Shorter Rod Dreher: Myths have practical value.

I want to clarify my remark above. I was not referring to the “myth” that Dawkins, et al, are talking about. Only that Rod was saying that in desperate times, a myth can be of great value because it bolsters confidence, gives hope, etc. I think the Dawkins statement is absurd. The Haiti crisis is not the time for anyone (religious or not) to be scoring points.

The fact that atheists care for their fellow human beings is evidence that they are made in the image of God, imo, whether they like it or not. No escaping that human DNA which was made by a designer.

I think that at least part of the defensiveness that Mr. Dreher notes in the atheists’ response comes from the constant message from many Christians that it is impossible for atheists/agnostics to have a cogent morality separate from a belief in God. The response from Dawkins and others is indeed a “nyah-nyah” response. It’s unfortunate, but not unexpected.
As for the commonality of atheists and believers in this effort, the connecting thread seems to be human compassion. The motivation for such compassion may differ, but the results converge nicely.

Again: what else is there to do in the face of the incomprehensible? Do atheists have a better idea?
I’ve found, “Do the next thing…” to be helpful.

Rod wrote: “And there were the people of this parish, asking God for help with that foul incense drifting around them. Again: what else is there to do in the face of the incomprehensible? Do atheists have a better idea? What good are the philosophies of Dawkins and Dennett now to the poor of Port-au-Prince?”
Rod, I’m not sure if I see your point. That a given claim helps a given individual deal with difficulties should be ONE consideration that the individual should weigh deciding whether to believe that the claim is true. For instance, if the only way that a healthy person can keep himself from committing suicide is by believing that fairies and leprechauns exist, then, prima facie, he should believe that fairies and leprechauns exist. However, that a given claim helps a given individual deal with difficulties is not the ONLY consideration that the individual should weigh when deciding whether to believe that the claim is true. For instance, knowledge is an end in itself. For example, suppose that a given person would be much less depressed if he were to believe that he had been abducted by aliens. It is still problematic for him to believe that he has been abducted by aliens.
Also, for many people, believing that there is no God helps them function better.
Finally, it seems very likely to me that there are no Gods. For one thing, I’ve never experienced anything remotely similar to a God.

You state, “If you believe, if you really believe, that with God’s help you and your loved ones will endure and prevail over this tragedy, or even if you do not, that your suffering has eternal meaning, and will be redeemed, you and your community may find the strength to overcome.”
In other words, whether a God exists or not is irrelevant, its the “belief” in a Christian god that counts. What comfort to those suffering Haitians who must wonder what grievous sins they have collectively committed to earn the wrath of God in the form of a devastating earthquake, of course never knowing that they have inherited and earned the consequences of the “pack with the devil” their ancestors made, according to Pat Robertson.
Rather than focus on a legitimate complaint from those atheists who are forever dehumanized by “Christians” as immortal and incapable of morality and ethics, maybe you should write more on the inherited deceit and hypocrisy in your religious pronouncements.

This is a false question here: “Do atheists have a better idea? What good are the philosophies of Dawkins and Dennett now to the poor of Port-au-Prince?”
The reality is that Haiti is both one of the most religious/superstitious and poorest nations on earth. This isn’t a coincidence. Haiti is poor for lots of reasons, not all of them of the Haitian’s doing, but there is no doubt that the very social structure of Haiti hold’s them back.
The reality is that if Haitians weren’t so religious and superstitious and always relying on an imaginary god to do good for them or blaming an imaginary god for their problems, then they would certainly have a more advanced country in the first place, with more wealth, better resources, better engineering, etc. Also logic, reason, and action make for better first responders than people sitting around praying.
As David Brooks (Christian conservative) of the NYT said, the catastrophe in Haiti is manmade. Similar type earth quakes have happened in America, Japan, and Europe with hardly any casualties, because we had better infrastructure.
Science = economic development and better engineering = more prosperity and fewer causalities from natural disasters. The science, engineering, and rationality needed to produce a better and more capabel society in Haiti is held back by their beliefs.
Again, its no coincidence that Haiti is both one of the most religious nations on earth and one of the poorest and most afflicted with problems.

What good are the philosophies of Dawkins and Dennett now to the poor of Port-au-Prince?
With respect, perhaps a philosophy that suggests that no supernatural beings are going to fix your problems for you and it is up to you to take small incremental steps to make your own life better – might be of more use to them than you think.

