“New Atheism” Project – Book Critiques: Schaeffer
Schaeffer, Frank. Patience With God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism. Cambridge: DaCapo Press, 2009.
Right away the title is very misleading. It would be more accurate to claim the primary audience is anyone who lacks the slightest critical thinking skills. Atheism in parentheses is also an odd choice since the entire first half of the book is devoted to bashing atheists. Schaeffer seems to think he is offering a fair and valid critique of atheist beliefs. This is both laughable and horrifying.
“I’d pray it whether I believed there is a God or not, for the same reason that on a lovely spring morning when I’m looking at the view over the river that flows past our home I sometimes exclaim, ‘That’s beautiful!’ out loud, even when I’m alone.” ( ix)
The first stupid comment is made. If a person didn’t believe in God what would be the point of praying? Why even bother penning such lines let alone an entire book? It also seems to imply that beauty and an appreciation of beauty is dependent on supernatural forces.
The first hints of Schaeffer’s ignorance of what an atheist actually is and what he/she may or may not believe comes from his use of the term “New Atheists.” Right around page x he starts using it. Though by the time he started writing this work it was in common usage, if he made even the slightest effort to look into “Atheism” he should have realized that it is essentially a derogatory term meant to belittle atheists. It is also based entirely on misinterpretations, misrepresentations, prejudices, and outright lies.
“I believe the ideological opposites I’ll be talking about – atheism and fundamentalist religion – often share the same fallacy: truth claims that reek of false certainties.” (xiii)
We hit a bonanza in a single sentence. This one is just chock full of myths and bullshit. First, “Atheism” isn’t really an “ism.” It is not a belief system in itself. There are no set doctrines or principles that atheists share in common. If you’re an atheist you share only one thing in common and even that is not a completely unified view. You believe there is no God or you disbelieve God. It is somewhat of a subtle difference but there is one which I will get into later.
With that established it is impossible to be a fundamentalist atheist, as implied above. There is no shared “ideology.” So what could the fundamentals be? A lack of belief in God? That just goes back to the definition of atheist.
“Certainty” among the “New Atheists” is a myth. All those Schaeffer mentions by name and even those he does not have either written and/or verbally stated the exact opposite. It is true that some only grudgingly concede the possibility of being wrong and then mainly out of respect for Science and the Scientific method but they do concede the point. Once again, cursory investigations into this false notion would have revealed it to be complete garbage.
“But I believe that my journey is worth describing because my life experiences have led me to believe that there are better choices than being asked to decide between atheistic cosmic nothingness and fundamentalist heavenly pantomines.” (xxi)
Essentially this is a false dichotomy. Even the most cursory self examination should expose this as such. Who told Schaeffer those were his only options? This seems to be more about perceptions than anything else. I also don’t see how anyone can reach the conclusion that atheism automatically leads to “cosmic nothingness.” Science reveals a rather fascinating cosmos.
“If only making ourselves happy, kind, and tolerant were as simple as giving up religious faith. If that’s all it took, the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao would have been such nice places to live, and for that matter, our secularized universities would be filled with saints, instead of back-stabbing intellectuals ready to destroy each other over who gets tenure.” (4)
So much ignorance and so many biases make it hard to choose where to start. I find it hard to believe that Schaeffer has actually read any of the atheists he claims to be critiquing. Since I have read them and do not recall a single one of them claiming that giving up faith would be easy for most people it seems to be a fabrication. I also don’t recall them insisting that that alone would solve anything. I do remember them talking about giving up faith as a necessary starting point. As for the Communist ideologues you bring up I assume it is yet another attempt by an ill informed bad intentioned theist to smear Atheist by make direct connections to Communism that simply don’t exist. The communism of Russia and China (specific variations of a very general theory) fail for a wide variety of reasons. Communism, by the way, opposed religion for the same reason it opposed all potential outside sources of influence: Power. As a single party system Communism would not and could not tolerate any source of authority beyond its own. Secular or religious sources were both persecuted and minimized as much as possible. If Schaeffer had done any research what so ever he should have figured that out.
