Criticism of atheism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since February 2007.

Criticism of atheism refers to the criticism of the world view Atheism. It chiefly receives opposition from theistic sources, though some forms of atheism also receive criticism from nontheistic sources. There are several specific kinds of arguments which are commonly used against atheism, including assessments of its validity, the consequences of not believing, and the actions of those who are atheists.

Contents

[edit] Arguments for the existence of God

Main article: Existence of God

The most direct arguments against atheism are those in favor of the existence of a higher power, usually that of a god or gods. If one or more of these theistic beliefs were to be proven they would discredit atheism.

[edit] Atheism as a rejection of theism

Some do not criticize the idea of atheism per se, but are critical that some atheists may have arrived at their position in response to a particular presentation of theism. Such individuals may have been presented with a poorly-constructed theistic model or had bad experiences with a religious institution. Atheism of this premise can be seen as a negative reaction to a human institution built around a particular experience of theism which may or may not be valid.

In his book Exploration Into God John A.T. Robinson points to the need for Christianity to find "a God beyond theism." One view is that some atheists have arrived at their view due to encountering religious experiences that have not sought a higher power beyond the definitions of a particular religion.

Just as Christianity is seen by some--like Spong and Robinson--as needing to transcend "traditional" beliefs, likewise one might say that some forms of atheism could find a definition of themselves which is not beholden to old formats or, for that matter, dependent on religion. That is, that atheists could be so because that is the choice they have made based on their own initiative, not because they find a given god-concept to be unconvincing. In keeping with this reasoning, atheism as such would need to be a full rejection of the existence of a higher power, not simply a rejection of a theistic philosophy promulgated by a religious institution.

[edit] Atheism and happiness

Some argue that atheism makes life meaningless and miserable. Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1670 in his book Pensées. He claimed that without God, people would only be able to create obstacles and overcome them in an attempt to escape boredom. These token victories would ultimately become meaningless, since people would eventually die, and this was good enough reason not to become an atheist. The existence of atheists who are evidently happy and enjoy life seems to indicate that either the metaphysical conclusions are not an inevitable consequence of atheism, or that they are not necessarily depressing. A common response to this criticism is that it confuses a question of truth (whether gods exist) with a question of comfort and rests on the fallacy of appeal to consequence. Belief in God may make one happy but it does not mean the belief is true. Similarly, believing in a treasure buried in one's backyard might make a person happy, but that is not enough to make it true.

[edit] Atheism and morality

Some critics of atheism say the lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics. For example, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly announced that "the big powers' atheism is the root cause of man's problems today".[1] Many world religions teach that morality is derived from or expressed by the dictates or commandments of a particular deity, and that acknowledgment of God or the gods is a major factor in motivating people towards moral behavior. Consequently, atheists have frequently been accused of holding no rational basis for acting morally. For example, for many years in the United States, atheists were not allowed to testify in court because it was believed that an atheist would have no reason to tell the truth.[2]

Atheists almost uniformly reject this view and many have argued that no religious basis is necessary for one to live an ethical life.[3] They assert that atheists are as or more motivated towards moral behavior as anyone, citing a range of non-theistic sources of moral behavior, including: their upbringing; natural empathy, compassion and a human concern for others; respect for order, society, and law; and a desire for a good reputation and self-esteem. According to this view, truly ethical behavior would come from altruistic motivation, not from fear of punishment or hope of reward after death. In addition, while atheism does not entail any particular moral philosophy, many atheists are drawn towards views like secular humanism, empiricism, objectivism, or utilitarianism, which provide a moral framework that is not founded on faith in deities.

Many among theists and atheists do not believe that theism, or lack of it, has any pronounced effect on whether a person behaves morally or not. For instance, the Dalai Lama has said that compassion and affection are human values independent of religion: We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things.[4] This notion may be supported by the traditional Christian concept of natural law. The Catholic Church teaches that human reason inclines people to seek the good and avoid sin, and that people would therefore still be prone to moral behavior even without knowledge of a revealed divine law. This natural law would provide the foundation on which humans can build moral rules to guide its choices and regulate society.[5] Other Christian groups adopt similar reasoning.[6]

Other atheists counter that religion, rather than atheism, would be a source of immorality - saying religious ethical systems emphasize obedience over goodness. Some feel that, due to their alleged supernatural support, these systems are inherently authoritarian, hence able to endorse immorality as easily as morality while discouraging individuals from responsibly evaluating the rightness of their actions. In support of this, atheists point to the lack of morality in many acts inspired by religion.[7] Defenders of religious ethics usually respond by characterizing the cases of immorality in the name of religion as being an aberration based on wrong interpretations of religious scripture, and point out all the good things that religion can claim credit for, such as acts of charity.