Another more excerpts:
Preachers and televangelists, mullahs and imams, often seem almost to gloat over natural disasters – presenting them as payback for human transgressions, or for ‘making a pact with the devil’.
This isn’t true? On the contrary, very many religious leaders do see natural disaster as a recruiting tool, which is an attitude one really must regard as a little morally suspect.
So Dawkins et al. use fundraising to do a little of the same. Well, fine. I guess that puts him in the same category as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell (although Dawkins doesn’t actually blame anyone when natural disasters strike, unlike religious conservatives).
So which is more contemptible?

You’ve taken a really weird approach to this one, Rod: challenging atheists to show “what good” they can do, and then expressing outrage when they dared to do just that. It is implicit in your question that their worldview is inferior–that it couldn’t possibly be of help to desperate, dying people–and you then seem almost offended when they try to refute that very viewpoint.
Have “Feagletish” donated so much as a dime to the relief efforts?

Rod
I think the admonishment in your tone toward atheists is sell evident, although you probably don’t hear it.
One of the organisations that has been acting in Haiti for years, and at the time of the disaster had 800 working for them in three facilities, is Médecins Sans Frontières. They work tirelessly in poor communities throughout the world without public fanfare, and with out televised appeals, supported by secular society.
Unfortunately religious society DOES say that without them nothing would get done, and DOES say that atheists do not put there hands in their pockets, and unfortunately we have to defend ourselves against baseless charges.

I am reminded of Bill Gates statement about 15 years ago now “Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There’s a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning.”
Maybe the Haitians would have been better of moving rubble on a Sunday morning, rather than singing the praises of God.

Rod,
I don’t find it at all surprising that the Haitians are rededicating themselves to God right now: it seems to me like the natural thing to do. Natural and moral evil tend to strengthen people’s faith in God. Things like this earthquake (or any example of terrible natural or moral evil) remind us of the fact that this is a deeply fallen world, one characterized by suffering and pain and in the grip of the evil one, and that ultimately this world cannot be our ultimate home- our hopes must rest on the world beyond. Christ warned us that “in this world, ye shall have tribulation”. And as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews wrote, just a couple years after what was, for the Jews, a monumental catastrophe not unlike that which just struck Haiti, “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city which is to come.”
As a priest I know has always been fond of saying, Christian hope is not the same thing as optimism, and any Christianity worthy of the name must start with a frank acceptance of the fact that this is a world of injustice, disaster, sickness, and atrocity. The very symbol of our religion, after all, is of a carpenter nailed to a cross.
For Steve, Quiddity and the others: to clarify, I don’t believe in the Christian religion because it’s comforting; there are plenty of other religions I could go to if I wanted comfort. I believe in it because I think it’s the truth.

TTT: You’ve taken a really weird approach to this one, Rod: challenging atheists to show “what good” they can do, and then expressing outrage when they dared to do just that.
You and a couple of others are misreading me. I said that the philosophy of Ditchkins is of little help to the poor of PAP right now, to help them get through their horrible suffering. I do not suggest and would not ever suggest that one has to be religiously motivated to offer aid to the suffering Haitians. That would be plainly absurd; I commend anyone, religious or atheist, who gives aid to those people. My point is simply that the tragedies of life — earthquakes, disease, death, catastrophes of all sorts — are too much for most people to bear without faith. Would it really be the kind, or even useful, thing to do to step into the prayer meetings in Haiti these days and pass out copies of “The God Delusion”?
This gets back to a question I posted last week in a blog, about whether or not there are conditions in which it is better to believe something that isn’t true.
Of course, as one of you suggested, if the Haitians’ religiosity causes them to be fatalistic about their situation, and not to act to do what they can to better their own lives, then it is harmful to them. Someone in an earlier combox said that when he was in Haiti some years back, he saw a Haitian man whose children were suffering from malnutrition. He asked the man why he didn’t fish to get them protein. The man said he couldn’t do that, because demons lived in the water. Obviously, that’s an example of a religious belief that is grossly harmful and destructive of life.

Besides, what else is there but to turn your overwhelming fear and sadness over to God?
Suck it up and get on with your life?

