Atheists in America
Sometimes I think I should keep a suitcase packed at all times, ready to grab when I hear the sirens approaching.
Penny Edgell, Doug Hartmann and I published a paper in the American Sociological Review called “Atheists As ‘Other’: Moral Boundaries and Cultural Membership in American Society.” In a national survey, part of a broader project on multiculturalism and solidarity in American life that we call the American Mosaic Project, we found that one group stood out from all others in terms of the level of rejection they received from the general public. That was atheists. And not by a small margin, either.
That’s not in the least a surprise, but it’s a useful sharpening.
How does such a small group pose such a threat to a large majority? The more we explored this finding, the more we came back to a simple answer for it. Like it or not, many (possibly most) Americans see religion as a marker of morality. To many Americans, “Atheists” are people who lack any basis for moral commitment.
I’m not sure that is the main answer though – although it’s presumptuous to say that since they did the research and I didn’t. But still…I don’t think that accounts for the gut hostility as well as other reasons do. One, people who think god is real and really exists take atheism as personally wounding, hurtful, insulting, to god even more to themselves. I think – it’s a hunch, but it’s also based on conversations and what theists say – it’s a feeling rooted in loyalty, and love. An admirable feeling, actually, but unfortunate because directed at an imagined being; unfortunate because the source of hostility towards existing people for the sake of an imagined one. Two, atheism is threatening to theism, because of course theists suspect that their reasons for believing in the god they believe in are vulnerable. Three, given this threat, this suspicion and vulnerability, theists suspect that atheists think theists are deluded. This suspicion opens the door for all sorts of class, hierarchical, populist, anti-‘elitist’ tensions and worries. In short, theists think atheists think theists are stupid, and (naturally) it pisses them off. I think all those bite deeper than the idea that atheists have no reason to be moral. I don’t have the research; that’s just a sort of hermeneutic or interpretive guess. Why do I think it? I suppose because I think the morality explanation doesn’t have the kind of emotional kick that the others do. I certainly think it matters, but I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that makes the lower lip tremble or the blood boil, whereas the others are.
AS you know, because I posted about t repeatedly, many Christians do think atheists lack a basis for moral commitment. We’ve been round this a few times and I was persuaded (because i take account of argument) that this is not necessarily so at all.
I don’t know about the being upset on God’s behalf bit. He does not need me to stick up for him.The bit about atheists thinking Christians are deluded fools and stupider than atheists I guess you can blame on the public faces of atheism – Richard Dawkins – and we do find it insulting and condescending. I don;t know how it is in the US but about the only time I read letters from avowed atheists in the press in the Times or Guardian it is to say why euthanasia should be legalised, or that abortions for cosmetic or social reasons is fine. The tone is not nice.
This is not to justify or ‘understand’ the hostility to atheists. Maybe it’s be cause atheists are an ‘Other’ and Jews or Freemasons or Catholics are no longer acceptable as a frightening ‘Other’. Not nice, and quite wrong.
The US is a very religious society and I don’t think you would find the same in the UK.
Thoughtfully, with best wishes
It seems to me that almost all healthy, normally socialized individuals have a capacity we call a conscience. We’re able to look back on our behavior and make judgments about whether our behavior was just or good.
To this day, certain memories of my own behavior pain me, because my judgment is that it was unjust or bad. If anything, I punish myself more than is fair, because now I have the benefit of hindsight. I review some of my behaviors as a teenager and cringe now that several decades have passed.
The point is that, as an atheist, I know that atheists are guided by their consciences, and that religious people don’t have sole claim to conscience.
I think that the argument could be made that atheists are even more sensitive than theists to the harm they may inflict on others’ lives because atheists know that this life is the only one that the others will ever experience.
“The bit about atheists thinking Christians are deluded fools and stupider than atheists I guess you can blame on the public faces of atheism – Richard Dawkins – and we do find it insulting and condescending.”
No, I’m not looking for anyone to blame it on. That’s not the point. I’m just saying I think that’s what’s going on, not that I think it’s blameworthy. I don’t think that. I think it’s inevitable. Of course people who believe in a deity for whose existence there is no evidence are going to suspect that people who don’t believe in that deity may think they are somewhat credulous. That’s just how that goes. And of course theists find it insulting and condescending; I wasn’t querying that, I was taking it for granted. But I think that’s just too bad, because I don’t see what the alternative is. What are we supposed to do, think it’s not credulous? How? If we do in fact think it’s credulous (on account of the lack of evidence problem, as well as the inheritance problem [people believe what they were taught as children] and various other epistemic problems, how are we supposed to think it’s not credulous? By argument or evidence, if possible; but by being shamed because it’s insulting and condescending? No, that won’t work. Consider an analogy. I tell you Harold Wilson is the UK PM. You tell me that’s wrong. I find that insulting and condescending. Are you supposed to decide that Harold Wilson in fact is PM?
