Interpreter Against Atheism - Truly Lame, Truly LAME

[_Philo Sofee]

Lou Midgley’s Sophomoric Jab at Atheism – Laughably Inept https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/athei ... c-dubiety/

Having precious few academic credentials, one would suppose it is fool-hardy to argue against one with substantial academic credentials. But, so I proceed to do, largely because Lou Midgley’s academic credentials are irrelevant for his inept handling of atheism in an article (“Atheist Piety: A Religion of Dogmatic Dubiety”, Louis C. Midgley, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 1 (2012): 111-147.)

His own dubious arguments against “the desperate darkness” in the world, (his own label of atheism), are unconvincing in light of what actual qualified atheists have stated, which I will look at.
We the unintelligent ignorant masses expect the enlightened academic gods of our world to have better arguments, sounder reasoning, and firmer evidences when disputations arise. In this case of Midgley, we are sorely disappointed.

I grasp the fact that Midgley focuses on a very narrow kind of atheism (yes, that’s right, atheism is not a single monolithic “church” of any sort, contra Midgley), namely that of Paul Kurtz and his publication “Free Inqiuiry”, as well as George D. Smith of Signature Books. I believe this is largely because of the constant pressure they have applied to Mormon’s sloppy scholarship and cherry picking research on the history of polygamy, among other historic topics the church has completely muffed up on with their silly “faith promoting” agenda, that Midgley is attempting damage control and trying to convince Mormons not to take these sources against Mormonism seriously. These critiques have been printed for decades, with regular updates (new books and articles) as new information comes in, and it keeps the apologists in quite uncomfortable positions of testifying to the “truth” while using garrish historical methods and forced interpretations in order to not rile the modern leadership of the church, who, themselves, have used garish “faith promoting” flim flam. Midgley takes this janitor cleaning up of the mess the church has made of their own history seriously. It’s what makes his critique so off base however. Really quite silly stuff. It seems as if he thinks hey, all I have to do is show atheism is silly, and Mormonism is in the clear. To keep it short, no. Sorry.

I won’t bother with all the little inneundos and carping he puts forth, but will focus on just one paragraph that has egregious errors that can possibly be forgiven of an amateur, but we are talking a very educated man here making such ribald claims. Inexcusable really.

Taking a particular and then generalizing it is a fallacy Midgley is guilty of in his article. He appears to believe that by refuting Kurtz and Smith he has buried all secular humanism and atheism. An argument must simply do better than this. Sorry.

What particular point did Midgley mess up with? He contends atheism is just another religion and belief system after all. And it’s not at all satisfactory either. So says Midgley. Well, so far as I can tell from my reading of the atheist arguments Midgley has to ignore virtually 99% of the atheist comments and arguments themselves! Is that a legitimate method to make a claim stick? Not likely. Sorry.

It appears Midgley’s mesmerized gaze on Kurta and Smith gave him tunnel vision and he imagined that demolishing them takes the wind out of all atheism, thereby showing it a false religion (what a gaffe!) and hence Mormonism is what it says it is, the only true restored religion on earth. But Midgley never actually engages in any actual atheist arguments and he rushed to the apologetic strategy of labeling it negatively, and imagining that was all there was to do. No. Sorry. Neither a refutation is seen, nor any evidence set forth showing Midgley’s God is actual with any kind of real evidence. You won’t get either in this essay of Midgley’s.

My thinking is this. If atheists are so vocal and “militant”, (one of the silliest labels of apologists for atheism) perhaps actually reading what they say would give us insights into what they think. And if anyone would know if atheism is really a religion, wouldn’t it be logical to go to the very top and see what the President of American Atheists has to say? I mean, gosh, if anyone would know, wouldn’t a person in that position know something about this?

Now, I know David Silverman’s 2015 book was not available to Midgley in 2012 when he wrote his diatribe against atheism, but it’s available now. Has he yet read it, and admitted his haste in incorrectly labeling atheism as a religion? I suspect not. An apologist admitting they were wrong and apologizing is more heinous to them than if they said Jesus Christ was just a myth and never even really existed as a person.