Re: The reality is that if Haitians weren’t so religious and superstitious and always relying on an imaginary god to do good for them or blaming an imaginary god for their problems, then they would certainly have a more advanced country in the first place
And you know this how? I don’t recall a certain materialist and atheist philosophico-political system in some other parts of the world producing much that we can regard as beneficial. And in regards to Haiti, how do you imagine that a lack of religion would have overcome the barriers that have been imposed by powerful outside forces (first France, then the US) practically since that unhappy nation was born?

soon america will collapse because of its tolerance for scum- it must happen for how does a peace loving people know they have to far in ugly behavior – even though it is clear in the very books and words they honor- christian America- what a joke
solomon azar

Rod wrote: “My point is simply that the tragedies of life — earthquakes, disease, death, catastrophes of all sorts — are too much for most people to bear without faith.”
I disagree that “the tragedies of life — earthquakes, disease, death, catastrophes of all sorts — are too much for most people to bear without faith.” I suspect that most people are able to do it, because I know that I and millions of other people are able to do it.
Now I concede that the word “able” is a complicated word. For example, a person might have been able to do X at time T if he had gotten a better education than the one he got. But, given the education that he actually got, at time T he is not able to do X. Maybe some people in Haiti who are religious at this moment are simply not able to be atheists at this moment. But had they had different experiences, I suspect that most (or at least many) of them would be able to be atheists at this moment, for I and millions of others faced with the same or similar circumstances would be able to be atheists.

Rod Dreher states,”My point is simply that the tragedies of life — earthquakes, disease, death, catastrophes of all sorts — are too much for most people to bear without faith.”
Once again you are simply illustrating my point above, without acknowledging it, by the way. It is simply an assertion and justification without foundation to claim that people cannot bear such events “without faith.” Their “faith” is taught to them, intentionally so, to attempt to replace myths and superstitions with other myths and beliefs, rather than do to educate them about science, cause and effect, and that people and events can and do rise above those myths with education.
It is pointless and disingenuous to claim a particular religious belief, in this case in “faith” in Christian god as opposed to any other religion or myth, is justifiable in and of itself because you assert “most people” can’t bear catastrophes “without faith.”
Really, Rod, how do you rationally justify your assertions?

Re: Jon – “And you know this how? I don’t recall a certain materialist and atheist philosophic-political system in some other parts of the world producing much that we can regard as beneficial. And in regards to Haiti, how do you imagine that a lack of religion would have overcome the barriers that have been imposed by powerful outside forces (first France, then the US) practically since that unhappy nation was born?”
Its a valid question I suppose, but I know a thing or two about Haiti. I used to live in South Florida (high Haitian population) and have traveled the Caribbean, though not to Haiti, and I’ve read Paul Farmer’s “The Uses of Haiti”, which I highly recommend.
#1 Yes, Haiti has had a number of problems imposed on it from the outside, but so have other countries. I don’t think that Haiti is uniquely imposed upon by outside forces. Imperialists (includes the US) have made trouble for practically every country in South and Central America and the Caribbean.
#2 Haitian religiosity is pretty unique. I made sure to include the term superstition in my post for a reason. Haitian religion includes high levels of superstition that go well beyond the average levels of religious belief, even in the third world Americas.
For Haitians, pretty much every aspect of the world is governed PRIMARILY by “supernatural forces”. This isn’t like Christians in America, or even Mexico, who go to church on Sundays and say petty prayers at meals times and who may even pray daily to God or Jesus or the Virgin Mary or whomever about their hopes and desires, for the Haitians daily life is dominated by spirits that are actively running the show. Many Haitians feel that the spirit world is more important than the material world, that outcomes of day to day events in the material world are BEST affected by calling on the spirit world.
When these people go to solve problems, often their frist course of action is to pray, do some ritual, consult a spiritual guide, make sacrificial offerings of some sort, etc., and then they MIGHT (or might not) take some other action to then seek results.
Their whole life is a confusing haze of unseen and uncontrollable forces, to which they constantly make appeals. For every question they ask pretty much, their first answer is a spiritually based one.
Given this kind of situation, they are never going to make progress because all they are every doing is jumping at shadows and taking largely ineffectual actions.
#3 Does economic development cause secularization or does secularization cause economic development? I reckon that its a self reinforcing loop. Economic development spurs secularization and secularization spurs economic development.
As for “atheist philosophic-political system in some other parts of the world”, eh., I never said anything about atheists. I’d say that Europe today is pretty well completely secular, with the exception of a few places like Greece, Italy, etc. Doesn’t mean they are all atheists, though atheism runs pretty high there, but it means that people’s decision making processes are based on the real world, not on religious beliefs. Same goes for much of Asia: Japan and Korea, and to a lesser extent China (officially atheist but still high levels of superstition in the population). The US is less secular than Europe and Japan, but for the most part meaningful decision making at the policy level, both public and private, is secular.

