings are essentially flawed, we lose all checks on our hubristic pride…”
Oddly enough (?!), this “insight” doesn’t extend to the notion that belief in god might be flawed. Nor to the notion that interpretations of the text of some holy book might be flawed.
No, strangely enough, the “flaws” seem to be largely concentrated in those who don’t believe in god or follow his rules.
“Who? Stalin, Hitler, Mao – pursuing enlightenment ideals?”
Sure. Buxton’s isn’t a controversial position: the Enlightenment worldview has a dark side. Stalin and Mao tried to remake society according to a reasoned blueprint. Hitler pursued a eugenic ideal of racial perfectibility. Mengele, in carrying out experiments on imprisoned human subjects, thought he was being a good scientist.
You may protest that these are perversions of Enlightenment ideals. But there is a relationship.
I’m curious what you all think the fucntion of religion is. Speaking of a single entity being created by those who live outside it…
Anyone know what proportion of WWII Japanese prison guards were Budhist ? Just curuious, that’s all…
Why do we need the big fellow to give meaning to our lives? I give meaning to my own life.
Just a couple of further musings on the business of life having meaning or not.
If we discount some Po-Mo excesses, we can take as our starting point that we do exist and are alive, which makes it kind of ridiculous to make acceptance of that fact contingent upon its possessing meaning. Seeing absence of the kind of meaning Buxton finds necessary as a catalyst for self-off-cliff-throwing is absurd even in and of itself (he doesn’t seem to require, say, depression about the lack of meaning as a necessary ingredient; the meaning not being there is apparently sufficient). Why do life and meaning have to go together in such a way that the absence of the latter must result in either denial or termination of the former (in practice, of course, the denial is exercised on the absence of meaning)?
But beyond that, what is the meaning without which he can’t live? What does it boil down to? Why is the possibility of being an independent biological agent so horrific compared to being the subservient plaything of a supreme being? Is it because the former means you’ll never get to sit at the right of god and bask in his glory? What meaning does an eternity of spiritual existence after this brief foray on earth ultimately have, beyond the balm of pretending that a time will come when we will no longer have fears, needs etc? Atheists also think we will all get to a point when we are beyond fears, needs etc., merely finding it more likely that the absence of those things will mean we no longer exist. The big fear now for the religious that they cannot entertain is that they just might not be eternal. Maybe it boils down to such sheer babyishness, when all the theological twaddle around it has been stripped away.
Afterthought: I think what I said above would be valid even if it could somehow be conclusively proved that the believers’ beliefs were correct (in the sense of having their “facts” right). How much sillier it all seems when one then takes into account that their untenable view doesn’t even base itself on any known facts. How do they go through life believing god gave them minds without wanting them to use them (I know, oldest argument in the book, but this is the place for it)?
‘Can religious arguments really be as deeply unimpressive as the ones we keep seeing in the newspapers? Can they really not do any better than this? Surely that’s not right. Surely they can say something persuasive and somewhat sensible. Surely…’
As far as I have been able to tell, and I have done a lot of looking, this is as good as it gets. Why are so many people so gullible? Could it be because epistemology is notable for its absence from school curricula? Isn’t it about time schools taught children about the difference between induction and deduction, and about the importance of the truth of the premises of an argument? If ‘Why Truth Matters’ warrants a book for adults, surely it warrants some explanation to children?
Yes, I know, I’m ‘preaching to the converted’.
What a fucking idiot. His article is so flawed it does not even deserve a reply. He may be writing a PhD thesis but I hope to God he doesn’t get it with that level of argument.
My life has much less meaning now Halasz is gone…
Say – what happened to Karl ? Did he really do it ??
‘what happened to Karl ? Did he really do it ??’
Killing himself for B&W…? Or am I out of the loop here?
“Could it be because epistemology is notable for its absence from school curricula?”
Boy have I been thinking about that lately. It would take so little – such a few really basic things would make such a big difference. Like teaching people that their memories are fallible – they’re not cameras, they don’t store images in a vault that can be pulled out at any time and remain unchanged. Or teaching about the power of suggestion. Or teaching that evidence is not the same thing as proof. Or teaching that not finding something does not necessarily mean it is not there. Or that some is not all.
mirax – yes, the ultimate sacrifice… how soon the weeping ended; how soon the crowing began…
I hate these ‘bait and switch’ defences of religion – “You atheists are so unsophisticated, so adolescent, so 19th century, such unspiritual literalists, such *fundamentalists*. Of course we are not serious when we say there is a real actual god who listens to your prayers, that non-believers will go to hell,that god takes a personal interest in who you sleep with and what you wear etc…We mean it more in the spirit of poetry”.
If these people really believe this argument, wouldn’t they be better off addressing the churches, schools, mosques, alpha courses who also seem to have got the the wrong end of the stick.
