I'm an atheist, BUT . . .
by Richard Dawkins
http://tinyurl.com/ynxytz


Of all the questions I fielded during the course of my recent book tour, the only ones that really depressed me were those that began "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." What follows such an opening is nearly always unhelpful, nihilistic or – worse – suffused with a sort of exultant negativity. Notice, by the way, the distinction from another favourite genre: "I used to be an atheist, but . . ." That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, practised by, among many others, C S Lewis, Alister McGrath and Francis Collins. It is designed to gain street cred before the writer starts on about Jesus, and it is amazing how often it works. Look out for it, and be forewarned.

I've noticed five variants of I'm-an-atheist-buttery, and I'll list them in turn, in the hope that others will recognize them, be armed against them, and perhaps extend the list by contributing examples from their own experience.

1. I'm an atheist, but religion is here to stay. You think you can get rid of religion? Good luck to you! You want to get rid of religion? What planet are you living on? Religion is a fixture. Get over it!

I could bear any of these downers, if they were uttered in something approaching a tone of regret or concern. On the contrary. The tone of voice is almost always gleeful, and accompanied by a self-satisfied smirk. Anybody who opens with "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ." can be more or less guaranteed to be one of those religious fellow-travellers who, in Dan Dennett's wickedly perceptive phrase, believes in belief. They may not be religious themselves, but they love the idea that other people are religious. This brings me to my second category of naysayers.

2. I'm an atheist, but people need religion. What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to comfort the bereaved? How are you going to fill the need?

I dealt with this in the last chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Much Needed Gap' and also, at more length, in Unweaving the Rainbow. Here I'll make one additional point. Did you notice the patronizing condescension in the quotations I just listed? You and I, of course, are much too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, the Orwellian proles, the Huxleian Deltas and Epsilon semi-morons, need religion. Well, I want to cultivate more respect for people than that. I suspect that the only reason many cling to religion is that they have been let down by our educational system and don't understand the options on offer. This is certainly true of most people who think they are creationists. They have simply not been taught the alternative. Probably the same is true of the belittling myth that people 'need' religion. On the contrary, I am tempted to say "I believe in people . . ." And this leads me to the next example.

3. I'm an atheist, but religion is one of the glories of human culture.

At a conference in San Diego which I attended at the end of my book tour, Sam Harris and I were attacked by two "I'm an atheist, but . . ." merchants. One of these quoted Golda Meir when she was asked whether she believed in God: "I believe in the Jewish people, and the Jewish people believe in God." Our smirking critic substituted his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God."

Religion, he presumably thought, is like a great work of art. Many works of art, rather, because different religions are so varied. I was reminded of Nicholas Humphrey's devastating indictment of an extreme version of this kind of thing, quoted in Chapter 9 of The God Delusion. Humphrey was discussing the discovery in the mountains of Peru of the frozen remains of a young Inca girl who was, according to the archaeologist who found her, the victim of a religious sacrifice. Humphrey described a television documentary in which viewers were invited . . .

" . . . to marvel at the spiritual commitment of the Inca priests and to share with the girl on her last journey her pride and excitement at having been selected for the signal honour of being sacrificed. The message of the television programme was in effect that the practice of human sacrifice was in its own way a glorious cultural invention – another jewel in the crown of multiculturalism . . ."

I share the outrage that Humphrey eloquently expressed: -

"Yet, how dare anyone even suggest this? How dare they invite us – in our sitting rooms, watching television – to feel uplifted by contemplating an act of ritual murder: the murder of a dependent child by a group of stupid, puffed up, superstitious, ignorant old men? How dare they invite us to find good for ourselves in contemplating an immoral action against someone else?"

It would be unfair to accuse our critic in San Diego of complicity in such an odious attitude towards the Inca 'ice maiden'. But I hope at least he will think twice before repeating that bon mot (as he obviously thought of it): "I believe in people, and people believe in God." I could have overlooked the patronizing condescension of his remark, if only he hadn't sounded so smugly satisfied by this lamentable state of affairs.

4. I'm an atheist, but you are only preaching to the choir. What's the point?

There are various points. One is that the choir is a lot bigger than many people think it is, especially in America. But, again especially in America, it is largely a closet choir, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out. Judging by the thanks I received all over North America, the encouragement that people like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and I are able to give is greatly appreciated. So is this website, as I heard again and again. My thanks, yet again, to Josh.