Silverman (“Fighting God,” St. Martin’s Press, 2015) says it so plainly that in all abject honesty, it’s so obvious. “Absence (rather than opposition) is indicated by the “a” – prefix meaning without, hence atheism can be concisely characterized as without theism. Theism is constantly defined as ‘belief in the existence of a god or gods, so atheism is therefore the absence of belief in the existence of god or gods,’ which makes it a broad term that has many implications, not just absolute denial. Atheism is without that belief, not against it. Got it?” (p. 6). John Gray’s brand new book out “Seven Types of Atheism,” (2018) p. 2 and p. 4, confirms and supports this.

Well! I mean, there goes Midgley’s strawman claim that “they failed to see that their own community – grounding, meaning – granting belief system or ultimate concern, constitutes their struggle to meet their own emotional or intellectual needs. Put bluntly, militant atheism is a secular religion at war with the moral discipline and consolation provided by faith in God.” (p. 139 of Midgley)

According to the President of American Atheists Midgley is simply wrong on many counts here. I hope it’s not immoral to allow the head dog of American Atheists to show what they are.

“Religion is about belief in a god, not a general philosophy on how we humans should behave or treat each other… the atheists answer to the question ‘do you believe in God?’ is not ‘I believe in treating humans well,’ it’s no. The answer to ‘What is your religion?’ is None – I’m an atheist.” (p. 9) So we see a problem in the apologetic cause against atheism by attempting to make atheism a religion, as Midgley incorrectly does. What we witness here is precisely what Michael Shermer says is the apologetic disease, namely having the “tendency to seek and find confirmatory evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignore or reinterpret disconfirming evidence.” [Midgley simply ignores disconfirming evidence altogether] (Shermer, “The Believing Brain,” St. Martin’s Griffin, 2011: 259).

Midgley says atheism is “militant.” What does Silverman say?

“Some call me a militant atheist. Others call me a dick. I am neither. A militant atheist, like a militant Muslim, Jew, or Christian, would be someone who uses threats or promotes violence; there is nothing violent in anything I do or endorse… I promote no harm, violence, or vandalism, opting instead to fight for equality of all people through truth and honesty.” (p. 2).

Midgley claims atheism is “…a secular religion at war with both the moral discipline and consolation provided by faith in God.” Does promoting no harm, violence, threats, and vandalism and working for the good and farness for all people, whether they are white, poor, rich, gay or lesbian, trans-sexual, black, yellow, or handicapped sound like “a war” with no moral discipline or against consolation in God?! Really? Me thinks the Mormon bias and prejudice and bigotry of the dogmatic assertions of Midgley’s argument and claims is quite telling.

So, to Silverman working through “truth and honesty” for equality and good for all people, is to Midgley a “darkness of a fallen world.” That’s just weird. Working for truth in honesty, and justice for all people is “war” for Midgley. That’s just bizarre. The bigotry of Midgley is entirely unwarranted.

Dan Barker, a former Baptist minister for decades, turned atheist, recites an interesting experience he had in Brazil where he was asked to speak and teach. Keep in mind Barker is supposedly “warring” against God here, apparently.
“Although 90% of the population claims to be Catholic, in reality most of the people practice a syncretism of Afro-Brazilian religions mixed with their Christianity, plus Pentacostalism, Islam, Buddhism, Hare Krishna, and dozens of other faiths. They don’t need more missionaries, they need free thought. They need fair economic opportunities.” (Barker, “Godless,” p. 321). Here is a country drippingly saturated with godly religions that has lousy economic opportunities. (not because of atheism being there!), and so seeking this is supposed to be immoral? Seeking to help economically and give a better life and comforts because dozens of religions have failed to do this for millions (yet the religions prosper) is war? Is against moral discipline? Let me get this straight, suppressing entire countries is considered moral?

Aikin and Talisse says “We hold that the difference between moral and immoral people is a difference of behavior and character; religious belief or lack thereof is irrelevant.” (“Reasonable Atheism,” p. 96).

