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 4 of 9)
46. Dear Mr D'Souza,
I am so grateful that we are separated by the atlantic ocean. Anything less and the stench of your vile bigotry would be overwhelming.
GeneMachine at 6:55AM on Apr 20th 2007
47. Dinesh, you owe atheists in general and Professor Dawkins specifically a sincere apology for your words. Most of all, you should apologize to the friends and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre.
You owe atheists an apology for characterizing us as uncaring wretches with no humanity. Do you think we don't know what it is like to suffer loss? Do you truly believe that we lack the capacity for pity, or a desire and ability to help others with their grief? Because this is the ugly, hateful message you are conveying.
You should apologize to Richard Dawkins for your blatantly and shamelessly misleading headline and taking statements made about "god" and "the universe" and applying them to PEOPLE.
You owe everyone who is grieving for the victims an apology for your complete lack of tact and consideration in exploiting this tragedy to spew your bigoted nonsense against atheists.
In the meantime, don't worry, I won't be holding my breath.
Robert Bell at 7:33AM on Apr 20th 2007
48. Never trust your dog to watch your dinner while you go do something.
Never trust an Atheist to offer you any kind of hope or comfort when you grieve.
And you who are Atheists, you can't have it both ways. If you do not believe there is a God, do not ask "Where was God when this happened?"
If you ask that question, obviously you do believe in Him, but have issues with how He runs things, which means you are not an Atheist at all, right?
Regards, and thanks for your blog, Dinesh. Well said.
Roger Born at 7:57AM on Apr 20th 2007
49. Shortly after becoming an atheist I lost my best friend. I was angry and bitter for a while. I thought that I would go through life enduring the pain of losing those I loved over and over again until it was me who died. Was this all I had to look forward to? Slowly I began to realize that his death had taught me something. Life is only valuable if it ends. Diamonds are valuable because they are rare. Life is too. We have it for a few precious years and it is gone forever. Thinking we have eternity in a better place really does cheapen this life. It makes it virtually meaningless. But knowing this is all we have makes it infinitely more valuable. Treasure your friends and family because they will one day die, or you will die. A mass shooting is a hard thing to understand. But ask the old man whose wife dies of cancer if it is any easier for him. Ask the parents of a war hero if their childs death was easier to cope with because they died serving a purpose. Death is painful to us all, and the reason, Dinesh, is that we all know it is permanent. You are right that I have no words to offer to take away the pain of those grieving for their friends and family. But I can point to those lives and say look what we had! ...even if only for a while...and point to those remaining friends and family and say...look at all that we have left, right here, right now, love each other today because tomorrow....well, love each otther today because we don't know about tomorrow.
Wayne at 8:13AM on Apr 20th 2007
50. Dawkins never said 'Get over it'.
Geez... what he was saying was in a book written before this happened, and taken out of context.
And here's what he'd say:
http://edge.org/documents/adams_index.html
Which is what he said when one of his friends died.
Atheists are capable of all the feelings everyone else is. They don't need faith to tell them to be sad or how to deal with a problem. We all have our ways of dealing, be it god, a good friend, or whatever, and everyone is different.
So, I say to you, 'Get over' the atheists and stop using them as a spring board for your propaganda.
Kimberly at 8:18AM on Apr 20th 2007
51. 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
52. Sean,
Namaste means something like, "May the divine in me salute the divine in you," according to my Yoga instructor (I go for the exercise, not for the religion, which is the new fad of the post-Christians in the West).
So if you don't believe in God, what is the divine stuff you are saluting?
I can respect atheists for their honest clarity of observation that God is not readily apparent in our lives. What I don't respect is their so obvious anger at those who do believe. Believers, for the most part, are willing to sacrifice for others because of God's commands. Atheists are inconsistent in being moral (where do they get their morals except derivitively from religion?). They should only grab for the most gusto and let lesser folk fall by the wayside because they only live once.
Believers give of themselves precisely because we we know that the Christian God expects this of us and will reward us with His presence and love eternally if we live according to His precepts. It is this service above and beyond the requirements of work for personal survival that adds to the comfort and delights of this otherwise harsh world.
Atheism, as practiced by its experts, totalitarians, is what made the 20th century a horror of concentration camps and killing fields.
Margaret at 9:21AM on Apr 20th 2007
53. you should be ashamed your yourself Mr D'Souza. You are trying to suck attention from this tradgedy. You are using this aweful circumstance as a way to stroke your own ego.
Religious people say "bad things happen, but there is still comfort in the world" Atheists say " Bad things happen, but there is still comfort in the world." An atheist is just as likely to offer condolences and help where needed, than any theist is.
Your making this tradgedy into an oppertunity to spew contempt is a sin.
Denise at 9:27AM on Apr 20th 2007
54. Mr. D'Souza,
Using the fresh corpses of 30+ murder victims as a soapbox to rail against a small minority of people, completely unrelated to the tragedy at hand is ghoulish. (Ghoulish was the kindest word I could come up with. Asshattery of the highest magnitude was the runner up.) How do you sleep at night? I know the Cons pay their shills well, but how many sleeping pills can one man take?