In the previous thread on Haiti I arrived late, and posted facts about “Papa Doc” Duvalier, who ruled Haiti from 1957 until his death in 1971. His insane cult of personality drove most of the teachers and doctors out of the country. His son, “Baby Doc” continued down the same road. Anyone who attempts to discuss the culture of Haiti while ignoring the history is either ignorant or foolish (or both). An entire generation of Haitians grew up largely illiterate because of the thug Duvalier and his son. Papa Doc did more to revive voudon than anyone on this site understands, and that is another foul legacy of his evil regime.
Come on, people, it isn’t as if Wikipedia is hard to find. The facts of Haitian history dating all the way back to independence in 1804 are readily available. I’ll help out those that cannot use a search engine by providing a basic link. Please read this, and contemplate that the current state of Haiti is in no small degree the “legacy” of Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his followers, who to this day still dominate Haiti with a toxic mix of race baiting, envy warfare, corruption and outright brutality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/François_Duvalier
Like it or not, culture matters, and when someone changes the culture very much for the worse ad Duvalier did, the nation follows.
The fact that people in Haiti are spontaniously creating their own Sabbath services despite the lack of priests or pastors is a good thing. No doubt heresy will be preached in some cases, but people will see what they really need, and what is superfluous.

Rod, why is everybody so rude to you?

Re: I’d say that Europe today is pretty well completely secular, with the exception of a few places like Greece, Italy, etc.
Modern-day Europe is built upon a solid edifice of Christian history (and yes, I know, some elements of that history are pretty nasty). Today’s secularism is just a thin outer rind. If it lasts, say, 500 years, come back and we’ll talk.
Re; Does economic development cause secularization or does secularization cause economic development?
Here it depends what you mean by “secularism”. If all you mean by it is the separation of Church and State (something I strongly support myself by the way) then you may have a case. But if you mean the fading of religion from cultural life entirely, then I don’t see a strong link either way. The US is obviously a counter example of a very rich and developed country where religion has remained a strong influence (maybe because it was “secular” in the first sense all along?), while China gives us the opposite: a very poor country where religion’s influence waned even before Mao came along, indeed while the Manchus were still accepting kow-tows in the Forbidden City.

There’s a pretty funny Mr Deity episode where he’s discussing the problem of evil and why he doesn’t fix it. To paraphrase, Mr Deity says something like “when things go right I get the credit, and when things go badly people come to me for help. Do you think I’m going to screw that up?”

“What good are the philosophies of Darwin… to Port au Prince?”
Darwin did not put forward a ‘philosophy’, he put forward a scientific model which people who are trained in the field say has been validated over and over. To the extent that modern biology has helped create medicines etc, I’d say Darwin is helping the poor people quite a lot, once the chaos subsides and the Red Cross can deliver the needed medicines.

Psst, michael, he said Dawkins (Richard Dawkins of The Selfish Gene etc., I assume), not Darwin…

Re: Jon – “Modern-day Europe is built upon a solid edifice of Christian history. Today’s secularism is just a thin outer rind. If it lasts, say, 500 years, come back and we’ll talk.”
Why are religious people constantly trying to give religion credit for secular effects?
If you are going to start talking about history you may as well go back and talk about the solid edifice built by the Greeks and Romans upon which Europe stands. The fact is that today in Western Europe, especially the Nordic countries, religion plays almost no role at all in daily life and has essentially zero role in the running of the social institutions, both government and private. Again, places like Greece and Italy are exceptions here, but then again places like Greece and Italy are also among the worse off countries in Europe by many metrics.
What we are talking about here with Haiti is a religious mindset. Rod is arguing that the Haitians are better served by a religious mindset in the midst of this tragedy. My point is that a religious mindset is PARTLY responsible for the magnitude of the tragedy in the first place.
My claim is that if the Haitians were more secular and didn’t view the world in such superstitious and religious ways, they would have been able to build a more secure society in the first place. Granted that isn’t a cure for everything, and there have been a lot of other forces acting on the country to both impoverish it and to reduce the education levels, leading to such high religiosity in the first place, but what strikes me as pretty outrageous is people like Rod and many others in the media who say in the same breath that Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, but “at least they have their religion”, without giving one acknowledgment to the RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POVERTY AND RELIGION, and without acknowledging that it isn’t a coincidence that Haiti is both VERY POOR and VERY RELIGIOUS/SUPERSTITIOUS.
Its not a coincidence, there are cause and effect relationships at work here, and I would say that religiosity, lack of education, and poverty are contributing factors to the high casualty rate in the first place, with the high levels of poverty being partly a product of the high levels of religiosity.
This commentary on CNN offers some good insight IMO:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/18/mcalister.haiti.faith/index.html
“The suffering Haitians are enduring is a natural disaster worsened by human-made conditions. It is a spiritual crucible. But it is also a crisis of meaning. For Christians it is to have faith, hope, and charity. For fundamentalist Protestants, it is to convert all souls, give aid, and wait for Jesus’ return. For Vodouists, it is to regain balance with the land and the unseen spiritual world.
For many social scientists, it is to strengthen Haitians’ capacity for self-government, to relieve the debt Haiti owes, to reforest the land, and to figure out how to divorce aid from dependence.
How we interpret the suffering of the good people of Haiti will lay the groundwork for how we walk forward.” – CNN
There are many contributing factors to Haiti’s problems, but interpreting them through religious lenses, as many Haitians do, doesn’t get you any closer to solving the problems.

