This isn’t a post about faith versus atheism–a topic that is not within SHS’s jurisdiction. It is a post about how to best show compassion to people who are seriously ill.
I bring this up because of a fascinating article by one of my favorite writers, Christopher Hitchens–oh, how I wish I had his talent! Hitchens, among other reasons for his deserved fame, is a proselytizer for atheism. He was recently diagnosed with an advanced esophageal cancer and writes in Vanity Fair–brilliantly as always–about being an atheist, seriously ill with cancer, for whom people are praying. From “Unanswerable Prayers:”
When I described the tumor in my esophagus as a “blind, emotionless alien,” I suppose that even I couldn’t help awarding it some of the qualities of a living thing. This at least I know to be a mistake: an instance of the “pathetic fallacy” (angry cloud, proud mountain, presumptuous little Beaujolais) by which we ascribe animate qualities to inanimate phenomena. To exist, a cancer needs a living organism, but it cannot ever become a living organism. Its whole malice—there I go again—lies in the fact that the “best” it can do is to die with its host. Either that or its host will find the measures with which to extirpate and outlive it.
He describes hate messages from the religious–let’s not get into how awful to wish someone with cancer a painful death (although some have so wished it for me for opposing euthanasia, not the same degree of malevolence at all, since I appear to be healthy)–and then discusses being prayed for by believers:
Of the astonishing and flattering number of people who wrote to me when I fell so ill, very few failed to say one of two things. Either they assured me that they wouldn’t offend me by offering prayers or they tenderly insisted that they would pray anyway. Devotional Web sites consecrated special space to the question…
The most comprehensive investigation of the subject ever conducted—the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer,” of 2006—could find no correlation at all between the number and regularity of prayers offered and the likelihood that the person being prayed for would have improved chances. But it did find a small but interesting negative correlation, in that some patients suffered slight additional woe when they failed to manifest any improvement. They felt that they had disappointed their devoted supporters. And morale is another unquantifiable factor in survival. I now understand this better than I did when I first read it. An enormous number of secular and atheist friends have told me encouraging and flattering things like: “If anyone can beat this, you can”; “Cancer has no chance against someone like you”; “We know you can vanquish this.” On bad days, and even on better ones, such exhortations can have a vaguely depressing effect. If I check out, I’ll be letting all these comrades down. A different secular problem also occurs to me: what if I pulled through and the pious faction contentedly claimed that their prayers had been answered? That would somehow be irritating
So, how do we best support and love people who are seriously ill? It strikes me that we have entered an area of some paradox and nuance. I believe, for example, that if they are suicidal, we should treat them just as we would any other suicidal person by trying to help them overcome the self destructive desire. Otherwise, we abandon them to the darkness and cease to treat them as full equals. (Or, we should facilitate the exit of all suicidal people, not just those who are ill or disabled: I don’t think there is a middle ground on this point.)
But I also think that to force prayers on an atheist is to not support the person as he or she is, but to be prideful, by using the ill person’s illness to make oneself feel virtuous. If one wishes to pray for such a person, by all means do, but in the closet. If God is there, he will hear the prayer. That is the way Francis Collins, the evangelical Christian who heads the NIH, has handled it:
I know Francis, too, from various public and private debates over religion. He has been kind enough to visit me in his own time and to discuss all sorts of novel treatments, only recently even imaginable, that might apply to my case. And let me put it this way: he hasn’t suggested prayer, and I in turn haven’t teased him about The Screwtape Letters.
In other words, Collins gave Hitchens what he needed, not what Collins needed. And note how in so doing, he gave the ill writer real support.
The root meaning of compassion is to “suffer with.” I think one of our duties as human beings is to suffer with the ill by offering them emotional support at the place where they are–not from where we might be. (The same goes for the other way around, of course. Atheists with ill religious friends should not push their non belief on those undergoing a terrible struggle.) Forcing unwanted agendas on others at a time of extremis isn’t caring, but just the opposite by adding to the burden on their psyches at a time when they are most vulnerable.
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:44 am
[...] And that got me to thinking, should believers tell atheists that they are praying for them? I have a longer missive about the matter over at Secondhand Smoke, but for those who don’t wish to travel there, I suggest that prayers for atheists remain in [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:55 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap, Pundette, stephanie m white, Wesley J. Smith and others. Wesley J. Smith said: Should Religious People Tell Ailing Atheists They Are Praying for Them? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://t.co/J5nWEWB [...]
September 3rd, 2010 | 10:59 am
Go ahead and pray for atheists if you want to, but why tell them about it? Does prayer only work if the recipient knows about it?
