Snide believer says atheists make up fairy tales to find meaning in life

March 29, 2018 • 12:30 pm

There’s a new piece in The Federalist that tries to take down atheists because, says author Richard Weikart, we have no better grounding for the “purpose and meaning” of our lives than do religionists. In fact, we’re worse in that endeavor than are religionists who find purpose and meaning from their faith. Here’s Weikart’s sorry piece (click on the screenshot):

I didn’t know what the Federalist was or who this dude Weikart is, so I looked them up. According to Wikipedia, The Federalist is “an American English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The site was co-founded by Ben Domenech and Sean Davis and launched in September 2013.  Domenech serves as publisher of The Federalist. According to Domenech, the site is dedicated to discussing ‘the philosophical underpinnings of the day’s debate’ instead of focusing on what he calls ‘the horserace or the personalities. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles.”

Okay, so the conservatism explains the atheist-bashing. But who is Weikart? The Federalist describes him as “professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life and Hitler’s Religion.” It conspicuously omits that Weikart is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s [DI’s] Center for Science & Culture, a creationist think tank, that he’s a Christian creationist, and that his books have been criticized by genuine scholars. The Hitler book, for instance, was funded by the Discovery Institute and has the thesis that Darwinism gave rise to the Holocaust. That idea, and Weikart’s views, were handily rebutted by my colleague Bob Richards in his excellent and well-researched essay “Was Hitler a Darwinian?” (Richards’ answer was “a very loud and unequivocal No!”)

Well, that’s Weikart’s background, which does explain his strong animus towards atheists. But what about his arguments? First, I’ll preen a little because he puts me in august company, even though I don’t deserve it. And that is the company of those who deny an external purpose and “transcendent meaning” for our lives. But, say I and others, we can and do have self-created meanings of our lives:

Atheists portray themselves as arch-rationalists who embrace reality without flinching. As I explain in my recent book, “The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life,” many prominent atheist thinkers, such as Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, have insisted that because there is no God, there is also no cosmic purpose, no objective morality, and no transcendent meaning to life. The atheistic Duke University philosophy professor Alex Rosenberg dismissed meaning and morality as an illusion in a 2003 article, “Darwin’s Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life.”

. . . The prominent atheistic evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has also expressed dismay that anyone would dare suggest that atheists don’t have any meaning in their lives. But if you dig deeper—for example, by actually reading the empirical study—you find that atheists who insist that non-religious people can find meaning in life have changed the meaning of the word “meaning.”

Okay, so what is this “empirical study” he touts, and how have we changed the meaning of “meaning” as it applies to our lives? Here’s how Weikart describes the study, which actually supports the notion that atheists don’t lead lives of nihilism and anomie:

The 2018 study in question by David Speed, et al, “What Do You Mean, ‘What Does It All Mean?’ Atheism, Nonreligion, and Life Meaning,” [JAC: reference and link at bottom, free pdf here] used surveys to try to figure out if atheists find meaning in life or are nihilistic. This survey defined someone as nihilistic if he or she upheld the position: “In my opinion, life does not serve any purpose.”

This study found that atheists and non-religious people are not nihilistic, because they claimed that they did have a purpose in life. This is an interesting finding that seems to refute the oft-repeated charge (levied by religious folks) that atheists are nihilistic.

However, there is a problem with this finding. The survey admitted the meaning that atheists and non-religious people found in their lives is entirely self-invented. According to the survey, they embraced the position: “Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself.”

Thus, when religious people say non-religious people have no basis for finding meaning in life, and when non-religious people object, saying they do indeed find meaning in life, they are not talking about the same thing. If one can find meaning in life by creating one’s own meaning, then one is only “finding” the product of one’s own imagination. One has complete freedom to invent whatever meaning one wants.

This makes “meaning” on par with myths and fairy tales. It may make the non-religious person feel good, but it has no objective existence.

