Daniel Lazare reviews some books by atheists and finds them wanting. He does this, I think, by stacking the deck to some degree. The fact that some of these atheist true believers, so to speak, might lead one to desire to lash back at them because they seem a tad to cocky and sure of themselves does not quite justify this approach.
I have dealt with the true believer atheist sort in the past, and it was a tedious experience. For instance, personally, I see "religion" as a broad matter of what fundamentally guides you and provides meaning and substance to your life. IOW, consider "God" and "religious events" and remove the former, and you still have the latter. Thus, choices in abortion and euthanasia have a "religious" context, even for atheists. This led the person to note that watching football could be a religion and various statements that implied I was a moron who couldn't reason properly. After all, how dare I suggest HE has a "religion," even if some atheists (including one on the very discussion thread) agree the term can be interpreted broadly.
In fact, even strong atheist author Sam Harris suggests the possibility is his (rather boring and at times poorly reasoned ... too many easy targets) book. Harris suggests you can very well believe in something as the term is commonly understood and not believe in some cosmic deity and all the troubling sectarian things that might grow out of it. IOW, unlike Lazare, Harris is not a supporter of the idea that "Atheism is a purely negative ideology, which is its problem." The question raised "If one does not believe in God, what should one believe in instead?" is lame. I have a pamphlet from a secular humanist society that has various "positive" ends.
The idea it is very hard, honestly, to think of such things while not believing in a God is lame. And, I'm not sure how opposing a particular concept (God) alone is by definition "purely negative" any way. If the concept is bad, would it not be uh positive? Not that we can stereotype atheists as if they fit in some singular mode. My debate partner was in part bothered since my broad use of "religion" could be misused, like some consider creationism a "science." This sort of thing arises in the review:
Yet it never occurs to Dawkins that monotheism is a theory like any other and that certain Jewish scribes and priests adopted it in the sixth century BC because it seemed to confer certain advantages. These were not survival advantages, since the Jews went on to rack up an unparalleled record of military defeats. Rather, they were intellectual advantages in that the theory of a single all-powerful, all-knowing deity seemed to explain the world better than what had come before.
I'm not sure if a "theory" that is in large part based on faith is one "like any other." Yes, it is in some fashion a theory. Some don't understand the point, but those who believe in God often do so partially in scientific terms. God "exists" after all to such people, which means God is a reality, a entity that exists in the universe. Therefore, God has some role to play in scientific theory. Deists are an obvious example, though many also accepted such things like life after death (Jefferson seemed to believe in this idea, in large part perhaps because of its assumed good results). Overall, however, religion plays a different function than science in humanity, and comparing the two in this way appears suspect.
As to "survival advantages," the reviewer -- who criticizes the authors' sense of history, seems a bit confused. After the sixth century BC, except for a short time, the Jews did not have a country of their own. And, even then, many lived in other areas than their "promised land." IOW, overall, a majority for most of the time were not involved in military pursuits. Their "survival" was of a more personal and psychological nature akin to those who benefit from religion today. He sarcastically notes that Dawkins doesn't offer much of a reason why religion has such long staying power, and his statement that it is comforting seems confused given all the bad Dawkins says it brings. I guess the same can be said about certain narcotics -- they provide some solace, but not necessarily the best sort.
As to the intellectual advantages, Lazare notes:
Hence he can't see how the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing creator might cause worshipers to see the world as a single integrated whole and then launch them on a long intellectual journey to figure out how the various parts fit together.
Sure, this has benefits, but surely it is not the only or necessarily the best way to go about this. The presence of one God, instead of a set of them, suggests a sense of unity and comforting unity/simplicity at that. This doesn't make it so. It surely doesn't require the "God" that most over the centuries have followed, not some theoretical sort of entity that can provide this purpose. In fact, for years, many are quite fatalistic about their lives with such a deity -- after all, the deity is "all knowing" and "all powerful," while we are but little peons. A different view that provides a more naturalistic view of the world, one in which life is connected and interlocked but not overseen by some singular force seems to me as or more useful in some respects. It also might in various cases limit some of the excesses of religious belief since it helps (up to a point) avoid certitude in what is assumed to have come from up high.
