Just Give Me that Old-Time Atheism!
by KrauzeThere's an op-ed in the Toronto Star by Salman Rushdie (yes, that Salman Rushdie), titled "Just give me that old-time atheism!" In it, Rushdie criticizes Dylan Evans, professor of robotics at the University of West England, who has proposed a "new, modern atheism":
"Evans has written an article for the Guardian of London deriding the old-fashioned, '19th-century' atheism of such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, instead proposing a new, modern atheism which 'values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art.'
Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as 'a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false.'"
Rushdie immediately adds:
"Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America - and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of 'intelligent design' - at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion. "
Although an agnostic, I don't have much interest in Evan's "new atheism" (for one, I doubt I'll get much insight into the meaning of life by listening to Avril Lavigne singing "So much for my education"). However, Rushdie's reply raises some points worth discussing. He claims that Evan's view "is easily demolished", as it relies on an equality between religious and non-religious people:
"Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal - if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called 'revealed' texts."
This equality, in Rushdie's opinion, doesn't exist:
"It is among the truths believed to be self-evident by the followers of all religions that godlessness is equivalent to amorality and that ethics requires the underpinning presence of some sort of ultimate arbiter, some sort of supernatural absolute, without which secularism, humanism, relativism, hedonism, liberalism and all manner of permissive improprieties will inevitably seduce the unbeliever down immoral ways.
To those of us who are perfectly prepared to indulge in the above vices but still believe ourselves to be ethical beings, the godlessness-equals-morality position is pretty hard to swallow."
This is an astonishing claim. Does Rushdie actually believe that all religious people think that "godlessness-equals-morality" It's quite ironic, really. Rushdie is troubled by being thought of as an immoral atheist, but he has no qualms describing every religious believer as an intolerant, science-hating bigot. Perhaps it's outbursts like these that Evans is worried is giving atheism a bad name?
"Education everywhere is seriously imperilled by religious attacks", claims Rushdie, mentioning intelligent design among other examples:
"Intelligent design, an idea designed backward so as to force the antique idea of a Creator upon the beauty of creation, is so thoroughly rooted in pseudoscience, so full of false logic, so easy to attack that a little rudeness seems called for.
Its advocates argue, for example, that the sheer complexity and perfection of cellular/molecular structures is inexplicable by gradual evolution.
However, the multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do evolve together, gradually expanding and adapting - and, as Dawkins showed in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, natural selection is active at every step of this process."
First of all, as someone whom Rushdie would probably call an ID advocate, I do not support my case by arguing that "the sheer complexity and perfection of cellular/molecular structures is inexplicable by gradual evolution."
Second of all, Rushdie's reliance on Dawkins fails to engage the issues. Most of the examples mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker are of the kind where gradual changes are easily extrapolated; lengthening the tails of widow birds and adding photon-capturing membranes to a retina. Yet how does that adress the question of IC, one of the arguments raised by ID investigators? As Mike explains:
"Dawkins explains how photoreceptor cells (with ninety-one layers of photon-capturing membranes) could have evolved to become more efficient at capturing photons:
"The point is that ninety-one membranes are more effective in stopping photons than ninety, ninety are more effective than eighty-nine, and so on back to one membrane, which is more effective than zero. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say there is a smooth gradient up Mount Improbable. We would be dealing with an abrupt precipice if, say, any number of membranes above forty-five was very effective while any number below forty-five was totally ineffective. Neither common sense nor the evidence leads us to suspect any such hidden discontinuities."
But Dawkins is flat-out wrong in believing there are no such hidden discontinuities, as IC provides one example. In the examples mentioned above, A does not give us 10% function, A+B does not give us 25% function, etc. Instead, removal of A or B or C or D results in complete loss of function, the abrupt precipice. All of this means that Dawkins' example of adding membranes to improve photon capture rates does not apply to the origin of IC systems. The most intuitive and well documented examples of Darwinian evolution are rendered irrelevant by IC. This conclusion was also shared by biologists Thornhill and Ussery who, writing in the only paper that discusses IC in the scientific literature, observed that Darwinian evolution along such a linear axis 'cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.'"
Continuing with Rushdie's article:
"But, as well as scientific arguments, there are others that are more, well, novelistic. What about bad design, for example? Was it really so intelligent to come up with the birth canal or the prostate gland?
Then, there's the moral argument against an intelligent designer who cursed his creations with cancer and AIDS. Is the intelligent designer also amorally cruel?"
This shows how Rushdie thinks of ID as entailing that every feature of life is designed, from "the birth canal or the prostate gland" to "cancer and AIDS". Yet it's possible that while some features are designed, others are the product of evolution.
Rushdie ends his article with this praise for Dawkins et al.:
"As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists.
They are doing a vital and necessary thing."
For one talking about respecting the "discoveries and achievements of modern science", Rushdie offers disturbingly little evidence for his claim that what Dawkins is doing is a "vital and necessary thing." Earlier, he mentioned "religious attacks" against education. What's the evidence that such attacks have decreased due to the actions of Richard Dawkins? In fact, Michael Ruse, who is also among Rushdie's targets, has argued that Dawkins and his like-minded are contributing to this situation. How does Rushdie adress his arguments? Simply by pointing to the fact that the situation exists!
