text size

Top comments

{{ annotation.praises_count }} Likes
{{ annotation.creator_alias }}
{{ annotation.creator_score }}

There are no comments yet. Be the first to start comment or request an explanation.

Back on March 12, a paean to "the dignity of atheism" appeared on The New York Times op-ed page. It was penned by celebrated philosopher Slavoj Zizek who, had he consulted the same periodical's obituary page a mere three days earlier, would have come face to image with the late Richard Kuklinski. Mr. Kuklinski, who was retired from life at the age of 70, claimed, utterly without remorse, to have killed more than 100 people as a Mafia enforcer; his favored methods included ice picks, crossbows, chain saws and a cyanide solution administered with a nasal-spray bottle. The happy hit man's example might not have given pause to Professor Zizek, the international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities. But it should have. Because the notion that there is no higher authority than nature is precisely what enables people like Mr. Kuklinski -- and the vast majority of the killers, rapists and thieves who populate the nightly news. No, no, of course that is not to say that most atheists engage in amoral or unethical behavior. What it is to say, though, is that atheism qua atheism presents no compelling objection to such behavior -- nor, for that matter, any convincing defense of the very concepts of ethics and morality themselves. The reason is not abstruse. One who sees only random forces behind why we humans find ourselves here is ultimately bound only by his wants. With no imperative beyond the biological, a true atheist, pressed hard enough by circumstances toward unethical or immoral behavior, cannot feel compelled to resist. Why should he? In his view, a purposeless process of evolution has brought us to where we stand, and our feeling that there are good deeds and evil ones is but a utilitarian quirk of natural selection -- like our proclivity to eat more than we need when food is available. And so, just as we might choose to forego a second helping of pizza if we harbor an urge to lose weight, so may we choose, for personal gain (of desires, not pounds), to loosen our embrace of a moral, ethical life. Biological advantages, after all, are not moral imperatives. Atheism, in the end, is a belief system in its own right, one in which there can be no claim that a thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is any less commendable a member of the species than a selfless, hard-working philanthropist. In fact, from an evolutionist perspective, the former may well have the advantage. To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather; no more import to right and wrong than to right and left. To be sure, rationales might be conceived for establishing societal norms, but social contracts are practical tools, not moral imperatives; they are, in the end, artificial. Only an acknowledgement of the Creator can impart true meaning to human life, placing it on a plane above that of mosquitoes. Proponents of atheism bristle when confronted by the implications of their belief, that morality and ethics are mere figments of our evolutionary imagination. But, for all their umbrage, they cannot articulate any way there can really ever be, as one writer has put it, "good without God." The bristlers are not liars, only inconsistent; some well-hidden part of their minds well recognizes that humans have a higher calling than hyenas. But while the cognitive dissonance shifts to overdrive, the stubborn logic remains: The game is zero-sum. Either there is no meaningful mandate for human beings; or there is. And if there is, there must be a Mandator. What inspired Professor Zizek to celebrate atheism as "perhaps our only chance for peace" in the world was the unarguably dismal example set by some people who are motivated by religion. He is certainly correct that much modern mayhem is deeply rooted in claims of religious rectitude. What he forgets, though, is that the world has also seen unimaginable evil -- perhaps its greatest share – from men who professed no belief in divinity at all, whose motivations were entirely secular in nature. Adolph Hitler was no believer in God. Nor was Joseph Stalin. Nor Pol Pot. Together, though, the trio was responsible for the murders of tens of millions of human beings. They pursued their dreams as atheists with no less relish than Osama Bin Laden pursues his as an Islamist. Evil is evil, whether expressed through faithlessness or misguided faith. But only a belief in a Higher Being has the potential -- realized or not -- of reining in the darker elements that haunt human souls. Some of my best friends -- okay, one or two -- are atheists. Stranded on a desert island, I would prefer the company of any of them to Osama's. But if my choice of island partner were between two strangers about whom I know only that one believes there is no higher reason for human life and the other that there is, I know which one I'd choose. And I think Professor Zizek might make the same choice

read all comments

1 Memo B = "Actually, this is not true. If this was true, most of the killers, rapists, thieves in jail would be atheist. According to a 2013 report, only 0.07% of inmates in jail are atheist. That's less than 1%.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/In addition, a belief in a higher authority does not stop people from committing crimes. Paraphrasing Guy Harrison, if my mom is watching me, I don't even curse. I couldn't imagine myself hurting a kitten (not that I would if she was not watching me). And that's just my mom, who can't send me to hell. If a priest honestly believes that God is watching all the time, how can they muster the will to rape a child? You have to either say that they do not really believe in a God in that case (but you would be going to the "True Irish Gentleman" fallacy), or you would have to say that they can't contain themselves, which actually would prove the point that a belief in a higher power simply does nothing to a person who will commit a crime. "
2 Memo B = "I think you are confusing the meaning of "atheist". It means "without gods", not "without morals". Morality becomes relative at some point, and you seem to think that when "circumstances press" the likelihood of an atheist person to commit an act that it would be deemed immoral normally, is proof that atheists indeed have no morals. But by this, you are forgetting two facts: first, when circumstances press, the morality of the situation changes. And two, that a theist person would most likely behave in the same way. Easy example: Killing a fellow human being is immoral in most scenarios. However, you can come up with situations where killing a human being is not only acceptable, but the moral thing to do. Self defense, saving someone else's life from an agresor, assisted dying are some of those situations. However, in normal situations, an atheist won't be pressed to that. The thing that you are missing from the "purposeless evolution", is that it is not (and it has never been), the survival of the strongest. It is the survival of the fittest, which typically means the organism that best adapts to the environment. A thieving, philandering, serial murdering cannibal is not the fittest for our society, and he, most likely, won't make it very far. In today's society, a law abiding citizen, with care and compassion for fellow human beings is a much better fit. A selfless, hard-working philanthropist is a better fit, and from an evolutionist perspective, this is the one that has the advantage. "
3 Memo B = "Hitler was a self-professed Catholic. You may want to read parts of "Mein Kampf" where he makes the argument that God is in his side, and you may want to read about the legend that he made every german soldier wear on their belt. It is my impression you have too many misconceptions about atheism, and they show in your text. It is weird, considering you mention having atheist friends. I would recommend some books for you, but I think your perception might be better complemented by attending a secular meetup. Get to talk to a group of atheists, truly understand where they are coming from. The stereotypes are really, really unfair, and a single meeting with them will tell you that they are not mad, not evil, not even angry against a god. Regarding your last statement, if I was stranded on an island, and had to pick a partner, I think I would ask first what is the purpose of being on the Island. If it is for survival, believe me, I wouldn't ask "are you atheist / christian / jew / muslim / buddhist"? I probably would ask what is their scouting experience or if they know how to lit a fire. If I was to be stranded, but not in survival mode, and it was for conversation purposes only, I might lean towards the atheist, but just because I would have found common ground. But I'm sure I could find common ground with pretty much everyone. "