Thoughts from Scott Atran
by MikeGeneI just ran across these comments from Scott Atran about the first "Beyond Belief" meeting. I wonder if the second one was any better.
Now, according to Salam's colleague and co-Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, scientists must rise up to the challenge of liberating humanity form "the long nightmare of religion" Biologist Richard Dawkins tells us that we need t"come out of the closet" and form a political lobby of committed atheists and scientists to do public battle with religion and other forms of "intellectual rubbish" that tyrannize the mind. For neuropsychologist Sam Harris, technological advances in the ability to terrorize and wage war require an uncompromising and unrelenting struggle to destroy religion - especially, but not exclusively, Islam - and banish unreason beyond the pale of civilization.
But how naïve are such calls to arms! I find it fascinating that brilliant scientists and philosophers have no clue how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems. Some scientists have some good and helpful insights into human beings' existential problems some of the time, but some good scientists have done more to harm others than most people are remotely capable of.
["¦]
The evangelical cult, or self-proclaimed "atheist lobby," promulgated at the conference is itself a messianic mission to save humanity that fits well within the historical trend of universal monotheisms, however atheist in appearance, including all the great secular and revolutionary "isms" that have violently punctuated modern history: colonialism, communism, fascism, anarchism, socialism, democratic liberalism. (Before monotheism, there was no notion of humanity in the sense of all humans being of a kind, and thus no idea of saving humankind for the "good," or of a recalcitrant and residual part of humanity rejecting salvation because they were "bad" and "evil"). Two of these "isms" - communism and fascism - were explicitly based on what were once seriously thought to be scientific theories and philosophies. These particular variants led to the greatest mass murders in human history. Although, this is only a N of 2, and a poor base of evidence for generalizing to the role of science in politics in general, it is still 100% more informed than most other views heard at the conference, and does not bode well for another push in this direction. (And by the way, politically tendentious teleological as well as social darwinian views of human history and society are still very much with as, as in Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.)
["¦.]
No society in recorded history has ever survived more than about three generations without a religious foundation. Western Europe, many tell me, is about to buck the trend. Now, I'm not one for predicting the future (such predictions almost always range between zero and chance) but I do think that there was something prescient in a statement that André Malraux - the great French writer, resistance fighter, government minister and avowed atheist - said towards the end of his life, in the early 1970s, when religion appeared to be waning across the world, falling into the divide between the clashing secular ideologies that mostly covered the world: "The next century will either be religious or it won't be."
November 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Mike,
I had a change some months ago to watch all the beyond belief conference. Atran provided many interesting and challenging statements to the group. Dawkins and Harris (Atran specifically does a little debate with Atran) give little more intellectual rigour than they do in their books: dogmatically asserting the same thing in the same language with the same methods without answering Atran's concerns. Atran is an intelligent guy, who really made many of the people there look very silly.
Comment by dantedanti — November 4, 2007 @ 11:26 am
November 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Hi dantedanti,
I share your impressions. What is most remarkable to me is that people like Dawkin and Harris take great pride in being "pro-reason." They truly believe they serve the cause of reason and science.
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I like the work Scott Atran and Pascal Boyer. Both have devoted their careers to the study of religion as a natural phenomenon, from the perspectives of anthropology, sociology, and cognitive science. As such, they are impatient with people like Dawkins who want to treat religion as nothing more than a stupid mistake.
However, nothing in what they do gives the slightest support to the truth of religious beliefs, or the existence of a creator or intelligent designer. Quite the contrary in fact. I haven't read much of Atran's actual scientific work, but Boyer shows how religious beliefs arise from a variety of cognitive mechanisms and hiccups, such as an over-active agency detector. In other words, he is saying that religion is a mistake, but one that can tell us many interesting things about how our minds work.
Futhermore, I thought that the point of this blog was to promote ID as a potential scientific theory, rather than religion, so I'm not sure what Atran's studies of religious beliefs have to do with anything. Unless of course ID is really just a thin pseudoscientific facade over religious belief, as its critics have it.
Comment by mtraven — November 4, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
mtraven:
Atrans comments highlight the bigoted fundamentalism of Dawkins et. al. That attitude gets in the way of good science.
Comment by Bradford — November 4, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
November 4th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Hi mtraven,
I've answered this before. A huge portion of ID critics (people who sit as judges on the concept of ID) are also members of the New Atheist Movement and most hear 'God" when "ID" is spoken or written. Is there something hard to understand about this?
Comment by MikeGene — November 4, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
If anything the evidence points the other way. I'm impressed that an atheist is aware of this reality as well.
