Why is Stephen Prothero So Hard on Atheists?

As you rightly say, Confucianism (like Taoism) isn’t a religion at all but a philosophy. Nothing in either of those philosophies even mentions any kind of a god. Buddhism takes no real stance on whether there is a god or not, but Buddhists still tend to deity worship Siddartha Gautama as if he were a god, but they don’t have to. So sure, atheists could become Buddhists *if they wanted to*. There are some health benefits to doing yoga, meditating and eating vegetables. But what if they don’t want to? Philosophy isn’t the same as a religion and he seems confused on that point.

Are you sure he’s an expert?

For a moment there I thought you meant a different chap called Prothero…

I have yet to encounter a religion that does not posit humanity as being metaphysically substandard in some way. The unattainable ideal may be represented by a god, a way, a path or other such figure, symbol or method. Atheism does not posit humanity as being metaphysically substandard in any way.

This Prothero person seems to have fallen for the most pathetic error in the history of humanity – that doubt equals denial.

Skepticism is a critique-based philosophy, seemingly the only one. Skepticism defaults to not giving assent (believing) without evidence. Science is a subset of skepticism with respect to particular (empirically testable) kinds of claims. Atheism is a subset of skepticism with respect to a particular (non-testable) claim. Being an atheist does not require denial; it only requires lack of assent.

Lack of assent is not a religion.

I have not read Prothero’s new book, but I read his previous one about Religious Illiteracy and it was dreadful. Every time he mentioned an atheist he had to throw in a gratuitous insult. He’s a bigot. I would keep my distance.

How is accepting the existence of something without evidence easier than rejecting something? You just have to believe a God sent himself to Earth as a man, to preach and be sacrificed (to himself) in order to save us (humans) for the purpose of persuading himself to forgive us (humans) of our sins (or the sins of some other people). How do Christians reject all the gods they have never heard of?

You can’t have a religion without supernatural beliefs. Are Confucianism and Zen Buddhism religions? No. What’s with this “committed to mystery” bullshit? Sounds like a commitment to ignorance, accept we know that religious people can’t admit they’re ignorant, they have many unjustifiable answers from the origin of the universe, the afterlife, to the apocalypse.

Stephen Prothero is an imbecile or a troll.

“you just have to believe that jesus is god sent to save us”. just cuz you believe it doesnt make it true! i believe if i buy enough powerball tickets i will win the lottery. if i’m still around in 2000yrs (yeah right) i’ll be sayin “any day now i’m gonna win cuz i believe it!”

I’m studying Hinduism right now actually, and I still don’t find it more convincing, although it seems to be one of the few religions that can easily shift around a bit. There is no shred of proof for it either, but it’s pretty interesting anyway.

Amazingly poor logic. I can see that it might be psychologically easier to accept a belief in one god and reject all the others than to reject all gods, but that’s not what he’s saying.

One more person to ignore.

Yes, but the thing is, there ARE scores of atheist Buddhists, as I know has been extensively pointed out before. Karma and rebirth are not necessary to Buddhism, neither is the supernatural in any form.

If you insist that it is, that’s like saying the Pope is essential to all Christianity. That’s neither true nor fair to the many different branches that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Pope.

Now if you want to delve into Pure Lands for instance, the supernatural such as karma and rebirth are integrated. But it is not integral to all Buddhism.

All you need for Buddhism (IMHOYMMV) is to believe that 3000 years ago a guy named Siddhartha figured out and set forth a worthy set of guidelines to resolve human suffering, and that you would like to attempt to follow or integrate those teachings into your life.

That’s it. Fin, end, full stop. Anything else is a bonus. While it won’t make you a Theravada Buddhist or Zen Buddhist, it will make you a Buddhist, if an informal one.

What makes it a religion? That’s the thing – not much does. Several branches most certainly fit the label, but it cannot be said of all, particularly the westernized versions.

I think it would be truer to the argument at hand to question the assumption that everyone feels the need for a religion, rather than eliminating Buddhism as an ineligible choice for endorsing the supernatural.

To give Hemant credit he said “many forms,” however then it seems he went on to dismiss/negate atheist Buddhists completely. It’s entirely possible I missed the point in favor of jumping to the defense of my POV, though.

P.S. I loved the “species of unicorns” analogy. I’mma dork.

Prothero was pushing his book in “The Colbert Report” the other week. I thought it might’ve been an interesting book at first, but one of Colbert’s questions re: one of the Indian religions confused Prothero (it didn’t confuse me), but Prothero gave a confused answer.

And I sat there and thought, Wait a minute, you just wrote a book on all these freaking religions, how the hell did you get Hinduism/Buddhism wrong? Are you not an expert on religions?

No. No, he is not.

“Perhaps they just feel committed to scientific evidence rather than mystery?

