Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing. Even secular people like the poet Nikki Giovanni use language that is heavily drenched with religious symbolism and meaning.
The atheist writer Richard Dawkins has observed that according to the findings of modern science, the universe has all the properties of a system that is utterly devoid of meaning. The main characteristic of the universe is pitiless indifference. Dawkins further argues that we human beings are simply agglomerations of molecules, assembled into functional units over millennia of natural selection, and as for the soul--well, that's an illusion!
To no one's surprise, Dawkins has not been invited to speak to the grieving Virginia Tech community. What this tells me is that if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil. The reason is that in a purely materialist universe, immaterial things like good and evil and souls simply do not exist. For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules.
If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science.
Reader Comments ( Page 23 of 26)
331. wow, that argument could have been written by a 6th grader at best. It's not even worth arguing with. lol
Stephanie at 3:08PM on Aug 9th 2007
332. god does not cause bad things to happen....we do...and there is only so much sickness, murder, turmoil,and/or any bad thing you can think of that god is going to take. You had better get ready....jesus is coming and it's sooner now than it's ever been.
ashley at 3:23AM on Aug 17th 2007
333. This is a guy who is searching for the wrong things in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Of course, when bad things happen, it’s not God’s business. Like at Virgina Tech, or more recently, in the Uthah mine collapse, or in the Peru earthquake, atheists are to blame because despite their scientific arrogance they can’t deal with the problem of evil.
Mr. D’Souza states: ”if it's difficult to know where God is when bad things happen, it is even more difficult for atheism to deal with the problem of evil”. I personally don’t understand why atheists should deal with this problem, if even for Mr. D’Souza it is obvious that God himself don’t even gives a shit.
Reading his profile, I’ve found out that Mr. D’Souza is a former “domestic policy analyst at the White House”. From the heights of his recommendations, Mr. D’Souza criticizes Richard Dawkins’s understanding of the Universe by stating: “For scientific atheists like Dawkins, Cho's shooting of all those people can be understood in this way--molecules acting upon molecules”. And he concludes:”If this is the best that modern science has to offer us, I think we need something more than modern science”.
Well, if this is the best that White House can come up with as a “domestic policy analist”, I think Americans really need to redefine the term “analist”. Because to analize is about asking the right questions and not about giving again and again the same old wrong answer.
I mean, beyond the stupidity of the title question, there is the unfairness of the content of the article. When there were so many questions to ask, about arms controll and arms dealers, about the health system and so on, this guy uses a national tragedy only to give science (and atheism and scientists and atheists) a bad name.
I don’t know where atheists are when bad things happen, they might very well be among the victims… But Mr. D’Souza’s article gave me a hint about where God hides when bad things happen: in little dark souls like Mr. D’Souza’.
Toni at 3:01PM on Aug 23rd 2007
334. Listen, I am an Atheist my self and I have so much to say on this subject.......about the Tech shooting praying to, as my 'beleif' states, non existant diety all day is not helping ANYONE. Dead or Alive. Wether yu are a beleiver or not you should take it upon yourself to ACT, not HOPE. I could push enormous amounts of science into this, but I will probably get attacked by other people, as Atheists ARE a minority and attacked for the beleifs, or lack there of.
Griffin at 1:47PM on Aug 24th 2007
335. DEAR LES,
IN RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT...
SURE, THOSE 'OTHER' GODS HAVE COME AND GONE, BUT SINCE BEFORE OUR SMALL BRAINS CAN COMPREHEND, PEOPLE HAVE BELIEVED IN GOD. THE REAL GOD, THE BIG GUY UP THERE WHO MADE YOU AND I, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU CURSE HIS NAME AND DENY THAT HE EXISTS, HE STILL LOVES YOU. YOU SHAKE YOUR HEAD AND ROLL YOUR EYES AT THAT FACT, LIKE I HAVE SEEN SO MANY DO, BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT SOMEONE WOULD LOVE YOU EVEN THOUGH YOU CLAIM TO HATE THEM. GOD'S LOVE IS BEYOND THE LOVE THAT WE AS HUMANS KNOW. WE CLAIM TO LOVE EACHOTHER, BUT LIE AND CHEAT AND STEAL, BELIEVING THAT IT WON'T HURT THOSE WE HAVE SAID TO HAVE LOVED. GOD'S LOVE EXTENDS BEYOND THAT. HE LOVES EVERYONE OF HIS CREATIONS, AND DOES SO NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO AGAINST HIM. HE CANNOT NOT LOVE US, AND THIS IS WHERE OUR MINDS FALL SHORT.