What does Schaeffer know about the universities? It sounds like he is just expressing unfounded prejudices rather than make a serious point. As for “Saints” that is just being an idiot. If faith were eliminated there would be no saints. Most of the so called saints were not that wonderful, anyway. St. Patrick hated the Irish. He did more to persecute and destroy the Irish than just about any other contemporary figure. What is so saintly about ignorance, intolerance, and persecution?
“We want to believe in something to help us explain our self-contemplating nature. One thing we can count on: Everyone has faith in something, even if it is faith in having no faith.” (4)
This statement is only partially true but completely misleading. It not only implies that all beliefs are basically equal but also that the various definitions of faith allow it to be used for secular purposes. Theists don’t seem capable of agreeing on what faith actually is. In any case, it is by its nature religious and does not apply to the non-religious. If Schaeffer meant to say that everyone has beliefs or everyone has a sense of trust he should have said so more clearly.
I do not have faith. I have well founded beliefs that I can demonstrate and defend with something that at least resembles proof.
“There have been many best-selling books recently published proselytizing for or against faith in God.” (5)
“Proselytizing”? I don’t think he knows what the definition of this word is. I’ll help out out on this one. According to The New Lexicon Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language:
“Proselytize – to make or try to make converts.”
Most of the “new atheists” have stated that they don’t really care that much about what people believe or don’t believe. They would not care at all except that many religious beliefs have been used for negative purposes. If theists kept their beliefs a personal matter and never used them to create public policy or to harass and/or persecute others most atheists would not find it necessary to engage them at all. Some of the “new atheists” have used the term in the same way many have also used “new atheist.” It has become common terminology therefore rather difficult to avoid. Personally, I prefer “persuade” and similar terms.
“Some of the New Atheists make insulting claims about religion. For instance, Dennet coined a self-referential term for atheists, ‘Bright,’ that, by inference, leaves the rest of us, who believe in God, as ‘Dim.’” (6)
First, so what? How many religions don’t routinely demonize atheists? Second, get the facts straight. Did Schaeffer ever bother to read his own writing? The bit about “self-referential” is right but the rest is screwed up. Schaeffer obviously has not really read anything about the Brights since even a few minutes fact checking or investigating would have led to one of the best known pieces written about the Brights by a Bright. Dennett, who is mentioned by name, wrote an article, “The Bright Stuff”, for the New York Times. It is incredibly easy to get copies and only takes ten minutes or so to read. The Brights have a website and do have a copy posted. The second paragraph of which reads:
“The term ‘bright’ is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group –which has a history stretching back to the enlightenment, if not before- could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don’t confuse the noun with the adjective: ‘I’m bright’ is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.”
The second paragraph! Just how ignorant and lazy can an individual be? So, not only did Dennett not coin the term but he and the others never intended it to say anything about anyone but themselves. If you’re going to make a claim you might want to look into whether it is actually true. The two men who coined the term were Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell.
“I agree with religious people, too: Atheism has killed many more millions of people, specifically in the name of godless ideologies, than all religions combined ever killed in the name of God or any gods.” (7)
Of course Schaeffer agrees with religious people. Not only is he religious and lack any critical thinking skills he’s already demonstrated pretty clearly that he is extremely biased against atheists. The notion that “atheism” kills let alone that it has killed more than religion is utter nonsense. Since Stalin is mentioned in the next sentence I’ll start with him. Nothing he ever did was done in the name of or for the sake of atheism. Yes, he was an atheist. Yes, he committed atrocities. However, they were all done either for the sake of Communism or for personal power. Communism, by the way, is not synonymous with atheism. Communism discouraged and outright persecuted religion for the sake of power. As a single party system Communism could not tolerate any source of authority outside itself. It made no difference whether that source was secular or religious. A case could also be made that all the trickery, manipulation, and violence Stalin was known for he learned from his severe religious upbringing. His mother literally beat his scriptural lessons into him. In the end not a single atrocity has ever been committed either in the name of or for the sake of “Atheism.” The same cannot be said for religion or God.
