The Irrational Atheist?
So let's take a look at a recent article by Vox Day. A "Christian libertarian" and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, Day writes for World Net Daily:
The idea that he is a devotee of reason seeing through the outdated superstitions of other, lesser beings is the foremost conceit of the proud atheist.
Actually, I was wrong about Day - he does have a single point his entire article: it is true that some proud atheists are so conceited that they think they have managed to see through the outdated superstitions of others without realizing that they, too, have their own "superstitions" (if by that we can refer to irrational beliefs generally). Unfortunately, Day isn't just trying to talk about a few atheists. He thinks he's talking about all atheists. He generalizes about all atheists in existence even though the only thing common to all atheists is that they lack belief in any gods. But, if that were acknowledged, then I suppose there would be nothing for him to write. So, moving right along...
The atheist is without God but not without faith, for today he puts his trust in the investigative method known as science, whether he understands it or not.
Here's a very common myth: atheists rely on faith just as much as theists do. Now, while it may be true that some atheists have a "religious faith" that is akin to the sort of faith that Southern Baptists such as Vox Day have, it certainly isn't true of all atheists and it certainly isn't necessitated by atheism itself.
And what of science? Speaking for myself and most of the atheists I have ever met, we don't have "faith" in science in the way that Day is using the term and the way the term is normally used in a religious context. We have a confidence in the process of science not due to any metaphysical or supernatural commitments but, rather, because we have abundant experience that it works. It's like being confident that your brakes will work when you use them next - true, they might not, but experience shows that you're justified in assuming that they will.
This is nothing at all like the "faith" employed by religious people and it is certainly nothing like the "faith" expected of Christians. I would expect Vox Day, a self-professed Southern Baptist, to be familiar with Paul's definition faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1-3). That's how "faith" is commonly used in religion, but it comes nowhere close to describing confidence either in one's brakes or in the process of science.
The irrationality of the atheist can primarily be seen in his actions - and it is here that the cowardice of his intellectual convictions is also exposed. Whereas Christians and the faithful of other religions have good reason for attempting to live by the Golden Rule - they are commanded to do so - the atheist does not. ... [H]e usually seeks to live by them when they are convenient, and there are even those, who, despite their faithlessness, do a better job of living by the tenets of religion than those who actually subscribe to them. Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics.
Ah, so much silliness, so little time.... First, we need to wonder how and why being commanded to treat others as you want to be treated qualifies as a good reason. It is certainly true that it can be a good reason - if by "good" we mean "pragmatic" or "prudential." That is to say, if the consequences of not obeying that command are sufficiently dire and nasty, you do have a "good reason" to treat others well.
Now, while I won't dispute that Vox Day could indeed find "I don't want to get into trouble" to be a "good reason" for him to treat others well, I must insist that it isn't a good enough reason for me. To be perfectly honest, I don't need to be commanded to be moral. I can manage to do that all on my own. And, contrary to Day's scurrilous insinuation, I also don't consider morality something to adhere to only when it is convenient. That is because, unlike Day, my morality isn't dependent upon outside pressures; it comes from within because I believe that other human beings are worthy of being treated well, regardless what any god might or might not have to say on the matter.
Is that a product of intellectual cowardice? Hardly. Vox Day may mean by that the idea that atheists don't want to acknowledge the source of their moral principles - i.e., theistic religions. If so, then I am quite happy to prove Day wrong: the source of my moral principles can be found in experience, empathy, and reason. I am pleased (but not at all surprised) that various religious systems, theistic and atheistic, have codified the same moral principles that I follow. I do not, however, adhere to those principles for any religious reasons.
Are my reasons worse than Day's? Well, let's compare: Vox Day believes the he is commanded by God to follow the Golden Rule; he then proceeds to smear all atheists, even though he certainly doesn't know them all, by claiming (or at least implying) that they are "moral parasites," that they are necessarily "irrational," that they are intellectual cowards, that they only follow morals when it is convenient, and that the logical consequence of atheism lead to "Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber."
I, however, don't consider myself to be "commanded" to follow the Golden Rule; instead, I treat other people with decency because I believe that they deserve that - regardless of what any gods might think on the matter. At the same time, I take great pains not to generalize about all theists, all Christians, or even all Southern Baptists. Inappropriate generalizations may slip into my writing from time to time, but I certainly don't build entire articles upon them and I don't argue that theism, Christianity, or even Southern Baptism causes one to be immoral or an intellectual coward.
