Posted by Siamang on: 06.05.2007 /
In the thread on Dawkins, Stephan raises an interesting question:
The underlying presuppositions of most atheists is to interpret things the same way fundamentalists do, so I have never found their arguments to be particularly convincing, just as I find fundamentalists to be not particularly convincing. When Dawkins et al say, “Theists believe ‘X’, and we know that ‘X’ is not true, so theists are wrong,” I do not accept “X” in the first place, so their arguments don’t ring true for me.
I have heard this critique of Dawkins and other voices for atheism before: they argue against a reading of the Bible that is so literal, they sound like fundamentalists themselves.
A discussion between Richard Dawkins and Physicist Lawrence Krauss brought me some insight on this. In it, Krauss has this to say:
In my lecture to the Catholic group, for instance, I took guidance from your latest book and described how scientific principles, including the requirement not to be selective in choosing data, dictate that one cannot pick and choose in one’s fundamentalism. If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth.
Let me use that quote as an insight into the psychology of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins lives in the world of scientific academia. He works every day with the idea that one does not “pick and choose” just the data that supports his thesis. He makes his living in a subculture where a scientist has to deal in “fact or nonfact”.
As such, I believe that psychologically he (and others with that approach) do not understand why other people don’t have that approach. I think he has a terrible impatience for qualified, subjective or touchy-feely assertions of faith. I feel he might think, “come on now, stop mucking about with that murky stuff… I feel like I’m swatting at shadows. Someone make a strong positive assertion I can get a good swing at!”
I think it’s because the subculture of science likes strong positive assertions they can get a good swing at. Either the rocket blasted off, or it didn’t. No navel-gazing for them about how in some metaphors the rocket already has reached its destination, but that’s being held back by the patriarchial modernist linear-thinking establishment of our western imperialist intellectual oligarchy.
-Siamang
Comment by: Stephan
1Probably a more comparable field to theology is history rather than science.
When checking the reliability of a historical document you take into account who wrote it, why it was written, to whom it was written, when it was written, how reliable our copies are, etc. You might determine that some parts can be taken literally and others may have to be looked at in context.
It’s definitely not the same as running a controlled experiment in a lab, isolating the variables and recording the results.
As a result our perception of history is skewed by the documents that have survived, just as our perception of religion (and, as a result, God) is skewed by our interpretation of the copies of documents written by people we do not know thousands of years ago under circumstances we may not be able to relate to.
Granted, that leaves a lot of room for different interpretations. But I don’t see that as a reason to throw all of it away, as Dawkins would have us do.
Comment by: Siamang
2I just think it gives insight as to why folks like Dawkins seem fundamentalist in their interpretation of scripture.
Comment by: Stephan
3Agreed.
Comment by: Julie Marie
4:) sometimes I get impatient with myself over these issues and decide its just not worth the mental effort.
But I always seem to find myself returning to those questions without answers.
Comment by: Mike C
5Good thoughts Siamang. I think you’re basically right. It’s the old dichotomy between the humanities and the sciences. Actually I think a good comparison for theology is the study of literature. Since most of the Bible consists of stories it’s hard to say what the one “objective” meaning of a story is. By it’s very nature story lends itself to multiple interpretations and layers of meaning. That, in my opinion, is part of the power of scripture.
But of course, I can see why people trained to the hard sciences might not like such a “subjective” discipline (ignoring for the moment the fact that science too is more subjective than they’re probably willing to admit), and would tend to look down their noses at theology the same way they look down on the rest of the humanities.
Comment by: Siamang
6I don’t mean to belittle the questions without answers.
I wouldn’t make fun of the navel-gazing questions unless I too asked them from time to time.
Comment by: Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
7I think there’s another aspect you are totally missing. I think there’s a new breed of Atheist authors emerging who may appear one-sided and extreme because that’s where the money is, if you want to get rich selling a book and grabbing some attention. Why do you think they are on the best-seller list? You have to do something like that to grab attention and rise above the fray (competition). Face it, when extreme opinions are expressed like that, doesn’t it make you want to read more of what they have to say, or listen to interviews with them? If someone was more moderate would it grab anyone’s attention? It’s a form of Atheist author evolution… struggle to be heard; survival of the fittest.