I think atheists sometimes react negatively to “I’m praying for you” because such an announcement is somewhat condescending. Kind of like, “I’m asking God to help you even though you rejected Him.” Or they think it’s an attempt at getting a deathbed conversion. And sometimes they’re right.
Still, imho atheists should take such statements gracefully, as a sign of good intentions.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:19 am
padraig: My point exactly.
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:02 am
Wes: “Atheists with ill religious friends should not push their non belief on those undergoing a terrible struggle.”
True of course, but I had an evil giggle wondering what it would be like being cheered up by an atheist on my deathbed.
“So, heading for the formless void, are we? I hear oblivion is lovely this time of year.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:18 am
Padraig: Yes, and your molecules will join with all that has evolved!
September 3rd, 2010 | 11:27 am
Excerpt from an article written by the philosopher Daniel Dennett in 2006 (while he was recovering from major surgery):
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:15 pm
Wesley,
If you would really like some deep insight into how best to support dying people of any faith/non-faith, talk to chaplins employed by hospices. They do this every day and have a wealth of knowledge and experience about how to help patients and familes find meaning or at least acceptance of death. They are truly amazing people and come from all kinds of religious backgrounds themselves.
The reason I would take anything Hitchens has to say with a grain of salt is because I wonder if he is able to be truly honest. He has an image and agenda to maintain. Even if he started to suspect God may exist, I wonder if he would be able to admit it. Given his stated concern that if he recovers it might be attributed to prayer, I wonder if he is prideful (hateful?) enough to die (by his own hand?) out of spite just to prevent that from happening.
September 3rd, 2010 | 12:28 pm
As an atheist (and former Christian), normally I don’t care when somebody says something like, “I’m praying for you” or “God bless” because they have good intentions – most of the time. It is the times when they know I’m a non-believer and they make a point of saying it, sometimes with a ting of sarcasm or poorly veiled scorn, which bothers me.
Is this an attempt to “prove me wrong” or prove that they are better than I am, at least in their own mind? Are they doing it for me or for their faith? Motivations, intentions, and the delivery often help shape how I receive and react to the message.
Of course, as an atheist, even if I’m gracious – or more often than not politely indifferent to these messages. I try to accept the sentiment that the person cares for my well-being even as I reject the specific message. I don’t believe in the Christian God or any other deity, so it is pointless for them to offer me their prayers or messages of faith. They might as well burn incense, chant wildly, sprinkle me with oil, and dance naked around me. (Hmmm, I actually might appreciate that depending on the person.)
My point is, more often than not, I find it pointless, rude, and tiresome for people of faith to push their beliefs on me, just as I’m sure they wouldn’t appreciate a person of another faith pushing their beliefs on them. I believe that the best sentiment that anyone can offer is a sincere message of caring from within, and then let the person who is suffering to deal with their own faith – or lack thereof, in their own way.
September 3rd, 2010 | 1:26 pm
when someone tells me they’ll pray for me because i’m an atheist, i just say…’and i’ll THINK for you’.
September 3rd, 2010 | 2:16 pm
I agree with you Dave and I for one would never intentionally go against your now atheistic believes. Having said that, I don’t know what me and/or myself might say to your past former Christian side views! :)
Peace
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:00 pm
Padraig, an atheist might say, “I will miss you terribly, but that’s because you’ve had such a positive impact on my life.”
September 3rd, 2010 | 3:43 pm
Just a few thoughts…
How about you ask what you can DO for them. Let them decide.
If it were reversed and an adult said they wrote a letter to Santa Claus asking him to bring you good health, how would you respond?
Sick and/or scared people sometimes lash out without thinking.
All that being said, I hope that should I ever be in that spot I would accept the comment with good grace.
September 3rd, 2010 | 5:57 pm
Interesting that this got posted here – the Daniel Dennett quote reminds me of one of the better (if stranger) articles I’ve read online: “Joe Bob Briggs Parties with the Atheists”. (No, really.)
A quote from the article, Joe Bob’s reaction to Dr. Dennett’s irritation towards offers of prayer:
“The name for this is stoicism, and they’re committed to it. They don’t even realize that when people say “We will pray for you”–sometimes even non-religious people–it means they have run out of any other thing to say to you. They’re overwhelmed by the enormity of what you’re facing, and what they’re facing, and so they use this phrase to mean “I love you.” I think most people would instinctively know this. I can imagine few people on the planet who would be offended or upset by the offer of intercessory prayer. I don’t even think that most people offering intercessory prayer at a time like that intend to follow through on the prayer, at least not in any formal way. There’s a connection made at that moment, and it’s recognized by both parties as love.”
