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 8 of 10)
106. Capitalizing on a horrific tragedy: Check. Complaining about those with the temerity to reject an obviously failed concept (that there exists an invisible, omnipotent, omnibenevolent force that can, yet for some reason never does, prevent suffering): Check. Bald-faced lies about those selfsame people: Check.
Dinesh D'Souza had better hope that the god he believes in is a gibbering, sadomasochictic arson fiend shitting his pants, setting kittens on fire just to hear them scream, and jacking off to kiddie porn all at the same time. If it is anything besides that, D'Souza stands no chance of ever seeing past Heaven's security gate.
Twat-Shaped Grimace at 11:31PM on Apr 20th 2007
107. I don't know what's worse: the fact that Dinesh D'Souza is using the Virginia Tech tragedy to advance his anti-atheist platform, or the fact that he flat-out lied when he claimed that Richard Dawkins sent a "message to mourners," telling them to "get over it." No such thing was said, at all. It simply did not happen. Many people who have replied here have pointed out that Dawkins has given heartwarming eulogies in the past. Other writers have noted that Dawkins never said "get over it" to any mourners. This is just appalling.
Atheists feel just as much pain as theists, and atheists can and do provide solace and condolences to others who mourn the loss of loved ones. It's simply not true to say that atheists don't care, or can't empathize.
It's been somewhat disheartening to see my fellow atheists resort to insults and name-calling in their replies here, but, Dinesh D'Souza has been spreading falsehoods and bigotry against atheists in his recent blogs. When faced with sheer idiocy, I guess it's ok to point it out.
To fabricate pure lies about someone you don't agree with is simply appalling. I hope that people are reading these comments and learning that D'Souza lied about Dawkins in this blog. It's stunning.
Janice at 7:36AM on Apr 21st 2007
108. crying the spring rain
the jester shames the fallen
and the faithless pray
Devil's Chaplain at 8:03AM on Jun 23rd 2009
109. There is love even where there is not faith. Where there is love, there is empathy. And where there is empathy, there is peace, because if I were to strike you, it would be as if I had struck myself. When I focus on the things we have in common, I find new reasons to love and I forget to hate.
VulcanMike at 3:32AM on Apr 21st 2007
110. D'Souza, have you learned anything from reading the posts in this thread?
I doubt it.
Stanford University shouldn't even allow you on campus.
drettmann at 5:53AM on Apr 21st 2007
111. First off, I would like to say that I am not an atheist.
I am a theist.
I believe in a god, an omnipotent being, etc...
And I find D'Souza disgusting.
Dinesh D'Souza, you are a bigot. You disrespect and vilify other peoples' beliefs except those that mimic your own. You make blind assumptions, seeing only those things you want to see and twist them for your own purposes. You are a hypocrite. You are the very demon that you claim atheists to be: heartless, condescending and foolish.
You disgust me, you digust god, and you disgust everyone.
Levi at 6:11AM on Apr 21st 2007
112. So what do religious people say to comfort people after a disaster? Well, here are the two classic responses you get from them:
1. It was part of God's plan (this is equivalent to "get over it" - God decided that your children should die and it was part of his plan so you should get over it)
2. God did it to punish the victims/society because they practiced premarital sex, abortion and tolerated homosexuality.
Yeah, real sympathetic.
Chris at 10:06AM on Apr 22nd 2007
113. I'm sorry Dinesh but after reading this post I have totally lost respect for your views. Never before have I seen an author of your caliber literally put words in other's mouths the way you have here.
"C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it."
Please. Not a single atheist is saying this about the VT tragedy. Please stop using this as a platform to lambast atheism and promote your religious intolerance.
I suggest you read more about atheism because you obviously have no clue what it is.
Tony G. at 9:47AM on Apr 21st 2007
114. Wow Dinesh, looks like hardly anyone agrees with your pathetic views. You have absolutely no concept of atheism and it truly shows here.
Now please, wipe that geeky smile of your face, put your glasses on backwards, and walk into yourself.
Brad at 10:00AM on Apr 21st 2007
115. "My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie."