Yes, Weikart thinks that religion (read: his Christianity) imparts an objective purpose in life, and when we atheists criticize that as purpose coming from a “fairy tale”, well, at least religious people’s “purposes” are objective!:

. . . apparently many atheists and non-religious people have a hunger for meaning and a sense of moral rectitude that their worldview cannot satisfy. Sure, they are free to invent their own meaning and morality, but then they should be honest and admit that their meaning and morality has no advantage over the meaning or morality religious people put forward —or for that matter, it has no advantage over the meaning and purpose evil people invent. Their self-created meanings are every bit as much “fairy stories” as the religious ones they like to lampoon.

First of all, Weikart doesn’t recognize the irony of his implication that “See? Atheists believe in fairy tales. They’re just as bad as we are!” Well, he might respond that his Christianity is certainly not a fairy tale, because it’s not only based on empirical truths like Jesus Man being resurrected, but also gives us an objective morality and an objective purpose in our lives. But why is his Christianity true and Islam and Hinduism, which inspire different purposes, false?

But step back and consider the question: what is that meaning and purpose? As we know, one can discern an infinite number of meanings and life-purposes from just the Bible alone, for its “objective” lessons are debatable. Is the lesson to do what God tells us to do? In that case, let us stone adulterers and kids who curse their parents, and let us forsake our families and homes to follow Jesus. And how do we follow Jesus? Does our purpose include fighting against abortion and gay marriage, not to mention the Evil Materialism of Evolution? (To my mind, any purpose that makes its adherents tell lies about science, as does the Discovery Institute and Weikart himself, is a nefarious purpose.)  Discerning purpose from the Bible is at best an act of pure subjectivity, and one that comports, as Plato realized, with a pre-existing and non-Goddy set of values.

And which scripture should the faithful pick to give them purpose, and which faith should they follow? What about Muslims? The Qur’an and its interpretations can lead to purposes completely different from those of Christians, and include exterminating unbelievers and scrupulously following the dictates of the Holy Book itself—something that Christians have learned to turn into malleable metaphors.

Any atheist can tell you that a self-constructed meaning of life is infinitely preferable to one depending on fictitious books. For the main error that Weikart makes is thinking that there’s something fictitious, something “fairy-tale-ish”, about divining one’s own meaning and purpose from our individual preferences, tastes, and secular beliefs. The bases for our “meanings” are, I’ve maintained, based on our preferences—preferences themselves grounded on secular reason and one’s personal set of emotions and pleasures. If these are the things that give us meaning, then what does it mean to say that they “have no objective existence”? They certainly do—just as objective an existence as the religious delusions (by this I mean thoughts and beliefs) of credulous believers like Weikart.

Steve Pinker’s latest book, Enlightenment Now, makes a persuasive case that progress in human welfare over the last centuries has been promoted not by religious faith, but by reason, humanism, and science. If we depended purely on faith and revelation to solve our problems, we’d have gotten nowhere. Those same virtues apply when an atheist discerns whatever meaning in life he or she finds.

And, in the end, yes, the invented meanings and purposes of those atheists who are humanists—most of us—are superior to a blind adherence to ancient dogma that brooks no dissent or reason.

Many readers have denied that they have any meaning or purpose in life, even self-created ones. That’s okay with me, for I think that while they can’t declare a purpose, they enact one by doing what they find fulfilling.

h/t: Larry

_______

Speed, D., I. Thomas J. Coleman, and J. Langston. 2018. What Do You Mean, “What Does It All Mean?” Atheism, Nonreligion, and Life Meaning. SAGE Open 8:2158244017754238.

Today’s ducks

March 29, 2018 • 12:15 pm

Norton and Trixie are still around, and still come running or swimming to me at mealtime, with Trixie quacking loudly when I appear. (I’ve heard that only female ducks quack, which seems to be the case here.) But they are clearly more skittish than before, sometimes abandoning their food to swim quickly to the middle of the pond. I’m not sure what’s going on, but perhaps eggs have been laid somewhere.

Here are some shots after breakfast this morning.

