 |
| John Lennon: moral hero and atheist? |
Anyway, please suggest an atheist hero in the comments section below. This is a challenge and an opportunity for learning. I would like to read their biography.
Ground Rules
- They must be an atheist, which is simply defined as a person who doesn't believe in God or a supreme being. So don't give me Thomas Jefferson (he was a Deist), but perhaps Thomas Paine (although wasn't he mostly a political revolutionary?). Also, the person cannot be religious. In other words, don't give me a Buddhist that doesn't believe in a personal, monotheistic God. Also, several religious people have been fiercely critical of religion. For example Luther, Tolstoy, Isaac Newton. That does not mean they are atheists (far from it, they were real Christians). Give me a real atheist, like Freud for example (but don't give me Freud...see next rule). Of course I am not saying that their morality has to be related to their atheism in any way (that would be absurd...atheism is a lack of belief). Or, if you must, give me an outspoken agnostic even, I'll go with that.
- They must be really good people. Not great scientists, or great thinkers alone - great moral people. Great people do great things for other people, as all the people I mentioned above. Bertrand Russel perhaps? He was a social activist for peace and was behind some good causes. But I would need more information. Also I heard he was actually a dick in person. I don't know that, I just heard that from a professor of philosophy whom I respect. Einstein was a Deist as far as I can tell. John Lennon perhaps? Now we're thinking. How about Carl Sagan or Neil Degrasse Tyson? Well, maybe. Besides being excellent science popularizers (and great scientists in their own right), what have they done ethically?
- No Socrates. He is one of my greatest heroes; in fact, part of my tattoo is based on him. But as I read Plato's dialogues, I'm convinced that Socrates believed in one God (or at least Plato did...it's hard to pull apart Socrates from Plato).
Not Fair!
You might find yourself saying "not fair" for several reasons. First, atheists were persecuted so much that they never "came out." I answer, like Jesus you mean? Great religious people have been persecuted too; indeed that is why they were so great. Or perhaps you think that historical figures lied about being religious, when secretly they were atheist. Setting aside that fact that lying is not a virtue, you have to provide some evidence. You can't just name drop historical figures and say they were atheist. If they were silent on the issue, I might even buy that. But mostly I don't find this argument very successful. My Kant professor in college, for example, thought that Immanuel Kant was secretly an atheist. If you've read any of his work, you know that's silly. The truth is my professor really really wanted him to be. Second, you might say that atheism is not a moral worldview, so my quest to find an atheist moral hero makes no sense. But I'm not making that connection. All I'm asking is for a great person who happened to be an atheist. Now, I do see the connection between religion and morality of course. By definition, religion is a moral endeavor. Third, I'm not suggesting that atheists cannot be good people. My brother is a good person, so is my wife. Fourth, you might argue my rules above are too constricting. How so? Fifth, you might say that history has been dominated by religion; therefore, the atheists have disappeared from the record. I can see that.
There is a guy named Matt Dillahunty. He is the host on an Austin, TX based tv show called The Atheist Experience and he used to be the president of the Atheist Community of Austin. He is still a member of the ACA just not the president. The ACA is a non-profit educational organization. There statement is, "Promoting positive atheism and the separation of church and state."
ReplyDeleteThe ACA does work for the community. The have blood drives and pick up trash off the streets regularly. A couple of years ago they had a fundraiser for a secular summer camp for children. They also protested the effort to put intelligent design in textbooks. They have probably done other things, but this is all I am aware of.
The Atheist Experience is meant for theist callers to call in to prove the existence of a god. They often have other discussions. Most are enlightening. Others are usually frustrating arguments because people don't see the fallacy they are committing.
Matt is first and foremost a skeptic. He believes you should reason out all problems. Most importantly moral problems. The values truth/honesty. His work with the ACA and The Atheist Experience is done on his own time without pay. He also travels around the US to do lectures. His travel is paid for, but he does not get paid to do the lectures.
He may have a minor flaw. He often loses his temper with callers. I've watched the show for years and this used to really bother me. In the last year it has not bothered me so much. I guess as my ideas evolve I understand where he's coming from. I don't see it so much as him losing his temper, but getting frustrated with people who do not use moral reasoning. It bothers him when people believe in something like hell and that people deserve to go. He gets frustrated about other things too. This issue has not gone unnoticed. Even atheists have commented on his attitude. Many of the other hosts have known him for years and they say he's a very nice guy.
I think he is a very moral person. His emphasis on honesty/truth and use of reason when it comes to moral problems are what lead me to believe this. He believes all people should be created equal. He's a feminist, which is awesome in my book. He is willing to change his mind on issues if science proves something new. He believes people should always use critical thinking. His work is based on atheism, but the ideals that come along with that are moral issues. He also does community work.