I'm not sure why anybody would say this though. Although he is reporting someone elses observation. The idea of "Eurabia" is not a joke.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
November 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It is ironic isn't given that competent and intellectually rigorous atheist thinks like Nietzsche and Camus came to conclusions so at odds with the current crowd of pseudo-intellectual posers.
But I am past expecting the current crop of "new atheists" to be intellectually competent.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 7, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Scott Atran wrote:
Or, where is the leadership when it comes to resolving the great humanitarian problems of our age. It seems to me that most of the new atheists have convinced themselves that these problems will somehow just take care of themselves once they are in charge; that somehow religion is standing in the way of mankind's moral progress. But where are the great humanitarian atheists? Are there any?
A few weeks ago I attending a meeting of a group of people who are trying to help the Dalits oppressed members of Indian society who are also known as untouchables. Despite "untouchabilty" being outlawed by India's constitution the Dalits are still being discriminated against. It's something like the segregation that was once widely practiced in America's south, only untouchability is much, much worse. There is no pretension of separate but equal. The Dalits are not even members of a Caste. They are a subclass, outcasts, subhuman.
A few months earlier the group I was meeting with gave one of the Dalit leaders a check for $50,000 to build a school for Dalit children. Education in India is a path to a better life, especially for the Dalits.
There are 250 million Dalits living today in India. Most of them will live out their lives in a state of abject poverty and oppression. IMO is one of the worlds greatest, if not greatest civil rights, and humanitarian problems.
Why is it that I never hear about atheists leading efforts like this? Why is their agenda, instead of being positive and helpful, so negative and destructive?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 8, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
John A.D.:
Seems pretty dumb to exclude nearly a quarter of your population from participation, though India wasn't the first to artificially allot the national wealth by birth class or status (and isn't the last). While the Indian Constitution outlawed discrimination based on caste system designations in 1950, it has stubbornly persisted.
It probably began as a socio-cultural expression of racism, given that India has been multicultural for as far back into history as we can go, and in India that's farther than anywhere else. But the British Raj didn't do Dalits any favors, since they instituted designation by birth when the historical tradition was a bit more fluid than that. Those Brits had a regular field day partitioning the world according to their own religio-ethnic idiosyncracies and perpetual elitism.
Racism and racist policies and racist traditions are notoriously difficult to overcome, even here in America. Good on your group for attempting to deal directly with the issue.
No notable "atheist" philanthropists, missionaries or charity groups readily spring to mind, though there may be some. The atheists I know personally aren't the least bit shy of donating to a cause, though. And this often means donating to sectarian missions. There are ostensibly secular charities like Physicians Without Borders, but there's certainly no religious or anti-religious loyalty oath required of volunteers, and the charity accepts money readily from church mission groups and grant organizations.
I suspect the negativity and destructive agenda of those atheists we most often encounter in this 'culture war' comes from the fact that they tend to be scientists or science-groupies. They see their animosity toward the religious as being a defense of science in what they genuinely believe to be some kind of religious war against science. This frames the whole 'movement' in negative terms, and encourages destructive rhetoric and agendas. They're not really aiming to "educate" their adversaries, or to "mend," "heal," "bridge," or "build" anything. The 'movement' means to destroy.
Individual atheists are another matter entirely.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
JAD:
Because you have been drinking the kool-aid? By far the greatest philanthropist of the moment is atheist Bill Gates.
Comment by Raevmo — November 8, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think Bob Geldof is also an atheist - isn't he? Whatever you may think of his tactics there is little doubt that his intentions are charitable.
Atheists are not charitable in the name of atheism in the way that regliious groups can be charitable in the name of their religion. They are just charitable people who happen to be atheists. Their lack of believe is not what inspires them. It is their humanitythat inspires them. But their lack of belief does not inhibit them either.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 8, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Raevmo:
As percentage of wealth it's a matter of how rich you are, how much comes in as regular income, and the limitations on what any one person can amass and keep playing the accumulation game without diversifying. I seem to recall that John Lennon was an atheist, and his foundation supports a host of charitable projects as well. There are no doubt others who have amassed huge fortunes in recent years (computers, maybe one or two of the billionaires gene-patenting made) who give generously to charity.
I've worked with charities and sectarian non-profits where many of the donors or grant foundations were secular, and some where the volunteers and staff come from a variety of backgrounds, including atheist. Many colleges these days require X number of community service hours, and a lot of that comes from volunteering locally or for a tour of duty at a remote charity operation.
In my experience of those, agnostics and atheists generally don't view it as the prideful deal many religious donors and volunteers do. And Mark is right that it's their humanism that usually motivates them, not in-group acclaim or brownie points in heaven.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Mark Frank:
Exactly.
Look at the top givers:
http://www.businessweek.com/pd...
