“Attack of the Atheists”
by Reverend James Kubal-Komoto
Saltwater Unitarian Universalist Church
Des Moines, Washington
April 1, 2007
Atheists, my friends, are on the attack.
Don’t panic. We are not on the verge of a worldwide atheistic jihad. Fanatical atheists are not collecting up bibles for a good old fashion book burning. There are no roving gangs of atheists going around slashing tires in church parking lots with Occam’s razor.
You see, I’m not talking about atheists in general, but I’m talking about three particular atheists: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.
Who are these guys? And what have they done?
During the past year or so, each of these men has written a similarly-themed book.
The most popular of these has been The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a science professor at Oxford University. The second most popular has been Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel Dennett. Dennett is a philosophy professor at Tufts University. The third most popular has been Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, a follow up to his best-selling End of Faith.
Each of these books is an attack on religion, especially on traditional religion.
These books have received a lot of attention in the media. Since many of us as Unitarian Universalist have criticisms of traditional religion as well, these books may be appealing to many of us, and I know that some of you have already read at least one of these books, so I’d like to spend some time this morning talking about them.
If you haven’t read any of these books, I don’t want to discourage you from reading them. Read them and make up your mind for yourselves about them. But if you do, the first thing you need to know is that they were written by angry men.
The authors present these books as well-reasoned critiques of traditional religious beliefs, but the author’s scorn, disdain, contempt, and condescension toward traditional religion seeps through many of their pages.
I want to say that I understand that anger.
You see, part of their anger is directed toward the utterly unfair discrimination that people whom self-identify as atheists face in our society, especially the ridiculous assertion that one must hold traditional religious beliefs in order to be moral.
In conversations with people who have put forth this proposition, I like to ask, “Who would you rather run into in a dark alley, a recently-paroled axe murderer who converted to Christianity while in prison, or an evolutionary biologist who doesn’t believe in God?” Then I like to sit back and watch the person squirm a little.
It was big news a few weeks ago when it was revealed that Representative Pete Stark from California describes himself as a “Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being,” making him, according to the Secular Coalition for America, the highest level atheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.
You would think that in a world in which both George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden believe that God personally speaks to them and tells them what to do, being an atheist might make a politician more appealing, but it doesn’t. I find it very sad that according to a recent Gallup Poll less than half of Americans would vote for an atheist for president, even if that person were well qualified to be president. People are more likely to vote for a woman, an African American, a Roman Catholic, a Jew, a Mormon, or a gay person than an atheist. It seems that bigotry toward those who self-identify as atheists remains one of the last socially acceptable prejudices in our society.
These three writer’s anger is also directed toward the exploitation of people by religious leaders, which you can witness everyday on cable television. Their anger is also directed toward all the conflict that occurs in this world that is justified by religion, wars fought because, as one of them says, “my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.” Their anger is most evident, however, when religion and science clash in our world. And I’m sympathetic.
When I hear about religiously-based opposition to stem-cell research, I get angry. When I hear about religiously-based discrimination against gays and lesbians, I get angry. When I hear about a parent in Federal Way pressuring the school board not to show An Inconvenient Truth in his daughter’s classroom because he believes the bible teaches that fire, not global warming, will be the end of the world, I get angry.
So, as I said, I’m sympathetic to their anger, and I’m sympathetic to any effort that would reduce bigotry against atheists, I’m sympathetic to any effort to increase respectability for science, and I’m sympathetic to any effort that critically examines the truly terrible things that are done in this world in the name of religion, but I have some big criticisms of their books, nevertheless.
What are these criticisms?
Each of these men makes a similar argument that goes something like this: Having any kind of supernatural beliefs, such as believing in a personal God, is irrational. (Dawkins goes so far as to say that if you believe in a personal God, you are suffering from a delusion.) Furthermore, having any kind of supernatural beliefs also often makes people do “bad things.” The reason so many people in the world have supernatural beliefs is probably because a quirk of evolution made human beings predisposed to having these supernatural beliefs. As Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was useful.” If people would start thinking more critically about these evolutionary predispositions and start thinking more rationally in general, religion might disappear from the world, and everyone would be better off.
So what exactly is wrong with this argument?
Well, my first criticism is that it’s incredibly arrogant.
As it happens, while I don’t describe myself as an atheist, I don’t believe in a personal God either , and like Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris, I don’t find the arguments for a personal God very convincing. Nevertheless, I have met people who are as intelligent as I am (if not more intelligent), as educated as I am (if not more educated), and as psychologically well-adjusted as I am (which is not saying much on some days), that do have supernatural beliefs and do believe a personal God. How do I explain this difference our beliefs? Simply put, we weigh and interpret the evidence for belief in a personal God, including our own experiences of life, differently.
If we’re ever going to have a good public decision about the role of religion in our world - - which I do believe is sorely needed - - I think it’ll be helpful if we don’t start off from the position that those whose beliefs are different than ours are psychologically impaired.
A second criticism is that Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris make a lot of gross generalizations about the result of having certain religious beliefs. You would think that men who have such respect for science would pay more attention things like evidence and facts, but when it comes to religion, they seem pretty comfortable with armchair philosophizing.
What do I mean?
Well, a question that has always fascinated me is how people’s religious beliefs affect their lives. How do religious beliefs affect people’s values? How does it affect how they spend their money? How does it affect who they vote for? Through my own studying and reading, here’s one of the things I’ve learned. On average, whether somebody in this country believes in God doesn’t seem to make much difference in how they live their lives. Even more scandalously, on average, what somebody believes about Jesus - - whether he was divine or human or both - - doesn’t seem to make much difference in how they live their lives either. Whether somebody believes the bible to be literally true or not makes some difference, but not a huge difference.
