Darwin, Lincoln, and the New Atheists - Adam Gopnik

[ChaneyBrinkmanBurlin]

Lots of time to think about what? Dawkins' arguments are so trivial that it takes seconds to grasp the whole of them.

[drfoxcourt]

Mr Gopnick needs to read a bit more of Prof Dawkins. Dawkins has stated time and again that he has a deep appreciation for music, art, architecture and the numinous. He also wonders just how much greater all that would have been/is if it were dedicated to the non-superstitious.

It may be Gopnick needs some more time to ruminate on Dawkins's points.

[EhDkay]

No blood for music. :)

[EhDkay]

I like the music and art that religion influenced as much as the next person but it disturbs me that people say music and art was worth all the turmoil and loss of life.

[justinoakley999]

"just read it today"... cool story bra!

[clarkanorak]

The idiot mentions Handel's Messiah. He's never heard Dawkins say on countless occasions that Handel's Messiah is one of his favourite pieces of music and as such he could not do without it. A pathetic moron who should keep his mouth shut about matters he knows nothing about.

[ivlfounder]

@clarkanorak

And we all know Dawkins would never lie.

[bmille87]

@ivlfounder - if this is an accusation, please list your example(s) and proof that they are in fact knowingly dishonest on the part of Prof. Dawkins. thanks in advance.

[ivlfounder]

@bmille87

Or you could tell me why Dawkins wouldn't lie.

[VanGoghsEar1890]

That's not at all what Dawkins said. Paraphrasing him he said he enjoys a lot of music and art on religious subjects, and someone telling him he can't (because he's an Atheist), is like telling him he can't enjoy great literature because the characters are fictional. This guy is a typical religious, pathological liar.

[ivanmikhailov]

Did this douche even read Dawkins' book? Dawkins explicitly and specifically mentions how inspiring and beautiful he finds religious architecture and music. Exactly the opposite of what this shiny faced schmuck is jibbering about.

[1tabligh]

God and Empirical Logic.

Matter or God?

Take your choice!

Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.

But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!

[titans797979]

Lincoln became a christian late in his life and was one of the strongest christian presidents we have ever had. might wanna redo your video if you would like any credibility

[jeffhardyfangirl0512]

Let's see, if you compare, religion has done more damage than atheists. The crusades, the inquisitions, even 9/11 was because of religion. Atheists take a lot of grief just for not believing. Exodus 22:20, 2 John 1:10 and Romans 16:17 kinda proves the point.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

I don't see how you have to be religious to appreciate the atheistic value of faith inspired art. I think the majority of people would say that the Parthenon is a work of art despite their non adherence to the cult of Athena. Likewise in a time of secular atheism non believers might marvel at the medieval cathedrals in Europe.

Actually its believers of other faiths that would be most likely to destroy religious art. You might count Stalinism as a sort of quasi religion in that regard.

[kimberlily1983]

He mentions having read The God Delusion in one day and I'm thinking, that's not bad (I generally need more time to pour over the arguments, and often like to reread a book after I've finished it). Then he talks about it. Clearly he can't read a book in one day, either.

[fctchk]

Adam (named after Eve's husband?) appears to have "read" The God Delusion the way religious people read their hol(e)ybooks: cherry- picking i.e. quote-mining whatever supports their delusions, ignoring or being in denial of whatever does not.

[ivlfounder]

And Dawkins didn't do that for his book?

[hazydavey]

The quibbling over the definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" is unhelpful. There is really little meaningful difference between the two. Both are non-believers. The only real difference is in how the non-belief is expressed and perhaps the level of confidence.

One term that makes no sense is "agnostic deist" (or "deist-agnostic"). A deist affirmatively believes in some manner of divine creator. An agonostic does not. or is, at any rate, unwilling to commit.

[ogirv101]

Darwin was not an Atheist at the end of his life, he was an Agnostic Deist, he never doubted in the existance of a Creator. I don't know about Lincoln's early life, but later in life he believed in a personal God who listens to prayer, though he believed in Jesus' morals, not necessarily the Christian God.

[stockybob]

I think people are constantly misusing the term "atheism" to mean anti-religion or deist agnosticism. 99% of posts on this subject seem to be agnostics who think they are atheists.  I think people also, and to have any argument whatsoever, assume all religions are fatalistic, believe that God intervenes directly when asked, and that religious prayer or petition is largely "Santa" based wish fulfillment. This is contentious issue among even canon scholars and not a given in theology.

[ivlfounder]

It doesn't help that the hate monger branch of atheism is now claiming that all agnostics are really atheists.

