After watching this week's Real Time with Bill Maher and subsequently reading various criticisms of the show's segment wherein Maher and his panel discussed atheism vs. religion, I find myself in a very interesting spot: I want to defend Bill Maher.
Now, Maher is undoubtedly anti-religion.
Meanwhile, I am undoubtedly pro-religion.
But I think the inherent juxtaposition of our two stances is what compels me to defend the man. Because, for me, the underlying issue from Friday's Real Time debate, and what I believe spawned a great deal of criticism from religious bloggers, was this statement: "If you are an atheist, you must think people who believe in God are deluded."
This is what Maher said to panelist/author S.E. Cupp, an atheist, and what was, in my opinion, the impetus of what led to an ensuing 15-minute debate about religion. Because instead of acknowledging the statement's obvious truth, Cupp waffled. She said she didn't believe religious people to be deluded.
Now, please don't get me wrong, Cupp's brand of tolerant atheism is far more palatable than the more offensive brand Maher sometimes expresses (i.e., "non-atheists are mediocre thinkers"), but her position's palatability doesn't change the fact that Maher is right. To be an atheist, one by definition has to believe those who believe in God (any god) are deluded. Meanwhile, for one to be religious -- or, should I say, for one to believe in God -- by definition means he has to believe those who don't believe in God are deluded.
There's simply no way around this.
And here's my point: this shouldn't be a hard thing to admit.
But it is.
And I think I know why: I think it's because the word "deluded" carries such an ugly connotation. "Deluded" summons images of loony bins and psych wards and Heidi Montag. The word's interpellating effect is incredibly diminishing. No one likes to hear that he or she is deluded and consequently, anyone remotely worried about offending someone doesn't want to use the word. I think Richard Dawkins -- if he truly does care about advancing it -- did a disservice to his mission by choosing such a divisive word for the title of his book, The God Delusion.
In my opinion, to be able to advance the dialogue between our two camps, we need to do two things: 1) get thicker skin, and 2) find a new euphemism for "deluded." One that doesn't carry such a negative connotation. I'm no Frank Luntz, so I'm clearly not the right guy to coin the term, but perhaps it should simply be a word like "misled." Or even "mistaken."
I guess what I'm saying is this: thinking someone is wrong (mistaken, deluded, etc.) because he believes in God is not a bad thing, and it shouldn't offend those of us who do believe in God to know that someone thinks we are wrong about it. And vice versa. Because the simple truth is that when it comes to this particular debate, one side has to be right, and one side has to be wrong. This is one of the very few issues in the world that doesn't lend itself to ambiguity.
In light of this truth, I feel that instead of being scorned by the religious community, in this particular instance, Maher should be commended for having the courage of his conviction. Just as I believe Newark mayor Cory Booker, who was also on Maher's panel Friday night, should be commended for his own conviction in standing up for his faith. Now, at times, Maher -- whose show I love and whom I find very funny -- could probably be a little less abrasive about how he articulates his point (just as many on my side of the debate could be far less abrasive about how we articulate ours), but the point isn't about the delivery, it's about the foundational belief.
If God is real, which I sincerely believe he is, he doesn't need me getting my feelings hurt because people think I'm wrong for believing in him. And I think the sooner we religious folks cotton to this idea, the sooner a real dialogue between our two camps can begin.
Follow Austin Carty on Twitter: www.twitter.com/austincarty
Andrew Pessin: A Room Without Rants: Where Reasonable Theists and Atheists Meet
I just have a feeling, people like the author, who actually think, will eventually become an atheist. By the same logic, once you go down the road of being reasonable, then the inevitable conclusion will be clear, whether you like it or not. As he said, "There is simply no way around it".
I take "deluded" to mean fooled into a misapprehension, not being nuts. I agree that religious people are deluded, but I generally keep it to myself because it's awfully impolite to say such things. Ultra-religious political leaders and school boards and terrorists bring out the worst in us atheists.
Your assertion of the complexity of DNA is also wrong. It is not what scientists say about DNA. You might find a few deviants with some credential who, for whatever emotional reason, reject everything they learned to make such claims. But those individuals are rare in the scientific world, and are considered to be irrational with no standing in a peer-reviewed examination of their views.. .
