A Dawkins's Delusion

*Wow... I wrote an ESSAY. O.O;; Warning...?

   I recently finished listening to the "The God Delusion Debate" between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox, a debate basically covering the veracity and necessity of the existence of God, based on the contents of Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion. While perhaps the debate as a whole wasn't anything earth-shattering, I found one key point Dawkins spent some time on quite interesting: A sane and rational Atheist will not have any logical reason to commit "terrible deeds" (e.g. oppression, murder).**
   I found myself scratching my mind's head at this. Really? Seriously...? It wasn't even just a passing statement, but lasted for a few minutes. Lennox started to attempt to counter this, but sadly, topic of conversation was taken elsewhere. Dawkins claims that there are logical paths for religious people to do "terrible deeds" but that such is not possible with Atheism (One interesting thing to note: He argues from his personal incredulity saying he can't imagine such a scenario with Atheism, and that the only way an Atheist will commit a "terrible deed" is by the influence of other philosophies. So it's okay for him to make such an argument but not Intelligent Design advocates...?). The general idea is this:

1. A religious person is made to grow up to not question anything within that religion.
2. The religious person is taught that he/she must please God to get into heaven/nirvana/a galaxy far, far away.
3. The religious person is told that God wants him/her to do something horrible for him.
4. The religious person does the horrible deed to please his/her God to receive the desired award.

   Dawkins puts the whole blame on the religion. The way I see it, there are at least three factors in play here. I'm going to call them belief, values, and politics.
   By belief, I'm talking about concept(s) and/or being(s) people are adamant about regardless of the fact that they're not omniscient. This includes basically everything from God to no-God to gravity and black holes. Everyone believes in something, and a lot of times, the non-belief in something is also a belief in itself.
   By values, I mean what people are taught to incorporate into their normal thought processes to live in a society, including courtesy, honor, ethics, and specialized religious teachings. Certainly, if belief is a religion, it teaches its own values, but this category has more to do with the values within a society that tend to either "specialize" or change the emphasis or content of religious doctrines.
   And by politics, I am being very general and am referring to anything that prompts action in a society, such as holidays, elections, or wars. You can have belief and values but without a reason to excite the two factors, nothing can take place, horrible or otherwise. In other words, an extreme fundamental religion itself doesn't automatically mean a "terrible deed" needs to happen.
   One additional thing to note is that by "society", I'm talking about any group of people, whether it is a town, church, or a country. Now, for an illustration of this thought process, I'm going to evaluate something all too familiar:

Belief: A person is a Muslim and believes in Allah and the Koran.
Values: In his mosque, he learns to hate Jews and to respect other Muslims who become suicide bombers to kill Jews (Note that suicide bombing is not something found in the Islam religion in itself).
Politics: His country sees violent conflicts between Jews and Muslims
Action: He goes and becomes a suicide bomber to kill Jews.

   Clear enough? It's not just the religion that brings about the murderous action, but it is the values taught by the society. Let's look at another one.

Belief: We have another Muslim who believes in Allah and the Koran.
Values: In the public school, he learns that killing is bad and that suicide bombing paints Muslims in a negative light.
Politics: There is a negative perception of Muslims
Action: He voices his opposition to suicide bombers killing Jews.

   In the examples above, we have two Muslims with the same core beliefs, but with two opposite results. It isn't the religion itself that ends up producing or not producing a suicide bomber, but values, in this case specialized religious and moral teachings, that are taught alongside the various teachings of the religion control what each Muslim becomes. So, yes, religion can logically lead to "terrible deeds", but clearly, religion by itself does not always lead to tragedy. With that said, let's see if it's really not possible for Atheism to not lead to a logical path to a possible evil.

Belief: The person is an Atheist.
Values: He is taught that the world as he knows it is an unintentional result of a purposeless explosion some 14 billion years ago.
Politics: Everyone he knows is living life as if it means something.
Action: Driven to a state of depression by the notion of insignificance, he commits suicide.

   Tragic? Yes. Illogical? Not really. I'm not really sure what Dawkins is defining "Atheism" as, but it can't stop simply at the non-belief of God because that's merely a premise. A belief entails other thoughts or philosophies that inevitably follow by logic. In other words, if, say, an Atheist business owner grows up in a society that is content with sin committed outside of other people's knowledge, he/she will have no qualms about killing a worker who is bad for his/her business. Let's try another one.