[sicknofty]

Lincoln wasn't an atheist!? He soley believed in the Providence at that tyme.

[ivlfounder]

Lincoln was a believer and likely a Christian.

[SurelyYewJest]

He missed the section where Dawkins addresses the numinous, as Hitchens would call it. Gopnik is gently repeating the theist charge that atheists would smash to ruins holy buildings and tear asunder religious iconography and art. We have no such impulse. As an atheist I can marvel at a stained glass window or a monument like a pyramid. But those are man-made, not divined by a god. They may be inspired, but such symbols are an example of man's capability, not god's greatness.

[ivlfounder]

I'm glad that you feel that way but other atheists feel hate towards religion.

[TheAtheistAussie]

No they don't they think it's stupid and that people should have a better understanding of the world rather then the stupidity of a belief in a God. We arn't as extreme as religious people when it comes to opinions. Religious people think Atheists are going to burn in hell for eternity, don't try make it out as if Atheists are hard on religious people. Infact we SHOULD be harder on religious people.

[ivlfounder]

Really?

No where in the world is there a single atheist who feels hate towards religion?

[TheAtheistAussie]

Yeh don't stretch the truth at all, of course there are heaps of Atheists who hate religion, and there are heaps who don't care, and even some who like religion but just don't believe in it. Me? I hate it, why? Lol nvm i could go on for hours. And don't act like the innocent ones, Atheists are more moral then you idiots. Go read God's first book, not many morals to learn from in that. Except stoning and crucifying seems like a worthy punishment for swearing.

[ivlfounder]

I said there are atheists who hate religion.

You responded with "No they don't..."

[TheAtheistAussie]

No you said Atheists hate religion. And i responded with "No they don't". Stop been so melodramatic you child.

[ivlfounder]

I said "other" which is not the same as "all".

[SurelyYewJest]

We despise religion but we're not going to go around wrecking their buildings. If you feel that impulse than you need to check yourself. Do you get angry when you read about some beautiful relic from religions long extinct? There's nothing wrong with stained glass windows and sculptures and paintings. Fight the ideas, not the art. It's the ideas that corrupt, not a canvas. Besides, many Bible stories, while abhorrent as life lessons, make OK reading as fiction.

[ivlfounder]

1) For better or worse you do not speak for all atheists.

2) Some atheists have damaged and/or destroyed places associated with religion.

3) I am glad to hear you can at least see the aesthetic value of some places of worship.

[ricoatheist]

Fucking lying bastard. I don't care if he bought Dawkin's book at 12:00 AM of that same day - there's just no way he could have read it - period!

[factvfiction]

People made art in a world where the only art was to be religious. I would say that without the rigerious religion in our history,  we would have a a better expression of humanity not a copy of the idiologies of church.

[thruthem]

I can enjoy the pyramids without worshiping Osiris. What a fool!

[gallus1]

He accuses Dawkins of being a philistine and that he regards religious works as irrelevent?....This is typical of the theist when they dont have an argument...they lie. What Dawkins says, (as do Hitchens, Dennet and Harris) is that the majesty of religious works do not give proof to the existence of God...a big difference. It is this intellectual dishonesty among theists, as much as the atheist argument, that shows their weakness. Of course, when has truth been important to the religious mind?

[adamamida]

Dawkins loves art, he is not a Philistine.

[lemonheartfly]

impoverished life without cathedrals!?!?! is he serious?

[tubiejonny]

You bought Dawkins book this the morning of the interview and read it prior?

He had lots of time to think about it eh?

Fucking liar.

[BiffWebster100]

He read Dawkins book that day... This morning I read all of Proust then took a shower and went to work .

[ArrogantAtheist]

Atheists FTW!!

[RationalFuture]

He screwed on both accounts.

1. Lincoln became a vague deist, while Darwin bacame a very convinced atheist but this is not at all a different path for each one. A deist and an atheist are far closer to each other than any of them to a religious fundamentalist.

2. Dawkins has never berated or insulted religious art but just on the contrary. Every respectable person does the same. I am an atheist and the one type of building that I infinitely love are modern churches.

[ivlfounder]

Actually Lincoln was rather private about his religious beliefs but they seem to have been Christian.

And Darwin was not an atheist.

I'll send you a video on the topic.

[chadmaveric]

darwin was an atheist

[ivlfounder]

Darwin made it clear he was not an atheist.

My video provides the exact quote.

