This was posted as an article in the Sydney Morning Heral the other day,
Please post your opinions below and unfortunately the author has closed comments on the SMH
site. Enjoy.
My annotations are in red.
Celebrity atheists expose their hypocrisy -DVIR ABRAMOVICH
October 26, 2009 Comments 212
The fundamentalism [Apparently writing a book is the face of fundamentalism these days] of the crop of celebrity atheists such as Christopher Hitchens betrays their cause, says Dvir Abramovich Photo: Ward O'Neill
A flurry of books bashing religion are making best-seller lists and grabbing a lot of attention — so much so that anti-religion publications seem to have become a lucrative genre all their own.[perhaps the author is missing the reason why this is happening - like it makes so much more sense than religion]
Works such as Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Sam Harris' End of Faith, Michel Onfray's The Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam and Daniel Dennet's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon are bare-knuckled, no-holds barred tracts that [sometimes] why sometimes? resemble the declarations of fundamentalists who are absolutely convinced of their truth [note that their truth actually has a lot of evidence to support it].
Hitchens and Dawkins, who are the leaders of the New Atheism movement[a movement which we need, and a movement which needs to be stronger], have received the most media spotlight [nothing compared to the medias coverage of religious festivities and supposed miracles though] and are driving the growth of this industry. Hitchens presented recently at Sydney's Festival of Dangerous Ideas and appeared on ABC TV's Q & A program. And Dawkins will headline next year's Atheist Convention in Melbourne [can't wait to make the journey down there].
These atheists are angry that religion has not gone away [understandably] and is thriving in various parts of the world[notably the places it is thriving best are in communities with low education and high superstition as well as indoctrination, perhaps he hasn't looked around aus, because we at last census had 50-50 religious non-religious]. After all, calling other peoples' belief a delusion is not exactly respectful. Indeed, distinguished doctor and broadcaster Lord Winston found Dawkins' attitude to religious faith patronising, insulting and counterproductive, noting that it "portrays science in a bad light"[and this sentence makes me snort with derision at the prevelence of the respect card, why should we respect a fancification with an alien zombie, or an imaginary friend, and does not respect ought travel to our unbelief as well? No? Why not?].
Hitchens and Dawkins build a straw man — they select the worst offences that have been done in the name of religion to prove that religion is a dangerous force and a kind of virus that infects the mind. At one point Hitchens writes, "Religious belief is not merely false but also actually harmful. But I think it is a mistake to condescend to those who claim 'faith'." [It can not be said that religion is pure and peaceful, it is clearly a violation of childrens rights to indoctrinate them, harmful to people to kill them in the name of a God, it is a dangerous force which gives stupid people the licence to interperate and perpetrate crimes in otherwise unforseen ways.]
Employing a new name, Dawkins says atheists should refer to themselves as "brights" labelling the devout as "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" while Hitchens describes the religious mind as "literal and limited". [too true, this exactly how the author has taken these comments]
According to Hitchens (who discovered two years ago that he is Jewish by way of his mother[which should make a difference to his beliefs why? And anyway because his mother is Jewish does not at all make him Jewish, typical soul grabbing]) the Jews could have been the "carriers of philosophy instead of arid monotheism". What about Spinoza, Wittgenstein, Isaiah Berlin, Derrida, Maimonides, Emmanuel Levinas, Martin Buber, Karl Popper, Walter Benjamin and Ayn Rand to name only a few. Does it seem like Judaism is bereft of philosophers? He writes of kosher dietary laws: "In microcosm, this apparently trivial fetish shows how religion and faith and superstition distort our whole picture of the world."
So, the bottom line for these atheists is this: we are free to believe in whatever as long as it's not God. [Well not exactly, you see you are free to believe in God or the toothfairy if you want but we will all think you are a moron, also what we promote is freedom of belief in things which can be supported and substantiated by evidence, that is why the flying spaghetti monster is such a great parody, and scientology hilarious]
For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million [lol, naturally this comment is extremely biassed and does not in fact take into account the actions of a secular people but of individuals, he does not note that many in nazi germany if not the majority and most of the war mongerers were in fact devout christians, Hitlers religion itself was up in the air, the Russian leaders and Mao Tsudong were treated as idols in their own right - another example of why religion should not be adhered to].
Dawkins is mute on the terrors unleashed by science and technology, used by genocidal regimes such as Hitler's Germany, in a century that proved to be the worst tyranny mankind has ever seen. And what about weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and biological bombs developed by scientists? [was it not "One nation under God" that dropped these weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Science may well have developed some attrocities but all were commissioned by Governments and most employed for religious reasons. It is not as if some mad scientist in his back shed developed nuclear bombs, a theory was noted and commisioned and then used to terrible consequences.]
