Nicholas Kristof's "Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion," and responses by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others

Nicholas Kristof in a column at the New York Times, as quoted at Darwiniana:

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, you can’t help wondering why she doesn’t pull out a thunderbolt and strike down Richard Dawkins.

Or, at least, crash the Web site of www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com. That’s a snarky site that notes that while people regularly credit God for curing cancer or other ailments, amputees never seem to enjoy divine intervention.

“If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day,” the Web site declares, adding: “It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them.”

That site is part of an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by Professor Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller “The God Delusion.” It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for...

More here. Responses by Harris, Dawkins, others in the New York Times:

To the Editor:

Re “A Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion,” by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Dec. 3):

Contrary to Mr. Kristof’s opinion, it isn’t “intolerant” or “fundamentalist” to point out that there is no good reason to believe that one of our books was dictated by an omniscient deity.

Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old. They are wrong about this. Declaring them so is not “irreligious intolerance.” It is intellectual honesty.

Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our ethical discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world’s religions offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view of reality at all.

This is a fact that can be argued for from a dozen sides, as Richard Dawkins and I have recently done in our books. Calling our efforts “mean” overlooks our genuine concern for the future of civilization.

And it’s not much of a counterargument either.

Sam Harris
New York, Dec. 3, 2006
The writer is the author of “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

•

To the Editor:

Nicholas D. Kristof is one of many commentators to find the tone of the newly resurgent atheism “obnoxious” or “mean.”

Ubiquitous as they are, such epithets are not borne out by an objective reading of the works he cites: Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation,” my own “God Delusion” and www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com (I had not been aware of this splendid Web site; thank you, Mr. Kristof).

I have scanned all three atheist sources carefully for polemic, and my honest judgment is that they are gentle by the standards of normal political commentary, say, or the standards of theater and arts critics.

Mr. Kristof has simply become acclimatized to the convention that you can criticize anything else but you mustn’t criticize religion. Ears calibrated to this norm will hear gentle criticism of religion as intemperate, and robust criticism as obnoxious. Without wishing to offend, I want “The God Delusion” to raise our consciousness of this weird double standard.

How did religion acquire its extraordinary immunity against normal levels of criticism?

Richard Dawkins
Oxford, England, Dec. 4, 2006

More letters here.  Response from Daniel Dennett at Edge.org:

Presumably Mr Kristof chose the most inflammatory passage he could find in Richard Dawkins' book to illustrate his point about how "mean" and "obnoxious" the tone is, and what he came up with is Dawkins' short but appalling list of some of religion's blemishes: from the Crusades and witch-hunts of yore to today's 9/11, honor killings and "shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money." Good riddance to them all, says Dawkins. Would Kristof choose to defend any of these, or is he just shocked that Dawkins would be so impolite as to remind the devout of these dishonorable episodes? There is nothing "dogmatic" or "fundamentalist" about Dawkins' tone; he is simply speaking truthfully about matters that most people have trained themselves not to mention, or else to allude to in mealy-mouthed terms.

And much more interesting debate on religion here at Edge.org.

Comments

[Bill Ectric]

As Sam Harris points out, many fundamental Christians believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It is fascinating to me that the invention of writing came just a little while after the supposed "creation" of the world. The fundamentalists apparently believe there was nothing here before people started keeping records.

[fred lapides]

I am not sure why all thisbother about such nonsense!

I have been reading a bookabout Sam Johnson (Dictionary Johnson), and the author notes that this great man knew and had read perhaps as much and probably more than anyone around. Yet, despite his deep learning, Doctor Johnson was a very religious man who worried constantly that he might be sent top hell rather than to heaven. What does this mean" It means that memes and beliefsevolve as do just aboutall other things,and to take such notions with the seriousness that it had been taken in the 18th Century (despite Spinoza and Hume) shows how often we get trapped in the nonsense we are fed.

If we ponder Heaven,we can always claim it to be way out in the furthest reaches of the cosmos,still not seen by humans.But then Hell? Is it in the middle of the earth? Ah, no Hell. Only Heaven? Got it?
Letthose who wish to believe,believe. Letthe others ignore them and move on unless they try to impose their views upon us through censorship and laws, in which case we must fight them but not physically. Till this is necessary, save the paper, the arguements, for you will not change minds.

[Jon H]

Sam Harris wrote: "the world’s religions offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to scarcely constitute a view of reality at all."

I'd submit that Harris isn't terribly familiar with Buddhism or Hinduism, which aren't the least bit in conflict with the idea of a large, fantastically old universe. They incorporate spans of time which are probably far larger than the actual age of the universe.