Further, in light of another of Midgley’s comments – “…efforts to shed the religion label seem to me to be a bit callow, given the fact that secular humanists have not abandoned the idea that there is an atheist community, and in this sense even a kind of church, or assemblage of peoples.”, we see what an actual atheist says instead of wishful thinking of a churchy apologetic. Dan Barker noted “atheism has no church, no cult, no creed, no dogma (nor do we want such things)…” (“The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God,” p. 13). It makes one wonder why apologists are so loathe to actually look at atheism more honestly, and broadly. And we see exactly why. Atheists, their lifestyles, hopes and writings, as well as accomplishments soundly refute, and with direct empirical evidence, apologists’ arguments against them. If you want to know about atheists, then by all means, don’t ask an apologist!

Julia Sweeney, who wrote the forward to Barker’s “The Good Atheist,” said since becoming an atheist “I feel I am a much better citizen of my community, world, and family, because I no longer believe in God… I do less harm, I am more compassionate, I use actions instead of intentions (or prayer), and I am generally tougher and more resilient without God in my life.” (pp. 8-9).

Would Midgley contend she is lying because as an atheists, she is actually warring against morality? Apparently doing less harm and being more compassionate only counts when one has a God divvy up rewards for being good.

Barker says “Hundreds of millions of good people on this planet do not ‘begin with God’, do not believe in a god, yet live happy, moral, hopeful, loving, meaningful, productive, purpose-filled lives.” (“The Good Atheist” p. 19).

Would Midgley be disappointed since this doesn’t exactly sound like licentious immoral torturing of innocent 6 year olds? I mean, the assumption of having no “real” morality is usually made of atheists, is that why the jails all over the United States are populated by vastly more religious believers than the immoral atheists who are living purpose-filled and compassionate lives?

Barker, as an immoral and dark influential atheist at large, spreads his further godless filth thusly: “find something you love and work for it. Hunger, natural disasters, inequality, oppression, unfairness, predation, disease, hunger, racism, sexism, cruelty to animals, pollution, disease, invasions, aggression, corporate greed, unsafe working conditions, exploitation – these are all worth fighting.” (The Good Atheist, p. 36)

Well! What a vicious, immoral war this is against God’s children! What is this atheist doing? Isn’t it supposed to be no God, therefore anything goes, lets party, kill, maim, rape, and live it up? Shouldn’t he have been guilty of these instead of helping people out and dispensing and help gain justice for all people?

Again, Barker seems to have his priorities skewed. “We all raise families and work meaningful jobs. We all create works of art and volunteer to help others.” (p. 41).”Volunteer to help others?” What kind of idiot atheist is going to do that, when as apologists, who really know what’s going on, know atheists are really raping women, torturing snakes, worshipping Satan, and shooting everyone in the streets they run into who don’t profess disbelief in god?

What would Midgley make of Andre Comte-Sponville’s comment that “I owe much of what I am, or what I try to be, to the Christian religion… my morality has scarcely changed at all since my pious years, nor has my sensitivity…” who now, as an atheist is not fighting immorally against morality at all, but fighting ridiculous fanaticism, fundamentalism, and that which religiously harms his fellow human beings. He isn’t outside in the street throwing rocks through car windshields causing accidents, bloodshed and death as a war against morality. If Midgley would take a couple hours to read through his marvelous book “The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality,” it would really help straighten out his warped understanding of atheism.

Dan Barker quotes the notorious atheist and evil man Robert Ingersoll, who surprising said:

“The hands that help are better far
Than lips that pray.
Love is the ever gleaming star
That leads the way.
That shines, not on vague worlds of bliss,
But on a paradise in this.” (The Good Atheist,” p. 37)

There are literally hundreds of other atheist writings and comments to this effect. They may not think like religious folk, but they damn sure don’t grab the guns, go to war, kill if disbelief is not expressed by others, and force their views on the world. They can’t be a religion, since that is about believing. They are without YOUR belief. They are not going to war, they are attempting to stop religion from always going to war in the name of the god of their culture, whether “Christian USA”, “Muslim Middle East” or Jewish Holy Land dwellers.” There are no atheists in foxholes because they are not the idiots going to war in the first place! Atheists don't gather armies to kill others. All the other religious “moral” nations are doing that just fine.