“It seems to me that the various New Atheist priests, prophets, and gutrus have one thing in common: They are old-fashioned literalists. The tone of their books strikes me as stuck in pre-modern time warp.” (7)
Who exactly is Schaeffer referring to? There are no priests, prophets , or gurus among atheists. This is a false analogy. Atheism is not a religion. Technically it isn’t really an “ism” at all. It is not an organized system of beliefs. There is only one thing that unites atheists and even that can be debated. Either you believe there is no God (positive position) or you don’t believe in God (negative position). That’s it. Literalists? Schaeffer is a Christian. Where does he think his beliefs come from? If it weren’t for the New Testament there probably wouldn’t be a Christian faith. The earliest information, emphasis on information since there isn’t a single verifiable fact, about Christ comes from 5 scriptures; the four Gospels and the Letters of Paul. The entire religion is built on a foundation of scripture! How is that not literalist? When religious people argue they tend to fall back on scripture so why wouldn’t an atheist counter their arguments by going after the source of their arguments. It’s not our fault Christians can’t come up with decent arguments or manage to come up with anything on their own. If you want to whine about being pre-modern I suggest you do it in front of a mirror.
“Because everything must have happened at least once in an infinite universe, maybe that explains, well everything. The problem is that these are just words. They could just as well be used to argue the probability of the existence of God in a limitless universe where everything must have happened at least once...” (8)
I’m going to give Schaeffer the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a case of misunderstanding Dawkins rather than an intentional misrepresentation. A rather important detail has been left out. Everything that is possible must have happened. This may seem subtle but it makes all the difference. If it cannot be demonstrated, and it has yet to be demonstrated, the probability of God than there is no reason to conclude such a being exists in an infinite universe. As for “just words,” everything is just words until meaning is made from them. Why write books if they are “just words”?
“My definition of fundamentalist, religious or otherwise, is the impulse to find The answer, a way to shut down the question-asking part of one’s brain.”
That’s interesting since it is the exact opposite of the scientific method. Most of the “new atheists” Schaeffer claims to be critiquing are either scientists or have a considerable amount of respect for the scientific method. All of them have stated they are willing to review their own beliefs if theists provide actual evidence. That does not sound fundamentalist to me. Once again, It is not our fault theists can’t come up with any arguments that can withstand examination. It is also not our fault theists have no evidence of any kind.
“The New Atheists, like there evangelical fundamentalist counterparts, aren’t on an intellectual journey.” (11)
Wow! That is a pretty strong statement to make. What is this based on? It already seems pretty clear that if Schaeffer read anything by the atheists mentioned it was very cursory at best. I’m not even convinced he understands the terms he’s been using. Most of the atheists named are constantly questioning and exploring the various concepts related to their fields and to those outside them as well. How is that not an intellectual journey? Schaeffer would do well to re-read whatever it is he thinks he’s read. This time pay attention. If you have trouble with some idea or other, have someone help you with it.
Schaeffer quotes Harris:
“As long as it is acceptable for a person to believe that he knows how God wants everyone on earth to live, we will continue to murder one another on account of our myths… It is time we recognize that all reasonable men and women have a common enemy. It is an enemy so near to us, and so deceptive, that we keep its counsel even as it threatens to destroy the very possibility of human happiness. Our enemy is nothing other than faith itself” (11)
To some degree this quote seems to support a lot of what Schaeffer has said about fundamentalist religion. No, Harris is not one just for pointing it out. He is not saying or even implying he has “The answer.” He is merely pointing out one particular factor that is in the way of finding solutions. A factor that is in itself a source of problems.