For those with time to kill, the entire article is available at:
http://www.wittenburgdoor.com/joe-bob-parties-atheists
September 3rd, 2010 | 6:33 pm
Mr. Hitchens is a human being, a person with an illness who deserves the respect of one and all. Thank you for writing this thoughtful article; it’s one of the first I’ve read that speaks of the man as a human being. You’ve been listening to what he says, and that is rare these days. I wish him well.
September 3rd, 2010 | 8:08 pm
Twenty years ago my wife underwent some very serious heart surgery. She and I are agnostics, yet neither of us resented the fact that some of my fellow employees at one of our plants in Mississippi held a healing service for her at a local evangelical church. What really mattered were their concern for us; their good intentions. It would have been unbelievably rude to say anything but “thank you” to them for their heartfelt efforts, even if we ourselves don’t believe in prayer.
I think that in the end what we do for our neighbor says more about us than how much we pray for him or her. The Jewish idea of a “mitzvah” comes to mind, a good deed of the sort gentiles might call “a random act of kindness.”
My wife and I once adopted a terminally ill neighbor’s cat, because she was afraid it would be destroyed when she was gone. Little things like that can often provide just as much comfort to the dying as prayer might.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Those “little things” become very big, in my view. Good for you, History Writer. I am sure it was your wife’s idea. : )
September 3rd, 2010 | 9:06 pm
This is a rare moment of disagreement between me and Wesley, but I don’t have time to write much about it just now. But here’s a question:
If it’s wrong for Christians to tell _ill_ atheists that they are praying for them, is it also wrong for Christians to tell _healthy_ atheists that they are praying for them? And if that is wrong, what else must also be wrong? Any attempt to, as Christians would say, share the gospel with (you may substitute “discuss religion with” if you prefer) atheists? In other words, do Christians have some sort of moral or social obligation to keep their religion to themselves all the time in dealing with atheists? Isn’t such a proposition a little problematic? One might consider more closely the implications of the phrase “in the closet.”
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Lydia: I think the fact that someone is going through a very difficult illness is what moves the equation. I know Christians are to share the gospel, but they are also to be discerning. Right?
September 3rd, 2010 | 9:12 pm
For me it depends on whether the person minds being told that I am praying for him or her. I heard Hitchens say in an interview that he takes such statements kindly, even if he does not believe in prayer, so I assume it’s okay to say such a thing to him, ie, it won’t hurt him psychologically. However, if he or someone else were to tell me that saying this upset them, I would refrain from reiterating my prayerful intentions and simply do it privately. I have an atheist friend who explained to me that it bothered her to hear me say that I was “praying” for her, so, instead, I agreed to say I was “thinking of her” instead. She knows that I pray for her, but I avoid pushing it on her because such behavior would not benefit anyone involved.
September 3rd, 2010 | 9:15 pm
OR mom-
I’m sorry, but I can’t help snickering at your statement regarding chaplains at hospices. Not because of the chaplains, who do fine work, but because of your hypocrisy-I guess we’re all supposed to be grateful for their intervention as we lay dying of cancer because we were rationed out of treatments that could have delayed or prevented our deaths? What a lovely, Christian sentiment.
September 4th, 2010 | 2:37 am
I agree, Wesley, that no one should ever force his/her prayers on anyone. Hitchens, or anyone else, should have their wishes respected.
Sorry to here about your wife, History Writer. I hope she, and you, are healthy. Thanks for sharing your “softer side”!
Raven, thanks for the quote from Dennett’s book. I wish him all the best, but I wonder if he’s really studied much of the rich Christian theological literature that exists. Certainly, anyone who has, although they may still disagree, could not claim that it has any legitimate comparision to “voodoo”.
September 4th, 2010 | 2:41 am
Also, I hope that Christopher Hitchens recovers from his illness. He’s an incredibly talented writer, as you pointed out, Wesley.
He’s also a man of courage, integrity, and extreme intelligence. He’s had the courage to go after ideas, and people, who he thinks deserves it, and often he’s right (Bill Clinton comes to mind).
September 4th, 2010 | 10:03 am
When I hear of terminal news, my first instinct is to pray, regardless of whatever worldly opinion I have of the afflicted. When I saw Mr. Hitchens’s short note, I immediately closed my eyes and offered supplication. The details are not important. In that moment I made common cause with a suffering brother against evil and death.
I pray for Mr. Hitchens, healthy or unhealthy, and should I have the opportunity, I would let him know it. Giving him that information does not preclude me from giving him comfort in other ways as well, which are also important, if not paramount.
