Of sterile debates

This is an editted version in the light of comments received – 16 Sep 2008

There has been an apparent upsurge in anti-atheist websites which try to argue against atheism in ways which are, frankly, baffling. Atheism-Analyzed is one such website: it’s fault lies in the mistaken assumption that “atheism” is a philosohpy or world-view, like a religious world-view. It’s possible to knock down the key arguments individually, but it is largely a thankless task – and an unnecessary one.

It has the hallmarks of the so-called Hitchens v. McGrath debate – a recent pro-Christian critique of which was cheered on from the sidelines over at the intriguingly entitled blog, Atheism is Dead: another blog that claims to use logic and reason in the (very much mistaken) that these are used to prop up a belief system. Mistaken because atheism does not purport do be anything of the sort.

It represents an attempt by religious apologists to move use the methods – namely that of logic and reason – of people they perceive to be as their opponents and attempt to win the argument; a “rationalist turn”, so to speak. It may well be that McGrath got the better of Hitchens; this is to be seen as some sort of victory.

Yet the debate is utterly superfluous, because whether or not religion is a “poison” or not, it has no bearing on any kind of claim religion has to truth: the debate is a red herring.

This is because – contrary to the claims (pdf) of Glenn Peoples – the truth does matter. Peoples states that: “For Hitchens, it should really make no long term difference whether our beliefs about religion are true or not. If we die happy (even if deluded), we have done as best we can.” (point 4) And that “If atheism is true, what exactly is wrong with harmless but false wishful thinking?” (point 18).

Personally, I believe Dawkins to be right to point out in the God Delusion that it insults us – indeed, degrades us – as human beings to believe in things merely for the purposes of comfort. It’s not so much that people believe in things without reason, however, that is central problem (and in which case, may be Peoples may have a point). It is not so much what an individual believes. It’s when they make demands on others who don’t share their beliefs that is the problem; when those people do at least one of two things – either persuade others, or indoctrinate their children, to do or believe those things; or when they try to persuade politicians to do something or not do something because it offends these beliefs – profound beliefs that may be sincerely held, but which disregard rationality and demand that those who don’t share their beliefs should respect and abide by them. And religious people, with their unprovable and untestable claims about holy texts and gods, are in the habit of doing that now.

For that reason alone, the truth of what people believe should matter to both the non-religious and non-believers.

That aside, the heart of the matter of these kinds of “debates”, such as the Hitchen-McGrath debate, is surely this: whatever people have done or not done in the name of religion, it does not amount to evidence of the existence of any particular god or goddess, as required in a rational argument that utilises logic, evidence and reason. And if that’s the case, then there can be no reason to worship or believe in any particular god or goddess; and no reason for the frankly banal debates such as the Hitchens-McGrath debate.