[_Gadianton]

wow, thanks philo for the 30+ page yawn-fest. Just a guess, but I don't think this would see publication if it were submitted today. Back in 2012, they were just getting started, and anything the old gang could come up with was getting green-lighted, just to get the pig off the ground.

As an example of why this essay is so bad it's not worth reading, near the beginning:

However, beginning with Marx, public atheism moved from salons in Paris to the streets to become the foundation for a militant mass movement. As a result, modern atheists are not satisfied with being merely doubters,

lol. if only life were so simple.

[_spotlight]

As social animals and our ability to mirror others we have a basis for empathy which when violated results in the emotion of guilt. Since this is at present not fully explained by science we as a species for the most part have relied upon traditional myths to explain it. Then some decide that those who reject these myths reject the existence of that which the myths were invented to explain. Someone who is incapable of seeing the world through a lens different from that of their preferred myth cannot accept that the structure of empathy can stand without their mythological structural shoring to hold it together. It's the first thing one learns after escaping from a false system of belief that this structure remains intact and exists apart from the myth. Those who reject false beliefs in a diety do not reject the good within us. They reject the asserted explanations for that good by believers in dieties. Believers will balk and think the atheist is lying to himself/herself and others here but atheists who were once believers know they are not.

This piece is an example of this false certainty on the part of believers. I refer to the last 7 sentences of this drivil.

[_Johannes]

I couldn't get further than the Marx bit at the beginning. Marx is simply not an important figure in the history of atheism. Midgley ought to know that, but perhaps he is misled by the fact that his own area of specialism is political science, in which Marx is the most seminal figure of the 19th century. Marx just doesn't have that status in the history of religion and unbelief. At any event, modern American movement-atheism seems to have a distinct strand in it of rightwing libertarianism which is the antithesis of what Marx stood for.

[_Gadianton]

By the way, that line I quoted is interesting, because Migdley's reasoning is a near caricature of the worst of critical theory, postmodernism, or if not the work itself, how that work is interpreted by outsiders - A historical narrative revealing the pitfalls of a modern institution, or leaving a literal psychological mark on the minds of those affiliated with a modern institution.

but perhaps he is misled by the fact that his own area of specialism is political science, in which Marx is the most seminal figure of the 19th century

Very likely I'd say. Probably more relevant than what I was thinking. The recent Peterson paper blasting intellectualism went straight to the horses mouth for the sake of associating Marxism with atheism, to show the new MI is way off course. What Marx has to do with Marxism let alone atheism is anyone's guess. My thought was that Migdley was trying to work in the same guilt by association for the MI, but I didn't read all 30 lame-ass pages to say for sure. But I'm certain he went with what he knew, as you suggest, rather than really research the subject.

Migdley has openly used postmodernism to defend the Church but that's not what he's doing here, this is just plain bad reasoning. Lacking any peer review, or culture of skepticism among his associates, he won't have much opportunity to correct the error.

Oh -- I don't blame Migdley though. Say what you will about Ezra being a better man than Protagoras, but if Ezra were to ever have the opportunity of viewing pictures of earth taken from space, he might rush to the feet of a Protagoras to take some notes himself.

[_Dr. Shades]

What particular point did Midgley mess up with? He contends atheism is just another religion and belief system after all.

Someone should remind Midgley that if atheism is just another religion, then infertility is just another parenthood.

[_aussieguy55]

Where was their God when his people were being gassed?

[_moksha]

Get your Kindle version of the attack here:
https://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Piety-Religion-Dogmatic-Dubiety-ebook/dp/B0096LX2DQ

The original article that Professor Midgley was attacking:
https://secularhumanism.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/08/FI-ON-11.pdf
Go to page 21.

[_SuperDell]

Still can't figure out WHY any of these jokers even care if someone does not believe in God.

[_SteelHead]

Probably because atheism totally eviscerates apologetics, both Mormon and christian - with the simple ask: evidence?