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 26 of 27)
376. 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
377. Mr. Dinesh,
Where was Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit when bad things happened?
bao tran at 7:16AM on Oct 24th 2007
378. 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
379. 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
380. 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
381. Ok, for all of you out there who continue to question God's love or power to stop tragedies and major catastrophies from happening. We were created with our own will to chose our actions and beliefs, so God won't stop anyone from making a bad choice even if it hurts someone unless that person asks him to intervene and stop it, which would never happen. Once a killer has decided to murder, he won't ask God to step over his will and stop it. If God did prevent evil from happening we'd be his toys, making us do whatever HE wanted, we would'nt even have the need to believe in HIM or be saved, because God decides for you. We would have no will of our own, can't you see that. I guess if you stopped to ask God to reveal himself to you, you would understand. He never turns away from ANYONE that seeks him. I hope you will do this. You have so much to gain and nothing to lose if you discover the truth. It's worth your time and you can't really say there is no God if you have not seeked him with all your heart being open to the possibility. God Bless.
Adriana at 3:47PM on Oct 27th 2007
382. I would respect atheists who are self-convinced atheists, based on extensive studies of the subject of faith. In other words, they know very well both sides of the issue. Unfortunately most atheists only have a perfunctory knowledge of religion in general, and little or no understanding of the Christian faith.Futhermore, they accept darwinism as a fait accompli when it isn't.They know little or nothing of Quantum Physics theories, so they have reverence for "science" only.
If you wnat ot be an atheist, I suggest educate yourself in biology, bio-chemistry, physics, history, religions, arts, music,astronomy and then decide for yourself where the truth lies.
I used to an atheist when I was 13! By the time I was 30, I firmly believed that this world was designed by a higher entity than I, and can never fully comprehend, but seek to understand; an entitity that is not limited by space and time as I am, and who is infinitely wiser than I could ever be in my physical existence. I am an open minded spiritual person, who got herself convinced of the truth of the why of our being here, being created for a purpose known only to our Creator.
If you read the holy scriptures of any faith you will be able to understand the reality of evil as part of physical existence, as a tool to perfect each and every thinking homo sapiens.
Ann Szafko at 1:49AM on Nov 1st 2007
383. I would respect Religious people who are self-convinced religious people. Not because your parents or guardians or anyone made you go to church, but because you one day had an epiphany and your religion just "came" to you (like that would ever happen).
If you are going to be religious, you should educate yourself in Biology, History (as the earth is not 10,000 years old and was NOT made in 7 days hahahaha - that alone is sooo ridiculous... furthermore, the idea of a woman coming from a man's rib is laughable to say the least, if not utterly insane).
Maybe learn about other religions, so they can laugh at the crazy ideas muslims, mormons, jews have ... because everybody's religion is wrong except mine (after all, it can't possibly be any other way - says your religion).
Lastly, religious people should question why their creator would allow innocent people to die, children to be mutilated, burned alive, tortured, and why prayer doesn't grow back limbs ... question what exactly is this plan he/she/it has ... and if there is a plan ... it sounds a little bit crazy, it doesn't make any sense.
I used to believe in god, when I was small ... then as I've grown and my intellect has developed, I stopped believing in the tooth fairy, Santa .... and of course ... these ideas that religious scriptures term "god"
Jesus Christ at 2:03PM on Nov 7th 2007
384. to 347, speciation is a fait accompli for the past 100 years or so and the literature is so abundant it's unremarkable.
How does creation science account for it?
Dinesh is doing battle with the same old straw man he projects and names 'atheist' and wonders why it doesn't show up somewhere.
Dinesh's battle as always is with science and information.
Wow, looky here!
"If you wnat ot be an atheist, I suggest educate yourself in biology, bio-chemistry, physics, history, religions, arts, music,astronomy and then decide for yourself where the truth lies."
Well, I've done my best. Ill have to leave a lot out, but.....
I have an undergrad degree in biology (itertidal invertebrate physiology), I was a doctoral fellow in biochem, my physics reeks beyond standard classical mech but I follow cosmology, especially m-theory and try to muddle along, I've been offered a position in a college teaching music but had a busy road schedule at the time.
I lost my ability to draw well when I began concentrating on music, but if it's musical to be able to play a couple dozen choruses including head of Charlie Parker tunes like Donna Lee fingerstyle on guitar at around the original tempo, or Countdown or giant steps, and if I know that 'oh be a fine girl kiss me right now sweetheart is in order of DESCENDING heat', if I research the secular scholarship that verifies or debunks biblical history before forming an opinion, if I know what a calabi yau manifold is, and what physicists say caused the big bang, if I can play scriptural volleyball with you and know about human chromosome #2, if I know why there are just four gospels and who said so and, oh yeah, can state godel's incompleteness theorem and know what entangled matter is and still have a wicked yoko tobi geri at 64 and I know but won't tell who killed cock robin, can I pleeeeeze decide for my self where the truth lies? pleeeeeeeeeze?
Ma'am, You have an unusual way of doing it, but yer just barkin' thru the fence.
Clif Kuplen at 4:02PM on Nov 7th 2007
385. Wow Dinesh! It seems you've got the hornet's nest stirred up at the liberal universities (perhaps). For it seems to me that most of the responses to this blog must be inspired by the 'nutty professors' encouraging their unquestioning students to respond at your site. I mean, I'm reading many of the same tired questions I had to endure while at a popular state university in the early 90's. ie, how could there be evil if there is an all-powerful, loving god? The obvious answer (outside of the campus) is that the destruction of evil would be the destruction of all - for all are evil when compared to a holy God; so evil is "tolerated" for a time (in Christianity, "evil" has already been condemned and the judgment of death was transferred to the Messiah, Jesus.)