One reason why he fails to engage Ruse's case might be because Rushdie, along with Dawkins, is himself part of the problem. Here we have a well-educated, highly recognized person, talking with great authority about religion and ID, when it's clear that he has no clue about either subject. Creationists trying to convince their audiences that there is a scientific elite, intent on destroying Christianity, need only point to Rushdie. A while ago, I encouraged readers to help Eugenie Scott informing the public about the true state of academia. Where are the many people who has the study of religion as their profession, informing Rushdie of the diversity of their subject area that he's ignoring? Where are the many religious scientists setting him straight on how they reconcile science and religion?
(HT: Philosophy of Biology)
June 9th, 2005 at 2:27 am
Excellent article. I wish Atheists would embrace their religion as Steven Weinberg does. There is nothing more ridiculous to hear an atheist talk about moral values. Atheism is amoral as so many existentialist (Sartre and Camus) have espoused. There are 2 problems with this position. 1. It is unlivable. 2. No one can consistently live nihilistically. There lies the root of Rushdie.
Comment by teleologist — June 9, 2005 @ 2:27 am
June 9th, 2005 at 8:38 am
And just to establish the legitimacy of Rushdie's comment, along comes teleologist.
For the record, I do not think all religionists believe that atheists necessarilly have no basis for their morality. But I have yet to come across one who argues otherwise - and have had that point argued to me frequently. Nor do I think it does religionists much credit to reject such claims as Rushdie's when they were silent when their coreligionists castigated atheists as necessarilly without moral foundation. (I do not know whether or not this applies to anyone commenting here, so this is not an accusation, just a comment.)
For the record, Sartre never espoused amoralism, or relativism.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 9, 2005 @ 8:38 am
June 9th, 2005 at 11:20 am
I know many more atheists who live moral lives, than I do Christians, but just because they do not pay homage at the alter of the cross they are amoral … go figure. That's defined as stereotypical bigotry.
And as far as I can tell, neither Rushdie, nor Dawkins are trying to destroy religion, much-less Christianity, but are speaking for many of us who can't speak out and likewise believe religion should be relegated out of public policy and scientific debate, to the privacy of one's home, or church where it belongs. Is that destruction? Only in the minds of the prostletizers.
And while I admire Ruse, I disagree with his stance on religion. I don't trust the fundies enough to even consider compromise, because the religionists don't want to "live and let live," they want and require everyone to live by their particular cult's dogma.
As for the intellectual vacuity of ID and particularly the concept of IC, since we are fairly ignorant of the biology and biochemical origins of the targeted "IC" structures, I won't facilitate the argument from ignorance by commenting on whether or not something is "IC." But, when are the ID promoters ever going to make positive assertions as to the origins of "IC," if they "can't" have evolved, by what mechanisms could they have been constructed? Is there even anyone trying? Is there not even an educated guess?
Some ID promoters claim to be "evolutionists,' so how do they reconcile the orgins of "IC" and evolution? Was the eye/flagella/immune system designed and manufactured and then organisms evolved around them?
Comment by Doug McGee — June 9, 2005 @ 11:20 am
June 9th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
tom_kbel doesn't know anything about Sartre. I refer the readers to this post.
If tom_kbel has yet to come across religionists who argues that atheists have a basis for their morality is because there aren't any atheists that have demonstrated a basis for their morality.
An atheist can certainly live a moral life, but that would be in conflict with his/her philosophical bases.
Comment by teleologist — June 9, 2005 @ 3:14 pm
June 9th, 2005 at 7:48 pm
Atheists and theists are talking past each other due to a basic misunderstanding.
Defendes of atheism tend to point out the fact that atheists certainly can form or choose a morality for themselves. Furthermore, on any given point of morality, you might find an atheist who comes closer to living by that principle than some theists you know. Neither of these are in question and neither is the issue. Both are true but irrelevant.
The issue is that atheism provides no logical basis for concluding that any consistent morality (or amorality) is objectively wrong.
Atheism does not obligate one to follow the atheist Stalin in the killing of millions of people, but neither does it provide any logical basis for saying that Stalin's moral choices are objectively wrong morally. Those choices may be incompatible with your chosen morality, but then he might have said the same about your choices.
When a theist points out atheism's lack of a basis for morality, they are talking about morality in the objective or "ultimate" sense.
Cornell biologist William Provine provides frank and unblushing support. The video Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy captures a debate between Provine and Phillip Johnson, in which Provine held that Consistent Darwinism implies
I do not believe these philosophical issues have any bearing on the scientific telic issue. For instance, if unguided matter and energy can create the symbolic language and information required for life, no reservation of a theist will remove that ability. If they cannot, no hope of an atheist will grant them that ability.
But insofar as philosophical issues are valid to discuss in their own right, I believe the telic issue is this.
If there is purpose and intention behind the appearance of human life, then it becomes reasonable and rational to consider the idea that humans are meant or intended to behave in some ways rather than other ways. "Ought" may have real meaning apart from whatever people actually do.
If there is no purpose or intention behind the appearance of human life, saying that people "ought" to behave one way vs. another is nonsense. Every behavior known to man has its own reasons. Every moral or amoral leaning or preference has its history. Neither Darwinism nor atheism provides any basis for saying that human behavior ought to have gone along any path other than whatever paths that it does take. To say otherwise would be to claim that nature ought to behave differently than nature behaves.
Comment by eric — June 9, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Hi Tom,
"For the record, I do not think all religionists believe that atheists necessarilly have no basis for their morality. But I have yet to come across one who argues otherwise "“ and have had that point argued to me frequently."
