George H Smith, "Atheism: The Case Against God"

[ciphergoth]

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.

Comments

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I owe you a proper article on this, but here's the condensed version.

Myth is not a naive theory intending to explain the universe. It is a brilliantly successful technology for changing it. Myth functions within the human brain, where the experience and interpretation of the world takes place, and modifies it. Myth is a psychoactive technology, like wine.

Like most other memes in the human mind, myth is both symbiotic and parasitic. The people who host it actively (and defensibly) wish to retain it for its positive psychological effects. It's also parasitic, and open to abuse like a drug, leading to self-destructive or aggressive behaviour. That is why, typically people who don't host myths, or host them in a safe compartmentalized way, whish to eradicate them from others.

One who assumes that myth is a delusion is presumptuous and biased. Sure, some lesser superstitions may be true errors of reasoning, but the big ones, like religion or ideology, are psychoactive devices deliberately hosted by a person. Wanting to remove them is an imposition, such as wanting to make a drinker or smoker quit. Attempting to debunk myth is a form of harassment, such as reaching out and spoiling someone's drink or smoke. It just isn't the way to make people quit.

In my opinion, the important battle is to establish tolerance between the myth-users and non-users. It has to be couched in those terms and there's good evidence that myth-users would cooperate, such as many examples of rational physicists, businesspeople, etc. who are also religious. Ground rules are needed to curb the desire of myth-users to impose the myth as universal, as well as the tendency of non-users to banish it. Myth should be a private freedom to indulge in responsibly, like any drug.

Beyond that, to the extent that non-users believe that myth-users would be better off rid of their myths, the process of conversion should be memetic and the goal of conversion should be psychological welfare. In other words, non-users should understand the network of memes that myth-users host and offer alternative memes in an order that they might be accepted and gradually replace the mythical memes, hopefully resulting in a happier mind. This process is (and should be) similar to the conversion process used by bona-fide myth-users.

Of the four horsemen, although Dawkins and Hitchens are eloquent and sometimes entertaining, it should be clear from the above that I find their approach wholly misguided and ineffective. In the case of Dawkins, given his previous intellectual achievement I'd simply call his recent work "dumb", and Hitchens strikes me as somewhat irresponsible. Dennet is much more productive in his approach, although sadly he's not as engaging a speaker or writer. I'm closest to Dennet's thinking as far as I know, but haven't read the field very widely.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid you may have to write the uncondensed version - you seem to be saying that religion should be treated very differently from other mistakes, but I don't see why yet.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

I'm proposing it should be treated as a psychoactive drug, alcohol being the best example in our culture. People indulge in it more or less deliberately, although it can also be addictive. They do so because it changes their perception of the world in a way that they find more pleasant or comfortable.

The world is pretty harsh, and drugs as well as mysticism can embellish it with imaginary structures or niches, making it less scary (to those who like that sort of thing - for others mysticism or drugs are scary). Also, rationality doesn't offer any strong sense of purpose, and does lead superficially to some poor choices like extreme sadism or hedonism. We all create some kind of myth as to what we want to be, and religions, as well as other belief systems such as ideologies, offer material for that.

So, I think that the correct approach to faith is not that religious people are simply mistaken or gullible (though that category exists and need help) but rather that they are using a psychoactive drug called religion to cope with the world. Others use alcohol, modern fantasy, elaborate forms of sex. These are all mechanisms to cope with the harshness of reality.

We definitely need a society that deals with the conflict and destruction that these alternative myths or drugs would cause if their adherents were allowed to indulge to an unhealthy degree, or force them on others. Myths, particularly, benefit from being treated as fact by society, and that kind of encroachment must be stopped. Basically I'm saying use myths or drugs tolerantly and responsibly.

Beyond that you'd be perfectly right to say that some people would be better off with different myths or drugs, or with reduced dependency on either. If you wish to convert religious people to atheism for this reason, I think what you're doing is similar to making a drinker quit. You have to properly understand the psychological need fulfilled by the drug, and offer a different lifestyle that the other person will accept and take in. I doubt that an all out attack on religion will be any more effective or well-received than an all out attack on recreational drugs, by the people you seek to help.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

To elaborate some more, I don't think that errors in reasoning are a cornerstone of religion in the present day. Sure, there are some: Creationism, the belief that the earth and humans are important, the illusion of the soul, fantasies regarding the start and end of life, prayer as a placebo, ascribing "evil" where "indifferent" or "unfortunate" are accurate, and so on.

These are definitely traps of reasoning that people fall into, one could do well to debunk them. One could also do well do debunk lesser superstitions such as horoscopes or divination, as well as to expose the practices of purely cynical exploitative organizations, such as the scientology. These definitely should be treated as mistakes or scams.