Schaeffer quotes Guardian columnist Andrew Brown as if he’s some sort of expert on religion/atheism. Brown comments that the “New Atheism” is more of a “political rather than an intellectual or scientific movement.” (12)
Bellow is a fuller quotation from the same column:
“In the same ways it can be understood as the canary in the coal mine of American power and exceptionalism. Before [financial] crash [of 2008-09], when it was possible to believe that global capitalism would go on making us richer and more liberal forever… the new atheism was one of a few ways to express disbelief and fear and loathing in the way the world is going. Religion became a synecdoche for everything that might go wrong, so that belief in the evil qualities of Faith was not so very different belief in the evils of witchcraft.” (12) also “New Atheism, a definition and quiz” on Guardian.co.uk
Schaeffer’s choice of columnist to quote is as odd as the exact column chosen to quote from. Brown lacks any semblance of objective criteria or research skills. He not only admits to being very biased in other columns he has indirectly admitted to being an anti-intellectual who is himself certainly not on “an intellectual journey.” In the same column quoted above, two lines further in he states, “…I thought I would try to define the New Atheism that I, and others, so dislike.” No prejudice there. More than ten years prior he also admitted, “…writing about religion for a living, I realize that almost everything worthwhile I know about the subject I learnt in the first three months…” This gem of Brown came from his 28 March 1997 column, “True confessions of a religious correspondent.” It doesn’t get any better. His opinions seem to be based entirely on his opinions. Great source of authority. Then there is the question of the implication that social and political movements are of little or no value. And that such movement lack intelligence. This is wrong on both counts. Despite attempts by theist to hijack such movements as Civil Rights, they were secular in nature. The movement existed long before MLK Jr. Many, even the religious, did not rely solely on religion to justify their beliefs and actions.
The level of ingnorance regarding Christian history is also astounding. How is Christianity itself not a product of social and political movements. Christianity did not emerge as a major religion until after Constantine made it the official faith of the Roman Empire. There is reason to believe that he himself was not a devoted Christian that his decision was politically motivated. All religions have routinely interfered in and infused itself in social and political movements.
Chapter 2, “How Many Ways Are there to Say, ‘There Is No Go’”, seems to be adequately summed up by three main points:
1. Atheists repeat themselves
2. Atheism is a religion
3. Atheism/secularism kills
Is there a problem with repetition? Why shouldn’t atheists keep talking and writing. Theists have yet to stop repeating themselves. Our culture, in case you haven’t noticed, is saturated with religion. This seems like a double standard to me.
Atheism, once again, is not a religion. Atheists do not have any doctrines, rites&rituals, clergy, sacred texts, or any other such religious elements. Equating leaders and literature produced by atheists with religion is silly on the face of. Are prominent individuals and “experts” in other fields seen in this way? I have yet to come across the Holy Church of Drucker or the Temple of Bill Gates.
The notion that Atheism or secularism have led to atrocities in the same way belief in God or following a particular religion has led to atrocities is a blatant myth. Yes, atheists have committed atrocities but none, to the best of my knowledge, have ever done so in the name of or for the sake of atheism or secularism.
“…the violent side of the recent experiment in Secularism: the blood drenched twentieth century and the inhumane barbarity of today’s Chinese rulers, or, say the greed and bloody brutality of the Castro Family
Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, the scientist who recently led the eugenics movement, and the like did not oppress their and/or liquidate them in the name of God.” (24)
Which of those individuals did anything in the name of Atheism? Not in the name of God? Hitler mat not have been a good Christian by most Christians’ standards but he was a Christian never the less.
“Therefore, I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator: By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.” (Hitler 84)
“This Perseverance is only and always the result of a certain spiritual conviction. All force which does not spring from a firm spiritual foundation will be hesitating and uncertain.” (Hitler 222)
“…the shame of blood mixing…To bring about such development means nothing less than sinning against the will of the Eternal Creator,” (Hitler 392)
These are merely three examples from Mein Kampf of the numerous times Hitler sites his own religious views and how they prove that he is the champion of all true believers and Aryans. How can he possibly be seen as an Atheist. He also was not a secularist. He killed Bonhoeffer for not playing along with his use of Protestant Christianity (the Catholic church did negotiate with him).