There has been a string of these articles in the Guardian lately, attacking an atheist straw man. I guess they are some kind of progress from the old style ‘thought for the day’/musings of a country vicar style of religous column. Articles critical about religion tend to focus on a specific issue or policy of religions in the news. You rarely see pieces published which say “Religion – its a load of old codswallop isn’t it?”
Bait and switch – exactly. I’ve been thinking of it as what they say to atheists in contrast to the completely different sort of thing they say to theists – bait and switch is far more concise.
“There has been a string of these articles in the Guardian lately, attacking an atheist straw man.”
Boy, hasn’t there. Dylan Evans & Co Ltd.
No, instead you see pieces published which say ‘Atheism – its a load of old codswallop isn’t it?’.
Despite how crap this article is in representing the arguments for religion, I think you are unlikely to see better arguments for ANYTHING in a newspaper.
As far as I can see, there is only one argument for religion:
“God exists. Trust Him on this.”
The whole ‘purpose in life’ schtick is malarkey even for believers; the starting point is the existence of God, for which there is no observable natural evidence. Believers don’t believe because they want a purpose, they believe because they believe.
Liberal humanism “less coherent” than a suspiciously humanoid creature in the sky who claims to be all about “love” and then lets crap like 9-11 happen? Pleeeease.
Just today I found myself riding in a taxi that a doctor had supplied, and after I pointed out that the same gov’t that enacted laws to make us wear seatbelts to save our lives (as if said lives were not our own to risk) was nigh useless when it came to helping the sick and poor have lives worth saving. The driver then proceeded to grandiosely and sanctimoniously enjoin me to remember that there was a god watching over me, and I (already under enough stress) roared that such a god could either get busy and actually help me already or just go get @#$%^&’ed with a cactus, and it was a good thing I did buckle up because that driver just about had a *&^%$#@ing stroke… But hey, I felt like my day had gotten more meaningful already…
ChrisPer’
‘they believe because they believe.’
Quite agree. But what they believe is revealing about the believer. Not about anything else.
ChrisPer,
“As far as I can see, there is only one argument for religion:
“God exists. Trust Him on this.”
You might as well say as far as you can see, there is only one kneesock for religion, or only one hummingbird for religion, or only one lollipop for religion. ‘God exists. Trust Him on this’ bears as much resemblance to a lollipop as it does to an argument.
OB, I don’t support it as an argument. I offer it as an observation.
Christianity rests ultimately on the claim of God’s existence and that people are called to believe.
Your comparison of the ‘argument’ to a ‘lollipop’ is derisive, but to quote the Teacher, ‘On this all the law and prophets rest.’
Of course, I must apologise for speaking of ‘religion’ as if there were only one.
The comment may not apply to Budhhism, Wicca or New Age spirituality.
Considering the importance of rhetoric in Buddism, he’s a bit crap at it, isn’t he? His thesis must stink…
Well ChrisPer if you don’t “support” it as an argument (whatever that may mean) then you shouldn’t have prefaced it with “As far as I can see, there is only one argument for religion:”
You didn’t call it an observation, did you, you called it an argument, so I took you at your word.
I get so tired of all this bait-and-switch stuff. Is it taught in Sunday school, or what?
OB, fair enough, I plead guilty to rhetorical overstatement in characterising it as ‘the one argument’. Maybe I should have called it ‘one grounding’ or something. My apologies that it came across as bait and switch to you.
Quite all right Chris. Pax.
The comments about religion giving a meaning to life tell me that he’s probably scared what would happen if he had to accept that there is no higher power or hand of fate.
That was my biggest stumbling block in my journey to atheism. I struggled with that issue for a couple of days after reading Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene” and was quite depressed. The turning point was my husband pointing out to me, as someone has mentioned above, that we are not puppets of God or fate but have the choice of making our lives meaningful ourselves.
BTW, thanks for a well-written, pithy and interesting blog. It’s my first time here, but I’m already hooked.
Thanks, Rina. Glad you’re hooked, that means you’ll be back.
Yes, the lack of god-given meaning can seem depressing. But as you indicate, being a puppet is also depressing – actually quite a lot more so, in my view. God isn’t going to cuddle us or help us, but he’s not going to torment us or turn us into something we don’t want to be, either. (Odd that Buxton doesn’t seem to have thought of that, when he’s a student of Buddhism. Buddhism isn’t theist, so one would think he would have.)
Given the Bible, not only is God not going to cuddle us, but he is going to condemn the vast majority of us to a horrific eternity of suffering, for not easily accepting his torture of His own son. Or, for that matter, not obeying a bunch of mumbo jumbo laid out in the Koran.
What a religion.
ChrisPer,
“As far as I can see, there is only one argument for religion:
“God exists. Trust Him on this.”
Almost right there Chris…
It should read “God exists. Trust ME on this – because if you don’t… you’re going to hell!”
And everyone who is part of said religion believes that. (That their own understanding is the ONLY right one)
:-)