Tags
"Primum Non Nocere", Amish, Believers on the Brink, Brainwashing, Christopher Hitchens, Collateral Damage, Credulity, Hell, Intolerance, Mormons, Racism, Scruples, Superstition, Terrorism
When you consider the damage it does, the pain it provokes and the risks it involves, one should have some pretty good reasons to do it. “Primum non nocere” : however you try to justify it, it cannot but hurt people. And it remains to be proven that it can ever succeed in effectively destroying the world’s religions. So why bother ? Why this Blog ?
Before I attempt to explain my motivations, a word on what militant atheists and former believers like me tend to think of as “collateral damage”. In war, the term is a convenient cop-out for military commanders and the pols behind them. It makes the damage sound like a regrettable but inevitable by-product of justified aggression which unfortunately kills and maims and impoverishes innocent people and leaves them homeless if not hopeless. In the domain of ridiculing religion, the damage can involve the loss of life, but it is the aggressor who is likely to be assassinated, not the people whose beliefs he attacks. But the damage suffered by the ridiculed believers is very real, cruel and devastating. “How COULD you … ?” is the polite, pained reaction from good, honest, sincere people whose life-long beliefs and practice are not only put into question but shaken to their very foundations.
Any reasons I offer will be dismissed out of hand by committed believers who – I must repeat – are not the target-readers of this Blog. The latter I have defined as Believers on the Brink (q.v. passim). But the ones who will suffer most if they read my posts are the rock-solid faithful. To them I owe at least an attempt to explain why, in spite of the pain I cause them, I am committed to my double mantra : “Ridenda – Delenda – Religio”. My main reasons are :
- Because, like everyone else, I am conscious every day of the terrorist threats and their increasingly frequent realization in massive assassinations motivated directly by religious fanaticism. Ridicule may at least make some radicalized recruits revise their terrorist intentions.
- Because, unlike most other people, I am a theologian, having studied Theology in a seminary for four years as an undergraduate and for three years in post-graduate studies in the Catholic University of Paris. I know what makes religion and religious believers tick. I know the sources of their superstitions and credulity. For seven years, as a priest, I preached religion, and for ten years was a lay parish and diocesan Religious Education Director as well as a Professor of Theology in an American University. I know, at least in this domain, what I am talking about. And I know – and deeply regret – the damage I did to people by propagating the Faith.
- Because, apart from terrorism, I have seen the damage religion can do. For some it is mere scruples, a permanent guilt-complex over peccadilloes, brought on by the imposition of rules dictated by religious texts and teachers. For others it is the visceral fear of Hell, which can cause nightmares in children and psychic trauma in adults.
- Because it makes people vulnerable to the most outrageous claims not only on their credulity but on their cash. (Scientology, Evangelical Tent Revivals and Catholicism are the Big Three.)
- Because it gets people to take seriously silly injunctions concerning underwear (Mormons), the way they hang their curtains (the Amish) and what they do in bed (churches and sects everywhere).
- Because it is used to inculcate racism and other forms of intolerance.
- Because it is used to brainwash children and adults into believing nonsense ranging from Guardian Angels to sadistic devils, from literally incredible “miracles” to doctrines which contradict not only common sense but proven scientific data.
- Because . . . well, for all the reasons Christopher Hitchens said “Religion poisons everything”, in his book “God is Not Great”.
I could hold my tongue and burn my Blog. I could just ignore the religious phenomenon and get on with my life. I bother to ridicule religion because I want to help people to see how ridiculous religion is, to abandon it and to discover the liberation and the serenity atheism has given me.
RIDENDA , DELENDA, RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
The author of this blog fallaciously states the following:
“When you consider the damage it does, the pain it provokes and the risks it involves, one should have some pretty good reasons to do it.”
The underlying logical error in this premise is that on the atheist worldview, there is no objective source or metaphysical basis to claim with epistemological certainty that religion causes pain, damage or carries any risk.
Any so called damage that comes from religion would be neither good nor bad, but simply the random manifestation of events dictated only by the atomic reactions causing them.
What about the presupposed pain of religion? Again, without an objective standard of reality (which *cannot* exist on the atheist worldview – as philosophers like JL Mackie and Michael Ruse admit) or a transcendent source of truth or moral values, one cannot claim that religion either causes pain or joy.
Perhaps an agent of reality in existence like the author or a woman down the road subjectively feel that religion causes them pain.
However:
(i) This is only the result of neuro-chemicals giving them this perception – there is no basis to believe those neuro-chemicals are reflecting truth (cf. Kant’s noumena and phenomena and Plantinga’s arguments against evolutionary naturalism).
