Internet Commentator

Atheists not evil, shock horror

Via Joe Miller I see that Andrew Sullivan is disturbed:

Most disturbing to me are the high numbers of self-decribed Christians favoring torture: only 26 percent of Catholics oppose it in all circumstances, while only 31 percent of white Protestants rule it out entirely. If you combine those Christians who think torture is either never or only rarely acceptable, you have 42 percent of Catholics and 49 percent of white Protestants. The comparable statistic of those who are decribed as "secular," which I presume means agnostic or atheist, is 57 percent opposition. In other words, if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it's a new constituency.

New constituency, my ass. Sullivan seems to share the smug and apparently widespread antipathy towards atheists. The irony is that this shouldn't be surprising at all. It is generally the case that self-righteous zealotry (and a tendency to divide the world into proponents and opponents of one's own superstition) is the preserve of those who subscribe to one of the three monotheistic religions. Those who don't believe in God, or an afterlife, or those who profess to be skeptical, are under a greater obligation to treat others with consideration. When he sacked Béziers and massacred its inhabitants as part of the Albigensian crusade, Abbot Arnaud Amaury was quite happy to save himself the bother of distinguishing between catholics and the "heretical" cathars by ordering his crusaders to "Kill them all, God will know his own". No such consolation is available to the atheist.

Speak for yourself, Roy

I had no problem believing Neil's assertion below that Jonathan Freedland had written a worthwhile piece on "Loyalist"* violence. But, doubting Thomas as I am, I really had to read Hattersley's "miraculous" piece for myself to determine whether this most reliable of negative compasses - it's a fair bet that if Roy is in favour, I'm agin' it - was still functioning correctly. Fortunately all is well in my world as the shameless theist-panderer doesn't disappoint.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character. Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

[...]

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

This from a self-described atheist. Nice fact-free bland assumption that all charities have a religious origin and character. Perhaps he hasn't heard of Médecins Sans Frontières or the Red Cross? The latter was, he might like to learn, established by Henry Dunant in 1863. Mr Dunant was a Swiss businessman, hence the red cross. This cross doesn't have any intended religious association, which is why it is replaced by a crescent where crosses are deemed offensive. Maybe Hattersely just assumed that the Red cross and Red Crescent were two separate religious organisations in which case I suggest, in future he jfgi.

I'm guessing that Neil's charitable assessment of Hattersley is something to do with the Grauniad's more typically sneering attitude towards those of (non-Islamic) faith. But, he ignores the fact that this is not the first time Roy Hattersley has displayed contempt for atheists while simultaneously fawning over the religious. His ludicrous attempt to split the difference between Salman Rushdie and the people who wanted to kill him - suggesting that the Satanic verses ought not be published in paperback - characteristically combined cravenness and ineffectualism. More recently he has defended the "right" of British muslims to, in his evasive euphemisms, "what they eat, how they dress, which way they choose their husbands and wives" - an article which was deftly dissected by Ophelia Benson.

* Incidentally, to whom are "Loyalists" actually Loyal? Because, to judge by the attacks on the PSNI, it sure doesn't seem to be the crown.

Revealed Atheism

Will Wilkinson has some interesting thoughts on how the behaviour of soi-disant theists implies an (unacknowledged) atheism:

In a fit of Beckerite rational choice reasoning, I decided that theists ought to have higher rates of death by accident. If I believe that heaven is infinite bliss, then I should be quite eager to join my maker. Suicide is a disqualification for paradise, but dying in a car accident isn't. So, one should expect that theists who believe in perpetual Miami would take more risks than those who do not so believe, and that thus, death-by-accident ought to be higher among believer than non-believers.

My guess is that there is no difference in rates of death-by-accident among believers and non-believers. If my guess is correct, then there's another reason to believe that many people don't really believe in God, even though they think they do.

[...]

Many of us believe that we believe because the social and psychological benefits of appearing to be a believer seem to us greater than the costs, and the most compelling way to appear a believer, but to avoid the behavioral costs of actual belief, is to earnestly but falsely believe that one believes.

Our "faith" is shaken when we find we cannot stop cheating on our wife, or whatever our transgression may be, because, on some level, we know that if we really believed what we believe we believed, cheating on our wife be be psychologically impossible -- like peeling the skin off your screaming baby out of sheer boredom. Yet the general value of our self-deception is so high that we cast about looking to preserve it.