Would I be informing him of my prayers to aggrandize myself, to rudely proselytize during a difficult ordeal, and/or to waste speech on the deaf? Perhaps — we are all tempted in subtle ways, and we all give in. But I’d like to think his knowledge of my prayers is a prayer too, a demonstration that, in good times and in bad, love is paramount, regardless of our intellectual differences.
There is no getting around Mr. Hitchens’s supreme arrogance, in life or in dying, reveling while on top of the world or suffering unspeakable torments in the chemo ward. As he pedantically reminds us, his illness effectively changes nothing — we will all pass his way soon enough — except to make all issues suddenly more urgent. That he would take this moment to remark on the delusions of us faithful once again is a note of his gracelessness. So be it. He is not intimate with the source of all grace. The proper response to people offering sympathies, whether they be efficacious or superstitious & useless, is gratitude. Just as this is not a moment for believers to lecture Mr. Hitchens about God, it is not a moment for him to remind us about how stupid is our faith.
“Serves him right” say clueless jerks who have rejected the soul of Christ. “What can it hurt?” say his loving, praying brothers in their defense — at least the brothers who are wise enough to pick their battles and sensitive enough to show some etiquette. This is no adequate defense of prayer, but rather a Pascalian wager too easily neutralized by smart unbelievers. In most cases it suffices as a defense, but not in Mr. Hitchens’s, who has so powerful and sophisticated a will to disbelief that it must be countered with an even greater power and sophistication.
Or some say nothing at all, like Francis Collins, and make their presence their prayer.
Dr. Collins has it right, of course, and even Mr. Hitchens recognizes his grace. That is how we reach the disbeliever in his heart. That is how all Christians are supposed to evangelize: by example. First we show them love undeniable, even by professional deniers, and only then, in a moment when they are adequately disposed, do we gently remind them of the source of our strength: 1 Peter 3:15-16
Prove your strength, then point towards its source. It is worse than unpersuasive to make grandiose claims on behalf of the unseen before demonstrating its power. Their eyes are closed; turn on the light. Then talk about how good the light is, how useful, how many salutary consequences derive from being able to see.
We Christians neither shrink from confessing the power of prayer, nor do we make outsized claims for it. It simply is. For atheists who want to tell us for the umpteenth time they don’t believe us, well, tell us something we don’t know.
Our intellectual differences are largely semantical. The power of love is patent, it is something we all have seen. In the guise of Francis Collins and others, it drove Mr. Hitchens to make some account of it in his Vanity Fair article. We do not disagree on the fact of grace moving through this world. We do disagree on what to call it. For us believers, Grace is personified, the Truth Itself became flesh. Non-believers (and too many faithful as well) get hung up on the details, the precise character of that love. When they ask What is Love, we say Love is a Who. There is no dispute on the power of that Love itself, and both Mr. Hitchens and his faithful brothers in Christ should concentrate on that all-important fact, one of the beliefs we hold in common.
So Mr. Hitchens is not prepared to recognize love in its fullest form, and even as he lay dying, he wants to pick fights about our differences. Let’s not allow the fight. Unbelievers are consigned to the realm of nit-picking details. Let us show, through our example, that there is a higher way.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for all sinners, now and at the hour of Mr. Hitchens’s and my death. Amen.
September 4th, 2010 | 10:37 am
Well, sure, Wesley, Christians are to be discerning, but wouldn’t that mean that whether to tell a sick atheist you are praying for him or not would vary from one situation to another? Safepres articulates this pretty well. And even History Writer says that he realizes that such things are meant kindly and that atheists should take them as they are meant. One commentator above says that an atheist should recognize the statement as an expression of love. As Safepres says, if there are specific reasons to believe that the person is going to be angry or upset, then you take that into account and very likely don’t say it. But why have a blanket rule about all ill atheists anymore than one has a blanket rule about all healthy atheists? Remember that from a Christian perspective, we have something this person needs–Jesus Christ. It’s possible, and has been true more than once, that a lifelong atheist reconsiders when he is ill or in trouble. Making that gentle gesture (and it’s hardly a matter of ranting at the person or anything) of just saying, “I’m praying for you,” is like making an offer to him of something he very much needs. So there are arguments specifically in _favor_ of telling ailing atheist friends that one is praying for them. Each situation is unique, but it seems to me that it’s far too diffident and in fact implies that there is something intrinsically offensive about “I’m praying for you” to hold that we should never say it to an atheist who is ill.