(ii) The perception in any event is subjective and cannot be said to be objective, for in all possible worlds which may exist with the carrying assumption that God does *not* exist, at least one possible world will exist in which religion is perceived (again neither truly or falsely) as bringing joy and not pain.
So, my question to the author of this blog would be, if atheism is true and God does not exist and the universe has no transcendent meaning, why should one bother arguing or mocking religion when it all ends in the heat death of the universe and/or multiverse in any event? Is that really how time can best be spent?
LikeLike
Oh dear ! I’ve done it again ! I too often assume that readers are sharp enough to decipher my apparently less-than-lucid prose (though I have always insisted that obfuscation should be eshewed). I naïvely assumed that astute readers would realize that the subject of the first sentence is not religion but RIDICULING religion. The damage, pain and risks refer to the cause indicated in the title ! Such a total misunderstanding renders the rest of the comment null and void.
A friendly piece of advice : you may impress some with your talk about neuro-chemicals, Kant and Plantinga (both authors are discussed several times in my 434 posts), but not me. Gambits like name-dropping work with the Rednecks in the Bible Belt but not in this blog.
LikeLike
Hi frankomeara,
Thanks for your response to my comments.
Below is my response to each of your assertions in order:
~ frankomeara: “Oh dear ! I’ve done it again ! I too often assume that readers are *sharp enough* to decipher my apparently less-than-lucid prose (though I have always insisted that obfuscation should be eshewed). I naïvely assumed that astute readers would realize that the subject of the first sentence is not religion but RIDICULING religion.”
*** RESPONSE ***
Are you able to please advise:
(i) how this statement refutes any of my responses; and
(ii) how you would explain how your above statement *does not* commit the ad hominem fallacy?
~ frankomeara: “The damage, pain and risks refer to the cause indicated in the title ! Such a total misunderstanding renders the rest of the comment null and void.”
*** RESPONSE ***
This was clear enough and the entire basis of my observation.
Consequently, it still does not appear that you have logically explained without any appeals to logical fallacies why one should bother ridiculing religion if atheism is true.
I am certainly open to the arguments I presented being proven as being fallacious and would welcome you disproving any premise in my response.
~ frankomeara:A friendly piece of advice : you may impress some with your talk about neuro-chemicals, Kant and Plantinga (both authors are discussed several times in my 434 posts), but not me. Gambits like name-dropping work with the Rednecks in the Bible Belt but not in this blog.
*** RESPONSE ***
I am looking at this from an analytical philosophical viewpoint and as such am merely confused at your logic.
My comments are not made to impress you, but rather to provide you with the opportunity to show me how your logic is formally valid because at present it appears to be riddled with errors.
The reasons for my reference, as I believe would be clear to any audience was as follows:
(i) Neuro-chemicals – this is not a fancy term (as any elementary biology student knows), but rather refers to the *material* process which guides any *sense perception* of reality if metaphysical *materialism* is true. It is commonly studied both in the philosophy of science and in biology. This was the reason for the reference here, not to impress, appeal to authority or appeal to ignorance.
(ii) Plantinga and Kant were mentioned to provide a reference to the accepted fact in *professional* philosophy, by both atheist and theist philosophers universally that if God does not exist, then there is no objective basis for reality and any concept of reality we have cannot be trusted as reflecting objective truth but is merely the outcome of natural processes whose basis of function is not to seek truth but merely to react biochemically.
I feel my above comments were quite obvious to the reasonable reader and my motives and intentions for making them not only clear but again obvious. They were also made so any reader, even those from a non-philosophical background could easily lookup the references to find out what they were referring to.
Consequently, are you able to again please advise how your statement above, again does not commit the ad hominem fallacy?
Kind regards,
QEV
LikeLike
Dear author, I apologise in advance for asking so many questions, but I have read a number of your posts and am curious.
May I please inquire, as an atheist, which argument for this existence of God do you believe is the most difficult to refute or requires the most consideration and effort to refute.
Thanks in Advance,
QEV
LikeLike
My dear fellow-Latinist, there is no need to apologize. Your questions are most welcome (I have never understood “more than welcome”), and your curiosity is admirable.
People I have baptized “non-atheists” are not all fools. Many have examined the “evidence” (which they do not realize is a “petitio principii” – a begging of the question) and decided that God must exist. May I suggest that you take five, or, more realistically a half-hour or so, and check out my multiple posts, notably on the Universe, where I think out loud about causality and chance. To understand why, in spite of the grandeur, the beauty and the mind-boggling immensity and complexity of the Universe, I do not believe in a divine creator, I suggest you read Carl Sagan. To understand the baffling, to many incredible, origin of life by … chance, it is imperative to read Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” and his explanation of “single-step” and “cumulative selection” (page 47). The origin of the Universe and of life are, for me, the biggest challenges to atheism. But they are “only” challenges . . .
