I want to say a little more about George Pitcher…
There’s the way he began his nasty squib about the putative “shrillness” of Richard Dawkins.
There’s something divine in the air. Agnostics and atheists are beginning to nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty, while still, of course, maintaining that He’s not there.
Jokey, in a way, but he also means it. He especially means the assumption that underlies it: that we (we atheists, we humans in general) owe “the Almighty” our respectful nods. That the Almighty is entitled to them, and that we are obliged to give them.
That’s a stupid assumption, but more than that, it’s an inherently authoritarian, illiberal, hierarchical, dictatorial one. It may seem less so than the demands of a physical, present dictator or mob boss, but in a way it’s more so because the dictator is not physical and present. Pitcher’s “Almighty” is explicitly absent; it’s unavailable; it’s hidden away and mysterious and sekrit. This means we can’t negotiate with it or protest its decisions, much less boot it out or send it to prison for crimes against humanity.
Pitcher is attempting to shore up the principle of submission. There’s nothing “divine” about that.
The same applies to his boneless gesture at the epistemology of theism –
The problem is that faith isn’t primarily evidential, as he demands it to be, but revelatory…
If that’s true, you see, it makes “faith” fundamentally arbitrary and incorrigible, and thus authoritarian and dictatorial. “Revelation” is in fact often treated as “dictation” by the deity. This is a bad way to think about things that people are supposed to heed and respect and obey. It’s morally bad, epistemically bad, politically bad – it’s bad all around.
That’s what the god-botherers need to start realizing. It’s not that atheists need to start to “nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty,” it’s that theists need to stop trying to make everyone bow to the principle of arbitrary authority.
Is that actually what Pitcher’s doing? It seems like you’re leaving out a step there… maybe the most important bit.
Since “the Almighty” doesn’t exist, or at the least has never shown up to anyone in a credible way, who exactly are we supposed to be submitting to? If “God” is the Mob boss who isn’t there, people like Pitcher are very real enforcers, with metaphorical or often literal baseball bats in hand to make sure people follow the boss’s rules. Really, Pitcher is telling us to respect him, bow down to him and follow his rules, and he’ll pass it on to “the boss” whether we believe in him or not.
It is of course exactly what you say: inherently authoritarian, illiberal, hierarchical, dictatorial. But we both know that the theists are perfectly willing and even eager to stand in for the nonexistent authority from which they claim the power to tell us how to live, and accept obedience on its behalf.
Man’s delusional. Next topic?
How am I supposed to know in which direction am I required to nod? Since His Almightyness is supposed to be everywhere (“Does that mean He’s down the toilet?” I once asked a shocked Sunday school teacher), it could end up a bit uncomfortable.
Joe – I know, about the next step. But it’s the first one that does all the work of making it stick. The mafia or Mugabe – we can see that they’re just thugs expoliting us. But if you call it “the Almighty” – it’s a whole different ballgame.
This takes us back to the bit of purple writing at the end of Does God Hate Women? that got me in trouble in some quarters…but I stand by it.
We’re a social species; we form hierarchies and compete for status. We can manage and contain that with checks and balances and free speech and collectivism and the other properties of modern liberal democracy. But the notion of an omnipotent monotheistic god to whom respect and obedience are owed no matter what, enshrines the idea of unquestionable authority–and weds it to an arbitrary and subjective “way of knowing”.
The bit you point out–how the Invisible One’s authority gets slopped over onto its human spokes(usually)men, gets noticed fairly often, even by theists. It’s the first step that tends to go unremarked.
We’re supposed to be doing that now? I never got the memo.
Seems to me that Pitcher, who apparently has never talked to an atheist, is indulging in wishful thinking.
Well, yes, and that would be why you are expected to nod respectfully in the direction of the Almighty.
These atheists, not only strident but insubordinate.
This is why it is so important not to allow churches to dictate morality for the rest of us. They must, simply must, provide appropriate secular argument for moral positions that they take internally — that is, within the religion itself. It’s often thought by the catholics that they can play the secular game by bringing up all sorts of suppose “secular” consequences of the things they want to rule out by law. For example, abortions cause all sorts of problems for the women who have them, psychological problems, physical problems, whatever. What we must insist on is that if these are the arguments they depend upon in public discourse, they must also depend on those arguments internally. They can no longer credibly justify them to their own people by referring to the Bible or what God wants, if they do not use those arguments in their public discourse. Since they are not prepared to do this, there should be some way of shaming them out of the argument altogether until they grow up, because we know that the real basis of their arguments is based on religious (non-evidential) presuppositions. It’s the implicit authoritarianism that they need to be called on, every time.
Sure Eric, and maybe by that method we can get to where I want to be, which is where the media stop hunting down some Catholic in a funny costume to weigh in on the issues of the day, as though education in the Bible and a specific religion’s creed qualifies someone to make comments on issues pertaining to society at large.