Most of the others in your list eventually became atheists. However, they had demonstrated their megolomaniacal and violent tendencies long before. It could be argued that everything Stalin learned about violence and coercion he learned through his mother’s way of literally beating his religious lessons into him.
If by secularism and atheism it is meant to mean Communism, the two are not synonymous. This false sense of guilt by association has already been commented on above.
Chapter 3 “Why Does Dawkins Oppose Faith with Lapel Pins?”, seems to be best summarized by two main points:
1. Schaeffer dislikes Atheists marketing their ideas and works
2. Schaeffer goes back to the tired Atheism is a Religion, specifically fundamentalist strain, myth
The first main points seem very disingenuous to me. It is blatantly hypocritical. If you feel you have a good idea(s) why should you not seek to make the public and even make some money from them while you are at it? Christians have been doing just that for roughly two millennia. It also seems to be a bit of a double standard to insist that by merely attempting to promote your ideas and works makes you an evangelical only if you happen to be an Atheist. Is the Catholic church fundamentalist when it promotes its views? Is Nike evangelical for marketing its products around the globe? Where is the church of Pampered Chefs?
To some degree this also misrepresents, or outright perverts one of the messages that the “New Atheism” is trying to get across. Atheists are trying to convince people that religion should be treated the same way all other ideas are treated. People should not be expected or pressured into automatically respecting a religious idea simply because it is religious in nature. It should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea. Atheistic views are not exempted or to be treated special. That hardly seems like an evangelical/fundamentalist approach.
Schaeffer also seems intent on treating evolution as if it is a religious doctrine. This approach is very telling since it reveals a lack of understanding at even the most basic level of what science is and how it is conducted. I am unaware of any individuals or groups, atheist or otherwise, who view the scientific theory of evolution as sacred. No scientist or individual who understands and respects science would continue to believe in the validity of evolution if a body of evidence refuting it ever surfaced.
“What simplistic evangelical/fundamentalist theology tries to explain about creation, using God as the magical Big Thing, Dawkins does with brain-melting Big Numbers wrapped in meant-to-obstruct and meant-to-intimidate science jargon.” (38)
The above passage is an excellent example of the nature of this chapter. It is outright false. Comparing Dawkins works on evolutionary biology, which were meant for a wider audience, to works produced for other scientists make it fairly obvious to any intelligent rational person that he is actually trying to simplify without dumbing down the concepts and evidence. By itself, a failure of comprehension does not prove that a person is trying to be incomprehensible. Equating Dawkins work to a fundamentalist is ludicrous. I have yet to come across any instance where Dawkins insists he is 100% correct and could not even remotely be wrong about anything. This, of course, is precisely the certainty fundamentalist insist on. Science is designed to be self-correcting rather than designed to deny any possibility of error. As for jargon, name a profession that does not use it.
Chapter 4 “Determinism religious and Secular Is the Ultimate Insanity Defense” does seem as focused as the two previous ones.
“Where atheists have a problem is in pinning down a definition of what morality is.” (43)
I fail to see how this is an atheist problem. Defining and evaluating morals seems to be rather universal. Fundamentalist like to claim they have definitive answers but they routinely demonstrate that they do not. Why should atheists be expected to have the answers to such a complex concept when no other group has managed to do so?
“The discussion between reasonable atheists and reasonable religious people might better focus not just on what it means to be a good person but also on how to become one, rather than just on competing truth claims about the abstract Big Questions, let alone swapping horror stories.” (44)
Considering what has been written up to this point Schaeffer’s views on what is “reasonable” seems highly suspect. Who are the “reasonable atheists”? Are they those who don’t speak up. There is certainly a double standard being used here. A decent portion of the book to this point is focused on “swapping horror stories.” You have already not only brought up but have tried smearing atheists with among others; Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the Castros, and eugenics. Just an aside, some of the most horrifying eugenics projects to ever be conducted were headed by Christians, most of whom were neither scientists nor knowledgeable about science. Some scientists did believe in eugenics. However, they never actually employed the scientific method to confirm their personal views.
