The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
--Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden
And boy the atheists are up in arms! They're mad as hell about my post "Where is Atheism When Bad Things Happen." Many responders informed me that tragedies are normally considered a problem for religion, not atheism. Where is God when bad things happen? Yes, people, I know this. My point was that if evil and suffering are a problem for religion--and they are--they are an even bigger problem for atheism.
The reason is suggested from the quotation given above. When there is a tragedy like the one at Virginia Tech, the ones who are suffering cannot help asking questions, "Why did this have to happen?" "Why is there so much evil in the world?" "How can I possibly go on after losing my child?" And so on.
In my post I noted that Richard Dawkins had not been invited to address the mourners at Virginia Tech. Several atheists--who haven't yet lost their fundamentalist habit of reading--took this sarcastic statement literally. "So what? The Pope hasn't been invited either!" My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it. This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances. If someone started to read from Dawkins on why there is no good and no evil in the universe, people would start vomiting or leaving.
One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel. I'm not being facetious here. I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers.
Reader Comments ( Page 3 of 10)
31. Mr. D'Souza -
I have a certain respect for your listed intellectual achievements, since you have attained a place in the Hoover Institution, which will reward many types of thought, including my old friend William Mandel, one of the first of the Hoover Fellows, a confirmed communist and atheist, and a renowned analyst of Russian politics and economics.
I suspect you are trying a little too hard to burnish your conservative credentials by slamming atheists in general. Perhaps you are not aware that there is a considerable Humanist community in the Stanford area, which meets regularly. I'm sure they'd be glad to have you over for a friendly (they're always friendly) debate or speech or whatever you'd desire. I don't think they would pay you, but you could consider a community service for this gratuitous and thought-free slam at people who obviously are more capable of thinking about the world than you are.
Or you can hide in your ivory tower, slaying your conservative windmills, with Rush as your Sancho Panza. Someday, however, your pride in thought will bite your ass, and you'll do an Arianna. It happens. It's a good thing.
Cheers. Vaya con Dios. If you can ever get a sliver of evidence that she exists. I never have.
Ormond Otvos
Ormond Otvos at 12:41AM on Apr 20th 2007
32. Margret - you want to see hateful - you should see what I had originally wrote in response to this bull before I decided to tone it down.
So you think his question was honest? The fact that his post - both this and the original one - are filled with inaccuracies aside make it less than so.
Here is the transcript of Giovanni's remarks:
We are Virginia Tech.
We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning.
We are Virginia Tech.
We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again.
We are Virginia Tech.
We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy.
We are Virginia Tech.
The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness.
We are the Hokies.
We will prevail.
We will prevail.
We will prevail.
We are Virginia Tech.
-----
Where is the deep religious references? Seem to me this is a perfect example of a secular attempt at bringing people together during this tragedy - something D'Souza said wasn't possible, thus destroying his original point.
Eric Thut at 12:44AM on Apr 20th 2007
33. Wow! I'm absolutely flabbergasted that after the amount of incredibly reasoned responses this moron got, that he continues to use this tragedy to attack atheists. He apparently is incapable of changes his stance on this issue, regardless of how much of an idiot he makes out of himself in the process. He takes stubbornness to an entirely new and absurd level.
I'm honestly flabbergasted at this.
Appalled at 1:31AM on Apr 20th 2007
34. Just how stupid do you have to be to work at Stanford? Does he really think that there are no atheist funerals? If a family member of D'Souza is reading this, you do realize that a lack of empahty for others who appear to be different is a form of pyschosis?
Card Carrying . . . at 1:41AM on Apr 20th 2007
35. I'm not sure if you'll actually read this or not, but I hope that you do, because I'll tell you right now that I am going to have a different reply than what I see above. I am not going to point out that you have insulted atheists or tell you how offended I was at your comments. Instead, I'm actually going to answer your question.
First, we'll get the basics out of the way. Hi, my name is Sean, and I'm an atheist.
When a tragedy such as this occurs, most people turn to prayer. Even as I type these words, there are probably people praying for the victims of the VT shootings... but I am not one of them. Prayer has been shown not to work both scientifically, and logically. It does nothing aside from making those who are doing the praying feel better about themselves because it might help them to cope by making themselves feel as though it is accomplishing something. I wish it did, but it doesn't.
So what do I do instead of praying? How do I cope and what can I do for these victims and their families? Well, for starters, I've long since come to the realization that two hands working do more than a thousand clasped in prayer... and so, I work.
Yesterday, I sat down and I wrote letters. These were not letters of prayer, mind you, as those sent by the campus ministry members of my college to be placed in front of a building at VT were. Instead, these were letters to my congressmen, my senators, and my governor, explaining some of my opinions on why there need to be more restrict hand gun control... a difficult task in its own right for a staunch conservative such as myself.