Seconding Jon:
Tocqueville noted that it is a curious fact of the American character that we don’t really believe what we say we believe. John Lukacs has followed up on Tocqueville’s comments with his typical excess. Consider the fact that in every little religious hamlet across the South Wal-Mart aisles and parking lots are filled on Sunday, while the city of Hamburg, home to 1.7 million presumably post-Christian secular moderns, virtually shuts down for Sunday. Of course, you may make of this what you want, but it is curious.

“Would it really be the kind, or even useful, thing to do to step into the prayer meetings in Haiti these days and pass out copies of “The God Delusion”?”
If the distribution of this book (or any other book, for that matter) would motivate the Haitian people to abandon a fatalistic approach to life and begin working themselves to better their lot, then yes, I would encourage the distribution of said book.
Religious belief is all well and good, but I have yet to see any society that was improved without the citizens of that society working to bring about the improvement. Whatever their motivation (materialistic or supernatural), it was human hands and human backs that did the heavy lifting of bringing about the change.

why do atheists and agnostics hang around “BeliefNet”?
We get it already…..
“There is no God and I hate him”
Anything new to offer?

bill t
January 19, 2010 10:41 AM
why do atheists and agnostics hang around “BeliefNet”?
For the donuts and coffee out in the lobby

What does it say about people who are constantly insisting that they are just as good as religious people on the one hand and that they are better than religious people on the other?
What does it say about people who are constantly insisting that they don’t need (fill in the blank)?
What does it say about people who are constantly working to prove that their belief system is absolutely bullet proof and that their belief in it is invincible?
What does it say about people who are constantly making a big deal about what good people they are? That will come out and proclaim their humbleness, their charity, their kindness etc.
Its says alot.

quote: “As David Brooks (Christian conservative) of the NYT said, the catastrophe in Haiti is manmade. Similar type earth quakes have happened in America, Japan, and Europe with hardly any casualties, because we had better infrastructure.”
David Brooks is actually Jewish. Also, your post left out a good deal. America is a fairly religious nation and isn’t exactly poor or backward. Russia and much of Eastern Europe have incredible economic problems and a number of social ills. Yet they are highly secular, and in fact had atheism force upon them for decades under Communism.
If it is “no coincidence that Haiti is both one of the most religious nations on earth and one of the poorest and most afflicted with problems” what about Russia and Eastern Europe? Is atheism in these areas just a “coincidence”? Or do “coincidences” only run one way?
rr

Why do people like Bill T make such inane comments?

PS. And what does it say about a group of people that they ONLY come up with this idea now that they are trying to prove something about themselves and they are “proving” themselves by essentially mimicing religion?
If atheism was so moral why weren’t atheistic charitable institutions set up long ago? Surely from the age of Enlightenment onwards, this surely would have been possible. All institutions started small at one time. Where are all the atheists of old who set up charitable foundations that atheists could have been supporting all these years. Were there no rich and charitably minded atheists before today?
Religion got there first, organically and naturally without a competitor to prove itself against, and it does it best. All atheists can do is imitate it and follow behind, consciously copying, jumping through hoops already established by religion.
The fundamentally imitative nature of moralistic atheism or the New atheism is something that it will never overcome. It is a negative image of a positive one.