[Commonsenseprevail42]

Darwin and the times he lived in didnt permit him to be an athiest! read his book, after the death of his daughter, he wrote about the harshness of life! and the cruelty of nature! and what God or religion did at all to help! which is NOTHING!!!!! Religion adds to the world pain it doesnt help it!!!!!!

[Commonsenseprevail42]

Life made him an athiest cause life is Hard and God aint nowhere or no help! so believing in Religion is primitive and nonsense

[ivlfounder]

Please atheists had lived comfortably and publicly long before Darwin.

He just wasn't one.

[dideoxynucleotide]

Bullshit. I've seen videos of Dawkins many, many times where he says that religious inspired art and music and architecture is brilliant. His only argument is that these arts don't prove a God exists, and also that one need not believe in any divinity in order to be awed by these works. I almost bought this guy's book, and now I think I shall not. If he a) lied or b) misinterpreted Dawkins so egregiously, It makes me question his ability to interpret the sources that went into his book.

[Goliath916]

I also think (correct me if I am wrong) that Dawkins has said that if the artists and musicians who were religious were secular or atheists instead, we would have equally beautiful music and art. It's not the religion doing the beautiful part, it's the art itself.

[lukoshey79]

what a fuck stick, dawkins, the atheist he is, gives alot of respect to religious writing, art, architecture etc....

[ricoatheist]

"I just read Dawkin's book for the first time today."

Yeah, right! What a skilled bullshit artist!

[markjeppo]

I don't believe for a moment this guy has actually read Dawkins' book. Dawkins talks very movingly about art & music inspired by religion. On Desert Island Discs (UK radop programme) he nominated to take some religious choral music with him. Dawkins is NOT a phillistine & does NOT ignore the art created by christians.

[odge99]

You shouldn't credit religion for art. You shouldn't credit for fault religion for anything any more than you should blame a knife for stabbing someone. Art and war are the responsabilty of people regaurdless of what high concepts inspire them.

[BaileysBeads]

Indeed, you should fault people for having high concepts.

[ThePissedOffAtheist]

Christopher Hitchens: 59, Richard Dawkins: 67; I hope people are still calling me "new" when I'm that old!

[thecosmos003]

I've heard dawkins say that he appreciates religious art and music. The guy in this video is an idiotic.

[MotionFur]

Dawkins sings [and he says he "loves"] Christmas carols, which he respects as a historic and religious art, and encourages teaching of the bible because it's an intricate part of European history. This guy is either dishonest or ignorant about what he speaks.

[gerbs96]

Well...its obvious Gopnik hasn't finished the book he purchased that morning. Moron.

[stevekap8]

These guys an idiot. We would still have music, great archecture, liturature without religon. It just would be different.

[etoandmessi]

Was the Internet invented because of religion?

[WarVideo]

yeah,better and more of it.

[sustainedtrouble]

I agree, whilst Dawkins is right about religion as an institution, it still inspired such wonderful forms of art, whether is music, poetry or what have you... thank God (lol) art is not that linked to religion anymore, which can lead us to think that religion has become utterly useless... (what a shame that "some of them want to be abused")

[revjimbob]

I think he misrepresents Dawkins attitude to religious culture.

[wimvandenberghe]

I agree. Is he talking about the same Richard Dawkins who loves to sing Christmas Carols and who thinks knowledge of the Bible is key in understanding Western culture? His favourite piece of music is Bach's St Matthew Passion. Gopnick just made a straw-man argument.

[msholmes]

Yes, you are right. He's making stuff up.

[etoandmessi]

As long as religion is kept out of schools, I have no problem with it.

[sustainedtrouble]

Totally agree with you...

[RationalConclusion]

Adam Gopnik obviously isn't aware of Dawkins feelings on this subject. Dawkins has a great appreciation for religious archiatecture and religious art. He even sings hymns. The only thing he doesn't take seriously is the things that scripture states as fact.

[GeeWeezzz]

And this claim that there is "A resurgence of atheism" because of a bunch of books is absolute bullshit. Intellectuals, artists, writers, philosophers, scientists have consistently rejected religion, tacitly or explicitely, for millenia. So, bitch please.

[GeeWeezzz]

Not a Dawkins fan-boy, but this guy is horribly misrepresenting anything Dawkins ever said. Dawkin has explicitely and repeatedly said the exact opposite of what this guy is saying.

[Mjhavok]

It in unclear he means soul in the sense of an actual thing that exists outside the human brain. At least in this clip as I haven't watched the full video on fora.

[Mjhavok]

His critique of Dawkins is unfair. Dawkins repeatedly has stated he enjoys religious art and music.

