The Scrooges of Olympia

Posted on December 5, 2008 by Andrew Stuttaford

Well, John (Mr. Bradlaugh), here I am (looks around anxiously, wondering about the strange, godless place in which he now finds himself). And, yes, I’m certainly up for that Christmas drink – and a mince pie too if such delicacies can be found in New York.  Like you, I’m a great fan of Christmas – and for any number of reasons, most of them to do with nostalgia, tradition, family and, yes, the season’s irresistible ideal of Dickensian bonhomie. Goodwill to all men and all that. Putting up that placard struck me as boorish, preachy, and more than a little irritating, for many of the reasons you suggest. It’s also an unintentionally amusing reminder of the way that so many of our more enthusiastic atheist brethren (full disclosure: I’m not an atheist myself; that would take way too much certainty) can often resemble exactly those types of religious zealots they purport to disdain. The folks who put up that placard should lighten up a little.

This entry was posted in culture, data and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Scrooges of Olympia

  1. ossicle says:
    December 5, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    YAY STUTTAFORD! Now the party is complete.

  2. anti-dogmatic atheist says:
    December 5, 2008 at 3:16 pm

    I recently sent the following e-mail to Mr. Stuttaford after he made the same claim that he is not an atheist because that would require too much certainty. I think while some atheists fall into this stereotype (e.g. our friend in Washington), I think the predominant sentiment in the atheist community is one of anti-dogmatism (the opposition to those who hold or encourage people to hold beliefs on insufficient evidence, and indeed, in spite of evidence to the contrary). I’d argue that the basis of faith is that sort of unfounded certainty, and while certain atheists may be faithfully certain that there is absolutely no God, I’d argue that this is inconsistent with that other crucial component of atheism — considering evidence with regard to truth-claims. In any case, you may read the e-mail for yourself and see if I had a point. If not, I’d love to hear why:

    “Dear Andrew Stuttaford,
    I often hear comments like this, “I’m not religious enough to be an atheist” from those who aren’t religiously inclined. I have to say respectfully that I think you’re falling into the same trap as certain religious people who caricature atheism as a faith-based proposition. This stems from the assumption that atheism requires the positive belief that there is absolutely no God. There are, of course, atheists who think this way, but the more rational atheist would be very uncomfortable with any certainty in this regard. What the rational atheist would say is that he doesn’t believe in God (very different from believing positively there is no God) in the same way he doesn’t believe in Zeus, or Thor, or Poseidon, or Leprechauns, or Astrology. Nothing can prove definitively that these other Gods or superstitions aren’t true, but that doesn’t make them any more likely to be true — and it certainly doesn’t make them 50-50 propositions (much like Bertrand Russel’s cosmic teapot argument, if you are familiar). This is where atheists diverge from agnostics who generally do consider the existence of God a near 50-50 proposition about which they aren’t firmly on either side. Therefore I would agree with you – the certainty that there is no God is dogmatic=2 0in much the same way as the certainty that there is. However, the undogmatic atheist would say that truth-claims should be evaluated based on the evidence in their favor, and therefore the existence of God falls in the same category as the infinite number of propositions you could invent that you couldn’t disprove definitively, but still don’t have much merit. Indeed, to express certainty here would be inconsistent with the most important goal of atheism, which is not to encourage people to reject God but instead to encourage people more generally to regard evidence very highly when it comes to believing something is true or not. In this way true atheism, or at least atheism consistent with its professed regard for reason, isn’t as much a rejection of religion as it is a rejection of all kinds of dogma (i.e. any belief held on insufficient evidence). I hope this cleared something up.”

  3. anti-dogmatic atheist says:
    December 5, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    He had made the claim I quote in the e-mail at NRO’s The Corner, by the way.

  4. Heather Mac Donald says:
    December 7, 2008 at 6:28 am

    Welcome on board, Andrew! Delighted to have you. There’s more of us skeptical conservatives, including in the pundit world, out there than most people realise. But they’re keeping their heads down. I would be happy if the next time someone intones to a group of gathered conservatives: “What makes conservatives superior to liberals is their religious faith,” he feels a slight twinge of doubt regarding who’s in the audience.

  5. Snippet says:
    December 7, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    anti-dogmatic athiest.

    Just so! Jolly good! Hear hear! Well said old boy!

    I have grown weary of the Atheism is just another religion meme.

    My six your old son is on the verge of replacing the myth that Santa Clause exists with the myth that he does not. Poor kid.

Comments are closed.