The Author, Jeffrey Tayler, prefaces the article, saying....
I’ve often wondered how the term “New Atheism” gained such currency. It is a misnomer. There is nothing new about nonbelief. All of us, without exception, are born knowing nothing of God or gods, and acquire notions of religion solely through interaction with others – or, most often, indoctrination by others, an indoctrination usually commencing well before we can reason
I'm glad that he added the bit about indoctrination and how it usually occurs at a specific and crucial time in life..i.e..before we have the ability to reason. And note, many times, this is even before we have any theory of the mind..e.g..ages 2, 3, 4 yrs old. This type of indoctrination applies mainly, but not only, to religion---religions such as Christianity and Islam, for example. In order for the data to "stick", it is crucial that it be taught when the subject is young, naive, trusting, and impressionable. If, for example, Christian parents tuck their 4 yr-old into bed each night and make it a ritual of having their child kneel at the bed, close their eyes, clasp their hands together, and say, "Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep", etc., etc., sooner or later the child's going to wonder who this "Lord" guy is, since mom and dad are constantly talking about him as if he's just in the next room down the hall. Needless to say, the child isn't likely to get an unbiased answer if they should ask. I sure as hell didn't get one. But then again, I was just a kid, so I can only kick myself in the butt so much for allowing myself to be duped.
For a brief run-down, here's how the indoctrination process works: Children, by nature, are very trusting. I mean, if children can't trust mommy 'n daddy(who are the people they love and deal with the most), then who in the hell can they trust? This whole indoctrination (brainwashing) process is a part of religion that I find deplorable, and make no mistake, it is nothing less than child abuse(especially if the child is taught the doctrine of "hell"). At first, the child might be taught prayers and little hymns such as, "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so", etc. Naturally, if the child grows up telling themselves, "Jesus loves me!"; and if the child grows up firmly believing that "Jesus" is watching over them, then guess what...they will look for the signs that it is so...i.e..subjectively validate it to themselves.
But many times it's not a "sign" at all, but a claim to actually see "Jesus", literally. Again, timing is crucial, and if we examine the times when these "sightings" occur, we see precisely how subjective validation works. If something traumatic happens and someone lives to tell about it, when statistics might suggest that they shouldn't have lived to tell about it, many times "Jesus" is (claimed to be) spotted at that precise moment, at that precise location. 'Funny how that works, isn't it? There was one story where "Jesus" saved the day, and when asked what "Jesus" looked like, a witness said that he had "blue eyes"!
You don't need three guesses to figure out which country this "sighting" was in, do you? Here's a hint---it wasn't in Jesus' old stomping grounds, the Middle East. Then again, one "sect" firmly believes that "Jesus" did in fact come and stomp around America. I guess I'm waiting for reports of "Jesus" having an Ipod and a tattoo of Moroni on his bicep. It's only a matter of time.
Moving right along, here are the first 10 of the ways that Atheists can stand up for rationality. Any remarks of mine will be in red:
1. “Let’s say grace!”
No, let’s not. When you’re seated at the family dinner table and a relative suggests clasping hands, lowering heads and thanking the Lord, say “No thanks. I’m an atheist. So I’ll opt out.” Nonbelievers have every right to object when being asked to take part in superstitious rituals; in fact, if children are present, they are morally obliged to do so. Courteously refusing to pray will set an example of rational behavior for the young, and contribute to furthering the atheist zeitgeist.If I'm with family at dinner and a prayer is said, I merely keep my eyes open and put my head down. My family knows I'm an Atheist, so no need for me to announce it at dinner. On special occasions I might make what I call a "Secular prayer" after the traditional prayer is said.
2. “Religion is a personal matter. It’s not polite to bring it up.”
No, religion is fundamentally collective, and since time immemorial has served societies in fostering union, but also in inciting xenophobia and violence (especially against “unchaste” women and “impure” minorities), often on a mass scale. Nonbelievers need to further advance the cause of rationality by discussing it openly; doing so, as uncomfortable as it may be at times, will help puncture the aura of sanctity surrounding faith and expose it for what it is.