A recent study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society shows a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction.[8] However, an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[9] Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the relationship between religiosity and moral behavior.[10] [11] [12] In a response [13] to the study by Paul, Gary F. Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study. His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that there is a correlation (and perhaps a causal relationship) of higher homicide rates, not with Christianity, but with dualism in Christianity, that is to say with the proportion of the population who believe the devil and hell exist. Excerpt: "A multiple regression analysis reveals a complex relationship with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it."

In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris notes that, "If there were a strong correlation between Christian conservatism and societal health we might expect to see some sign of it in red-state America. We don't. Of the twenty-five cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62 percent are in 'blue' (Democratic) states, and 38 are in Red (Republican) states. Of the 25 most dangerous cities, 76 percent are in red states, and 24 percent are in blue states. In fact, 3 of the 5 most dangerous cities in the U.S. are in the pious state of Texas. The twelve states with the highest rate of burglary are red. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine states with the highest rates of theft are red. Of the twenty-two states with the highest rate of murder, seventeen are red."


[edit] Atheism as faith

The claim that atheism requires faith or unproven assumptions is a common argument leveled against atheists of all stripes. In this form of argument, critics of atheism typically employ the term "faith" in the polemical sense often employed by atheists themselves, meaning a "blind" or unwarranted belief. Faith, often taken to mean, "religious faith", does not inherently involve religion; i.e having faith in the colour of the sky, or the word of a weather-reporter is not religious.

At times, this argument consists of laying the burden of proof on atheism, or in the case of agnostics and weak atheists, laying it on both strong atheism and theism. However, laying the burden of proof on atheism may be difficult because it is impossible to prove a negative. While it might be theoretically possible to one day find reasonably persuasive evidence of the existence of a deity, it is impossible to find evidence of any thing's nonexistence. As such, arguments for strong atheism consist primarily of arguments against theism, which is in keeping with claims that atheism in general is only the lack of a belief rather than a belief itself. Some strong atheists argue that, since they see the burden of proof as being upon theism, they are under no obligation to offer arguments that seek to actively disprove theism. Instead, strong atheism is a default position, like disbelief in Santa-Claus, that they feel ought to be held unless and until that burden of proof is shouldered. However, weak atheists and agnostics feel that neither theism nor atheism are a proper default position to be taken and hence labelling both theism's and strong atheism's calls for proof to be argumentum ad ignoratiam.

One atheistic response is to emphasize that atheism is a rejection or lack of belief, not a belief in itself. This argument is often summarized by reference to Don Hirschberg's famous saying, "calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."[14] A related argument is to point out that adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists with regard to all other religions. Thus, a reductio ad absurdum attaches—believers of one faith are also "atheist believers" of every other religion in existence.

Another atheistic response to this argument is to state that the word "faith" in this context, as asserted with respect to theist "belief" verses atheist "belief," means something very different in the two contexts. Faith can mean 'complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.' Faith can also mean 'Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. When a theist speaks of his faith, it is argued, he refers to the latter definitions. When he wishes to assert that "atheists have faith, too", the only definition that fits is the first, but his argument implies the latter definitions, nonetheless (see equivocation).

Some people have, in response to this argument, drawn the analogy of Russell's teapot.

[edit] Atheism as "Religious" Exclusivism

Generally, religious exclusivists are those groups which assert that their particular interpretation of religious truth is the only valid one. According to George Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[15] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview as it effects thought, speech, and action, but may or may not have something to do with "God." Marxism could therefore be called a religion, not because it talks about faith or "Truth," but because for some people it is the primary apparatus through which they interpret and interact with the world. Following this argument, then, one might define atheism as a religion (in the Lindbeckian sense) and furthermore view strong atheism as a position of religious exclusivism in that it denies the validity of all views about religion other than itself.

[edit] Atheists and religious groups

Atheists sometimes contend that they are, as a group, openly discriminated against in societies where most other forms of discrimination would nowadays be considered unacceptable. In the United States, for example, a public admission of atheism would make it very difficult for many people to be elected to public office.