Quite a few atheists/non-religious folks right there in the top. Far more than expected based on the demographics.
I'm getting a bit tired of the old canard that atheists are less charitable than the religious. A good case can be made that the opposite is true. But I say we give this tired and unproductive subject a rest.
Comment by Raevmo — November 8, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
An agnostic is not an atheist, no matter how desperately people wish it to be so (or wish it wasn't so, in the case of disreputable agnostics). Course, maybe Gates came out as an atheist and I didn't notice it - maybe his wife did too, for all I know.
That said, I understand what JA Designer may be getting at; atheism itself does not promote charity. Mere atheism on its own promotes nothing whatsoever. Humanitarian leanings may, but obviously many theists have those too (contrary to the 'they do it to suck up to God or to avoid God's wrath' hype, many theists believe in doing good for good's sake and don't expect divine reward.) Yes, non-religious and/or atheists certainly can and do engage in charitable acts, even if for the moment statistically they're rather lagging in that respect.
Nevertheless, when I give to charity, I'm not thinking 'Alright, God, you owe me'.
Comment by nullasalus — November 8, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
null:
Sigh, why did you have to say that? What statistics are you referring to?
Comment by Raevmo — November 8, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
I'm a slave to science, what can I say.
Here we go.
Of note:
1) Religious observers (only 38 percent of all Americans) donate two-thirds of all charitable dollars in the United States,
2) Religious observers (those who attend weekly services) donate 3.4 percent of income annually, while nonreligious people give 1.1 percent to 1.4 percent,
3) Households that donate to both religious congregations and secular organizations donate over three times ($2,247) more than do households that donate to only secular organizations ($623) per year,
I didn't realize this was a controversial statement - isn't this well-known? Of course this is an American stat, but a stat nonetheless.
Comment by nullasalus — November 8, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Joy:
There is a passage in the NT in which Jesus focuses the attention of his followers on some prominent religious leaders of the day. To paraphrase he said look at them basking in attention because of their deeds. They've already received their reward. Then Christ advised hs followers to do their good deeds secretly as God is aware of what is going on and able to reward. So if one gives or otherwise engages in charitable behavoir he need not advertise his actions. BTW, another passage focused on a poor widow who gave, what would amount to by today's standards, a few pennies while a rich man gave more money. Christ commented that the poor widow gave more because while the rich man parted with some of his riches she gave all she had.
Comment by Bradford — November 8, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Bradford:
Oh, I know what the Gospels have to say about about it. It might be debatable how wise it is to give all you have (then have to become a recipient instead), but there's some passages about not worrying about such things as well.
I've just known quite a few people who were basically secular, though some went to church or synagogue regularly for appearance's sake (usually those going through divorce and trying to impress a family court judge with their parenting abilities), even tithe. Others tithe but not for the building or the preacher's upkeep. It goes straight to the charities. For many, it's as much a social responsibility as religions have traditionally made charity out to be.
Unless your charity giving comes out of your church tithes and special appeals for church charities, I don't think anybody's asking people why they give and what religion they practice when they do give. Religious people donate all the time to Red Cross, UNICEF, Physicians Without Borders and other NGO non-profit charities. And non-religious people donate all the time to sectarian children's homes, shelters, rescue and relief funds, and other denomination-related charities.
I don't think being an atheist makes one selfish, nor do I think selfishness makes one an atheist. There are plenty of selfish people out there, some of them warming up church pews, some of them not.
Comment by Joy — November 8, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
November 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Got a comment stuck in moderation, not sure what triggered that.
I actually recall a fairly-recent situation where an atheist businessman donated millions to Catholic schools in New York. I think his justification of the donation would have made Dawkins grind his teeth to particles.
Comment by nullasalus — November 8, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 12:20 am
All:
Let me remind you what Scott Atran wrote above:
So, do Atheists out give religious people? Do they out number religious people? It seems to me that Atran is suggesting the contrary above. (Though unfortunately it appears that he also conflates scientists with atheists. Are all scientists atheists?) Notice that he is criticizing atheists for thinking they are better than religious. Being as charitible or just as good is not what the "new atheists are claiming.
Another atheist Guardian columnist Roy Hattersly wrote in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; "Faith does breed charity: we atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"¦The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character. Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and theists' associations." (Guardian, Sept. 12, 2005)
Keep in mind what the "New Atheists" (not all atheists) want to destroy religion and thus destroy the charitable work they do. Who is going to pick up the slack? (Supposing that they could actually carry out their paln.) My question above, was not whether atheist gave to charities or were charitable people, but whether they demonstrated the moral leadership to begin new humanitarian efforts? So once again if you pull the plug, by destroying religion, and destroy the charitable work that was started by religious groups Where is the vision and commitment to replace it with something new and better? Why aren't atheists doing that now? Why don't we see any evidence of that?