I actually agree with the author's response, here. Personal beliefs turn into collective beliefs, collective beliefs more often than not lead to actions, and actions have consequences. A personal "truth" is fine and dandy, and all, and I suppose it would be redundant to state the obvious when it comes to what is subjectively true---that is, that whatever one believes is true to them---but alas, this totally misses the point because the minute that any unfalsifiable, subjective truth endangers the masses, either directly, or indirectly, it is my right and even my moral duty to call that belief out. Example: Once upon a time there were 19 hijackers. It was each hijacker's subjective, "personal truth" that the creator of the universe, "Allah", would reward them with dozens and dozens of virgins if they would just kill some infidels(non-Muslims). This little subjective truth of theirs isn't/wasn't falsifiable, just like claims to see "spirits" and "ghosts" aren't falsifiable. While one subjective belief is clearly more dangerous than the other, we are implicitly being asked to believe these sorts of subjective truths on crap-to-nonexistent evidence.
3. “You’re an atheist? I feel sorry for you.”
No, please rejoice for me. I fear no hell, just as I expect no heaven. Nabokov summed up a nonbeliever’s view of the cosmos, and our place in it, thus: “The cradle rocks above an abyss, and common sense tells us that our existence is but a brief crack of light between two eternities of darkness.” The 19th-century Scottish historian Thomas Carlyle put it slightly differently: “One life. A little gleam of Time between two Eternities.” Though I have many memories to cherish, I value the present, my time on earth, those around me now. I miss those who have departed, and recognize, painful as it is, that I will never be reunited with them. There is the here and now – no more. But certainly no less. Being an adult means, as Orwell put it, having the “power of facing unpleasant facts.” True adulthood begins with doing just that, with renouncing comforting fables. There is something liberating in recognizing ourselves as mammals with some fourscore years (if we’re lucky) to make the most of on this earth.
'Love his response here. Nothing to add.
4. “If you’re an atheist, life has no purpose.”
A purpose derived from a false premise – that a deity has ordained submission to his will – cannot merit respect. The pursuit of Enlightenment-era goals — solving our world’s problems through rational discourse, rather than though religion and tradition – provide ample grounds for a purposive existence. It is not for nothing that the Enlightenment, when atheism truly began to take hold, was also known as the Age of Reason.Not only does a purpose derived from a false premise not merit respect, but if you live according to someone else's "purpose", in the case of theism, "God's Purpose", then guess what.... you have no purpose of your own, in which case, you are technically in the same "purposeless" boat in which you like to place Atheists. Again, the irony is thick.
5. “If you abolish religion, nothing will stop people from killing, raping and looting.”
No, killing, raping and looting have been common practices in religious societies, and often carried out with clerical sanction. The catalogue of notorious barbarities – wars and massacres, acts of terrorism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the chopping off of thieves’ hands, the slicing off of clitorises and labia majora, the use of gang rape as punishment, and manifold other savageries committed in the name of one faith or another — attests to religion’s longstanding propensity to induce barbarity, or at the very least to give it free rein. The Bible and the Quran have served to justify these atrocities and more, with women and gay people suffering disproportionately. There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.
Morality arises out of our innate desire for safety, stability and order, without which no society can function; basic moral precepts (that murder and theft are wrong, for example) antedated religion. Those who abstain from crime solely because they fear divine wrath, and not because they recognize the difference between right and wrong, are not to be lauded, much less trusted. Just which practices are moral at a given time must be a matter of rational debate. The “master-slave” ethos – obligatory obeisance to a deity — pervading the revealed religions is inimical to such debate. We need to chart our moral course as equals, or there can be no justice.
