Atheists aren’t entirely human, part whatever 21 Jun 2011 I’ve lost track of the number of cases I have linked to in which the irreligious are outright or subtly suggested not to be fully human. Here’s another example, in an “uplifting” Father’s Day story about a man who drowned himself to hold his disabled son above a cesspool, by Jeffrey Goldberg at Bloomberg: I’m reasonably sure an atheist would sacrifice his life for his child. But I also don’t doubt that Thomas Vander Woude’s powerful faith cleared the path into the tank. A person who has an articulated calling, who believes in something larger than himself, could more immediately accept the gravity of the moment. What now? An atheist won’t love their son as well as a theist? They won’t immediately see that if they don’t die themselves their son will die? Or is the implication here that only a theist truly would love his son? Fucking hell. It’s a human thing (indeed, a primate thing, depending upon social structure of the species) to defend and sacrifice for one’s children. As Sting once wrote, the Russians (then horrible atheists) love their children too. So the implication here is that atheists aren’t quite human. But of course we don’t see the cases in which atheists and nonbelievers sacrifice themselves for their children, because not-being-religious is not a notable category for journalists; instead we will get patriotic, or ethnic, or some other story of how their sacrifice is noble. Why do theists need to justify themselves this way? Is it that they are themselves a little insecure? They feel like being religious is something that you have to constantly reassure yourself about, and denigrate those who don’t agree? Of course. That, too, is the human thing. Nice to see they are no better than they ought to be, these religious defenders, and are just as bigoted as the rest of us. Rant Religion
Freedom Phobosophy 14 Aug 201714 Aug 2017 As everyone knows, philosophy comes from the two Greek words philo and sophos, and means, roughly, the love of wisdom, although as everyone also knows, Socrates declared his wisdom was his knowledge that he knew nothing. In recent years (by which I mean increasingly since the 1970s), there has been… Read More
Evolution The World According to Genesis: Humanity 2 Jun 200724 Nov 2022 So in chapter 2, we shift stories. Now we have a story that is far older than the first chapter, and is regarded by scholars as the “Yahwist” creation story, and it focuses primarily on humans. The story is far more familiar than the first chapter is (the first few… Read More
Administrative Off to talk religion and evolution 18 Sep 2008 Okay, so in the AM I am off to drizzly Melbourne, my old home town, to address a conference on the implications of the project of naturalising religion, especially in terms of evolution, to an audience that may, or may not be religious. So if you never hear from me… Read More
That’s what I like about you John. You’re an equal opportunity hater. Whether it’s bigoted gnus like moi or bigoted xtians, you let fly.
I think by “accept the gravity of the moment”, the author means that the godly man will hear trumpets and see angels as he lowers himself into the cesspool… whereas the atheist will only think “here goes nothing”
It’s a human thing . . . to defend and sacrifice for one’s children. It’s is also a religious thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
So if he expected some eternal reward or something he would somehow love the kid more? No, he’d be loving God, or perhaps even behaving selfishly because he expected to get something out of the deal. Sacrificing his own life, for that of his child becomes incredibly powerful if he doesn’t expect anything but death. A strong case could be made that the Atheist is making the true sacrifice, which would be aspirational for anyone not turning religion into some mealy mouthed Panglossian exercise .
“Fucking hell. It’s a human thing …” That’s now how religious folk see it. To them, nothing good comes from being human. Only sin comes from that. All credit goes to god for whatever is good. It is misattribution, of course. But that seems to be how religion works.
I saw that excerpt from Goldberg’s piece quoted on Andrew Sullivan’s blog too. I can’t help but wonder whether Sullivan realizes it’s offensive to atheists—I’m hoping he gets some good reader responses.