UPDATE: I was thinking about this a little more and it occurs to me that a bit of precision is in order. Two separate beliefs are conflated here:

1. That there is a God (or Gods) who presumably created the universe.

2. That there is an afterlife of presumably infinite bliss.

Now, you probably need to believe 1. to also believe 2. but belief in 2. doesn't automatically follow from belief in 1. In fact, while the idea of a Creator seems intuitively plausible to plenty of people, (as does the idea that dogs are capable of reflective thought), the idea of an afterlife is considerably more speculative and rests on that "faith" - verification of this is, by definition, impossible. To the theist, life the universe and everything is verification of the Creator's existence. I suggest that what is revealed by the behavior of soi-disant theists is not atheism as such but instead scepticism about the prospect of an afterlife. One needn't even "believe" that there is no afterlife: Assigning a probability somewhere less than 50% should be sufficient to produce the type of "inconsistent" behaviour which exercises Will here. (Although this would suggest a slightly higher proportion of accidental deaths among such "afterlife-sceptics")

Mrs Kerry II

I do realise that things have come to a sorry pass when you are reduced to relating the unusual search queries which arrive at your blog. It is the blog equivalent of the fall-back boilerplates hacked out by mainstream journalists with the deadline looming. But...

....to the person who wondered what religion is Teresa Simoes Ferreira?, I feel obliged to point out that as Portugal is 94% Roman Catholic it is a reasonable guess that she's a Catholic.

Sham Sacraments

Missed this while I was away: Interesting post at Irish Eagle about whether non-believers should take part in church sacraments. As an atheist who is more intolerant of agnostics than believers and who has just had his daughter baptised I thought I should chip in with my thoughts, albeit a week later.

The first thing I'd like to say is that, even restricting this discussion to Christianity, there is a difference here between Protestantism and Catholicism. As I understand it, so long as that person believes in God, there should be no reason to deny a "non-observant" Protestant any church sacrament. Catholicism by contrast, despite how it is currently practised, is supposed to be doctrinaire. John is quite right that it is somewhat of a sham for non-practicing "Catholics" to avail of sacraments because churches make such nice backdrops for weddings.

But: I think it is important to make the distinction, elided by Backseat Driver Jon in the comments between sacraments for adults such as weddings and sacraments for children such as baptism or communion. There certainly may be, as Jon avers, conformist reasons to have one's child baptised but there is a perfectly good justification for doing so regardless of such peer pressure, so long as one follows through.

I am an atheist who was brought up Catholic. I chose atheism but was grateful for the background moral framework provided by religion. I don't think there is a better way of inculcating morality and responsibility. But that is not the main point. I don't think it is meaningful to talk about children practicing religion. This is evidenced by the sacrament of confirmation, the purpose of which is for the child, sufficiently mature to make this decision, to confim their choice of that religion.

Thus, it is not a bad idea to give the child the option of choosing religion by having them baptised, and letting them make communion. Of course it follows that you should allow them participate properly by attending mass regularly. Then when they are mature enough they can decide whether to continue with religious practice. If, in passing, they acquire a sound moral framework so much the better.

Agnosticism and Quantum Fairies

It is a frequent irritation to me to come across declarations of agnosticism. It is often characterised as the reasonable sceptical view in contrast to "arrogant" atheism which is characterised as a kind of belief system analogous to religion.

In the latest example of this, Luke Lea has a post over at Gene Expression relating his embarrassing faux pas at Panda's Thumb and parading his "sceptical" agnosticism. I thought I'd explain why this view of agnosticism is a fallacy.

Agnosticism refuses to make its mind up between theism and atheism until all the evidence is in. Well as much of that evidence as you will ever need is in already. There now is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis which is consistent with all known facts to explain how life, the universe and everything evolved and which doesn't depend on a Creator. Those who accord equal weight to the two following propositions:

1. That there is a God
2. That there isn't a God

are looking at this the wrong way around. They assume the question to be open in the first place, that there is an equal onus on proponents of each case to make that case.

Try two alternative propositions. Let us imagine a type of fairy. It flutters around waving its wand, right behind you, but if you turn around to look, it becomes invisible. Further, any attempt to observe it at all, including by hidden camera, produces the same effect. We can call them "quantum fairies". So, examine the opposing propositions

1. That quantum fairies exist
2. That quantum fairies don't exist.

Nobody seriously argues that the onus is on those who subscribe to Prop. 2 to "prove" that quantum fairies don't exist, yet agnostics implicitly assume that a similar burden of proof applies to atheists.

4-1

I really have nothing to say about Manchester United's humiliating defeat by Manchester City. I just wanted to confirm that it is not something I am simply ignoring. One cannot take pride in the towering achievements of one's team if one does not also suffer the crushing despair when they suffer a reverse. Things have come to a sorry pass when one's hopes for the season rest on Arsenal somehow being prevented from emulating United's treble of 1999. And next week I shall be at Old Trafford to watch the game against Tottenham Hotspur.

Ash Wednesday

Chris wonders whether French students will be barred from displaying ashes on their foreheads. It hadn't occurred to me but this probably will be the case. He also suggests that "cool" Dublin won't see many ash-wearers today. Perhaps. But I think today is one of those days in the year that put the lie to the notion that religious observance is in terminal decline. I've seen plenty of ashen foreheads here in Dundalk already.