Apologist rant

A response to an apologist's op-ed in (where else?) the Wall Street Journal dismissing the "New Atheists" (e.g., Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) Started as an email, but got too long and became a more suitable blog rant:

-----

Several points in no particular order because I don't feel like organizing my thoughts:

1) It's clear if unspoken that most of the spat of recent books on atheism are directed towards the surge in batshit fundamentalists who seem to have taken over not only government but public discourse as of the beginning of the Bush administration. These are people who believe in a frighteningly literal interpretation of the Bible and, moreover, believe that anyone who doesn't share the specifics of their belief is evil. This is why people like Hitchens devote time to ripping apart literal interpretations of the Bible. Yes, we knew that the Bible can't be taken as anything other than allegory, and it's nice that Berkowitz takes that fact as a given to anyone with half a brain and half an education, but there's this purportedly giant population that doesn't seem to get that, particularly the ones running the government of the most powerful nation on earth. Therefore, it's worth re-hashing.

2) "And it begs the question of why the 20th-century embrace of secularism unleashed human depravity of unprecedented proportions."

This is an inaccurate and, frankly, stupid statement. Ignoring the fact that correlation doesn't equal cause even if the 20th century were particularly secular, what about the religious rebirths of the 20s, the 50s (remember when we put "under God" in the Pledge?), and, of course, the one we're currently suffering under that began, roughly, in the 80s after Carter? Sort that all out, then come talk to me.

3) The "the atheists are being dogmatic too!" argument is becoming a pet peeve of mine since it betrays a profound misunderstanding of the issue. There is an important distinction between dogma and vigorous defense of a position. Dogma is an unsubstantiated belief. It is a belief held not just in defiance of evidence of the contrary, but in fact belief that is held no matter what. There is nothing, even in theory, that can shatter it. Thus, just because your opponent isn't swayed by your arguments does not make him or her dogmatic. It might, for instance, mean that you're a crappy debater, or you are full of shit, or both. Or, it might just mean that while your arguments are good, he or she is simply not swayed by them.

In contrast, dogma is all about unsubstantiated belief, and let's remember, the whole point of (most sects of) Christianity is belief. Belief itself is an a priori good. It is central to the religion. "You just gotta have faith!" The objection people like Hitchens and Dawkins have is that faith and dogma are held as virtues in and of themselves. It's not so much that "believers" are not swayed by logical arguments (although that is, of course, a problem too); it's that the principle of not demanding evidence for things is itself valued. It is in that sense that a believer in organized religion is dogmatic in a way that an atheist is not.

(yes, to have no dogma is itself a dogma just as the statement that "there are no absolutes" is an absolute, but please, let's not go there...)

4) I'm also tired of the "religion provides the underpinnings for the moral foundation of the Western world and atheists have no reasonable alternative" horse shit. I will, however, spare you a rant on it for now. Suffice it to say, nobody woke up one morning and said, "You know, I'd really like to rape, murder, steal, and perhaps sodomize my dog, but you know, the Bible said I shouldn't, so I guess I'll be a productive member of society instead."

5) Berkowitz seems to conveniently not "get" that the mass-murderers of the 20th century, e.g., Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, though not strictly members of any particular organized religion, themselves created or led deeply dogmatic endeavors, often with weird mythologies associated with them (how do you _not_ view Hitler as advocating a dogmatic mythology?), and that these are the qualities Hitchens, Dawkins, etc. object to in organized religion. To claim that Hitler, and Pol Pot, and Stalin were atheists and to use that as an indictment of atheism misses the point entirely (not to mention the fact that, even if they were strictly atheists, there's nothing to say there was a causal relationship there...after all, Hitler despised communists, but I don't see anyone suggesting his dislike for communists [a quality he shares with pretty much every American] led him to murder millions of Jews).

6) All that said, I totally agree that Christopher Hitchens is, at core, an asshole, and frankly, I don't really like him much. Among other things, he believes that invading Iraq was a good idea. He's a fucking British dick who is more concerned with his own self-righteousness and the amusement he gets out of condescension than anything else. He's a shitty model for atheist ideology. There's a critical piece of compassion, empathy, and respect for people's right to believe whatever crazy shit they want to that seems lost on all of those guys, and having them become the poster children for secularism and atheism is ultimately detrimental.