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 9 of 10)
121. Oh and another common response is "The victims are going to hell because they were not Christians"
Chris at 10:12AM on Apr 22nd 2007
122. Had the Good Christian clerics at the VT memorial been honest fellows, they'd have had to acknowledge to the crowd of faithful that likely several of those unfortunate murder victims are now writhing in torment under the worst possible conditions, and shall be for here on out, forever and ever. The actual percentage would vary according to the specific sect of the speaker, of course...from perhaps 90% or more in one camp, to less than 10% in another. Certainly the Right Reverend Phelps, who rather vocally holds that "God Hates Fags" and has plenty of scriptural artillery to back him up, would have a take on the matter. Still others, the Hindu say, would hold that many of them are now sprouting up as a turnip in Uruguay or buzzing about as a fly in Uganda. And so on. So it is hard to agree with the claim that religion would necessarily be "comforting" given these facts. Or perhaps D'Souza is an apostate who does not believe in his professed religion and feels that Hell is all made up? But then what else is made up?
gj at 3:27PM on Apr 22nd 2007
123. I'm not an atheist and I think you should be ashamed of yourself, D'Souza.
Termy at 9:16PM on Apr 22nd 2007
124. I am a Christian myself. Have been my whole life. But, I have to agree with many of you. What D'Souza has said in this blog post was uncalled for. I have an atheist friend. And I also have an agnosic friend. I respect their beliefs and they respect mine as well. And for D'Souza to bash any type of belief system,especially in this point in time after such a horrific tragedy was completly thoughtless,calous and uncalled for. What if you Mr.D'Souza were an Atheist and had lost a loved one to this tragedy, then you come in this blog and see someone write what you have about your belief system? I bet then, you would have a different view on things,huh? There is a time and a place for everything. Including writing in a blog. Boy, you picked the wrong time to express your views and beliefs. I hope that you will think before you type next time.
Melissa at 1:17AM on Apr 23rd 2007
125. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all those angry responses to D'Souza. They're fairly repetitive. Pardon me if this one is, too.
D'Souza does have a point. There is something inherently "cold" about atheism. I think it's because reason and evidence do not themselves promote compassion and moral courage. This is not to say that an atheist can't be compassionate and courageous. But think about this point: is it a believer or an atheist who is more likely to help a homeless schizophrenic? If you believe that this person is basically just an assemblage of molecules, why would you help him?
I realize someone might respond that atheists don't
reduce persons to an "assemblage of molecules." But
whatever more a person is in an atheist's view, the
point is that a homeless schizophrenic is a
particularly unappealing example of it. I think
reaching out to a homeless schizophrenic is a "heroic" thing that goes against our natural inclinations for the most part, and a materialistic view of human beings makes it less likely one will expend that effort.
I sympathize somewhat with those people who have said that the average religious response to the VT disaster isn't necessarily that comforting. I'm also opposed to all "pat" answers to this sort of thing. A religious believer does have to wrestle with the question why God would allow it. But I don't think his/her belief in a hidden spiritual realm has to mean the religious believer doesn't wrestle with all the more tangible questions about this tragedy, too: why semiautomatic weapons were so available, why Cho was released from the psychiatric hospital, why he didn't get more psychiatric help, why classes weren't cancelled after the first shootings, etc. I think a believer in God has a responsibility to wrestle with those things along with the tough question of theodicy. We are called to love our neighbor as well as God, and that means caring about things that put our neighbor in danger.
Ted at 5:47PM on Apr 23rd 2007
126. Ted says, "I think it's because reason and evidence do not themselves promote compassion and moral courage."
So whats your point? Do you think that any atheist believes that? Being an atheist doesn't make you a Vulcan. Why try to caricature atheist to try to make a point. There's a word for that- Bigotry.
Tom at 1:00AM on Apr 24th 2007
127. Tou are contemptable Mr D'Souza instead of reacting to this tragedy in the rational way by questioning the gun laws in your country you decide to take a cheap shot at athiests, as Gingrich did at liberals, have these people no conscience, no shame ?
Kevin at 2:35PM on Apr 24th 2007
128. Tom wrote:
Ted says, "I think it's because reason and evidence do not themselves promote compassion and moral courage."
So whats your point? Do you think that any atheist believes that? Being an atheist doesn't make you a Vulcan. Why try to caricature atheists to try to make a point? There's a word for that- Bigotry.
Tom, I'm not caricaturing atheists. As I said, an atheist can be compassionate and courageous. People are often better than their worldviews. The same is true of Christians: even fundamentalists have managed to find a limited place in their worldview for evolution, since it's an accepted fact that germs can develop immunity to antibiotics, and we have to recognize that degree of evolution to fight disease.
My point can be illustrated by looking more closely at the schizophrenia example. If you look at a homeless schizophrenic, there's not much there that can attract you unless he/she happens to be your relative. That's why I wrote of "reason and evidence": if you work from the empirical evidence relative to this person, you're not going to find much reason to reach out to him. And of course he or she will be unappealing to the religious believer, too. But the religious believer's understanding that the person is more than a collection of molecules tells him it is worthwhile to reach out. For example, in Christianity, we're told that if we turn away from such a person, we may turn away from Christ himself.
