There just seems to be something about theistic belief that causes people to feel the need to tell other people what they do or don't believe. Naturally this takes the form of casting everybody else in the shadow of the theist's own religious beliefs. And should the person whose beliefs are being defined for them choose to say, in the politest way possible, "No. I'm pretty sure that's not what I believe," then there invariably ensues much stammering on the part of the theist to tell the party being defined exactly how they couldn't possibly know their own beliefs and any protestation to the contrary is a direct affront to the theist doing the defining, and possibly religious persecution.

Atheists get used to this attitude pretty quickly. You see, while everybody gets this morally superior condescending treatment from the fundamentalist religious right, atheists must blithely resign themselves to receiving it from almost every religious believer under the sun. Oh sure, liberal believers are much politer about it than their fellow theists on the fundamentalist side of the aisle but when push comes to shove atheists are repeatedly told that they hate god, or just aren't trying hard enough to believe or some other nonsense. And speaking of nonsense, Paul Campos in a recent post at the often questionable Capitol Hill Blue takes it to a whole other level:

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don’t make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call “God.” For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of “ought” statements, as in “we ought to preserve biological diversity,” or what have you.

Yes, it's that old chestnut "You can't be a moral or ethical person unless you believe in god" reworked. Campos doesn't actually come out and say atheists are immoral puppy-boiling, baby barbecuing sociopaths. No, he prefers to give us the benefit of a doubt. It's not that we're immoral, it's that we actually believe in god — we just don't want to admit it. The fact of the matter, according to Campos, is that there are no genuine atheists.

The only thing I can't figure out is why Campos is arguing this on a political news site. One presumes that Campos would have a political point to make here. And while it's an oblique one, I think he just might. Toward the end of Campos' spiel he turns the spotlight on noted sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson who argues in his new book The Creation that atheists and believers alike have a moral imperative to preserve biological diversity:

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don’t make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call “God.” For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of “ought” statements, as in “we ought to preserve biological diversity,” or what have you.

The latter view is that of the famed biologist Edward O. Wilson, in his new book “The Creation.” Written in the form of a letter to a pastor of the Southern Baptist faith in which Wilson was brought up, Wilson argues that atheists like him and religious believers ought to agree that preserving biological diversity, and therefore in the long run humanity, is a profound moral imperative.

Wilson is a brilliant man, but this kind of thing has always seemed to me nonsensical on its face. After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.

The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what?

Like I said before, atheists get used to theists trying to define them. And really, since I could care less about about Campos' belief in god, I just can't find it in me to care very much about his attempts to define atheists out of existence. Whatever gets you through the night Paul.

I think though, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, that Campos isn't really concerned with atheists' moral turpitude in this essay. What Campos is really doing is making a very sly attack on E. O. Wilson's thesis that preserving biodiversity is not only desirable but fundamentally necessary. Wilson while not an atheist is not exactly a theist in the traditional sense. Wilson who has described himself as a "provisional deist" argues that religious beliefs are products of human evolution and must be investigated by science in order to more fully understand human nature. In this regard he differs from Richard Dawkins in that Dawkins feels religious beliefs must be relegated to the ashcan of history if we are to progress. Wilson argues instead that we must put aside epistemological differences and concentrate on that which we all have in common -- our humanity and shared natural heritage, without which we can not survive.

Wilson's secular humanism and deistic beliefs are apparently too close to atheism for Campos' tastes, or at least too close for Campos to recognize the difference as he refers to Wilson as an atheist. However, according to Campos' argument, since any genuine atheist wouldn't have any moral compunction at wiping every critter off the face of the Earth then Wilson is a misguided fool and shouldn't be listened to or Wilson is an amoral bastard who doesn't believe his own words and shouldn't be listened to.

Either way Campos undermines Wilson's urgent and reasoned call to preserve biodiversity for the sake of humanity and I can only assume that this was the true goal of Campos' essay to begin with. Impugning the character of atheists was just a bonus. Since Capitol Hill Blue is a political news site I think one must conclude that Campos' goal then was a politically motivated one. I just don't know what Campos' politics are since he never states them. Taking a cue from Campos though I'm going to feel free to, at least in this case, define Campos' politics as decidedly unprogressive. That might seem unfair, but if Campos feels comfortable telling me what I believe or not then should I feel any regret in imposing my own interpretation of Campos' beliefs on him?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | | | |

tng's blog | printer friendly version