[brandyspearsca]

It wasn't just unfair it was plainly false. Dawkins has often said that Johann Sebastian Bach's St. Matthew Passion was one of his favorite pieces of music.

[Mjhavok]

True.

[dgdfhfghgfhgfgffjhj]

The works of art he refers to are probably not familiar even to most theists.

[mikejohncooper]

He read what book, assuming the god delusion, if that is the case then he wasn't paying much attention to what he was reading. Dawkins explicitly states the importance of religious art and literature, even the importance of reading the bible so as to have a grasp of the many references made to it in some very important literary works. FAIL

[jeremmorrow]

EXACTLY. You beat me to it.

[xenitro]

Yes, he said he bought that book that morning...

he might be fast reader but i think you are right.

[cthulhex]

Exactly. I think that reading it in a morning sitting might have been a bit too tall an order for the author.

Greetings

[pod054321]

this idiot didn't read "the god delusion"!

[WolfSyndrome]

wow! what a dumbass! if those people didn't make Christian art they would have made secular art that was just as good...if not better!

Christian artist: "That beautiful sunset God made is inspiring!"

Atheist artist: "That beautiful sunset is inspiring!"

[m0nkeybl1tz]

See, what you guys are doing here is exactly what he's criticizing: focusing on the details and ignoring the big picture.

Whether or not Dawkins or Hitchens said this or that on page x in book y, what he's taking issue with is the general belittlement of religion in the modern atheist movement (which is happening right here).

I agree religion should be kept far away from government, and has indeed hindered progress, but I think we can agree that people have the right to choose to be religious.

[AtSwimTwoBricks]

He didn't criticize anyone (either explicitly or implicitly) for being too detail-focused or for belittling religion; he criticized them for being "philistines", people who denigrate and don't appreciate the arts. I think it's appropriate to challenge that. The charge is false.

And I don't see the relevance of people's right to be religious. Do you think it's under attack? Or do you want to use this value as common ground? What do you want to do with this common ground?

[m0nkeybl1tz]

Heh, fair enough. I guess it's like that guy was saying, you hear what you want to. So, I guess I should take issue with Gopnik for focusing on the wrong part of the Dawkins/Hitchens club.

My complaint is more with the whole "religion is stupid and you're stupid if you believe in it" thing. It's the people who lump religious people in with the institute of religion.

I'm not religious, but I feel like there's plenty of room for people who are.

[Arthuriod]

He read Dawkins "this morning" and yet he doesn't seem to have understood anything! Dawkins does NOT consider religious art and music as "silly stuff".

It seems some people read what they want to read!

[eszettfromhell]

Hitchens in particular has spoken at length about religious art and music, I can't believe that Gopnik has researched so sloppily. Actually, I can, but I remain disappointed.

[lombard34]

Dawkins and Hitchens are always talking about how they appreciate religious art. This guy is obviously ignorant of this.

As Hitchens is fond of pointing out, Lincoln and Darwin were born on the same day, and today is the 200th anniversary. So happy birthday to the two "great emancipators."

[AtSwimTwoBricks]

Richard Dawkins was once featured on the BBC radio show "Desert Island Discs", a program in which you chose the few pieces of music you would want if stranded alone on an island. One of his few selections was Bach's St. Matthew Passion.

It wasn't the first time he spoke in appreciation of religious music, art or architecture. And he did it using what this speaker called for--a framework on history he believed to be true. He says these things reflect our hopes our dreams and fears--our humanity.

[lianghaochen]

theological basis of story of life? wtf are you talking about? have you actually read richard dawkins? man, i just to intellectual puke all over me.............

[StevoDog21]

It's not what you BELIEVE to be true that should matter. Only what IS true, is what we should consider meaningful.

It's high time to stop worrying about how people react to pointing out the baselessness of their beliefs.

If they've got evidence for their belief, lets see it- if they don't , they can sit down, shut up, and stay the hell out of the way of progress.

[jeremyemilio]

Progress? Ha! The mistake made by some atheists is they hold religion up to scientific scrutiny. But religion ISN'T science; it's CULTURE. ALL culture is arbitrary. People spend hundreds to watch men they don't know run into each other; people kill each other for stones that happen to be shiny. And your problem is religion? Yes, culture is a construct. But without it there's no art, music, or architecture; we just sit in caves, reproduce through rape, and hit each other with sticks for food.

[Atheistprimate]

So with out religion we would still be cavemen?

We do not need fairytales and flat out lies about the reality for there to be culture, if anything the moronic beliefs of religion are counter productive to mankind advancing beyond tribal instincts where everyone is spit into groups depending on what Skydaddy they bow down to.

