Religions > Atheism > A review of David Eller's book, "Natural Atheism." A Must Read!
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Robert the NOLA Atheist" |
| Date: |
20 Apr 2005 04:06:20 AM |
| Object: |
A review of David Eller's book, "Natural Atheism." A Must Read! |
I have completed about half of this book and found it to be an
excellent work regarding Atheism. So I feel confident in recommending
it to this group as well as to theists who want to learn about
Atheism. So buy the book and enjoy!
Robert
Atheism, naturally! A review of "Natural Atheism," by David Eller
Frank R. Zindler
American Atheist Press, 2004
Paperback, 352 pages.
Product #5902, $18.00
I was born an Atheist. All humans are born Atheists. No baby born
into
the world arrives with specific religious beliefs or knowledge. Such
beliefs and knowledge must be acquired, which means that they must
first exist before and apart from the new life and that they must be
presented to and impressed on the new suggestible mind--one that has
no critical apparatus and no alternative views of its own. Human
infants are like sponges, soaking up (not completely uncritically,
but
eagerly and effectively) whatever is there to be soaked up from
their
social environment. Small children in particular instinctively
imitate
the models that they observe in their childhood, but I was not
compelled to attend or practice any particular religion, and as I
grew
I never saw any reason to 'convert' to any particular religion. I
have
thus been an Atheist all my life. I am a natural Atheist.
--From the Introduction
With the release of David Eller's Natural Atheism, American Atheist
Press is issuing its most important new title since the death of
Madalyn Murray O'Hair. After reading the book five times and following
it from first draft to polished published product, I feel justified in
making this seemingly extravagant claim. It is a book that should be
treated as required reading for all Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists,
and skeptical thinkers of all degrees of philosophical sophistication.
Natural Atheism is also a book that should be read by theists who
honestly want to understand what Atheism and Atheists are all about or
are themselves experiencing a 'crisis of faith.'
While consistently critical of religion, Eller's writing is never
cutting or insulting. Both urbane and humane, Eller is ever respectful
of those who may disagree with him, always seeming to realize that his
philosophical opponents of the moment could very well be
Atheist-activist colleagues some time in the future. He is an
anthropologist whose analytical objectivity has helped him to see the
substance of the religious culture in which he is immersed--a culture
that is invisible to most of its carriers.
The book wastes no time in getting down to what Atheism is all
about--and what it isn't. Often there is a gentle humor. After
explaining that Atheists are without god-beliefs and do not 'believe
in' any of the gods, goddesses, or supernatural entities of the past
or present, we are told that
Atheists do not believe in the Christian god or any other of these
past or present gods. It would perhaps be whimsical to argue that
Christians do not believe in any of these other past or present gods
either. That does not make them Atheists, exactly, but it should
perhaps make them pause for a moment and reflect on why they
discount
or reject all of the world's religions but one. If they thought hard
and earnestly about why they dismiss those religions, they would
understand why we dismiss theirs. We only disbelieve in one more god
than they do.
With alacrity, Eller deals with the charge that Atheism is itself a
'belief system'--or even a religion.
Atheism is not a belief system, though, because it is not a system
at all; there is nothing 'systematic' about it. A system is a
structure with multiple parts in co-relation and cooperation. But
Atheism does not even have multiple parts; it has one part--lack of
belief in gods. That a 'lack of belief' could be a belief too is
preposterous ... Atheists do not 'believe' there is no god, they
conclude on the basis of fact and logic that there is none. This
has nothing to do with belief whatsoever.
Atheism is not religion; it is non-religion, the absence of
religion. But Atheism is more than non-religion; it is an
affirmative stance, a condition of intellectual, personal, and
moral freedom. In the same way, health is not just the absence of
disease nor peace just the absence of war, but health and peace are
positive conditions of strength, of well-being, of ability to live
and
enjoy your life. So too, Atheism is a psychological and existential
condition of strength and well-being and ability to live and enjoy
life and use your mind and trust yourself.
Deferring until later discussion of the fact that even some Atheists
have claimed that Atheism is a religion, Eller wittily comments,
It has always been unclear to me what the intention of calling
Atheism a religion really is. If Theists think religion is good,
then
that is high praise; in fact, we should then qualify for federal
funds
and tax exemptions too. If we are a religion in any sense, we are
entitled to toleration, First Amendment protections, and all the
prestige that Theists think religions deserve. I'm sure they do not
mean that.