Another example that I think shows the difference is one of my favorite films, "21 Grams" with Naomi Watts, Sean Penn, and Benicio del Toro. It's one of the grimmest, saddest things you'd ever watch. I believe it attempts to deal with some deep questions about the nature of religion. Penn plays what I like to call a sort of "Christ figure," and near the end he sacrifices himself by shooting himself. It was interesting how differently people interpreted that scene. As a religious person, I perceived self-sacrifice and that it "saved" the other two characters in the scene. But a more "scientifically-oriented" person I corresponded with thought it was a simple suicide on the character's part. He could not conceive of it as a selfless act.
Science tells us about how things normally happen, but religious myth is about the heroic, about persons doing "abnormal" things to defeat evil. Gods are the "chief heroes" in most of those myths. If you reject that mythic element of life, you lose one of the primary things that support such heroism.
Ted at 4:13PM on Apr 24th 2007
129. Ever since I found out Richard Dawkins favours conferring legal rights to apes, he's been seeming more and more extreme.
http://www.quixoticals.com/2007/04/how-would-richard-dawkins-amend-united.html
More and more, I don't think he's one to be arguing against religion if he's one to also believe an ape has equivalency to humans.
Christopher Trottier at 5:16PM on Apr 24th 2007
130. How does this guy have a blog? He has severe reading comprehension problems.
KDP at 4:01AM on Apr 25th 2007
131. D'Sousa: "[...] atheism has nothing to offer in the face of tragedy except C'est la vie. Deal with it. Get over it."
But surely that is what everyone has to do, whether there's a God or not? One may hope that one's prayers are answered, but who in their right mind relies on it and assumes they will be?
As well as the comfort and support of any compassionate person, atheists offer another way of dealing with such things: investigation, in the hope of understanding the causes and preventing them reoccurring. It is in fact the theists who have nothing to offer except "c'est la vie" -- because there is evil in the world. Those of us who do not regard evil as an entity, but rather as a function of how people and the world are, can look at how people and the world are and try to alter it. Those who throw up their hands (in prayer, yet!) and bemoaning Satan’s latest escapade offer the opposite of help.
D'Sousa: "Okay, pal, here's the Virginia Tech situation. Go create some meaning and share it with the rest of us"
It means that not everyone's brain is wired so as to allow them to peacefully co-exist.
It means that there were failures in society that allowed a nutter with a gun loose on the campus. (See, there’s a starting point for investigation, understanding and prevention.)
If it means that God was too busy elsewhere, then it is the theists who have the explaining to do, not atheists.
D'Sousa: "Give us that atheist sermon with you in the pulpit of the campus chapel."
Shit happens. It may not be comforting, but it is true. How does attributing this fact to God or the devil help at all?
D'Sousa: "I'm not being facetious here."
No, you're being a twat.
D'Sousa: "I really want to hear what the atheist would tell the grieving mothers."
"Yes it’s terrible. I lost my [insert relation] recently, so I have some small amount of understanding of what you’re going through."
"What can I do to help? Is there anything you need? I can (eg) walk your dog this afternoon if you don’t feel up to it. You won’t feel like going out, can I get you some groceries? Try some chamomile tea to help you sleep. Crying is good, come here and have a hug."
"I'll listen if you want to talk about it."
"We'll look into preventing this sort of thing in future."
Keep your sermons, pal.
Oolon Colluphid at 8:58AM on Apr 25th 2007
132. I see a lot of caricaturing on this blog. On the one hand, Oolon has just described theists as people who wouldn't do anything to prevent future massacres like the one at VT because God is in control and everything's all right. On the other side, there's the caricature of atheists as people who just don't care when something like this happens: it's a "normal" part of the world, and they just shrug it off.
Both caricatures imply that "the other side" should naturally accept the evil as it is, shrug it off. The reality is that most people on either side will do nothing of the kind. Whether we believe in God or not, most of us will properly conclude that we have a responsibility to grieve for the victims and try to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.
I think most atheists have very strong moral commitments: they are generally motivated by opposing what they perceive as hypocrisy on the part of theists. I have less respect for agnostics, who often seem to be people who just don't care enough about the question to come to a decision about it.
Actually, you might even be able to say that strong theists and atheists are both people who are "obsessed with God." Answering the "God question" is really important to them even though they take opposite positions. We know that religion has been an oppressive thing sometimes, and the atheist focuses on that. The theist may acknowledge that oppression, but still thinks that belief in a spiritual realm is important.
I think that last point may be the key for me. I guess the reason I'm a theist is that it allows me to recognize all the facts in the world and yet hope for more. Think of this. A theist can affirm everything in life: she can even thank God for comets, though we know that a comet may someday bring human life to an end. For the atheist, human life seems to be the highest value, so he can't be thankful for comets, unless they happen to be a special area of research for him. For the theist, there is something higher than human life, so the extinction of the human race wouldn’t destroy her highest value. She can also thank God for the fear of comets, which may enable us to find some way of avoiding that danger. So she can live with all the facts she encounters in the world, yet hope for more.