Guess you are one of those types who would make the baseless claim that with out religion there would be no human morals.

If so you are incorrect.

[jeremyemilio]

No, without CULTURE we'd still be in caves because as soon as we enter into even something as basic as home design, we're entering into culture. And yes, culture requires what you refer to as "lies" and "fairytales" in that culture is an arbitrary construct of the imagination. It simply doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. But it's still important. Religion is cultural; if you're going to throw out religion because it's not scientifically provable, why not sport? Why not art? Why not law?

[StevoDog21]

jeremyemilio-

Without religion there's no culture??

I'd say that's pretty easily disproven.

Nor can you claim that religion advances culture. It suppresses cultural expression that's not in line with it's ideology wherever it can.

And as for progress, there never was any until the priests and prophets and patriarchs were shoved aside, and the opinion of Religion was ignored. And they did and still do hinder us every chance they get, every step of the way.

But they're waning fast.

[jeremyemilio]

Ugh... please go back and read my post. Nowhere did I suggest that "Without religion there's no culture." I simply stated that religion is a cultural phenomenon, not a scientific one and that like ALL cultural phenomena, it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. The question is, so what? Shakespeare doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny either. So what? Does that mean Shakespeare's unimportant? Sadly, to the cold, passionless, mind of the modern atheist the answer is probably "yes."

[justicecallicles]

"religion is a cultural phenomenon, not a scientific one and that like ALL cultural phenomena, it doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny"

So, we are not God's creation? Rather, God is ours?

"Does that mean Shakespeare's unimportant? Sadly, to the cold, passionless, mind of the modern atheist the answer is probably 'yes.'"

It looks to me like *you* are a modern atheists. What do you think?

[StevoDog21]

Jeremyemilio-

Nowhere did you suggest that without religion there's no culture? If you say so.

But what exactly do you mean by saying cultural phenomena don't 'hold up under scientific scrutiny'? I'm an Atheist and a scientist and I think they hold up very well as extremely valuable and useful articles of our civilization.

And modern Atheists having cold, passionless minds? You don't know the ones I do!

And I'm very passionate about Shakespeare, fyi.

In other words, I say you're wrong.

[jeremyemilio]

"Nowhere did you suggest that without religion there's no culture? If you say so."

Yes, I say so. Please cite the line or phrase from my post that brings you to the conclusion you have formed.

When I say "cultural phenomena don't hold up under scientific scrutiny" all I mean is that some cultures do things one way, some do things another way. Science can tell us WHY the cultures are different, but won't generally even attempt to tell us which is "right." (Except with religion.)

[StevoDog21]

Why WOULD science attempt to tell us which culture is 'right'? Specific claims of fact can be shown correct, but cultures?

Science can show there's no evidence for claims of religion, but cannot disprove the claim itself, only that there's any logical reason to believe it.

Huck Finn and Bary Sanders are not factual claims unless you specify a mathematical formula for 'best', and then we can plug in the numbers and show it's really Call of the Wild and Emmitt Smith.

[jeremyemilio]

Ahhh... now you're beginning to get it, SteveDog. Just one more step:

"Huck Finn and Bary Sanders are not factual claims."

Precisely so. And what I'm saying is that neither is RELIGION a factual claim. Religion is a manifestation of CULTURE.

"Why WOULD science attempt to tell us which culture is 'right'?"

Exactly. Thank you.

[StevoDog21]

But, JE, when religion makes claims of fact about the real world, such as creation, Noah's flood, Jesus' resurrection, etc., science is perfectly justified in pointing out the complete lack of evidence for those claims, and the vast evidence against them.

[jeremyemilio]

Only if you take religious claims as scientific or factual claims, SD, and not as cultural ones. I realise that some fundamentalists do present religion as science, but the VAST majority of Christians simply do not. When most ministers preach a sermon on creation, or on the flood, they focus on the disobedience of Adam and Eve, or the obedience of Noah, or divine love or justice. These are cultural concepts. Science doesn't come into it any more than it does a seminar on Macbeth's ambition.

[StevoDog21]

They MEAN them as factual claims, JE.

Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, William Craig, Dinesh D'souza, Charles Stanley, Kirk Cameron,AnswersInGenesis, DiscoveryInstitute,et al all make idiotic claims of fact about the real world, not just the 'supernatural' realm of their imagination.

And if they don't really represent the vast majority of Christianity, then the 'vast majority' better start speaking up and saying that, because these morons are making them sound like fools.