September 4th, 2010 | 11:44 am
Bret,
I would imagine that Dennett is well acquainted with “the rich theological literature that exists”. The study of religion is, after all, one of his (more recent) academic interests. The fact that he believes prayer is no more effective than goat sacrifices does not mean that he regards the traditions from which these different practices arose as intellectually equivalent. His point is that people who know him – who are aware of his views on this – ought to respect these views.
Obviously the question initially posed by Wesley “Should religious people tell ailing atheists they are praying for them?” is both too broad and too narrow. Too broad in the sense that our response would very much depend on how we feel the atheist in question would react and how intrusive our telling becomes. I would expect my Christian friends to pray for me if I were in distress (they, after all, believe that it contributes to my well-being) and I would also expect that they would, at some point, covertly or overtly attempt to share their faith with me. I would, in fact, be thankful that they cared enough to do so but it would be annoying if they, being fully aware of my views on the subject, made a song and dance about it. It’s even worse for people like Hitchens, Dawkins, or Dennett – people who are, in a sense, “professional” atheists – informing such people that they are in your prayers seems, in my opinion, disrespectful. It might spring from the purest and noblest motives but reveals the same sort of cultural insensitivity that would be involved in telling a grieving Jew that his dead Christian son is “with Jesus”.
Which brings me to my second point. The question ought not to be about atheists specifically but about communicating these sorts of activities and intentions to others who share radically different philosophical and cultural perspectives.
September 4th, 2010 | 6:22 pm
Good comments, Raven. You may be right about Dennett, but my point is, that “voodoo” is not even in the same intellectual ballpark, as Christian theology, and it’s alarming that he would make such a silly comparision.
Dennett’s views, and everyone else’s views, should be respected, and if it’s known, that someone does not want to be prayed for, his/her wishes should be respected.
The important point, as you stated, Raven, is that we show that we care.
September 4th, 2010 | 11:20 pm
Safepres, Hospice has been around far longer than obamacare. As a hospice nurse, I can tell you that not one of the pts I have seen has chosen hospice because an insurance company refused further treatment for them. Rather, they come to hospice because their doctor has told them there is nothing futher that can be done. Additional chemotherapy or radiation would not affect the cancer but would kill them. Or they have a severe chronic illness and are tired of being in the hospital all the time. They want to stay home and have the symptoms successfully relieved instead of being hospitalized for treatment that is no longer effective.
September 5th, 2010 | 9:23 am
lydia, I like your perspective. While the rules change a bit in the scenario that Mr. Smith presents isn’t it true that the reality of death is at the heart of the Christian message, Christ being the first born of the dead, Christ having defeated death opens the doors to heaven. We believe this to be true, he does not. In my limited reading of his writings I do not recall one example where he would refrain from giving his opinion regarding what he saw as the utter nonsense of the religious. His hatred of all things religious is prodigous(sic). His secular materialism is ever present. From my perspective compassion should guide my reponse to his predicament but , allowing for his perspective, why would I let him decide what words are appropriate even here
given that he continues in his way. I would be yielding the field based only on my terms not his. Based on his terms his situation has no significance in the scheme of things and is barely worth noticing, a man dies and fades to nothing and so the journey ends; from nothing to nothing.
I fear for his soul so I do pray for him and I would say it. Is giving offense the worst I could do.
September 5th, 2010 | 11:16 am
I just saw a somewhat related item about Mormons’ tradition of praying for posthumous conversion of their ancestors has at times been applied to Holocaust victims. To the Mormons’ credit, when the Jewish folks objected, they made adjustments to their selection process.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-02-Jewish01_ST_N.htm?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo
It made me think, though. What if Muslims told these Christians that they were praying to Allah for the Christians’ conversion to their true faith so that the Christians would have a chance at Paradise? Do you think some of these Christians who offer unsolicited prayers might gain some insight as to why their “good intentions” could be seen as offensive?
September 5th, 2010 | 3:15 pm
Hitch, I am a fan. I learn so much from you. I wonder why there is a lit cigarette in this pic. Just wondering.
September 5th, 2010 | 8:21 pm
Terentia-you have missed the context of my discussion with ORmom. She feels that patients should be denied late stage cancer treatments under systems like Obamacare, and that people should “peacefully accept” their deaths. I think that people should be able to choose late stage cancer treatments to extend their lives, whether it is being paid for by an insurance company or by a system like Obamacare.
September 6th, 2010 | 7:42 am
Brett wrote: “… my point is, that ‘voodoo’ is not even in the same intellectual ballpark, as Christian theology, and it’s alarming that [Dennett] would make such a silly comparison.”
Bret: What would your reaction be if, say, a Unitarian made the same remark about fundamentalist Christianity (and believe me, some do)? Voodoo IS a religion, even if you happen to believe it’s “silly.”