Emma> An Ad Hominem attack is a personal attack to discredit one's position. I.E. "Darwin beat puppies, so evolution is as wrong as beating puppies." or "Copernicus molested children, so anyone who agrees with heliocentrism is a child molester." From what I have read here, the overwhelming majority of the "pro-atheist" have responded to the accusations leveled against us politely. There has been some name calling, but no Ad Hominem attacks. Some _return_ name calling. Mr. D'Souza basically called all atheists unfeeling monsters. (Which would be an Ad Hominem attack. BTW)
Roger Born> Perhaps a peek at a dictionary (under rhetorical question) might enlighten you? You are also very liberal in granting yourself the authority to determine what questions people may or may not ask. Could you make a list of other things that us mean, misguided atheists can't ask? Thanks. [/sarcasm]
The gentleman who said that atheists didn't grasp the subtle points that Mr. D'Souza was making about what atheism necessarily entails> I find your arrogance 2nd only to Mr. D'Souza's in this. I think that someone living in (very Christian) America as an atheist has a much better working grasp of what logically entails from it than someone who only has a caricature in their mind. (formed by listening to people who only know the caricature themselves.)
People,
It is the 21st Century. If you want to base your lives on Bronze Age creation myths, fine. If you want the laws of our mutual country to be based on your Bronze Age creation myth, and determine what gets taught in our schools, what research is allowed, and every other thing imaginable, we have a problem.
Through out history, people have been rightly afraid to openly declare themselves atheist. However, at least in this part of the world, the tide has turned. You are no longer allowed to burn witches, pagans, appostates, and heretics. According to the last survey I read, almost 15% of the country was atheist. We're out of the closet, and we're not going to be quiet anymore.
I hope that someday, as a species, we can get over our "Invisible Man in the Sky" fixation. We are just not important enough, in the cosmic scheme of things, to warrant considering ourselves the center of everything. We are basically smart(ish) primates, who just a few thousand years ago figured out that rocks with metal in them melt and metal can be useful in making tools. 400 years ago, we were figuring out that the Earth revolves around the sun. People were made to recant on pain of torture. In the 200 years or so that we have had the Scientific Method our progress has been swift and steadily increasing. In the 2000 years of Christianity, we see nothing to equal it. Only when our minds are free to ask questions are we free to find answers.
In short: We're not inhuman monsters, just people. Sometimes we get a little snippy when we are called names by a for-hire hack. Many of us refuse to be silent anymore regarding our demonization. Religion is not a magic potion for pain. Rational thought has contributed more to the world and the betterment of it's people in 200 years than all the world religions have in the last 10,000.
Thank you for the chance to vent.
BE
BEpps at 9:27AM on Apr 20th 2007
55. Poor Margaret,
You seem to be blinded by faith. Atheists give of themselves because its the human thing to do, its the moral thing to do, its the right thing to do. Atheists do not give of themselves, unlike "Believers", because they expect a reward at a later time. To do right simply because a reward MIGHT be forthcoming doesn't sound very moral or humane.
Further, lets not try to drag around "Atheism as practiced by its experts..." unless you are willing to dive into more than 4,000 years of world history where the various religious sects have killed one another in the name of the favored god at that time: Crusades, Inquisition, Dark Ages, slavery as justified by the many religions throughout history... we could go on and on.
Scott at 9:57AM on Apr 20th 2007
56. To Margaret
"Atheists are inconsistent in being moral (where do they get their morals except derivitively from religion?)."
What????? Give us a break!
Go to the Library and read "How the mind works" by Steven Pinker!!!
Juliana at 9:57AM on Apr 20th 2007
57. Well, I can tell you where the atheists aren't-
They aren't ghoulishly co-opting this tragedy in order to spread lies and straw-man arguments that paint an entire class of people as nihilistic, emotionally dead shoulder-shruggers based on nothing more than a theological preference.
I'm curious, does it occur to you that it is very likely that any number of those grieving family members you are so callously turning into fodder for this little screed may well be these terrible unbelivers you hold in such disdain? That it is even possible that some of the victims of this madman- you you may remember him, the _actual_ bad guy in all this- that some of those self-same victims might in fact be atheists themselves?
And what do you, the oh-so-concerned spokesperson for all that is right, offer them? Besides taking all their very real pain, wadding it up, and discarding it as an irrelevant, impossible sham- because they don't believe in your god.
All under a headline that is nothing more than slander dressed up as cleverness.
But I will admit, you have shown us something important here- how some people can take any situation, no matter how awful, and twist it to serve whatever political purpose he wants, all through the mechanisims of willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.
Thankfully, I'm a big enough person to realize that these traits aren't necessarily characteristics shared by all those on your side of the theological divide. Just the failings of one very intolerant, smarmy little man.
TJ at 10:07AM on Apr 20th 2007
58. I am deeply saddened that we're even having this discussion.
There's so much tragedy occurring right now - from the deaths at VT, to the bombings in the markets in Iraq, to Darfur, to...well, to any one of the other innumerable horrors that the world has for us on any given day.
