Paul Crowley (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ciphergoth) wrote2009-01-04 11:34 pm
ciphergoth) wrote2009-01-04 11:34 pm
Entry tags:
George H Smith, "Atheism: The Case Against God"
I've read all four of the recent books by the "four horsemen", and for the most part none have made me feel "yes, this is the book I want to press into the hands of believers". I would like there to be at least one book that I might be able to recommend, and having heard good things about this 1974 book, I ordered it from Amazon on a whim.
It certainly comes a *lot* closer than any of those four. It has a very dry style; there are no witty personal stories, few anecdotes, and only a smattering of historical background. But all four of the horsemen books seem somewhat scattershot in their approach, except perhaps Dennett, whose book seems like not so much an attack on religion as a hastily-repurposed discussion of religion originally intended for an atheist audience. This book is much more bulldozer than scattershot, and methodically dismantles the "sophisticated" defences of religion I actually hear from believers.
Its bulldozer-like nature may be seen in its chapter structure; first, clarify what atheism is and establish that the burden of proof lies with the theist; then tear down obfuscation as a means to confound rational discussion of the issue; demolish the idea that faith and revelation can supplement reason as guides to the truth (discussing and destroying a variety of attempts to defend the idea of faith). Only then are the traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, painstakingly taken apart; and only after that are the negative moral consequences of religion discussed.
There are a few problems. Smith is (or at least was) an Objectivist, and this leads to some sad errors; his defence of the idea of moral facts in Chapter 11 Section 2, for example, is just embarrassing. And it seems a shame to discuss the argument from design without even mentioning evolution; I can see that as a philosopher you want to show that the argument is *inherently* flawed, and of course it is, but it's evolution that robs it of its emotional impact. I still find myself thinking that I may have to write my ultimate book on the subject, but I have quite a few other books I'd have to read first to know if there was a gap in the market, and I can't afford quite that many whims :-)
No argument, no matter how good, can turn the head of someone who is prepared to say in terms that they intend to cling to an idea no matter how much they have to embrace irrationality in order to do so, as many sophisticated believers openly say. But still, when I read the four horsemen books, I felt I knew how believers were going to evade the conclusions they were pushing for, and I would love to know how a serious, philosophically knowledgable believer would go about avoiding the conclusions of this book.
Update: as usual, anonymous comments should be signed to be unscreened.
It certainly comes a *lot* closer than any of those four. It has a very dry style; there are no witty personal stories, few anecdotes, and only a smattering of historical background. But all four of the horsemen books seem somewhat scattershot in their approach, except perhaps Dennett, whose book seems like not so much an attack on religion as a hastily-repurposed discussion of religion originally intended for an atheist audience. This book is much more bulldozer than scattershot, and methodically dismantles the "sophisticated" defences of religion I actually hear from believers.
Its bulldozer-like nature may be seen in its chapter structure; first, clarify what atheism is and establish that the burden of proof lies with the theist; then tear down obfuscation as a means to confound rational discussion of the issue; demolish the idea that faith and revelation can supplement reason as guides to the truth (discussing and destroying a variety of attempts to defend the idea of faith). Only then are the traditional arguments for the existence of God, such as the cosmological argument, painstakingly taken apart; and only after that are the negative moral consequences of religion discussed.
There are a few problems. Smith is (or at least was) an Objectivist, and this leads to some sad errors; his defence of the idea of moral facts in Chapter 11 Section 2, for example, is just embarrassing. And it seems a shame to discuss the argument from design without even mentioning evolution; I can see that as a philosopher you want to show that the argument is *inherently* flawed, and of course it is, but it's evolution that robs it of its emotional impact. I still find myself thinking that I may have to write my ultimate book on the subject, but I have quite a few other books I'd have to read first to know if there was a gap in the market, and I can't afford quite that many whims :-)
No argument, no matter how good, can turn the head of someone who is prepared to say in terms that they intend to cling to an idea no matter how much they have to embrace irrationality in order to do so, as many sophisticated believers openly say. But still, when I read the four horsemen books, I felt I knew how believers were going to evade the conclusions they were pushing for, and I would love to know how a serious, philosophically knowledgable believer would go about avoiding the conclusions of this book.
Update: as usual, anonymous comments should be signed to be unscreened.
no subject
I understand that the true teaching of at least Christianity (and probably the other two Yahweh religions, but I'm no scholar) is that moral is absolute and witnessed by God. This is famously perverted by the clergy from time to time into the teaching of morality by divine decree, resulting in such aberrations as indulgences or fatwas.
What is that absolute moral then? I hold that for both you and me it is an illusion. By that I mean it's a naive (as in direct, not stupid) theory to account for an experience. It's naive because a better theory is available. Let me summarize some examples of that sort of thing:
Colors:
A. Objects in the world have colors such as green, orange, yellow, etc. Color pigments can be mixed according to some simple rules such as blue+yellow=green.
B. Our eyes are have three response curves to electromagnetic radiation around the 500nm wavelength. Energy detected by each of these is perceived as red, green, blue.
Matter:
A. Doors are solid and impenetrable, and so are our foreheads. Solid objects cannot occupy the same space, and so we cannot walk through doors.
B. Solid objects are mostly empty space, punctuated by nuclei and electrons. Electromagnetic forces between the electrons usually stop them from going through each other.
Morals:
A. When it comes to moral questions, we are aware of a conscience that witnesses the moral question with us and can pass judgement. It feels like a higher being, such as a god.
B. When evaluating matters of human welfare, we model in our individual mind the response that a society of humans is likely to have on the issue. This is an obvious evolutionary adaptation.
So, of course I think the B theories are better than the A theories in each case. But it also doesn't matter for the majority of circumstances. For going about our everyday lives, either the A or the B theories will do just fine, and the A theory is simpler. Only occasionally will the B theory (in my opinion) be more productive.
When it comes to morals then, we both feel this "voice of conscience" experience and we both decide to take seriously what it says. You say that it's a relationship with a deity, I say it's a feature of the mind, and this different interpretation doesn't matter. Presumably you think that God is in my mind too, and I think you share my mental illusion of morality, so we expect each other to act moral. This is key.
We must also recognize that both stances are faith-based, since we both feel it's best to follow that voice of conscience without either of us being able to determine rationally that doing so maximizes our survival, offspring, happiness, etc. Being selfish and nasty might well make us happier, but we decide by faith to be moral.
Why argue then? I can find no disagreement with you, but your stance is rare in the experience of Atheists arguing with Believers. The "problem" as seen by Atheists, is that Believers often have a less well-reasoned and defensible moral foundation, and that causes conflict. The four classic areas of conflict from the point of view of Atheists are:
- Believers feel that God is essential to maintain morals, and so impose God on Atheists.
- Believers expect Atheists to lack morals, and prejudice begets discrimination.
- Believers are prone to be taken in and manipulated by people who claim to represent gods.
- Believers in specific religions are prone to value their faithful above other human beings.
I'm sure there's a converse list of issues that Believers find worrying or hurtful when arguing with Atheists, but I don't feel able to guess it.
That is where the "God debate" lies. It is political and it's a contest between imperfect secular and imperfect religious moralities, and their mutual fears and prejudices.
no subject