“Wouldn’t evolution work better if there weren’t so many people doing irrational things driven by angst to despair?” (45)
This further shows how little Schaeffer understands or even attempts to understand basic science. Evolution is not a conscious process. The process has no mind or master plan. Evolution is messy. Schaeffer can not seem to separate his own mind-set from the Creationist way of understanding existence. This may be one of the reasons Schaeffer can’t get beyond the false view that science and/or atheism is a religion.
“The points that Dawkins raises sounds less like science and more like a high school debate wherein one debater has learned the trick of mentioning his opponent’s beliefs first in order to strip them of their power, not by proving anything about but just by mentioning them in a disparaging way…” (46)
This passage not only continues to attest to Schaeffer’s lack of understanding regarding science but shows he doesn’t even have a grasp of how legitimate debates are conducted. Knowing your opponents views, which Schaeffer certainly fails at, is not a “trick”. Knowing such views is one of the best ways to evaluate your own views and arguments. It is a way to find any flaws or outright errors in your own thinking. It is also an excellent way to further develop your own thoughts and strengthen your ability to convey them. Yes, summarizing an opponent’s argument is a technique often used. However, it is legitimate only when used to clarify and explain rather than to bash the other person. If by “disparaging” Schaeffer actually means critical he really does not get the point of debating in the first place.
“The truth is that logic has little to nothing to do with the way we think. We’re lucky this is so. If logic ruled us, no one would fall in love, write a novel, go sky diving, or help an old lady across the street.” (46)
And here we have an example of misunderstanding being taken to the furthest extreme possible. The “new atheists” and others encouraging reason and critical thinking are not Vulcans and are not trying to become Vulcans. Pure logic is as impossible to achieve as pure good or pure anything, for that matter. Unfortunately, Schaeffer does seem to be correct about how little logic is being used by people. Applying logic and reason to most of this book would have been a good thing. It would have prevented most of the myths, stereotypes, double standards, and biases from being so prevalent.
“Does anyone in his [Dawkins] movement have enough of a sense of humor left (after all the hours spent on v-e-r-y s-e-r-i-o-u-s debate) to see that there is a bit of irony in the Dawkins-the-rational using exactly the same kinds of religious witnessing tools (remember the Gospel Walnut) that my missionary parents used in the 1950s?” (47)
It is debatable whether “movement” is an accurate term for the string of atheist authored best-sellers that are referred to using “New Atheism”. It is certainly not Dawkins’ movement since he is only one individual and is not nearly as identical in views and background as Schaeffer seems to think. As for humor, yes, Dawkins and the others do have a sense of humor. Listen to or watch a few interviews and it will become clear that he and the other “New Atheists” do in fact have a sense of humor. In the end I am not completely sure what having a sense of humor has to do with the strength of an individual’s arguments. There is no comparison to the “witnessing tools” you shared in an anecdote about your own background. The Gospel Walnut makes use of superstition and magical thinking. Dawkins appeals to reason and logic. Dawkins uses science. It is possible to evaluate his arguments using set objective criteria. The witnessing tools if examined in the same way are reduced to nonsense.
“Calvinism is also a form of deterministic fatalism. It’s not quite right to say that Calvin thinks people were created for damnation, because that leaves out the relevance of ‘the fall’ to the whole process. Elected to eternal damnation is the correct term, but it depends on something called ‘foreknowledge’ by God of what would happen.” (47)
There’s a practical difference between being “created for damnation” and being “elected to eternal damnation”? Who in their right mind would seek to be elected to such a thing? Hence God, hypothetically, would be the one to determine such a thing. Both would work the same way and have the same result. What significance does the fall really have, even within theological terms. If God has “foreknowledge”, and to be perfect God would have to have all knowledge, how can there be any free will? Without free will the fall is simply a poetic but very ridiculous story. This passage show how illogical and ridiculous Schaeffer’s own religious beliefs are. It also exposes further a lack of critical thinking skill and any ability self-evaluate. Schaeffer does not seem to be able to see that his own concept of God is incompatible with virtually every other religious based belief he holds. If God is perfect then it follows that all religion is nonsense. Everything is exactly as God intends. Since, under this circumstance, free will is impossible all church doctrines are merely window dressing.