LikeLike
The exchange interests me. I am intrigued however by QEV’s placement of the qualifying phrase “as an atheist” in his/her second paragraph question.
Its placement appears to qualify QEV which seems at odds with the tenor of his/her original comment. If the phrase was meant to refer to the blog’s author it should have been more properly placed after “you” in the paragraph to avoid any misunderstanding.
A minor quibble I’m sure.
On the more important question of God or No-God (or belief or no belief in God or belief or no belief in No-God – which are related but not identical issues) – there should be some consensus on what the word “God” means. Most religions, which are the object of the ridicule which is the subject of this particular post, define the subject of their belief systems, either specifically or by implication, as all-knowledgeable, all-powerful and all-loving. This alone in my view makes the exercise of ridicule so much easier.
LikeLike
I am afraid QEV is challenged not only by writing coherent English but understanding it. To mistake “religion” for “RIDICULING religion” as the subject of my first sentence and in fact of the whole post is mind-boggling evidence of a hyperlogographic reading resulting inevitably in a total lack of comprehension of words much simpler than the outrageously pedantic epithet I have just employed. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnall’s.
LikeLike
I posted the reply which precedes this one before I read the latest long comment from QEV. It is clear that not only did he not understand my original post, but failed to comprehend my explanation of his misunderstanding. It seems pointless to waste any more time talking to a brick wall.
LikeLike
frankomeara, as I stated previously I understood from the beginning that your post was not about religion but rather ridiculing religion.
My point was that you have failed to provide any logically sound reasons why an atheist on their worldview should “bother” ridiculing religion.
I am genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts to prove your premise, yet you continue to create a straw man saying I am attacking the premise of the validity of religion as opposed to the ridiculing of religion, which I have now twice said I have and always done with these posts.
I also believe that is more than obvious to any reader – that I am addressing your attempt to prove why an atheist should bother ridiculing religion.
I also note that you did not respond to any of my points, nor addressed any of my statements.
This brings up numerous questions – what is the point of this blog? Is it to defend atheism? Is it merely to preach to the choir? Does the author want diverse readers? Does the author prefer an inclusive environment and audience or is it exclusive only to those who agree with the author?
If the author encourages inclusion, then why does he attach those who read his blog and not respond to the arguments? If the author wanted to enlighten interested readers would not the best approach be to actually address any sincere questions or observations a reader may have? I know that when I write papers, I am open to feedback and love addressing any points raised against things I have said. This I believe is important to show an interested person why their analysis is wrong.
And yet this author fails to do that.
Clearly I can only conclude interested readers are not permitted to disagree or post sincere questions when they cannot see any logic in what the author is saying – providing the author with an attempt to defend his logic.
Accordingly, I shall not comment anymore on this post and will respect the approach of this blogger.
May I please ask the author what level of study he has done? I specifically ask this because he calls himself a “theologian”. I would like to know what studies he has completed or whether he has published any peer reviewed articles or scholarly texts. I would be especially interested to read any peer reviewed articles he has on theology (apart from philosophy) as he refers to himself as a theologian.
LikeLike
My dear QEV : Your first two sentences in this most recent comment leave me (almost) speechless. Your very first comment stated : “The underlying error in this premise is that on the atheist worldview, there is no objective source or metaphysical basis to claim that R E L I G I O N causes pain, damage or carries any risk;” How can you now say that “as I stated previously, I understood from the beginning that your post was not about religion but rather ridiculing religion” ? Your blatant misunderstanding already disqualified you for serious discussion. Your present attempt to deny it reveals a closed mind or outright dishonesty or both.
You claim that I “failed to produce any logically sound reasons why AN atheist on THEIR (?) world-view should ‘bother’ ridiculing religion.” Whatever about your ignorance of grammar, I believe other, more objective, readers will recognize the validity of my eight solid reasons.
I leave you with a question. Did you READ what I wrote in my post as the second reason justifying my ridiculing religion ? How then can you ask “what level of study” I have done ? Clearly you are interested in jousting for jousting’s sake. As I will point out in the comment I am about to make on your other long discourse about First Causes and such, we both know how pointless it is to engage in a dialogue of the deaf. A-Dieu, QEV. Let me know when you discover that the truth is to be found neither in “Revelation” or wishful thinking or pseudo-philosophical “proofs” for the existence of God and an afterlife. Only then will you be free.