Hinduism may have creation myths he would object to, but there aren't really any Buddhist universe creation myths, apart from borrowed Hindu cosmology in some forms. As the story goes, Buddha deflected questions about such origins, because he considered them irrelevant.

[Mike-]

Jon H: Sam Harris has been a zen practitioner for 20 years.

[James]

Dawkins et al. are wrong not because they critique religion but because they have no idea what religion is. There is a long line of Western rationalist critics of religion (Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, the list goes on and on), and they all critique, consciously or not, the religion they find around them. The best of these thinkers offer insights into human society and psyche but their attacks are inevitably partial.

I completely agree that we need to dispense with the idea that religion is a sui generis area of human experience that can be set apart from all other areas of human experience. We need to be able to critique religions because to critique religions is to critique society and politics. In a democracy, the ability to level such criticisms is essential.

Dawkins et al carry on the practice of setting aside religion as somehow separate from other areas of human life. While fundamentalists set aside their religion (and only their religion) as something apart and immune from criticism, in a twisted mirror image these so-called new atheists set aside all religion as something apart that must be criticized.

Given the tradition I've cited above, such a position is unsurprising. The very concept of religion is a product of the European Enlightenment. In pre-Enlightenment times, the idea that religions could be grouped together in a single abstract category would be unimaginable. The idea that religion is a particular kind of institution found in every society is really a product of imperial domination and colonial rule (the Enlightenment's dirty little secret). Even today, when we talk about religions other than Christianity, we're really drawing an analogy. This set of practices in this society is like this set of practices in Christian Europe, so we'll call it religion.

Critiques of "religion" are generally critiques of particular forms Christianity. When other religions, or religion in general, are critiqued, it tends to merely be an extension of this original European Enlightenment anti-clericalism.

[Dr. Hulbeck]

I find myself amused that Kristof is so ready to call for a "truce" over religion.

Are we mean? Obnoxious? Dear me. Given the comparatively small atheist community in the US (or vocally atheist, anyway) and given the incredible amount of demonization that us badly outnumbered godless have received from the religious population, one would think that a little constructive criticism in return might be fair play, yes? Faith must be a fragile conceit to buckle so easily.

What, in short, is Kristof scared of? And why is it the atheists that are expected to turn the other cheek?

[Stephen]

@ Dr. Hulbeck

"What … is Kristof scared of? And why is it the atheists that are expected to turn the other cheek?"

Forgive me for the religious language, but Amen.

[aguy109]

I refer again to my great mentor, the Mad Hatter, who made a point of “thinking 3 contradictory things before breakfast.” What he meant was that the human brain is not a simple, linear, single processor computer that measures and defines reality by a single, unified algorithm. The brain has thousands or millions of processing elements (neurons, clusters and interconnections of neurons) that variously compete, reinforce and suppress one another, in a manner not dissimilar to the arguments and counter-arguments in this Blog. This meta-stability of the brain gives it the ability to constantly adapt to changes and surprises. Our thought processes do not follow precise Boolean logic: we don’t necessarily make a total choice between ‘God’ or ‘No God’.

As Dennett pointed out during his recent illness, prayer can be comforting for the person who prays. Religious tenets and beliefs, although un-provable, may supply tangible psychological benefits to the people who hold them, without impairing their ability to behave rationally. It is psychologically advantageous for an organism to put herself, her interests, her gene sharing relatives and her community/nation at the center, as religions tend to do, rather than see herself as an insignificant chemical form existing on some speck of planetary dust on an outer galactic arm.
I’ve known quite a few scientists who are both religiously observant and perfectly able to splice DNA or sequence genes in the lab. The fact that religious belief sometimes helps people to do politically incorrect things like fighting wars is not relevant, as wars can help them spread their genes. Therefore, if our ‘selfish genes’ use religion as a winning strategy, the practical response for anyone interested in world peace and harmony is seek to tame and harness religion, not to oppose it head on.
Because the world is complex, it is highly advantageous to think and behave in different ways, according to different rules, in different places, times of the day or circumstances. Hypocrisy? Double Think? Maybe, but of the sort that almost everyone seems to practice to some extent.

[Elena]

The Mad Hatter said no such thing; it's the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass who believes 6 impossible things before breakfast.

Aside from that, I find myself biting my lips to avoid insulting the beliefs of my friends and family. As an anthropologist, I view religion primarily as a mechanism to explain the existence of the world & provide a code of behavior. A description & a prescription, but not the truth.

[Yahmdallah]

This is a great example of what's typically wrong with Harris' and Dawkins' assertions: "Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old."

Really?

Half of the American population?

What's the source of that statement?

They make false or straw man assertions and go from there. Their understanding of the beliefs they mock is superficial and often wrong, so they are critiquing only their own imagination.