Hence the lack of interest in blaming Richard Dawkins: I don’t want to do that because I think he’s right, not wrong.
I don’t like guilt-trips of this kind.
I know the US is a very religious society. I wasn’t – as I noted – expressing surprise at the findings, I was pondering some possible reasons.
I think another reason might be that many believers know that their beliefs rest on shaky grounds, but want to maintain the illusion that religion makes sense, for social or moral reasons, possibly. When Atheists point out that it doesn’t make sense they’re not playing the game that everybody else has agreed to play, and therefore in danger of ruining everything for all the people who just want to pretend.
I admit, though, that I’m just guessing and don’t have any evidence to back myself up.
OB, I think you are spot on.
Jeffrey Mushens: “As you know, because I posted about t repeatedly, many Christians do think atheists lack a basis for moral commitment. We’ve been round this a few times and I was persuaded (because i take account of argument) that this is not necessarily so at all.”
“…not necessarily so…” It is rather more than that. There is NO rational reason I know of to expect christians to be more moral than atheists. Further, it is infuriating for the rational atheist to see “religion” routinely praised as a source of morality despite the available evidence.
Jeffrey Mushens: “I don;t know how it is in the US but about the only time I read letters from avowed atheists in the press in the Times or Guardian it is to say why euthanasia should be legalised, or that abortions for cosmetic or social reasons is fine. The tone is not nice.”
Perhaps the “not-nice” tone is a consequence of pro-life christians consistently basing their discussion of these issues on the basis of what “god says”; a basis which is meaningless and irrelevant to an atheist.
Perhaps it is more simple.
As you noted in your most recent post, the statement “I believe X about the nature of god” carries with it the implied claim “I believe god exists.”
Likewise, the statement “I am an atheist” carries with it the implied claim, “I do not believe in god.” Or perhaps further, “I believe that you believe in an imaginary god.” Its even worse coming from a smart person, where the implication is, “I, a smart person, have evaluated and rejected as nonsense the beliefs you hold very dear to your heart.”
My 2 cents of speculation.
Those who attack our beliefs must do so on the basis that they are right and we are wrong, which can easily come across as arrogant and self-righteous, especially when mere humans challenge the word of almighty God.
In a Christian society atheists are well used to defending and examining their beliefs, but perhaps some/many Christians are much less used to criticism. Moreover, the atheist attack is much more radical than attacks from other faiths or variants of the same faiths. We’re not just querying an interpretation of a text or the identity of which divinity to worship; we’re saying, to borrow your phrase from the next post, OB, the whole box is empty. Perhaps some find this rather nihilistic.
“the only time I read letters from avowed atheists in the press in the Times or Guardian it is to say why euthanasia should be legalised, or that abortions for cosmetic or social reasons is fine. The tone is not nice.” What planet do you read those letters on ? Substantiate that – i.e. give me one example – just one – because it’s insulting and untrue.
I was attempting to think out loud about OB’s post. OB had posited three reasons, and two of them seemed to have force, namely, that atheists are believed to be immoral, and atheists are condescending towards believers.
As far as the latter point is concerned, even if atheists are right, nobody really likes their errors pointed out in a loud condescending manner. That may be ‘tough’ for believers, but there we are.
The immorality thing is a bit trickier, because although as I pointed out earlier, atheists can have a moral compass, that’s not what people generally think, and I think atheists ought to think why this might be.
The track record of atheist regimes (Soviet Union, Communist China, Pol Pot and Kampuchea. North Korea, Albania) does not help. nor the likes of Nazi Germany, which replaced belief in God with a pseudo-scientific belief in a ‘race’. This is awfully unfair, I know, and the victims of prejudice are not at fault for their persecutors prejudices, but I do think that atheists ought to think about being more clear about their moral compass and its intellectual underpinning.
Best wishes
Dear Nick S
Vist the British Humanist Association website (www.humanism.org.uk) and read the following pages (www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2177 and the page on support for Assisted Dying http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1867.