As an agnostic, I don't think that you need a god as the basis of your morality. However, Rushdie said more about having a basis for morality. According to his characterization, all religious people think atheists are behaving immorally. Even among those Christians who adopt the positions "you need God make a consistent set of morals", most will attest that atheists and agnostics are perfectly able to live moral lives, although they attribute it to having absorbed Christian morals. To those familiar with the outlook of conservative Christians, this distinction is well-known, yet Rushdie is completely unaware of it.
Also, remember that Rushie's characterization reaches further than to conservative Christians. Liberal Christians, Later Day Saints (mormons), Unitarians, Friends (Quakers), Buddhists, Hinduists, Wiccans, and many others are all subsumed under his stereotype.
"Nor do I think it does religionists much credit to reject such claims as Rushdie's when they were silent when their coreligionists castigated atheists as necessarilly without moral foundation."
Why should it matter whether religious people get "credit" for calling Rushdie on his simple-minded stereotypes?
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Hi Doug,
"I know many more atheists who live moral lives, than I do Christians, but just because they do not pay homage at the alter of the cross they are amoral … go figure. That's defined as stereotypical bigotry."
Indeed. And when Rushdie chracterizes every religious person as a science-hating fundie who thinks that "godlessness-equals-morality", that too is stereotypical bigotry.
"And as far as I can tell, neither Rushdie, nor Dawkins are trying to destroy religion, much-less Christianity,"
Nor did I claim that they did. Remember what I wrote: "One reason why he fails to engage Ruse's case might be because Rushdie, along with Dawkins, is himself part of the problem." Rushdie, in loudly trumpeting his arrogance towards and ignorance about religion, is serving as the perfect picture of what many creationists think is Wrong With Science.
And the academic society is only making it worse by not speaking out against Rushdie. As I further wrote: "Where are the many people who has the study of religion as their profession, informing Rushdie of the diversity of their subject area that he's ignoring? Where are the many religious scientists setting him straight on how they reconcile science and religion?"
"I don't trust the fundies enough to even consider compromise, because the religionists don't want to "live and let live," they want and require everyone to live by their particular cult's dogma."
Yes, this was the stereotype Rushdie was peddling. Considering that he didn't offer any evidence that this characterization was accurate, perhaps you can step up to the plate?
"As for the intellectual vacuity of ID and particularly the concept of IC, since we are fairly ignorant of the biology and biochemical origins of the targeted "IC" structures, I won't facilitate the argument from ignorance by commenting on whether or not something is "IC.""
The success of genetics attests to the reality of IC. The functions of most flagellar proteins have been discovered by knocking out their genes and noting what part of flagellum function was crippled. That IC exists is undeniable. What's in dispute is what this means.
"But, when are the ID promoters ever going to make positive assertions as to the origins of "IC," if they "can't" have evolved, by what mechanisms could they have been constructed? Is there even anyone trying? Is there not even an educated guess?"
I don't claim that IC structures "can't have evolved". Regarding the rest, some preliminary musings can be found here.
"Some ID promoters claim to be "evolutionists,' so how do they reconcile the orgins of "IC" and evolution? Was the eye/flagella/immune system designed and manufactured and then organisms evolved around them?"
The eye: It's not clear that it's irreducibly complex. Here's what Mike wrote (it dealt with the IC of heads, bodies and middle ears, but also applies to the eye):
Flagella: I think these were part of the originally designed population of cells.
The (vertebrate, I assume) immune system: I have no idea about how this arose, sorry. I think the origin of life should be figured out first, and since the immune system arose much later, I'm wary of speculating about it.
Comment by Krauze — June 10, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
Krauze, here are Rushdie's comments:
Now, the phrases I have bolded clearly refer to ethical belief, not ethical practise. Religions will not reciprocate because they will not concede that atheism has an ethical basis; because they insist that morality must be based on the standard of a supernatural ultimate arbiter. So Rushdie is at least saying that the world's religions will not accept that an atheist can have a basis for ethical conduct.
It is certainly not clear that he is saying more than that. The phrase that you have picked up on "godlesness is equivelant to amorality" can as easily reffer to amorality of belief (ie, a lack of an ethical basis) as to amorality of action. Given that in the immediate context, Rushdie is certainly talking about the ethical basis of atheists, we should so interpret him here. Indeed, were Rushdie making the claim you accuse him of, it would have been more natural to write "godlesness is equivalent to immorality". Religionists are not concerned that atheists might more frequently perform amoral actions. Rather, they suspect atheist will more frequently perform immoral actions. Inded, when Rushdie latter is unquestionably reffering to actions, he used the word "immoral", not "amoral", suggesting that when he does use that word, he is indeed talking about the ethical basis of atheism, not the ethical actions of atheists.
There is one phrase of Rushdie's which weakly supports your interpretation, "… without which secularism, humanism, relativism, hedonism, liberalism and all manner of permissive improprieties will inevitably seduce the unbeliever down immoral ways." Here he is definitely talking about the religionists concern with immoral actions by atheists. But though he attributes to religionists the belief that atheism will lead to the inevitable seduction of atheists. He does not claim that religionists believe that all atheists have already been seduced "down immoral ways" as would be required to support your interpretation.
In short, clearly Rushdie's primary concern is a charge by religionists that atheists have no basis for ethical behaviour; and nothing he said need be (or is even naturally) interpreted as the ridiculous charge you attribute to him.