Pondside preening:

Norton steams proudly through the water, his butter-yellow bill showing his superb condition:

Should we bring wolves back to Scotland? A video and a questionnaire

March 29, 2018 • 10:30 am

by Matthew Cobb

It used to be standard practice for final year science students to do a lab-based research project. At the University of Manchester we have broadened the choice of final-year projects so that biology students can also choose to do a Science Media Project. This involves creating a portfolio of writing and other work around a scientific topic. Last year we featured films made by two of my students, and the comments from readers were invaluable.

I’d like to for you help again, by watching this 20-minute video by my student, Kirsty Wells, on the topic of ‘rewilding’. As she explains:

I have produced a short documentary exploring the possibility of wolves being reintroduced into the Scottish Highlands. Having extensively reviewed the literature surrounding the impacts of re-established wolf populations in other parts of the world (Western Europe and Yellowstone National Park), I decided to investigate how these impacts may apply in the context of Scotland. I ventured up North to meet with a few people to discuss what wolf reintroduction would mean to them, and what it could mean for the people of Scotland and Britain more broadly.

Please have a look at her video, and then fill out the quick questionnaire – no personal data are collected! Your comments below would also be greatly appreciated.

A confused paean to faith in the New York Times

March 29, 2018 • 9:25 am

On many liberal sites these days, including the New York Times, we see an increasing coddling of religion—exactly the opposite of what should be happening as secularism in the U.S. increases. I’m not sure why this is; perhaps it’s a spillover from the Leftist reluctance to criticize Islam (and perforce to praise all faiths), or perhaps it’s a pushback against the death of religion in the West. Regardless, much of this kind of writing is either irrational or, as in the case of the new piece below, makes no sense whatsoever.

Click on the screenshot to read this confused, space-wasting op-ed:

First, the author. The NYT describes Jennifer Finney Boylan as “a contributing opinion writer, is a professor of English at Barnard College of Columbia University and the author of the novel “Long Black Veil.” Her Twitter description says she is the author of “15 Books. [JAC: the list is here] NYTimes op/ed writer. Trustee, PEN America; former Co-chair of the Board, GLAAD. Professor of English, Barnard/Columbia.” She’s a transgender woman, the first to head up GLAAD (a gay media-monitoring institute), and her website is here.

What the article seems to describe (it’s hard to tell because it’s both poorly written and loaded to the gunwales with overemotionality) is an aging transgender woman who lost her faith when she was young, and then recaptured it in some form a few years ago. But did she? The “agony” she describes appears to be her reluctance to go into a church, which seemed to have salubrious results. The “I didn’t get it until I was older” is unclear because it’s uncertain what she “gets” (she doesn’t really seem to become a believer), and as for “belief doesn’t come easy”, well, it’s not clear that even now she has any religious belief. What the piece conveys is the trite observation that it’s great to have loving friends, and that for Boylan, Jesus prompted that feeling. But read it for yourself.

Here are a few excerpts following Boylan’s initial description of Balaam’s talking donkey in Numbers—one of the things that caused her to reject the reliability of Scripture:

Back then, I thought that doubt (also known as “common sense”) was my roadblock to a spiritual life. Now, these many years later, I have come to believe that doubt is, in fact, the drive wheel of faith, not its obstacle.

She doesn’t describe how doubt drives faith, and that sentence is simply left hanging.

One Sunday morning a few years ago, I wandered out of my apartment in New York without having a clear sense of where I was going. The next thing I knew I had pulled into a nearby church, where I looked around suspiciously, and thought, “Please, God, don’t make me do it.” I sat in a pew.

The sermon that day was not about talking donkeys. It was about feeding the hungry. It was about working for equality. It was about justice for minorities, and gay and lesbian and bisexual and trans people. It was about giving refuge to people — including immigrants and refugees — who do not have a home.

It was, in the end, about only one thing: the necessity of loving one another.

Well, Jesus, I thought. I could get behind that.

What we see, then, is that Boylan was fighting any exposure to religious faith (is that the “agony” she describes? I don’t think so, as it’s the agony of faith, not unbelief). Then she hears a sermon about social justice, and suddenly she is infused with love.