I admire him greatly. He may not be a hero on a global level, (although they do get callers from other countries) but he seems to be a very moral person. As far as his flaw goes, I think the rest of his qualities make up for that. No one is perfect. MLK cheated on his wife which I think is worse than yelling at people occasionally.
I just listened to this episode today. He explains why he gets angry at about 31:00. The whole episode is actually a good one if you want to watch it.
ReplyDeletehttp://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-721-viewer-calls-5453174
This episode is even better. He talks about his views on morality.
ReplyDeletehttp://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/atheist-experience-722-texas-freethought-convention-5469632
short answer: "I am not impressed with his performance" (in a GSP voice)
ReplyDeletelong answer: First MLK and then Mr. Dillahunty. This point, by the way, is not directed at you Jen. There is no doubt cheating on his wife was the blemish on MLK's otherwise amazing moral life and historic career. Our present day, post-modern generation likes to point out that MLK cheated, that Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and that Jesus wilted a fig tree for no reason. I get it. We don't like to worship historical figures. But the fact that we even know about his infidelity proves how public his life was. The FBI, for example, was literally wiretapping his hotel rooms. And, when the smoke clears, like Gandhi, we find an almost perfect moral character, which is quite amazing if you think about it. Without condoning cheating by any means, I will add that his wife respected her husband so much that she was behind instituting our current national holiday named after her husband (MLK Day). She also helped create the King Foundation, among other things. If Matt Dillahunty cheated on his wife, we would never find out. Indeed, besides what you told me in your comment, and after searching the internet, and that fact that he has no biography or books, I still know virtually nothing about the person Matt Dillahunty. I know that he debates people about atheism on a show, which usually involves him making fun of uneducated theists who call in (some exceptions apply of course, and I admit I only watched a handful, including the ones you suggested). In one show, he apologized to viewers for being mean to his wife on a different show. In another, he apologized to viewers for being mean to a theist he hung up on. No big deal, and apologizing is a good thing. Anyway, he also has formal debates at universities with smarter theists, which I respect. I've learned that he believes religion will simply go away in the future, which I find rather naive for a smart guy. Worse, he seems to believe that science and religion are at war with each other (a la Dawkins), and that science will prevail, which is a false, immoral, and a dangerous myth to believe in (setting aside the exaggeration issue here, a factual matter, what we ultimately need is reconciliation, not war). He thinks that secular morality is better than religious morality because secular morality is based on "evidence" and "data," while religious morality is based on a book, or superstition, or "God said so." I won't comment on that here, but suffice to say I don't think that's correct. Again, it's oversimplifying religion. Further, I know that, as for community service, the ACA has a blood drive once every eight weeks and picks up garbage once a month, according to their calendar. Although good things, not impressive. I realize they are mostly focused on education, which is a worthy goal; but again that really boils down to educating atheists who watch the show and making fun of (uneducated) theists. I believe he's probably a good person and nice, as you say, and he does seem like a nice guy. I would have a beer with him. It's impossible to compare him with any historical moral hero. A good tree bears good fruit. Where's his fruit? Perhaps he's a a hero on a local level? Perhaps time will tell? He is pretty young. Having said all that, I agree with atheists that speak out against hateful religious people and call them out. Hypocrisy sucks, and if he's helping with that, awesome.