"By their fruits ye shall know them..."
I am quite comfortable with the fruits of my moral compass being compared to those of someone like Vox Day.
This is not to say there are no atheists who are rational, that there are none who are true to their godless convictions. Friedrich Nietzsche is the foremost example, but there are certainly others who do not fear to determine their own moral compass. Today, we call them sociopaths and suicides.
Or we just call them normal, moral people. - they are, after all, everywhere around us and not causing any trouble for anyone. Vox Day might prefer it if atheists could all be dismissed with such a simple wave of the hand, but life doesn't work that way. The fact of the matter is, neither suicide nor being a sociopath are logically entailed by atheism. Believing in a god isn't necessary for a person to enjoy life, to love life, and to want to be alive. Granted, it could be possible that Day does not find anything about life that is worth living outside of his god, but he shouldn't assume that the same must be true of the rest of us.
Similarly, belief in a god isn't a pre-requisite for being a good person who treats other human beings decently. Granted once again, it is possible that Day might not have any other reason for being moral and for treating people decently - I don't know him so I can't say (although he seems to have no trouble making assumptions about me, and merely because I don't believe in his god). But if that is the case, it is again wrong for him to assume that anything similar must be true of others. I know many people, atheists and theists, who don't depend upon any gods in order to have a well-calibrated moral compass.
Without God, there is only the left-hand path of the philosopher. It leads invariably to Hell, by way of the guillotine, the gulag and the gas chamber. The atheist is irrational because he has no other choice - because the rational consequences of his non-belief are simply too terrible to bear.
Let's see, Vox Day spends all this time explaining how atheists are "moral parasites" without any reason to follow the Golden Rule and that they are necessarily "irrational," and then he ends his little screed with an irrational attack on atheists which, I am quite sure, he would not approve of were it directed towards theists, Christians, or Southern Baptists. Perhaps Day only follows the Golden Rule when it is convenient? Perhaps his belief that he has seen through the irrationalities of atheists has led him to become proud and conceited?
Actually, if you go back through Day's article and read it closely, you'll find that pretty much everything he accuses atheists of, he is guilty of doing himself - often right at the very point that he is making his accusations. There's a word for this: it's called hypocrisy. Vox Day is, unquestionably, a hypocrite. He's also quite ignorant about the most basic issues he tries to discuss. He doesn't know anything about atheism - he tries, for example, to contrast atheism with religion which is simplistic nonsense.
He also likes to talk about "the atheist," as if there were such a thing. That makes even less sense than talking about "the theist" or "the Christian" - something he'd understand if he actually knew a thing or two about atheism in the first place. Unfortunately, not know what he is talking about doesn't stop him from pretending as if he did.
The rational consequences of my non-belief in gods aren't too terrible to bear at all. I lead a very happy and enjoyable life without any apparent problems in my moral compass. Neither I nor most of the atheists I know fit into the neat little categories that Vox Day has carved out for atheists, and that's not really surprising. He's created nothing more than a caricature of atheism and atheists - a Straw Man that he can easily knock down because the real thing is so much more complicated and difficult.
UPDATE: On his personal blog, Vox Day responds to some emails about his column and I thought that a couple of his statements deserved to be repeated and discussed.
Read More:
Comments
Thanks for wrinting and posting this. I’ve been reading Vox Day off and on for a while now and his smug, idiotic pronouncements about atheists always make me wince. nice job exposing his bs.
Where did you get your concept of goodness? How did you learn what is decent behavior towards others? Do you think you were born with it? Was goodness passed on to you? Do you think you came up with your own moral code to live by? If so, how come your code so closely resembles everyone else’s? What you consider decent behavior towards others wouldn’t always be considered decent behavior in some cultures.
Unless you have been a Christian there is not a way in the world you could possibly understand the happiness a Christian possesses. Don’t get me wrong, generally the peace, the happiness usually doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a process, a gradual renewal of the mind. Callous insensitivity leaves and the funny thing is, you never knew you were desensitized in the first place.
Day sounds a bit frustrated to me. Maybe he’ll consider the forces people are up against. The dark side is very powerful, ha ha. Actually, I am serious.
I have met some atheists that pretty much fit the so-called “caricature” of an atheist and I have met some that were sad they didn’t get it.
You said science works for you, well Christ works for me and that is why I am a Christ follower.
I hope God blesses you by giving you what you need.