Now, I think Rushdie's reported view could, and should be a lot more nuanced. However, you should take into account that you can only fit so much nuance into a limited word space. Given space contraints, it is hardly surprising that Friends and Wiccans and Budhists do not get adequate recognition for their more tolerant views; and given the space constraints we do not know, and have no right to presume that Rushdie's views are not more nuanced than a sound bite would indicate.
This is especially so given the very genuine threat from the religionists whose actions Rushdie does choose to highlight.
I can see no reason for your classifying Rusdie's views as "simple minded stereotypes" beyond a determination to negatively construe what Rushdie said.
Finally, with respect to Rushdie's claims that I commented on. If the only voice from Christians (I cannot comment on Muslims or Hindus, with whom I have not talked enough) is that atheists have no basis for ethics, and no contrary voice is raised, then atheists are entitled to consider that "the Christian veiw". This is especially so as the charge is offensive to some atheists (myself included), and would certainly be considered offensive if it were raised against the Christians themselves.
I note that no Christian (or agnostic) has yet come out openly and said on this thread that atheists can have a basis for ethics. The evidence from, this thread at least, is that Rushdie's comments were indeed justified.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 10, 2005 @ 8:38 pm
June 10th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
"Now, I think Rushdie's reported view could, and should be a lot more nuanced. However, you should take into account that you can only fit so much nuance into a limited word space."
Ah yes, the horror, just imagine Rushdie needing a whole additional sentence! So much trouble to go trough.
Do we happen to have a "roll eyes" icon available?
Comment by Jean — June 10, 2005 @ 9:20 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I take it that Jean has never had to write to a limited word count (or column space). Had she done so, she would know that inevitably in that situation, there are ten or more clariffying sentences you would love to put in, each relating to a different point in which clarrification is desirable. However, putting them all in (or any of them in) is impossible due to space contraints, and there is no reason to include any in prefference to any other.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 11, 2005 @ 12:34 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Hi Tom,
I'm glad that you realize that the attempt to characterize all religious people as believing that atheists are behaving immorally, and are attempting to interpret Rushdie's word differently. However, I think your attempt fails, and here's why.
You write:
"The phrase that you have picked up on "godlesness is equivelant to amorality" can as easily reffer to amorality of belief (ie, a lack of an ethical basis) as to amorality of action."
That this isn't likely to be the case can be seen by considering that Rushdie already mentions the "lack of ethical basis" immediately following the sentence you're attempting to re-interpret. Substituting your interpretation for Rushdie's words has him saying the same thing twice:
"It is among the truths believed to be self-evident by the followers of all religions that godlessness is equivalent to [a lack of an ethical basis] and that ethics requires the underpinning presence of some sort of ultimate arbiter, …"
This is not only inconsistent with the "lack of space" rationalization you're floating, it's also bad writing.
"Inded, when Rushdie latter is unquestionably reffering to actions, he used the word "immoral", not "amoral", suggesting that when he does use that word, he is indeed talking about the ethical basis of atheism, not the ethical actions of atheists."
The meaning of "amoral" is "having no moral standards". It's not clear that Rushdie's claim is much better if his change of words is deliberate, as he would now be claiming that religious people don't think that atheists have any moral standards - e.g. "murder is wrong".
Besides, you're only focusing on conservative Christians. Rushdie's characterization becomes even more ridiculus when considering the views of liberal Christians, Buddhists, etc. Not to mention his characterization of their views on science, which you've wisely decided not to comment on.
"Now, I think Rushdie's reported view could, and should be a lot more nuanced. However, you should take into account that you can only fit so much nuance into a limited word space. Given space contraints, it is hardly surprising that Friends and Wiccans and Budhists do not get adequate recognition for their more tolerant views; and given the space constraints we do not know, and have no right to presume that Rushdie's views are not more nuanced than a sound bite would indicate."
As one with journalistic and op-ed writing experience, I'm well aware of the problem of space limitation. Of course, this is a problem that applies to all newspaper material, and it's always possible to read unexpressed opinions into the words of an author. So, keeping this in mind, what evidence suggests that Rushdie only intended his characterization to apply to one segment of religious people?
"I can see no reason for your classifying Rusdie's views as "simple minded stereotypes" beyond a determination to negatively construe what Rushdie said."
Rushdie thinks that all religious people are anti-science bigots who think that atheists have no moral principles. We have a word for such a belief: "Simple-minded stereotype"
"If the only voice from Christians (I cannot comment on Muslims or Hindus, with whom I have not talked enough) is that atheists have no basis for ethics, and no contrary voice is raised, then atheists are entitled to consider that "the Christian veiw"."
Eric quoted William Provine:
This is from the abstract of Provine's keynote adress at the Darwin Day celebration at the University of Tennessee. So far as I know, there has been no public criticism of these claims from the scientific community. Are creationists therefore justified in considering this "the view of evolutionary biology"
Comment by Krauze — June 11, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
"I take it that Jean has never had to write to a limited word count (or column space). Had she done so, she would know that inevitably in that situation, there are ten or more clariffying sentences you would love to put in, each relating to a different point in which clarrification is desirable. However, putting them all in (or any of them in) is impossible due to space contraints, and there is no reason to include any in prefference to any other."
She? I'm not quite the gender bender, and last time I checked random mutations and natural selection did not turn me into a woman.
