Posted on 12/23/2006 7:01:57 AM PST by Clive
This time of year makes atheists especially cranky; O Little Town of Bethlehem, played in a shopping mall, does nothing to lift the spirits of an unbeliever. But even by seasonal standards, the letters attracted by my column last week on The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, demonstrate astonishing vehemence. They leave the impression that atheists are sensitive about their non belief and easily hurt by criticism.
A friend of mine, who used to run a radio program about religion, noted recently that "militant atheists were our most intolerant and angry listeners." The atheists I've lately heard from bring such passion to their hatred of religion that they can be fairly classed as religious fanatics.
Dawkins and people like him pour ridicule on believers. But, as evolutionists, they can't credibly explain why hundreds of different civilizations across the globe have felt the need to believe in a divine force. Billions of people have accepted what Dawkins considers are stupid, easily refutable and harmful ideas. How did those beliefs evolve? Were they an evolutionary advantage?
Dawkins thinks they may be the result of a misfiring or by-product similar to the reason moths immolate themselves in candles. Over eons, moths evolved a system of navigation based on light from the moon; this still usually works, but sometimes light from a candle (or another source) fatally tricks them. In the same way, Dawkins suggests, humans evolved a system of thought that has led them astray.
Children who obey adults have a "selective advantage" in evolution. They are more likely than disobedient children to survive because they won't have to learn on their own that, for instance, crocodile- infested rivers are dangerous. "Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them." But this valuable quality can go wrong, allowing parents to pass on their crazy religious ideas to the young. Dawkins has more trouble explaining how, in each civilization, the first wave of parents acquires religious convictions.
Atheists (my atheists, anyway) think that if you do not accept atheism outright then you're likely to accept the Bible literally -- which hasn't been true, in the case of most Christians and Jews, for generations. One reader demands to know whether I believe human life began 6,000 years ago when God created the first man and woman. No, I don't, and I hardly know anyone who does.
Atheists are arguing against a literalism that has never been accepted by anyone who is likely even to hear of Richard Dawkins. One reader demands I ask myself why I'm so sure of my beliefs. But I'm not. In fact, my beliefs hardly deserve the word "beliefs" and I'm certainly not religious in any traditional sense. My strongest belief is that a gigantic mystery still dominates this entire realm of thought.
Dawkins, and apparently most militant atheists, don't seem even slightly interested in the fact that something almost inconceivably mysterious happened at the birth of the universe. As a result, they can bring little of interest to any conversation about the origins of life.
Last March, astronomers (working with data from a NASA satellite circling the Earth since 2001) concluded that time began 13.7 billion years ago, a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At that instant the universe (as a New York Times writer put it) expanded "from submicroscopic to astronomical size in the blink of an eye." Why would it want to do that?
I have no idea, but we now know that at least one planet that developed in the universe, Earth, would develop elements of genetic material that would make life possible though not, of course, inevitable.
Thomas Nagel, the philosopher, recently pointed out that if we are to believe evolutionary explanations, and therefore that the necessary seed material existed at the time of the Big Bang, we have to realize that there is no scientific explanation for the existence of that material in the first place. A complete understanding of evolution would involve answering a question as complex as evolution itself: "How did such a thing come into existence?" We have done nothing but push the problem one step back.
Or, as Stephen Hawking put it, "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" On that point we are all ignorant -- and only a little closer to knowledge than our ancestors who believed that sacrificing a goat would bring good crops. The profound intellectual failure of atheists lies in their fundamentalist-like aversion to the words, "We don't know."
A fifth is that, given the circumstances (the relatively recent destruction of the Maccabean kingdom and Roman conquest), for a Jew who believed that his religious scriptures actually meant what they said to expect the imminent arrival of a Messiah was not "lunatic" at all -- and if the Messiah is coming, why should it not be one's self, if the signs seem to point to that?
As I noted upthread, either some people will die for a lie, or a wide variety of religions (Wahabi Islam, Catholicism, Lutheranism, Judaism, etc) are all the truth (which would appear to be logically impossible on its face).
Robert Fulford
(former schoolmate of Glenn Gould)
is the best writer at the National Post.
Every article of his is a delight
and some of them are hilariously funny
Wellll, maybe not so difficult - look at the Muslims. If that religion isn't a hoax, I don't know what is.
Jesus' disciples on the other hand didn't have to take anything on faith - they knew - they were eye-witnesses - along with many others.
Yes, true believers will die for their cause. Not many though, will die for a known hoax.
Keep in mind that blowing yourself up doesn't take any more courage than holding a gun to your head and pulling the trigger - and the death is instantaneous.
Imagine, being the proponent of a hoax - as Jesus' followers must have been, and holding to the hoax for years - knowing it to be a hoax. No real reward - just suffering, torture, and gruesome death.
And you know, if there were only a few of them that hung on - living the lie - you could excuse them as fanatics. But for the whole group to hold on till the bitter end - eh, a hoax? I don't buy it...
Wrong...my circle of friends and students are well aware of Dawkins, and believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed.
The author uses too many straw-man arguments, and misrepresents a lot of Christians.
All atheists see their God when they look in the mirror.
You need to read up on cult psychology. Even in modern times we have people committing mass suicide because they believed everything their leader said. And even when prophesies flat-out fail, their belief tends to get stronger.
"It must be a sad existence to believe in anything" people will tell you. I have enough meaning in my life. God is absolutely unnecessary. YMMV of course, as no two people are the same. The world would be better if you and the Muslim fanatics understood that.
You are denigrating meaning
You are narrowing the concept of meaning to only what you can understand. There's a lot more out there.
Ahh, but there is a difference.
Muslims are followers. They did not create the religion, they have faith that what they are told is the truth. They will die for their faith because they can believe it is the truth
The apostles were in a very different position. If they were lied, they let themselves be beaten, beheaded, crucified and inprisoned for something they knew was a lie. They are the only people in the history of the world who would not be able to believe if it were not true.
Belief in the Creator is a comfort. It provides a basis to answer metaphysical questions as well as an absolute morality.
How odd that you expect spiritual messages from a retail outlet.
Do you accept dental recommendations from your local gas station?
Been catching up on your C.S. Lewis this season, eh? :)
"It is as bad to take offense as to give it" -- old Chinese proverb.
But as far as schoolmates go Gould was the best. I wish I had known him, eccentric as he was.
I don't see why you believe "God did it" is an easy answer. "I don't know" is much easier. Evolution could very easily produce an "I don't know." How can evolution produced, "God did it." And if evolution did produce, "God did it." Then very likely he did.
Actually that's not true. Part of the beauty of the "God did it" answer is that it is recursively true. Once arrived at the "I don't know" answer is a thing of the past. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
Clearly that's not the sole leg of his argument. Doh!
That's actually so close to the truth as to be a devilish trick. :-)
How right you are. If everyone look at this from your prospective then there would be no disagreement or wrong interpretation of someone's meaning of wishing them a Merry Christmas.
Sadly though, that is not their goal. Some want to be offended by the celebration of our traditional holiday. Others just want Christ out of everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.