Right, nothing will stop people from killing, raping, and looting(assuming that all people will suddenly get the urge to kill, rape, and loot if it should be established that one's religion is false). Nothing will stop this from happening, except, gee, I don't know... maybe the laws prohibiting these things and the respective consequences for doing these things??? Now, laws and consequences are obviously not a fail-safe, guarantee that criminals won't commit crime, no. But look!...neither is belief in "God", "heaven", and "hell" a fail-safe guarantee that there won't be crime!
6. “Nothing can equal the majesty of God and His creation.”
No need to inject God into this. “Creation” is majestic enough on its own, as anyone who has gazed into the Grand Canyon or the night sky already knows. While paddling a pirogue down the Congo, at night I often marveled to the point of ecstasy at the brilliance of the stars, the salience of the planets against the Milky Way – just one of the many quasi-transcendental experiences I have had as an atheist globetrotter. The world is a thing of wonder that requires no faith, but only alert senses, to appreciate.
7. “It is irrational to believe that the world came about without a creator.”
No, it is irrational to infer an invisible omnipotent being from what we see around us. The burden of proof lies on the one making supernatural claims, as the New Atheists have tirelessly pointed out. But here again the New Atheists are really doing nothing novel. Almost 200 years ago, the British poet Shelley, in his essay “The Necessity of Atheism,” noted that “God is an hypothesis, and, as such, stands in need of proof: the onus probandi rests on the theist.” This was clear to him even before we had mapped the human genome, discovered the Higgs boson, or even invented the telegraph.
Yes.....the burden of proof lies on the one making the supernatural claims. It can't be said enough, because this is one thing that the theists, "mystics", and other proponents of the "supernatural" of today constantly fail to show they understand. And what I've found, is if they cannot "get" this very basic truth about how logic works, then the more likely they are to pile on other fallacies..e.g...non-sequitur, begging the question, and on and on.
8. “I will pray for you to see the light.”
Not necessary, but do as you like. Abraham Lincoln noted that, “What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.”Not only unnecessary, but quite idiotic and even counter productive if we consider that the "God" to whom people pray is supposedly things like "Sovereign" and "omniscient".
9. “If you’re wrong about God, you go to hell. It’s safer to believe.”
Pascal’s wager survives even among people who have never heard the name of the 17th-century French philosopher and mathematician. Leaving aside whether blatant self-interest would please a god demanding to be loved unconditionally, which god will save us from hell? The god of Catholicism? Judaism? Islam? Doctrines of all three Abrahamic faiths prohibit entry into paradise for adherents of rival confessions.
Not to mention, any deity worth the title "God" would surely know if I'm pretending to believe just to avoid a consequence.
10. “Religion is of great comfort to me, especially in times of loss. Too bad it isn’t for you.”
George Bernard Shaw noted that, “The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” A few shots of vodka will do for me, and are more to the point.
After the passing away of his son, Lincoln, in dire need of solace, nevertheless remarked that, “My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”I address(ed) this mindset in my post, "Caught in the Crossfire". In short, if it makes someone comfortable to believe that their deceased loved ones still exist in the clouds somewhere, fine. But if this yet-to-be-proven belief gets caught in the crossfire when exposing the parts of religion that clearly cause harm, I'm essentially saying too bad; not my problem(and I don't apologize for it). It's not that I'm cold and heartless; it's that I understand that sometimes damage must be caused for the greater good. I'm raising kids and I don't want them to grow up in a world that could come to an end over who worships the right invisible being, aka, "God". If they become ill, I don't want them running to a "magnet therapist"; I want them to seek treatment from a real, medically trained doctor who can prescribe, real, proven-to-work medicine. And finally, if they should ever want to know the answers to life's greatest questions..e.g..how we got here, where we get our morality, etc., I want them to use ALL of their resources and go where the scientific evidence leads. In the case that there are unanswered questions, which of course there will be, I want them to feel fine about saying "I don't know". What I do not want them doing is simply plugging those gaps in knowledge with "God did it!", which BTW, answers nothing at all until you know how "God did it!".
