New Atheists Are Not Great

As a matter of curiosity, on the death of a child, how would a strict, fundamentalist Christian console an atheist (or, for that matter, a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian, Jainist, Jew, Sikh, Shinto, Gnostic, Wiccan, etc., etc.)? Perhaps something along the lines of — too bad your kid is going to burn in hell for eternity?

Please tell me you’re being provocative and not idiotic. One consoles as one can; with love and steadfastness. The purpose of consolation is not to proclaim judgment; that’s someone else’s job. In times of grief, one gives one’s heart to another, in ways that will provide solace rather than pain — to embrace, them, help them and support them. Paul notes that one needs to be all things to all people in practicing one’s faith. And in times of grief, one must be a selfless friend.

One consoles as one can; with love and steadfastness. The purpose of consolation is not to proclaim judgment; that’s someone else’s job. In times of grief, one gives one’s heart to another, in ways that will provide solace rather than pain — to embrace, them, help them and support them. . . . [I]in times of grief, one must be a selfless friend.

Precisely. And in what way is the atheist an exception to the rather patently secular view of friendship and consolation that you offer here?

The implication in this thread has been that the religious person (specifically the Christian) is uniquely positioned to offer solace because of a knowledge that life is not over after death -- that there exists an after life. As was said in the post immediately preceding mine --

They KNOW they will see their child again. That’s the difference.
Amen.

And the equally "know" that the atheist, apostate, heretic, and infidel will also see their child again, just not in heaven.

You yourself stated the proposition as follows --

But when it comes to having something substantive to say, something that would provide consolation — that life has meaning; that one doesn’t simply occupy space for a time and then decompose; that there are great overarching principles that give life its depth, joy, texture and purpose; and that those principles arise not from artifice or practice, but from a Creator whose central principle is love — when it comes to making these arguments and more, the atheist must remain mute. They still can and do hug and cry. But they cannot argue that life is anything other than an accident and death, the end of everything...

But your supposed, unique ability to offer solace as a function of knowing that the Creator's central principal is love and that life is not over at death carries a rather enormous caveat, doesn't it? After all, the Creator's ancillary principal is judgment, and life after death for the atheist, apostate, heretic, or infidel is not exactly something to take solace in.

Hence, I'm not surprised that you now offer as an alternative to religious consolation an entirely secular form of consolation. Best for the religious person, with his certainties about life after death, to simply keep those certainties to himself and offer consolation like -- well -- an atheist.

We’re talking past each other, which often happens in such matters. You have personalized a simple argument, and larded it up with expressions of hurt and outrage that reflect your personal feelings — not the arguments I have advanced.

The argument in the original piece was pretty simple: If one claims that life has no meaning, one lacks the tools to console — or even to justify such things as moral rules. If you can provide the syllogism by which meaningless translates into meaning, I want to see it.

You imply that I am acting as the vengeful judge here. Wrong: The piece deals merely with the contradictory nature of atheism — its implicit acceptance of moral truths (as opposed to ethical conventions, which shift with the tastes and times), and thus its tacit embrace of the fundamental principles of natural law. There’s no attempt to berate, belittle or condemn.

Nor do I claim “unique” powers to provide solace. I merely point out that the atheist view — life is arbitrary, without inherent meaning, and ends with one’s expiry — leads one toward moral anarchy on one hand, and personal despair on the other.

To repeat: The purpose of the piece was to review a good book — I commend it to you — and outline some of the major arguments in the debates raging about whether God exists. The basic thesis was that atheism is mired in contradictions that it cannot reconcile. That’s it. No kids crackling in hell; no vengeance or judgment. You have supplied those touches.

I’m sorry religion enrages you. But it does so because you have adopted a caricature of faith — a grisly one at that — and made it into a pinata. If I thought of religion as you do, I would share your anger and disgust.

Final point: My “secular” description of consolation was less secular than you might imagine. The simple impulses to practice compassion make absolutely no sense in a world shorn of meaning, guided by mere caprice, and eventuating in a dusty casket. There would be no reason to feel empathy, sympathy or love. But we do, whether we consider ourselves believers or not. And the pertinent question to ask once we grant to one another our shared humanity is: Why do all generations of mankind share the same basic precepts, same feelings of compassion, the same altruism — especially toward the young — despite wild changes in the natures of societies themselves. Governments have evolved radically over the last two milennia. Basic moral precepts have not. And the overwhelming question — the one that led me, at least, back to faith is: Why?

We’re talking past each other, which often happens in such matters.

Respectfully, I don't think we're talking past each other. I think you may be a bit uncomfortable with the direction your initial contention is now taking you, but I think we're communicating just fine.

You have personalized a simple argument, and larded it up with expressions of hurt and outrage that reflect your personal feelings — not the arguments I have advanced.

That's odd. I am neither hurt nor outraged, and in fact find this debate with you rather interesting. What did you specifically perceive as "expressions of hurt and outrage"?

The argument in the original piece was pretty simple: If one claims that life has no meaning, one lacks the tools to console — or even to justify such things as moral rules.

As I previously pointed out, your jumping off point in this contention is that the here and now is meaningless in the absence of the hereafter. To be more precise, the finite life of the here and now has no "meaning" unless it is viewed as a precursor, or testing ground, for an infinite life hereafter.

Indeed, for the honest adherent to the dominant, organized religions, this life has an exceedingly explicit meaning. In the here and now you must obey and worship the God of your religion, or in the hereafter you will suffer the consequences of condemnation. This particular "meaning" of life is, if anything, a stumbling block to consolation of anyone other than a fellow believer in good standing.

