Epstein's second paragraph begins: "This is not a book about whether one can be good without God, because that question does not need to be answered--it needs to be rejected outright." I'm glad he moves beyond this question and doesn't get bogged down in philosophy. But as I read that sentence, I was reminded of a recent interview with the governor of my home state of Indiana, Mitch Daniels. Here's an excerpt:
Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.
Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of
right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.
Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/politics/Daniels-talks-candidly-about-his-faith
Atheism leads to brutality? Hitler was an atheist? I should care about how my beliefs might be different from the American tradition? And this guy might run for president in 2012. I may outright reject the question of whether one can be good without god, but I think people are going keep asking it for a long time to come. At least here in the Midwest.
I am just starting to read Good without God. I am just through the first chapter -- I have always considered atheism as a belief systen and therefore a religion of sorts. He has confirmed this so far in the book. I was hoping for a more open view or maybe accepting view instead he condemned Rick Warren for putting down atheists and then turned around and put Rick Warren down in the same way. (which is a pattern of the religious right that I oppose) I will continue my reading with open mind.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure how much Epstein is “putting down” Rick Warren. Unless you mean that to criticize someone is to put them down. I mean, it seems legitimate to consider it an insult when Warren says, “If your time on earth were all there is to your life, I would suggest you start living it up immediately. You could forget about being good and ethical, and you wouldn’t have to worry about any consequences of your actions.”
ReplyDeleteEpstein does ask us, “Should we insult Warren back, call him a buffoon, a charlatan, a brainwasher for Jesus?” And maybe rhetorically he’s getting away with calling Warren names, even though he ends up saying we *shouldn’t* call him names. But the point Epstein is making is that we shouldn’t just let this stuff slide any more. We should say something. What do you think? Should we say something when a Christian implies, or outright says, that you can’t be good without believing in the Christian god?