One of the reasons that I mentioned the efforts to help the Dalits above is because like an atheist I am in opposition to a religion that I see as harmful to people. In this instance I am opposition to the Hindu religion whose teaching about Caste have kept the Dalits oppressed for centuries. Hinduism has been and continues to be one of the world most oppressive religions. My solution, however, is not to advocate for the destruction of this religion. First of all, the total destruction of any religion is virtually impossible even in a totalitarian regime. Second, we don't need to destroy Hinduism all we need to do is present a better alternative. Dalits convert to Christianity not simply because of generosity of Christians but because central to its teachings is the idea that all human being have dignity, value and worth. The Dalits despite centuries of oppression recognize that these are things that they both want and need. There is something deep in the human soul that desires these things. Of course if you don't believe in the human soul it is pretty hard understand or explain something like that.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 9, 2007 @ 12:20 am
November 9th, 2007 at 12:35 am
nullasalus:
Because Dawkins and atheists who believe as he does are a subset within the larger group and clearly do not share the mindset of the individual to which you refer.
Comment by Bradford — November 9, 2007 @ 12:35 am
November 9th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Nullasus
Interesting statistics. It is not clear how the money is spent. There is a bit on what kind of organisations receive the money e.g.
Would that include donations to the Jimmy Swaggarts of this world? How much goes on funding religion itself, including religion in the USA?
Comment by Mark Frank — November 9, 2007 @ 2:36 am
November 9th, 2007 at 2:58 am
The misuse of funds is a serious question, but not one which gives much commentary about the motivations of the donors, really. I'm sure there are Swaggart style types who are duping their donors - but then, there are mainstream organizations that have engaged in similar shadiness (There was a point where some telemarketing firms devoted to scaring up money for the Special Olympics, etc, were found to be pocketing upwards of 50% of the donations solicited over the phone. Sweet deal, that - now you know part of why they were big on the strongarm sell, if you've ever gotten one of those calls.)
Interesting stats though, I certainly agree.
Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 2:58 am
November 9th, 2007 at 6:14 am
I agree it is all a bit uncertain but I get the impression that a lot of charity money is explicitly raised to support various religious organisations and even religious leaders. This money is not given to help those in need. You don't get much money raised to support atheism!
Comment by Mark Frank — November 9, 2007 @ 6:14 am
November 9th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I don't know about that. What's Sam Harris asking for speaking fees nowadays? There was also Madelyn Murray O'Hare's racket. O'Hare devoting herself to showing that, like christians, atheists are every bit as capable of being totally fleeced by a fast-talking leader.
You realize that these 'religious organizations' themselves tend to turn around and engage in charity of their own, right? Or are you implying that if you write a check to the Salvation Army, that money is all blown on solid-gold bells?
Turning it around, you are aware that some employees of the Red Cross pull down six figure salaries, yes? I'm sure you can argue 'When you donate money to the Red Cross it's not necessarily a charitable donation. You're giving to an organization, not necessarily to a charitable act. They can use that money to give themselves a raise, or bank it, or hold banquets.' You can probably come up with good examples of excess too (United Way and Red Cross have had members do some distasteful things.)
But again, this has no bearing on the donor. You make it sound as if a methodist donating to their church does so with the understanding that 'this is purely for paying reverends, bringing in new believers, and maintaining our properties. This better not go towards a soup kitchen or other crap!'
Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 7:06 am
November 9th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Mark Frank:
Mark, the tithe and offering at church supports the minister, the buildings, bills and upkeep. Most congregations have committees that designate what charity offerings to support that year, and with how much. And there is a missions fund in many congregations that goes to a presbytery or synod committee that allots for foreign and domestic missions (which can include preaching in hopes of conversions).
The children's homes, disaster relief and other established charities also have development staff who come to churches to present special appeals, or the appeal can be entirely evident and the congregation digs deep (Katrina, floods in Tabasco, tsunamis in South Asia…). Any of the charities that accept money from secular foundations and/or government are accountable to the foundations and/or government for hiring, salaries, performance on the grant, etc. just like secular programs are.
If you want to buy a timeshare at Jim and Tammy Fae's theme park, you've bought a timeshare for yourself, not contributed to charity. Such purchases are not tax exempt and don't count as charity giving. When you send money to Children's Homes or treatment clinics or some other legit sectarian charity your money goes to provide care for the children, medical care for the patients, food for the hungry, etc. Part of that provision are the facilities, the staff, the trained counselors and medical personnel, the certified food preparation staff and equipment, etc. Why is that a problem, even if the 'organization' is Presbyterian or Methodist or Catholic or non-denominational?