To go back to what I said in my earlier message, that’s also why the atheist is less likely to reach out to the homeless schizophrenic: as a person who’s accustomed to being “satisfied with the facts,” he’s less likely to have hope for that person.
Ted at 2:58PM on Apr 25th 2007
133. Ted: "I see a lot of caricaturing on this blog. On the one hand, Oolon has just described theists as people who wouldn't do anything to prevent future massacres like the one at VT because God is in control and everything's all right."
Ted, sorry old chap, but I said nothing of the kind.
I said that prayer offers no help (since God so often forgets to put his answering machine on), and -- as it diverts attention and effort away from doing stuff that might actually help -- is the opposite of help. And that "it is the theists who have the explaining to do, not atheists" when no supernatural help arrives.
I'm reminded of pope JPII's comment that it was Our Lady of Fatima who guided the bullet that didn't kill him away from his heart. One has to wonder why she didn't make the bullet miss him altogether. Similarly, where _was_ God when the guy when apeshit at VT? Those of us for whom _this_ god is as plausible as Thor are hardly surprised that He was... otherwise engaged... for there is no practical difference between a non-acting god and a non-existent one.
Thing is, theists know this. It's why they do indeed offer practical help too. Theists, too, act along the lines of "c'est la vie, deal with it, get over it". God may offer you the spade, but you've still got to do the digging, or something like that.
Clearly, both theists and atheists _do_ care about others. But only one of these groups is delusional enough to look to the -- for all practical purposes which they themselves realise -- non-existent for help and guidance, and care-less enough to waste time and effort on pleading with their Big Sky Daddy about it.
There's all manner of circular other fallacy-ridden thinking in your second-last para, but it's too off-topic for here (pop on over to http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php if you want to discuss it further :-) ).
Oolon Colluphid at 9:00AM on Apr 26th 2007
134. Oolon,
Yes, I did put words in your mouth. But I think you implied what I said. You said atheists would investigate the causes of the violence. Is it wrong for me to infer that you meant theists would not investigate them?
I think we're in agreement that the differences between theists and atheists in this kind of situation have been exaggerated.
How perfect would the world have to be for you to believe in God? And if it was that "perfect," would it be as good as our world? It's clear that there's a lot of moral ambiguity in the universe. People who are good are not necessarily better off than people who are evil. But if there was no moral ambiguity, if every choice we made was immediately rewarded or punished, it seems there would be less room for us to develop character. The universe would be like a big kindergarten, with the teacher (God) hovering over us all the time, watching everything we did. Of course that would "keep us in line," but we wouldn't develop moral courage. I think moral courage requires the "hiddenness of God" at least to some extent.
Atheists often show that moral courage, too: they take a stand against religious hypocrisy though they can't be 100% sure there's no God.
I'll admit that religions traditionally deny moral ambiguity. The Old Testament often says suffering is a punishment for sin, and Buddhism says it results from bad karma. But the Book of Job shows that at least some people in biblical times knew that wasn't the whole story. There is undeserved suffering. Job showed moral courage by sticking to his convictions in spite of suffering.
Ted at 5:41PM on Apr 26th 2007
135. There are no gods.
If I were called upon to say a few words to these grieving people, I would remind them that their lost ones are still with us some ways. They are with us in our memory of them. In our hearts.
They are with us in the DNA which was shared to make them, because truly, their sisters, brothers, nieces and nephews, sons and daughters have some of that same DNA which made up their lost ones.
Life is sometimes a comedy, it will be good to remember every fun time had between the grieving and their lost one... but now(at that time) is a time for reflection, a time for us to feel togetherness in our humanity... for life ends... that is our destiny... life is ultimately ... a tragedy.
I'm sure that given a small amount of time to prepare a eulogy, I could do an adequate job without mentioning the fact that there are no gods, without 'sticking my foot in my mouth' and saying something daft like, "Life is shit, and then you die."
Mr. D'Souza, I think that you wrote your article to bolster your own beliefs and to demonize the enemy of your beliefs... but don't you see that were being as uncaring for those survivors as you would have others believe that atheists are.
I think that you and christians in general are prone to making a huge mistake... there is a word which describes the kind of person that you are painting atheists to be, the kind of person who sees human tragedy but cannot feel empathy... the word is 'sociopath', Mr. D'Souza.
A sociopath is the kind of person who could take old people's money, promising them a place in heaven, the kind of person who might promise that God, through 'him/her' could miraculously heal their illness... for a donation of course.
Not all sociopaths are deliberate cheats like Hinn and Popoff, of course but you would be much more likely to find them in your church than declaring themselves atheist, because being a religious person, or at least pretending, in their case, is one of the steps that are needed in U.S.A society today to get in positions of power. Sociopaths crave attention and power to make up for their lack of empathy, they are never satisfied.
Stalin, Hitler and Mao were sociopaths, they could never trust anyone, so they controlled everyone that they could ... they were never satisfied.
Are you satisfied, did you enjoy manipulating these atheists... controlling them? Bet you did!
Are you satisfied, did you enjoy the thrill of hurting these atheist's feelings, like you set out to do, Mr. D'Souza? I don't think so.....
.... you want more.
pboyfloyd at 6:48AM on May 1st 2007