Does religion make people behave maliciously? Does religion
make people evil? Do we need to rid the world of religion because it makes
people malicious and evil? The answer to these questions is a resounding “yes,”
or at least that is the answer rather strongly implied by the work of Portland
State University’s Dr. Peter Boghossian. Boghossian’s new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a
rallying cry to what Boghossian calls “street epistemology;” basically atheist
evangelicalism that seeks to divorce theists from their supernatural beliefs by
attacking a theist’s theory of knowledge. In being a rational person, Boghossian
says that there should not only be evidence to support beliefs but a proper
chain of reasoning to come to certain conclusions. I certainly agree with Boghossian
that faith is a failure of epistemology and I agree that the more outrageous a
belief claim the more extraordinary evidence is required to make certain
inferences. The problem is that if there should be evidence to support beliefs, whatever they may be, then Boghossian and his merry band of followers do not appear
to be playing by their own rules.
[Before going any further, I must disclose that I have never
met, taken a class with, or otherwise talked to Dr. Boghossian. So, I cannot
say how much of his beliefs or the beliefs of the presumably rational atheist
community that I will now discredit they have personally examined or what
rationalizing – different from rationale – they have used to come to certain
conclusions.]
First, we have to understand what motivates the Boghossian
and the current nu-atheist movement. (Hint: It’s the same as the old
motivation.) What motivates a pseudo-militant atheist* like Boghossian is their
belief that the world suffers, and has suffered throughout history, from the
theistic beliefs that are rampant in almost every culture on Earth. Boghossian
and his followers believe that if only people could be cured of their “faith
virus” and turned towards atheism (which by-golly must be, by default, rational) the world would be a much better
place. I know this is the premise these presumably rational atheists are
working from because I used to think exactly the same thing a few years ago.
And then I grew up.
[*A pseudo-militant atheist seeks to engage you in
conversation with a measure of compassion but has an ulterior motive. But, hey,
theists do the same thing, so why not?]
As a true, bona-fide philosopher who is not a Scotsman –
philosophical humor; move along – I had a belief that was open to revision.
(All beliefs must be so, according to Boghossian, or you’re not rational;
agreed.) I found that the more people I met throughout life, I would come to categorize
an individual as a good person by about a 4-to-1 margin regardless of whether
they were theistic or atheistic. [Meaning, for every 4 good theists or atheists
I met, there was 1 bad theist or atheist. Certainly, we could argue over my
criteria for what makes for a good or bad person, but let’s focus on the
subject at hand right now.] I found that in dealing with people, religion or
lack thereof seemingly had no bearing on whether or not someone was nice to me.
Of course, my personal experiences with people are anecdotal evidence that
religion plays no part in what makes a human moral, and anecdotal evidence is
generally frowned upon in philosophy. (Nevermind that it is often admissible in
a court of law, but, whatever.) So, in order to tear down the premise from
which presumably rational atheists are working from, perhaps we should examine
history.
The presumably rational atheist works from the premise that
historically speaking, religion has been the spark for untold amounts of
suffering. Problem is, is that if we examine, say, the deaths caused by
religion throughout recorded history, what presumably rational atheists say
about religion simply isn’t true. For example, noted historian and chronicler
of atrocities, Matthew White, concludes in his latest book The Great Big Book of Horrible Things that of the worst 100
atrocities in recorded history, only 13 of them are the direct result of (or
assumed to be the direct result of) one religious ideology pitted against
another. If we do the math, that leaves 87 atrocities in which religion played a
secondary or little to no role in armed conflict. Obviously then, the
presumably rational atheist is wrong about religion in terms of the amount of
violence theists inflict upon others due to their theistic beliefs, so what do
they mean when they say religion is the cause of untold amounts of suffering? (More
on that in a moment.) Quickly, a question arises: Why aren’t presumably
rational atheists examining the evidence for their own beliefs? A lack of
evidence is the point Boghossian is hammering theists on, but why isn’t he applying
his methodology to the beliefs of the members of his own community? Isn’t the
premise presumably rational atheists are working from “something they are
pretending to know,” as Boghossian would put it?
It may be the case that the presumably rational atheist
senses there is an amount of harm done by religion that is psychological.
Although they rarely cite this as the meaning behind their basic assumption
about religion, they still have no evidence that the psychological manipulations
perpetrated by theists upon other people (shaming, for example) is caused by the
theist’s religious beliefs as opposed to, say, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. Is
there perhaps a biological imperative that drives people to try and control
others through any means available? Where is the evidence pointing one way or
the other? Despite the lack of evidence – which is required to rationally
believe something – the presumably rational atheist typically clings to the
premise they began with, that religion is bad and that a world full of rational
atheists would be better. Even if this were true, look what happens when we
take the second part of their premise to its logical conclusion.
Let’s imagine for a moment that the presumably rational atheist
is right (because there is supporting evidence) and the world would be better
if it were full of rational people, given that rational people are less violent
and not quite the psychological terrorist theists are. If it is concluded that
rational people are morally superior, might there be sub-categories of rational
people who are less violent and less psychologically manipulative than the
group as a whole? Woman are often regarded as less violent than men and rightly
so because that’s what all available evidence indicates. Moreover, evidence
indicates that homosexuals as a group are less violent than women. If we take
the presumably rational atheist’s original premise to its logical conclusion,
the world would be a whole lot better off not under the direction of rational
people, but under the direction of rational, atheistic lesbians. But you’ll
never hear the presumably rational atheist come to such a conclusion because
they haven’t looked at the evidence. They haven’t played by their own rules.
Nor do they apparently want to. I cannot relate to you how
many times I walked the halls of Portland State University as a student and saw
flyers for the latest meeting extoling the virtues of Communism. This, despite
the fact that all historical evidence indicates that Communism is a complete
failure in practice.
This is not so much an attack on Boghossian as it is an
attack on the beliefs of the latest, growing crop of atheists in general. After
all, although I noticed the failure of theistic epistemology over two decades
ago, Boghossian has pointed out this flaw in theism with more wit and flair
than I ever could. And I would fully support his endeavor to de-convert people
from their faith if only the evidence indicated that religion corrupts
individuals and has been a detriment throughout history. But the evidence isn’t
there. And therein lies my beef; don’t require of others evidence for their
beliefs if you’re not going to apply the same standards to your own.
I'd like to believe that no one likes a hypocrite. Unfortunately,
the evidence suggests otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment