Young Australian Skeptics

Dvir Abramovich doesn’t think much of atheist authors – he takes particular umbrage to Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, apparently because they have the cheek to speak in Australia. His opinion piece, published in The Age on 26^th October is an assortment of quote mining and misinformation not only about Hitchens and Dawkins, but about history, scientists and humanist philosophy in general.

In one fell swoop, Abramovich falls victim to the hypocrisy he attributes to atheism. By painting atheists as “angry” and “disrespectful”, he himself constructs the familiar straw man, following these unsubstantiated claims with, “Hitchens and Dawkins build a straw man – they select the worst offences that have been done in the name of religion to prove that religion is a dangerous force”. He then goes on to insist that “tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history”.

This argument is not only fallacious, (Hitler was raised Catholic and attributed his “success” to God, “Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.” (Mein Kampf, Vol 1. Ch 5.) and Stalin was Georgian Orthodox and trained to become a priest. Let’s at least get our facts straight.) but falls into the trap of mistaking coincidence with causation. Yes, these men committed some of the worst atrocities of the 20^th century – no one is denying that, but they were committed in the name of their politics, not their lack of religion.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning doesn’t end there. Abramovich goes on to describe “the terrors unleashed by science and technology, used by genocidal regimes … weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear and biological bombs developed by scientists.” Does Dr. Abramovich think that scientists developed these technologies for their own use? Or were these weapons developed by the governments of the day, to be used for their own, political means? He should perhaps be reminded of the backlash by many prominent members of the Manhattan Project, when they discovered what their technology was to be used for. The Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists, chaired by Albert Einstein, was formed to warn the U.S. government against the dangers of the nuclear arms race. Hans Bethe joined the Manhattan Project in the hope he could help prove these weapons could not be built. He continued to campaign against nuclear arms tests until his death in 2005.

Abramovich claims that atheist scientists created the atom bomb, and then goes on to paint Einstein as the poster boy for the crossover between religion and science. Using the oft-​​repeated, “God doesn’t play with the universe”, we are told that Einstein’s “humble, open-​​ended religious attitude to the cosmos [is] preferable to a completely non-​​religious approach”. He would perhaps be disappointed to know that Einstein wrote, “the word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this” or “I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation.” Stephen Hawking also got a mention, “Why does the universe go to the bother of existing?” Abramovich happily presents the God of the Gaps as the answer to his claim, “there is no scientific theory as to why material existed in the first place, and how did such material come into existence?” Perhaps, if he had read more of Hawking’s work he would have found that there are, in fact, scientific theories and much research in that very area. Hawking himself said, “What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn’t prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary.” (Der Spiegel, 1989)

In addition to quote-​​mining of scientists, Abramovich cherry-​​picks from his own religious text, claiming that an “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” is, in fact, a warning against “excess vengeance”. Are there also polite, politically correct interpretations for the other instructions in Leviticus? Should we slay children that curse their parents? (20:9) Kill women who are raped? (19:20 – 22) Stone witches? (20:27). Hitchens’ observation that this is “brutish and stupid” seems fair, especially since there are many Bible literalists out there, who use this very book to justify discrimination against homosexuals. By dismissing criticism, you are only lending support to the fundamentalists.

Finally, the insinuation that it is only religion gives people morality is unfair, untrue and leads one to the opinion that the religious only do good because they are afraid of punishment. Alister McGrath is quoted as saying “there are 10,000 unreported acts of kindness, generosity, and so forth arising from religious commitment”. What about the acts of kindness that don’t spring from guilt, or concern that God might be watching? How about the acts of charity and generosity that spring from a love of humanity, and genuine altruism? Many atheists describe themselves as secular humanists. They are involved in charities, community and are kind, generous people. This morality doesn’t need to come from a Bronze-​​Age text, but comes from our inherent compassion.

Science and atheism cannot be blamed for the world’s ills, no more than religion can take sole credit for the goodness in people. Those of us who do not subscribe to a religious doctrine, the free-​​thinkers, the secular humanists, the agnostics and the atheists are by and large, good people. No one is trying to take your religion away from you, no one is telling you what to believe, or not to believe. Hitchens, Dawkins and the many other atheist writers are merely talking about the elephant in the room, religion and its all-​​reaching influence on today’s society, and asking that those of us who choose not to believe, are able to without being bound by religious law, opinion and politics.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 6:00 pm and is filed under Atheist, Skeptic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.