I think Anglican Peggy has demonstrated quite succinctly the nice catch-22 that theists in general and Christians in particular have set up. In doing so I would suggest that Mr. Dreher has an answer to his original question:
“Give money to Haiti to stick it to the Christians. Is that really the line the Ditchkins ideologues want to take? Better to lay off the defensive breast-beating, and just help the helpless. Shame on any person or group, religious or secular, who uses the earthquake to score cheap culture-war points.”
Indeed. Now, which side puts down the tarring brush first?

Peggy, I’m a bit peeved (in a non-personal, not taking you personally, way) by the way you’ve phrased your complaint. A primary reason is that it is exactly what the religion-in-power has historically put down those they replaced or those coming into being.
Your Johnny-come-lately comparison, beside being a catch-22, is precisely the justification given by the pagan Romans for persecuting the early Christians. I allow myself a similar phrasing, and ask that you not take it personally as well: How does it feel to be walking in Nero’s shoes?

Re: rr “America is a fairly religious nation and isn’t exactly poor or backward. Russia and much of Eastern Europe have incredible economic problems and a number of social ills. Yet they are highly secular, and in fact had atheism force upon them for decades under Communism”
Good Lord, can we give the Communist trope a break? And anyway Western Europe now has higher rates of atheism than the USSR ever did. And anyway, the issue here is economic development and regardless of the many real ills of the USSR, economic development was rapid and far reaching in the USSR. I mean after all they had the second largest economy in the world after the US until the collapse, and now they are way far behind. Whatever problems the Soviets had, they were still better off than the Haitians are today.
And if you want to go the “look at the commies” route, all you have to do is compare to Cuba right next door, and even the Cubans, despite the many sanctions against Cuba and all kinds of backwards nonsense in their system, are far better off than the Haitians.
And anyways, I’m not saying that the Haitian’s problems would all be solved if they became atheists over night, I’m simply saying that the LEVEL OF religiosity in Haiti is one of the things that holds them back.
As for America, that’s quite a mixed bag. Yeah, the American economy has been strong since WWII, but there are many factors that contribute to that, including the fact that America was not negatively affected by WWII while most of the rest of the world was, America had more natural resources than Europe, Japan, or Australia (the only other industrialized economies at the end of WWII), there was a large push for scientific education is America during the 1940s-1970s, there was a lot of government investment in infrastructure and research during the 1940s-1970s, America became the manufacturing capital of the world during the 1940s-1970s because of these reasons, etc.
Too bad America has been in a downward spiral for the past 10 years with in signs of real recovery, in large part due to policies brought about by conservatives.
And when you look at other factors its even less of an argument, as America is behind the rest of the industrialized world in many categories, like crime rate, prison population, preventable deaths, abortion rates, teen pregnancy rates, murder rates, bankruptcies, divorce rates, infant mortality rates, life span, economic mobility, freedom of the press, education level of the population quality of grade schools, resource waste, pollution, etc., etc., the list goes on and many American don’t even realize how low we rank on many of these metrics.
Many of the only areas where America can still claim to be number one, like in quality of university education, are areas dominated by secular liberals.
The sad fact is that American conservatism, led by the religious right, is destroying America so don’t bank us being “number one” in in our collective imaginations very much longer.

Still not darinng to repudiate Pat Robertson’s ‘Christian’ comments on Haiti, Rod?

“Would it really be the kind, or even useful, thing to do to step into the prayer meetings in Haiti these days and pass out copies of “The God Delusion”?
Shurely no worse than handing out yet more copies of Da Hoady Buybull.

Jeff,
While it’s true that Cuba is light-years ahead of Haiti, and in many ways has done decently well for itself, it’s also true that Cuba was never as militantly atheistic (or as repressive in general) as China or the USSR. You can argue plausibly that Haiti would be better off if it was more like Cuba (as Paul Farmer does, who incidentally is not entirely unsympathetic towards religion) but it’s hard to argue that Haiti would be better off if they were more like China circa 1966 (which was possibly the most hard-core militantly antireligious state we’ve seen in quite a long time, notwithstanding that Mao personally was said to not be an atheist).
The most hard-core atheist state today is North Korea, not Cuba, and North Korea is as much of a failed state as Haiti.