Reason. Experience. Empathy
What you consider godly and god-ordained behavior wasn’t always considered godly by all Christian cultures, never mind all theist cultures.
I was a Christian and I’m happier now.
You’re still callous an insensitive — at least towards atheists.
So was Ben Kenobi.
Astrology “works” for others. Fact is, though, astrology is just superstition — as is Christ.
People who believe that never work for what they need and so never have anything.
The dust cover of “The Irrational Atheist” by Vox Day (a.k.a. Theodore Beale) claims he uses “reason, logic and historically documented, independently verifiable fact”. He includes “facts” in his book but attempts to overpower our reasoning with emotionally charged words and insults. Slogging through his book has been difficult because of the emotional tone and non-sequiturs and I wish I had not wasted my money.
I wrote this blog which addresses the reasons for irrationality. Maybe its that little funny box in the living room:
Crook television is designed to reach suckers at the 14 year old level. Action, images, and fairy stories are most effective and persuasive at that age. Crook television makes people gullible and stupid and it keeps people gullible and stupid. As crook television becomes more sophisticated, it will always circle for the kill around the 14 year old emotional and intellectual world.
Even when a grown up watches crook television, he is no more than an adult looking at a comic book. The worst thing about crook television is that it corrupts education by preventing discourse, reading and writing. It aborts a ready mind, a full mind and the exact mind that is needed for our very survival.
The net has started to revive discourse, reading and writing, so there may be a source of natural hope. But, crook media and crooks in general are beginning to realize the danger caused by people talking to one another.
Your vote:
Where did you get your concept of goodness? How did you learn what is decent behavior towards others? Do you think you were born with it? Was goodness passed on to you? — Comment by Linda — January 28, 2008
Do you mean to imply that the Christian god is the source of goodness?
If so, where did the Christian god get its concept of goodness? How did the Christian god learn what is decent behavior toward others?
If you do think that the Christian god is the source of goodness, how did you determine that?
Do you have an internal moral compass outside of god’s commands that allowed you to decide that god’s commands are indeed good?
If so, what was the source of that moral compass? If not, how did you decide?
Linda is yet another uneducated Christian who thinks that “morals and goodness” started with her silly little god and his dead illegitimate son. These people seem to revel in their ignorance.
Religionists believe in a skygod. Such “Gods” are essentially tyrants running imaginary protection rackets. They usually give you the weakness, and then they save you from it. All “sins” are actually weaknesses. The really bad “sins” are reserved for the Skygod.
Being a Professor of Physics and Mathematics and raised in a family where some practiced Hinduism, I find these debates quite fascinating. While I don’t view Atheism as a religion (or Agnosticism), I certainly view Darwinism as a religion. Most of my colleagues feel the same way as it violates too many proven scientific laws, there’s no credible evidence, the process wouldn’t have suddenly halted if it were real and there’s an obvious political agenda behind it’s promotion (very similar to the current global warming hypothesis which is equally ludicrous).
It seems apparent that those practicing the religion that Darwin left behind are incapable of admitting they were wrong. There’s too much pride and arrogance to openly admit that we don’t have an answer which is scientific for our existence. For those outside of the scientific community you need to understand that there is tremendous pressure put on Biologists to acquiesce to this political non-science. This pressure is applied in the form of grants being cut or loss of job, even when there’s credible evidence and legitimate questions opposing said hypothesis.
Not that I want to be known as a “Religion Killer”, but it’s quite easy to disprove Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Darwinism and Mormonism. There is a problem with disproving Judaism and Christianity, the problem of disproving such is far more complex than proving it’s the truth. The reason being is more mathematical than scientific. In addition to this there are no archeological or scientific flaws. We heathens (those of no religion) in the math department calculated the odds of predictions which came to pass and quite frankly the math is an overwhelming argument. Of course there is a chance that these were lucky guesses, but in the very real world of probability this is not a rational possibility. This does not make me a Jew or a Christian. The interesting thing about Christianity is that the largest self proclaimed Christian group known as the Roman Catholic Church violates the very teachings and principles of the Book they profess to be the truth. Likewise there are crooked evangelists who prey on the gullible, with their capped teeth and embezzling ways on paid programming.
To the contrary there are many churches which hold to the teachings of this Book and most are of the non-denominational variety. It’s also interesting to note that Judaism which beieves in about 70% of the Book, has seemed not to have read about the coming of their Messiah. If Christ was not Messiah, then he was an incredibly well read imposter and a master of conspiracy, again something which is improbable.