[Jerry Kindall]

"Polls taken last year showed that 45 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago (or less)."

That's from a Washington Post article written a little over a year ago. This article was the fourth Google result for "young earth percentage," by the way.

Close enough for me.

[Roy Belmont]

"We just don't find any strong evidence that the absence of WMD is troubling to a majority of the public, 56 percent of whom say that the war with Iraq was justified even if the U.S. does not find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,"
Frank Newport/Gallup Poll 2003
-
Close enough for me.
Placing the responsibility for obvious ignorance on obvious causes is easy and fun.
Stupid public, to believe such outright nonsense - and to their detriment!
Pathetic!
As though these "beliefs" rose up spontaneously and weren't the product of manipulation and deceit.
Dawkins and Dennett and their legion of right-thinking acolytes replace the fundamentalists' timeline with its absurd 6000 year-old kickoff with their own long distance fundamental belief, that the "universe" is 14 billion years old. Give or take a constantly recalibrated few billions or so.
As though it weren't obvious to any open mind that what we live in the midst of is infinite, and eternal.
This will remain impervious to concrete proof, and thereby be always speculative, but it's what's up, it's where we live.
That a recognition of the infinite nature of space and the eternal nature of time leads directly toward ineluctable hints of the metaphysical, that it should be obvious the possibility of eternal and infinite co-ordinates on a grid like that will almost inevitably lead to some kind of meta-existence, some kind of being far outside our ken - we'll just ignore that, it's all much too vague, and will only get in the way of progress.
Arguing with the mindless drones of proprietary religion is much easier, and far more exciting. Just dangerous enough to provide some competitive thrill, without being too, you know, risky.
This is a right hand/left hand gambit, where the polarity is being artificially amplified, to keep the rubes off balance.
But in fact the believers, those not-so-bright common people, the great obese unwashed, would parrot the latest cosmological facts and figures just as readily and instead of the Bible, if they had been trained and encouraged to. Instead, they recognize the threat behind the polarization, that there is no secure place for them in the scientific/atheistic worldview. Whereas a forming context that encourages credulous docility and mindless obedience offers them centrality, position, hope. They've been trained to follow, so they follow.
Attacking them for that is facile, and cheap. Like kicking a man's dog because you're too intimidated to confront him in person.
The real debate is about who has done that training, and why.
The default assumption for Dawkins and Dennett et al. is that it's coming out of the visible architecture of fundamentalist organizations themselves, contemporary religion. Just as the default assumption about America's nightmare debacle in Iraq is it originated in the shallow pit of the Bush/Cheney vortex.
Maybe, maybe not.

[Andy]

Our ability to reason, and use our logic, is more or less what sets me apart from my dog.

I think a lot of the worlds ills could be resolved if people would use their ("God"-given?, natural?, wonderful?, unique?, we-have-it-for-a-reason?) gift of reason.

Letting other people decide what you believe is, in my way of thinking, the most tragic "sin" you could commit. I call this 'outsourcing your logic.'

Example: People believe that they aren't worthy, or perhaps capable, of picking good stocks. So they let someone else do it, and we end up with Enron. (True story: that company was brought down when a reporter asked "How do you make money?")

We CONSTANTLY defer to experts in this age of specialization. They're job, however, is to inform - not tell you what to do or think. That is your privledge (in our country).

No one should think or form beliefs for you. Not your parents, not your pastor, and not Richard Dawkins. Their job is to inform, its yourself that has to make up your own mind about what makes sense to you, by using that precious gift that seperates us from our pets.

I have one of three conversations with people, when we discuss faith.

1. The other person wasn't pushed into religion, but they are stout believers.
-More often than not, it turns out that something tragic happened to them at some point shortly before they became religious. If we are arguing, I stop here because even if I could explain that the abscence of god makes our time THAT much MORE special - it might not be enough for that person.

2. The other person identifies with a religion because of their upbringing, or sometimes, their friend-base. Most of the these people are not very devout at all, and I'd say they are the majority. These are the ones I attempt to reason with. The sad fact is that many people view their parents or pastors as nearly infallible.

3. But there's lots of people like me who too. We usually then start talking about interesting things that could change the world, because these people (for the most part) are optimists. We see the world for what could be, instead of lamenting over what parts of it are currently.

[Dan]

Hmm, "Modest Proposal for a Truce on Religion". Is there any chance Kristoff is pulling the athiests' legs? Or is he unwittingly reusing Swift's famous title?

[JonJ]

I wonder if pundits like Kristoff even read the responses of their readers to their columns? They never give any evidence that any criticisms cause them to change their minds about anything. Like God, they are omniscient and omnipotent, and (in their minds at least) perfectly benevolent.