[jeremyemilio]

Trust me, SteveDog, the people and groups you name represent an ever dwindling, but increasingly vocal, fringe of the religious community. There's been a war raging in the Christian Church for the past 30 years. And WE'RE winning. Every time a Jerry Falwell dies, or a Ted Haggard disgraces himself, we gain ground. They're a dying breed. But the newly combative atheism makes them stronger, and makes our job more difficult. Thanks for the debate. I'll stop hogging the thread now.

[shadetail]

And why cannot you hold religion up to scientific scrutiny? People have been able to learn a lot out culture through sciences. You don't think we have learned much about culture through sociology? It would be best to understand religion in scientific light so that we can discuss it more clearly and improve upon it.

[jeremyemilio]

That's not at all the type of scientific scrutiny to which I'm referring, shadetail. I'm referring to the type of scientific scrutiny that insists that if you can't provide a DNA sample, or some other bit of Scientific evidence to prove the existence of God, then religion is somehow worthless. It's a bit like demanding a thumbprint of Hamlet before accepting Shakespeare as a figure of cultural relevance.

[Mjhavok]

"It's a bit like demanding a thumbprint of Hamlet before accepting Shakespeare as a figure of cultural relevance. "

No one is claiming Shakespeare's plays are divinely inspired and historical accounts of what happened and that Hamlet was the actual son of god.

[jeremyemilio]

Again, since you seem determined not to get it, the claim that the Bible is divinely inspired and that Jesus is the Son of God is a CULTURAL claim, not a scientific one.

[Mjhavok]

"That Jesus is the Son of God is a CULTURAL claim, not a scientific one. "

Hilarious. The absurd product of a humanities degree no doubt.

[jeremyemilio]

Ha!

Now you're just being mean...

I guess I was asking for it, though, blaspheming against omnipotent science and all. Forgive me scientist for I have sinned. Hail science, full of reason.

[Mjhavok]

No need to be obsequious, just give respect where it is due.

[jeremyemilio]

Right back at ya, Mjhavok; right back at ya.

[shadetail]

Science doesn't do this but some people take the complete lack of evidence as a reason not to believe in gods.

I understand the cultural relevance to some religion. But you can appropriate what they offer without actually believing in the concept. I don't believe in santa and yet I enjoy the joy the concept brings to children. Same concept with christian culture. I enjoy aspects of it even though I do not believe in their god. Many of even the lead atheist authors appropriate this as well.

[jeremyemilio]

Likewise, I respect atheism. I'm writing my doctoral dissertation on gothic literature and invoking PB Shelley's atheism in unpacking Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as novel wherein God is absent and humanity must suffer the consequences of its own actions. I've a great deal of respect for the bravery of atheists through history who've remained true to their own convictions regardless of the cost. My critique is reserved for those atheists who seem compelled to dismiss or attack people of faith.

[eirefrance]

You're kind of starting to make a very good point, but you simplify it way too much. Religion is more than just culture to the religious, and art, music and architecture come from the human brain and its capacity for abstraction and imagination. Maybe if we recognize that religion comes from the same capacity for abstraction and imagination as art, music and architecture?

[jeremyemilio]

That's what I'm suggesting, eirefrance. I'm religious, but I absolutely recognize religion as coming "from the same capacity for abstraction and imagination as art, music and architecture." I'm also a PhD student in Literature. My choice of scholarly investigation is based on my valuing of culture over science. But I don't dismiss the importance of science, or it's appeal to others. I'm just responding to a trend that sees scientific atheists dismissing the cultural phenomenon of religion.

[justicecallicles]

If you see religion as coming "from the same capacity for abstraction and imagination as art, music and architecture" then you're doing the same thing as the atheists you're attacking and your posts are just a strangely confrontational way of agreeing.

The cultural aspects of religion are dismissed only when used in one particular way: when taken as evidence for the existence of God. When art is used as art and literature is used as literature, we all take it for what it is and appreciate it.

[jeremyemilio]

I agree with you in part, justicecallicles, but atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to lump all religious people together as fundamentalists. I'm a believer, but I'm not foolish enough to think the existence of God is provable, or that it is certain. I choose to believe. I also choose to believe that Huckleberry Finn is the greatest American novel of all time and that Barry Sanders is the greatest running back ever. I may be wrong, but so what? It's not a scientific debate.

[holyhell5050]

I'm not so sure Dawkins lumps every religious person in with fundamentalists - just look up his various discussions with non-fundie clergymen. He attacks the concept of faith because that is what enables fundamentalists, and unfortunately moderate's lack of an efficient voice against fundamentalist madndess pushes atheists to attack the base of religion.

