The most common defense against the accusation that Atheism is a position of faith is the analogy usually called Russell’s Teapot, coined by Bertrand Russell in 1952. It runs as follows:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Nobody can prove that the teapot isn’t there. But does that mean that one relies on faith when one denies its existence? Most of us are Atheists when it comes to, say, Apollo, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, but we can neither prove or disprove their existence. Most of us will also deny the claims of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, according to which the world was created by a drunken monster made of spaghetti, who can save your soul too, by touching you with his “noodly appendages.” Do you really need faith to realize that that’s nonsense? No, you just know that it can’t be true. Same thing with God. As Dawkins says, we are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in, just that some of us go one god further. When you figure out why you don’t believe in Quetzalcoatl, the plumed serpent god of the Aztecs, you’ll understand why some of us don’t believe in your god. And, as you must see by now, faith has nothing to do with it.

So let’s unshitten the dialog by admitting the obvious: The religious need their faith at the end of the debate, because all other arguments in their favor fail. Atheists don’t.

Many thanks to Josh Reyes, Nanny Carroll and Mark for the e-mails that caused this rant. I hope that this answers your questions and that you’ll keep writing.

The main reason why the actions of totalitarian regimes cannot be ascribed to Atheism is that their fault was not that they were too secular, but that they were too much like religions. The first person to demonstrate that any society in history has suffered directly because of too much reason should get a Nobel. Granted, many societies have suffered somewhat, in that their enemies have managed to motivate their constituents better by manipulating them emotionally, rendering them more fanatic and therefore more dangerous to the more reasonable society on the other side. But that’s obviously a distinct topic, with only an indirect bearing on my case.

Let’s look at Hitler and Nazism first. It’s interesting to note that Hitler was never excommunicated by his church. In fact, of the 5,025 men and women convicted of war crimes between 1945 and 1949, not one was ever kicked out of Mystic Club. Killing defenseless people by the millions does not even appear to be a wrist-slapping matter for Management, but supporting a friend through an abortion is grounds for automatic revocation of your God license. But this may be only a sinister coincidence. And so may be the fact that Kristallnacht happened on Martin Luther’s birthday. I know, I know, we all agree that Martin Luther was a barking-mad antisemitic cocksucker, and it’s not fair to bring him into this. But when you consider that that night’s events followed with accuracy the blueprint he came up with in 1543 in a treatise called The Jews and Their Lies, he does become a legitimate topic. In it, he expounded his ideas about how Jews should be “dealt with” — while calling them “poisonous envenomed worms” — and it appears that the Nazi leaders responsible for the barbarity of that day were good at following directions. Sounds too conspiratorial? Possibly, but it’s just the facts. Getting back to Hitler, it would be dishonest to deny that his views were at least partially informed by religious doctrine. Those who insist that that is not the case probably missed two books that are crucial to this case: The Bible and Mein Kampf. There’s less inconsistency there than one might expect. This is a quote from Hitler that might cause some to reconsider their opinion on his alleged atheism:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Many others like this one can be found in Mein Kampf and throughout his speeches. But even if one were as disingenuous as to ascribe the totality of Hitler’s public religious talk to his shameless populism, one would still have to account for the insiders’ observations. Goebbels, for instance, wrote in his journal:

The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay.

Whatever. I have the feeling that Hitler remained a faithful subscriber to Christianity throughout his life, albeit a more personalized version of it. But he was at least religious, I think we can agree. And even if we can’t, it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Hitlerism itself was very similar to any run-of-the-mill religious doctrine: murky, demonstrably false and, most damningly, stemming from unreason. The same thing can be safely said about Stalinism, and that is the main reason that it too can be thrown out as an argument against Atheism. After all Atheism is meaningless without the rejection in bulk of unreason.

Stalinism is defined as follows:

The principles of communism associated with Joseph Stalin, characterized esp. by the extreme suppression of dissident political or ideological views, the concentration of power in one person, and an aggressive international policy.

How reasonable does that sound? The parallel most worthy of note between Hitler and Stalin is that they both replaced the old dogma of inconvenient religion, with one more suitable to their purposes, with sets of ideas devoid of the inconveniences of religion, but filled with its advantages. It is ultimately not just the difference between religion and Atheism, but also the one between dogma and reason which designates people as Theists or Atheists.

If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘Fine, I respect that’.

So that’s conventional wisdom. Most of us feel that way, it’s just not appropriate to say bad things about religion, any religion, in polite company. And I have no idea why. As Dawkins himself mentions, if he would have written a book called The Monetarist Delusion or The Liberal Delusion, the last thing anyone would describe it as would be intolerant. Why is it that we can talk about anything, here in the free world, we can attack anyone’s views on any subject, but when someone says that a guy rose to heaven on a winged horse or that another guy was born of a virgin impregnated by a god, or that there’s a god that takes an interest in football games and he hands out touchdowns to his favorites, the natural reaction (which in my mind can only be “What in the fuck are you talking about, man?”) is considered intolerant? If I were to tell you that your computer has been rigged by the CIA to broadcast subliminal messages, you would not take me seriously, unless I brought evidence of some kind. On the other hand, the New Atheists do take religion seriously. They accord its proponents respect and they treat their views on their merits; taking someone seriously is the ultimate sign of respect, not of intolerance.