I think you’ll find that they wrote to the Times, certainly, and probably the Guardian – I read, or try to, both- during the passage of the Assisted Dying Bill.
There was an article featuring a professor of Bioethics shortly after the debate in the Lords which urged not only the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia but extension to include ‘involuntary euthanasia’. Most people call that murder, but there we are.
Best wishes
Dear Nick S
Saw you latest post after my comment on BHA. I am not saying that all, or even most, atheists lack a moral compass or that atheists views on euthanasia are not divided – as are those of some believers – but that believers perceptions of atheists is a problem and, even if it is just PR, atheists need to think why this bad perception is so.
And why does the BHA have to have a view on Euthanasia, and why does it have to be in favour?
Best wishes
Perhaps I misinterpreted you, but your assertion implied that atheists sit around plotting ways of ending human life for unethical reasons – we are in the business of promoting “aborting foetuses for cosmetic purposes”; that is what you have asserted and it’s an easy slur but dubious argument. You find support for Euthanasia on a Humanists website. Fair enough. Some atheists – humanists – are in favour of voluntary euthanasia. We’re also very, very pro-human rights. All of us. Perhaps it’s because people don’t walk around with a badge saying ‘everyone should be treated ok and get the basics they need to survive’ – that that point gets missed when theists are throwing the good book at us from the alter. As I hinted quite strongly – a religious code, or the absence of one, has as much impact on whether a person treats others fairly or like shit, as what shoes they are wearing, or what hockey team they support. It doesn’t matter a bean whether I have faith or not – I have had phases of being quite convinced of the existence of a greater consciousness that indirectly interacts with us and even nurtures us. Then I stopped taking the pills. No matter, I’ve still made the same decisions about the big things – war, charity, relationships, parenting, education, and yes, abortion. But please imply atheist standard stance is ‘pro-murder’, it’s just careless – and I’d hate to get stuck into petty mudslinging like they do at the woeful Coment is Free; there level of debate is usually pretty good here.
Peace and Love
Nick
Dear Nick
I am NOT suggesting that atheists are in favour of murder or the like. I am saying that perhaps one reason why atheists have this bad reputation among believers – and I am NOT saying the bad reputation is merited- is because of the public actions of avowed atheist organisations. And that’s a shame.
Best wishes
Wow Jeffrey – your last post had not appeared in between my drafting and pasting my latest, so some of your points address mine before you get to mine. If you follow me. Disregard it.
I would add this though, “And why does the BHA have to have a view on Euthanasia, and why does it have to be in favour?” – I seriously think you should email the BHA with your questions and share the reply with me. I don’t know how to address the PR ‘problem’ as you identify it, but as long as 40% of Americans beleive in angels I would consder it down to intelligence.
This could be related to popular culture. Villains are frequently depicted as more educated that the heroes. If WW2 films are to be believed all Nazi generals appreciated the fine arts and read great literature while our two-fisted heroes smoked cheap cigars and read comic books. What is the betting that the models for atheists in the public mind are Lex Luthor and Ernst Stavro Blofeld?
I wonder, and clearly there is no way to get a definitive answer, how many devout Americans have actually met and conversed with an atheist. I think it likely that the impression of amoral arrogance derives to an extent from how atheists are characterised by the opinion formers trusted by the religiously inclined.
Jeffrey refers to viewpoints expressed in the Guardian and by the BHS; again, to what extent are American christians exposed to atheists commentary, as distinct from conservative/religious interpretation of atheist views.
If your opinion of atheists is influenced by reading the likes of Anne Coulter, small wonder they are seen as sneering amoral degenerates.
“OB had posited three reasons, and two of them seemed to have force, namely, that atheists are believed to be immoral, and atheists are condescending towards believers.”
No, that’s not what I said. First, the believed to be immoral reason is that of the author of the linked article; I was suggesting other reasons. Second, I did not say “atheists are condescending towards believers” – I said “theists think atheists think theists are stupid, and (naturally) it pisses them off.” The two are very, very different.
Dear OB
I agree that you did not say you agreed with the atheists are believed to be immoral bit. Like an honest reporter, you said that was what the researchers said, they were closer to it than you, but you had alternative suggestions. You, therefore did not posit the reason, but I think it fair to conclude that 3 reasons were posited.
Your original post did not mention condescending, but but a susequent comment by you did. I just developed the thought.
I am not trying to have a go at atheists but think about the hostility to an”other’ in US society and think why this might be, without blaming atheists.
