Tony Hendra's Failure To Understand Atheism, Basic Logic

I think I've noticed a curious correlation in the material produced by anti-atheist writers: those who engage in the most serious misrepresentations of atheism and/or atheists also tend to demonstrate the most significant errors in basic logic and reasoning. Are the two related? It's certainly possible — a person who is unconcerned with the facts about atheism and/or atheists perhaps can't be expected to show much concern with the principles of logic.

Tony Hendra writes:

It seems incontestable to me that -- the powerful emotions they elicit notwithstanding -- atheism isn't invalidated by the atrocities atheists commit. Anymore than theism is invalidated by theist atrocities. An atrocity and a belief system simply don't exist in the same dimension. It's like comparing someone's nose-hairs to his talent for story telling

Tony Hendra says one right thing and one wrong thing, so the combination leads to a false conclusion that undermines his entire essay. It's true that neither atheism nor theism are tainted by the bad things done by atheists and theists — nor are atheism or theism justified by the good things done by atheists and theists. What's not true is that either atheism nor theism are belief systems, though.

Do the atrocities committed by communists in the name of communism reflect on communism? Yes. Do the atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam reflect on Islam? Yes. Do the atrocities committed by men with moustaches reflect on having a moustache? No. Do the atrocities committed by people who drink milk reflect on milk-drinking? No.

What's the difference here? The difference is that ideologies, belief systems, and religions are expected to motivate behavior, attitudes, and beliefs; states and conditions, however, are not expected to do so. Good behavior reflects well on a belief system while bad behavior reflects badly on it; the same is never regarded as true when it comes to the state of having a moustache or having a belief in some sort of deity.

Religious theists recognize and accept this — but only when it comes to their own "good" behavior or other people's belief systems. Generosity is commonly cited as a demonstration that there is something good about being religious, while non-Muslims are more than willing to cite Islamic terrorism as a sign that something is wrong with Islam. Bigotry is never a demonstration that there is anything wrong with the bigots' religion, while Christians rarely cite Christian terrorism as a sign that something is wrong with Christianity.

To put it another way, most people recognize that Tony Hendra is wrong and that people's behavior does reflect on — even to the point of invalidating or justifiying — a belief system, but only when it's convenient.

The horrors perpetrated in the name of atheism in the last century don't invalidate the achievements and convictions of atheists like Bertrand Russell, James Joyce, Margaret Sanger, William Empson, Luis Bunuel and Picasso to name just a few I admire, even though as an imperfectly practicing Catholic, I don't share their core convictions.

I wonder if Tony Hendra can cite a single atrocity committed in the name of atheism? I doubt it. There are many atheists who have done horrible things, but I've never found any who did so in the name of atheism; instead, they have always done so in the name of something else they happened to believe — and often beliefs which a theist could easily hold with few or no modifications.

Similarly, there are many theists who have done horrible things, but they haven't done so in the name of mere theism. Instead, they have committed atrocities in the name of some specific god or gods which are defined by a specific theology that is part of a specific religion. What this means is that while mere theism is not the basis of their actions, a complex religious ideology which incorporates theism is. It is that ideology, not mere theism, which must be examined and critiqued.

Nor do the horrific crimes of say, the first Crusaders to enter Jerusalem in 1099, outraged as I am by their greed and cynicism nine centuries later, invalidate the life-work and convictions of Peter Abelard, Hildegard von Bingen or Dante Alighieri.

Has anyone claimed that the atrocities committed during the Crusades "invalidate" the convictions or work of Dante or Abelard? I don't think so, and unless Tony Hendra can cite some examples of this then he's created nothing more than a straw man — and a deliberately false straw man to boot. The convictions of people like Abelard are invalidated by demonstrating that they are false — and that's the case even if no Christian had every done anything wrong. Moral virtue does not and cannot justify a person's belief in the existence of a god any more than moral depravity can invalidate that theism.

What the atrocities committed during the Cruasades "invalidate" is the idea that religion is necessary for morality and that religion necessarily leads to morality. Had Hendra addressed the arguments actually made by atheists, he wouldn’t have found it so easy to dismiss them. Could that be why he created a straw man out of thin air rather than squarely face reality? One of the criticisms of religion is that it encourages anti-intellectual attitudes and discourages an honest engagement with reality; essays like Hendra's lends such criticism a great deal of weight.