It might also be important to note that I did not even mention the VT shootings, aside from in my opening remarks which went as follows: "Recent events have compelled me to write this letter, though it should be noted that I had come to these conclusions long ago". (Tempting as it was, making martyrs of those who do not know the cause is unethical. A shame, then, that so many others have already begun to do this.)
As Kurt Vonnegut (a fellow skeptic whose death I had to mourn just a short while ago) used to say, "So it goes..." Bad things are bound to happen. Tragedies are bound to happen. There is no transcendent "why" to the matter. The best that we can do, being the paranoid little apish creatures that we are, is not to "move on" as you proposed I might suggest in your article... but to progress. Whenever we find ourselves confronted by something as small and inconvenient as a bad day or something as grand and tragic as what we are discussing now, the best thing that we can do is learn from what happened and progress.
We must address the problem, we must assess the problem, and we must take steps so that we might progress from this problem.
Again, candlelight vigils and prayers simply aren't pragmatic... they might allow some sense of comfort to those mourning the events, but it does no more than talking to a counselor or friend or even writing a blog or journal entry on the subject.
We don't need more prayers right now, but rather, a realization that, if there are still high school and college students bringing guns to campuses and schools... and that it is this shocking to us still, then perhaps this we need to focus on the issue some more.
Well, there are this atheist's thoughts on the subject. I hope that I've made my case that atheists do not simply "C'est la vie" our way through tragedies. We mourn just as those who pray do, we just try to be practical about it.
Learn from tragedy, grow from tragedy, and progress.
Namaste... after all, we're all made of the same star stuff,
- Sean
Sean Goff at 8:21AM on Apr 20th 2007
36. Mr. D'Souza,
I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with you. I'm especially awed by the ad hominem attacks you seem to draw in your comments - kudos. When the best argument against your (accurate, timely, spot-on) post is to question your intellect and call you a moron, you've obviously hit a nerve. It's not that atheists don't have their own ways of responding to tragedy, or that a secular approach could not be comforting and uniting. In my opinion, as you stated, the power of religion is that it typically offers the greatest chance to heal. I'm not an atheist and I don't profess to be an expert on the subject or the accompanying variety of viewpoints, but I am a Christian, and as such, I am aware of the present and historical comfort inherent in placing one's faith in a higher power. Obviously, everyone who was at all affected by the shootings at Virginia Tech is entitled to grieve in whichever manner brings them the most solace. However, for the purpose of a public service held for the mourners, there is a reason why traditionally, these events incorporate a Judeo-Christian viewpoint. It generally provides the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people, religious or secular, and during a time of grief, what could be wrong with that?
Emma at 2:11AM on Apr 20th 2007
37. Dear Sun God (That's what your name means in Sanskrit, right?)
As an Indian and a Mumbaikar (resident of Mumbai, formerly Bombay), let me congratulate you on your choice of leaving for the US of A. We shall remain grateful (some believers may even be eternally grateful) for your choice of clearing out of India. We could do with one fundamentalist less. India's gain is USA's loss, though, and my condolences to the Americans.
"I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers."
Most of us, religious or otherwise, would keep quiet, humbled by the tragedy and offer a shoulder to cry. Most would certainly not use an occasion like this for foisting narrow, inhuman agendas, nor would we try to win brownie points. Let's just say, Dinesh, you are not a part of the solution. Before you accuse me of the same, I have made a humble attempt at my blog for the solution. Try to be human once in a while, Dinesh...that might help you appreciate others.
Nandan Pandit at 2:21AM on Apr 20th 2007
38. You follow up a really dumb, unfounded, illogical post with a restatement of it? How you have a job is beyond comprehension. You write a blog post calling atheists out as unfeeling, uncaring human beings, and then you chuckle with surprise when they call you (rightly) an idiot. It's the stamp of lunatic psychology the Right loves to peddle to itself: if I call people names and they get irate, I must be on to some personal flaw they have in their character! Here's a question: what's the sum of 2+2?
Look, you obviously want to get in on Coulter's game. Save yourself the trouble; it's not a very high mark at all you are shooting for. You apparently need some excuse to peddle your lame, incoherent opinions about other people. What better time than a mass murder on a campus of learning and growth? While you and the likes of Thompson, Limbaugh, Schlussel et al are wasting your time drumming up support for your petty social wars, real people are mourning their dead. People have questions about why this happened, but the question they've never asked is whether atheism is to blame. It's highly improbable that it is, since Mr. Hui invoked Christ's name in his suicide tape. But I guess you didn't feel troubled enough to consider that.
Prejudice and supposition of the kind you and the conservatives in this country practice with abandon are what's wrong with America. I'm glad November 2006 was a step in the right direction, and I hope it continues.
