It has been more than a year since I last made a blog post, I was extremely busy with my university thesis (and I'm very satisfied with it too!) so I had no time for my militant atheist "activism" aka writing about the writings of other people.
My vampiric fangs will sink into my first victim: Michael Hays (Ph.D., English- sadly, we will see that having a Ph.D. will not immunise you from perpetuating fallacies or misrepresenting the views of the opposition). He's not just any old "agnostic", but one of those annoying agnostics that Matt Dillahunty hates with passion (you'll find out why later). He recently wrote an article titled "Their View: Atheism wrong and does no good; faith can do good", on the
Las Cruces Sun-News website.
"Richard Dawkins is a fine evolutionary biologist, but a feeble theologian."
It is true that our holy pope, Richard Dawkins, is a
fine evolutionary biologist. However, his lack of a university degree in theology doesn't render his criticisms of religion meritless. For example, an astronomer need not have toiled for decades studying astrology to provide valid criticisms of it.
"But I would say two things: one, he, like other atheists, cannot prove the non-existence of God; and, two, he, like other atheists, accepts the non-existence of God as, ironically, a matter of faith."
Here Michael attempts to shift the burden of proof and accuses Dawkins of having "faith" for not accepting theistic claims. First of all, if we care whether or not our beliefs are true, we must set standards of evidence alongside having burden of proof resting on those asserting positive claims. That is, if you want to have as few false beliefs as possible and as many true beliefs as possible, you must only accept claims that are based on good evidence while rejecting propositions unsupported by evidence. Dawkins's reasoning for rejecting the existence of god(s) is the lack of evidence supporting the existence of god(s). Secondly, when we consider what the word "faith" means and its use in common parlance, we find that it refers to having a belief in a proposition in the absence of evidence or even when evidence contradicts the belief.
Simply put:
It is not necessary to prove the non-existence of a teapot orbiting the Sun to not accept Sun-orbiting teapots, nor does it require faith.
"But what is true of atheists is equally true of theists. They have every right to be theists, to promote theism and persuade others to be theists, and to urge others to admire religion and accept one religion. I would never say that they should not exercise these rights. But I would say two things: one, they cannot prove the existence of God; and, two, they accept the existence of God as, appropriately, a matter of faith....My agnosticism assumes the impossibility of proving or disproving God's existence or anything about His or Her nature."
If it hasn't become obvious already, I'll point it out:
Michael is trying to paint those who reject faith with the faith paintbrush in order to make them look just like the theists, while trying to come across as the objective viewer...Michael is the kind of agnostic that criticises "both sides" for making assertions that there are or aren't god(s), yet himself, asserts that it's impossible to know whether god(s) exist or not, and that it's impossible to learn anything about the nature of such a being.
"The single negative faith of atheists is stultifying; the many positive faiths of theists are stimulating."
Holy carp!!1
"...Their diversity suggests that theism has no obvious answers to obvious questions"
Atheism, theism, deism, pantheism, etc, address only one thing: the belief in the existence of god(s). That's it! It doesn't regard itself about the origin of life, the universe and marshmallows, but that's because it's not supposed to! Michael is conflating theism with religion (many of which claim to have the answer to the mysteries of life), though I can understand a layperson making this mistake, this is inexcusable for someone who is supposedly highly educated!
"What is unknowable as a matter of fact is not necessarily unbelievable or unworthy as a matter of faith."
In other words: faith can allow us to believe in things we can't ever know anything about, without reason, without evidence.
You do realise this can be used to justify beliefs all kinds of nonsense, like fairytales and all, right? Beliefs in pixies, goblins, leprechauns, Santa Claus (prove to me the guy doesn't exist, visit the icey poles, dig every cubic meter of snow to check for his base of operations, I double dare you motherf****r!), invisible dragons, Lord Voldemort (EEEK!), etc...
"Thus, Christians (and Jews) believe that He or She is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and all-merciful."
Have any of those attributes been demonstrated/verified? Oh wait, we're talking about "faith" here, that means you can believe in all kinds of unproven things. And if you don't accept those claims because there's no evidence supporting them, then, according to Michael Hays, you too have faith and are equally as wacked! Tadaa!
"Christians...but God, they say, operates in mysterious ways — which means that God saves whom He or She chooses among those with faith in Jesus."
It's a way of shutting up critics, getting them to stop judging god. Who can blame them? It must be a real head scratcher!
"I do not understand why God chooses only among those with faith in Jesus."
I'm curious, how about a little thought experiment? Let's consider a brief look at human history. What kind of a being (human or otherwise) asks for complete devotion, accepting their authority without question, and if their devotion/authority is not accepted, they threaten you with death or torture?
"From my perspective, religious faith deserves respect when it prompts good will and good deeds toward others year-round, not just at Christmas; and provides comfort or hope in times of need, and beauty and serenity at all times."
I'm going to side with Sam Harris here (surprise!) when he talks about "doing good things for GOOD reasons", especially consider that good reasons are already available and have been for a long time. Donating to charity may be a good thing, but doing it because you're earning brownie points with the big man isn't exactly a good reason to donate to charity in the first place...Empathic reasons/concern for the well being of your fellow humans have predated religion, religion deserves no respect for stealing credit for the good humans may do.
I'm done for now, I'll be back for another bloodmeal later.
~Evangelical atheist who has faith but lacks it in the same time