And yet, here we are, name-calling, and asserting that everybody else is some sort of heartless monster.
As a long-term atheist, I can say that my first reaction to any tragedy isn't "get over it." It's not "I'd better pray for them" either, of course. My first reaction is almost always "how can I help?" This is a question asked not just by atheists, not just by christians, jews, muslims, hindus, sikhs, shinto, jains, druze, buddhists, astartu, neopagans, or all the myriad faiths of the world. It's a question asked by humans.
Which, last I checked, we all were.
If you're an athiest, chances are you realize that life is short and there aren't second chances, so that means you've gotta help make the world a decent place for everyone in your short time here. If you're religious, you've got a spiritual commandment to do so. Regardless of the motivation, the end result should be the same - compassion, love, empathy.
Where was God? Where were athiests? Where was anybody? At this point, it's a moot question - it should be where can we all be, right now. What can we do to prevent tragedy? If we can't prevent it, what can we do to help those left behind? No one religion, nor one absence of religion, has a monopoly on empathy or action.
Eric at 10:08AM on Apr 20th 2007
59. Sorry, just saw this.
Margaret> I'm baffled. Where did you see anger for believers in this thread? If anything it is the other way around. Atheists are routinely demonized. When was the last time you saw a positive portrayal of an atheist on TV? A movie? When Imus was (rightly) criticized for his distasteful remarks, was he only reprimanded by black female athletes? No. It was by people of all races and religions. Because casual discrimination of black people is no longer fashionable.( Thank Gawd! [/irony]) When was the last time you heard anyone but an atheist speak up for atheists in general when we get bashed? Ever? This is because there is no stigma against bad-mouthing us. Try this experiment. Write a letter to the Editor of your local paper. "Atheists are morally reprehensible. They do not have the same values and ethics as us good god-fearing Americans. They are responsible for many of the horrors of the 20th century, and are ruining this country." Now change Atheist to Black, Jew, Hispanic, Muslim, or Gay. Which do you think would be printed?
Your conflation of religion and morality is pretty standard for a believer. Inappropriate and insulting, but standard. I could make several logical points about it, (crime statistics, poll information, etc.)but I wouldn't convince anyone who didn't already believe it. Just take it on faith (you seem to not have a problem with this) that we are moral people too. And which is better, doing something good just because, or doing it because the Magic Sky Fairy will torture you forever if you don't?
Your conflation of totalitarianism and atheism is also pretty standard. Wildly inaccurate, of course. Communism (which is the only dogmatically godless totalitarian system I know of.) merely substituted one harmful dogma with another. Rational thought will gather evidence and form conclusions based on it. Dogmatic thought will gather evidence to support their conclusions. Do you see why one has done so much more for humanity? The concentration camp crack was to my mind a Nazi reference. Hitler was a Catholic. He referenced god many times in his writings. Look it up. And the 20th century with all its horrors and tragedy is a walk in the park compared to any other period in history.
No anger, no hatred. Just fed up with being told I have to be an amoral soulless degenerate, because I chose, of my own free will, and after much deliberation, to reject the ancient myths that contradict all observed evidence and logic.
Peace
BE
BEpps at 10:26AM on Apr 20th 2007
60. Margaret,
There is no doubt that Mao and Stalin centralized their governments around human rule so their power could be absolute. Much like Akhenaton did in 1350 BC by being the first to centralize power around himself and one god, thus removing the power from the priesthood of pagans, and increasing his own. If you want to talk about Hitler, he was an occultist and religious.
Then we can talk about the atrocities committed by every two bit dictator in the second half of the 20th century – and there were tons. Some religious, some not.
But if we want to look at mess of today it’s a different story. Look around you. It’s all religious sentiments dominating our current tragedies, wars, and terror. In the middle ages and before it was all about religion too. Invoking the name of god to cause destruction is no more moral than killing in your own name.
Morality, (and I do shy away from that word as it has become twisted and foul in the hands of those who kill, maim and corrupt – I prefer calling myself ethical) is not god’s invention. It is the basic human decency. If you need a book to tell you this, that’s fine by me. I don’t need it. I learned these things from my parents.
The point for us is, we don’t believe in divine power. Most of us are familiar with the bible and it makes no sense to us. We won’t believe in a cruel god, who has annihilated vast groups of people starting with Noah. To us this is not divine retribution but the force of nature, or in most instances the arrogance of man.
We see people hating one another for the slight differences in beliefs, people warring over which god is right. Historically this has always been so. Groups and clubs band together and isolate each other. People overpopulate and expand. People want power, and they will invoke anything to get it.
What I don’t understand is why fundamentalist believers have so little respect for this world we live on. If god has created this place for mankind, why destroy it? Why bleed it dry? Why consume all its resources? Why insist on more people who can’t be loved and nurtured, so they will succumb to famine, disease or starvation or add bodies to more wars? Why create hell on earth?
I respect your right to believe in what you will, but I won’t respect anybodies right to propagate division, and this is what Mr. D’Souza is doing. He does not respect our rights. He is a Straussian hate monger, and needs to be called on that.
Joanna at 11:05AM on Apr 20th 2007