BlueIndependent at 2:53AM on Apr 20th 2007
39. I remember the wise words of Jesus when he was asked about innocent people killed in a horrible tragedy.
Luke 13:4-5 'Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.'
When do atheists offer similar words of comfort for the distressed and bereaved?
Never. That shows you how morally bankrupt atheism is.
Steven Carr at 3:15AM on Apr 20th 2007
40. What would I, as an atheist, tell a grieving mother?
The more accurate question is, what DID I, as an atheist tell a grieving Christian mother?
About three years ago, the young son of a neighbor was killed by a falling tree in a nearby state park. Read about it here:
http://www.backcountry.net/arch/at/0406/msg00204.html
While I did not know the child well, my young daughter played with him regularly. He was a great smart kid. I have his photo here on my desk---an amazing photo. And his parents are great people.
I was distraught.
The entire community was distraught.
The funeral was one of the most wrenching experiences I've ever witnessed...yet the mother was so incredibly strong, even able to crack a couple of jokes as she spoke at the podium. I'm quite confident that it was her religious belief that gave her strength and hope that she would meet him again. I know that, if I had been in her place, I would have been a basket case, and probably angry at someone or something.
But this was a perfect case where there was no real human "free will" responsible for the tragedy. Like an earthquake, tsunami, mudslide or other great natural disaster, a loving, all-powerful God could have intervened. But no. He was asleep at the wheel.
About a week or two after the funeral, the mother walked over to my house when I was washing my car in the driveway. Knowing my atheist perspective, she asked me, "Why do you think it happened?"
Looking her in the eyes, and trying to maintain my composure, I replied, "I think it was simply lousy, lousy, lousy, lousy luck." She accepted that. No great debates or heavy philosophy. And we are friends to this day.
The good news is that she has a new baby boy, and her other kids are doing great.
Okay, D'Souza, I complied with your request. Now what? How about a response?
How about an apology?
Or shall we push to have you Imus-ed by AOL and your publisher?
Carl at 3:38AM on Apr 20th 2007
41. "One clever writer informs me that atheists don't deny meaning, they simply insist that meaning is not inherent in the universe, it is created by us. Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us. "
Oh, please, stop insulting our intelligence. This guy didn't mean that humans can create meaning in _any_ situation. He said nothing of the sort. What he meant was that whatever meaning there _is_, humans created. Do you really need this explained to you? Or is it just that your position is so weak you can't support it without relying on deliberate distortion?
And, by the way, is sarcasm really the only weapon you can come up with against atheist arguments? Is your point of view that indefensible? (Personally, I think so, although I'd relish the chance for better debate than you have provided.)
"My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it."
Why should it have something to offer by way of emotional solace? Does that make it untrue, because it doesn't? No, it just makes it uncomfortable at times. Sorry.
"This is why the ceremonies were suffused with religious rhetoric. Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy."
Okay, that is 100% accurate so far...
"Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances"
...and then you go leaping off the deep end again. This is a complete misrepresentation. "Only God"? So in pre-Judeo/Christian times, nobody's heart was ever healed in times of tragedy? What about Zeus? What about Odin? What about the Mayan gods? Did they have the power to heal hearts of their believers in times of tragedy? So, if so, are you arguing that they also existed and were true gods, just as much as the currently popular one? Or is it that what you really mean to say is, "Only Belief in God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances"? In that case, then, it is the belief that's important, not the object of the belief. And believing something doesn't make it true...
And, if you do mean "Only belief in God has the power..." then yes, I agree with you. You are 100% right that religion helps people through these times while Atheism seems not to be as comforting. Your statement that reading reading Dawkins at a memorial would have people "vomiting", while overdramatic, is basically along correct lines. However, that doesn't imply there's a problem with Dawkins or his beliefs. Because people don't like it, or aren't comforted by it, that makes it untrue? How a reputable academic could make that leap is beyond me.
People need myths, because the thought that the universe may be meaningless and indifferent is too much to bear, especially during a tragedy. But this DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT TRUE. The universe does not bend and alter its truths to suit the psychological needs of its inhabitants. There are a multitude of other biological or evolutionary reasons why man might have an emotional nature that wants to believe there is an overriding intellect guiding the universe, beginning with the simple fact that hope has survival value, whereas hopelessness does not. But, again, this doesn't mean that there is any truth at all to the things that are hoped for - just that the biological propensity towards having hopeful myths works in favor of living longer & reproducing more.
I can't believe I need to explain these things to a Stanford professor, (and a guy esteemed enough to have such a high-profile forum for his ideas.) Is a good vocabulary, bereft of elementary reasoning skills, all it takes to be considered intellectual nowadays? The state of education in this country is deplorable.