Not that no cheating occurs. People really don't like that sort of thing, tend to come down on it with both feet (and the IRS in tow). Sectarian charities may be as guilty of breaches as Red Cross, but I've not heard much of that.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 10:45 am
November 9th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
And just to preclude further confusion (as Mark does not seem familiar with churches, charities or non-profits in general), tithes are that portion of income a person or family provides to their congregation for purposes of the congregation. If any charities are supported from these funds the donors get NO tax exemption credit for them, because tithes (the collection) is committed after-tax income.
IOW, if you make $40,000 a year and tithe 10% (most don't tithe that much these days), you agree to provide $4,000 a year to pay the preacher and secretary and any other staff of the church, pay electricity and other costs, and support in-house mission/charity projects. You have already paid taxes on your income, all federal, state and local taxes that apply. The church itself is tax exempt, does not pay taxes on the income it gets from congregational tithes. But a church is not a charity, it may support charities with a portion of its income.
Any special charity project appeals a member donates to (Christmas fund at the orphanage, a new transportation van for the school or day-care facility, turkeys for Thanksgiving at the joint soup kitchen, etc.) do count as tax deductible if it didn't come out of their tithe via committee.
I've seen quite a few of the anti-religious 'culture warriors' complain endlessly that churches should be taxed. That's double taxation. After individuals pay their taxes, they can do what they want with whatever's left over.
Why, one might come to suspect that these supposedly so-smart 'culture warriors' haven't the foggiest idea how religious organization works, or that Presbyterians invented parliamentary procedure! The number of sects that form around a cultish figurehead with absolute authority is very, very small. Mainline religions are socio-political institutions that primarily operate by committee, general assembly and open floor vote. Even on theological issues.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Oops! I was wrong. Tithes ARE tax deductible, as any charitable donation is, since churches are generally classified 501(c)(3). From Tithing-dot-org:
Huh. Guess the tithing folks I've known well enough to be aware of their tax filings (parents) didn't claim it. We here on the mountain don't tithe, because we don't belong to a church. Our giving has been much more direct, and if we get paid, we file taxes on it as usual. Which is how it works, apparently. From Council on Foundations:
From Clergy Today:
Ministers get some breaks on SS taxes and a generous housing/utilities deduction even when provided by the church budget, as well as some special provisions for retirement accounts. No non-charity (or direct worship) activities by a church are tax-exempt. If your church runs a theme park on the side, it pays taxes. If the minister's wife runs a software consulting firm, she pays taxes.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I find this to be an incredibly non-interesting topic. What does the relative rates of charitable contributions, or relative morality, of atheists vs. religious believers have to do with the truth of their belief systems?
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that religious people are more charitable and generally nicer than atheists. Let's also suppose that I, observing the universe, conclude that there is no God. On the other hand, I also find within me a deep desire to be a good person. Am I supposed to change my belief system to make me a better person, to try to believe something that I feel isn't true? Or what? What is at stake here? Why should the relative morality of people's actions have anything at all to do with the truth of their beliefs?
Or, to take another example, let's say the data shows that Buddhists are more charitable than Christians. Should all Christians convert to Buddhism? Or what?
Or should we practice religion in order to be nice, without regard for its facticity? That's certainly a valid point of view, but that kind of religion has very little to do with intelligent design, which I thought was the topic of the blog.
It's especially annoying to have this non-issue discussed at length under Scott Atran's name. He is someone who actually has interesting things to say about religion, things that are not just endless repetitions of the same dead arguments.
Comment by mtraven — November 9, 2007 @ 4:30 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Joy: I appreciate your very detailed discussion about charitable giving. Personally, I attend a church that budgets about half it's offering to go outside the church to humanitarian and charitable projects locally and around the world. As a regular attender I could, if I desired, mark my offering envelope to send everything I personally give to go to special projects outside of the church. The church leaves it up to me how I want to give. It amazes me how well this work. The church always makes its budget with out any arm twisting begging or special pleading. We have an extremely generous congregation. That's why I drive a round trip of 70 miles on Sundays to attend there. I like to be involved with people like that. In my estimation they are giving for the right reasons: compassion and a commitment to help ones fellow man.
After the 2004 Tsunami, for example, this congregation raised over $100,000 in addition to its normal giving. Within one week of the disaster a businessman who was familiar with Indonesia was on his way to that part of the world with the money. He ended up located the leaders of a muslim community whose village had been absolutely devastated by the tsunami. They received the funds no strings attached. To me that is a demonstration of genuine compassion. That is what it means to love your neighbor. This is an example of real people doing real good in the real world.