Does that mean that all atheists and scientists are evil? Of course not. The point is that fanatics can be found in both religion and atheism. [wow finally he has said something that makes sense, is it more sensible to be fanatic about something which can be proved, or something which is invisible and a 'mystery' in your own words?]
How can anyone argue that not a single human benefit has resulted from religious faith [Dawkins doesn't, he clearly says that there may be some benefits or more likely have been past tense, but they are not sufficient when outweighed by the negatives caused by religion, the hate and violence, vehement]? There are millions who every day selflessly dedicate their lives to helping others all in the name of religious belief [Is it selfless when you expect something in return like erm, conversion, salvation, eternal paradise, a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart, there is no way they can claim this is altruism]. The cruelty and viciousness of the past and the abuse of religion in the present cannot extinguish the solidarity and good-heartedness of people of faith [except for those aforementioned right, that is a big fucking generalisation, it is like saying all blonds are sexy, wait hitler thought that.].
Most would agree with the words of former atheist, Oxford University professor of historical theology Alister McGrath, who said: "There are some forms of religion that are pathological, that damage people. For every one of these atrocities, which must cause all of us deep concern, there are 10,000 unreported acts of kindness, generosity, and so forth arising from religious commitment."[that point is completely void, and nihilistic, the same can be said of atheism or anything for example, for every begger that is buying grog with the money they raise, 10, thousand unreported cases of them buying food occur.]
True religious values are grounded in notions of community, charity, mercy and [peace] surely that has to be up in the air?. All too often today we focus on individualism, greed and instant gratification.[this surely occurs amongst religious people to the same if not a greater extent? What is the point?]
Anyone wishing to discredit theology should at least know some. The God Delusion contains very little examination of Jewish theology and dismisses the finest minds of Western thinkers and theologians who have written on sublime theological questions as "infantile".[well it is kind of like believing a story about a talking mouse in a childrens book is based on fact and then writing a dissertation on it - of course it is infantile. What theology is is the study of delusional psychology and literature study of an ancient story book, it is in know way comprehensive]
Hitchens cites the Binding of Isaac and "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" injunction as brutish and stupid. Yet, scholars have interpreted the binding as ending child sacrifice and the injunction as a caution against excessive vengeance. Hitchens says that the God of Moses never refers to compassion and human friendship, overlooking "love your neighbour as yourself".[which ceases as soon as your neighbour fails to believe in your particular brand of religion, even in the bibles variations it is a sin to worship another idol, or not worship an idol, in many cases the punishments result in death. How lovely for thy neighbour.]
For his part, Dawkins is clearly out of his depth when it comes to Jewish teachings and ethics. He claims, for instance, that "love thy neighbour" meant only "love another Jew". He apparently is not aware that in the same chapter, Jews are commanded to love the stranger that lives in their land as they would themselves. When Jesus, himself a Jew, was asked "Who is my neighbour" he did not refer to other Jews, but to a Samaritan, considered at that time as heretical and unclean. [with the transparent desire to convert this person to judaism]
Above all, for Dawkins and his contemporaries, billions of people across the globe have accepted stupid and harmful ideas. [Oh Oh Oh! this is my favourite part it is so badly written that it seems that it shows the clear lack of understanding of religion and atheism as being about not blindly accepting stupid and harmful ideas. It shows the authors stupidity and misunderstanding in all its glory.] The acceptance of stupid and harmful ideas is done by religionists not atheists. But I think that is what he meant.
Yet that iconic scientist Einstein, believed that God represented a great mind that sustained the laws of nature. We know for sure that he was not stupid or delusional. He famously remarked, "God doesn't play with the universe" and noted, when referring to the extraordinary intricacies of the universe: "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science." Einstein believed that a humble, open-ended religious attitude to the cosmos was preferable to a completely non-religious approach. [the author joins the ranks of those to have misquoted Einstein on this particular quote]
Consider also that in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking ends his brilliant book (which sold more than 8 million copies) with the following: "If we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God."
Dawkins and Hitchens assume all believers accept the Bible literally, which in the case of the majority of Jews and other co-religionists, has never been true. Theologians have often questioned institutional religion and have criticised the use of rigid orthodoxy and demagoguery to instill fear and obedience. In fact, most who embrace religious faith at the same time also exercise a healthy dose of skepticism and do not defend the way religion is often manipulated and distorted. Very few follow religion blindly. [Really???]
The telescope and the microscope that Hitchens says has made religion redundant, does not answer for us why we are here and what is the purpose of human existence. Atoms and black holes leave little space for expounding on the measure of man, sin, holiness, dignity and the human spirit, sorrow, beauty, love, alienation and mortality. [It does actually, it shows that we are not here for some amazing purpose, our purpose is to live and die, procreate and nourish the earth. Our purpose is that we are not here for a particular reason - that is an entirely human concept and shows our bogoted nature in always assuming humans to be supreme and more special than everything else.]