Short answer: I am not impressed with his performance (GSP voice)
ReplyDeleteLong answer: First MLK and then Mr. Dillahunty. This point, by the way, is not directed at you Jen. There is no doubt cheating on his wife was the blemish on his otherwise amazing moral life and historic career. Our present day, post-modern generation likes to point out that MLK cheated, that Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and that Jesus wilted a fig tree for no reason. I get it. We don't like to worship historical figures. But the fact that we even know about his infidelity proves how public his life was. The FBI, for example, was literally wiretapping his hotel rooms. And, when the smoke clears, like Gandhi, we find an almost perfect moral character, which is quite amazing. Without condoning cheating by any means, I will add that his wife respected her husband so much that she was behind instituting our current national holiday named after her husband. She also helped create the King Foundation, among other things. If Matt Dillahunty cheated on his wife, we would never find out. Besides what you told me in your comment, and after searching the internet, I still know virtually nothing about the person Matt Dillahunty. I know that he debates people about atheism on a podcast, which usually involves him making fun of uneducated theists who call in (some exceptions apply of course, and I admit I only watched a handful, including the ones you suggested). In one show, he apologized to viewers for being mean to his wife on a different show. In another, he apologized to viewers for being mean to a theist he hung up on. No big deal, and apologizing is a good thing. Anyway, he also has formal debates at universities with smarter theists, which I respect. I've learned that he believes religion will simply go away in the future, which I find rather naive. Worse, he seems to believe that science and religion are at war with each other (a la Dawkins), and that science will prevail, which is a false, immoral, and a dangerous myth to believe in (setting aside the exaggeration issue here, a factual matter, what we ultimately need is reconciliation, not war). He thinks that secular morality is better than religious morality because secular morality is based on "evidence" and "data," while religious morality is based on a book, or superstition, or "God said so." I won't comment on that here, but suffice to say I don't think that's correct. Again, it's oversimplifying religion. Further, I know that, as for community service, the ACA has a blood drive once every eight weeks and picks up garbage once a month, according to their calendar. Although good things, not impressive. I realize they are mostly focused on education, which is a worthy goal; but again that really boils down to educating atheists who watch the show and making fun of (uneducated) theists. I believe he's probably a good person and nice, as you say, and he does seem like a nice guy. I would have a beer with him. It's impossible to compare him with any historical moral hero. A good tree bears good fruit. Where's his fruit? Perhaps he's a a hero on a local level? Perhaps time will tell? He is pretty young.
Having said all that, I do think hateful religious people should be called out. Hypocrisy sucks, if he's helping with that, awesome.
My comment is too big for one post so I have to do it on two.
ReplyDeleteMy remark about MLK cheating on his wife was just to point out that his flaw was worse than Matt Dillahunty's. It was not to say that MLK was not a great, moral man who did great things (much better than what Matt Dillahunty has done). I don't think his wife respecting him has anything to do with anything really. He still cheated on her and most women back then did stand by their husbands when they abused them and cheated on them. With all that being said, I think MLK was amazing and I don't think that Matt Dillahunty compares to him as far as the accomplishment MLK helped to achieve.
I know and knew when I posted it that I couldn't really give you evidence outside of my own knowledge about Matt Dillahunty. Most of what I know is from watching the show for many years now.
He's not making fun of theist callers. They treat all claims equally on the show. Our society has been conditioned to treat religion as something special and untouchable. There's a reason why I don't tell people right away that I am an atheist. Or ever tell someone that I'm an atheist. If someone came to you with an unsound argument you would try to get them to see why their line of reasoning was wrong. Especially if they don't use the same logic for other cases. If a man came to you and told you to punish your wife because she disobeys you, you wouldn't do it because its wrong. So why would you do it because you think a god told you to? I don't think its a matter of uneducated theists. Its a matter of not using the same rules of logic about a god that you do in every other aspect of your life. I think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but I used to do the same thing. You can't put religion on a pedestal. Its claims must be treated the same as all other claims.
The episodes I told you to watch were back to back episodes. The second episode is the one where he apologized for being mean to his wife and it was a joke. Did you think he was mean to his wife in the episode before that?
I don't know if he believes that religion and science are at war. I know he thinks that religion will go away and that religion gets in the way of science being accepted, but war seems rather strong and I don't recall hearing him say that. I could be wrong though. He's right about religion getting in the way of science being accepted. What is immoral or dangerous about saying that religion will go away or science will prevail?
ReplyDeleteI think you need to elaborate on the secular morality and religious morality. Its not to say that religion has no good morals. You base your moral judgements on evidence and data. You can't just take a book, call it holy and say all things in this are moral without evaluating it first. There are immoral things in the Christian Bible. God ordering babies to be killed is immoral. Its dangerous and immoral for someone to accept this without questioning it. Also, this doesn't mean that people who are religious cannot use evidence and data to come to moral conclusions.
I said before that he is not a hero on a global scale or even in our country alone. He is semi-known in the internet world. The reason I "nominated" him is because he is an educator of skepticism, critical thinking, rationality, etc. I believe these skills are some of the most important we can have as human beings. I believe you would agree. He uses those skills to come to moral conclusions which I also believe you do. He believes in honesty and truth which you also believe in. He's an educator to anyone about these things that have nothing to do with atheism. Granted, most of his followers are atheists, but that doesn't make the help he has given them any less? MLK's audience was mostly black. It doesn't make a difference. As far as his deeds go, don't you think this sort of education is important and a great thing? His community service outside of education is not outstanding nor on the same level as other more prominent figures, but it is still existent. Historical moral figures have to be moral, which I believe Matt Dillahunty is and they have to do great things for humanity. Its obvious that Matt Dillahunty is on a smaller level for community service, but as for his moral character I think he is definitely on the same level. We are all on the same level and he is a someone to admire for his morality.