Let me repeat my concern. The new atheists have made it very clear that they want to destroy Christianity. If they succeed they will also destroy the kind of humanitarian giving that I have just described? Do they have anything with which to replace it? The honesty of Atran and Hattersly makes me skeptical that they do.
mtraven wrote:
The question is if religious people are more charitable and good than the new atheists why are the NA's trying to destroy them? Are they capable of replacing the good that the religious people are accomplishing? When have they ever demonstrsted that? They oppose charity and doing good in the world? They don't seem to have a rational answer for these very simple questions.
Personally, I don't care what you believe or why you believe it, I am only defending some real people who are doing real good in the world. There is nothing hypothetical about what they believe and the way they live their lives.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 9, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Yep, that's a dead-end topic. Good thing no one's been discussing it, eh?
I made a comment about the current trends of charitable donations of secular v religious folks. Someone expressed skepticism, statistics were supplied. Again, I thought this was rather well-known and non-controversial, but apparently some find it hard to cope with. Oh well.
Actually, during this talk about religious or religion-backed charities (Foundation for a Better Life is a favorite of mine, by the way), I realized something - something that relates to the OP even. See, the New Atheist Movement may be 'cult-like', but it's also oddly out of step with mainstream religion. Nowadays we see the Pope (and previous popes) engaging in dialogue with muslim leaders and the Dali Lama, and the Vatican-muslim alliances in the UN are much talked about. Christians of all stripes engage in a healthy amount of charity without regards to faith, not to mention minimal concern of nationality or race. Certainly there are atheists who will think nothing of donating money to a religious group or charity if they're effective. There are many religious problems still, sure, but cooperation is at an all-time high.
The problem with the NAMs - and a problem Scott Atran may well agree about, for all I know - is that they're not part of the cooperation. Ideaologically, they can't be. Religion is the enemy, full stop. I've tossed some money towards jewish-group charities before, or protestant-headed (Catholic here). Can Christopher Hitchens manage this?
Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
John A.D.:
I just messed up on taxes per giving, thought I'd better correct myself. It's only pertinent because of the Big Name atheists cited who are among the biggest 'givers' as answer to nullasalus' statistics. A foundation isn't quite the same thing as tithing or answering calls to dig deep. If you're the richest person on earth, you've got to do something with your wealth. Only so much of it ($100K) is federally insured, and you could have that much in every bank and S&L in the country (and several others) and still not dent your interest, the money's still coming in way beyond places to put it.
I remember figuring a Rockefeller capitalist income back when David was still around. If you spend a million dollars a day and still never touch your capital wealth, you've got way too much money. I even tried to spend a million a day - on myself - on paper. Didn't get past the 5th day. Why would anybody want the burden of that 365 days a year, every year of their lives?
Endowing a charity foundation is a pretty cool thing to do with great wealth. You put a portfolio together of X assets set aside in funds out there in the markets for the purposes you define, your capital investment always remains the same - your grants come from the interest and dividend income. IOW, it costs you nothing at all, and you can appoint yourself to be chairman of the board, make all the decisions, and pay yourself a 6-figure salary. How cool is that?
That's not "giving 'til it hurts" but it is putting capital to work in the world. That's admirable and I'm glad some of the IT billionaires have taken this route. It costs them nothing, they'll always have a job, and they get to support projects they very much would like to see done in the world before they die.
And the aggregate capital endowment is usually way more than what any individual church congregation could ever come up with. Of course for them it's not a tax shelter or a capital investment. It's them giving what they've got to give. I recall one children's home that finally was bequeathed enough to put them over the break-even on basic food, clothing, shelter and services for their institution (we were involved in raising 7 million of that). All of a sudden they didn't have to sweat school clothes or three meals a day or school books and fees anymore. Built 5 new houses, 9 kids apiece with live-in houseparents (rotated). They specialized in siblings, notoriously hard to adopt. While they get state and volunteer help with health care from doctors in affiliated churches, there's the higher education fund - all kids who are there when they turn 18 get college if they want, a starter grant if they don't. Families who want to adopt 3 kids at a time are kinda rare, hard to find. The charter promises the siblings will not be separated.
It was a regular big deal to get that endowment. It's pocket change to Bill Gates, less than he makes per week.
I think if the NAM really wants to challenge religion, their foundations and Non-Profits should at least pretend to take on some of the everyday issues religions deal with every day. Complete with squadrons of volunteers to work with orphaned, neglected and abused children, battered women, homelessness, hunger, drug abuse, alcoholism, disaster relief… you name it. If these guys are so darned smart, where's the money? The altruistic missions? The real help for real people?