Jeff,
LOL! Your joking right? As with Christians and other religious believers who come in different denominations and sects, atheists come from from many different philosophical and ideological perspectives (Communists, Socialists, secular humanists, logical positivists/scienticism, libertarian, etc.). However, the fact of the matter is that in the last one hundred years, the majority of atheists in the world were (and if we count China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba today-are) Communists. Discussing modern atheism without discussing Communism is akin to discussing Christianity without mentioning the Catholic Church, the largest Christian church. So no, we can’t “give the Communist trope a break.” Any account of modern atheism that leaves out Communism is a very incomplete one.
Also, your notion that America is in a downward spiral and that it is the fault of religious conservatives is highly, highly questionable, especially on a comparative level. First, blaming the problems you listed on religion is simply without basis. Next, you failed to mention that other industrialized nations have serious economic problems today as well. The current recession isn’t exactly limited to America. Moreover, many European nations as well as Japan have higher government debt than America and none of them have replacement level birth rates. It is possible that America is in a downward spiral. But certainly not in comparison to more secularized Western and industrial nations, who arguably are in more of a downward spiral.
I don’t have much more time to discuss this. But as with most atheist apologists, your argument against religion is highly simplistic and misleading. Please, more facts and sophisticated analysis next time and less dogmatic ideology.
rr

rr, the simple fact — by implication where not explicitly stated — is the “blame” being set on the lack of religion. A rebuttal suggesting what blame may be validly set on religion is not only valid, it’s imperative. One cannot have a debate without opposing positions.
May I suggest that one should make politico-philosophical position the primary label. After all, if having a faith is of any consequence, history shows that politics is quite capable of either trumping or corrupting the tenets of faith for expediency and power-gathering. Fear is an excellent motivator, and whether the focus of fear is an angry or disapproving deity, or someone new deity forcibly replacing the current one, religion becomes a tool rather than a cause.

Anglican Peggy wrote,
“If atheism was so moral why weren’t atheistic charitable institutions set up long ago? Surely from the age of Enlightenment onwards, this surely would have been possible. All institutions started small at one time. Where are all the atheists of old who set up charitable foundations that atheists could have been supporting all these years. Were there no rich and charitably minded atheists before today?”
First, give us your source of data that no non-religious charitable organization has existed before. Where did your data come from?
Second, you miss the point entirely. Non-theists have long been a minority, held with disdain by the religious no matter what religion one talks about. The fact that non-theists like Dawkins, Hitchins, P.Z. Myers, Jacoby, Harris and others are willing to come out in public and discuss atheism, its foundations, and to challenge “religion” rationally and scientifically is a healthy step forward for those who have long been too timid or afraid to discuss their own atheism publicly.
It’s too bad that theists and “believers” are offended and complain. It’s too bad that you have to be reminded that religions have attacked atheists as “immoral and unethical” for most of history. Amazingly, it still goes on today. The religious are learning quickly that they have no inherent right NOT to be offended for their beliefs. Atheists will no longer “know their place” as dictated by those who believe religion enjoys special rights not to be challenged or offended. As long as you want religion to be discussed publicly, rather than privately in your own churches, to play a public role and enjoy freedom from taxation, then you are going to have to take the consequences of being challenged – rationally and intellectually – as many of us are challenging the claims and assertions of Rod Dreher right here.
I’m sorry to say that your implication that atheism and morality don’t mix is irrational and offensive.

Here’s a cartoon which sums up the Religious telling the atheists that they can’t have morals:
http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/addiscartoon.jpg

“Here’s a cartoon which sums up the Religious telling the atheists that they can’t have morals”
No, it doesn’t. (FWIW, I know cartoons … it was my major for my undergraduate degree. This cartoon is saying something else.)

SDG, care to share your interpretation?

“SDG, care to share your interpretation?”
Well, it’s not rocket science.
The cartoon neatly satirizes the hypocrisy of Christians who invoke their beliefs (economically symbolized in both open panels by a large cross) in denying respect and tolerance to others, i.e., atheists, but expect or insist on respect and tolerance from others for those same beliefs. The cartoon argues, in effect, that beliefs that are used to “bash” others are themselves unworthy of respect, and indicts the belief of Christians (all? many? typical? of a particular stripe? the cartoon is open-ended on this point) in this connection.
With respect to the philosophical argument that (however morally upright atheists may be personally) atheism as a worldview (at least in its materialist or naturalist form) logically excludes belief in the obligatory force of moral norms (or that materialism logically entails moral nihilism, whichever way you want to put it), the cartoon has nothing to say.