"So why would you do it because you think a god told you to?" I wouldn't...no decent person would. Are you saying that most religious people do stupid things simply because "god said so." Is that a good way to summarize religious morality? That's a sad, simplistic view of human nature. http://jesusmeetskant.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-theories-about-other-people-are.html. We are all complex.
ReplyDeleteAs to your general point about apply logic to God and treating religious claims the same as "all other claims." How about claims about art, meaning, literature? Should they be put under the microscope as well? Science, evidence, and even Reason are not everything. There is more to life than those three things, even in intellectual life. Claims about the meaning of a poem are dealt with differently than claims about the structure of the cell. Different areas of knowledge, different rules. Claims about God and the supernatural go beyond all categories of understanding - hence the concepts belief, faith, metaphysics, mystical experience, transcendence. That's just the way it is. You cannot force a metaphysical belief into becoming a scientific hypothesis. When it comes to faith, "The heart has it's reasons, which reason cannot know," as Pascal said.
I don't think he was mean to his wife.
When you promote the myth that science and religion are fundamentally at odds with each other, you are promoting a horrible conflict. And guess what, science suffers because people love religion way more than science. The only solution I see is harmonizing religion and science, as most people do I think. I am not suggesting that people shouldn't criticize religion, by the way; far from it.
I agree education is a great thing, and skepticism, critical thinking, and rationality. Even if I disagree with him on some points, I think it's all good. MLK had a black, white and worldwide audience. He went global with all that shit yo.
No, I'm not saying that most religious people do stupid things simply because god said so. What I'm saying is that you cannot rely on religion, at least the Christian Bible in this case, for morality. Most Christians don't follow the Bible for their morality because they use reasoning to make moral judgements. There are more Christians than any other religious group. If they followed all of the morals in the Bible this world would be a bad place. Owning slaves, women being subservient to men, stoning people, etc. The reason secular morality is better is because it requires you to use reasoning. Religious morality, using the Christian Bible, does not. You are supposed to view the god of the Bible as something to be worshiped even though he does horrendous things.
ReplyDeleteI read your blog on calling people stupid. I'm not calling anyone stupid here, but can't people have stupid ideas? One of the videos of The Atheist Experience that I posted addressed this issue. Matt Dillahunty said that he does stupid things sometimes and he wouldn't be offended if someone labeled his actions as stupid. His example was that he eats bad sometimes and he's diabetic. He admits its stupid.
There's a difference between the claims art is good and a god exists. Art is good is a matter of opinion. Or maybe its not. Maybe there have been studies done that say art makes people happy. To say certain art piece is good is a matter of opinion. To say that a god exists is like saying aliens exist. You have to have proof if you want other people to believe you. If you don't care if other people believe you and you only want to believe yourself then you have to admit you are using faith, which you did. What you didn't do is explain why claims about gods go beyond all categories of understanding. Why is a metaphysical belief beyond scientific reasoning? You're proving my point. You're using a different line of reasoning than what you use everyday for the supernatural.
If science and religion are at odds why do they need to harmonize? What would be wrong about religion disappearing? What is immoral about wanting it to go away?
This discussion has obviously turned into something different than whether or not Matt Dillahunty is an admirable moral figure. You don't agree that he is because he has negative views about religion. Outside of that, you have many of the same values as him. At least from my perspective which is based on watching the show. You agree that those values are moral, but have not demonstrated why his negative views on religion are immoral. With all do respect, what did you expect when you asked for an atheist moral hero?
Quite the discussion!
DeleteFrom a factual standpoint, the view that religion or religious beliefs will go away has very little evidence. I would call it hope, even blind faith, ironically. If anyone spends some time on the Pew website, they find reports that say 2% of Americans are atheist, 16% are unaffiliated with a particular religion, and up to 94% of Americans believe in God or a Higher Power. So to claim that religion will "go away" (hopefully in his lifetime he said) isn't reasonable, even with the growing number of unaffiliated young people (like me). Now, how could this be immoral? Well, let's use Mr. Dillahunty's moral system, which is a form of consequentialism/utilitarianism, similar to that of Sam Harris. Okay: What are the consequences of promoting the viewpoint that religion and science are incompatible, that science will prevail, and that religion will go away? When I think about it, setting aside the factual errors, which is a form of dishonesty, and setting aside that fact that it causes unhappiness among many theists and atheists alike, one of the consequences is harm to science in my opinion (the very thing he is trying to promote!). Religion (wrongly but naturally) goes on a counterattack, which results in people trying to put religion in the classroom (e.g. Intelligent Design) and other crazy shit. Does that make any sense? I think that's a direct result. If people are convinced that there actually is a war/conflict between science and religion, then it will be bad for BOTH science and religion and indeed it has. Thus, harmony is the best and most moral viewpoint. By "harmony" I do not mean people cannot criticize religion; that's what makes religion better. Mr. Dillahunty is certainly entitled to his opinions, but all I'm saying is that this particular opinion has consequences. Of course, certain religious opinions have horrible consequences too so I'm not trying to insulate religion by any means.