My guess is that neither Mark nor mtraven [ed.] spend much of their hard-earned income to help other people directly. Or even indirectly. I've always been of the opinion that if you're planning to "tear down the system" - whatever system you're targeting - you'd better have something to put in its place that at LEAST does what that system does per sociopolitical function.
I don't think atheists are there yet.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
For one thing, NA's are not trying to "destroy" religious people, that sort of talk is paranoid-crazy. They would like to destroy their delusional beliefs, to be sure, but that's not the same thing.
For another, if religious people's charitable impulses are genuine, and not merely a result of being compelled by service to a delusional relgious authority, then they will continue to donate to charity even after being stripped of their delusions.
For a third, the non-religous component of charitable giving is enormous. There are hundreds of organizations doing good works, and only a subset of them are motivated by religion. I like Médecins Sans Frontières myself, but there are many others. To me, it seems unfortunate that religious groups have a strong presence in this area since the result is often the corruption of the act of charity with proseletization.
Fourth, it's unseemly to be ostentatious about how charitable you are. Bragging about how much your group gives is not much better.
And fifth, you haven't answered my question about how this stupid issue pertains to the slightly less stupid one of intelligent design. The truth of this would-be scientific theory is entirely independent of whether or not its adherents give more to charity than atheists.
[probably my last word on the subject unless someone manages to say something interesting]
Comment by mtraven — November 9, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
So the lesson from mtraven is, if the people are truly charitable they'll keep giving even after their religious beliefs have been stripped, and besides it's unseemly to point out how much charity is done by religious groups anyway, and also non-religious charity activity is enormous, religious giving may not even count because they also spread their beliefs sometimes, and pointing out differences between rates of charitable donations between religious and non-religious is stupid anyway, this topic sucks.
I'd like someone to answer my own question, frankly: It's been shown that many christians will give to and work with non-christians in the name of charity. As will many jews, and even (I assume, alas I have no examples onhand) many muslims. There's even been some atheists who donate to religious-mixed causes.
Can we expect Christopher Hitchens to coordinate or promote cooperation with charities based on different beliefs, as the above do? How about Dawkins? Or are they more on that 'we refuse to work with the ideaologically impure' end of the spectrum, where New Atheists are to Atheism what Westboro Baptist is to Christianity? Because frankly, I'm getting the feeling that charity and cooperation is a very distant second to 'getting rid of religion'. After all, if some people are moved to consider a new idea due to charitable acts, then the charity is poisoned.
Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
mtraven:
Oh, so it's okay if y'all destroy religion, because those schmucks will still support charities smart people like you would never bother with, right?
How much of your income do you donate to Médecins Sans Frontiéres (Physicians Without Borders)? Do you require them to swear they don't believe in any gods before you donate your money? How much of your income goes toward those hundreds of other organizations every year? Yes, I mean "extra," not just your taxes. I'd really like to know.
The obvious answer to that is to donate 10% of your income to charity, and encourage all your NA friends to do the same. How much did you give to the Richard Dawkins Foundation this year, for instance? It's a foundation. Your contributions go to accumulate wealth that will pay for all projects with interest and dividends, after all. After they make Richard Dawkins richer than he is.
In terms of how much social charity is supplied by sectarian organizations, I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask what you MAs have to offer instead. So far it's not impressive. It costs the billionaires nothing, earns them a salary. That's a cool thing, but how much of it do you believe "The System" is going to tolerate?
That's rich, mtraven. This stupid issue pertains because your club of NAs wants to make religious people extinct. And some of them aren't the least bit shy of using coercive measures to accomplish that. Do you have anything to contribute per the egalitarian aims of those NAs who are also at the forefront of the NE (New Eugenics)?
Of course it is. Deal is, this thread is about Scott Atran's problems with the NAs and their stated goals. He called it an "evangelical cult," with a "messianic mission to save humanity." You haven't offered anything concrete at all as to how these 'saviors' plan to save us. Or even elucidated what it is they intend to save us from.
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Haven't you gotten the memo, Joy? War is caused by religion. Without religion, there will be no war. Racism, also the fault of religion. Remove religion, and egalitarianism will rule supreme. Religion stands in the way of science. Remove religion, and our research output will triple overnight.
Of course, communism was religion too. So was fascism. But the NEW atheists.. surely they can't be dogmatic! They rail against dogmatism as loudly as possible! In fact, they refuse to associate with anyone who has any leanings they can interpret to be dogmatic!
They've outlined a glorious future for us. The details are still in the making. Only our selfish genes know, unless we rebel against them. Which may be good or bad. I'm not sure. Perhaps Dawkins will tell us soon, it must not be important for us to know yet…
Comment by nullasalus — November 9, 2007 @ 11:19 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
mtraven wrote:
If religion is the result of brain lesions, then over half the world's population is suffering from a neurological disease and must be cured.