LikeLike
frankomeara, I feel I have outlined your fallacies sufficiently in this post.
I have responded to our discussion regarding First Causes below.
Concerning grammar, I am typing this on my phone. Keep in mind, this is a blog article, not the international forum for literature. Accordingly, I suspect many more errors in my spelling/grammar etc. However, surely, that merely is an attempt to distract from the heart of the matter and substance of the issue. Unfortunately, trying to highlight a grammatical error does not disprove the logic in a philosophical argument.
I feel this issue has been fleshed out and there is nothing further to state – I think the errors exposed for any further reader of the blog.
I am curious as to your background. I think your profile mentions you were a priest. Were you ordained? You mentioned graduate education. Was this a masters degree or an actual doctorate from an accredited institution? If it was a masters, was it one by coursework alone or did it include a research thesis? As you call yourself a theologian I assume you are referring to a doctoral qualification and you mention 4 years which also leads me to think this is the case as that is the normal time for a doctoral program in theology. I would be curious to know what your dissertation was on and why you chose the topic at the time.
LikeLike
Qev – I know you don’t mind my familiarity because I know an Australian when I read one – there is an eerie resemblance between your interest in my “background” and the …”ad hominem” attacks of your master and mentor, my former friend Jim. He knew, as I explained in my book “From Illusions to Illumination. The Itinerary of a Franciscan Priest from Catholicism to Atheism” (page 41) that after three years of doctoral studies and the completion of all other requirements for the doctorate in Theology, I abandoned the thesis I was writing on St Bonaventure’s Theology of Preaching because I left both my Order and orders. Hence my academic titles : “S.T.L. (magna cum laude), S.T.D.- A.B.T.” (“All but the Thesis”); for Jim this was enough to discredit me as a theologian.
So before we definitively abandon this pointless exchange, let me leave you with a question that you need not bother answering : what – including academic degrees – qualifies you for discussion with a former Professor of Theology at a Catholic University in Vermont ?
“In the beginning was the Word.” This is my Last.
LikeLike
As a non-theologian reader I will risk rushing in where angels might fear to tread. QEV asks for reasons why one should Ridicule Religion. One might well turn the question back on QEV and ask for logical reasons why one should not.
The facts are that we live in a world in which Religions exist and have exercised significant influence and wish to continue to do so. Any fair minded assessment of the content of the beliefs of the various world Religions would surely conclude that much of what they profess is incomprehensible or plainly ridiculous. There are clearly many people who for various reasons do not subscribe to this assessment of the content of their respective a Religions. That surely is the whole point of this blog – to encourage a rational reassessment of their so-called beliefs by
Believers-On-The-Brink.
LikeLike
frankomeara, in terms of what qualifies a theologian, it depends on a persons definition.
The Early Church Fathers for example never completed doctorates. Nor did St. Paul.
On the other hand, I know many people with doctorates who know nothing about theology apart from several commentators who dominate the current landscape. Any mention of theological arguments from Councils or Fathers only confounds them.
In terms of my intentions, I wanted to see whether your formation was in dogmatic/moral theology or in philosophy as some theological programs allow for a dissertation in philosophy. However, it seems your background is not in philosophy, which makes a lot more sense to me and explains why there seems to be confusion in our dialogue.
LikeLike
The following refers to QEV’s second comment above. It was written by “Rendezvous”, an eminent scientist and Emeritus Professor, who has permitted me to publish his remarks from an e-mail he sent me :
“QEV writes : ‘If God did not exist, then there is no objective basis for reality and any concept of reality we have cannot be trusted as reflecting objective truth, but is merely the outcome of natural processes whose basis of function is not to seek truth but merely to react biochemically.’ I agree entirely with the second part of this statement, as it encapsulates my view of existence. However I fail to see how God can provide an objective concept of reality. He (She ? It ?) could only do that if It
were an absolute objective entity, which Its various adherents insist It is, but the trouble is that they all have different concepts of It. So It would need to come right out and explain to us all what It really is, presumably in simple languages (all of them) rather than mathematics. It would also have to come right out and tell us what the truths really are. Then It would have provided us with a reliable concept of reality, and we would all be justified believers. Unfortunately God declines to do that. Is It being coy or deliberately obstructive ? Its adherents are not disheartened by Its deficiency. Instead God wants them to have faith, and so cannot tell them everything (or even anything). Of course.
“I have a cousin who is a brilliant man, but who justifies his Christianity on the basis of faith. I am not proud of him.”