“What Harris doesn’t do is reexamine his atheistic ideas based on the fact that if he’s right, and in a raw, pure and absolutist form, atheism is unpalatable to most people, then that might be an indication that there is something to all this ‘religion stuff’ besides feeling better. Maybe, if wanting meaning is the way people are, and we are part of nature, then those feelings, however they express themselves, might indicate something true about the reality of nature…” (4_)
There is nothing in this passage that isn’t absolute garbage. Whether something is “unpalatable” or not has no bearing on whether it is true. Why would Harris consider whether an argument will be popular or not? The argument amounts to insisting that if something is pleasant enough we should accept it as true. It might be nice if the world was filled with unicorns and faeries but it isn’t. The “religion stuff” maybe what people want to believe in but that does not automatically make it a valid view of reality. It also seems to be implied by Schaeffer that religion is if not the only source the best source of meaning. Why? How? I have yet to meet or hear of an atheist you did not have a sense of meaning in their life. Obviously, God and religion are not necessary to find meaning.
On page 52 Schaeffer quotes, or claims to, from Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics,
“Killing a newborn is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living”
I found a number of similar sound-bite like quotations but not this exact one. Even if this quote is accurate it is certainly taken way out of context. Schaeffer links this misleading quote with leading to Nazism and similar atrocious systems. However, if he had bothered to actually read and pay attention to Singer he would have realized that the intent was not to condone murder but to think more critically about how we evaluate our own views and practices related to ethics. True, Singer gives more weight to being capable of conscious thought but this is, again, not meant to justify killing. Singer has made it clear in writing and in interviews that he does not believe it is moral to take a life, any life. Singer is a vegetarian and an opponent of abortion. He does leave some room for justifications but that is not the same thing as encouraging or condoning. Schaeffer seems incapable of grasping such subtleties when they lay outside theological doctrines.
For emphasis I include the following quotation from page 83 of Singer’s Practical Ethics (2nd ed.)
“In this chapter we shall look at some views about the value of life, and the wrongness of taking life…”
These are views that Singer does generally support.
“It seems to me the New Atheists have it wrong. If you deprive people of the solace of faith in a moral system of meaningful connection with something bigger than themselves, and bigger than mere connection to many other ‘meaningless’ people, you aren’t just stripping away window dressing but demolishing the supporting structure of a happy life.” (55)
Is Schaeffer really saying that atheists are “’meaningless’ people”? Does this imply that all religious people are emotional and intellectual cripples incapable of adjusting to reality when truly revealed to them? Schaeffer does seem to fall back on the false notion that something that seems unpleasant must somehow automatically be wrong. He also has lump together a series of unfounded beliefs. It is assumed, not proven, that religion provides morality and meaning. Religions have always tried to dictate what behavior is acceptable even though those who claim a particular faith may not necessarily accept those dictates. Catholics are a good example. How many modern practicing Catholics believe the Pope is infallible, that birth control is immoral, or that divorce is unacceptable? Are those Catholics’ ethics and morals completely dependent on their faith? They don’t seem to be.
“If atheists visiting the Metropolitan Museum of Art refused to visit any exhibitions containing religious works or any works created by artists who had a deep personal religious faith, they’d find their stay brief.” (55)
Wow! What a truly absurd statement. Does Schaeffer really believe and individual has to be religious to appreciate art? It is possible to enjoy a work of art completely separate from who produced it or their reason(s) for doing so. Many people, religious or not, probably don’t know who produced the works they view let alone their reasons. Personally, I find Christmas Carols beautiful. The message they are meant to convey has no real meaning for me but that does not change how they sound. They sound wonderful so I enjoy them. This statement also ignores the existence of atheist and/or non-believing artists as well as artists who portrayed themselves or were seen as being far more religious than they actually were.