GOD ALLOWS THINGS LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE, AGAIN IN SOME WAY WE DON'T UNDERSTAND, IT IS FOR THE BETTER. IT MAY HAVE BROUGHT SOMEONE CLOSER TO GOD, OR SAVED SOMEONE'S LIFE. I CAN ONLY GUESS, AND WILL PROBABLY NEVER KNOW FOR SURE WHY HE DID IT. BUT THATS ALRIGHT. BECAUSE I HAVE A THING CALLED FAITH. I KNOW THAT NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON WAS, THERE WAS A REASON.
YOU SAY THAT TO THESE FAMILIES YOU WOULD OFFER COMPASSION, PATIENCE, A HUG, A SHOULDER TO CRY UPON, ETC. BUT WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW IT THAT MEANS NOTHING. YOU LEAD A GODLESS LIFE, AND OBVIOUSLY WITH OUT THE LOVE OF GOD IN YOUR HEART, SO THAT HUG THAT YOU WOULD OFFER UP, WOULD BE MEANINGLESS. IF OYU HAD THE LOVE OF GOD IN YOUR LIFE, YOU COULD OFFER THEM MORE THAN A SHOULDER, YOU COULD OFFER THEM WHAT I AM OFFERING YOU, AND WHAT GOD OFFERED TO ME, ETERNAL LIFE. NOW I THINK THAT SOUNDS SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN A HUG, DON'T YOU?
AND FINALLY, NO, I WILL NOT BE WAITING AROUND FOR ETERNITY. AND EVEN IF I DID, IVE GOT IT. THE END IS NEAR, JESUS WILL RETURN, AND IT WILL BE THOSE THAT CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IN HIM THAT WILL BE WISHING THEY HAD ETERNITY TO BE WITH HIM INSTEAD OF IN THE PIT OF HELL. I PRAY EVERYDAY FOR THE FAMILIES WHO LOST A LOVED ONE, EITHER AT V-TECH, OR AT COLUMBINE, LIKE I DID. I AM APPALLED A YOUR GUILELESSNESS. YOU SHOULD HAVE MORE RESPECT FOR YOUR CREATOR, AND IF NOT FOR HIM, FOR THOSE THAT YOU CLAIM TO HAVE "LOVING KINDNESS" FOR. I WILL CONTINUE TO PRAY FOR YOU, AND I HOPE THAT IN THE END, OR SOONER THAN LATER, YOU TURN YOUR LIFE TO GOD.
Paige at 11:55AM on Sep 5th 2007
336. I truly believe that Dinesh D'Souza is one of those right wing intellectuals that simply floated over the line into insanity. Have a good trip Diney and be happy.
Boots at 3:56PM on Sep 12th 2007
337. "We don't know why God does all that he does, but all of the believers can ask Him when we get to heaven."
Why don't you ask him now?
cenobite at 6:49PM on Oct 9th 2007
338. Yeah, the reason atheists aren't around is the fact nobody wants to hear that the dead might be in a nonexistence and would rather be comforted by thoughts of a heaven.
Zach Krugler at 10:58PM on Oct 16th 2007
339. First off, atheists are not some group like Christians are. Christians have shared beliefs, dogma and different sects. Atheism only has one tenant - disbelief in deities; there are no requirements beyond this, no dogma to accept. Just healthy skepticism and reason.
Anyway, look... If you want to subscribe to a world view that is logically untenable, then be my guest. But stop this bigotous hurf durf atheists are evil nonsense.
What people need after tragedies like this are each other, not religion. Expecting atheists to show up en masse and offer spiritual support is pretty damn stupid.
Justin at 6:30PM on Oct 17th 2007
340. How despicable you are for using such a tragedy as a pretext to attack your political opponents.
Talby at 6:00PM on Oct 18th 2007
341. In not one of these heated responses to this article has there been a single substantial challenge to D'Souza's main contention: there is no way that we can condemn anything tat anyone does when we start fro a materialist's premise like that of Dawkins - "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance ot its music". In one of his talks Dawkins came out with the following bewildering contradiction. He said that while as a citizen he condemns rape and paedophilia, as a biologist he has no choice but to ascribe them to DNA. Will someone in the materialist camp once and for all come up with an argument that has legs to stand on?? Dawkins also insists (when his back is against the wall) that it is possible for us to transcend our DNA. Can anyone explain a) how this is not a contradiction of his underlying premise that DNA is all there is? How can we transcend "all there is". b)What sort of upper-storey dimension is he referring to when he denies all such transcendence with his every breath? I've seen plenty of fuming and ranting in response to D'Souza's. What I expect in response to this restatement of his main thesis is something by way of argument, something that we theists can take on board and analyse for its explanatory merit. Just another "this kind of argument makes me sick" type of response I'm afraid will not do. I'm sure there are good arguments. Try them out on us!
Roger Marshall at 11:52AM on Oct 23rd 2007
342. Mr. Dinesh,
Where was Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit when bad things happened?
bao tran at 7:16AM on Oct 24th 2007
343. D'Souza apparantly didn't look at the countless, relief workers rescue squads, and medics, who rush to help without any thought of religion or god/gods. Atheists are hard to spot, interview and film because they're not all standing around in bunches at disaster scenes, holding candles and mumbling useless incantations to the sky.