You seem to be at pains to avoid the condemnatory aspect of religious faith, going so far as to deride it as (apparently silly) talk of "kids crackling in hell," "vengeance" and "judgment." Perhaps this avoidance is because you personally adhere to a more liberal form of theism, pursuant to which God is all love and no judgment. I suspect that this is not the case, but you can certainly settle the issue by stating clearly:

(i) what consequences or judgment you believe atheists suffer for their disavowal (or stronger, rejection) of God, and
(ii) what consequences or judgment you believe non-adherents to your particular religion (such as, say, Muslims) suffer for their disavowal or rejection of your religion.

For now, assuming that you do indeed accept the traditional religious precept that judgmental consequences exist for disbelief, rejection of belief, or wrong belief, then what specific "tools" would this religious faith provide to console a grieving atheist, apostate, heretic, or infidel?

If your "consolation tool" is some sort of compassionate ability to deceive the grief stricken by conveniently omitting the truth about the destination of the deceased, then in what way is this same misrepresentation-by-ommission "tool" uniquely unavailable to the atheist? You simply omit the "going to hell" information, and the atheist omits the "nothing after death" information. Both are deceptive, but both are also indisputably compassionate in their deception.

Surely you are not contending that the atheist is compelled by nature to honesty, but the religious adherent is freed by his faith to be dishonest. Or are you?

You imply that I am acting as the vengeful judge here.

No, I'm not. I fully concur with your decidedly secular description of appropriate consolation, where one does not interject the judgmental certainties of one's own religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

The piece deals merely with the contradictory nature of atheism — its implicit acceptance of moral truths (as opposed to ethical conventions, which shift with the tastes and times), and thus its tacit embrace of the fundamental principles of natural law. There’s no attempt to berate, belittle or condemn.

The "nature of atheism" that you describe in abstract terms here stands in stark contrast to your more blunt statement above -- that atheists lack the "tools to console — or even to justify such things as moral rules." This is rather curious.

While you acknowledge on the one hand that atheists "implicitly accept moral truths," you contend on the other that atheists lack the "tools" to implement those moral truths. This certainly appears to be a contention that atheists are at bottom sociopaths, who may abstractly know right from wrong, but lack the capacity to appropriately act on that knowledge (which, by the way, can hardly escape classification as an "attempt to berate, belittle or condemn.")

It is my understanding, however, that atheists perceive "moral truths" (including compassion and altruism) as a product of, and an inherent characteristic of, humanity's drive to co-exist and propagate in familial and societal units. Attribution of these moral truths to supernatural sources (and the corollary of supernatural retribution for acts contrary to delineated moral truths) can have cohesive and civilizing effects (as well as, obviously, divisive and destructive effects), but such attribution is not a prerequisite to the perception of, and adherence to, moral truths. The legitimacy and justification of moral truths is in the efficacy of their operation, not their source.

(And as an aside, there are obvious Biblical antecedents for the notion that man is imbued with an inherent sense of right and wrong, of good and evil, albeit an independently operative inherent sense that was initially transferred to man by God.)

I simply fail to see any connection between one's perception of the source of agreed upon moral truths (natural versus supernatural) and the availability of "tools to console."

I’m sorry religion enrages you. But it does so because you have adopted a caricature of faith — a grisly one at that — and made it into a pinata. If I thought of religion as you do, I would share your anger and disgust.

I'm not an atheist. And religion doesn't enrage me. Rather far from it. I just find your argument (and D'Souza's) to be lacking in rigor and foundation.

[T]he pertinent question to ask once we grant to one another our shared humanity is: Why do all generations of mankind share the same basic precepts, same feelings of compassion, the same altruism — especially toward the young — despite wild changes in the natures of societies themselves. Governments have evolved radically over the last two milennia. Basic moral precepts have not. And the overwhelming question — the one that led me, at least, back to faith is: Why?

A good question. It is one that leads many to a conclusion that basic moral truths are supernatural in origin, and many to a conclusion that they are natural in origin.

Kudos, fantastic post.

Let me place the challenge in your lap. Tell me how atheists would believe in life after death. I’m unaware of any who profess to believe in such a thing, but would be interested, if there are such folks, in hearing what they have to say.

Hey, just saw a more recent post of yours and decided to dig down into some older stuff.

I think it's quite possible for an atheist to believe in life after death, just not in the way that human's traditionally think about it. Atheists tend two believe in two kinds of determinism, genetic and memetic(i.e. nature and nurture). Your consciousness doesn't survive, but the two most important parts of yourself, your genes and your ideas, do.

If you think about these two as the most important things in your life, a lot of things, consolation, altruism and love make a lot more sense. You're one of the most articulate people on FR so if you have the time I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the matter.

I’m not an atheist, but how does the author know an atheist cannot console in a time of grief, explain love, or sigh in happy wonder at life’s endless surprises?

Having been an atheist for some time before becoming a Christian, I think I can answer this. Atheism tends to be very reactionary against religious thought, especially in times when people tend to turn to their religion. So sickness, death, and other times of grief are seen as dangerous areas for an atheist that he must contend with. Some atheists reach for a sort of empty pantheism to help, bestowing godlike anthropomorphisms to the universe as a whole. Others are far more mechanical in their approach and tend to sidestep the whole issue.

On the last point, however, the author seems to overreach. Atheists are fully capable of expressing happy wonder at life's surprises, even with a mechanical worldview. They believe they have better insight into the world and human nature than religious people, so they take prideful joy in "tearing back the curtain" with many happenings that they experience.

bump for later

bookmark
we will miss your posts, Tony