The atheist bias
I am reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I am interested in the book because I am at least acquainted with a few atheists or agnostics and I desire to better understand their perspective.
First of all Dawkins uses the term religion to identify belief systems which assume the existence of a supernatural higher power. Although Dawkins makes a typical association, religion actually is nothing more than just a system of beliefs and practices commonly shared among a group of people. Objectively, atheism is a religion. But Dawkins is not objective. As much as he would perhaps like to deny it…atheists do infact maintain common beliefs, just like any religious group, and their creed might be as such: “God does not exist. The universe is self-sustaining. We are a product of evolution. And when we die that is the end.” Whether or not I’ve rendered their convictions accurately, their beliefs (or perhaps disbeliefs) are the frame work of their world view. As open-minded as the atheist pretends to be, they too filter ideas through a constructed world view. They too impose a bias. They too are religious.
Moving on…
Professor Dawkins begins his book with the observation that atheists do not receive the respect and liberty they deserve but are instead discriminated against on account of their personal beliefs. He includes an opinion apparently voiced by a recent president (whose name I will not disclose as I am not interested in a political slaughtering) which implies that atheists may not necessarily qualify as worthy citizens or patriots. Although Dawkins admits that the comment could be invalid, he invites the reader to substitute the word atheists with Jews or Muslims or Blacks. “That” he concludes, “gives the measure of the prejudice and discrimination that American atheists have to endure today. (43)” Is he proposing that the discrimination towards atheists matches the discrimination suffered by Jews? Do all atheists in America today claim to suffer the same persecution parallel to the holocaust?! After a statement like that I am inclined to take Dawkins about as seriously as I would a sulking whiny child. Poor troubled atheists, they are so victimized. I wonder if you insert the word “Jews” or the word “Muslims”, or insert “Buddhists” or “Mormons,” or “Christians” whether Dawkins would affirm the supposed comment. According to his bias, no religion (aside from the religion of atheism) is worthy of respect.
I will continue this in another blog. This entry is long enough…
5 May 2008 at 5:53 am
You seem to have gained at least one atheist reader. Hope you don’t mind if I continue to share my thoughts.
First off, if you are willing to define religion as “a system of beliefs and practices commonly shared among a group of people,” then you must be prepared to define liberalism, conservatism, Keynsian economics, monetarism, any and all forms of patriotism, communism (although arguably Soviet communism was religious) socialism, captialism, the entire discipline of philosophy, the belief that the Beatles were a better band than the Rolling Stones, the belief that you can’t wear white after labor day, the belief commonly held by the elder generation that “today’s kids just don’t know what it was like back in the day,” etc. ad nauseum as religious in nature. You can certainly do so, but then labeling something such as atheism as religious doesn’t really mean anything.
Dawkins made no claims whatsoever about parallels to the Holocaust. You are the one who put that connection in his mouth. To claim that the persecution suffered by atheist is parallel to the holocaust is absurd, and I can personally guarantee, having seen Dawkins speak and actually having briefly met him myself, that he would make no such claim. Nor would any atheist with an ounce of intellectual honesty. (keep in mind though, that atheists certainly have been killed for being atheists throughout history, although, as I said, certainly not on the same scale as the Jews suffered in the holocaust). The point of that statement was nothing more than what the words on the surface indicate. What if President Bush Sr. had indeed made that statement about people of any other faith? The backlash would have been extreme. There would have been people in the streets calling for his resignation.
Dawkins (nor I) certainly would not affirm the statement as modified. I think it is important to note that the target audience of this book was likely the fence sitters, those who have left their religion but are too scared to “come out,” as it were, and declare themselves to be atheists, and that fact certainly sways the way he writes. In the last year I have become fairly active in the “atheist internet community,” and I’ve seen and read a lot of Dawkins, and I can assure you that he would be very quick to admit that he knows many religious people who could be considered model citizens and patriots of their country. (apologies again, for my comment has wound up to be as long as your original post, but I have a lot of thoughts on these sorts of things, and I’m always interested in discussing them, particularly with people of different beliefs)
5 May 2008 at 6:45 am
oh, and it’s spelled atheist
5 May 2008 at 9:31 pm
I always mix up the e and the i. I can’t keep left and right straight either. Thanks for the correction.
5 May 2008 at 9:43 pm
I guess I am not sure why Dawkins even is talking about discriminatory treatment of atheists. I don’t think the atheist experience is “unique” in that regard. So why does he bring it up?
5 May 2008 at 9:54 pm
“I think it is important to note that the target audience of this book was likely the fence sitters, those who have left their religion but are too scared to “come out,” as it were, and declare themselves to be atheists, and that fact certainly sways the way he writes.”
If that was the target audience of this book, then I would say it missed the target. I doubt there are many “fence sitters” out there who read the book and said, “He’s right, I will proclaim myself an atheist”. Rather, this book shows that it’s not only the religious who are masters of presuppositional apologetics. Honestly, I think this book, just like most religious apologetic works, sway none to the cause and is only useful in assuring those already in a particular
camp, that they’re on the right path.
9 May 2008 at 10:03 pm
I do not think you will get the an agnostics side of view with the God dellusion.
The God dellusion looks for little middle ground pertaining to religion.
The God dellusion might give a better understanding of Atheist, Antitheist, and secular Activism.
It really doesn’t explain how agnostics or Skeptics value or believe.
I think it is great that you are investigating how your friends think, But this book could give you the wrong ideas.
11 May 2008 at 10:42 pm
I plan to finish Dawkins. And probably will read something different next…But for later on when I may return to the subject…Do you have a book you recommend?
12 May 2008 at 2:00 am
You might want to look into Objectivism,
The Humanist Manefestos I and II on the Web…
J. P Sartre, the French existentialist is often sited as the as the first modern Philosopher to take the term “atheism” seriously. his book “Being and Nothingness” is a very difficult book, but it might be interesting to people of any faith.
12 May 2008 at 2:51 am
Chris is right, Dawkins speaks for agnostics no more than he speaks for Christians.
I would like to respond to andy though and say that on the contrary I think this book hit it’s target audience perfectly. Just 1.6% of this country self-identifies as Atheist, while 6.3% identifies as “secular unaffiliated.” In my opinion, secular unaffiliated is likely a term used by “atheists in hiding,” people who aren’t yet comfortable with the fact that being an atheist is ok. While I’m sure Dawkins would be delighted to hear of any believers he convinced, I think his target audience was the above group. I think his aim was to show those people the intellectual strength of the positions they tacitly held. And I do think in that respect the book was successful. I know many people (internet people) who were affected just the way I described above (I was).