Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Written by Sam Vaknin

Tremblay, Francois - Atheism in a Post-religious World - Suite101, 2004

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would strictly follow the teachings of the New, he would be insane"

(Robert Ingersoll)

Is ours a post-religious world? Ask any born again Christian fundamentalist, militant Muslim, orthodox Jew, and nationalistic Hindu. Religion is on the rise, not on the wane. Eighteenth century enlightenment is besieged. As the author himself often admits, atheism, as a creed, is on the defensive.

First, we should get our terminology clear. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism which is not the same as anti-theism.

Atheism is a religion, yet another faith. It is founded on the improvable and unfalsifiable belief (universal negative) that there is no God. Agnosticism is about keeping an open mind: God may or may not exist. There is no convincing case either way.

Anti-theism is militant anti-clericalism. Anti-theists (such as Tremblay and myself) regard religion as an unmitigated evil that must be eradicated to make for a better world. This treasure of a book - it is incredible how much the author squeezed into 50 pages! - is about anti-theism.

Tremblay labels religion a swindle and mental terrorism and explains, convincingly, why he chose these epithets. He demonstrates the inextricable link between the belief in the afterlife and immorality and castigates religion's intolerance coupled with its ever-shifting philosophical goalposts. Its dogmatism leads to a loss of experiential richness and to negative cognitive consequences to both the believer and his milieu.

Religion, observes Tremblay with undisguised repulsion and bitterness, scams people with false promises of the hereafter, its texts are objectionable, it is unnatural, and it promotes falsities. In other words, it is a criminal enterprise.

In the chapters he dedicates to refuting the bogus arguments from design, he refers to the works of George Smith, Michael Martin, and Corey Washington. His own treatment of the issue is even more original and refreshing - complexity and order do not a design make, he shows.

The book is not without its flawed arguments - but these only add to the fun of mentally sparring with this thought-provoking author. For instance, he does not distinguish between established religions and cults or sects. Similarly he defines theocracy as the rule of religion (lexically correct) when, in the real world, it is the misuse and abuse of religion by rulers.

I missed references to the plethora of relevant discoveries, theorems, hypotheses, and theories in the exact sciences and in formal logic. Consider this example: it can be proven that God cannot and does not exist ("strong atheism"), Tremblay argues, because having a God leads to either meaninglessness or to contradictions or to both. But this is precisely the Gödel theorem: formal logical systems can be either complete or consistent, but never both. It is a pity he neglects to mention it.

Finally, to my mind, Tremblay misses the big picture. As Freud correctly noted a century ago, religion is a mental pathology. You cannot rationally argue with people whose judgment and reason are suspended. Distinctions between personal and objective beliefs are lost on delusional fanatics.

Religious people have faith in a god because it fulfills basic and entrenched (and unhealthy) emotional needs - not because its existence can or has been proven. We all - even atheists - hold irrational beliefs to some extent. Religion just happens to be a particularly virulent and insidious strain of irrationality.

If you want to survey the emerging battle lines between the regrouping forces of reason and the resurging Dark Ages - read this book. It is a gem of a guide to the real Armageddon that is upon us.

More about this topic here:

Best of Suite Ebooks

Related Items


The following comments are for "Atheism in a Post-Religious World"
by samvak

Most athiests (and philosophers and religious scholars) would take issue with your overgeneralized definition of atheism. There are many forms of atheism, and many reasons to take such a position. Many atheists do not disbelieve that God exists, they just don't believe that it does. They're not concerned with disproving the existence of God, they just see no reason to believe. So they don't.

Most people take the same attitude toward the gods of other religions. And as the old quote goes, "When you understand why you're an atheist regarding all other gods, you'll understand why I'm an atheist regarding yours".

It's a form of atheism akin to a-unicornism and a-leprechaunism. No one really thinks about why he doesn't believe in leprechauns -- there's just never been a reason to believe in them. Not a rejection, but a justified indifference.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is characterized by many as an irresponsible hedging of bets. It makes no more sense to be an agnostic regarding god as it does to be an agnostic regarding leprechauns. I'm not sure that I'd take such a position, but it's common in the literature.

Interesting review, by the way.

( Posted by: Viper9 [Member] On: April 4, 2005 )

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.