With respect to the philosophical argument that (however morally upright atheists may be personally) atheism as a worldview (at least in its materialist or naturalist form) logically excludes belief in the obligatory force of moral norms (or that materialism logically entails moral nihilism…
Not that again!
Humans are rational – we can make a set of moral norms that we – as a society – enforce.
Furthermore, norms derived from the assumption that they are Deity-given are not -in a practical sense – obligatory.

SDG, the cartoon was drawn by an atheist so he wouldn’t interpret it that way or even intend that meaning.
I am also not going to get into the argument from morality again. From past experience I’ve found pointing out the Euthyphro dilemma or any of the other counter arguments are a waste of time.

The first sentence of my last reply was too terse on re-reading. As an atheist the author of the cartoon isn’t going to separate the philosophical argument from how that argument is used by the religious. Yes the hypocrisy of the Christian is present, but the atheist’s reaction seems to be dominate the cartoon.

John E. – Agn. Stoic:
“Not that again!”
What? All I said was the cartoon wasn’t talking about the argument from morality. Somebody else raised the subject, not me.
“Humans are rational – we can make a set of moral norms that we – as a society – enforce.”
Certainly. But what has enforcement got to do with obligation? If I do something society doesn’t like, society can impose consequences. If I’m willing to accept the consequences, there you go. What has that to do with what I “ought” to do?
“Furthermore, norms derived from the assumption that they are Deity-given are not -in a practical sense – obligatory.”
I never said anything about “Deity-given.” Nor have I the slightest idea what “in a practical sense obligatory” might mean.
MH:
“SDG, the cartoon was drawn by an atheist so he wouldn’t interpret it that way or even intend that meaning.”
I don’t think you followed what I said.
“I am also not going to get into the argument from morality again. From past experience I’ve found pointing out the Euthyphro dilemma or any of the other counter arguments are a waste of time.”
I can’t see that there has been any dilemma since at least the time of St. Thomas.

“As an atheist the author of the cartoon isn’t going to separate the philosophical argument from how that argument is used by the religious.”
The moral argument isn’t involved, invoked or alluded to in any way, shape or form. It’s not about that. (If anything, the Christian’s reaction in panel 2 assumes that the atheist DOES recognize a moral code, NOT that he doesn’t.)
“Yes the hypocrisy of the Christian is present, but the atheist’s reaction seems to be dominate the cartoon.”
Not so. The locus of the cartoon, the zinger that drives it, is whatever is the incongruous, ironic, humorous element that doesn’t make sense. That would be the Christian’s reaction, not the atheist’s. From the cartoon’s point of view, the atheist’s angry grabbing the cross with intent to snap it in two is merely a rational, reasonable response to the first panel. It’s the Christian’s hypocritical “Hey! Respect please!” that constitutes the zinger. Also, panel 1 is obviously dominated by the Christian’s angry mistreatment of the atheist. The Christian is the satiric “protagonist” of the cartoon, the atheist is merely the straight-man “subject” who does no more than respond when provoked. It is not a cartoon about atheist anger, but about Christian hypocrisy.
You think I went to school for nothing, dawg?

SDG, OK I can see what you mean given your point about the zinger. It’s interesting because my take was to read the Christians words in the first panel and knowing the author was an atheist read it differently.

MH, yeah, I was reading it as coming from an atheist perspective too. I just didn’t see the Christian’s vituperation in panel 1 as implying that he thinks that atheists can’t have morals, only that he thinks they are immoral, which isn’t quite the same thing. Panel 1 sets up panel 2.
FWIW, I find the argument that atheism entails moral nihilism persuasive, yet I have no problem acknowledging that many atheists disagree and have highly moral outlooks and moral behavior. I am also very much in favor of not hitting anyone over the head with anything regardless of their beliefs or unbeliefs, and according everyone the respect and dignity that is their due. Cheers.

Jeff, a couple of points:
No one should take old Soviet statistics at face value. A lot of so-called Russian prospeity and progress turned out to be no more real than the happy peasant villages Grigory Potmekin showed Catherine the Great. One the failures of US intelligence during the Cold War was the fact that we took Russia’s own boasts uncritically and as a result believed we faced a foe much stronger than it was. Moreover I’ve seen convincing arguments that Russia would have been more prosperous had Communism not taken over, and had the nation simply sustained the early 20th century growth rates under the tsars.