But if you ask me what kind of beliefs are the cornerstone of Christian religion, I think they are mostly political ones: Patriarchy, submission to a group, righteous intolerance, unquestioned obedience to authority, a culture of adulation (what Hitchens calls "the wish to be a serf"), surrendering of privacy, or an understanding of morals as externally imposed rather than emergent.

These aren't errors, or at least they aren't straightforward logical potholes that people fall into. They are framing issues, where people see the world though a certain set of religious-authoritarian frames, we think this is kind of unfortunate for them and dangerous for others, and we'd like them to swap them for humanist-tolerant frames.

All I'm trying to say here is it isn't just a simple mistake where you show them the right frames and they go "aha!". Well, some might do, but mostly it's a memetic process. You have to point out the bad frames to make them visible, offer the superior alternatives, and hope that by doing this time after time some success will result.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I'm a Christian and don't share any of the political beliefs you list.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

Great but I don't know what you do believe, other than you have some vague mystical experience. Have you already summarized your beliefs in a place I could read?

You seem to be saying "I belong in group X but don't share their commonly evidenced beliefs". One can hear this also from a Communist, Nationalist, or Neo-Liberal. In other words I identify in group X but refuse the accusation that I share the group's negative characteristics. Since we're discussing the group, and not your identity, I find that line of argument somewhat meaningless.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've ever written a summary of how my religious beliefs connect to my political ones, but the latter are reasonably well summed up in the Preamble to the Lib Dem constitution, which is broadly why I am a member of that party.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

That came as a surprise, as I haven't met other people though friends who identify with a mainstream party as a good representative of their political beliefs.

Do you also identify with a major branch of the Christian Church, including their questionable policies on e.g. gender relations, or are you an eclectic or radical when it comes to religious beliefs?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I'm an Anglo-Catholic and worship in my local C of E parish. Of the organised branches of Anglicanism, I'm probably most in sympathy with Inclusive Church and Affirming Catholicism. The C of E does not require its laity to assent or conform to its official teachings, and in some respects I do not, particularly as regards sexuality.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm not sure how we ended up discussing your personal beliefs, so feel free to stop if it annoys you, or to continue.

What I understand so far is that you have liberal but not radical political beliefs and you've taken one of the main faiths that were on offer in your country (you didn't become Buddhist, for instance) but you identify with a "nice" branch of that church that rejects certain negative practices of the church, and you personally reject some other practices or teaching on your moral grounds.

The argument that I was putting forward, against Paul, is that religion is not simply delusion but it is a mixture of willful fantasy and politics. As far as the fantasy goes, I'm in favor of everyone enjoying their favorite fantasies so long as we all get along without imposing our fantasies on each other. I play fantasy games, you go to church. Fine. It makes us happy, and we can still have perfectly rational discussions about prices, internal combustion engines, etc.

One reason that an Atheist might actually care to convert a Believer, and the opposite for that matter, is the politics. Take for example the concept of creation. It seems clear to me that Christians who believe in a more or less direct creation (as opposed to the New Age concept of God as uber-geek playing with cellular automata on her computer) follow this line of thought:

God created us -> He is our father -> We must follow his morals -> We must follow the morals of our fathers -> Authority and order is good -> Oppression and exploitation is justified.

And they are afraid that Atheists are taking this line of thought:

Nobody created us -> Our existence and life has no external meaning -> Morality is an illusion -> Authority and order is bad -> Individual transgression and recklessness is acceptable.

For what it's worth I think Believers and Atheists do think that way, except for the final inference. Only a minority take that last inference and cause harm, but humans tend to fear that the other party is less moral and will go that far, so a cycle of distrust results.

So what I want to say here is do you see political positions like that embedded in your faith? Or is faith for you just a lens for perceiving the world through, and no more impinging on your conduct than that?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I don't think either of those phrasings quite captures the link as it appears to me. The second one is probably closest, but through the lens of faith I believe I'm in a close relationship with a real, living entity, and that influences my political beliefs like all close relationships do. But it's a far more subtle influence than a top-down "do it this way because this is what God says" sort of attitude. In the theology I inherited from the Catholic tradition, God is not able to make things right or wrong just by saying so; they are right or wrong independently of him.

[pavlos.livejournal.com]

Interesting. That's what I as an Atheist see as a sound and defensible moral foundation from a Believer. In fact I think that our moral foundations are pretty much identical, and that both are faith-based. We disagree only on what is called fact or fantasy. Let me explain.

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.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I agree with this. I'm not going to try to guess what worries some believers so much about arguing with atheists, either, since by and large I've found it quite an enjoyable experience myself :-)