…Bernie
Comment by: Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
8RE:
“If one believes that homosexuality is an abomination because it says so in the Bible, one has to accept the other things that are said in the Bible, including the allowance to kill your children if they are disobedient or validation of the right to sleep with your father if you need to have a child and there are no other men around, and so forth.”
From the Christian worldview:
Killing the disobedient was a law for a different time and place; when Israel was a theocracy. That’s why it doesn’t apply anymore. Homosexuality is still seen as a form of sexual immorality. As for a daughter sleeping with her dad, that’s not a law, but a story in the Bible. Just because a story happened doesn’t mean it was God’s desire, such as when King David sexually sinned with Bathsheba.
…Bernie
Comment by: Bernie of FreeGoodNews.com
9RE: Natural Museum posting:
Siamang- you are depressed about the Creationist museum? Watch this satire- it will humor you:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2033709764
…Bernie
(Posted here, because it wouldn’t post under the “Museum” blog artile._
Comment by: Brendon Lake
10Your shamelessnees paid off :)
I have to say taking a look at this site has been worth it. I really like your reasoning.
Comment by: Siamang
11Thanks Brendon!
Comment by: Keith
12Siamang,
Thanks for posting on this subject. In my atheist-Christian dialogues, Christians sometimes sense pressure to state fundamentalist beliefs so that my friend can take a “good swing at it” (Carr’s pressuring Mike C. at FriendlyAtheist is a recent extreme example). Is it possible that some atheists’ rejection of theism is more a matter of personal preference than objective evidence? If Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (this applies to him as well, IMO), and perhaps Sam Harris, reject Christianity in large parts because they misunderstand/misinterpret it … does this change anything for atheists?
Siamang and Helen, if you could respond to me publicly or privately regarding these questions, I would love to hear your thoughts especially. I feel that this issue is one that should be considered a priority by atheists. Either it will motivate some to take a fresh look at Jesus, or would make atheistic arguments much stronger to the non-fundamentalist Christian. Thanks as always …
Comment by: Siamang
13Thanks, Keith.
Well, I think that it can be both. I have a personal preference for objective evidence. If you read my story, you’ll get an idea of where I was in my path when I made my change, and the reasons I attribute to those changes.
But yes, I do think that there’s probably some personality trait that was in me pre-religion and pre-atheism. I think that for me, there’s a need for something to be a “known fact”. I really, really like to get a handle on the things that are important to me, and understand them a lot.
That not only affects the type of atheist I am, but it also affected the type of Christian I was, when I was young.
So I think that, for my personality, Christianity, or later New Age beliefs were untenable as they conflicted with my personality.
For me, it’s been healthier for me to say “I don’t know” about questions of the ultimate Great Spirit or whatever. Because saying “I know” always put me in a tail-spin chasing one wierd fringe belief after another.
I don’t think they misunderstand it any more than I think any Christian understands it. I know I’ve yet to figure out the correct way to interpret scripture that wouldn’t get me into trouble with any other set of believers. And any way I interpreted Christian scripture would be wrong to people of conflicting faiths.
What I don’t think they understand is believers. And I do think that it’s because (correct me if I’m wrong) none of them WERE believers.
I’ve said before that atheists tend to be like the type of believer they were. So fundamentalists can tend to be pushy when they become atheists, or at least quite anti-fundamentalist, using fundamentalist arguments against that reading of scripture.
I tend to think that if Dawkins had grown up a believer, he’d be a very dogmatic kind of believer… a very keen and intellectual one, but very hard and fast about the rules of salvation.
Does this change things for atheists? Well, I was an atheist before I ever heard the names Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris. I didn’t walk away from belief because of them, or because of biblical argument.
For me, my walk away from faith was a walk towards personal honesty. “I don’t know” was the most honest thing I could say about questions of faith, and I found it liberating.
Comment by: Siamang
14Keith wrote this:
Absolutely. It’s in a sense what we’d all like if we’re spoiling for an argument. It’s why I “like” the Creation Museum. They’re going out and saying T-rex ate coconuts. That’s a nice juicy target!
It’s a bit harder if your target is Mike C! Actually, it’s impossible, because Mike might just as well agree with you and say “yes, that’s why I don’t believe X!”