I think your problem here is that u treat atheism like a religion, just because we don't believe in a "god" or "gods" it doesn't mean that we cant show compassion or hope for the future, if you need a god to show these things i think you have bigger problems then your delusion of a non existent god. You don’t need theology to tell you how you should feel or act or indeed mourn and live…
Ed Harrison at 10:02AM on Apr 21st 2007
116. Dinesh, your understanding of atheism and rational thought is deeply flawed. Ditto your understanding of Richard Dawkins. Good luck with your chosen belief system.
Al Dente at 1:30PM on Apr 21st 2007
117. "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." not quite Camus' "benign indifference of the Universe". From Dawkins' statement, it seems the Universe has a particularly malevolent streak.
I would argue that atheists don't believe the universe is purposeless but that the purpose of the universe is purposelessness. Atheists are religious at least if we understand religion as the great Theologian Paul Tillich did meaning those questions of "ultimate concern".
Truly, even though I don't agree completely with Dawkins, on a certain level I admire his courage to live his life divested of meaning, and free from the fairy tale of conventional religious understanding. God may be dead as Nietzsche surely realized but this is not the same as meaning being dead, for human beings are meaning making creatures even if that meaning is nothing more than postmodern nihilism and cynicism.
You question what atheists can offer but I ask you what can religion offer in times like this? What can anyone offer really. Sure we can wax religious "it's all part of God's master plan" or "they'll find peace in heaven." Or we can spout one of the pat responses that people have been programed to say when they'd rather think than feel--" when God closes a door he opens a window." To some grieving parent who just had their son or daughter mowed down by some madman these responses are just as empty , maybe even more so because they don't acknowledge the existential truth that purposelessness is a part of the fabric of the universe, as an atheist could give. Most of these responses are really not intended to soothe the other person anyway but to soothe us instead.
What can one say really? Nothing. But that doesn't mean one can't be there expressing sympathy with an open heart--that can be done by the religious or the non-religious alike.
Thank you for raising this profound question.
jeff at 6:58PM on Apr 21st 2007
118. Mr. D'Souza, like most theists, seems to be under the impression that someone like Richard Dawkins, due to his NY Times best-seller, speaks for and represents all atheists. Atheism, unlike religion, does not have a set of mandatory doctrines, creeds and platitudes that have to be confessed and believed in order to be part the club. Richard Dawkins speaks only for himself.
D'Souza's states that: "My point was that atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie...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...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."
1. Theism offers no comfort other than the hope that there is a divine purpose for the tragedy. This kind of "comfort" sounds a lot like "C'est la vie."
2. "The language of religion," whatever that is, is just as impotent as any other attempt to comfort those who have endured this tragedy.
3. I can only say to the grieving parents that I will come grieve with them; shed tears of loss and mourn with them; and freely admit that I have no advice or words of wisdom.
I openly challenge Mr. D'Souza to contact me to discuss his article and his views regarding atheism.
Chris Brown at 6:18PM on Apr 21st 2007
119. You know what really gets my goat?
It's this endless parade of idgits stepping over the bodies of the fallen to grind their political axes. Now, Mr. D'Souza, I have read some of your writings and liked them. I am sorely dissappointed in you. I figured you had more class than this. I was wrong, it would seem, since you chose to make a bad situation worse by writing yet another article trying to further your own agenda at the expense of a terrible tragedy.
There used to be a time when a decent interval was measured in weeks, not milliseconds. Shame on you, sir.
Rick Dawkins at 12:28AM on Apr 22nd 2007
120. It is very apparant that athiests think that Christians believe that
God was responsible for things like this shooting. How little athiests understand about God. God ALLOWS me free choice. God ALLOWS you free choice. God had the ability to stop the shooting. The shooting is a tragedy for God. God did not create us to be robots but to have free choice. Christians who lost loved ones in tragic ways realize that God did not cause those losses but that God is here to comfort us through our losses. Those who yell loudest for free choice are those who don't seem to realize that God gives free choice.
Edith at 7:12AM on Apr 22nd 2007