I mean, it seems to me that many of these comments and questions aren't genuine. The comments sound like quotes repeated by unquestioning scribes who reiterate what they hear without giving much open, honest thought to the faith of atheism.
One blogger comments as such: "why do you suddenly hear from opportunistic zealots who only seek to push their own agenda when bad things happen"? ... and then continues with, "... But opportunistic zealots who take a national tragedy and use it to promote their own religious agenda do."
This person is obviously ignorant of the tactics employed by the Faithful in Congregation of Atheism. As though he/she doesn't see atheists using the oppression of the Islamic Militants as a "proof" of the hostility of *all* religions and/or religious people.
The point of your article is clear: atheism has no place for mourning or consolation, and faithful atheists are not compelled to help the weak, the poor, or the distraught. I had an atheist ecology professor who once said to me that the best thing we could do for the starving in Africa would be to let them die, for when they were all dead, we would no longer have a population problem to deal with. *This* is the morality of the religious zealots of atheism.
Keep on Dinesh! I started "What's so great about Christianity?" yesterday and am very refreshed to hear someone make sense.
I might suggest to some of the bloggers that you read Dinesh's book. I heard him speak on the Michael Medved show, and he really does have reasoned answers to your comments and questions. His tone is not at all inflammatory or pugnacious.
Brian Phillips at 1:01PM on Nov 11th 2007
386. First off - let me say that I completely agree with others who feel that Dinesh D'Sousa was very much out of line with his attempts to turn the VA Tech tragedy into an excuse to mount an obtuse attack on atheism.
I found this blog and this thread accidentally, after a Google search. Up until now, I have read very little from Mr. D'Sousa. While reading material on Richard Dawkin's website I saw a post referring to how eagerly D'Sousa was pursuing an opportunity to engage Richard Dawkins in a debate on religion. Evidently, D'Sousa and his cadre of pseudo-intellectuals are distressed at the modest amount of attention being given lately to rationalists and non-believers like Dawkins and Sam Harris. What really surprised me, was the neat assortment of strawmen D'Sousa placed into his missive. From a ridiculous mis-characterization of atheism itself to the portrayal of a non-believers view of pain and suffering as "molecules acting upon other molecules" ??? Mr. D'Sousa, I think you have been given way too much credit as an effective intellectual ambassador for the conservative Christian viewpoint. You have an impressive educational resume, but your logic wouldn't pass muster on a 5th grade debate team. The more I read you, the less impressed I am. This latest piece of self-serving tripe only serves to reinforce my opinions. If I still believed in a god, I might wish to thank him for steering me clear of your ridiculous books. As for your longing for a debate with Dawkins, I doubt you will get the privilege to debate him, but if you do, expect to be humbled. Of course, with 5th grade logic and a friendly bible college hosting the debate, you might delude yourself into thinking you had 'intelligently designed' a victory. Again, I am sorry to digress (my contempt for Mr. D'Sousa runs deeper than I thought) ..my thoughts and sincere sympathy go out to everyone affected by the VA Tech tragedy. Atheists are for the most part a low-key minority, but we are quite human, despite the subtle vitriol of a conservative hack.
John Daniel at 11:57PM on Nov 22nd 2007
387. To all those people using the same tired and flawed logic that God allows evil because he gave humans free will doesn't quite fit with "acts of God" like floods, fires and earthquakes.
As God made the universe and the Earth, that means He also created natural disasters, so therefore God is evil.
Peter at 2:20AM on Dec 6th 2007
388. D'souza needs to dry up and blow away.
where was your christian god when the bullets were flying?
where were all the other faiths omnipotent deities when the bullets were flying?
why weren't the dead "magiced" back to life after the killings by the multitude of available gods?
why not holy intervention?
rational thinking people know why.
using this tragedy to justify a baseless point of view is a disgrace and shows you for what you really are, a sad deluded little man without the courage of his convictions to maintain the religion he born into.
is the catholic god so much better than the indian one?
mark65 at 5:25AM on Dec 10th 2007
389. Ok, for all of you out there who continue to question Golf's love or power to stop tragedies and major catastrophies from happening. We were created with our own will to chose our actions and beliefs, so Golf won't stop anyone from making a bad choice even if it hurts someone unless that person asks him to intervene and stop it, which would never happen. Once a killer has decided to murder, he won't ask Golf to step over his will and stop it. If Golf did prevent evil from happening we'd be his toys, making us do whatever HE wanted, we would'nt even have the need to believe in HIM or be saved, because Golf decides for you. We would have no will of our own, can't you see that. I guess if you stopped to ask Golf to reveal himself to you, you would understand. He never turns away from ANYONE that seeks him. I hope you will do this. You have so much to gain and nothing to lose if you discover the truth. It's worth your time and you can't really say there is no Golf if you have not seeked him with all your heart being open to the possibility. Golf Bless.
bmmcardle at 7:34PM on Dec 12th 2007
390. What we have here is the failure to communicate. Those who do not believe insist on logical proof; those who do believe insist that "You must believe to see." There really is no way to change the minds and hearts of the other side.
Discounting the nutjob extremist comments that have been posted here, it is clear that proponents on either side of the faith debate are apparently unable to understand the evidence presented by the other side. The arguments that essentially say that "God loves us so he gives us the choice to do good or evil" seem nonsensical to non-believers and does little to explain how the innocent victims were benficiaries of compassionate love.
Equating atheists to thoughtless molecules denies the caring Humanism that is demonstrated by many people who do believe in any god.
Jefferson, the author of the Declaration Of Independence rejected the divinity of Jesus, scriptual authority of the Bible and did not believe that God intervenes in human affairs. I think that if he were alive today, Jefferson would also reject the assumption that if you are a True Believer then God will help your team beat the piss out of the opponents.
Diogenes at 2:43PM on Dec 12th 2007