Best wishes
Jeffrey
The way you debate suggests, to me at least, that you believe that your “moral compass” invariably points in the correct direction.
For instance, you say: “And why does the BHA have to have a view on Euthanasia, and why does it have to be in favour?”
Comments about euthenasia and abortion throughout your posts clearly indicate that you have a firm and fixed position on these issues. You can’t see why anyone would have a different view and (apparently) consider them invariably incorrect.
I do not presume to speak for the BHA but I assume that they have a position on euthenasia because they think it is an important issue. And they are favour of it, in certain circumstances, after carefully considering the issues involved.
If the BHA is one of the organisations you refer to — “I am NOT saying the bad reputation is merited-[it] is because of the public actions of avowed atheist organisations” — then your argument doesn’t make sense.
Basically you seem to be saying that [1] the BHA supports euthenasia (in some circumstances), [2] you don’t, therefore [3] the BHA is bringing atheism into disrepute.
The “disrepute” here comes entirely from the fact that you disagree with their opinion on this issue. As a consequence, they can only not bring atheism into disrepute by agreeing with you on every pertinent issue.
But, if you disaprove of euthenasia under any circumstances, then it is you who are at odds with public opinion, not the BHA (surveys routinely show a high level of support for euthenasia in certain circumstances if carefully controlled).
Dear Mr McGuinness
I had commented, with reference to the hostility displayed to atheists, that about the only time avowed atheist organisations appeared in the press was to argue for euthanasia or abortion for cosmetic or social reasons. Nick S asked for examples, which I provided in relation to euthanasia.
I think it is a problem that atheist organisations – in the UK at least – typically appear in the press when they are arguing for widening the grounds for killing people, whether by euthanasis or social/cosmetic abortion (is a foetus having a cleft palate a sufficient reason for abortion. Atheists say this is the only life people have, what is the justification for this kind of abortion? I don’t want to argue about abortion. My public policy view is that abortion should be safe, legal and rare; laws should be made by Parliament.
If this is the kind of thing that organisations like BHA argue for, you have to say that this contributes towards a hard image of atheists. May well be unfair, unjustified, but there it is.
Nick, I emailed BHA – no leading questions – and if they reply, I will post it, subject to their consent, as I don’t suppose they would expect a private email to be made public.
Best wishes
Jeffrey. Thanks. By the way, the BHA state “around 80% of the population, including some 80% of Christians, wanting an Assisted Dying Bill”. If that is not a fact, show your evidence. If is a fact, then your assertion that “most people call it murder” is wrong – at least this side of the Atlantic.
Dear Nick S
I was referring to the nutter (he was called a professor of bioethics, but I prefer a shorthand) calling not just for the legalisation of euthanasia but for ‘involuntary euthanasis’. The latter, not the former I think is justly called murder.
Euthanasia is difficult. Like many people I opposed the Assisted Dying Bill on the thin end of the wedge argument. The current regime makes euthanasia illegal. This means that when medical staff do commit euthanasis, it is covert and much more likely to be restricted to those cases where a case can be made for euthanasia. Once it is legalised, lots more people will be killed, and the pressure to extend the cases for euthanasia will begin (see my professor of bioethics above). If legalised. a lot more old folk will be scared of going into hospital.
This is not meant to be a re-run of the argument over euthanasia where people of good-will can disagree without being stupid or wicked.
Best wishes
PS. Dear GT I do not hold with telling lies. Disagree with me, or refute me, or persuade me. But don’t accuse me of telling lies.
Jeffrey: “If this is the kind of thing that organisations like BHA argue for, you have to say that this contributes towards a hard image of atheists.”
There is a fundamental problem with your argument. You say:
1) Atheists are poorly regarded by many people. (The percentage varies among places.)
2) Some atheists are in favour of euthenasia.
3) You think euthenasia is wrong.
4) You regard atheists poorly because of this.
5) Most people regard atheists poorly because atheists support euthenasia.
The fundamental problem here is that you are arguing that atheists are poorly regarded because of their views conflict with yours on some critical issues.
You may be right but you provide no evidence that you are. In fact, the figures quoted (from the BHA) by Nick S suggest that you are wrong.
Further, your choice of words — atheists are “hard” because of their views on euthenasia — reveals reveals a hidden bias in the way you view these issues.
*I* think it is “hard” and inhumane to condemn people to an agonising death, especially when they would prefer otherwise. My view is that the “hard” people are those conservative christians who view this suffering as ordained or somehow enobling.