A more subtle reason for preaching to the choir is the need to raise consciousness. When the feminists raised our consciousness about sexist pronouns, they would have been preaching to the choir where the more substantive issues of the rights of women and the evils of discrimination against them were concerned. But that decent, liberal choir still needed its consciousness raising with respect to everyday language. However right-on we may have been on the political issues of rights and discrimination, we nevertheless still unconsciously bought into linguistic conventions that made half the human race feel excluded.

There are other linguistic conventions that still need to go the same way as sexist pronouns, and the atheist choir is not exempt. We all need our consciousness raised. Atheists as well as theists unconsciously buy into our society's convention that religion has uniquely privileged status. I've already mentioned the convention that we must be especially polite and respectful to a person's faith. And I never tire of drawing attention to society's tacit acceptance that it is right to label small children with the religious opinions of their parents.

That's consciousness-raising, and atheists need it just as much as anybody else because atheists, too, have been lulled into overlooking the anomaly: religious opinion is the one kind of parental opinion that – by almost universal consent – can be battened upon children who are, in truth, too young to know what their opinion really is.

5. I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your intemperately strong language.

Sam Harris and I have both received criticism of this kind, and Nick Humphrey probably has too, for the quotation given above. Yet if you look at the language we employ, it is no more strong or intemperate than anybody would use if criticizing a political or economic point of view: no stronger or more intemperate than any theatre critic, art critic or book critic when writing a negative review. Our language sounds strong and intemperate only because of the same weird convention I have already mentioned, that religious faith is uniquely privileged: above and beyond criticism. On pages 20-21 of The God Delusion I gave a wonderful quote from Douglas Adams on the subject.

Book critics or theatre critics can be derisively negative and earn delighted praise for the trenchant wit of their review. A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a critic of religion employ a fraction of the same direct forthrightness, and polite society will purse its lips and shake its head: even secular polite society, and especially that part of secular society that loves to announce, "I'm an atheist, BUT . . ."

Hopefully education might supersede religion. But given that there could always be a proportion of the human race who are simpleminded then you are probably right, there might always be a need for religion and we might need to go on telling some bereaved people fairy-tales or outright lies in order to console them.

Instead of lying to people, wouldn't it be kinder to tell them the truth, even if it's not what they would prefer to hear? I know I don't like anyone sugar-coating my news.

Consolation can be had in constructive ways, too, you know. It's sort of a bad news, good news thing. Bad news: you're going to die. Good news: you can help us enjoy life, now and for all our descendants in the future for evermore.

Religion will only end when ignorance does. Besides, even the most scientific minds have been duped into believing unscientific things. In fact a scientist who is doing any paranormal investigation is instantly discredited, why?
Scientists have been tricked over and over again. The only person qualified to investigate such things is the one who makes a living faking them, a magician. Education does not insinuate that religion will end, only that the doors will be opened for it to leave, but something still needs to kick religion out, shut the door and never let it in again.

What of the origins of reality itself, it is infact a construct of the mind and therefore based soley on ones perception, how then.. can we claim to be correct about anything?

Truth is an opinion.

When George Bush was elected President in 2000, I told everyone I knew that we would be in Baghdad within four years. I was correct.

In 2003, when we (the USA military) actually were in Baghdad, I predicted that we would be in Iraq to stay. I have been shown to be correct (those 14 permanent military bases can't be abandoned, we need them for the coming wars on Iran and Syria).

Well it looks like you were certainly correct

I think I would rather have Al Gore as President than be in a position to say "I told you so."

I think I would rather not have eaither of those idiots as president and get someone intelligent like yourself

Before Bush was elected in 2000 I used to say to my friends "I would make a lousy President, but I'd be better than Bush." He really is an idiot. I was totally amazed that the Americans went for him, twice. What were they thinking?

I'm guessing you have never been to Birmingham, Alabama...They don't think, they just do what god tells them to do on billboards.

My favorite billboard I passed this week was "If you must swear, use your own name" -God

I've been to Huntsville once, but not Birmingham. I lived in Biloxi for a while. Been to New Orleans and Atlanta a few times.