If you believe in a god who meddles in human affairs, or invoke a god to describe a natural phenomenon; it becomes a scientific debate.

[jeremyemilio]

As a non fundamentalist believer, let me assure you I've had the same debates with fundamentalists who invoke God to explain natural disaster or personal achievement.

Let me also assure your that Dawkins' indiscriminate attack on faith does NOTHING to help moderates establish an "efficient voice against fundamentalist madness." He (and those like him) simply empowers extremist religious leaders with the argument that people of faith must "circle the wagons" because we're under attack.

[holyhell5050]

I never said it did, and I think Dawkin's and those like him have simply given up on waiting for you guys to do something about it. Vocal atheists will always exist so long as fundamentalism effects the quality of people's lives - problems are only solved by destroying the root, why can religious people whom are intelligent as yourself not see that?

If the effort of the dozens of rebuttals to Dawkins were put into protecting humananity - as Dawkins thinks he is - this world would be safer.

[jeremyemilio]

Let's back up a moment, HH. We need to recognize that the type of fundamentalism to which you refer is largely an American (and Middle Eastern) phenomenon. As a Canadian, I understand that through most of the world, fundamentalist voices don't control the agenda. I'm a bit surprised that you, being from the UK, don't see this. Aren't most European Christians moderates? As for "protecting humanity," my wife's a youth pastor, a liberal, and has done more to help more people than anyone I know.

[holyhell5050]

You really have no idea of the scale of this issue do you? Sharia law is coming into the UK slowly but surely, however this is not the issue here - religious fundamentalism is a global phenomenon, regardless of frequency. Even if it wasn't on my doorstep I find it reprehensible to suggest that I should not be concerned.

I applaud your wife, but this is the second time you have demonstrated you are an apparently moral and/or good person - I have not brought that into question.

[jeremyemilio]

I understand the scale of the issue, but I don't agree that fundamentalists are winning, or that moderates are ineffectual in speaking against fundamentalism and religious intolerance. But I consider myself your ally. I (and people like me) am on YOUR side. Yet moderate, thoughtful, believers feel dismissed and ridiculed at every turn by some of the leading voices of modern atheism. That's both an intellectual and a strategic error. Thanks for the debate. I'll stop hogging the thread now.

[holyhell5050]

I never said, nor agree, that fundamentalists are winning. It's not about that. Every day that fundmentalism persists as it is people suffer and die at the hands of it - and have done for a long time!

Right, so what you perceive as the leading voices in atheism (from your standard this seems to mean the loudest) are riddiculing you? That's interesting, because if I took the most vocal religious people to be the leading voices you would say I was trying to "lump all religious people together".

[shadetail]

Most don't dismiss the cultural phenomenon of religion. I think you would find "Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett a more interesting read than it might sound like it is.

[jeremyemilio]

Thanks. I'll take a look.

[eirefrance]

Then you recognize that this 'new atheism' that dismisses the cultural aspect of religion is, in itself, a response, right? Its no suprise that men like Harris, Shermer and Hitchens are dominating the cultural atmosphere a few years after religious fundamentalists have begun to demand the right to dictate to others how they may behave. Personally, I'm an atheist, but my parents are very spiritual and I recognize that that fulfills a need in their lives and they are happier for it.

[eirefrance]

But my parents version of spirituality is 100% anti-dogmatic and anti-judgmental (they are Western Sufis). As soon as someone tells me their religious belief gives them the right to dictate the behavior and happiness of others, they've lost me. And if they say that there is evidence to support their claims, I fully support anyone trashing that evidence. Religion and spirituality is a personal journey. Keep it personal and we'll be fine.

[jeremyemilio]

I really think we're on the same page, eirefrance, except that I'm a believer and you're an atheist. Trust me, I find religious fundamentalists as objectionable as you do. The backlash still troubles me, though. I have plenty of respect for atheist thinkers who defend atheism or religious thinkers who defend religion. However, my respect wanes significantly when atheist thinkers attack religion and religious thinkers attack atheism. It's both unbecoming and presumptuous.

[Atheistprimate]

How the hell does this guy write a book about Darwin and not know he was agnostic.

Adam Gopnik you are today's douche bag.

[shadetail]

But was he an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist?

[Atheistprimate]

Shamelessly ripped from Wikipedia:

"Darwin continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the local church,[138] but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[128] Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.

Clearly not an atheist.