Jeffrey wrote: “I was referring to the nutter (he was called a professor of bioethics, but I prefer a shorthand) calling not just for the legalisation of euthanasia but for ‘involuntary euthanasis’.”
and: “This is not meant to be a re-run of the argument over euthanasia where people of good-will can disagree without being stupid or wicked.”
The second sentence contradicts the first in an illuminating fashion.
In the second, “people of good-will can disagree without being stupid or wicked.”
In the first, however, your shorthand for some-one who disagrees with your position is “nutter”.
Dear Mr McGuinness
I was referring to the professor’s call for the legalization of ‘involuntary’ euthanasia. Given that one of the arguments used to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia was the slippery slope argument, his comment about the next step being the legalization of involuntary euthanasia qualified him for the epithet I gave him.
I am sorry that my post did not make it clear that people of good will can disagree about voluntary euthanasia.
Best wishes
JM, you ignored most of Keith’s (excellent) points. You tend to do that in these discussions – you ignore many of the points people make. Do me a favour: skip the letter-writing formalities, the dears and best wishes, and use the energy saved on making more careful arguments.
I think Keith’s main point is crucial. You seem to be assuming that all the compassion is on the side of the opponents of voluntary suicide, ignoring the lack of compassion in forcing people to suffer a slow painful death when they would prefer to escape more quickly.
I don’t want to talk about euthanasia. I was, I think reasonably, trying to address why atheists have a bad press. I have already said, that people of good will can disagree on voluntary euthanasia, without being wicked or stupid.
I will, as you have asked me, and Keith is polite, try to address his points (but not until later). My use of salutations and sign-offs does not inhibit me from that. I no longer sign off with Yours truly, or yours faithfully, what are you complaining about. I’m just old-fashioned. I’m the only guy who wears a (best) suit to Church and my children reckon I’d wear a suit and tie to the beach if I could get away with it.
I don’t try to dodge points, as I’m quite happy to debate anything with anybody, but I do have paying clients and home commitments, which mean I can’t or won’t deal with every body’s points, no matter how sensible they are.
Sometimes, my heart sinks when even sensible (not trying to be patronising, I hope you know what I mean) people make points, such as when OB did when she mentioned Funk in relation to a comment I made abot Ed Sanders and the disciples’ resurrection experiences. In that case, my thought was ‘Oh no. Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, where do I begin? She won’t give credence to John Robinson, Jean Carmignac, Tom Wright, etc. We’ll just talk past each other.”
Best wishes – really.
Nothing, nothing (complaining about); just being irritable; it just looks like an attempt to transform a public comment into a personal letter, but they’re two quite different forms, the conventions are different, and…I’m a conformist, I guess.
Yes of course we’ll just talk past each other. What else would we do? Yes, Jesus Seminar, Five Gospels, naturally; I’m interested in secular scholarship on Jesus, I’m not interested in religious scholarship on Jesus. It’s a shame that that makes your heart sink but what else would you expect here? I don’t pretend (in the sense of claim) to be religious.
Also…
“I don’t try to dodge points, as I’m quite happy to debate anything with anybody, but I do have paying clients and home commitments, which mean I can’t or won’t deal with every body’s points, no matter how sensible they are.”
Of course, you’re not obliged to answer any points; but you do make points yourself, and then when you reply to replies you often seem to answer peripheral points and evade the central ones; I’m not saying you’re dodging them, but the habit does tend to leave me with the impression that you keep not dealing with the more central objections. Of course (again) you can do that, but it’s not an ideal way to carry on a discussion.
And actually I did end up blocking someone who did that persistently after a year and a half of my asking him not to. But hey, a year and a half is a long time.
Dear Nick S
I received a reply from the BHA. I’ve responded asking for permission to post on this site.
Dear OB
I will, as I have promised, respond to Mr McGuinness’s points.
As far as the Funk thing is concerned
<>
I read both secular and religiousscholarship. It’s a shame to think we would argue past each other, but we would anfd there is no point wasting time doing so. I don’t visit the site to argue about religion, or try to convert other visitors, but because I find most of the posts you put up, and the comments thereon, interesting. I enjoy reading them, even if sometimes I think they are wrong. At the very least, they are rational and the commenters, by and large, reasonable, unlike Comment is Free at the Guardian, which I am now convinced is hosted at the request of the police so they can identify the nutters in Britain.