Matt has the same values as me, that's great. That doesn't make him, or me, a great moral hero by any means. We can look at morality two ways: private morality and public. As for his private life, how he actually treats people, we know little. Of his public morality, he's an educator which is good. I have criticized just one part of his educating.
Ultimately, I thank you for your suggestion. Because I don't want to watch his show any further, I guess I'm stuck here.
"Why is a metaphysical belief beyond scientific reasoning?"
DeleteScience, by definition, deals with the observable world: explaining it, testing it, making theories that predict observable results. Yes?
Metaphysics, by definition, deals with the un-observable world. It does not, and cannot, use the scientific method. It simply doesn't apply. Reasoning can apply, and internal consistency within a metaphysical system is important. God, also by definition, is a metaphysical entity. In the monotheistic tradition God tends to be outside time and space and the creator of the universe. Many theologians, perhaps most, say that we cannot comprehend God. Thomas Aquinas, for example, said that we can only define God by what God is not (called negative theology). In summary, there is a realm of inquiry that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. And that's okay. It's called metaphysics, and religion is a subpart of that. It's a good thing that science does not deal with metaphysical speculations because they are unprovable--it would be a waste of their time.
First of all, people are afraid to call themselves atheist for fear of persecution. Second, I think your wrong that there is no evidence that religion is disappearing. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ I understand that some of these "nones" still believe in a god, but this is indicative that religion is on the decline. I think its unreasonable to say that religion will be gone within our life time. I think its too soon to say whether or not it will go away in the future. He did not say that religion will be gone within his lifetime. He said that he thinks that there could be an openly atheist President within his lifetime. He then said that that is probably wrong as well. To say that you think religion will go away is different from saying it will go away. He's not being dishonest. Matt Dillahunty would be the first to say that he does not know for sure if religion will go away. He only thinks and, yes, hopes.
ReplyDeleteTo say that religion and science should work together is presupposing that religion is good or necessary in the first place. I don't have an opinion about this yet, but I definitely can't say that religion is good and necessary. I don't even want to go down that road. I agree that declaring war, in a serious manner, is wrong, but I don't think Matt Dillahunty would use the word war or any connotation that comes with it. As far as conflict goes, I believe religion is in the wrong in this instance. To fight science is to fight truth. If you want to deny truth for yourself then that's fine, but its wrong to push that on other people. Its immoral to deny others the truth. Its immoral to promote something that is false (Intelligent Design). You could argue that they are not aware of the truth. Most of them probably honestly believe that what they are promoting is true. People who go on pointless counterattacks are responsible for their own actions.
Regarding metaphysics, I was suggesting that you use scientific reasoning for all other aspects of your life so why would you bother spending time on something that you can't apply scientific reasoning. I don't want you to answer that question. That's your business. You don't have to justify your beliefs to me. You can't expect other people to do the same. You can't say believe in god with no evidence or you're going to hell. The belief is immoral, telling someone that is immoral and so is expecting someone to believe that without proof. That's the point that Matt Dillahunty is trying to make.
I think you have a very skewed idea of Matt Dillahunty. I wish you would watch enough episodes to see how good of a person he is. If you set aside issues that you don't agree on you would see that he has many of the same morals as you. No, that doesn't make him a moral hero, but in my opinion your moral standards are more than sufficient to make you a moral hero.
I am by no means trying to compare Matt Dillahunty to the greatness of MLK. I chose him because I believe he is a moral hero on a smaller scale and he doesn't just happen to be an atheist who does good things. Atheism is a part of his public life. I would even call him a low level civil rights activist for atheists. If you watch the show you would know plenty about his private life. He does talk about it. Of course if he is doing something wrong he wouldn't say it on tv. The other people on the show all share very similar values as him. They would not accept him if he were a horrible person or if he was a hypocrite. The other option is that they are all just faking it and its a big conspiracy. I'm guessing this is not likely. I've yet to come across anything suspicious or contradictory about the people on the show. When they make mistakes they admit it which makes like them even more.