What’s important in those discussions is to get past that horrible place in the “debate” and communicate through the back-channels… In a discussion, I’m not attempting to communicate the facts in the discussion itself. The discussion itself, I’ve become convinced, is immaterial.
What I am trying to communicate is my personal attributes: trustworthiness, thoughtfulness, patience, open-mindedness, charity, etc. The point-counter-point of a discussion is merely a topic by which I can communicate my personality.
Which is why I don’t try to “prove” religion is wrong or Christianity is wrong or whatever. It’s a pointless discussion. It’s not going to convince anyone, or make me any friends. Plus, I’m not good at it anyway, and it’d just be an excersize in me trying to act smarter than other people. Yuck!
Not like I could get a good shot off at Mike C anyway! ;-)
BUT, if I can communicate what I want to communicate, that I’m a kind, thoughtful, charitable person… then that’s far better because it communicates that I’m a person of worth. It communicates so much more if someone comes away from interacting with me saying “I have a friend who’s an atheist. He’s pretty okay.” THAT is phenomenal. It’s doable, it’s worthwhile and it moves the discussion to a better place. And I didn’t have to provide a proof for it. I didn’t have to argue against someone to do it. I didn’t need to goad someone to a fierce support of an extreme counter-position to battle it.
Comment by: Keith
15Siamang,
Thank you so much for the response.
Your honesty and openness are an example to me as always. These words more positively reflect on atheism than anything Dawkins has ever written, IMO.
Great point. Thank you for greatly clarifying what I was trying to say.
Well said. You are doing this, bro. I have said versions of “I have a friend who’s an atheist. He’s pretty okay” many times over the last few months. I respect you greatly Siamang. I wish the more public voices of atheism used the words you use. Said another way, I hope your voice becomes more and more public :-)
Comment by: Siamang
16Thanks.
For all the exclaimed “rationalism” of atheists, I wish they’d realize that the human mind doesn’t assess core beliefs rationally. They assume that since they believe that atheism is rational, that they came to atheism through rationality.
I don’t think that’s actually the case. I think they came to it because of processes deep in the personality that are inherantly non-rational.
Let me use the analogy of acceptance of homosexuality. I think the majority opinion of acceptance of homosexuality has changed in my lifetime. In America, the majority opinion has turned the other way.
I don’t think this happened by reasoned rational argument. I think it happened because people came out and other people went “wow, I have a gay friend.” Or people like Ellen came out and were public and nice and non-threatening and cool.
Once people had people they liked who were gay, I think they were ready to hear the rational reasons why gay rights were a positive thing to fight for.
It didn’t TURN people gay. But the gay rights movement did frighten people into thinking it was a “recruitment drive.”
I think the atheist “movement” should take a look at what they’re doing. I think they should try to understand something deeper about human psychology and realize that they need positive atheist role models in the public eye, in the media, on TV, in movies, in fiction, etc…
They need to realize that people don’t come at this question “rationally,” they come at it emotionally and socially.
They also need to stop acting like they’re trying to turn people atheist. It cannot be done! People should share their own paths, not try to convince others to change theirs.
Comment by: Karen
17Dawkins was raised in the Anglican faith but rejected it as an adolescent. Ditto - I believe - for Hitchens, whose brother stayed in the church and wrote a rebuttal article a few days ago.
I don’t think I’ve ever read about Harris’s religious background. He tends to keep personal details very much to himself.
But Dawkins and Harris were raised in church but rejected it at an early age. This is true also for P.Z. Myers, science blogger and atheist. Something in them allowed them to see what is lacking in religion as soon as their brains started maturing, apparently.
I very much agree that - brilliant as those guys are - none of them “get” believers or religious belief in general. They have never formed the very powerful emotional and social connections that exist for believers, so they don’t understand them. They’ve found their personal fulfillment in places that atheists do - family, friends, work, advocacy, etc.
So, they have very large blind spots when it comes to believers. Which doesn’t make relating to believers very easy to do!
Comment by: Mike C
18Not true! You got plenty of good shots off on me in some of our discussions on the CatE message boards (when I still had the time to hang out there). Don’t sell yourself short. ;)
I love how even the atheists around here are following Jim Henderson’s “evangelism” advice these days. :)
Comment by: Karen
19I don’t know. I think it’s both/and.