Deke at 11:39AM on Oct 24th 2007
344. What a load of drivel. He's much better live, although still painfully incorrect.
Come on man: atheists don't deny the existence of what WE call 'evil' and 'good'. Those are simply the definitions WE humans give to things we consider hurtful or helpful to oour fellow humankind. And by the way, whether something increases or decreases suffering is also a good start for determing what morality IS, and it has requires no help from religion.
To Jacob (post 9): sorry, free choice doesn't explain a great deal of evil (i.e. the existence of suffering). What about earthquakes? Cancer? Lightning? Sickle-cell anemia? Mental retardation? Tornadoes? Tsunamis? Hurricanes? Elephantiasis? Malaria? I think you get the point. So don't go around talking about all evil being due to our free will - and while we're at it, I wouldn't call all the things I mentioned great examples of God's "eternal love" either.
This is a problem ONLY if you decide to believe in God.
If you accept that we're just here (and damn lucky to exist at all), then it's completely understandable that good things AND bad things happen. Some are due to choices we make, but many aren't. It's exactly what we would EXPECT in a universe not ruled by a God(s). So why look further?
An example: let's say you see an apple drop off a tree. What if I told you "I believe the apple was carried to the ground by the ghost of my dead grandfather". You woudl rightly reply: Um, gravity already explains it, so why make it more complicated? Sure, I can't PROVE it wasn't my grandfather, but damn it all, we already have an explanation for why things fall!
Same thing with the cosmos. Everything we know about the universe and ourselves is perfectly compatible with a naturalistic universe, so why believe there's a "ghost" behind it when we already have a good explanation? The things we don't understand yet aren't automatically "God".
Imagine if we were too stupid to know about gravity, so the falling apple would seem mysterious to us. Does that mean we should run around telling everyone it was the ghost of my grandfather who moved it to the ground? Of course not. We study it and think about how it could have happened, and until we don't know how it works, we simply reply "Sorry, I don't know yet." THAT's a good and honest answer.
phaseshift at 12:42PM on Oct 24th 2007
345. To Roger (post 341): it's not really that hard. What Dawkins means is that we are the results of several billion years of evolution by natural selection, which operates on our DNA. DNA is indeed lifeless and without morality - it's simply a bunch of nicely arrange atoms, and so are we. In that sense that's "all there is".
But of course at the same time, an extremely complex *arrangement* of something lifeless (DNA) can manifest itself as something alive. And we humans are SO complex that we have even evolved the ability to think ABOUT our thoughts! This is not something many animals can do (the apes can, to a much lesser degree). This nifty ability also allows us to think about OTHER people's likely thoughts - this is what we call *sympathy* or *empathy*.
This multi-level way of thinking is tied in closely to our more complex emotions (like love), morality, and even our sense of consciousness - our sense of "being" more than the sum of our lifeless parts. But it's an illusion in the sense that we ARE made up of lifeless atoms and YET they're arranged in such a way as to give rise to our thoughts. Quite amazing, but not miraculous or incomprehensible. It's a well known fact that complex arrangements of simple units can give rise to complicated behavior not seemingly related to the subunits. We're an ultimate example of this.
Carl Sagan said it best when he said that "we're a way for the universe to know itself". What began as lifeless (atoms, stars, galaxies, etc.) formed more and more complex structures in localized pockets of space, until the conditions making natural selection possible happened to arise on our planet 4.5 billion years ago. The result is a product of the universe (us) that's actually able to KNOW about how the stars and galaxies formed, to SEE to almost the beginning of the universe (13-15 billion years ago) with our telescopes, and so on. We're a small part of the universe studying itself!
This is how it's possible to say "DNA neither knows nor cares" and yet be perfectly able to say that we can transcend our instincts. Our brains give us the *self-knowledge* to understand WHY we have sexual and violent instincts, and thus make it easier for us to CHOOSE not to succumb to these urges if we feel like it. Morality is simply a word we invented that means "I agree to accept that it's nicer to live in a society where everyone tries to decrease rather than increase human suffering". Morality arises from the understanding that in order to live comfortable existences we ALL need to be generally "good" people. Imagine a society where everyone did what they felt like, period. We wouldn't be happy at all! Sure, we can rape and pillage, but so can others - so WE suffer too. We're smart enough to understand this, so we're usually "good", and BECAUSE it's not always easy, we're all the prouder when we DO manage - and that's it's own reward!
So you see, being a moral person isn't all that mysterious. It arises from our ability to think rationally about the consequences of various ways of behaving.
Does that answer the question?
phaseshift at 1:09PM on Oct 24th 2007