Belief: The person is an Atheist.
Values: He learns that only the fit survive in the world and comes to support anything and everything that furthers and cements human survival.
Politics: His country is exterminating "subhumans" to create an ideal gene pool for a superior race of humans. He is a soldier in this effort.
Action: He helps kill millions of "subhumans" knowing that he is helping to create a better future for the human race.

   Okay, so the last example isn't likely to happen today, but something very similar to it happened during World War II called the Holocaust, right? Adolf Hitler ordered the execution of millions of elders, adults, and children in his effort to solidify Germany's future. Hitler's religious affiliation aside, if there were an Atheist soldier in the German army, given the right premises, he would have logically been content to be a part of the murderous effort.
   Now, is it really some "other philosophy" and not Atheism that would allow a person to logically take part in such atrocity? I'd say "no". If anything, it is because of Atheism that a person would likely be more susceptible to follow the lead to eliminate "subhumans" because there is nothing wrong logically. However, if we replace the Atheist with, say, a Christian, then we have a different story. The only way a Christian who tries to live by biblical principles will be willing to wipe out millions of people in the effort to cleanse the gene pool is to be illogical. In fact, the inability to logically follow such a notion was precisely the reason for the many (all?) secret smuggling of Jews out of Germany.
   With all this said, I think I need to say Dawkins isn't necessarily wrong in saying that Atheism (if simply this is a non-belief of God) by itself can't logically lead to "terrible deeds" even though there are(? Frankly, I can't think of one) religions in which what we consider horrific are an integral part of the religion itself. But, of course, this will vary depending on how "Atheism" is defined... And I think even Dawkins would agree that the religions he is fond of attacking do not lead to horrendous acts by themselves (but rather the values are at fault).
   However, even if Dawkins isn't wrong, I think the more crucial fact to be noted, and I would say this is the main gripe people like Christians have with Atheism, is that the belief in non-God becomes a very dangerous philosophical (or religious, some would argue) starting point because its establishment of relative morality opens up any logical person to commit any horrendous act. John Lennox does mention something like this in the debate, but it is shocking how an argument that should shake any logical and "righteous" Atheist like Richard Dawkins to the core is practically unnoticed. Personally, over a fundamental Muslim strapped with a bomb, I think I'd be more horrified of a depressed but logical Atheist suicide bomber. At least the Muslim won't bomb his own side... The logical Atheist has no sides.

** This argument can be heard in the latter half of "Part 2" here.

Cruelty of a Thankful Heart

   Yesterday was Thanksgiving, a day equivalent to family gatherings, eating turkeys, and ultimately, giving thanks. What does it mean to give thanks? The question asked during this time of year in various forms is, "What are you thankful for?" The person being asked then is made to reflect on what in his/her life holds high value but is frequently taken for granted, such as loved ones, home, or food.
   But what does being "thankful" entail? Who are you thanking? For people like Christians, who believe in a divine being who provides, the act of thanking is a form of worship to a higher power. If you're not thanking anyone... Uh... What are you doing exactly? I guess this Holiday's kind of pointless for you, ain't it? =)
   There's something that bothers me though. Let's say you are thanking God (Or one/some of your gods) for being able to work (Or just "being thankful" if you don't worship a god...). What happens if the job's taken away? You'll probably move onto being thankful for something else like your health. What if you are no longer a clean bill of health? You'll move onto being thankful for smaller things like being able to walk and see. What if they're gone? I suppose you can be thankful for just being alive. And what if that's gone? Well, you'd be dead... So I suppose you can't be thankful anymore... At least in this life anyway.
   It seems the unconscious thought process of thanking is to look at how life could be worse and to find contentment in not living that worse situation. When life wears down so much that one finds it immensely difficult to be thankful, he/she is still encouraged to learn to be thankful. How does one achieve this? Simple. Think about what you have and are able to do that other people may only dream to have and do. In this society, it's almost natural. When life gets hard, one looks at how other people are suffering, and find comfort in knowing there are people who are worse off. Now that's interesting... In a society where one would likely be shunned if he/she finds pleasure in another's pain, it is encouraged to have a thankful heart... Which in essence is the same thing. Oy. So all of you who are thankful... For anything at all... Shame on you for having such a cruel heart. =P