Either way, with regards to the limited word count, I have an academic degree so I'm well aware how restrictions can influence writing decisions. Probably more so in the press where there's far less space per article. On the other hand, it's hardly a very small opinion piece, and it seems to me he had ample room to add a few words, or nuance his existing words; you seem to be suggesting one needs several paragraphs to make the point, which is rather silly. As it stands now, it's either an example of poor sloppy writing, or Rushdie simply stands behind his stereotype.
Comment by Jean — June 11, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
June 11th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
He goes on to make his comments about immoral behaviour in the very same sentence. Consequently, no matter how you interpret it, he "says the same thing twice" in that sentence. If your argument had legs, it would have legs against both interpretations.
In fact, of course, he does not say the same thing twice. He purports to report one beleif of world religions about atheism, and a second beleif about ethics. The two are closely related, but not mutually entailing.
As to whether it is bad writting, I find it is often necessary to say the same, or very similar things several times in the same paragraph. I started doing so because of involvement in the C/E debate, in which I found it was necessary to limit the often very creative misunderstandings of what I wrote by creationists.
I first note that you have effectively conceded my point. If "amoral" means "having no moral standards", then "Godlessness is amorality" means, "Godlessness is having no moral standards", which is exactly the charge leveled by religionists against atheists on a repeated basis. The charge fully stated is often a little more subtle than that. It is that any moral standards held by atheists are strictly inherited from a Christian (again I refer to my personal experience) past; and inconsequence it will erode a way. However, it is often said more simply, typically in such statements as, "Atheists have no reason to not go around raping or murdering anyone they want." Teleologist is more circumspect above, but he effectively says that the only way an atheist can live consistently with their philosophical basis is to be a nihilist.
In the meantime, you are getting bent out of shape because Rushdie overgeneralised - BUT YOU FEEL NO NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND REFUTE OR REJECT TELEOLOGIST'S ABUSIVE CLAIM. To use a picturesque phrase, "you are straining at gnats, and swallowing camels." Even if you do not accept Teleologist's (and other similar) claims; you find nothing wrong with them being made, nothing wrong with no religionists stepping forward to reject them; but you do find something terribly, offensively wrong with Rushdie correctly characterising the belief because he overgeneralises on the number of people who hold it.
None at all. For all I know, Rusdie may be a close minded, unthinking atheist in the manner of William Provine. (Given his personal history, he may well have reason to be.) But the oped piece does not give you reason to think he is. You are over-interpreting what is (by your own admission) a constrained and limited method of communication.
No! You interpret Rushdie as saying that. Now he does overgeneralise and say "all religions" think atheists have no basis for morality. Even that, I think, is an overgeneralisation due to space constraints. You, of course, can be uncharitable and think otherwise. But he never says anything like that with regard to science. He says science education is under attack everywhere. Well perhaps not so much in Australia and New Zealand, but his point is valid, and illustrated. But he does not say it is under attack from all religions, still less all religious people. Why do you feel constrained to overinterpret his writting in so hostile a manner?
It is simply not true that these claims have not been criticised in the scientific community. Gould, for example, wrote a book arguing at length that evolution did not have those implications. Kenneth and Keith Miller, as also Howard van Till,and Pim Meurs have also frequently, and eloquently argued against these views (and of course, all as Christians accept most of the beliefs Provine says evolution refutes).
What may be true is that no scientist is on record as rejecting Provine's views with particular refference to a particular time he expressed them. But that occasion was a minor adress at a minor event.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 11, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 6:26 pm
But only one of the two stereotypes motivates you to speak out? Are you, or Mike, or anyone else here going to castigate teleologist for his remarks? Most, if not all sterotypes have some basis in truth, and there are usually exceptions to the broad brush of the stereotype. In my 30 years of debate as an atheist, I have never met the exception to the religious' depiction of athiests as without moral foundation. Are you that exception? Anyone else going to speak up? It seems to me, from what I learned in bible school, that's the basic tenet of (at least the Big-3's) dogma.
You'll also have to point me again to the paragraph in which Rushdie claimed ALL religionists were science-hating fundies, as the only place I can find those words, are in your paragraphs - immediately after a Rushdie graph in which he says nothing about science …..
they probably know, as well as I do that it's not them of whom Rushdie speaks.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression you lived in the United States. The list of transgressions is quite long. From wanting to place their Decalogue Idol everywhere, even a "creation" display at the Tulsa Zoo, bans on stem cell research, school boards pushed to teach creationism, that three-letter word in the Pledge, on coinage and paper money ….. censorship on radio and television …. want more?
Comment by Doug McGee — June 13, 2005 @ 6:26 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
I think that atheists can have a basis for ethics and I think the basis can be strong.
Comment by bipod — June 13, 2005 @ 8:27 pm
June 13th, 2005 at 11:40 pm
tom_kbel - I've followed this commentary and felt that perhaps someone who thinks both reaction camps here are dancing with scarecrows. Scandalizing dogmatic religion is precisely how Rushdie came to reside comfortably in a literary "pop icon" shell.
Most thinking Christians would not agree that atheists are amoral or immoral just because they don't believe in God. Nor would they assert that a Christian is moral just because s/he believes in God. The whole issue of human nature is far too complex to make such assertions, and there are too many examples of moral failing across the board to pretend otherwise.
It should be understood that Christians don't get to heaven by living blameless lives in the world. If you have a misconception about this - or about what Christians themselves believe about this - I can see that the stereotype Rushdie has offered might be embraced. But it's wrong.
