Hopelessness, Stalinism, Yawn: Pope Ratzi's Encyclical Against Atheism

It's not like I expected the Pope to be gung-ho about atheism.

It's not like I expected him to be all ecumenical and Unitarian about it. It's not like I expected him to say, "We love our atheist brothers and sisters, and we think they make some good points, and everyone finds God in their own way, and as long as they live ethical lives they're okay with us." I'm not completely stupid.

But really. Is this the best he could come up with? This tired old crap? "Atheism is hopeless," and "Atheism caused Stalinism"?

Here in the atheist blogosphere, we eat arguments like that for breakfast. (We'll start the bidding at, "No, it's not," and, "No, it didn't.") Does he really think that's original? Or, indeed, interesting?

So here's what I actually did find interesting about the Pope's recent encyclical about atheism:

It's such a perfect example of the True or False? Helpful or Harmful? point I've been making -- about how far too many religious debaters mix up the arguments about whether religion is true with the arguments about whether it's beneficial.

I mean, look at it. In this encyclical, Pope Ratzi addresses one of the central atheist arguments for Why God Doesn't Exist: the problem of suffering. He spells it out very eloquently, in fact.

The atheism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is -- in its origins and aims -- a type of moralism: a protest against the injustices of the world and of world history. A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God. It is for the sake of morality that this God has to be contested.

Yup.

I rarely say this, but the Pope sure got that right.

But his response? His response to this centuries-old argument against the existence of God?

Atheism is bad.

Atheism is harmful.

Atheism is a philosophy that is devoid of hope; and atheism "has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice."

I'm not even going to get into why atheism isn't, in fact, a hopeless philosophy. I'm not even going to get into why atheism wasn't responsible for Stalinism. Plenty of atheist writers, including myself, have addressed either or both of these questions in lavish detail. (For a couple of examples, here's Ebon Muse on the hopelessness question and the Stalinism question.)

What I want to point out instead is that "Atheism is bad" is a lousy response to an argument for why God doesn't exist.

In fact, it's not even a lousy response. It's not actually a response at all. It's changing the subject because you don't like where the argument is heading. It's a classic example of an ad hominem argument, and a schoolyard one at that. "Dickie says Santa Claus isn't real, and it's just our moms and dads sneaking stuff under the tree." "Yeah, well, Dickie is a nerd, and he made my sister cry." Even if Dickie were a nerd, and even if he had made your sister cry, that's hardly an argument for the existence of Santa.

It was actually sort of disappointing. I mean, the guy is the head of one of the largest and most powerful religions in the world. He must have spent years -- decades -- studying theology and apologetics. And this is what he comes up with against atheism? Hopelessness, and Stalinism? Couldn't he at least have come up with something original? Atheism will make you impotent? Atheism makes people root for the Los Angeles Dodgers? Atheism has led to deconstructionism, which is boring and impenetrable? Atheism is the reason the Earth will be burned up in five billion years?

I guess not.

Hopelessness, and Stalinism.

Pathetic.

Comments

[Spanish Inquisitor]

I'm not even going to bid until the bidding is worth my while.

Makes me be proud to be an Ex-catholic, though, emphasis on ex.

[Nentuaby]

I'll put in a half hearted bid at "what, and eternal damnation for the vast majority of all humans who ever lived is sunshine and roses?"

[Mr Dorfl]

It's extra pathetic considering that Marxism stole all of it's ideas from christianity.

[lia c]

I'm not here to make excuses for the violence caused by stalin, but i do want to say that Ebon Muse's essay on communism was really rather flawed. Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, which is pretty much the antithesis of dogmatic thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism

[efrique]

He must have spent years -- decades -- studying theology and apologetics.

And that would be the situation if he had to rely only on his own efforts before compiling his thoughts. The Pope has the intellectual resources of the entire freaking Catholic Church at his disposal. He can ask one of his flunkies to compile him a brief on the very best arguments against atheism from the last two thousand years (well, supposedly dating back to Peter) and pray to God for inspiration before he writes his encyclical. He could also choose to run a draft by any number of top Vatican intellectuals to see if God inspires them to make any particularly insightful observations on it, before seeking editorial inspiration from the Lord himself.

In fact, I'd be very surprised if pretty much all of these things didn't happen.

The fact that the result is such an uninspired piece of pathetic drivel, with even weaker arguments than we see from ordinary half-educated fundie wackjobs every day is ... very interesting.

Either Pope Hitleryouth XVI is utterly incompetent by not seeking some input before putting pen to paper, or all his advisers are. The alternative (and the only possible alternative if the Pope's infallible on this matter) is that in fact those really are the best available arguments.

Sad really.

No matter how you slice it, it seems that about wraps it up for God.

[efrique]

Sorry, Greta, I keep forgetting html markup doesn't work here. The quote (of your words) at the start of my previous comment looks like I'm saying it myself instead of quoting you.

[Mr Dorfl]

Lia c:
"Marxism is based on dialectical materialism, which is pretty much the antithesis of dogmatic thought."

Unfortunately, this is simply not true. It is rather the other way around. Marxism is, at least today, purely dogmatic.

I expanded on this on my blog, since it is kinda off topic here.
http://theopensociety.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/the-antithesis-of-dogma/

[asrao]

Even Deepak Chopra is saying that religion is outdated.
Spirituality is really "in" right now, etc. Religion and the Father-God who is up there somewhere shaking his finger at us for being BAD PEOPLE is on it's way out. I hope.

[Duncan]

"and everyone finds God in their own way, and as long as they live ethical lives they're okay with us."

This reminds me of the story, I'm sure you've heard it, about Bertrand Russell, who was jailed for opposing World War I. During intake, he was asked his religion for the record, and he said "agnostic." The jailer had never heard that word before, and Russell had to spell it for him. Just before Russell was taken to his cell, the jailer told him, "There's lots and lots of religions, but I guess they all believe in the same God." Russell said that cheered him up for the rest of the day.

So, GC, you wish the Pope had said that to atheists? That may well depress me for the rest of the day.

asrao, the new "spiritualities" are generally as repugnant morally -- if not more so! -- than the traditional cults. According to at least some of them, if (say) an Iraqi child's legs are blown off by an American bomb, it's because she tortured George Bush in a previous life, and the agony she suffers now will make her a better person. I haven't noticed that "spiritual" people deal with the problem of Evil any better than old-style Christians, which is one reason why I see religion as a symptom, not The Problem.