All this and more is to be found in the introduction. In Chapter
One--"Twelve Steps to Atheism"--we are witness to a very clever method
of argumentation. Taking all the classical proofs for the existence of
gods, Eller turns them one after the other into arguments for the
necessity of Atheism!
One of the first problems Atheists face in disputes with Theists is
the question of who must bear the burden of proof. "If you can't prove
that God doesn't exist," Theists tell us, "that means He exists." Very
convincingly, Eller shows why this is not so. He tells us that "A
simple formulation of the burden-of-proof concept is that the party
who makes a claim has the burden to prove or justify that claim, not
the party who questions the claim." He then analogizes the situation
to the American judicial system in which persons charged with crimes
are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Theoretically, the defense
attorney need do nothing at all:
... if the prosecution does not prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt, the defendant goes free. In other words, the defense (the
'negative') has no burden on it--literally nothing to prove. Notice
too that, since guilt naturally means the truth of the initial
charge
[claim] and innocence means its falsity, the presumption of
innocence
equates to a presumption of falsity: a claim is false until proven
true. This is what Antony Flew (1984) means by 'the presumption of
atheism'.
Although later on Chapter Seven is devoted to a comparison of science
and religion, readers of this first chapter will find an important
critique of the claim that science is little more than an extended
appeal to authority and thus exactly comparable to a religion. After
showing how scientific citation of authority is utterly different from
the fallacious appeal to authority which serves as the invertebrate
scaffolding on which all religious systems rest, Eller deconstructs
the granddaddy of all religious authorities--scripture.
... scripture is always secondhand testimony--something that
(allegedly) happened at some other, usually remote, time and place;
even worse, it is biased testimony, something like the reports of a
scientist who is working for a tobacco or pharmaceutical company.
People who write scriptures are predisposed to believe a religion's
claims (they are creating those very claims!), and editors and
compilers of scriptures (those who set the 'canon') naturally only
select the texts that conform to and advance the belief. All of
these
issues make scripture suspect from the outset. Finally, there is no
verification, attempt at verification, or possibility of
verification
of the claims in the texts; you must take them at face value or not
at
all.
In a critique of the 'Argument from Miracles,' a curious conflict with
the 'Argument from Natural Law' is revealed.
... if when all is going well according to natural laws, then that
is a sign of god, and if when something happens that is unusual or
exceptional, that that is a sign of god too, then everything serves
as
evidence for you. There is no way to separate the real evidence from
the false or imagined.
Thus far, Natural Atheism has been fun reading. With Chapter Two
("Thinking About Thinking--A short Course on Reason") we get down to
serious business. In this chapter we find all the take-home lessons
from a college course in logic. Readers who have never had a course in
philosophy or logic may find this and the third chapter ("Proofs and
Principles--Unreason, Religion, and Relativism") rather tough
sledding, despite the author's lucid style and ability to simplify
complex problems without distorting them. I urge readers not to let
these chapters prevent them from reading through and beyond to the end
of the book. These chapters constitute a veritable textbook for
skeptics, and all self-respecting Atheists should master them to the
best of their ability. But as they say in Italian opera--Coraggio! It
gets easier, and the rest of the book is as pleasurable as it is
vital.
We have already quoted Eller on the question of who bears the burden
of proof in debates. But what do you do when, as evolutionary
biologists have done, you have by all objective standards accepted the
burden of proof and have proved your point, but your opponents still
refuse to accept your conclusions and continue to demand proof--as if
you had not given any? Perspicaciously, Eller observes that "there is
a real and substantial difference between being true and being
convincing.
'True' is a rational status, referring to accurate facts and valid
logic; something can be true whether I know or accept it or not.
'Convincing,' however, is a psychological status, referring to how
compelling and decisive the idea seems to a particular audience.
Skeptics and scientists have "another burden" even if they have
already borne the burden of proof or didn't have the burden of proof
to start with: the burden of persuasion.
It can and does arise that the truth may not be convincing. For
example, the foundations for the new truth may be incomprehensible
to the audience. When Galileo first proposed that the earth moves
while the sun stands still ... many people simply could not imagine
this being true. The earth feels stable, while we see the sun 'rise'
and 'set.'...
... this is where the 'burden of persuasion' comes in: to present
and
disseminate the facts so that resisters can and must know them, to
explain the situation sufficiently clearly so they can comprehend it
adequately, and to soothe the emotional and psychological objections
--or, if nothing else, render those feelings sufficiently tolerable
or
irrelevant--so they can embrace or at least live with the
implications.