LikeLike
One of the reasons I became an atheist is precisely that the “God” religions believe in seems to love being “coy”. I already had a serious problem with self-declared “Divine Revelation”, which, if true, would be a sorry reflection on divine intelligence. But your idea, Professor, captures in that one word the too readily accepted notion that God deliberately plays games with us : “I’ll send you a message. If you can decipher the code, you get a piece of candy and a ticket to Heaven. I could come right out and reveal My existence to each of you directly, and keep you from harm and cheer you up when you’ve been hit by a tsunami or a terrorist’s bomb (both of which I suppose I could have prevented had I not been playing chess with My Boy or with “Paraclete”, Our divine pigeon). But getting to Heaven has a cost. You have to believe. I’ve left clues all over the place : sunrise at Bondi, or even sunset at Sans Souci, the Australian or the real Alps, a baby’s smile, last Sunday’s sermon (well, no, better forget that one) and the Bible. O.K., so it’s not such a good read, except for bits like Psalm 22 and My Son’s Sermon on the Mount (which, I told Him, contains some pretty outrageous nonsense). The bloke who wrote “Revelation” (“Apocalypse” to non-Prodos) had had an arvo of heroine and vodka (a bit like Diana’s chauffeur, now being eternally barbecued, along with the prawns), but no one will take him seriously (good stuff for a movie though). Anyhow that’s the deal : Believe and thou shalt be saved. Amen.”
LikeLike
I can refuse to enter the fray no longer, as I perceive the vast hole in the logic of Eminent scientist and emeritus Professor Rendezvous, Professor and doctor (minus thesis!!) Frank and even humble, non professor, non doctor Thom(not even doctor sans thesis). I always thought the thesis to be 95% of the doctorate?
Of course, school teachers, in France, are called professor, which is obviously Frank’s justification for crowning himself (like Napoleon) with the title.
You’ve picked a seriously flawed argument to champion, professor Frank. Eminent scientists are not necessarily good philosophers or theologians, no matter how eminent they are.
The first big error in what the trio claim, is that they can’t see that if there are many versions and understandings of what God is or is not, then only one, at most, can be correct. That is basic logic. Perhaps they innocently confuse the issue, or perhaps they deliberately muddy the water to avoid being forced to defend their subjective views.
So the trio waste so much time on this muddled trail of assuming several competing ideas of the deity need to be justified,
So QEV, a breath of fresh air to this blog, whoever he/she is, and myself just argue for the one, true reasoned argument, following from Aristotle and built on by Aquinas as the correct one. That is the only version of reality that I, or presumably QEV, are interested in defending.
So, let’s keep it simple. We claim the God as understood by Catholic dogma.
Pagan, Aristotle first gave a reasoned argument for God as the first cause of everything that changes in the universe. From this basic concept, several necessary attributes of this first cause were logically deduced, just like the unfolding of an axiom of Euclidean Geometry e.g. Pythagoras’ theorem.
So, let Professor Rendezvous or wannabe professor Frank defend their argument against this well defined God.
Following the acceptance of what can be logically defended of this God, further knowledge of His attributes can be ascertained by divine revelation, particularly by the human manifestation in Jesus for a period of 33 years.
So let one or all of the trio firstly knock down the “First Cause” God. I wait!
At the end, I hope emeritus Professor and eminent scientist, Rendezvous will have reason to be proud of his brilliant Christian relative. I love to build family unity.
As icing on our cake, the eminent scientist will be interested in the continual amazing unfolding of scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin; amazing evidence for a Catholic scientist like myself, but a baffling dilemma for atheists, who would like to claim science (more specifically scientism) as an ally.
LikeLike
Glad to see you’re still reading the Blog, Jim. “Tolle lege”, Lumen de lumine : plenty more where that came from.
LikeLike
It is indeed a novelty to have Jim back. He reappeared at an earlier time as Eileen but new light has illuminated his world of dark satanic forces (including Frank and to a lesser extent myself) and he has now resurrected himself as the light of light – a lightweight indeed.
I am somewhat surprised that he did not include his hero Feser to reconstitute his other trinity with Aristotle and Aquinas.
He should have the honesty to acknowledge the patently obvious fact that the “argument” of “First Cause”
doesn’t even get to first base. Even an
amateur philosopher like Jim should
see this. But you’ve got to give it to
him for trying.
But let’s stick to the point of the blog – encouraging independence of thought.
LikeLike
Frank, this is a really good post. The salient point asserted by Hitchens is that there will never be peace because the powers that be have put a veto on it by promising the same real estate to different claimants. GROG
LikeLike