One way to deal with the opposition is to implant lies. If enough people pick up those lies, then, whether they believe them or not, they are tools to destroy conversation. Anything to start the opponent off on the wrong foot, anything to shore up bigotry. You don’t need to implant many lies (teach the controversy, the Nazis killed in the name of atheism, “Darwinism” equals eugenics, freedom of speech is not a licence to offend…) all you need to do is state them positively, as though the matter were settled. In the ensuing war, it’s the easiest way — the most basic and primitive recourse of simple minds — that will win: always the appeal to what is assumed, that seems “natural” and “right”. In a fight in which one side will lie to promote what they wish to be truth, it is the honest who will lose. This is why both propagandists and accommodationists have equally to be fought. Arbitrary authority is just easier — you don’t have to think: there’s a rule for how you make love, a rule for how you bring up your children, a rule for “your” wives (lots of rules), a rule for how you go to the toilet… Arbitrary authority needs lies: lies to implant the doctrines, lies to get around them, lies to tell yourself when you want to implant lies, lies to convince yourself that you’re not just trying to make the world after your own pattern, lies that god is always good, lies that religion is the only moral force, lies that ends justify means. Few lies are needed because there are already so many implanted in our minds — it’s simply a matter of finding the switch, firing up the circuit.
.
Who is going to shake people out of their lazy, timid assumptions if we don’t shout and scream?
Eric MacDonald I don’t see why in principle one should not provide different arguments to different audiences. For instance if I think a new college should be built in my home town my primary reason may be that I think it will increase the number of creative free citizens, which I may take as an intrinsic good. However I may also think it will increase the earning potential of most local residents and I see no reason why I should not present that argument to an audience whom I know will not agree with my primary reason. Again I may think it will increase the total local income or the prestige of my town. Why should I not present arguments for these effects to audiences that may think nothing of the other reasons?
Much as I loathe the Catholic Church I can see no merit in holding it to higher standards than those I am prepared to accept for myself
“Who is going to shake people out of their lazy, timid assumptions if we don’t shout and scream?”
Beats me. I’m too distracted by trying to get a commenter at Eric’s to recognize sexist sneering when it’s staring him in the face that I haven’t got any neurons left over for anything else.
The most interesting thing about the Pitcher article was the comments following. Mine was in there somewhere, and positively rated, though nowhere near the top rating. I was a bit over mild with my comment, though, not understanding what the Mail moderation policy would stomach.
Even in the Daily Mail, though, the comments showing the intellectual dishonesty of Pitcher were very highly rated, and those defending him him were voted down. It really was very marked.
Some of this might be down to the NSS media feed, which featured the article, and pointed some people who would not demean themselves by actually buying a copy of the rag to the article.
David B
Ophelia… like I said, I know you know, I know we both know. I just meant that I think it is important to make it explicit that it isn’t some imaginary friend that is trying to oppress people, it is the believers who are the oppressors. They are not only looking to subjugate people, but they lack the courage to do it in their own name, instead choosing to shift the responsibility for their beliefs onto a nonexistent being. It should be made clear that the believers own the stances they claim, and can’t slide the burden over to their faith.
Oh, please. There’s nothing new here. It’s the same old desperate habit the religious have always formed of trying to read subconscious God-belief into everything the atheists do, say, feel, and think.
Like the architecture on that cathedral? You must be conscious of God’s presence. Enjoy Bach’s cantatas? You’re responding to the voice of God. Impressed by the beautiful wedding ceremony? That’s because deep down, you want to commit to God.
And it doesn’t stop at the church door, either. Every noble impulse, every loving action, every enthusiastic response, every ethical imperative, every tender emotion, every reaction to joy, beauty, awe, and wonder — behold, the atheist is nodding respectfully in the direction of God, all the while maintaining that He’s not there! Gotcha, atheists!
Right. Give us a break. You see atheist concessions that God really exists every time you blink. You don’t need De Botton. You’ll take strident Richard Dawkins saying ‘please’ and ‘thank you’ as evidence. Nothing new here.
One of the things that offends me about the article is the lack of references. Pitcher makes statements about atheists and agnostics nodding to the almighty, Hitchen’s deathbed comments, and Attenborough’s accomodationism without providing any context whatsoever.
What exactly did Hitchen’s say that could be interpreted to support religion? I certainly haven’t read anything to suggest a change in his feelings.
What about an atheist temple requires a god? The responses in the secular community to de Botton are a lot more telling of the prevailing attitude torwards his concept than hjos personal feelings.
Jerry Coyne completes Attenborough’s thoughts “Lawson: Have you at any time had any religious faith? Attenborough: No.”
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/news-flash-attenborough-proves-that-shrill-new-atheism-is-on-its-way-out/
Pitcher is just cherry picking and misrepresenting statement adn concepts to play to his (religious) audience and to provoke us to more shrill comments to ‘prove’ his points.
Come, come now, peicurmudgeon! It’s a well-known fact that all atheists convert on their death beds!
It’s more than that, it’s a catch-22.
If we’re respectful, then, deep down, we believe in god. If we’re not, then we’re being mean and “militant”. There’s no right way.
Except, of course, to call them on their bullshit.
I’m OK with faith being “revelatory” -whatever that is, but I now have to wade my way through fifty thousand faiths, their documents and holy books, and then await a revelatory moment to tell me which is the true revelation -which cancels out the notion of the revelatory. Lost alas in this holy jungle.
Demonax:
Wonder no more: The Revelation is that God wants whatever the person telling you what God wants wants.
(What a surprise!)