The New Atheists never suggested banning religion from society, enforcing atheism or anything remotely related to that. The democratic state after all, as Julian Baggini observes, is not atheistic, but secular. It keeps religion at arm’s length, which is the only way to ensure that people’s views (the religious kind included), are not fucked with in any way and everyone is free to live their lives unhindered by the religious opinions which those in power might hold. Just imagine that Pat Robertson is elected to high office. If Hitler and Ahmadinejad made it, so can he. Would you really want his religious views enforced on you and your kids through legislation? That’s all the New Atheists are asking, keep governments secular, not atheistic. They don’t advocate reprisals against religion, legislating it away or any other forceful reaction to it. So, keeping in mind that all they’re asking for is a conversational intolerance of the “What are you talking about?” sort, an intellectual argument, let’s turn to some of their objections against religion.

So what are some of their points? For instance, they argue that there’s no reason to suspect that God — or any other god — exists. That religion appears to give comfort, personal and social well-being to people but science does it much better. Religion stifles progress and personal freedom and is sometimes downright genocidal by way of its opposition to things like stem-cell research, contraception and others. They also maintain that most sacred texts are immoral and destructive and they say religion takes time and effort which could be better employed elsewhere. Then there are the more obvious points. Says Dawkins:

Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/ Croat/ Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’’no ‘honor killings,’no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money.

These are some of the points the New Atheists are making. So what’s inaccurate? I find it odd that they are are considered controversial, and I find it amazing that they’re considered intolerant. In a society like the Western one, where communication, respect and reason are prized assets, why do we discard them almost automatically when we happen to talk about religion? We have enough respect for our peers to challenge and debate them on politics, hockey and farming practices, but when it comes to religion we insult them by nodding approvingly when they say the weirdest things. That’s not tolerant, it’s condescending. And, talk about morality, since when is compromising on truth — as one happens to see it — for the sake of comfort an ethical thing to do? If we don’t agree with something, shouldn’t we say so?

1. Genetically-Modified Food Aid to Starving Populations in Third World Countries

The usual stance on this issue in liberal circles is opposition. And liberal objections to genetically-modified food are pretty serious too. For instance, the effects on the consumer are not entirely known and unpredictable things might happen, as it is many times the case in genetic engineering. That’s a solid objection and so is the fact that a few companies might monopolize and control world food production or the possibility that new advances might be used by rich countries against the interests of poor ones. The list of complaints is, of course, much longer than that, but these are some of the more serious issues raised by opponents of GM food aid. That is mostly us, the Liberals. So I guess my question is: What the fuck are we thinking? They’re dying of hunger! Do you really think a six-year-old who is dying in agony because her mother has run out of tree bark will be terribly encouraged by the fact that you, the conscientious and well-meaning Liberal, have prevented the unintended transfer of trans-genes through cross-pollination? I really doubt it. Yes, there are issues with GM food and only a madman would deny that. But let’s not forget that human life should take precedence over any of those issues in any modern value system, especially in a liberal one. Let’s save lives now and fix the issues when we can. It seems to be a much more important priority to keep the six-year-old alive than to prevent the Corporation from acquiring influence, wouldn’t you say? I hear that 27,000 people are estimated to die of hunger every single day. It happens right now, as you read this. It happens as we, the conscientious and well-meaning Liberals, oppose giving them the food that would save their lives.

2. Islam, the Religion of Peace

A euphemism that is quite wide off the mark for a cult of death. I know, harsh words, and please feel free to disagree. But hear me out first. We hear that the extremists have hijacked Islam and brought it to the deplorable level of perversion that allows for educated middle-class people, some of them with Ph.D.’s, to fly planes into buildings. We hear that Osama bin Laden’s brand of Islam is not too popular with the masses and that most Muslims are as outraged as we are about terrorist attacks. (That is most likely true, but, interestingly, there have been virtually no official Muslim condemnations of the September 11 attacks on the United States.) So let’s assume that what we hear is true and try not to hold a whole religion responsible for the actions of a few. Let’s talk about the book at which moderates, those whom we’d expect to have done away with anachronistic concepts, look for moral directives and inspiration. Let’s talk about the Koran, the unerring word of God. If you think cruelty, savage barbarism, racism, injustice and intolerance are only found in the Bible, think again. All you have to do to change your mind is to simply read the Koran. Open it pretty much anywhere. It is debatable whether it reaches the degrees of depravity and immorality we find in the Bible, but you’ll see it’s not much better. After you’ve spent an afternoon reading the Koran at random, reflecting on the fact that 1.4 billion people find it the ultimate user’s manual will feel pretty uncomfortable. No honest individual will be able to read it and look someone in the eye while maintaining that Islam is a religion of peace. Yes, luckily most Muslims don’t follow their holy book. They pick and choose the parts they like and disregard the rest by using their moral sense, which is independent of the religious doctrine. But, if by religion we mean the set of tenets outlined in the Koran, their religion is anything but peaceful by any standard. Our disliking of the Bush administration and of the Christian right, our dedication to tolerance and our willingness to live and let live are not excuses for deluding ourselves about Islam’s alleged peaceful nature.

