Atheism's Wrong Turn

Or maybe it's just more convenient to appeal to some sort of middle-of-the-road audience. In any case, his arguments are just bogus.

First, he observes a past division in atheist thinking and then (incorrectly) assumes that all future atheist thinking must fall into one of these categories. He looks to the past, sees O'Hair on one side, and Hook on another and then measures all atheists in terms of his assessment of their position on this artificial scale.

The "new" atheism is only new in the sense that it's a new response to a specific problem - the increase in political activism among theists. Even without the new atheist authors, non-belief has been growing very rapidly in the US. Faster than any religious group. The popularity of a few books that openly reject religious thought is entirely to be expected in an environment like that.

Second, he trots out some standard falsehoods, like the infamous "you can't prove a negative." Nonsense. When pushed off the desk, my keys won't hover in the air - that's a negative statement, and it's trivial to prove. Conversely, "all swans are white" is a positive statement, and it's equally unprovable. "You can't prove a negative" is just misdirection.

Third, he assumes that the political and social climate of 21st century America is somehow roughly equivalent to 18th century France - if atheists couldn't prove it then, they can't prove it now. This, too, is nonsense. Our understanding of science has progressed by almost inconceivable amounts since most of his historical anecdotes, and modern science simply leaves no room for a personal, active, god.

While it might be true that the more abstract theologies are safe (so far) from the encroachment of science, it's simply not true that the beliefs of the typical Christian in America are consistent with what we know to be true from science. The most basic evidence of this is that fewer than half of Americans believe in evolution.

Finally, the accusation that the new atheists all want to take away freedom of religion is just scare mongering. Every one of these folks, so far as I can tell, is committed to the ideal of a liberal, secular society. That, of course, includes the right to believe whatever it is you believe.

The author misrepresents that on two counts. First, you can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Jesus - but that doesn't mean those beliefs aren't ridiculous. What we "new atheists" really want is for religion to get exactly the "respect" it deserves, which is none at all. We don't want to make it illegal to believe, but we do want to make it laughable.

The other misrepresentation is when he starts talking about how this attitude is "illiberal". Liberalism is about accepting intellectual variety, as he says, but liberalism doesn't equal relativism. The intellectual variety prized by liberalism doesn't include falsehood - we don't praise people for believing 2+2=5. Nor does it prize moral outrage. There are those who offer well-reasoned arguments in favor of pedophilia - and yet secular liberalism rejects them.

Forget for a moment whether you think religious indoctrination constitutes child abuse. If I think it does, then am I not morally obliged to seek to end it? I'd say so, and so the only meaningful question is re-examine whether it's child abuse.

It's hardly an open and shut case, too. We've recently had the widely publicized scandals of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests - a practice which is certainly assisted by a religious indoctrination that identifies all priests as inherently good. In another example, CNN reported just this weekend about a fourteen year old boy who refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds and died as a result.

Children are unable to make sound judgements about difficult ideas like those inherent in theology. Dawkins is absolutely correct, in The God Delusion, when he points out that the terms "Catholic child", "Protestant child", "Jewish child", and "Muslim child" are just as absurd as "conservative child", "liberal child", "Republican child", and "Democrat child". Children are in no way able to make such decisions.

I think it's entirely forgivable that Dawkins may occasionally slip into language that, taken out of context, makes it sound like he's opposed to freedom of thought. Very often, what's done to children in the name of religious indoctrination does verge on abuse, and there's no obvious way to stop the abuse without also prohibiting the indoctrination.

Clearly, many people (notably, virtually all of them having been indoctrinated themselves) value this indoctrination more than the risk of abuse. Those of us who find no value in the indoctrination are far more willing to throw that bathwater out to save the baby.

Possibly the most irritating bit in the article on the very first page, where he quotes Dawkins out of context.

To say we shouldn't dismiss this as "mere off-the-cuff hyperbole" misrepresents that Dawkins himself says, "It was an off-the-cuff remark made in the heat of the moment, and I was surprised that it earned a round of enthusiastic applause from that Irish audience." Even more interesting, he goes on to give some real substance to the comment:

What's offensive here is that he's taken this rather outrageous comment by Dawkins and presented it without context to people whom he can be fairly certain will never read The God Delusion.