Early gay rights supporters were persuaded by data and evidence presented to psychologists that showed homosexuality was not a mental defect. They didn’t actually know m/any gay people back then because gays were so heavily closeted.
But the kind of people who are open to evidence and unhampered by dogma were just the small minority persuaded to support gay rights early on.
Then we got some biological data that started to show being gay was not a “choice” - it was somehow hard-wired. That data, along with the psychology shift, started making it more acceptable to come out of the close. And it brought a few more straight people into supporting gay rights.
You’re right that the majority shift has taken place since that time, and largely due to personal contact with gays that were emboldened by the early, more scientific evidence.
So, I’d say it takes everything - the evidence and the relationships - to cause a paradigm shift this big.
Which is an instructive thought for those interested in increasing acceptance for non-theism, too.
Comment by: Siamang
20Yes, well Jim’s insight seems to me to be exactly how people actually deal with things. I think the brain is a wonderful thing, but while I can argue you against buying a Ford, I cannot argue you out of being a certain religion.
So how do we share our “faith/nonfaith” with people? We share our experiences. We share our path and our thoughts and our feelings, revelations, insights etcetera.
Ultimately Jim is right, I think… that it’s about being yourself. But the other part of it, one I think Jim would agree with me on, is really LOSING the part of you that wants to change people. It’s about having the humility and the serenity to admit that you cannot fix other people and you cannot change other people. That it’s alright to be yourself, in fact, it’s the only thing you can do and succeed at. In a zen-like way, the only way to bring other people to your way of thinking is to stop trying to!
And yes, Jim should write that book for atheists! “I Bought a Soul on Ebay: What Atheists Can Do to Win the Respect of Christians.”
Comment by: Siamang
21I’ll submit that nobody was a gay rights supporter before they knew a gay person or knew of a gay person they admired (or they were gay). They may have been few, and they may have been early. But activists got the American Psychiatric Association to delist homosexuality as a mental defect in 1973, nearly a quarter of a century after Kinsey. It wasn’t the widespread practice of homosexuality that caused the APA to delist, nor was it data.
It was, quite frankly, an invitation by gay activist Ron Gold to Dr. Robert Spitzer. Gold invited Spitzer to a gay bar in Hawaii, to meet with closeted gay Psychiatrists. He was amazed to see many prominent Psychiatrists there, and man after man told him their stories.
Once Spitzer met these people and learned their stories, he came back to the APA and recommended delisting… now he could find the data. Now he could find the science and the arguments to bring to bear.
So yes, the data is important, but it does not come first.
Comment by: Karen
22Yeah, I heard that on This American Life recently. Fascinating story.
Comment by: Stephan
23Siamang, you are definitely achieving your goal of being a good atheist example. My kids look for your name in movie credits and refer to you as my “atheist friend”. Very good work.
I think the gay rights comparison is apt. I was never on the side of gay rights (in fact, very far from it) when confronted with gay rights activists. But then I worked with an openly gay man for over a year and we became good friends. Knowing him and his struggles changed my whole perception of the situation.
I find extremists, whether they be Christian, Muslim, gay rights, atheists, fundamentalists, Republicans, Democrats or any other group, to be far more damaging to their cause in the long run. Those of you who can simply be who they are without pushing an agenda or trying to enrage people are doing a much better job of changing people’s perceptions.
I don’t think people like Dawkins and Harris are doing much good for their cause, although they are selling a lot of books and making a lot of money, which, in the end, is probably their goal, or at least the goal of their publishers.
Comment by: Brendon Lake
24Hi Siamang, I’m really enjoying reading what you have to say, I could be quoting tonnes of your thoughts where I think you are on the right track.
Try reading some of CS Lewis writings like ‘Mere Christianity,’ it might help you decide whether there is any truth in Christian belief. I’ve loved CS Lewis since I was a kid watching ‘Chronicles of Narnia’ on TV.
Also, check this page
Comment by: Mike C
25Hey Brendon, you’re probably new to this, so just a tip: recommending C.S. Lewis books to atheists is generally not an effective practice. In my experience they’re usually already familiar with him and they’re not impressed.
Peace
-Mike