Why do theists need to justify themselves this way? Is it that they are themselves a little insecure? They feel like being religious is something that you have to constantly reassure yourself about, and denigrate those who don’t agree? I would read more into this but I have a historical bias. Whilst it concerns itself for the most part with fathers what it seems to also hint at a particular role for mothers as well, particularly with regard to abortion. It a theme picked up by one of the commentators. It reminds me of the Lex innocentium or law of the Innocents from 679 a.d. Its a rather interesting document. It takes a big swipe at pagans rather than atheists but it’s real concern seems to be with ordering identity within it’s own community (these laws were specifically for the lay members of monastic communities rather than the community as a whole). It protects Women, children and Clerics from murder in battle. A noble sentiment but what it is also highly successful in achieving is in completely re-ordering women’s identity, status and roles in public and private sphere’s. The godly male role is to maintain and protect ‘gods’ social order and hierarchy. Women’s power and authority was significantly downgraded in this period but in the text the church is presented as an institution which sought to free them from bondage and suffering. Here is the legal code if anyone is interested in the methods the church used to establish itself and re-order the identity of men, women and children. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/CainAdamnain.html
I have no doubt you can find similar stories of parents who make the ultimate sacrifice for their children from all faiths, from all cultures and at all times. It is a testament to the strength of the bond between parent and child that it can override the otherwise powerful instinct for self-preservation. As you say, it is a human virtue at the least and any faith which attempts to appropriate it for itself only demeans itself by so doing.
It’s not even uniquely human. One reads stories of cats and dogs who injure themselves terribly or die rescuing their young ones from burning buildings or other disasters. If they were interviewed later about their religious views, the newspapers left that out.
Not disputing your assertion, but is being “human” any more admirable in a reductionist sense than being “feline” if evolution is the ultimate reality? Just another species soon to disappear. Means nothing.
If we’re the ones doing the admiring then, yes, we are. Why not?Although, speaking personally, I wouldn’t say we are any more admirable than cats. And I’m pretty sure my cats would agree.
Just another species soon to disappear. Means nothing. There’s always that possibility. On the other hand, we might merge with our technology, form a Borg-like hive-mind collective and spread ourselves throughout the galaxy as von Neumann replicators once freed from these fragile biological bodies.
“we might merge with our technology, form a Borg-like hive-mind collective and spread ourselves throughout the galaxy as von Neumann replicators once freed from these fragile biological bodies.” Ah yes! Well, that is certainly an interesting idea, and one, as a hardcore programmer in a previous life, that I have often entertained. But… what does any of it mean without you, personally? Yes, you: Ian H Spedding FCD. Not John Wilkins (a rather imposing ape), or PZMyers (a squid-like being of indetermate orgin). It’s all up to you to decide….
jeff: Not disputing your assertion, but is being “human” any more admirable in a reductionist sense than being “feline” if evolution is the ultimate reality? Yes
I think too much is being made about Mr. Goldberg’s article. While I can’t say to know the man’s mind, it seems clear that his position is that a theist has contemplated his afterlife and is prepared for his mortality. There is no struggle with facing his death when his family is at stake. An atheist, on the other hand, has not had the benefit of church dogma to prepare him ahead of time and must struggle with the concepts at the moment of need, slowing his reactions to the point where he may not serve the need. Obviously this is total nonsense. Why he would come up with this nonsense is the second point I wanted to make. Jeff said “but is being “human” any more admirable … than being “feline” To which Ian H Spedding FCD responded “If we’re the ones doing the admiring then, yes, we are. ” Why? Because we are human. We have a human perspective. Extend this to Mr. Goldberg. Is being a theist any more admirable than being an atheist? To Mr. Goldberg it is. From his perspective, he believes he would have made the same sacrifice as Thomas Vander Woude and he attributes the quick assurance of this action to his faith. Without the benefit of your perspective, he cannot know the same of an atheist and would naturally only assume that someone of a different type of faith would react different. His article may have been thoughtless and insulting but hardly worth such a vehement response.
Christopher: Yes The Beast begs to differ. I will demur to him at least until I can get his claws cut.
John Wilkins: “What now? An atheist won’t love their son as well as a theist?….Fucking hell….This entry was posted in Rant” These are not the words and feelings of an Agnostic, as Wilkins claims to be. He is clearly angry, as any Atheist would indeed be.
So tell me, Ray, if I defend Christians, as I have on this blog from time to time, against atheist criticisms I think are unwarranted, does that mean I am also a Christian? I’m a Christian and an Atheist simultaneously?
Now, now. You’re trying to confuse Ray with logic. You know that doesn’t work. He will remain steadfast in his claims no matter how self-contradictory.
John Harshman: Now, now. You’re trying to confuse Ray with logic. You know that doesn’t work. He will remain steadfast in his claims no matter how self-contradictory. I agree completely that the issue—ultimately—is about sound logic. This would explain your contention that a contradiction exists on my end. Of course if I be right the contradiction exists on your end.