I seldom pay any attention to them, least of all the high and mighty New York Times pontificators.

[Never Mind]

If you do not impose on me I will not impose on you,so if you have any intentions of doing so, I will see you in your nightmares.
Simple isn't it.

[Sven Bridstrup]

Roy,

Exactly what evidence do you have that the universe is "infinite and eternal"?

[Walt Zink]

The fallacy in the apprehension towards many atheists is that many believers tend to think that atheists such as myself fall into a couple different categories:

1> Are entirely uneducated about their belief system - regardless of what deity he/she believes in or what form of religion he/she practices.

2> Are arguing more out of the objection of authority.

3> Made a "snap judgement" to be atheist, without thinking in through clearly.

All three are laughable, and very much linked to the others. I personally may have my own strong beliefs, and i do believe in science, but what makes it more logical is that I have the ability to look objectively and admit my beliefs sometimes can be proven false. It's what scientific advance is. To be human is to err!

The very sad part is that many people that believe look at me in the first sense. I just honestly COULDN'T know as much as they do about their faith! Yet when I tell them about the readings of Martin Luther, and his ideas that slaves are to accept their role because God meant for them to be in such a position, or when I discuss the numerous times their "good book" has been re-written or amended, they plead ignorance and cover their ears. Tell me again who is being intolerant?

While I dislike the concept of religion, as it has become fragmented and divisive, its intentions are certainly honorable, but aren't also the ideas of socialism? Everything in theory works when it works to spread the common good, but as writers like George Orwell and even Dawkins have shown, these are flawed from conception.

We could also bring up the likes of former All-Pro linebacker Reggie White. His study of the true history of his faith brought him to realize that much of what he was taught was marred by human ignorance over the years. That "God's Word" was smeared by greedy, moralistic and self-loathing people that picked apart what they agreed or disagreed with and omitted or changed much of what we now view as the Bible. The manipulation of the low literacy level up until the invention of movable type unfortunately can be allotted into this series of unfortunate events.

Atheism isn't "obnoxious" or "mean". We simply offer a counter-point. I openly study religion and try to comprehend why people believe and understand the differences in belief systems. It's frightening to think that through my years, the most intolerant are many times those that preach the "Good Word".

[tfb]

Why do atheists - vocal or not - care what Christians believe? If the universe a huge conincidence wrought by billions of random evolutionary changes, and the sun will eventually explode, or wink out and all life on earth will be forgotten, what does it matter what anyone believes? The atheist finds himself in the same circular definition problem that he condems the Christian for. It goes something like this:

Why does it matter if I believe in God?

Because its delusional!

Why does it matter if I'm delusional?

Its irrational!

Why does it matter if I'm irrational? And while were at it, what is rationality? As I understand your point of view, what you and I perceive as rationality is really nothing more than a certain alingnment of neurons in our respective brains that have evolved over billions of years. You have no more right to demand that I accept what you consider "rational" as you have to demand that I have blue eyes.

[Tony]

tfb,

Beliefs inform our world view. Beliefs have consequences. If you believe that Jesus is coming back to Earth in the next 50 years as a superhero, why give a damn about global warming? If life begins at conception, then stem-cell research, which has the potential for amazing medical treatments/cures is to be rejected wholesale....even if your daughter has leukemia. How many more Muslim engineers need to fly planes into our buildings before you understand that beliefs translate into actions that can impact all of us in this global society?

[Pseudonym]

Alvin Plantinga reviews Dawkins here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/global/printer.html?/bc/2007/002/1.21.html

[jaytee]

I did not believe bible storys when I was 5 years old. What is the big fuss about atheism? Atheism is for thinkers. To over simplify things, you are either a thinker or a believer. The people who are scared to death if they do not believe in the god character are inflicting pain upon themselves. Now, has the holocaust and all the other disgusting things religious people do made you love god? if yes, then you and your god are pure evil. I suppose you also believe there is a devil. Yes, there is one right there inside your head.

[Moncler Jackets Online]

Понеже много от вас изказват мнение по самат

а песен, айде и аз да не изостана. Всъщност, м

ен тази песен изобщо не ме дразни. Няма шанс

да стане любимата ми, но пък и не бих сменил р

адиото, ако я пуснат. ОК си е за сутрешен фон.

В текста не искам изобщо да засегна Миро и не

говите песни.

[NFA Trust Lawyer]

There's a difference between religion and spirituality. But in the seeking of meaning, religion and spirituality come together. Spirituality highlights qualities such as caring, kindness, compassion, tolerance, service and community, and, in its truest sense, so does religion. But where religion is defined by its tradition and teachings, spirituality is defined by what is real in our own experience, arising from an inner search within ourselves, the finding of our own truth.