Quote of the week #21 – Black Sun on Salon’s flirtation with divisive and mendacious theology

“After their inexplicable dalliance with the confused ramblings of Camille Paglia, it’s hard to pretend anymore that the webzine is relevant, or to justify my subscription fees, which have continued unabated since about 2002. (That may change.) Now, under the jaunty subhead “Atoms & Eden” they just ran an interview with theologian John Haught called The Atheist Delusion, discussing Haught’s forthcoming book, God and the New Atheism. Pandering to the worst cliches and stereotypes, Haught engages in that philosophical high-wire act of trying to keep religion relevant in the face of unrelenting scientific discovery. It’s bad enough to read this stuff in religious publisher press releases. But on a (supposedly) liberal and intellectual site with a following?”

(Black Sun Journal, 2007)

Earlier in the week, I was disappointed at the prominence of divisive and more importantly dishonest anti-atheist polemics. Specifically distortions of the views of Richard Dawkins, but also of the general nature of atheists. The depiction of atheists in the popular media is unflattering enough, with certain dispositions and the like already unquestioningly prejudged. Generally it’s just uncritical (i.e. poor quality) journalism, but when outright deceptions about atheism and atheists are spared critical analysis, actively promoted and unthinkingly repeated by the media, well, it’s not just bad journalism and fallacious argumentation, but also a source of unjustifiable intolerance.

I won’t go into a complete list of the stinkers, distortions and mis-attributions that Black Sun catches John Haught out on, but a few caught my eye.

• “The moral core of society–social justice–is defined by Judeo-Christian values. ” – They (Judeo-Christian values) can foster an understanding of and a means of expression of social justice, but Judeo-Christian values have no monopoly on this at all. Marxists, liberal democrats and others can both gain an understanding of social justice and express it, without any reference (either overt or concealed) to Judeo-Christian values. Notions of social justice are also evident in religions with no shared ancestry with Christianity. No system of values has a monopoly on social-justice.
• “Nietzsche, as well as Sartre and Camus, claimed the only implications of the absence of God should be nihilism.” – Nietzsche for one fell short of claiming nihilism. Sure he said a lot of things (in addition to God) were dead, but he didn’t say that something else wasn’t going to spring up in its place. The whole Nietzsche-nihilism straw man is getting old.
• “An atheistic worldview is not capable of justifying truth, goodness, or beauty.” – There is a reason why an atheistic worldview is not capable of justifying these things. BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW! At least in as far as one distinct from other world-views. But let’s not mince words. What Haught is really on about is that atheists can’t appreciate these things*. As an rather frank counter example, as an atheist, there is nothing that renders a woman less beautiful to me than a poor character, followed closely by a lazy mind. Clearly, there is something other than my sexuality justifying the beauty of individual women, but it isn’t theology. Further to this, my utilitarian ethics need make no recourse to God to tell if an action is bad or good and as for truth – well if I come across anything Haught may write on epistemology, I’ll roll him then.
• “The principle of scientific Puritanism [describing NOMA] is often violated by scientists who think that by dint of their scientific expertise, they are able to comment on such things as purpose.” – NOMA never attained wide acceptance in the scientific community (or indeed much in the way of broad consideration). Dawkins was scathing of NOMA. Even if science-the-practice doesn’t engage in teleology, being a scientist doesn’t exlude one from discussing broader philosophical topics such as purpose (or the lack thereof), nor does it preclude one from allowing science to inform such discussion (I’m pretty sure that more than a few Christian cosmologists would balk at Haught’s suggestion here). Haught is making the oft-repeated boo-boo of conflating science with atheism here as well, and what he’s essentially saying is that “it’s against the rules of Puritanism” for atheists to bring science into the discussion (I’m pretty sure said Christian cosmologists would balk at this as well). I wonder if he’d extend this to exclude some Templeton Prize winners?
•  ”Einstein, for example, was someone who couldn’t conceive of people — especially scientists — living without a sense of mystery. There are many scientists — sometimes they’re called “religious naturalists” — who are deeply satisfied with the scientific universe that has given us an exhilarating sense of new horizons. That sense can fulfill a person’s life.” – Einstein was an atheist, so what does this say about Haught’s prior points? Maybe Haught didn’t realise that when Einstein talked about “God”, he was speaking metaphorically. Or maybe he didn’t read The God Delusion (apparently like so many of the pundits and theologians who try to shoot the book down) where this was pointed out.

Nice work Black Sun. Bad work Haught (especially didn’t like your distortion of Nietzsche and Einstein). Tut, tut Salon.

~ Bruce

* I wonder how long it is before a theologian suggests that atheists can feel pain like theists can. The de-humanisation has begun.