Best wishes
“which I am now convinced is hosted at the request of the police so they can identify the nutters in Britain.”
That got a blurt of laughter.
I wish, though. People like the nutters at Comment is free are a dime a dozen. The world teems with them.
OB: “I think Keith’s main point is crucial. You seem to be assuming that all the compassion is on the side of the opponents of voluntary suicide, ignoring the lack of compassion in forcing people to suffer a slow painful death when they would prefer to escape more quickly.”
Exactly. And on this basis, Jeffrey judges atheists to be “hard”.
Jeffrey: “I don’t want to talk about euthanasia. I was, I think reasonably, trying to address why atheists have a bad press.”
But you can’t use your biased interpretation of people’s reasons for supporting euthenasia and then subsequently avoid the topic.
I am an atheist and I favour euthenasia (in certain circumstances) *because* I have compassion for people suffering and I don’t think that they should have to endure it because of someone else’s religious beliefs (which is the current situation).
Dear Keith
Read your latest post. Will respond to this and your earlier piece this (UK) evening.
Dear Nick S
I promised I would email the BHA and would post their reply subject to permission. I got a very friendly email back and a subsequent permission granting email.
This is pasted below verbatim (though I’ve changed the font and tidied up the spacing).
Dear Jeffrey,
Thanks for your recent email.
The BHA position on assisted dying and Lord Joffe’s Bill is here: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1867
And a discussion (actually intended for classroom use) here: http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1232
I hope these are helpful in clarifying the BHA’s position.
Best wishes,
Andrew
(Response to my email requesting permission to post on B&W)
By all means do – and feel free to reproduce any text from the links I sent as well.
Best,
Andrew
Andrew Copson
Education and Public Affairs
British Humanist Association
1, Gower Street, London WC1E 6HD
t: 020 7079 3584
f: 020 7079 3588
m: 078 5538 0633
Dear Keith
You made 4 posts after an earlier one I responded to. The ones I am responding to now are as follows
1. 2006-07-18 – 04:37:54
2. 2006-07-19 – 05:37:58
3. 2006-07-19 – 05:42:57, and
4. 2006-07-20 – 05:53:00
18th July post
I am afraid that this post conflates two separate points. The first is the desirability (or not) of legalising euthanasia in certain circumstances, on which I was not (then) opining, and the second is the impression given of atheism as ‘hard’ or not compassionate because, as I paraphrase it, the only time they write to newspapers it is to call for the extension of legalised killing. This quite separate from whether the BHA has a carefully thought out policy and whether they are not more compassionate than those who oppose the legalisation of euthanasia, or even whether the majority of people support that policy.
I think it is clear that this contributes to the negative image of atheism.
19th July 5.37
It is not that atheists are disliked because they support euthanasia, or I oppose legalising euthanasia, atheists support it therefore I dislike atheists. It is rather that about the only time atheists appear in the press is to argue for the extension of legalised killing, or (something I did not put before) to call religion the root of all evil and see nothing good in it.
This contributes to the tone of ‘hardness’ of atheists. This is quite separate from the judgement as to whether the reputation is deserved.
For example, you may have read that Warren Buffett, the “Sage of Omaha”, and a man whose investment judgement I have long admired, has decided to give $30 billion to the Gates charity. Buffett is an atheist. I’d be hard pressed to claim the Gates’ as believers on the strength of their parents being members of United Way. It’s probably fair to describe them as atheists. Here are two role models you could extol – some free advice. Nobody can say I’m not even-handed.
The final point is somewhat different.
I, like many people, some of whom were not Christians, opposed the Assisted Dying Bill in the House of Lords. This is because the current practice ensures that only those who presently suffering from a terminal illness – of short duration but in great and unpalliative pain are discreetly euthanased. Because it is illegal, only in pretty irreproachable circumstances will patients be euthanased. If it was legalised, the boundaries get immediately pushed back. As it is now legal, pressure will be (sometimes self) imposed to ‘go’ while there is inheritance still available. And, like my professor of bioethics, some will be calling for ‘involuntary’ euthanasia. That is, where the patient has not asked for it. And I’m afraid that not everyone trusts doctors, or nursing home staff, or relatives to act 100% of the time from the purest motives.