Today I was walking through my neighborhood in Sunny Southern California and I saw a sign at a house that said "One nation under Jesus who is God." Another sign on his lawn said "support our troops." I was tempted to go up and ring his doorbell and tell him that he was mistaken, I'm a veteran and I wasn't under Jesus, but I resisted temptation.

Jesus was a clever teacher. If he had ever said he was God, he would have been stoned to death because the law required it. He always neatly evaded the question when they were trying to trap him. "You say I am" is the closest he ever got to actually saying it. In a way, we are all gods, to the extent that we realize it.

You look like a Santa Monica man~ If I ever happen to run across you on the beach you better be ready for a game of chess, even though you will win without a doubt lol sorry this had nothing to do with the post.

I'm always ready for a game of chess. Pawn to king four.

Santa Monica beach about a 20 minute drive from my house.

I am interested to see how badly you kick my ass I'm down for a game on jippii.com anyday

First try to beat my chess applet at

http://chess.captain.at/

If you can beat it, you can beat me (maybe).

lol this thing is sooo slow...I will tell you in 3 hrs when the game is over

lol that is sad... I beat the computer, but I couldn't figure out how to take a screenshot before I closed the window somehow rematch time~

Hey Flex and Rick, are you interested in joining www.redhotpawn.com?

I play there.

Totaly down~ Thanks

The applet adjusts its look-ahead depth to the speed of your computer. It's move speed target is 200 seconds per move, which is about tournament speed (a game in two hours or so). If you have a fairly slow machine, it won't look very far ahead and will be easier to beat. Try it on a really fast machine and it will play better. However, beating it at all is quite an accomplishment. Congratulations.

You can save the game, note the game number, and then I can go look at it. There's a button for game listing. You can copy the listing to Notepad and save it that way too. Also, scroll down in the description of the applet to see the control key commands. You can adjust the look-ahead depth, play black, etc.

Thanks, Lao Tzu, but that site is blocked by the firewall I'm behind.

Lol I'm not going to lie Rick--the AI of the program was just no match for my slacker intelect Who knew that to outsmart a computer all you had to do was press ctrl M (I think that was the function). I gave up on playing fair when one move took the computer 37min... I am using one of the new 2.33GHZ mac book pros, so I don't think I could really get much faster of a computer. I will give it another shot, and actually play fair this time.

as I am waiting for the computer, I realized I have used this Chess Applet before. I was in 8th grade in the computer lab bored as hell and I searched free chess programs or something and this came up I totaly forgot about that--it must have been in 2002.

37 minutes is a bit much. You can knock down the look-ahead depth before you start. Put it in "verbose" mode (ctrl-V) and show the browser's java console to see the current depth of look-ahead. It will knock it down automatically, but if the first non-database move takes 37 minutes, I may need to adjust the algorithm for faster computers. Each step down in look-ahead depth is a factor of 6 in time (average chess game branching factor is 36 and the alpha-beta algorithm does it in the square root of that).

You can open a new browser instance and continue Web browsing while the applet runs in another instance in the background. It will "ding" when it moves, so you don't have to sit and watch it. However, if you do watch it, the bottom text line on the board tells you what move it's thinking about.

If your machine were a hundred times faster, the chess applet would adapt its lookahead to average 200 seconds per move, so getting a faster machine won't make it move faster, it will just make it harder to beat.

Rick, about the AI, do you use the classical tree - branch method or did you opt for something more along the lines of neuroscience?

Ive never had trouble with your applet, worked excellently, its a mean little devil though.

It uses the classical min-max (alpha beta variant) tree search algorithm. It's not as fast as some programs for dedicated hardware, but it's the best chess applet. Google "chess applet" to try some others.

I wrote it as a study in object oriented programming. I'm not sure what a neuroscience approach to a chess player would look like. One possibility is to use a neural network to "recognize" the value of various chess positions. It could be trained as it goes by playing people. Then the min-max algorithm would rate the value of the positions by the neural net output (for each position input).

The net could have 64 input nodes (one for each square) taking a value of 1 to 13 (one for each possible type of piece on the square), with two hidden layers and 11 output nodes with values of zero to one. The value of the position would then be a signed 10-bit number (-1000 to +1000).

That would be a hybrid system, with a classic search tree and a neural net to rate the tree nodes.