Atheists are sometimes criticized for a perceived unnecessarily harsh, or even prejudicial, way some of them deal with people holding theistic world views. When discussing atheism and morality in at infidels.org[3], the atheist Mark I. Vuletic questions why many theists still see atheists as stereotypically "morally corrupt". He argues that part of the problem lies in the demonization of disbelief by religious groups, but he also mentions another issue that would sustain the stereotype in the minds of many:

“ Atheism has a comparatively small public voice, but it is a voice that many believers hear. However, when they listen to this voice, they often hear little more than slurs and insults. When interacting with atheists, believers are frequently met with the same arrogance and condescension, the same hatred and vitriol, the same bigotry and prejudice, as atheists so often receive from believers. In short, believers tend to encounter in atheists exactly what they have been taught to expect. ”

A somewhat similar view is given by Jeff Nall, also an atheist. In a recent article at the magazine The Humanist, he criticizes the prevalence of what he calls antagonistic atheism in secular/humanist movements in the USA.[16] He writes:

“ ...too many atheists see the freethought and Humanist movement as a revolution, an opportunity to wage war on religion. As a result, an epidemic of antipathy has battered an otherwise inspiring veneer. Many outsiders--both nonbelievers and believers--who might otherwise find a naturalistic, secular perspective or philosophy of life worth exploring, see the fanciful crusade of many atheists to "save" humanity from the "scourge" of religion in the same light they view religious fanatics who zealously seek converts. ”

In the article, Jeff Nall cites and criticizes some atheists advocating the use of ridicule toward religion and other extreme tactics as a way to advance the cause. He argues that, instead of proclaiming war against religion, atheists in the USA would benefit much more by working together with those in religion who are also committed to reason and science to counter the political power of the Christian right. Ridiculing the beliefs of others, he writes, is not only strategically unpalatable, but is also seen by many, including within the Humanist movement, as a form of prejudice.

Nall gives examples of initiatives based on cooperation that he thinks should be used instead of the antagonistic ones. Maybe the best example is the work of the atheist biology professor Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. In response to the Creation-evolution controversy in public education, he organized the Evolution Sunday, a US national holiday to be celebrated in churches. More than four hundred congregations celebrated the holiday on February 12, 2006, commemorating the birthday of Charles Darwin and giving support for the teaching of evolution. The event succeeded in making headlines across the country.

Jeff Nall contrasts Zimmerman's work with the approach on the same issue by the famous atheist intellectual Richard Dawkins, who is, according to Zimmerman, quoted in the article, doing more harm than good with his confrontational style.

Dawkins, however, like many other modern atheists such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett, believes the days of deferring to religious claims are over. Dawkins believes that the truth is more important than gaining "converts" to atheism. Also Dawkins and Harris argue that religious beliefs are not worthy of respect solely because they are held sacred by some people. In spite of that, Dawkins has written texts with scientist/theologians like Ian Barbour and Langdon Gilkey, indicating his willingness to enter into dialogue with Process Theology.


[edit] See also

v • d • e
Atheism topics
List of atheists · Demographics · Religion · History · State atheism · Criticism · Discrimination · Persecution · Nontheism · Weak and strong · Agnostic atheism · Implicit and explicit · Antitheism · Arguments

[edit] References

  1. ^ IRNA. Ahmadinejad: Atheism of big powers is rootcause of man's plight. Press release. Retrieved on 2007-01-01.
  2. ^ See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 236 F. 798, 799 (W.D. Wash., N.D. 1916) (citing Thurston v. Whitney et al., 2 Cush. (Mass.) 104; Jones on Evidence, Blue Book, vol. 4, §§ 712, 713) ("Under the common-law rule a person who does not believe in a God who is the rewarder of truth and the avenger of falsehood cannot be permitted to testify.")
  3. ^ a b Is Atheism Consistent With Morality? (2001). Retrieved on 2006-10-14.
  4. ^ http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0106
  5. ^ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III, Section I, Chapter 03. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
  6. ^ Can Atheists be ethical?. Retrieved on 2006-10-13.
  7. ^ The Atheism Web: An Introduction to Atheism. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
  8. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society 7. 
  9. ^ Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society 8. 
  10. ^ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443-457. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
  11. ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323-348. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
  12. ^ Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1), 175-194. DOI:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x
  13. ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
  14. ^ http://atheisme.free.fr/Quotes/Atheist.htm
  15. ^ George A. Lindbeck, Nature of Doctrine (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1984), 33.
  16. ^ Nall, Jeff. "Overcoming antagonistic atheism to recast the image of humanism." The Humanist 66.4 (July-August 2006): 31(6). Link to the magazine: [1]. Link to a reproduction of the text: [2]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Criticism_of_atheism.html"
In other languages