That’s fine, of course; there’s no doubt that religion has prompted some good acts. (I’m not agreeing, however, that in the net religion has been a good social force.) But just because it does that doesn’t say anything about the factuality of Scripture. In fact, Christian scripture has also led people to hate: to hate gays, to hate women, to hate blacks, to hate Jews (millions were murdered on the claim that they killed Christ), and so on. Boylan seems simply to have been ready to love people more, and in this case a church visit was the catalyst.

But she’s clearly softened on Christianity.  In the end, her church experience—and I don’t know if it’s continuing—simply infuses her with feelings of love. What this has to do with vindicating faith or prompting “belief” that’s “worth it” remains mysterious:

We have had hard lives, my old friends and I, in some ways. Since we first met in 1970, there have been all kinds of misfortunes. There have been car accidents and job losses, divorces and heartbreaks, newborn babies whose lives were endangered. One of us is in a wheelchair now.

But here we all are, on the threshold of 60, and still deeply connected to one another. That day in New Jersey, as I sat there with these precious souls at the shore — can I call them anything but old men now? — it occurred to me that I have seen things a lot more improbable than talking donkeys turn out to be true. What greater miracle could there be than friendships that last a lifetime?

The next morning, my friend Kenny and I were up early enough to see the sun rise over the Atlantic, standing on the same beach where we had stood, nearly half a century before, as teenage boys. Thirty years ago, before I came out as trans, he’d been my best man.

He is still my best man.

Listen: I do not know if an actual person named Jesus rose from the dead. I hope that this is true, but I don’t know. I wasn’t there.

I know this though: On Sunday morning I stood on a beach with the friend of my youth, our arms around each other’s shoulders. The rising sun burst over the ocean, and the light shone on our faces.

And the donkeys talked! This is simply breathy, overblown, and just plain bad writing.  What was the country’s best newspaper doing when it accepted this piece?

What is the point of Boylan’s purple prose? If it’s that religion makes some people do good, why didn’t she just say that?  But of course lots of people do good and don’t need religion as the catalyst. Music, for instance, is another such catalyst, and perhaps Boylan could have skipped her agony by listening to James Taylor (see also here):

Readers’ wildlife photos

March 29, 2018 • 8:00 am

I’m delighted to have Stephen Barnard back, who took a hiatus from photography. Here are some of his photos from Idaho, along with his captions (indented):

The weather and the lighting are improving so I’m back to taking some photos.

First, an in-flight photo of a pair of Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis). They breed here and have just recently shown up.

Next, a couple of photos of a female American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) that’s been hanging around. I hope she decides to use one of the nest boxes I installed.

 

Next, a bull moose (Alces alces), shed of his antlers, whom I call Blind Bob because he’s blind in his left eye—probably due to combat. I’ve seen him around for several years and he seems to be doing OK. My tenant photographed him the day before (the next two photos) when he was “grooming his honey”. The third moose photo documents that this was indeed Blind Bob. Moose aren’t known for their keen eyesight, and it isn’t a fatal injury, obviously.

Finally, a couple of trout I caught this afternoon, a Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) and a Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). They’re skinny from the winter, and hungry.

Also, some Green-winged Teal (Anas carolinensis).

Some not completely black dogs (an improvement) and my daughter Nora’s cat, Karen, in Menlo Park, CA.

 

Thursday: Hili dialogue

March 29, 2018 • 7:15 am

It’s almost the end of March, so the month’s going out like a lamb (supposedly; it’s raining in Chicago today). It’s March 29, 2018, National Chiffon Cake Day.

Here’s the news of the day, courtesy of reader David (click on the screenshot):

Yes, a man in North Wales killed a heron who had just swallowed a duckling, trying to save the little one. He actually did, but of course had to kill the heron and open its stomach. It’s amazing that the duckling survived. This is of course a crime, but the police only cautioned the man as he was described as “elderly” and “vulnerable.” Don’t judge me, but my love of ducks leaves me with mixed feelings about this, and I do understand the old guy’s act. (However, I would not kill the heron.)

