From: | Ruthe |
Sent on: | Thursday, February 4, 2010, 8:25 PM |
Susan Jacoby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Susan Jacoby (born 1946[1]) is an American
author, most recently of the New York Times best seller, The
Age of American Unreason about American anti-intellectualism. She is an atheist and secularist.
Jacoby graduated from Michigan State University in 1965. She lives in New
York City and is director of the New York branch of the Center for Inquiry.[2]
Jacoby, who began her career as a reporter for The Washington Post, has been a contributor
to a wide variety of national publications, including The New York Times, the Los
Angeles Times, The American Prospect, Mother Jones, The Nation,
Glamour, and the AARP Bulletin and AARP Magazine. She is currently a panelist
for "On Faith," a Washington Post-Newsweek blog
on religion. As a young reporter she lived for two years in the USSR.
Her book Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism was named a
notable book of 2004 by The Washington Post and The New York Times.[3] It was also named an Outstanding
International Book of the Year by the Times Literary
Supplement (London) and The
Guardian. Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge (1984) was a
finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.[2]
Her book Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past
(2000) explores her partial Jewish roots. Raised in a Roman Catholic home, Jacoby did not
learn of her father's Jewish roots until she was in her early 20s.[4]
Jacoby has argued that the idea of anti-Catholicism
being a significant force in American life today is a canard, perpetrated
by theologically and politically right-wing Roman Catholics and aimed at anyone
who stands up to the Church's continuing attempts to impose its values on all
Americans. [5]
Atheists
-- naughty and nice -- should define themselves
I was somewhat taken aback recently when I found myself on
a list of "kinder, gentler atheists"--most of them women--compiled by
a religious historian attempting to distinguish between socially acceptable
atheism and the presumably mean, hard-line atheism expounded by such demonic
figures as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel
Dennett. This nasty versus nice dichotomy is wholly an invention of believers
who are under the mistaken impression that atheism is a religion in need of a
good schism.
The list of "kinder" atheists was compiled for USA Today
by Stephen Prothero, an On Faith
panelist and professor of religion at Boston University and
author of "Religious Literacy" (2007), a lively and incisive account
of Americans' ignorance about religion in general and their own religious
history. Pleased as I was to find myself on a list in the company of such other
spirited atheists as Rebecca Newberger Goldstein,
author of the witty, recently published "36 Arguments for
The Existence of God: A Work of Fiction," and Jennifer
Michael Hecht, author of "Doubt: A History" (2003), it is
nevertheless slightly insulting to find your name used not only to place female
atheists in a special category but as a foil for a mythical enemy known as the
New Atheists. The latter consist, in Prothero's view,
mainly of Angry White Men who believe that all religious people are stupid and
that "the only way forward is to educate the idiots and flush away the
poison."
I don't mean to pick on Prothero, whom I greatly
respect as a scholar of religion (this must be the sort of observation that he
considers kinder and gentler), but his piece is a perfect example of all of the
distortions of atheism cherished by anti-atheists.
Myth No. 1: The "new atheism" is a phenomenon that differs
radically not only from atheism as it has existed since antiquity but from the
views held by forerunners of modern atheism, including deists and Enlightenment
rationalists, like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who
played such a critical role in the founding of this nation. Try as I might, I
find little in the works of Dawkins, Harris et. al.--apart from their knowledge
of modern science--that differs significantly from the views of secular
thinkers of earlier eras. What is different is that today's atheists are not
hiding behind other labels, such as agnosticism, in order to placate religious
sensibilities. It is this lack of deference, more than anything else, that has
outraged religious believers--particularly those on the right--in America. Most
have confused their constitutional right to believe whatever they want with the
idea that the beliefs themselves must be inherently worthy of respect.
