defending the dignity of atheism
PZ Myers at Pharyngula does a great job of demolishing Rabbis Shafran’s response to philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s New York Times piece.
In the face of religiously inspired violence and terrorism, Zizek called atheism “one of Europe’s greatest legacies and perhaps our only chance for peace.” He then repudiated Dostoevsky’s dictum that “if God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted,” observing that this platitude is a mirror image of reality:
the lesson of today's terrorism is that if God exists, then everything, including blowing up thousands of innocent bystanders, is permitted — at least to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, since, clearly, a direct link to God justifies the violation of any merely human constraints and considerations. [emphasis added]
This defense did not sit well with Rabbi Shafran, who stated that “atheism qua atheism presents no compelling objection” to “amoral or unethical behavior.” He continued, opining that:
To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather; no more import to right and wrong than to right and left. To be sure, rationales might be conceived for establishing societal norms, but social contracts are practical tools, not moral imperatives; they are, in the end, artificial. Only an acknowledgement of the Creator can impart true meaning to human life, placing it on a plane above that of mosquitoes.
This statement, however, hinges on his presupposition that “true” and “ultimate” are the exclusive province of religion. The atheist objection to this line of argumentation is that religion’s extravagant claims of ultimate knowledge have borne no substantive proof. In the face of competing religious claims, one would be wise to examine them carefully rather than blindly accepting—as most religionists do—the claims of one’s family or society. This foundational skepticism is a premise of most freethought.
Perhaps most annoying was Shafran’s tired recitation of the “Adolph Hitler was no believer in G-d” canard. I had thought that it has been debunked too many times to waste words on, but Meyers disagrees. He asks:
The Hitler who said, "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"? Some might say he wasn't a very good Catholic (although the pope at the time didn't seem to have any major objections) and was just playing to the crowd, but it's interesting that he turned to religion when he needed to appeal to the people to support his agenda.
The Rabbi’s use of mafia hitman Richard Kuklinski as an example of atheist amorality was also quickly dismissed by Meyers:
Mr Kuklinski was brought up as a Catholic, and sent his kids to a Catholic school, and he was affiliated with the Mafia, whose members are often (but not necessarily, of course) Catholic. I can't find anything to suggest he was an atheist. He was certainly a despicable character, but I don't see why he would be brought up as an example of the corrupting influence of godlessness. It would be easier, and just as fallacious, to use him as an example of the moral bankruptcy of Catholicism. [emphasis added]
Does the Rabbi know that he has been lbitch-slapped?