Once more the IRISH TIMES gives Michael Nugent a free advertising platform for Atheist Ireland. Fisking follows
www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/1019/1224281440918.htmlRITE AND REASON: Atheists can enjoy the benefits many get from religion, without the harmful effects
ATHEISM PROVIDES a better model of reality, and a better basis for morality, than believing in gods. Atheists can enjoy the benefits that many people get from religion, without the harmful effects.
And the State should be secular, promoting neither religion nor atheism.
For clarity, an atheist does not believe in gods, and an agnostic does not know. These are very different assertions. You can believe there are no gods, yet not claim to know this, and thus be both an atheist and an agnostic. [HEDGING HIS BETS?]
Firstly, atheism provides a better model of reality [ASSUMES WE CAN TELL THERE IS SUCH A THING AS REALITY, RATHER THAN JUST A LOT OF MODELS A LA KUHNIAN RELATIVISM]. It typically results from rational thinking [HOW DEFINED?]. Science gradually moves closer to the truth, while religion claims to have already found it.[MIXES UP FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS WITH THEIR APPLICATION - EVER HEARD OF THEOLOGY? NOTE ALSO THAT HE ASSUMES RATHER THAN PROVING A FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN RELIGION AND REASON AND EQUATES RELIGION WITH FIDEISM.]
Science seeks evidence to prove its theories wrong [DO ALL SCIENTISTS WORK THIS WAY - THIS IS POPPERIANISM NOT CLASSICAL BACONIANISM OR POSITIVISM? DOESN'T SCIENCE BASE ITSELF ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE HUMAN MIND IS ABLE TO PERCEIVE REALITY, AND DOESN'T THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ABILITY SUGGEST THAT A REALITY EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR SENSE-PERCEPTIONS? AND DOESN'T THE IRRATIONALISM OF POSTMODERNIST RELATIVISM DERIVE AT LEAST PARTLY FROM TAKING UP AN A PRIORI BELIEF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST AND DRAWING FROM THIS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION THAT THERE CAN BE NO REALITY INDEPENDENT OF HUMAN PERCEPTIONS?]; religion seeks to prove its theories right.
Science chips away at religious claims about reality, removing reasons for believing in gods. In every generation we move more mysteries from the category of “a god must have done it” to the category of “we now understand how it happens naturally”. [THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT.]
Scientific claims may seem counterintuitive. But these are not faith claims akin to religious beliefs. They are the outcome of applying reason to evidence through experiments, providing replicable and predictable results. And they will change if new evidence becomes available.
Secondly, atheism provides a better basis for morality [DEFINED BY WHAT STANDARD?]. Morality evolves [AS THE RACISTS AND EUGENICISTS USED TO SAY], and involves concern for the well-being and suffering of others [THE QUESTION IS WHICH OTHERS? THE VIEW THAT BIOLOGICAL HUMANITY DOES NOT GRANT MORAL EQUIVALENCE - AS ADVOCATED BY RACISTS, ABORTIONISTS, ULTRA-NATIONALISTS ETC CANNOT BE REFUTED BY MEANS OF THE NATURAL SCIENCES ALONE OR BY THE SORT OF UTILITARIANISM NUGENT TREATS AS SELF-EVIDENT. WASN'T IT THAT WELL-KNOWN ATHEIST DAVID HUME WHO SAID IT WAS NOT IRRATIONAL TO DESTROY THE WORLD RATHER THAN LET AN ITCH GO UNSCRATCHED?]]. Religion distracts us from examining this by giving priority to the underdeveloped morality of bronze age tribes [UNDERDEVELOPED BY WHAT STANDARDS?] and by inventing consequences in an imagined afterlife [WHICH, IT MIGHT EQUALLY BE ARGUED, STRENGTHEN MORALITY BY REVEALING A STANDARD BETWEEN THAT OF THE EARTHLY TYRANT AND A POWER GREATER THAN HIS].
The Biblical God displays at best arbitrary morality, at worst immorality [AGAIN HOW DEFINED? ANY LAWCODE WILL APPEAR ARBITRARY IF EXAMINED IN DETAIL]. He wants you to love your neighbour as yourself, and stone him to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. As Jehovah, he helps one tribe to commit genocide and steal land if they obey his rules. As Jesus, he threatens to kill the children of Jezebel for their mother’s sins.