19th July 5.42
I think someone who calls for the next step to the legalization of ‘involuntary’ euthanasia is a nutter. This is because
1. Involuntary euthanasia is a euphemism for murder. What should you call a professor of bioethics who calls for this”
2. One of the main planks of the opponents of the Assisted Dying Bill was the slippery slope argument. Many of those in favour were saying, “No, No, of course there won’t be a push on from the change we support”. The dear Prof rather blew that argument. And that also makes him a nutter.
I do not generally regard people I disagree with as nutters.
20th July 5.53
OB: “I think Keith’s main point is crucial. You seem to be assuming that all the compassion is on the side of the opponents of voluntary suicide, ignoring the lack of compassion in forcing people to suffer a slow painful death when they would prefer to escape more quickly.”
Keith said: “I am an atheist and I favour euthenasia (in certain circumstances) *because* I have compassion for people suffering and I don’t think that they should have to endure it because of someone else’s religious beliefs (which is the current situation).”
I think if you read my response to the second post I set out my views as a Christian pretty clearly. I think the circumstances are quite circumscribed.
I hope you feel I have fairly addressed your points.
Best wishes
No. You completely ignored them. You simply repeated what you’d said before and, again, ignored the basic issue.
Jeffrey: “The first is the desirability (or not) of legalising euthanasia in certain circumstances, on which I was not (then) opining, and the second is the impression given of atheism as ‘hard’ or not compassionate because, as I paraphrase it, the only time they write to newspapers it is to call for the extension of legalised killing.”
BUT you ARE opining, although not always openly, and your opinion clearly affects your judgement of people, particularly atheists, who support euthenasia.
Jeffrey: “This is because the current practice ensures that only those who presently suffering from a terminal illness – of short duration but in great and unpalliative pain are discreetly euthanased.”
Your “discreet euthenasia” is, under current law, MURDER (or at least manslaughter), as you admit. This rather negates your criticism of involuntary euthenasia as the same. On this basis, I can call you a “nutter” (but I won’t).
Jeffrey: “I think the circumstances are quite circumscribed.”
You still regard your position as the one that is compassionate and judge others as “hard” (or nutters) and this colours your view of atheists.
Jeffrey: “or (something I did not put before) to call religion the root of all evil and see nothing good in it.”
You’re right; you didn’t put that in before. And before introducing new arguments, you should really address the ones I’ve already made. As OB said, you haven’t.
Dear OB, Keith
I must be missing something. I’m not stupid, so what points did I miss or avoid, and can you list them out, please?
In answering (as I thought) Keith’s points
I pasted them into a separate doc, and looked at each question posed and addressed them and then pasted my response into the comments piece. You obviously don’t think so, and as I am quite comfortable responding, I’d be grateful ifyou could, as requested above, spell out the questions.
Best wishes
Jeffrey
You claim that one reason atheists are perceived as “hard” is their position on issues such as euthenasia.
You perceive the atheist position as “hard” for reasons which you have not explained *here* very clearly BUT you do seem to think that your position is “less hard”.
According to figures from the BHA, cited by Nick S, about 80% of people, INCLUDING Christians, support euthenasia (in certain circumtances, hereafter ICC).
This contradicts your view of why atheists are considered “hard”.
Supporters of euthenasia (ICC) consider themselves to be companssionate and their opponents to be “hard”.
Your view of why atheists are perceived to be “hard”, therefore, seems to be based more on your own PERSONAL (and sometimes contradictory) opinion on some issues, rather than on what other people might be thinking.
It is, basically, that you think that atheists are “hard” because of this, so other people do also.
Is that clearer?
Dear Keith
J. I hope you think I have been clear.
Best wishes
“and you’re not seeing that you need to do something about your image.”
JM, in case you’re thinking that’s what this post was about, it isn’t. I despise the very idea of ‘needing’ to ‘do something about your image.’ Atheists don’t ‘need’ to do anything about our ‘image,’ and if we did need to we still shouldn’t.
‘You’re convinced you are right, and policies such as that on euthanasia are right’
Not as convinced, it seems to me, as you are that they’re wrong. You’re the one who brought euthanasia into the discussion and made all the dogmatic assertions about it.
‘but because so many posters have been keen to show they are compassionate, or have public support’
No. That’s wrong. Again, that is not the point. The point was that you framed what you said in such a way that you seemd to be taking it as self-evident that your view is the only compassionate one. Keith’s point about public support was not that atheists are anxious about it, but to explain one reason you are wrong to assume the anti-euthanasia view is the self-evidently only compassionate one.
I would like this discussion to end now. It’s not working, and it’s irritating.