The Artist Formerly Known as Atheist
Our friend Steve posted this quote from a Richard Dawkins article on his blog:
Religion changes, for people, the definition of good. Atheists and humanists tend to define good and bad deeds in terms of the welfare and suffering of others. Murder, torture, and cruelty are bad because they cause people to suffer. Most religious people think them bad, too, but some religions (for example the religion of the Taliban) sanction all of them under some circumstances. For non-religious people, the behavior of consenting adults in a private bedroom is the business of nobody else, and is not bad unless it causes suffering - for example by breaking up a happy family. But many religions arrogate to themselves the right to decide that certain kinds of sexual behavior, even if they do no harm to anyone, are wrong.
The actions of the Taliban, their vile bullying of women, their sanctimonious hatred of all that might lead to enjoyment, their violence, their ignorant bigotry, their hatred of education, their cruelty, seem to me to be as close to pure evil as anything I can imagine. Yet, by the lights of their own religion they are supremely righteous %96 really good people.
Dawkins is a prominent atheist who alledges that religion can cause people to do evil things.
Is it a coincidence that the source of the quote is this Washington Post On Faith series from which I just sent an article by Sam Harris to Laura? When I read the Dawkins article, I immediately thought, “What about Stalin? What about Hitler?” They were two infamous atheists who did evil things, some might argue they did them because they were atheists. Here’s what Sam Harris has to say about it:
How many times are we going to have to counter the charge that Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot represent the endgame of atheism? I’ve got news for you, this meme is not going away… I can assure you that this bogus argument will be with us for as long as people label themselves “atheists.” And it really convinces religious people. It convinces moderates and liberals. It even convinces the occasional atheist.
I like Sam Harris. He advocates changing the dialogue by dropping the label of “atheist”:
I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.
I would like to take this idea one step further and suggest that religious people drop their labels as well. How often do you meet a someone that says, “I’m a Christian, but I don’t believe X, Y and Z.” If you are constantly qualifying the label you’ve given yourself, maybe it’s time to drop the label.
Here is a conversation I had once:
Jimmy: What religion are you?
Emily: I’m no religion.
Jimmy: You can’t be no religion.
Emily: Yes, I can. What religion are you?
Jimmy: I’m Baptist.
Emily: And what do Baptists believe that makes them different from other Christians?
Jimmy: I don’t know.
Emily: Then how can you be Baptist?
Admittedly, Jimmy was not the brightest guy I’ve ever met, still you can see how the label superseded any system of beliefs he had. He might not know what it meant, but he was BAPTIST, by God!
The same thing happens with some atheists. They become so enamored of not believing that they sort of turn into vacuums. They claim atheisim as a belief more fervently than many religious people claim their God. But what is it they believe in? Nothing. Kind of like Jimmy, the Baptist.
Evangelical Atheism (Dawkins, I believe, would prefer the label ‘Bright’) rubs me entirely wrong. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not a religious person at all, certainly not any sort of Christian. But there’s a big difference between believing only what can be proven or logically inferred through the scientific method, and an aggressive belief in nothing. There’s a nihilism lurking at the heart of that which is kind of disturbing.
Mind you, I’m all for putting the overtly religious in their place. Sam Harris talks about that a lot: he advocates calling people on their bullshit whenever they use faith as an excuse for some ridiculous belief, especially a belief that infringes on the rights of others or otherwise endangers them. Stone age philosophy has no place in a world with nukes and superbugs and the potential for, say, Drexlerian nanoweapons. Or at least, no place in the halls of power.
Regarding the whole atheism leads to Stalinist atrocities meme, well, I’d say that human nature (or at least the nature of the psychopathic subset of H. demonicus, sort of the opposite of the indigo children you’ve mentioned before) leads to those sorts of events. Whether it’s justified with ideology or religion is irrelevent. But the ideological will continue to blame religion, and the religious will continue to blame ideology. Such is human nature after all.
Hitler, of course, was a creationist who rejected the idea that man had descended from apes
From Mein Kampf - Volume 2 Mein Kampf
“Thus for the first time a high inner purpose is accredited to the State. In face of the ridiculous phrase that the State should do no more than act as the guardian of public order and tranquillity, so that everybody can peacefully dupe everybody else, it is given a very high mission indeed to preserve and encourage the highest type of humanity which a beneficent Creator has bestowed on this earth.
“And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.”
“From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche for 1942 ‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.’
I shall translate Hitler’s words, as recorded by the stenographer.
‘From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is now.
Steven, thanks for clearing that up. After further investigation, it seems that you’re right, Hitler definitely was not an atheist. I’m wondering why it is such a pervasive idea that he was an atheist. How did it it first come into popular culture? It looks like I’m guilty of false labeling as well.
Here is an interesting site attempting to answer the question of Hitler’s religion. The author concludes that Hitler was not an atheist or a Christian, but held some Creationist beliefs and especially believed in fate or providence.