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels!”

In all fairness, I have not read anything by Mr. Prothero other than what you have posted here, Hemant but if this quote is any indication, he is about the most inanely stupid and intellectually dishonest writer to get published, right behind Glen Beck and Bill O’Reiley.

And why is this guy so intent on selling a religion, ANY religion, to atheist? It’s as if he’s frightened by our very existance.

@David H.

Thank you! I was reading this article and wondering if it was the guy who not too long ago made me yell at my TV over exactly what you said. You wrote a fucking book on the differences of various religions!! How can you not answer that question?? I’m guessing anyone who was planning on reading his book would be better served spending an hour or two on wikipedia…or doing anything else. Hell, pray for the knowledge to magically be inserted into your head. It has about as much chance of working as reading his literary abortion.

“With Christianity, you just have to affirm that Jesus is God and sent to the world to save the world. With atheism, you have to reject every single god”

Actually, I haven’t rejected any god. Rejecting something implies you are turning against something that actually exists. Since Mr. Prothero and his ilk have failed miserably to convince me why I should accept the existance of any of their invisible sky monsters, I clearly have not rejected any god, as there is nothing there to reject.

Dawkins can sell some books, but look how many Glenn Beck sells. Bashing atheists sells too. Who knows what sort of pay day Prothero will get when he signs up as a Fox News religion commentator.

Kind of funny. He started off gentle, as a kind of part-time atheist. He’s converged to an all-out basher.

Not that special. The ratio of backlash books to recent skeptic books is staggering if you go the the bookstore shelves.

It’s actually kind of helpful. I think it’s pretty clear now what he’s on about.

Gibbon again:

At this point I’m simply going to say that more than anyone else atheists are obsessed with the supernatural. The vast majority of religious people are more concerned with whether they are living the right life rather than the supernatural, whereas the atheists or the New Atheists at least, are stuck on the idea of the supernatural and belief in it. It’s sad really, they’re obsessed with what they reject.

You’re absolutely right. They’re not concerned with the supernatural, because they don’t bother to question its existence. They just take it as a given. We, on the other hand, actually care if it exists, and take the time to question what people say.

Atheism is not a religion, its a personal relationship with reality.

@Flial

The poison arrow is more about ending suffering, you might want to check the Jain story of the six blind men and the elephant, which is more to the point, but I’d object to since there might not be an elephant.

Wow, Stephen Prothero’s sounding more and more like a moron. Every time he talks about atheists, he just says more stupid things that make me dislike him more. Atheists are intellectually dishonest? As opposed to theists who believe in god(s) despite the lack of any evidence for it? I think Prothero needs to go learn some things about atheists instead of making up bullshit about us.

Gibbon,

But it’s a valid point. How can you reject what you don’t know? If you don’t know that there are aliens living on a planet that’s orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, how can you reject the notion that there is? Likewise, if you don’t know if there is a god or not, and no one in fact knows, then you can’t reject the whole notion of god(s).

Reject means not accept or acknowledge. Most atheists I’ve met say you should not accept propositions that do not logically follow or do not have sufficient evidence in support of them. It’s implied that most atheists would not accept gods they do not currently know about, if they’re not supported by evidence.

It’s implied that Christians, who are monotheists (reject all gods but one) and strong atheists (reject all gods in principle), even ones they don’t know about. Prothero has a point against himself.

At this point I’m simply going to say that more than anyone else atheists are obsessed with the supernatural. The vast majority of religious people are more concerned with whether they are living the right life rather than the supernatural, whereas the atheists or the New Atheists at least, are stuck on the idea of the supernatural and belief in it. It’s sad really, they’re obsessed with what they reject.

Religious people are concerned with whether they are living the life that something supernatural wants them to lead. You irrationally deny religions are about supernatural belief. What is theology about? What are religious texts about? What a sermons about? What are prayers about? What are rituals about? Supernatural beliefs. Religious people by definition are very much concerned with the supernatural.

I think one of the many problems with understanding the difference between religion and atheism in the word believe. It drives me crazy when a Christians say “you have your beliefs and I have my beliefs” as if the two are equal. It is like a creationist saying that evolution is just a “theory”.
I don’t “believe” that their religion is fictional because I just woke up one morning and decided to be an atheist, or because someone told me it was fake. I “believe” it is all made up because just about every ounce of evidence is contrary to what they say is true. They have no basis for their “beliefs” except what someone told them, and a text that most of them know nothing about, with the exception of the title and a few of the books it contains. A text that has been show time and time again to be full of contradictions, immorality, impossibilities and out right untruths.
The average person doesn’t understand that most words can have a slightly different meaning given the context. This is because everything has been watered down by religion, poor education, and popular culture/media.
Atheists need to use a word other than “belief” to describe our views. As long as we keep using it we are going to continue to sound like nothing more than another religion.