Gravity makes objects fall down. That's science. If you want to believe that when you're not looking objects actually fall upward, that's religion. It's an idea of something you can't observe, but you believe it because you want to believe it.
When atheists challenge the religious, instead of standing by their upward-gravity theory they say I know you are but what am I. I say, if it soothes your soul to believe that gravity makes things fall up, then embrace it and stand by it. You don't have to justify it or fight for it or defend it, but if you're going to enter a discussion on it, don't chicken out and and think you're justifying your faith by changing the subject to science and denigrating it.
I love the quote by Mark Twain that I often hear on the great podcast Free Thought Radio: Faith is believing what you know ain't so.
Many Americans are functionally agnostics/atheists but like the idea of being 'spiritual'- more are universalists but choose a potion of faith combining beliefs of various traditions while identifying with only one.
I'm agnostic, but was raised in the church and took a long, hard look at the faith and that of other ways in and out of Christendom and found them wanting. Something akin to Native American faiths the only one I see not contradicting things observable, reproducible, measurable & known.
Booker is obviously a good mayor, a concerned and dedicated civil servant & undoubtedly an educated man, but his explanation does not add up and Maher called him out on it.
Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way to redemption & oneness with god- he neither left or described any other. By saying he was the only way he closed the door to the very faith Mayor Booker claims. If Jesus was lying he is not without sin and the substitutionary sacrifice thing falls apart. If he was telling the truth, Booker is practicing a belief that the god despises.
Maher was dealing with the flawed logic and arguments of the faith systems of those they are having a discussion with.
Basically, regardless of their fervent declaration about each team's superiority, you're indifferent. It doesn't mean you HATE the Bucks, Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, Rockets, .etc. It doesn't mean you HATE the fans, either. It just means you don't care. It doesn't interest you. That's me, the disinterested bystander who just has no interest in basketball or any of the teams.
It is not a delusion not to believe in a God because, well, nonbelief is not a belief. Those who do not believe in leprechauns are not deluded . . . well, they would only be deluded if leprechauns truly exist. But they don't. And neither does God.
Those who do think God exists have the burden of proof. So far, no one has even come close to offering a scintilla of proof. In the absence of such proof (or even evidence), the persistent belief in the existence of a God is indeed a delusion.
That is not a crime. It is something we simply grow out of as we mature intellectually.
In the mid 1990s (I think), there were a number of stories about breakthroughs in research identifying the portion of the brain that cause these strong instincts. Researchers were able to stimulate these areas to get consistent feeling of strong connection.
Here is one recent story by NPR radio:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741
Thumbs up to that! Not many theists can step outside their faith as you have and look at how the whole belief in a god thing is seen by atheists. It really does look like a delusion to me, symptomatically similar to having an imaginary friend - sometimes a very frightful imaginary friend.
Would you not say that a person who believes in an imaginary friend as if it were real is deluded?
"I use should because really aren't we all just looking for some truth in our lives. To transcend our base natures."
It puzzles me how a person who has faith in a deity can be looking for truth. Haven't they already found it? Don't they have the answer to how to transcend their "base natures"?
"You just have a different idea than I."
If you believe that a deity is real, you have an extraneous idea.
This: It doesn't matter. It never did, and never will.
The important thing is that religion yields to science. You can't disprove a god. I can't disprove the invisible pink pony. Whatever I can prove/disprove is what should be focused on. Any faith that cannot withstand advances in science has to adjust or fall. Any faith that would hold it back needs to fall. Now.
Outside of that, fighting between the two has no benefit. There's far too much ill will on the internets getting in my way when I just want to see cats with funny subtitles.
"You can't disprove a god. I can't disprove the invisible pink pony."
And you can't disprove that the Easter Bunny is real, yet many children each day realize that all the things the Easter Bunny is said to do are done by adults in secret, and those children do this wonderful thing - they stop believing in the Easter Bunny.
Maybe a little over optimistic? Especially since I'm thinking that my god won't be smoke and mirrors...