On this day in 845, Paris was sacked by Viking raiders, and as Wikipedia notes, the raid was “probably under Ragnar Lodbrok, who collect[ed] a huge ransom in exchange for leaving.” Here’s the dramatized episode on the History Channel’s show “The Vikings.” (Remember that the series featured Gaia Weiss, one of Andrzej’s relatives, who’s shown with Hili here.)

On March 29, 1857, Sepoy Mangal Pandey of the Bengal Native Infantry mutinied against the East India Company that ruled India, shooting and slashing at British officers. He was captured and hanged, but this incident helped bring on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 (the “Sepoy Mutiny”). Exactly 4 years later, Queen Victoria opened the Royal Albert Hall, which contained 4,000 holes.  On March 29, 1886, pharmacist John Pemberton brewed the first batch of Coca-Cola in his Atlanta backyard. The story of how and why it was concocted is fascinating; read about it here. It is without doubt the most famous carbonated beverage ever sold.  On this day in 1936, after having sent the Nazis into the Rhineland illegally, Hitler held a referendum to make it seem kosher: his action received 44.5 million “yes” votes out of 45.5 million registered voters, and 99% of the ballots cast.  On this day in 1951, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage; historians have now agreed that they were guilty. Both were electrocuted. Exactly 20 years later, William Calley was convicted of premeditated murder in the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. Although sentenced to life in prison, he served only 3.5 years of house arrest, and now works as a jeweler in Ohio.

On March 29, 1974, the famous Terracotta Army was discovered in Shaanxi province, China. Dating from about 210 BC, the collection of life-size statues is huge, comprising over 8,000 soldiers, 130 chariots with 520 horses and 150 cavalry horses. They were buried to accompany Qin Shi Huang, China’s first Emperor, to the afterlife. Here are some of the figures:

On this day four years ago, the first same-sex marriages in England and Wales were performed. Finally, exactly one year ago, after voter approval, the UK invoked “Article 50,” allowing it to begin its withdrawal from the European Union.

Notables born on this day include Cy Young (1867), Laventiy Beria (1899; a horrible, horrible man), Eugene McCarthy (1916; remember “Clean for Gene”?), Pearl Bailey, 1918. Amy Sedaris (1961), and Elle Macpherson (1964). A special birthday wish for my Ph.D. advisor Dick Lewontin, who is 89 today.  He was at my 60th birthday party, shown here carrying in my cat-shaped birthday cake:

 

Notables who died on this day include Emanuel Swedenborg (1772), John Jacob Astor (1848), Georges Seurat (1891), Robert Falcon Scott (1912, froze to death), Joyce Cary (1957), and Patty Duke (2016).

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Gosia is still visiting, and Hili is checking out her accommodations:

Gosia: What are you doing?
Hili: I’m just checking to see whether you’ll be comfortable here.
In Polish:
Gosia: Co ty robisz?
Hili: Sprawdzam, czy będzie ci tu wygodnie.

Grania found an unfortunate illustration from a French textbook:

https://twitter.com/sqiouyilu/status/978742303782141952

A kitten gets its teeth and fur cleaned. Is there any domestic animal cuter than a kitten?

https://twitter.com/EmrgencyKittens/status/978951393129136128

Ring-bearing gone wrong:

This series of photos is awesome. Look at the tongue on that sneezing elephant shrew (it clearly sneezes vertically!):

https://twitter.com/mollypriddy/status/978383736453545984

Matthew found this amazing video of the fire extinguisher they use at the Kennedy Space Center to extinguish entire rockets! Be sure to watch the video.

https://twitter.com/WorldAndScience/status/978768723543777280

Who said pigs are thick? They’re really quite smart, and this shows it:

A big cat mistaken for a beast. Four feet long my tuchas!

Finally, Matthew found a new example of interspecific love.

This reminds me of a joke:

A man visits a zoo and is taken to the lion’s cage. He witnesses there the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy – a lion and a calf in a cage together.

Amazed, he calls over an attendant. “How long have you had a lion and a calf in a cage together?”

“Over a year already.”

“How do you do it?”

“It’s easy. Every morning we put in a new calf!”

I’ll be here all week, folks.