Honeycutt said:
“Science explores and presents FAR more of the mystery of the universe than any religion ever has or ever will. Science just has much more strict rules about what kind of stuff you can make up.”

Wonderful! That’s a keeper.

Gibbon;

“But it’s a valid point. How can you reject what you don’t know? If you don’t know that there are aliens living on a planet that’s orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, how can you reject the notion that there is? Likewise, if you don’t know if there is a god or not, and no one in fact knows, then you can’t reject the whole notion of god(s)”

*snort*–that’s a good one. Because every person of faith in this world has done a thorough examination of every major world religion before chosing the “one true religion” and rejecting the others. Please, throw another one my direction–I need a good laugh.

Oh, and in case your question is serious, because all notions of god(s) are untennable hogwash supported by neither evidence or logic.

But it’s a valid point. How can you reject what you don’t know? If you don’t know that there are aliens living on a planet that’s orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, how can you reject the notion that there is? Likewise, if you don’t know if there is a god or not, and no one in fact knows, then you can’t reject the whole notion of god(s).

This is basically nonsense. The first part of the question “are their aliens living on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy”?” is “what do you mean by aliens?”. If your definition of aliens is “life forms” then the next question is “Do we have any evidence for the existence of life forms?”. Of course we do we have an abundance of evidence for the existence of life forms, right here on earth. From there it is an entirely reasonable proposition to suggest that “if there is a planet in the Andromeda galaxy that satisfies the prerequisites for the existence of life then there may be aliens on your hypothetical planet”.

There is no evidence for the existence of gods or the supernatural. Therefore there is no reason to assume that gods or the supernatural exist, here or on Andromeda. Remember there’s a word for supernatural things that have been observed. That word is “natural”.

Then I hope they never read a novel, since mystery lies at the heart of so many novels!

This is a fairly typical dig at those joyless atheists who can’t feel a sense of wonder or beauty at the universe. It’s also wrong. It doesn’t stop me from enjoying a book or a film just because I know it isn’t real.

Not to mention that it’s just plain insulting to insinuate that you should pick a religion if one can be twisted around to pick the fact that you live your life based on facts and not poorly-written torture smut.

@geekgazette

evolution is indeed just a theory, this is true 😛 they just dont know the difference between a theory and a hypothisis is all lol i always say those people do need to look them up in a dictionary at some point ^_^

Prothero describes a religion as having four things in this new book. Creed, cult (ritual, holiday), scripture, and community. He actually tried to show that atheists had all these things and were therefore a religion (he couldn’t find anything for the cult other than Darwin day lol). And he tried to say that atheists use ayn rand’s books as scripture. The guy is obviously an idiot. I mean his chapter on Santeria/Yoruba was more pleasant than the one on atheists and that’s almost all superstition and fortune telling. I think the more out there the religion, the more he approves.

I don’t know what I’m doing wrong. My link to the Extian lyrics seems to keep disappearing so let’s try it again:

http://www.lyricsoncall.com/lyrics/greydon-square/extian-lyrics.html

@Gibbon
“If you don’t know that there are aliens living on a planet that’s orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, how can you reject the notion that there is? Likewise, if you don’t know if there is a god or not, and no one in fact knows, then you can’t reject the whole notion of god(s).”

Because I can devise, imagine and accept a rationally or scientifically valid model of how aliens came to be and live in another galaxy. It’s something outside the realm of my experience, but it’s plausible.

There is nothing rational or plausible about omnipotent, omniscient, invisible, metaphysical and invisible “sky beings”/gods. It’s pure imagination without any basis in reality.

Atheism is not a religion, it’s a personal relationship with reality.

It’s witty and catchy but a little condescending.

A less confrontational (but less bumper-sticker worthy) version would be

Atheism is not a religion, it’s merely skepticism as applied to religious belief.

I would also like to echo other comments that I enjoy reading fiction. I have no problem enjoying a good novel (or story) even if I know the characters are made up. There is a difference between enjoying something and believing something.

I think it’s fair to have a level headed discussion with him. Not confrontational, but bringing quotes and ask him to reconcile it with your actual views is very legitimate.

If you feel negatively stereotyped it is also OK to say so, in a non-confrontational way of course.

Heck I wish more people actually read the Minnesota study of mistrust of atheists before claiming to write scholarly about it.

Gibbon

You can not reject what you don’t know.

Nor is there any need to. Given that nobody knows about gods why accept or reject them?