Comment by Joy — June 13, 2005 @ 11:40 pm
June 14th, 2005 at 2:16 am
Joy, I do not think I am "dancing with scarecrows". Rushdie acheive "pop icon" status not because the made a career out of offending religions, but because one branch of a religion fought back by declaring a death sentence on him, and by offering a large reward to anyone who would carry it out. Further, and more importantly, the question is not what Rushdie believes in general, but what he wrote in particular. And what he wrote is that members of the worlds religions refuse to accept that atheists can have a basis for their morality; ie, that atheists by their atheism are not logically committed to the acceptability of nihilism and complete immorallity, even if some atheists in particular have not followed their beliefs through to that conclusion.
I think Krauze has effectively conceded this point; but wishes to characterise Rushdie's comments as negative stereotyping because he was not completely precise in his comments - as though no ID proponent has attributed beliefs to "Darwinists" without qualification, when not even most Darwinists believe it - or as though he does not negatively stereotype when he reffers to "professional ID critics" by which he does not mean the very small number of people actually paid to criticise ID (I can only think of three of them). Or indeed (McGee's point) as though he were not content to ignore Teleologist's negative stereotyping while insisting on chastising Rushdie's for his.
Finally, I cannot help but notice that while you very even handedly start of by saying that "both reaction camps are dancing with scarecrows", nevertheless, your criticisms are reserved exclusively for my views.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 14, 2005 @ 2:16 am
June 14th, 2005 at 10:42 am
Hi, Tom. Your defense of Rushdie is understood, and we of course know of the 'fatwa' against him for "The Satanic Verses." I do not agree that this gives him any particular authority for stereotyping Christians or Christianity, but you will of course believe what you wish to believe.
I merely thought to respond to the request for feedback on whether or not Christians believe atheists are amoral or immoral because they don't believe in a deific authority for morality. That is the misconception being forwarded by the anti-Christian rhetoric, so I stated that the misconception is a misconception.
Christianity has its share of blowhards, egomaniacs and 'leaders' who corrupt the churches with their self-righteousness. Atheism's got some blowhards and egomaniacs too. My point is that neither religion nor atheism cures human nature. The real Law is written on hearts and reflected in lives lived, not carved into stone.
However, because human nature is what it is, there will always be a collective ethic (body of law) to govern societal relations. Most people believe it's important to have a moral framework in place around the ethic so people can understand the 'why' of the "oughts" and the "Shalt Nots." Religion has been the traditional holder and purveyor of the collective moral structure, and for all its historical failings it has managed a few successes. The current situation where religion has been removed from that traditional role but secularism has not replaced it with a viable collective moral framework has not produced much of value to society IMO. Public schools are an academic wasteland and a veritable minefield of vice and violence. Public morality - everything from language to fashion to entertainment - is deteriorating at an alarming rate.
In my experience of humanity, ethics is always situational and morality is easily relativized. Even by believers in an absolute standard. Because morality and ethical behaviors are situated in individual humans. By that measure some atheists I've known practice what I'd consider a more consistent morality than some Christians I've known. And the immoral people I've known earn that judgment because they're immoral, not because of the self-justifications or rationalizations they use to excuse their own immorality.
I do not see why anyone should laud or condemn either group for what boils down to individual choice and behavior. I see this mutual group demonization scarecrow as a big part of the problem, and will never cure the moral failings of any individual human.
Comment by Joy — June 14, 2005 @ 10:42 am
June 14th, 2005 at 11:30 am
Hi Joy,
But that's not the argument, nor Rushdie's claim. How many of those "thinking Christians" would agree, as teleologist put it:
Hence making atheists what? Walking contradictions?
Comment by Doug McGee — June 14, 2005 @ 11:30 am
June 14th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
Hi Doug,
"But only one of the two stereotypes motivates you to speak out?"
Yes, as one stereotype was expressed in a major national newspaper by a world-famous writer, and is held by many of Rushdie's fellow academics. Had Teleologist written an op-ed in a national newspaper, accusing all atheists of being amoral, I'm sure it would've been criticised on sites like The Panda's Thumb. Apart from IDiots like me, who else would have called attention to Rushdie's stereotypes?
"Most, if not all sterotypes have some basis in truth, and there are usually exceptions to the broad brush of the stereotype."
We aren't talking about overlooking some small "exceptions". Rushdie chose to focus on the mindset of a subset of a conservative group within one religion, largely confined to USA, and extrapolated it to all people holding a religion.
"In my 30 years of debate as an atheist, I have never met the exception to the religious' depiction of athiests as without moral foundation. Are you that exception?"
1. I'm not religious. As I've said twice, in this thread alone, I'm agnostic.
2. I don't think you need religion to have a moral foundation. I said so in my very first comment in this thread.
"You'll also have to point me again to the paragraph in which Rushdie claimed ALL religionists were science-hating fundies, as the only place I can find those words, are in your paragraphs "“ immediately after a Rushdie graph in which he says nothing about science …"
It is clear that Rushdie's characterization is directed towards all people of religion. Remember, he's making a blanket indictment against the possibility of a "truce" with religion. Why would such a truce be impossible if the behavior Rushdie criticizes is only exhibited by a small minority among religious people?
"I'm sorry, I was under the impression you lived in the United States."
Why would I have to live in the US to agree with your characterization? Are there no "religionists" in, say, Europe?