If this is neurological disease is caused by genetics, then obviously they cannot be cured; they can only be sterilized or killed.
So yes, you wish to destroy people who are religious, provided you believe what your New Atheism masters have told you.
You indicate that you indeed believe this by the second paragraph of yours I quoted; you believe that religious people have these charitable "impulses" which cannot be "stripped" away by any sort of education.
Congratulations! You have earned your New Eugenicist merit badge, which you can collect when your ilk begins its new pogroms. Good thing is you won't have to wait too long for it.
Comment by angryoldfatman — November 9, 2007 @ 11:34 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Just a few comments ago you were stating, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that I don't give much to charity. Now you expect me to provide financial statements. You really are a piece of work.
Comment by mtraven — November 9, 2007 @ 11:36 pm
November 9th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Yeah, I am. But then again, I did admit that we don't tithe. Don't even belong to a church. Why, I've never even been baptised! And no, I'm not concerned about it.
But I do live on "the Christian side of the mountain" on purpose. I find the hipper-than-thou crowd to be tiresome in the extreme. While the little old ladies who call me for donations to the Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever charity this week are quite dear. I've even worked with them on occasion. I've found it rewarding, personally. Not being a "joiner" or a "belonger," there's no real credit. S'alright. Me and God are on pretty good terms.
So. What do you do for the betterment of humanity besides bitch about other people's belief systems per their origins?
Comment by Joy — November 9, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
November 10th, 2007 at 1:18 am
I just discovered that the so called "New Atheist" movement may not be all that new. In fact, it appears that the same kind of thinking was quite prevalent at the beginning of the twentieth century.
C.S. Lewis who was an atheist as a young man was very familiar with this kind of thinking. For example, he wrote in is his essay, "Shelley, Dryden, and Mr. Eliot:"
"Men (and, still more, boys) like to call themselves disillusioned because the very from of the word suggests that they had the illusions and emerged from them"”have tried both worlds. The claim, however, is false nine times out of ten. The world is full of imposters who claim to be disenchanted and are really unenchanted: mere natural men who have never risen so high as to be in danger of the generous illusion they claim to have escaped from"¦ They talk like sages who have passed through the half truths of humanitarian benevolence, aristocratic honour, or romantic passion, while in fact they are clods who have never advanced so far." (Quoted by David C. Downing in, Planets in Peril, p.21)
Lewis wrote elsewhere that what eventually caused him to reject atheism, was the self important arrogance and cynicism that that atheists back then were prone to express. Later he would look back upon his atheism as something that he out grew. It was nothing more that an adolescent stage. That means there still may be a chance for Sam Harris. Hitchens or Dawkins? Well"¦..
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 10, 2007 @ 1:18 am
November 10th, 2007 at 8:15 am
John wrote:
John,
Did Lewis really say that? I realize that he wasn't the clearest of thinkers, but this seems irrational even by his standards.
Surely he would have agreed that it makes sense to reject a viewpoint because the evidence shows it to be false, and not because you dislike the personalities of some of those holding that view.
In any case, you don't have to look very long to find theists exhibiting "self-important arrogance and cynicism". Take Stunney, for example. Would you have us reject theism simply because Stunney is a graceless jerk?
Comment by keiths — November 10, 2007 @ 8:15 am
November 10th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Keiths, you wrote:
Actually that is my on-the-fly paraphrase of David Downing's paraphrase of some of Lewis's thinking based, no doubt, on some of his personal letters and writing. I must confess that I badly mangled what Downing really meant.
Downing wrote:
"For Lewis radical skepticism was not ultimately not at all visionary, but rather a form of spiritual blindness. He called materialism " a philosophy for boys" because, in the form he had known, it could not account for its own premises and because it too often promoted a kind of glib intellectual cynicism." (David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert, p.62)
I think in a sense Downing (and Lewis) would agree with you here.
Downing writes: "Lewis was the first to insist that one should embrace Christianity because it is true not because it is therapeutic." (p31)
He then quotes Lewis from his "Man or Rabbit" essay (1946) that, "Christianity claims to give an account of facts"”to tell you what the real universe is like"¦ If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."
Yes, if all he has to offer is arrogance and cynicism, yes. In my opinion if you have to prop up your argument with arrogance and cynicism it's not a very strong argument to begin with. To be fair I think Stunney has made some good arguments. I think some of his hotheaded rhetoric has actually weakened those arguments. However, I have not been following your debate with Stunney all along so I can't make a full and fair assessment. However, I suspect he is not the only one at fault here. Is he?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — November 10, 2007 @ 5:38 pm