The only difference between these unknown things and god is that we have a starting point for the latter

I’m afraid that we don’t have any such thing. “God” is a concept without a decent explanation. If you think that “a supernatural being” explains anything then you’re wrong. The word “supernatural” itself serves to obfuscate any reasonable enquiry by removing the burden of evidence and reason from it. Furthermore it is a lazy way of saying that you have no explanation for something without admitting your ignorance.

you have no basis on which to reject it other than the inability of humans to perceive or experience anything that may exist beyond the natural world

Can you demonstrate that anything exists beyond the natural world? If not then why are you making any claim about it?

I know you’ve answered this but it is worth repeating.

You irrationally deny religions are about supernatural belief. What is theology about? What are religious texts about? What a sermons about? What are prayers about? What are rituals about? Supernatural beliefs. Religious people by definition are very much concerned with the supernatural.

Some religious people are. Some are more reasonable.

For the record:

Theology: the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

Religious texts: A sacred writing or book; An authoritative statement. Typically myths and cultural commentary surrounding one or more figures important to the religion.

Sermon: An address of a religious nature or moral rebuke.

Prayer: To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. 🙂 Or less sarcastically the act of praying can also be viewed as a ritualised time where the subject orders their thoughts and puts their actions and desires within a moral or religious context.

Ritual: a set of actions, performed mainly for their symbolic value. It may be prescribed by a religion or by the traditions of a community. The term usually excludes actions which are arbitrarily chosen by the performers, or dictated purely by logic, chance, necessity, etc

Supernatural beliefs are not a prerequisite for any of these. Many adherents to faiths will ascribe a supernatural context to these actions but they are unnecessary.

The issue here is that religious opinion is quite diverse. Undoubtedly there are superstitious adherents to religious dogma and these can be frustrating to deal with. There are also many rational and reasonable religious folk but you don’t tend to find them on the Internet. 😉

To ask ‘what is religion’ is to open a question that has been virtually impossible to answer.

Really? I googled the question and got 61,600,000 results so it seems as if 61 million sites have at least posed the question and attempted an answer. Wikipedia does a bang up job actually with: “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

A bit vague and it clearly doesn’t cover everything but it’ll do as a starting point.

Gibbon,

Religious people reject and accept things which they do not know about, explicitly. A few atheists reject explicitly all gods, they are called strong atheists. These two groups exist, therefore it must be possible or they lie when they affirm that they are e.g. monotheists or strong atheists. Most atheists do not explicitly reject gods they do not know about, but implicitly reject any proposition of a god without sufficient evidence, which must include gods of dead cultures they have never heard of. Rejection of gods is rejecting barely anything, and there needs be no other basis than lack of experience to reject something.

It seems I’ll have to explain to you what the terms I mentioned mean. Theology is the study of a god or gods, the divine, supernatural beings. Scripture, accounts from prophets (people who claim to speak for supernatural beings) taken to be true and authoritative by believers to some degree. A sermon is a speech delivered by a prophet, or a member of clergy invoking the prophets. Rituals are performed actions to commune, please, appease, honour, or request from supernatural beings. Prayer is to commune with supernatural beings in thought or words. These things did not originate with Christianity, supernatural beliefs have been an essential part of religion for much longer than Christianity has existed. All other religions contain beliefs of a supernatural nature that have to be considered to understand their practices and laws.

Charles, that’s a particularly cruel thing to say about the religious. Are you truly so much better than us?

he wrongly calls atheism a religion with our own brand of fundamentalists

It’s a regularly heard argument, but one which is easily dismissed by resorting to a long word: epistemology.

Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge; what is knowledge and how is it generated?

For atheists knowledge is something that comes from observation and the study of the world. For theists knowledge is something that comes from faith – in denial of evidence if necessary.

This is where religions differ from atheism. They have a common epistemological perspective which is fundamentally different from that of atheism, and that is why atheism is not simply another religion. It is instead a wholly different philosophical position.

Karen Harbster, I love questions so I’ll try to answer yours. Bear in mind that we atheists aren’t a unified group and we don’t follow any sort of agreed tenets so my answers may well be different from the next atheist’s answers.

How does an atheist explain the wonder of the creation that is all around us?

Well not by calling it “creation” for a start. Personally I’m in awe of the magnificence of the universe, its vastness and diversity from a sub atomic particle to the effect of black holes. It is all rather grand. Fortunately we have some excellent tools at our disposal to help us to understand this. These tools are called “science” and they do a bang up job of finding answers to questions about the universe.

Where did it all/we all come from?

When a man and a woman love each other very much…. We are the products of successful matings from organisms who have beaten the odds and survived. There is an unbroken line between you or me all the way back to the time of the dinosaurs and beyond.

Could all of this beauty be an accident, explosion, or freak of nature?

Obviously yes. That is what the evidence suggests and we follow the evidence even if the answer isn’t what we would prefer. Not doing so is dishonest and does us no favours.

How did it all come to be and how does it continue to exist?

Look to history and science for an answer to that.