[holyhell5050]

That's debateable though. It explicitly states "he had never been an atheist in the sense of *denying* the existence of a God" which is the descriptor of a *strong* atheist, a *weak* atheist does not acknowledge the existance or non-existance of a god. These terms were not in use until the 1990s and so before that one would have to make it explicitly clear that one was not what we now call a strong atheist by stating oneself to be an agnostic.

[ChuckyJesus666]

Isn't that a bit harsh? An atheist can be an agnostic and vice versa. I consider myself an atheistic agnostic.

[Atheistprimate]

Darwin never once said there was no God, how would anyone class him as an atheist?

[shadetail]

You don't need to say there is no god(s) to be an atheist. It just means you don't believe in any.

[Atheistprimate]

Saying you are not sure about there being no god but believe its unlikely would make you agnostic.

Clearly saying there is no god makes you atheist.

Just shrugging your shoulders when asked about religion does not make you an atheist, its a positive claim to say "No, they do not exist" to be classed as atheist.

These dual term like "agnostic atheist" are kinda nonsense. Its like saying "I know but i don't know". huh?

[eszettfromhell]

Atheistprimate, you are confounding "know" with "believe" in your last sentence. I am an agnostic-atheist for I say: I do not know of a god, and nor do I believe in one. If you make a positive claim of belief that there is no god ("I believe that there is no god") and combine it with something resembling an empirical claim on uncertainy ("but I don't know") then you meet your example, but I would say that the number of people who fall into that category is extremely low.

[Atheistprimate]

to eszettformhell

I do agree its a bit of a gray area but if we look there is no term other then atheist to describe someone making the positive claim they know there is no god.

I say there are no unicorns and i feel no need to add "but i don't know" at the end. My feelings are the same towards Zeus, Thor, Allah and all the gods we have invented. I am an atheist.

Saying i am not sure or "but i don't know" if Thor exists would not make me an atheist it would make me an agnostic.

[eirefrance]

Atheism is, by its very nature, the rejection of a positive claim and is really a very passive position. We can argue about the lexical vs. semantic meaning, I suppose, but its really sort of a blank slate. All that is required is that someone act and think as if God does not exist. Its really the anti-label of all labels.

[Atheistprimate]

To eirefrance

My question to you then would be as we move close to not having the need to cling to the skydaddy myths would we have to invent a new word for people who can look in the mirror and say "there is no gods because X reason say they cant exist"?

Maybe there does need to be a new term like Dawkins had, he called them Brights. But that word does not really fit in my opinion.

[eirefrance]

Whatever. Maybe there does need to be. I just don't think we should change the meaning of words and force people to fit themselves into new categories. Simply acting and thinking as if God doesn't exist is fine for me. Now that I think about, doesn't Hitchens use the term anti-theist?

[ChuckyJesus666]

That's because that's not the definition of an atheist. If you're an atheist, I'm surprised you'd fall for this strawman argument the fundies make, claiming that atheists make that negative claim, "There is no god." Atheists just means someone who lacks a belief in a deity. There's a huge difference, Lacking a belief is abstaining from a belief. So you can be agnostic, which is about knowing or degrees of knowing, and be an atheist too, which is about belief or the lack thereof.

[Mjhavok]

Is it just me who doesn't give a fuck if Darwin was an atheist or not?

[Atheistprimate]

Is important to not have Darwin mislabeled as an atheist isit would add fuel to this mistaken belief many theists have that if a person supports evolution that they must then by default be an atheist.

Darwin himself felt it important enough to have put in writing during his life that he was not an atheist, would you like having people mislabel after you are dead?

[Mjhavok]

"Darwin himself felt it important enough to have put in writing during his life that he was not an atheist, would you like having people mislabel after you are dead?"

Since I am an atheist and think my conciousness will cease to exist I don't really care. An atheist may not have meant to Darwin what it means to people today. It is difficult to say what he really believed. After all he loved his wife and she was a devout believer and he didn't want to upset her.

[Atheistprimate]

Good point about not upsetting his wife, i know i would have a hard time having a theistic spouse without needing to curb my disdain for organized religion in order to keep peace around the household.

[Mjhavok]

Also society was different then. Darwin was fairly wealthy and probably moved in social circles in which atheistic views may have been untenable or perhaps it was impolite to express them or something. This is pure speculation on my part.

[holyhell5050]

May be pure speculation but it confers to evidence; I've posted a response to an earlier comment of Atheistprimate's relative to the shift in linguistics since then. Back then atheist could be taken to infer a denial of God, which is why the terms strong atheist and weak atheist came into use first in 1949 and then in common use in the 1990s. As such the only way one could express themselves to be atheist without inferring to some that you denied God would be to declare oneself as agnostic.