"The list of transgressions is quite long. From wanting to place their Decalogue Idol everywhere, even a "creation" display at the Tulsa Zoo, bans on stem cell research, school boards pushed to teach creationism, that three-letter word in the Pledge, on coinage and paper money "¦.. censorship on radio and television "¦. want more?"
I asked for evidence, not insidents cherry-picked to support your contention. To illustrate the difference, suppose I claimed that atheists wanted to stop science, pointing to atheist animal rights activists who used car bombs and death threats to close laboratories which used animal testing. Would I hereby have established my claim? Of course not, as I would not have established that the behavior I pointed to was sufficiently common among atheists to warrant such a generalization. To do this, I would have to sample from all of the atheistic groups, establishing that their level of anti-science activity was sufficiently high to warrant my generalization.
Comment by Krauze — June 14, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
June 14th, 2005 at 7:49 pm
Perhaps Teleologist is someone who thinks that without an absolute moral framework one has no foundation upon which to anchor a moral framework. I don't believe that is true, and I have stated my reasons for that belief. Let me see if I can make it clear enough so that there are no misunderstandings…
1. Moral frameworks are appeals to empathy and altruism, an understanding of self in the context of larger society. Atheists can have as much empathy and altruism as any other human, and this is an adequate basis for a moral framework.
2. People who do believe in an Absolute deific moral framework are in practice no more moral than an atheist would be, generally or in specific situations. Morality [the 'why' of right and wrong] is personally identified with and individually practiced. It forms part of an individual's psychological identity.
3. Ethics, the 'rules' of right and wrong, are socially determined and usually codified [see: criminal and civil law]. A societal ethic may indeed be informed by religious/spiritual traditions and they usually are.
4. An ethical practice can be believed by an individual to be immoral. If a majority or significant enough minority agreement on such a situation is reached [see: slavery, eugenics], law can be changed.
5. An immoral practice can be believed by an individual to be ethical. Often "law" is bypassed by regulatory agency, allowing certain individuals and groups to engage questionable moral practices that would be illegal for a private citizen to engage against their neighbors [see: corporate law, regulation].
Religious/non-religious affiliation of individuals does not appear to predict sociopathic tendencies or immoral/unethical situational behaviors.
Comment by Joy — June 14, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 11:00 am
But you've failed to support your assertion Rushdie is speaking of all religionists and "stereotyping" them, and as I've already stated, it's quite obvious to me that Rushdie is speaking of the particular cult of Conservative Christian Creationists. As he even states in the OpEd, his argument with Evans is about the "blame for the growth of creationism in America." How anyone would infer he is speaking about liberal or even moderate theists is beyond me.
And whether you, or Mike want to admit it, Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-ID, has been hijacked by the very same CCCs of which Rushdie speaks. So as an ID promoter, who sits by silently as one school board after another school board is pushed to teach ID by right-wing religionists, you have, IMHO, very little room to complain when the broad strokes brush across you.
As far as I can tell, there have been no ID promoters petitioning the school boards to speak on behalf of NOT teaching the concept of ID. ID promoters seemed more than willing to bask in the free publicity. But now you want to complain when you find out there really isn't anything free - that there are costs for aligning yourself with the CCCs and not kicking them out from under the umbrella long ago. It doesn't make it right, but hey, no free lunches and all that……
Well maybe Rushdie should have qualified his statements everytime he made them. Although I think that doing so would have been redundancy in the extreme. (My reasoning is already stated above.)
Let's revisit what Rushdie wrote:
1. It's obvious Rushdie IS NOT referring to all religionists attacking science, but the CCCs, ie literalists/fundies.
2. If such a truce were possible we wouldn't be having this conversation, and an atheist could be president. According to polls, it seems even the liberal religionist would not vote for an atheist - regardless of the qualifications.
3. If there are followers of "The World's religions," who do not view godlessness as such, they are selectively ignoring parts of their own doctrines. Do I need to quote chapter and verse? Do we call them religious-lite? This could then very easily degenerate into who is a "true believer" and who is not. You make that concession, but you, as you also admit, are not "religious." No great strides there.
We'll save for a later time how as an ID promoter you reconcile your "agnosticism."
No, but if you will re-read my statement, I was referring to the CCCs - Bush's base, and not the generic.
But again, re-read what I wrote. I was speaking of the specific and not the generic.
Comment by Doug McGee — June 15, 2005 @ 11:00 am
June 15th, 2005 at 11:06 am
…and thanks to Joy.
Comment by Doug McGee — June 15, 2005 @ 11:06 am
June 15th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
Doug,
You quote Rushdie:
From which you conclude:
It doesn't seem so "obvious" to me, where in his sentence may I find the distinction between moderate theists and this "particular cult of Conservative Christian Creationists" That distinction is simply not there. You are simply second-guessing what Rushdie supposedly thinks.
Tom argued Rushdie's stereotyping was due to a lack of space. You argue Rushdie is not stereotyping at all. Seems pretty contradictory.
Comment by Jean — June 15, 2005 @ 12:31 pm
June 15th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Jean:
The Rusdie quote clearly refers to views about morality, and not about science. His comments about education commence two paragraphs later, and after he has clearly changed the topic by writting:
Taking his comments about education as refering to the behaviour of all religionists is, therefore, not justified by the text; and represents out of context quotation.