September 6th, 2010 | 1:22 pm
Safepres:
OR mom never said that patients should be denied all late-stage cancer treatments under “systems like Obamacare”. She expressed the opinion that some of these procedures carried out on terminal patients involve a huge expenditure of public funds and result in little that is of benefit to either the patient or the society as a whole.
I think a fairer representation of ORmom’s position is she feels no one has the right to make unlimited claims on the public purse. Healthcare resources are limited – the money spent on a heroic intervention which grants a terminal patient a few more weeks of life might have been more effectively deployed providing basic care for underprivileged children. We only have a short healthcare blanket to shield us from the cold. Publicly funded healthcare policies simply cannot fund every procedure each patient feels he or she needs. This is an economic reality which cannot be changed by vituperation or rhetoric. Difficult choices have to be made. Accept that.
September 7th, 2010 | 10:03 am
History Writer: Christian theology, whether one agrees or disagrees, is intellectually superior to voodoo. Not all religions are created equal, even though, in our pluralistic society, we like to pretend otherwise. With christian theology, we have the work of the fifth century theologian, Augustine, and his synthesis of neoplatonism, and christianity, Aquinas, and his blending of aristotelianism, and christianity, and on to the present day. One simply does not see this attempt, to incorporate philosophical thought, ans christianity, in other religions such as “voodoo”. One does see a remarkable synthesis, with judaism, and islam, and philosophy.
My guess is that Dennett was attempting to show his great disrespect, frankly, with this ludicrous comparision.
September 7th, 2010 | 10:07 am
re: Victor – When I was a Christian, I didn’t believe in pushing my beliefs on non-Christians. However, I admit that I was so unaware of the world around me that I was blind to the fact or even the idea that there were non-Christians around me.
September 7th, 2010 | 10:12 am
RE: Lydia
As a Christian, you have a right to your own beliefs. Would you like a non-believer pushing their beliefs – or lack thereof, on you. It is the same for non-believers. Do what is right for you, but it comes across as very presumptuous when a Christian or believer in another faith knowingly pushes their faith on a non-believer.
September 7th, 2010 | 10:26 am
RE: Michael
Your comments are exactly the type of rhetoric that elicits negative responses and reactions from non-believers. Just as you have your beliefs and options, non-believers such as myself have our own. Personally, I have strong opinions about religion that you would find objectionable. However, while I may think it, I wouldn’t say that to your face since I’m sure you would find it hurtful. Personally I find that type of engagement to be rude and unproductive.
You have your beliefs and other people have theirs, so it is best to live and let live.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:50 pm
Bret: My guess is that Dennett was attempting to show his great disrespect, frankly, with this ludicrous comparision
Dennet wasn’t comparing the intellectual tradition of Christianity to voodoo. He was simply stating that expressions of Christian piety would be, in his opinion no more effective at restoring him to health than would be animal sacrifices (or any other primitive rituals).
An analogy should (hopefully) make the distinction clear. A huge pharmaceutical company spends billions of dollars on a new drug which eventually is discovered to be no more effective than a placebo in the treatment of the common cold. A philosopher says to a friend who offers him the drug “You might as well have given me a natural remedy from your grandmother’s cupboard.” Is the dismissive philosopher equating the intellects of world-class pharmacologists to the intuitions of proverbial (and presumably non-scientific) grandmothers? Of course not.
September 8th, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Can’t tell you how unmoved I am, Dave Lilley. I have no objection to an unbeliever’s letting me know that he is an unbeliever, that he thinks I would be better off if I were an unbeliever, and that he’s willing to talk about it any time I want to talk. That’s one of the things communicated in the other direction, tacitly, by “I’m praying for you” uttered to an atheist. The idea that believers have to keep their views _secret_, _in the closet_, is incredibly offensive. It’s not as though anybody is telling Christopher Hitchens to do the same! (Ha, ha.) And it’s false to human interactions. It’s normal for people who are friends to come, eventually, to let each other know, at least in general terms, what their views are on those things that are of ultimate importance to them. Calling it “putting your beliefs in someone’s face” is just rhetoric. It implies that there is something inherently disgusting about religious views, as though it were a matter of discussing one’s sexual practices in detail with people who don’t want to hear about them!
This “you wouldn’t want someone else doing it” gambit just won’t work. In fact, a really committed Christian would welcome a discussion of religion with an atheist friend, even if it were started by the atheist expressing his atheism! The Christian would welcome the opportunity to tell the atheist what he took to be an important truth!