Myth No. 2: Atheists think all religious believers are stupid. It is
true that Dennett coined the unfortunate term "Brights" to describe
atheists--which does imply that he considers believers dimwitted. But I
disagree with Dennett on this point, and so do a good many atheists I know
(some of whom didn't even make the "kinder, gentler" list). I am
quite prepared to concede that there are a fair number of intellectually
challenged atheists, and I have no interest in arguing about whether the proportion
of dunces is higher among the religious. As for the intelligence of religious
believers, I doubt that many educated atheists would consider Aquinas, Abelard,
or, for that matter, Prothero stupid. What we do
think is that their ideas are wrong and irreconcilable with the laws of nature.
One point, however, is indisputable: there is a strong correlation between
simplistic fundamentalist beliefs, relying on a literal interpretation of
sacred texts, and lack of education. As the level of education rises, the
number of people who believe in materially impossible tales such as the
creation of the universe in six days; the literal resurrection of the dead; and
the Virgin Birth diminishes. That is why fundamentalists have been tireless in
their efforts to inject religious teaching into public schools. So it is
generally true (although there are of course many exceptions) that the less
people have learned about science, history, and different belief systems, the
more likely they are to cling to a rigid form of faith.
Nevertheless, education and intelligence are hardly identical. Holders of
doctoral degrees, whether in philosophy or biology, are less likely than high
school dropouts to believe in the supernatural, but plenty of people with more
than 16 years of formal education are quite susceptible to a wide variety of
non-supernatural but equally muttonish notions
dressed as lamb. One need only consider the number of grownup atheists who are
still as entranced as 15-year-olds with the sophomoric Ayn
Rand, whose basic philosophy, as expressed in her turgid novels, is that the
only proper relation of one human being toward another is "hands
off." History is filled with atheists who have embraced every crackpot
notion from eugenics to the desirability of eternal life facilitated not by God
but by science. Of course, there have also been a great many religious
believers who find that their godly philosophy include racial superiority and
the inferiority of the poor. (Let's not forget the most recent example of a stupid
Christian politician, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who thinks that free
school lunches encourage the poor and stupid to reproduce.)
What ultimately distinguishes atheists from religious believers, however, is
that no intelligent atheist can ever claim that his or her ideas constitute
absolute truth.
Myth No. 3: This brings us to the most common false stereotype about
atheism--that it is a religion and, furthermore, that "atheist
fundamentalism" is as intolerant as conventional religious fundamentalism.
Prothero uses the revealing word
"genuflection" to describe the supposed attitude of atheists toward
the writings of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Other critics of atheism have
described these writings as "sacred texts" for atheists. I hate to
break it to the anti-atheists, but another crucial distinction between us and
them is that we have no sacred, authoritative texts. Dawkins gave me a very
generous quote for the jacket of the British edition of "The Age of
American Unreason," in spite of the fact that I have often written (and
wrote in this particular book) that I do not agree with him or with Harris
about the dangers of "moderate" religion to the body politic. Dawkins
is not the Pope, science is not God, and all of these purportedly gentler women
in the ranks of atheists are not handmaidens of the Lord. (I should add that Prothero did provide a separate list of "kinder,
gentler" male atheists, whose chief qualification seemed to be that they
had all struggled to free themselves from unquestioning faith. As someone who,
as far back as I can remember--certainly from around age 12--never accepted
what I was taught in Catholic school and suffered no pangs of conscience when I
realized that I did not believe in God or in any religion, I probably qualify
as a "hard" rather than a "soft" atheist.)
Integral to the myth of atheism as a religion is the false proposition that
atheists claim to "know" there is no God. Robert Green Ingersoll, the
19th-century orator dubbed the "Great Agnostic," put it succinctly in
1885 when asked a question by a Philadelphia reporter who was trying to get him
to denounce atheists. "Don't you think the belief of the Agnostic is more
satisfactory to the believer than that of the Atheist?" the reporter
asked. Ingersoll replied, "There is no difference. The Agnostic is an
Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: "I do not know,
but I do not believe that there is any god. The Atheist says the same. The
orthodox Christian says he knows there is a god: but we know that he does not
know. He simply believes. He cannot know. The Atheist cannot know that God does
not exist."