McGee is wrong to think that the Indian, formerly Islamic Rushdie is primarily concerned about Conservative Christian Creationists. He is probably more concerned with the Fundamentalist Hindus and Moslems (whom he mentions twice) and Sikh's (who also gained a mention) as much, or more than he is concerned the actions of Fundamentalist Christians (who are not co-extensive with CCC's)
He is also wrong to think that ID was hijacked by CCC's. Rather, it was founded by them, and funded by them from the beginning. For reasons of political strategy, the leaders of ID have considered it expedient to allow some non-CCC's on board as fellow travelers. (As always when I use the term Creationists, I am using Johnson's definition.)
Finally, Rushdie stereotyped religionists due to space considerations. He stereotyped "established religions" in his comments about education for the same reason. His critics on this point make themselves into hypocrites everytime they attribute views or behaviour to "Darwinists", or "critics of ID" without carefully noting all the exceptions to their comments, or at least carefully including non-inclusive qualifiers.
Comment by tom_kbel — June 15, 2005 @ 6:19 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Re-reading, I think you're correct. I may have originally read too much into the paragraph re: Evans and the blame for rising creationism. to whit:
But whether it's CCCs or Jihadists, it still seems to me Rushdie in his piece, is speaking of the literalist/fundies. We also seem to be dealing with two stereotypes here. I, the science-hating fundie claim and you, the amoral atheist claim.
Well hey, I was trying to give 'em the benefit of doubt that they unknowingly joined a creationist movement.
And you can call me Doug.
And to Jean,
Rushdie's quote "….if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts."
When he says' "they," does he mean literalists or non-literalists? Would science challenge the non-literalist? I think not, but maybe it's obvious to me for all the wrong reasons.
Comment by Doug McGee — June 16, 2005 @ 11:12 am
June 16th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Hi Doug,
"As he even states in the OpEd, his argument with Evans is about the 'blame for the growth of creationism in America.'"
You are seriously twisting Rushdie's words here. The phrase you're quoting is from his description of Ruse's argument, which he in fact doesn't mention for the rest of his article. No, Rushdie's arguments with Evans is about Evans' claim that atheists should be more respectful of religion, which Rushdie doesn't agree with, as he doesn't think that religion is respectful of atheism.
"So as an ID promoter, who sits by silently as one school board after another school board is pushed to teach ID by right-wing religionists, you have, IMHO, very little room to complain when the broad strokes brush across you."
I'm not complaining. I'm a believer in free speech, and if Rushdie wants to flaunt his stereotypes in a major, national newspaper, fine by me. But I also intend to use my free speech to point at him and laugh.
"Let's revisit what Rushdie wrote:"
Yes, let's: First, let's revisit the fact that Rushdie wasn't talking about making peace with a subsection of conservative Christianity, but with religion, full stop. Let's also revisit the fact that Rushdie didn't try to distinguish between the ills he complained about in religion - "this applies to all religious people, but this only applies to some conservative Christians" - so we can safely assume that his complaints are directed at all religions. You yourself quote this: "Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal - if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts."
"1. It's obvious Rushdie IS NOT referring to all religionists attacking science, but the CCCs, ie literalists/fundies."
Clearly, we have widely divergent opinions on what is "obvious".
"2. If such a truce were possible we wouldn't be having this conversation, and an atheist could be president. According to polls, it seems even the liberal religionist would not vote for an atheist - regardless of the qualifications."
So the liberal "religionists" are part of the problem why there can be no truce with religion?
"3. If there are followers of "The World's religions," who do not view godlessness as such, they are selectively ignoring parts of their own doctrines. Do I need to quote chapter and verse? Do we call them religious-lite? This could then very easily degenerate into who is a "true believer" and who is not."
Indeed. So why do you attempt to go there?
"We'll save for a later time how as an ID promoter you reconcile your 'agnosticism.'"
I'll be looking forward to it.
Krauze: "Why would I have to live in the US to agree with your characterization? Are there no "religionists" in, say, Europe?"
Doug: "No, but if you will re-read my statement, I was referring to the CCCs - Bush's base, and not the generic."
Having read and re-read your statement, it's clear that you only mentioned "the religionists" (who should that refer to, if not religious people?), making no mention of neither "conservatives" nor "CCCs".
Comment by Krauze — June 16, 2005 @ 11:25 am
June 16th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
Hi Doug,
Almost forgot this…
Let's take your claim that "the religionists don't want to "live and let live," they want and require everyone to live by their particular cult's dogma." If, as you say, you only intented it to apply to conservative Christians, I'm still waiting for some actual evidence that this generalization is warranted, rather than your cherry-picked incidents. Your case also better take into account the existence of right-wing Christians opposing such things as anti-gay laws and government-sponsered displays of the Ten Commandments, because they think the Bible supports libertarianism.
Comment by Krauze — June 16, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
June 16th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
-Hi Krauze,
I'll respond more later as I've to be at work soon, but a few points.
you state "Having read and re-read your statement, it's clear that you only mentioned "the religionists" (who should that refer to, if not religious people?), making no mention of neither "conservatives" nor "CCCs"."
I originally wrote:
Now do you want to continue with " it's clear you only mentioned "the religionists?" Did you miss "fundies?" ie, it's one sentence in which, fundie religionists don't want to live and let live …..
The obvious part is the part you failed to bold. "… even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts."
The only "discoveries" I know of, challenge literalist/fundy beliefs. But as I told Jean, maybe it's obvious to me for all the wrong reasons.
Off to work
Comment by Doug McGee — June 16, 2005 @ 12:18 pm