Dr Owen Anderson, professor of philosophy at Arizona State University, says the problem with the argument promoted by Hitchens and Dawkins when he asks: "Can all reality be explained as atoms in motion? Is belief in something besides atoms mere superstition?" [No it is not mere superstition if it can be supported by evidence, if a new theory was advanced which could show another influencing or a smaller particle than the atom and smaller yet, then science would embrace it provided it could be supported by evidence. Much like if a belief in an alien zombie which is supposedly omni...etc could be supported by substantial REAL evidence then we would all be embracing religion. It can't. Evolution and Chemistry and Physics are supported by facts, therefore in time it can be explained in more detail through science.]
Tina Beatie in her book The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War of Religion maintains that atheists are engaged in religious belief themselves because naturalists as authors such as Dawkins and Hitchens use their own beliefs to invest their life with meaning. Ironic, isn't it? [The sentence is ironic or that believing in facts is ironic? Their beliefs are founded, as opposed to religious beliefs they are firmly grounded and can in fact have a meaning about life in how it is structured and progresses evolutionarily. And atheism has been claimed a religion so many times and effortlessly refuted everyone of them, atheism is in no way a religion]
Lord Winston agrees: "Think there is a body of scientific opinion from my scientific colleagues who seem to believe that science is the absolute truth and that religious and spiritual values are to be discounted[ most good scientists do not believe that the known sciences or accepted principles to day are absolute truth, they are open to disproof as science is based on the null hypothesis, it makes much more sense to believe in science as a current truth, absolutism generally rares its ugly head in religion and do you ever see a religious person saying that another religion should be discounted - yes all the time].
"Some people, both scientists and religious people, deal with uncertainty by being certain. That is dangerous in the fundamentalists and it is dangerous in the fundamentalist scientists."[this is a true enough sentence - there are scientists who work on different principle than the null hypothesis for instance Faraday made a law and then tried to disparage anyone who came up with an alternative, though he did not work off a hypothesis he simply created his theory. However most scientists are meak and less likely to act on their absolutism because it will easily be rebuffed as opposed to religious fanatics who are glorified for their great service to their God]
One has to concede that a something inexplicably mysterious took place at the birth of the universe. I read that several years ago, astronomers working with NASA concluded that time began 13.7 billion years ago, a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. At that instant, the universe expanded from "submicroscopic to astronomical size in the blink of an eye". The great mystery is why it would want to do that. Thomas Nagel, the philosopher notes that even if we accept evolution and that the necessary seed material was present at the time of the Big Bang, there is no scientific theory as to why the material existed in the first place, and how did such material come into existence [on the same line of argument, how did God come into existence if not only as a human concept demonstrated beautifully in Douglas Adams "Mostly Harmless"]. Similarly science makes no preposterous claims as to understanding how it happened at the moment but instead work at disproving hypothesese to eventually come to a conclusion or in the least into greater knowledge about how it occurred as opposed to religion which makes baseless claims to exactly how they think it happened, apparently in 3 days and from dirt?????WTF??
All we have done is to keep pushing the great question one step back. World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking put it best, "Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?" A reasonable question but he is presumably giving the universe human/lifes qualities of thought/choice/decision. It is like personifying a door and asking why would it choose to break at a particular moment.
Many would identify with the father who's compelled to believe in the divine when he notices the beauty and perfection of his daughter's ears. Hitchens mocks him, pointing out that ears always need a clean out, are mass-produced and cats have lovelier ears. A moment of pure love is missed. This paragraph seems a bit misplaced, really, what has the mans moment have to do with the universe anyway.
Dawkins claims that religion is a form of child abuse since parents teach their kids to believe in certain religious creeds. Is it fair to compare real child abuse with parents instilling in their children religious morals and codes? Morals can be taught without religion. Religious indoctrination is abuse, ethics and morals are not.
Dawkins and Hitchens celebrate art over religion, forgetting that the wonder and mystery of the universe and God's role in it have provided inspiration for countless artists. Michelangelo's Creation of Adam paintings at the Sistine Chapel is only one such example. Yes a false belief provided inspiration for artists, so did LSD for the beatles. Void argument again.
Dawkins remarks that the human brain is a "design nightmare". Well, since we use that organ to contemplate these and other complex subjects, it can't be that badly designed. I don't think it was designed, I think it gradually adapted creating a mess of neurons and ganglia throughout the body to allow us to function, not designed as such to achieve the purpose of arguing over religion or lack thereof.
In his introduction to The God Delusion Dawkins states: "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put if down."
I wonder for how many readers this is true. Me too, if they are all this stupid and stubborn.
THE END
P.s. Here is an article posted in response.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/atheists-are-good-humans-too-20091027-hibc.html