September 9th, 2010 | 2:03 am
Raven, that’s a very good analogy, and you may be right, that that was Dennett’s point. Certainly, Dennett is a very good philosopher, and is deserving of respect.
However, I don’t know if he subscribes to the crazy notion, that parents, who raise their children to be religious, are commiting “child abuse”. Thsi seems to be what Dawkins endorses.
September 9th, 2010 | 6:01 am
Raven C-I stand by what I said about OR mom’s perspectives. She has made it clear that she supports a system similar to Obamacare (whether it’s called that or something else) in which there is national health coverage. I think universal coverage is a good idea, too, but where we differ is that she feels that people with cancer ought not to be given end of life treatments in order to benefit others who she feels are entitled to “basic” treatment, even if they could pay for it themselves.
September 9th, 2010 | 7:51 am
Lydia articulates the Christian’s dilemma in this situation well-one one hand, we feel we have something the other person needs, hence we have a duty to share it, on the other hand, this could backfire and just make the person upset because of what Padraig pointed out-the feeling of condescension, whether or not we intend to be so. Not easy, but everyone does their best to do what’s right, and I hope that we can all remember that when matters of faith come up in our lives.
September 9th, 2010 | 10:10 am
RE: Lydia
Do unto others isn’t a “gambit”. The golden rule is universal and is recognized by the religious and non-religious alike. You have the right to express yourself of course. However, there is a difference of expressing one’s self and pushing one’s beliefs. I hold certain beliefs, but I rarely push them upon believers because I know they would find them hurtful.
However, since you don’t find the need for us to filtering ourselves and since you asked, I do find religious beliefs and teachings disgusting, completely irrational, tragically small-minded, disingenuous, and damaging. I believe that indoctrination in any religious sect, especially for children, is a form of brainwashing. I believe that belief in a deity is paramount to a child believing in a make-believe friend – albeit one who according to scripture is vengeful, petty, and evil.
2 Kings 6:33 – Behold, this evil is of the Lord.
Isaiah 45:7 – I … create evil.
Amos 3:6 – Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
If there were a god, why would anyone worship him? The truth is, the universe requires no god, and the Christian deity just as the hundreds and thousands of deities before him is purely a construct of a feeble human mind that doesn’t want to deal with reality. Therefore, while believers like you pray for non-believers, non-believers like me will hope that you believers someday wake up to reality and find rational thought. Until then, again I say that some things should go unspoken and we should all live and let live. That is the important truth!
September 9th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
Bret: I don’t know if he subscribes to the crazy notion, that parents, who raise their children to be religious, are commiting “child abuse”. This seems to be what Dawkins endorses.
I don’t know what Dennett’s opinions on this issue are (he has always been, in my opinion, the least militant and most intellectually stimulating of the “Four Horsemen”) but most secular advocates of this position are uncomfortable not with religious instruction per se, but with the idea that some parents feel they have the unfettered right to instil (possibly pernicious) religious doctrines in their offspring without interference from the state. Dawkins, given as he is to rhetorical excess, has expressed this opinion rather forcefully – but I think the psychologist Nicholas Humphreys has been its most articulate exponent:
September 10th, 2010 | 2:04 am
Raven, this gets into some quite difficult gray areas. Is teaching children to believe in atheism abuse? Is teaching children to believe in christianity, or judaism, Islam abuse? How about teaching toism, etc.?
I understand what Humphrey’s is saying, and I agree that ALL children must be free from abuse, but what counts as abuse, in the RELIGIOUS sphere, is what’s debatable. Some believe that teaching children to be atheists, is one of the highest forms of abuse. I completely disagree with that, but I also completely disagree, with the view, that teaching children to be christian, or any of the other religions mentioned, constitutes abuse. Certainly, if parents are teaching children to hate others, for example, that’s clearly abuse. But merely teaching children the tenents of their faith, that does NOT teach harming others, but does teach a particular notion of reality, such as the truth, say, of the book of mormon, in the LDS church, or that Muhammad is the true prophet in Islam, no, that’s not abuse.
there are no clear cut answers here, and dawkins, and others who advocate this, can have the tables turned, and have their views on atheism declared “abuse”, which they’re not.
We have not settled, for all rational people, what ontological world view is correct, obviously, so we accept the pragmatic solution, of religious freedom, which is the wise choice. as long as parents are not teaching things that we all know are clearly abuse, such as hatred for other races, then the state should stay out of it.
What is Dawkins solution? To remove children from loving christian homes, and place them with atheistic ones? But how do we placate those who believe that atheistic views are abusive?
September 10th, 2010 | 2:14 am
Also, Dawkins reminds me, ironically, of those in the middle ages, and early modern era, who wanted to FORCE people to believe the “true chruch”, and, of course we all know how splendid that was for human rights.