Lazare also wants to give Paul a break:
None of this is surprising, given Paul's views on such subjects as celibacy (strongly in favor), marriage (only for those unable to forgo sex), slavery (accepting) and women (condescending, to say the least). But anyone who reads Paul in the context of the entire Bible--which Onfray says elsewhere is the only way the Bible can be properly understood--will likely come away with a different impression. His hysteria, such as it is, doesn't begin to compare with that of Hosea, Jeremiah and other Hebrew prophets, whose rages were truly volcanic. His political quietism is more explicable if one bears in mind that he believed that an impending apocalypse would soon put an end to all forms of injustice. His views on gender are more benign than is commonly realized, which may be why even pagans reported that women were among the first to convert. Indeed, Paul was something new as far as the biblical tradition was concerned, a thinker, polemicist and organizer who was sober, practical and all but tireless.
Somewhat faint praise, I think. Paul is not as hysterical as some OT prophets ... whose hysterical by the way at times arose because of truly desperate times (Jeremiah spoke as his homeland was directly threatened and finally destroyed by invaders). The fact his "quietism" is explained because he thought the world was about to end is not in my view a reason to respect the man TOO much. It is true that some of the less friendly to women bits in his epistles were probably latter glosses. As to him being new, yes, since it was in effect a new time, but one has to put him in context. And, among his contemporaries (and most probably in the past in other areas), I am not sure if one can argue he is an ideal one would follow.
Lazare also sees a certain self-indulgence in atheists:
If believers, according to Bishop Berkeley, believe that God invested the universe with meaning through the act of creating it, then nonbelievers can believe that people can invest life with meaning through a similar act of creating a mode of living that allows people to realize their full potential. ... Dawkins notes that people might fill the gap left by religious belief in any number of ways but adds that "my way includes a good dose of science, the honest and systematic endeavor to find out the truth about the real world." The words "my way" are a giveaway, since they suggest that meaning is something we arrive at individually.
I find this annoying. "Nonbelievers" in what sense? Atheists don't believe in God -- that is what the word means (cf. "amoral," lack of morals). "God" is a certain entity. It is not belief in itself. Those who do not believe in God very well might believe in any number of things. Some atheists, admittedly, don't like the word. I suggest then that they use a more inclusive word to define themselves (materialists, maybe?), since "atheist" sounds pretty narrow in scope. Anyway, apparently, Lazare doesn't think they have fulfilling lives or something, though many seem perfectly happy ... surely as much so as many "believers." Likewise, Lazare considers atheists as self-indulgent. They create their own meaning, it is not "out" there, so it's like some big self-actualization deal or something. He fails to realize the possibility that "believers" very well might do the same.
The "meaning" is not just "out there" to be found in the Bishop Berkeley universe. We find it ... often quite obviously mistakenly saying it's all God's doing. Consider the new movie -- quite good -- Day Night Day Night, which the NYT review describes as "Learning to Empathize With a Suicide Bomber." A good summary -- a young woman plays to blow up a nail bomb in Times Square -- though the review's* use of "high- concept stunt" is dubious(it's an exercise, the movie is through her p.o.v., and is cut down to the essentials, focusing our attention). We don't really know her motivations, she is clearly a "believer," and thinks God has a role for her to play. Is this role, like that of an activist in a better cause, not really a creation of her own? Is it just a result of something "out" there, that just "exists?"
Theism clearly has benefits that has allowed it to thrive for so long. But, it is but one type of "belief" and a special sort of one at that. It dominance not surprisingly has led to some who oppose it to be a tad strident, like those against Bush or abortion being such in reply to what they deem the majority's stupidity or whatever. But, this doesn't mean they do not have a point, and a major one at that. The problems of meaning that Lazare references are surely ones humanity continues to struggle over.
The atheist authors, however, wish to argue that "God" is not the best answer. Honestly, citing works by the likes of Christopher Hitchens is not the best wasy to highlight this sort of thing -- Hitchens is over the top and clueless on many things. Dawkins' over the top touches pop up in many genre. And, simply put, many people try to promote a worldview that does not seem to have a big place (if any) for theism. Maybe, some authors have a single focus that skewers their reasoning. But, again, "atheism" per se is not to blame here.
The review, in effect, seems a bit as myopic as the reviewer considers the authors the discusses.
---
* And, can papers do a bit better job when reviewing the latest pretty lame -- given the nature of the industry, this happens quite a lot, same occurs in the book world -- fare, especially the sort of film that is reviewed on Saturday because the studios don't provide early looks? The reviews tend to be short with various comments on how lame the films are. Why not offer a bit more, especially since you are getting paid for watching movies -- even bad ones -- after all.