This doesn’t mean that religious beliefs don’t affect how people live their lives, but only that you have to get a lot more specific in your questioning before you figure out how they do.
For example, there was a fascinating study released by Baylor University last fall titled American Piety in the 21st Century, and unlike most studies, which only ask very basic questions about people’s religious beliefs, this one went further in-depth.
One of its main findings is that while most Americans say they believe in God, Americans really believe in four very different kinds of Gods. Some Americans (31.4 percent) believe in an “Authoritarian God” who is very angry with the sins of the world and regularly supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of the world. You might think of this as Pat Robertson’s God. Another group (23 percent) believes in a “Benevolent God” who also regularly supernaturally intervenes in the affairs of the world, but is less wrathful and more of a positive influence. You might think of this as Oprah’s God. Another group (16 percent) believes in a “Critical God” who is not happy about the affairs of the world, but doesn’t intervene, preferring to mete out rewards and punishments in the next life. You might think about this as the “Wait until your father gets home!” God. Finally, another group (16 percent) believes in a “Distant God.” Individuals who believe in this sort of God tend to think of God as a cosmic intelligence which set the law of nature in motion at the beginning of time, but neither intervenes in the affairs of the world nor cares about them. You might think of this as Thomas Jefferson’s God.
And guess what? Which one of these Gods people believe in does have a lot to do with how they live their lives. It also has a lot to do with how people believe about all sorts of other things such as sexual morality, politics, the environment, the “war on terror,” discrimination of all sorts, whether God favors the U.S. in world affairs. And if you’re wondering, those who believe in an angry, intervening “Authoritarian God” tend to have the values most divergent from many of us in this community.
Other research studies show that people who believe in a personal God who loves them and also loves everybody else - - a theology similar to many of the early Universalists - - tend to be less judgmental, more compassionate, and more involved in social justice making than others, and these are qualities I greatly admire, and the world might be a better place if there were more people with this kind of belief in it.
When I reflect on all of this, one of the things that I’ve concluded is that what we believe is “up there” or “out there” or “in here” is actually not that important. On the other hand, what kind of relationship we have with whatever is “up there” or “out there” or “in here” - - whatever we believe it is - - is important.
I guess what I’m also trying to say here is that sloppy methodology is just as dangerous when talking about religion as in talking about anything else, and if we’re ever going to have a good public decision about the role of religion in our world, we should pay attention to the facts and evidence and steer away from gross generalizations.
A third criticism I have of Dawkins and Dennett especially is that in proposing an evolutionary explanation for why people believe as they do, they seem to ignore or dismiss the social, cultural, historical, and economic factors that influence religion, and in my opinion, not only do these factors do a much better job of explaining the variability in religious belief that exists in this country and around the world, but it would be dangerous to ignore them.
For example, why is it that some countries in this world tend to be very religious while in other countries traditional religiosity seems to be on the decline? Why is it that in many European countries, atheism is at an all-time high? What explains this variability better, evolutionary adaptation or social changes?
Well, in 2004, the United Nations commissioned a Human Development Report, which ranked 177 nations on a “Human Development Index” which measures societal health according to indicators such as expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to this report, the five highest ranked countries - - Norway, Sweeden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands - - also are countries that have the lowest degree of traditional religiosity. All of the top 25 countries on the list have low degrees of traditional religiosity.
In fact two scholars - - Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart - - have found that high rates of individual and societal well-being are the leading factor in predicting a country’s degree of traditional religiosity.
In other words, when people have access to quality medical care, education, and jobs that pay enough money to live comfortably, they tend to be less traditionally religious.
What about the United States? Aren’t we one of the most religious countries in the world? Yes, we are. But the sad truth is that we also lag behind many other developed nations in terms of individual and societal well being. In many ways, the United States can be a scary, unpredictable place to live. Is it any wonder that lots of folks believe in an angry, punishing, authoritarian God?
Let me try to pull all this together. Like Dawkins, Dennet, and Harris, I am very concerned about some of religion’s negative effects in this world.
And like them, I think it’s important to take a stand, and speak out about the dangers and excesses of religion. I don’t think religious bad behavior should ever get a free pass just because it’s done in the name of religion.
But I don’t think it’s helpful to be arrogant in talking about the religious beliefs of others.
Neither do I think it’s helpful to make gross, uninformed generalizations about religious belief, unsupported by facts or evidence.
Finally, if we’re truly concerned about some of religion’s negative effects in this world, let’s try to figure out to the best of our ability the root causes of these negative effects. It seems to be that the best evidence suggests they result from fear, from hopelessness, from despair, from need, and it doesn’t seem that simply labeling them as irrational or delusional is the best course of action. (In some ways, attacking people’s religious that we may find irrational is like attacking people for poor eating habits during a famine.) It seems the best thing we can do to moderate or mitigate the dangers and excesses of religion in this world is to work toward a world of love and justice.
In other words, we won’t make the world better by getting rid of bad religion, but we may get rid of bad religion by making the world better. From my perspective, Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris confuse the symptoms with the disease, and bad religion is the symptom, not the disease?
Will religion then disappear from the world? (I hope not. I’m just three years into a 30-year mortgage.)
No, religion is the human quest for connection and meaning, and this being on this quest is part of what it means to be human. But in a more loving and just world a lot of religion might look different than it does today, and that wouldn’t necessarily be bad thing.
So may it be. Amen.