John S. Wilkins: So tell me, Ray, if I defend Christians, as I have on this blog from time to time, against atheist criticisms I think are unwarranted, does that mean I am also a Christian? I’m a Christian and an Atheist simultaneously? I thought I’d already cleared this up. You’re an equal-opportunity hater. I think it’s your best quality, but I do not know the real John S. Wilkins (PZ be upon him). All you can ask from a person is that they treat all points of view unfairly, and in that, you seem to do so. 😉
John S. Wilkins: So tell me, Ray, if I defend Christians, as I have on this blog from time to time, against atheist criticisms I think are unwarranted, does that mean I am also a Christian? I’m a Christian and an Atheist simultaneously? When I publish my book refuting evolution (on-line/no paywall) it will contain a lengthy argument concerning worldviews and how these relate to Darwin’s species theory. I am very well aware of the origins of Agnosticism and its evolution in the 20th century. I can tell you now that the concept of “Agnosticism,” as an enduring personal position, does not exist. I am going to put “Agnostics” (like yourself) over the proverbial barrel, with your wrists shackled to your ankles. It is impossible for any well-educated person (like yourself) to not know if God exists or not. Because Atheism/Materialism was illegal to propagate in England until 1883, Darwin HAD to adopt labels like Agnosticism, unlike you and your intellectual peers.
It is impossible for any well-educated person (like yourself) to not know if God exists or not. I call troll. This cannot be serious. How is it impossible for a well-educated person, even a militant agnostic like John, to evaluate the evidence and find that it is not conclusive in either direction regarding one entity? It’s a perfectly reasonable position. You argue for the existence of some deity and demand all acknowledge it. I argue that all conceptions of deities are full of it so call myself atheist. But none of that matters, because he has evaluated the evidence regarding certain conceptions of deities presented to him (I assume) and found them not meriting a yeah or neigh. He’s being quite Humean and proportioning belief to evidence. You can’t legislate rational enquiry. End of story.
Brian: “How is it impossible for a well-educated person, even a militant agnostic like John, to evaluate the evidence and find that it is not conclusive in either direction regarding one entity? It’s a perfectly reasonable position.” It is psychologically and logically impossible to expose oneself to evidence then conclude for Agnosticism. Wilkins lives and argues as an Atheist. A person is as they argue and live, and not as they claim to be, if the two contradict. I also can identify at least three ulterior motives that cause a person to label themself an Agnostic. The fact that you (an Atheist) are defending Wilkins is quality evidence supporting my claim that Wilkins is indeed an Atheist. You see and understand nothing in Wilkins’s alleged Agnosticism that threatens the health and validity of your worldview. For if you had seen any threat in his Agnosticism you would not be defending him.
“It is psychologically and logically impossible to expose oneself to evidence then conclude for Agnosticism.” I don’t understand this claim. The only way it could be true is if the the available evidence for a diety is compelling. But if that was so, there would be no need for faith, contrary to the view expressed by many devout believers of exceptional intelligence. I think, therefore, that Mr. Martinez must be a heretic.
Ray is well known on the talk.origins group. He is a master of the begging of questions, as here. He thinks it is compellingly obvious that God exists, and therefore anyone who says they do not think this is true canot be expressing an honest view and must be an atheist, which is the state of rejecting (not denying) God. So since this is definitely impossible for Ray, I must be lying. I think any reader can see what is going on.
Ahghghgh. Done it again. Engaged with a punter. Oh well, off for another sabatical. 🙂 One day I’ll learn to ignore sidebar stuff and engage with mein host.
“A primate thing”? Hell, it’s a vertebrate thing (in a lot of cases) and I wouldn’t be shocked to hear tell of some invertebrates doing it as well. I seem to recall seeing not only “reptiles” defending their young but “fish” as well. Seems like pretty straight forward Darwinian logic that organisms would fight to protect their offspring; especially in species that don’t produce bazillions of them at a go.
Actually, in some cases, the participants need only be of the same species for one to sacrifice itself for the other when it comes to protecting the continuance of the young. Probably a genetic thing associated with the preservation of the species which may sometimes be triggered by unusual circumstances.