Whether you read the Bible literally or metaphorically, you intuitively identify that some of its ideas are morally good and some bad. This shows that you are applying your own natural morality to the Bible, not getting your morality from it. [EVER HEARD OF THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL LAW? FOR THE RELIGIOUS BELIEVER THIS IS BINDING BECAUSE IMPLANTED BY GOD - FOR AN ATHEIST, HOW CAN YOU SAY IT IS "NATURALLY" IMMORAL TO COMMIT GENOCIDE SO THAT THE BEARERS OF MY GENETIC HERITAGE MAY SURVIVE? NUGENT DOESN'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF HIS MORAL CAPITAL AND DOESN'T WANT TO KNOW.]
Even if your preferred god is nicer than Jehovah, how arrogant is it to assert not only that a supreme being created the entire universe for your personal benefit, but also that you know how this supreme being wants everybody else to lead their lives? [NO MORE ARROGANT THAN TO ASSET THAT TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR OR THAT WATER FREEZES AT 0 DEGREES CENTIGRADE - NOTE THE SUBSTITUTION OF AD HOMINEM ATTACK FOR RATIONALITY.]
Thirdly, atheists can enjoy the benefits that many people get from religion, without the harmful effects. Positive psychology shows the factors important to human well-being – positive relationships, absorption in activities, and a sense of personal meaning. Many can get these from activities associated with religion. But we can enjoy all of these benefits even more if we disentangle them from rules of religions and from the harmful effects of believing claims about reality not supported by evidence. [AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ASSERTION IS? I DON'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARGUE FOR RELIGIOUS BELIEF ON THE UTILITARIAN GROUNDS THAT IT IS GOOD FOR YOUR EARTHLY HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, BUT AT LEAST THEY CLAIM TO PROVIDE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM -NUGENT MERELY ASSERTS THAT THE LOSS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF WILL NOT HAVE ADVERSE EFFECTS].
Fourthly, whatever people believe about religion, the State should be run on a secular basis.
Every citizen should have the right to freedom of belief, conscience and religion. To protect all of these, the State should form public policy by applying reason to evidence. [AS DEFINED BY WHOM? SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE ADDUCED TO SUGGEST THAT A DICTATORSHIP IS MORE ECONOMICALLY EFFICIENT THAN A DEMOCRACY - AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THIS COULD REASONABLY BE ARGUED. DOES NUGENT SAY THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE IRRATIONAL TO REFUSE TO ADOPT A DICTATORSHIP, OR TO ARGUE THAT ITS LONG-TERM HARMS OUTWEIGH SHORT-TERM BENEFITS? NUGENT ASSUMES THAT A STATE CAN EXIST WITHOUT FOUNDATIONAL VALUES AND BELIEFS]
In Ireland, we need a secular Constitution relevant to today, not 1937. Our President and judges should not have to swear religious oaths [THEY CAN AFFIRM IF THEY WANT TO - WOULD YOU ALLOW THEM TO SWEAR RELIGIOUS OATHS IF THEY SO DESIRE?]. We need a secular State education system based on human rights law [AND WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW? AND DO YOU MEAN NOT ONLY THAT THE STATE SYSTEM SHOULD BE SECULAR, BUT THAT EVERYONE SHOULD BE OBLIGED TO SEND THEIR CHILDREN TO IT?]. We need to remove casual entanglements between church and State [SUCH AS ? DOES HE MEAN RELIGIOUS EMBLEMS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM STATE-FUNDED HOSPITALS, THAT STATE-FUNDED SCHOOLS SHOULD BE FORBIDDEN TO TEACH RELIGION ETC? HERE IS ARGUMENT BY SOUNDBITE WITH TYRANNY IN THE FINE PRINT].
Atheist Ireland is a voluntary advocacy group that promotes atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. Religious states promote religion. Atheist states promote atheism. We want a secular State, which promotes neither [HOW DO YOU DEFINE "PROMOTES"? AND HOW DOES YOUR INSISTENCE ON THE TOTAL AND A PRIORI EXCLUSION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES FROM THE PUBLIC SPHERE DIFFER FROM PROMOTING ATHEISM?]. Please join us and help make this happen.
I MUST SAY THE MORE ATTENTION I GIVE TO THIS ARTICLE THE MORE ARROGANT AND TYRANNICAL IT APPEARS. THE COMPLETE FAILURE TO EXPLAIN OR EXAMINE HIS PRESUPPOSITIONS STRONGLY REMINDS ME OF HAZELIRELAND/NOSFERATU.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------