Today, as in the past, atheists can say only that on the basis of the available
evidence, we don't think an omnipotent deity has anything to do with either the
ultimate origins of the universe or the ethical dilemmas that human beings
confront every day. Indeed, we do not "know" how the first particle
of matter came into being any more than believers "know" how God came
into being. We admit this. They don't.
Myth No. 4: Atheists believe that science explains everything. No. We
believe that science offers the best possibilities for explaining what we do
not yet understand. Science--in contrast to religion--is a method of thought
and exploration, not a set of conclusions based on unchallengeable assumptions.
Science is always open to the possibility that its conclusions may be proved
wrong by new evidence based on new experimentation and observation.
Monotheistic religion's bedrock assumption is the
existence of a god who always was and always will be. Atheists (at least those
with a scintilla of scientific knowledge) would never claim that the universe
always was and always will be.
Myth No. 5: Atheists deny the possibility of "transcendent" experience.
They can't see beyond the material world. This stereotype is partially true,
but it all depends on what you mean by transcendent. If the concept is
understood, as it is by many religious believers, as an experience that goes
beyond and defies the usual limits of nature--including time, space, and the
flesh-and-blood essence of human beings, then atheists do not accept the
transcendent. But if the word is understood as something that pushes us beyond
our everyday experience--that enables us to scale previously unknown heights of
love, creativity, or wonder at what other members of our species have created,
how could any man or woman of reason deny the possibility? We simply believe
that such experience lie within, not outside of, nature.
As an atheist, I highly doubt that my subjective experience differs
qualitatively from that of a religious believer who thrills to Bach's Goldberg
Variations, Michaelangelo's David, Leonardo's
Adoration of The Magi, or, for that matter, the immensity of a night sky. I do
not have to believe in God, or any supernatural entity larger than myself, to
feel overwhelming awe upon holding a newborn baby or upon experiencing the
reciprocal, passionate love that comes rarely--the kind of love, as Nietzsche
observed, that "compels me to speak as though I were Two." But I do
interpret these experiences differently from a believer, because I do not
ascribe any mystical or supernatural character to them. Such transcendent
experiences do not make us greater than ourselves; they help us realize our
best selves--the best of which our species is capable.
I see very little difference between the religious believer's insistence on the
existence of an immortal soul and the insistence of some secular philosophers
and psychologists on the existence of a consciousness or a mind that is, in
some inexplicable way, independent of our physical corpus. I do not consider
the fruits of our love and labor--which will outlast our finite existence--less
valuable because they depend on functioning neurons and because the neurons
that produced them will eventually die. This insistence on an independent
consciousness, mind, soul, or spirit is a product of human limitation and human
arrogance. Because we are the most intelligent animals on the planet, we can
imagine our own extinction. We hate that knowledge--atheists and religious
believers alike--so we invent a variety of non-material concepts to explain
away the inevitable end of a consciousness that depends entirely on our
physical being.
Speaking only for myself, I find that awareness of my inevitable extinction
enhances rather than diminishes my life. This awareness makes me want to leave
something behind, if only a piece of scholarship that will be useful to some
seeker of knowledge in a library of the future. I will admit that I am deeply
disturbed by the possibility that libraries may become extinct, although the
digital world offers a kind of eternal life that neither an atheist nor a
religious believer could have predicted when I was a child. The novelist Milan Kundera has written about a number of developments the
Creator never imagined--among them surgery and humans' relationship with their
dogs. To that I would add the internet. The digital world, because it is a
product of human intelligence, is a part of the nature (for better and for
worse) of which men and women also comprise a finite part. To fill our portion
of the universe with the best achievements possible, through our love and our
work, is purpose enough for a lifetime and requires no transcendence of nature
and no afterlife.
#
As I begin this new twice-weekly column, I invite readers to suggest subjects
they would like to read about and talk about. I'm going to be dealing with
everything from politics to baseball (the miserable saga of my New York Mets is
yet another reason for me to be glad I don't have a deity to blame), so all
ideas are welcome.
By Susan Jacoby |
February 2, 2010; 9:23 AM ET