While prophecy fulfilled against staggering odds and the recorded evidence that such an ancient text explained the expanding universe, the Earth’s geometry and gravitational concepts (before modern science understood these things) does not prove the existence of God.
Maybe Vox Day’s writing is somewhat arrogant, but he displays a higher level of logic and reasoning than the authors he was openly debunking.
Since this comment section is loaded with arrogance, I may as well have a little fun being arrogant as well.
The collective IQ of the authors of comments 8 and 9, Jay FTL and John Hanks, is probably less than half of mine. However I am not going to be so arrogant to claim that I know there is no God, for no man can claim such knowledge. To do so is arrogance at the highest level.
Where did you get your advanced degrees? Have you published any peer-reviewed research in the area of physics?
If that’s the case, why do you incorrectly capitalize them?
1. Please provide a single example of a “scientific law” violated by evolutionary theory and a demonstration of how, exactly, it is violated.
2. Please explain why the evidence thus far amassed in so many different fields for evolutionary theory is not “credible.”
3. Please explain why you think evolution has “suddenly halted.”
4. Please provide evidence of this “political agenda.”
Feel free to provide examples of genuine, verifiable predictions which are too unlikely to have been accurate without supernatural help.
Because it’s just not possible that they might know more about the subject than you think you know, right?
Feel free to provide evidence to back this up.
Feel free to provide evidence in support of this claim.
You mean, you haven’t already?
Feel free to prove this.
It’s humorous, but a bit sad, when someone like “DS” above comes on and lies in such a way that his lies are so easy to spot. “Most of my colleagues”? What nonsense. Based on what study or poll? What questions were used to determine this? What colleagues? It’s highly unlikely this person has ever talked to a group of university profs, let alone actually IS one, if s/he has such clueless opionions on (a) the thoughts of such people generally on the importance of Darwin to biology, and (b) pretending that math or probability in any way favour one tribal mythology over another. Bizarre.
Reading DS, makes me realise just how low educational standards have become. If this person can be a professor …
Hell, just the argument about predictions involves so many assumptions as to be ludicrous. One has to believe in this garbage to even consider trying to calculate the probability involved.
How about calculating something useful, the number of fragments Humpty Dumpty split into when he fell off the wall? It must be true, someone wrote it. Or, how much force was required for the Big Bad Wolf to blow down the house of straw? Or how little education it takes to blow down your theological house of cards?
Am I seroiusly expected to believe that DS is a professor? Perhaps at Sunday School.
Drew, I believe that the colleagues the DS refers to, may share his workplace and therefore have to sign a document to indicate that they are deluded enough to believe in the literal truth of the bible before they can be admitted. Only properly deluded persons can teach at christian colleges.
Is it arrogant to claim that there is no Zeus? Is it arrogant to claim that there is no Thor? Vishnu? Santa Claus? Loch Ness Monster? Tooth Fairy? Xenu?
What makes Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah any different from any other mythic being or creature?
And as for this alleged high IQ… an idiot savant is still an idiot.
Not that I want to be known as a “Religion Killer”, but it’s quite easy to disprove Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Darwinism and Mormonism. — Comment by DS — March 3, 2008 @ 10:27 am
Big claims, zero support. Let’s see your “easy” disproof.
There is a problem with disproving Judaism and Christianity, the problem of disproving such is far more complex than proving it’s the truth. The reason being is more mathematical than scientific. — Comment by DS — March 3, 2008 @ 10:27 am
A comma splice followed immediately by a sentence fragment — thank goodness you’re not an English professor.
Frankly, I think you’re lying about being a professor. Your rambling 575-word post has no scientific or mathematical content at all. Don’t be so coy. If you know some math or science, bring it to the party.
You should have said the author of Hebrews. The belief that Paul is the author of Hebrews is not congenial with conservative or liberal scholarship.
Also your point that being commanded is not good enough is kind of a weak kindergarten hair-pulling. The consequence is severe and nasty enough according to the Christian - despite your qualms. Also the idea that your morality comes from “within” is dreadfully metaphysical. Can you tell me what this “within” looks like and how do we quantify it?
When you start out with ad hominems, you are not hiding your insecurity well.
As to him producing cricatures and strawmen, he is only doing what he learned from atheists!
Bahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa.
You so funny Austin!