Chapter Five, "Knowing Is Not Believing," provides a much-needed
analysis of the concept of 'belief' and brilliantly vindicates Madalyn
O'Hair's quondam scandalous claim that "Atheists have no beliefs."
Disagreeing with Atheist philosopher George Smith, who has written
that "A belief can be based on reason or faith, but not both," Eller
asserts that
... it is not that a belief cannot be based on reason or faith
interchangeably but that a belief cannot be based on reason at all.
Reason leads to conclusions and to knowledge, not to belief.
Therefore
I will be taking and defending the position, against all Theists,
most
philosophers, and many Atheists and freethinkers, that knowledge is
not 'true belief' or 'true justified belief' or any kind of belief
at
all but that knowledge is about reason and that belief is about
faith,
and the two are logically and psychologically utterly different and
even incompatible. In the end, I will advocate for an extremely
constrained range of application of the term 'belief' and for its
virtual eradication from the vocabulary of the freethinker.
In Chapter Six, our author deals with "Positive Atheism, Negative
Atheism, and Agnosticism"--a thorny issue in recent years among
freethinkers seeking to define themselves and their skeptical cohorts.
While Eller's demonstration that 'positive' ('strong') and 'negative'
('week') Atheisms are really equivalent is brilliantly executed and
should bring an end to this fruitless discussion (but will it be
convincing?), I think the most important part of this chapter is his
thesis that Agnosticism is a method not a position, and that those who
postulate Agnosticism to be a position intermediate between Atheism
and Theism have come to grief by confusion of logical categories. We
are taken back to the 1889 definition of Agnosticism given by its
inventor, Thomas Henry Huxley.
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies
in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the
principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow
your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations.
And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
It
is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a
proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies
that certainty.
Eller concludes that
Agnosticism is the only possible solution to the particular problem
it
addresses--the epistemological problem, the problem of
knowledge--and
that as such it is not only compatible with Atheism but is actually
a
foundation, the best foundation, for Atheism. ... If Agnosticism is
the process, Atheism is the product.
After this careful exposition of the relation between Atheism, Theism,
and Agnosticism readers are treated to a masterful chapter "On Science
and Religion." From this we get into the political arena and consider
the nature and necessity of religious toleration and separation of
churches from the state. Here we are given a helpful summary of all
the major Supreme Court decisions on separation of churches and state,
including all the significant cases concerning public schools. This
one feature alone should make this book a part of every Atheist's
reference library.
Unabashedly, Eller argues that we must spread "the good news of
Atheism," arguing very strongly that it is a necessity if civilization
is to survive. "Fundamentalism and the Fight for the Future" should
make it clear to all except those who will not see that we are engaged
in a culture war we did not choose--a war in which we cannot decline
to engage. Fundamentalism racing rampant throughout the world is
forcing our hand.
We did not ask for a war. We only asked for freedom and reason.
But
we find ourselves in a war that we did not choose and do not really
want. We would prefer the peaceful and steady march of human reason
and human rights. But that is not an option at this time. Every
advance we advocate in reason and rights will be seen by them as
another affront, another piece of the antireligion Atheist agenda.
But
to cease to advocate advances is to relinquish the battlefield, and
a
unilateral surrender or refusal to play the game anymore simply
leaves
them to continue to carry out their campaign. Unfortunately, in the
presence of radicals, we face the danger of being radicalized; that
is how human affairs work. But to decline to participate in the
challenge
once it has been thrown down is to lose, and they are certainly not
going to stop until someone stops them. Like it or not, choose it or
not, we have to resist--and keep our reason and compassion in the
process.
Despite its title, the final chapter, "Living in the Disenchanted
World--Toward an Atheism of the Future," is not a fantasy of what life
will be like in a world from which magic has been expelled, a world
that has been 'disenchanted.' Rather, it gives a brief account of
Atheist morality and critiques the proposal that we will or should
develop an 'Atheist mythos' and practice 'Atheist spirituality.' Space
does not permit a summary; readers will have to see for themselves
what this is all about.
Reading this book will make you feel good about your Atheism without
being smug. It will make you proud without being prideful. Best of
all, it will give you an integrated understanding of what it means to
be an Atheist--and of the rights and responsibilities that pertain to
that enlightened condition.
COPYRIGHT 2004 American Atheists Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group
"[The Bill of Rights is] designed to protect individuals and minorities against the tyranny of the majority, but it's also designed to protect the people against bureaucracy, against the government." -- Judge Lawrence Tribe
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