Also, one more news flash for you: athiests mourn. Athiests deal with tragedy and emotions and grieve and heal. I never met a human being who coldly told someone who was mourning a human tragedy, "C'est la vie. Get over it." (And if I did, I don't think atheism would spring to my mind as chief among their problems.) If you had said, "Athiesm has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy" you would have been 100% accurate. But you went on to fabricate, "except C'est la vie... Get over it." That sentiment is simply a fabrication on your part - It is not a reasonable extrapolation from Dawkins' statement, it's a baseless negative aspersion, and nobody said it but you. You are 'putting words in atheism's mouth', so to speak, in order to demonize atheism, by insinuating that saying nothing about some sort of cosmic reason for a tragedy somehow equates to saying "Get over it" to a mourner - which would be a very cruel act indeed. I can certainly see why you do not like this imaginary atheism you have dreamed up. Now maybe you could present some real arguments against the real athiesm, if there are any.
The fact that you have to deliberately distort the meaning of people's statements, rely on emotionally-based arguments and leap to unsupported conclusions to support your points really reflects poorly on your intellect, man. I find it confusing, as you're obviously very intelligent.
And finally, I can answer your final question, and tell you exactly what an atheist would tell the grieving mothers: because I recently had to say something to a grieving mother who lost her son in a tragedy. Here's what an athiest would say: "I know I can't begin to imagine the horrible pain of losing a child. My heart is with you in this unimaginable tragedy. If there's anything at all I can offer you by way of help or comfort, please let me know. If not, please accept my most heartfelt condolences on this horrible loss. An dplease know that I loved your son, he was loved by all his friends and he made a difference in the life of every person he met." Sorry if you feel that's somehow lacking or heartless, or a little too much like "C'est la vie. Get over it." I'm sure you'll describe it that way, if that's what you need to do to advance your arguments... unfortunately for you, though, real Atheism doesn't change itself in response to what you need to believe it to be, any more than the truths of the universe are determined by your need to believe in a deity.
You know what, I met a religious man who I had a lot of respect for. He said, "I am not going to try to defend my belief to you rationally. It is not reasonable. It's faith. I have faith, and that's it." He was impervious to rationale, and he was unapologetic about that, and it made perfect sense to me, it was self-consistent and I had a lot of respect for him and his resolution and clarity. We had the quintessential "agreement to disagree" with no need for further debate. You folks who try to defend your superstitions with some sort of pseudo-sense, you I just don't get. If you're going to be irrational and superstitious, be irrational and superstitious and cop to it. Trying to rationally defend the irrational is bad form, all it does is highlight your blind spots.
Tony at 4:51AM on Apr 20th 2007
42. Some people have said that being an atheist doesn't mean that you lack morals or values. I'd go further. If your basis for deciding what is right or wrong or good or bad is simply that God or whatever said so, then that is completely without substance. For example, is the statement that we shouldn't kill people because the bible says so more robust than saying that we shouldn't kill people becuase they have hopes and dreams and desires etc. like us. Following moral dictates, without more, does not make one moral.
jspicoli at 4:29AM on Apr 20th 2007
43. Wow, brilliant. Atheists cannot offer any spiritual comfort. Groundbreaking. What are you going to tell us next? That Zoroastrians can't offer any advice on life insurance? Are you sure you even know what Atheism is? It's not an alternative religion, it's not a unifying philosophy of life, it's just the absence of a belief in God. THAT'S IT. It's not SUPPOSED to be a source of comfort.
What is it with you and this need to find comfort? Wouldn't alcohol or cocaine do an even better job than religion? OR How about just letting yourself experience some pain? After all it is a tragedy. You fancy yourself as an anti-feminist. Hey, then why don't you act like a man and grow a pair? Pal. Don't go running to your fairy tale every time something on TV makes you sad.
I realize you probably just saw what happened at Virginia Tech and you thought to yourself "hey how can I offend people with this?" If you're going to pull this kind of crap, at least do a proper job of it. This is just a half-assed effort. I'm not even sure you believe this stuff yourself.
Simon at 4:46AM on Apr 20th 2007
44. What an asshole!
Edtarboosh at 4:57AM on Apr 20th 2007
45. "Only the language of religion seems appropriate to the magnitude of tragedy. Only God seems to have the power to heal hearts in such circumstances."
you are right, god really does seem tailor-made to ease humanity through the hardships of disaster and death. it's almost as if god sprang forth directly from the depths of our fear and the limits of our understanding, armed with the simplest of answers to all our unanswerable questions, and offering eternal comfort to those in the deepest need.
of course, without such fear and mystery, we might have no need for god at all. in fact, if death didn't exist, it would be necessary for god to invent it.
jmc at 5:20AM on Apr 20th 2007