3. Air America

It’s old news already that Air America is filing for bankruptcy. That may be due to the fact that, as rumored, advertisers have blacklisted it for fear of being associated with a radio network that embraces extreme left-wing propaganda. Or it may be due, more likely, to the fact that Air America is extreme left-wing propaganda and its audience gave up on it. I was quite excited about it when it went on air in 2004. A voice of reason raising from a sea of bullshit, who wouldn’t want that? That lasted for about four days, if I remember correctly. Then I went back to NPR and The Daily Show to allay my grief. I know that there are a lot of fellow Air America “disappointees” out there and I will venture a speculation as to the cause of that. My suspicion is that people who are inclined towards progress tend to be more perceptive, more educated and less gullible, and I’m obviously not interested in how elitist or politically incorrect that sounds. (The truth is in many cases “elitist.” I’m willing to bet quite a lot on the fact that, were there a scientific study done in that direction, my speculation so far would be proven accurate.) In general, they frown upon “spin.” If Liberals wanted a Fox News for Liberals, the owners of Fox News would have made it. They didn’t. So some genius figured it would be good to have a liberal outlet just as fair and balanced as Fox News and it would sell like hot brownies. The results are there for everyone to see: yelling, cutting people off, the horrendous “sound bite” approach, the immunity to reason and evidence, and, with all due sympathy, the downright hateful, foam-at-the-mouth manner of discourse have driven Air America to bankruptcy. It’s a pretty scary picture when Al Franken is your moderate. So the question I’m addressing progressives is “What took you so long?” Were the few and far-between islands of common-sense on Air America that enticing that you kept listening for two years? Or is that species of commentary, emotional and reactionary, the kind of thing a progressive should appreciate? Were he here, Galileo would have kicked our asses for indulging in Air America.

Oh, and please, let’s stop saying Nicaragua with that rolling r, as if to imply empathy and consideration. The word Nicaragua with a regular American accent sounds much better in the mouth of an American and is just as acceptable.

Sãru’mâna!

I see a few possible objections to sleeping around, and all of them are either related to or caused by the fact that in almost all societies, old impotent men, many times with brains diseased to varying degrees and lacking even the most rudimentary of sexual ethics exerted a lot of influence based, in many cases, on the authority of ancient texts written by other demented old men, just as immoral and likely just as impotent. Honest-to-God perverts, tortured by guilt and remorse, projected their sick views of sexuality upon the rest of society and made “promiscuity” what it is today: a dirty word. Elders throughout history wielded much more power than the more sane and horny youths, so it was natural that their views prevailed, even in matters that were none of their concern, such as other people’s sex lives. Sex is a strong motivator, it can be used to control, it has the potential to give and take a lot of power, and the elders made sure that they wrote its rules. I hope that some of us will be the lucky generation that will witness the perverts’ demise. (Plus, I like the sound of ‘You’re going down, old man!’) All this is not to say that women have not done their part to vilify sex. We all know who the driving force behind the abhorrent practice of female genital mutilation that still exists in certain parts of the world is, to name just one instance. In general, however, women’s influence on societies has been minor compared to that of men, for reasons better discussed elsewhere.

My decisions and opinions are mostly informed by the amount of suffering involved in their possible outcomes and implications. I am strongly against suffering, so one of my first questions before making up my mind about some thing or the other always is “who’s going to suffer?” And if the question is who is going to suffer if people have sex freely, without fear of the stigma of promiscuity, the answer is nobody. There’s no suffering involved in people sleeping with other people for pleasure. Well, not unless you and your partner are into that S&M deal, but that doesn’t count. So, what is immoral about consenting adults, in most cases honest, decent people, pursuing pleasure, as long as acceptable amounts of mutual consideration and respect are involved? Why does someone like Pastor Ted, bless his heart, feel compelled to teach people about the merits of abstinence? Why is asceticism considered by so many the ultimate sign of (of all things) morality, instead of indicating to the observer that the ascetic is fundamentally deranged? Instead of disturbing, asceticism is considered ethical. This is similar to assuming that someone is a good mathematician because he’s able to open a beer bottle with his teeth. There’s no logical correlation between abstinence and ethics, as far as I can see.

I’m only disputing the alleged deficiencies of promiscuity here, and not discussing its benefits for now. But if we were to pay heed to research instead of vicious mythology, as far as sex is concerned, I have a feeling that promiscuity would stop being the dirty word that it is.

Please e-mail me your good reasons to consider promiscuity negative in any way. If I will be given any, I will post them here for further discussion.