Michael's R-useless outpourings

Michael Ruse has written this appalling piece of tripe on the Guardian 'Comment is Free' site. I think my response is a bit too wordy for the site so here it is on my blog.

‘Is there an atheist schism?’ asks Michael Ruse. I think the question as posed is meaningless. Is there an a-Zeusist schism? Have the non-followers of Quetzalcoatl split into multiple factions? Has there been a schism among those who doubt that vitamin supplements are good for you?

Michael Ruse opens by reminding us that he is a professional philosopher. I am a professional teacher but I don’t expect to begin each one of my lessons by stating same. I hope my daily work makes it obvious. But I can see why that’s not the case for Michael, having read his pitiable offering.

I absolutely and utterly believe that there is no god. That is the same as saying that I believe there is no god. It is the same as saying that I do not believe there is a god. However, were any credible evidence for god’s existence to come to light, I would be only too happy to change my stance.

Religion’s big problem is not that it is ‘evil and corrupting’, although much of the time it is both of those things. The major issue is that religion is all about spreading ideas that are patently false, and protecting those ideas by means of threats ranging from being offended to blowing up those who disagree with them.
Michael claims that religion motivated the abolitionists to oppose slavery. Yet slavery was abolished only a couple of hundred years ago, whereas Christianity claims to be twenty centuries old, and other religions are much older. Why did the divine message take so long to make a difference? Oh, I almost forgot – Michael is an atheist. How silly of me. He can see that the beliefs of the religious are false, but they can’t see that for themselves so let’s protect their belief system despite the complete lack of evidence in its favour. If this is not an insufferably arrogant and condescending stance, then arrogance and condescension have no place in reality.

The September 11th hijackers were almost exclusively Saudis, groomed and trained by Osama bin Laden. Michael, have you been to Saudi Arabia? I lived and worked in bin Laden’s home city for twelve years. Believe me, neither desperation nor poverty features large in the experience of the typical Saudi male aged 18 to 35. Five-times-daily indoctrination in the necessity of jihad, and the paradise that awaits the martyr, are right at the forefront of their consciousness, however. Put from your mind any picture of desperate, heroic young men seeking valiantly to redress the imbalance of western imperialism. Without their mediaeval belief system none of them would have been motivated to act as they did. My evidence? The complete absence of secular hijackers from among the nineteen, and the declamations of bin Laden himself in gloating over the attacks while describing the eternal virgin-soaked bliss which he believes his footsoldiers are now enjoying.

As for the Irish troubles, if all the children could have been Pied-Pipered away at the height of the conflict, and brought up free from sectarian labels, then old wounds would have likely been forgotten within a generation. Segregated schooling, according to parental religion, was largely responsible for dragging the troubles on and on and on.

If everything needs a cause, then so does god. If not, not, and uncaused things can happen. There is no profound truth here. There is no insight that requires years of study and meditation. The emperor’s equipment dangles freely in the wind. If god is necessarily uncaused, provide explanatory proof. Do not simply say that because some fools take silly things seriously the rest of us should too. Baseless twaddle is nothing but baseless twaddle.

Mary Midgley was either too lazy to read, or too stupid to understand, Dawkins’s point about selfish genes. Either way she was just plain wrong. Like Dawkins I would be indignant if I had written a carefully researched, ground breaking book, and had it dismissed by someone who clearly either hadn’t read it or hadn’t understood even the title.

If beliefs are wrong then they are wrong. It doesn’t matter how bright or how educated the holders are. Michael appears to be saying that wrong beliefs deserve respect simply because people hold them. That is utter rubbish. No belief deserves so much as an ounce of respect unless it can be defended on reasonable grounds. If someone wishes to believe fantastic things privately then so be it. The rest of us need never know. But as soon as those beliefs start affecting – or shortening – other people’s lives, they become public business, and open to public debate, no punches pulled.

The truth, Michael, is ever so simple. God very probably does not exist, and anyone who claims otherwise needs to back up their claim with evidence if they wish to be taken seriously. If you don’t like that, bad luck. Live with it.