Does Dawkins and his fellow “New Atheists”, want to FORCE the rest of us, “for our own good” to become good atheists? I suspect, that deep in his heart, he would like this, and thinks that the world would be better off.
September 10th, 2010 | 4:15 pm
Bret,
Atheism isn’t a religion to be “believed in” or drummed into children. I, for one, am an atheist – but I do not “believe in Atheism”.
What children ought to be taught is to be rational – to think things through critically for themselves. If a child then decides that he wishes to be a Christian, or an atheist or a muslim, that is his decision and there should be no compulsion involved either way.
I believe (and I imaging all the New Atheists do as well) that no one may call himself “educated” without at least a rudimentary understanding of the major world religions. Some form of religious instruction ought to be part of the education of all children but they should always be encouraged to, in the words from the Good Book, “test every spirit”. The objective is not to swap one inflexible dogma for another. It is rather to cultivate open minds which are resistant to the infection of bad ideas regardless of what shape those bad ideas may take.
Dawkins and Hitchens (specifically) do believe that the world would be better off if we were all non-religious but they are both, in my opinion, far too enlightened to even countenance the idea of “forcing” anyone to adopt this perspective. They attempt to drag you to their own side of the table by the sheer force of their logic and rhetoric but ultimately are good children of the enlightenment and believe everyone has a right to his own ideas (as long as those ideas harm no one else).
September 10th, 2010 | 5:34 pm
Raven, I agree with you, that children should be taught to think for themselves. And, in my view, any religious parent should do this, along with teaching her child the tenets of her religion. The two certainly are not mutually exclusive.
But what concerns me, is the, frankly, arrogance of Dawkins, and others, regarding this issue. How do they KNOW that a particular religion is false, let alone KNOW that the law should intervene, and presumably, take these children away from loving homes, and put good people, in jail?!
I don’t want to seem melodramatic, about this, but when one starts saying that, parents who naturally teach their children to be religious, are somehow guilty of “abuse”, well, prision time seems to be the next step.
I’m equally against relgious people who claim that atheistic parents, who teach their children, naturally enough, that God does not exist, are somehow guilty of “abuse”, and should have their children taken away.
If this type of radical thinking gets any traction, then whoever is in power (religious or atheistic) will implement their views, and the result would be the sunset of the enlightenment, with no dawn.
i’m not arguing for relativism, either morally, or epistemologically. Truth exists, and if atheism is true, obviously, christianity, for example, is false, and vice versa. My point is, we don’t know what the truth is TO EVERYONE’S satisfaction, and the only decent alternative, is to leave these matters to individual families, to decide, unless, they’re doing something egregious. This is an imperfect, pragmatic solution, but even if we did know whose worldview was correct, to satisfy all rational persons, forcing others to comply, would be unwise, indecent, and not practical.
I hope you’re right, Raven, about Hitchens and Dawkins, “not really meaning it”, but they’ve provided abundant evidence of they’re radicalism. I respect their intelligence and moral intent, and this makes me even less sanguine, that they’re “not really serious”, because they really believe that they’re helping children, and i suspect that they would put their money where their mouth is.
and this is dangerous, for atheist, and belivers alike. Whoever thinks thy’re doing “god’s work”, will radically change all of our lives, with more unintended consequences, than we know what to do with.
History has taught us, that without religious freedom, no type of real freedom, for atheist, or believer, exists.
September 11th, 2010 | 2:18 am
Bret,
There is a real sense in which Dawkins and Hitchens are “radicals” about atheism and do much to foster the unfortunate notion that “atheism” is just another inflexible dogma (a new religion to replace the old ones).
We would do well, however, to avoid being distracted by personalities and by the cloud of damning quotations and snippets thrown at us by the media. Dawkins, as far as I’m aware, has never urged that children be removed from religious households or that the state intervene to prevent religious instruction. Even if he has, I wouldn’t give much thought to it. Although he is, in a sense, a rational fundamentalist – he is also middle-class to his very bones; a mild-mannered, tweed-wearing Oxford don (i.e the furthest thing from a social radical). We ought to read his books about evolution (I particularly recommend “The Greatest Show on Earth”) but I wouldn’t be too bothered about what his opinion on this or that social issue happened to be.
September 11th, 2010 | 7:45 pm
Raven, good comments, as always.
Dawkins is, without question, one of the greatest of evolutionary biologists, and we should be grateful to him, for providing, these important ideas, to a popular audience.
But the problem comes, when he starts dabbling into theology.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact