4 Sep 2007
Jeff Smith
Outstanding essay, Theodore.

Those who hate those who do good, must explain why.  Regardless of the statistics on altruism (and they support your position), religious people do good out of religious reasons.  Why is that bad?  Why is that hateful?

I would love the atheists and agnostics to compete with the religious in doing good.  I would love for them to win--it would inspire the lethargic religious to action.  I can't imagine hating them nor their good works.

So, why do they hate us?

Jeff

4 Sep 2007
John Blake
The word "religion" connotes retying bonds, as in  "ligaments", which also bind up wounds.  Christian myth and legend records a  Fisher  King,  aligned with the Grail Quest--  one who has suffered a grievous wound, which saps his strength to  render him incapable of action.  We think this "wound" is not amenable to healing, for it represents the immemorial "cleft" between Reason and Faith, wherein "deep waters" fill an amniotic Well of Beersheba-- one which nurtures, but drowns sense as well.

In matters of ultimate Good and Evil, Reason fails.  But so too does irrationality, Unreason.  To wit:  Given a Transcendent Immanence which creates all things, and only those things, which do not create themselves, does this Immanence create itself?

This is a formally undecidable proposition, for Epimonides' principle of contradictory self-reference is inescapable (ask Bertand Russell).  But reverting to unreason, where (for example) Zero is equal to One, fails also, for given such a contradiction enables proof of any proposition whatsoever.

Where Reason and Unreason fail, leaving Anfortas --the strengthless Fisher King-- to suffer, what remains?  In "Owen's Alligator", a fable of Wise Learning and Right Choice [in progress], we read:  "Faith in Reason denies Reason in Faith-- but Love is not denied."

In "Alligator", Six Books admonish "Askepsis"-- neither atheism (merely faith's obverse) nor agnosticism (for whoever can "know God"?) but a "willing suspension of disbelief".   No "bets" allowed, for Pascal's divine sweepstakes fail to specify which God to handicap:  Allah, JHWH, Zeus; Tantric emanations, Gitchie Manitou?

Theology is of the schools, vulnerable to Godel's Theorem:  Necessarily inconsistent, if "complete"; necessarily open-ended, if consistent.  Abjure semantics for semiotics,  the symbol for the Sign:  Maps are not the territory, so charts may lead astray.  Per "Alligator", Reality takes us all for fools.

"What is Divinity if it can come only in silent shadows or in dreams?" asks Wallace Stevens, and his response is:   Nothing.  But our Cosmos represents Something rather than Nothing.  Stoic philosophy teaches, "etsi Deus (non) garatur"-- loosely, behave "as if  Divinity doth govern", descend not to the abyss of nihilism.

"Whereof we cannot know, thereof we may not speak," says Wittgenstein in his "Tractatus".  But God is not merely an all-powerful old man with white whiskers, stirring the quantum pot with relativistic fingers... if He "so loved the World", why not return the favor?

Yeats in "The Fiddler of Dooney" put it best:  "The good are always the merry, save by an evil chance; the good are always the merry, and the merry love to dance."

We could go on... but seekers do hear Music of the Spheres in noble strain, geantrai.  Learn wisely, and choose well:  Light and Life beyond Darkness and Death.  There is only The Dance.

4 Sep 2007
Charles Morse
I concur. Yet I hope that there are atheists and skeptics who are self-sacrifying as the nuns in serving fellow man. They may work alone, like your doctor, but I believe I know fellow professionals, in my experience engineers and civil servants, who have lives of performing their duty every day. With respect and appreciation of your examples, there are others who live righteous lives. It may not be a matter of so-called organized religion but religious in the sense doing the right thing. Of course there are rascals amongst us all, and some of them turn out to be us.

8 Sep 2007
alfred
An illumination , laser-intense, such as one always receives from this splendid man, splendid writer. . .a very bright light indeed in a dark, penumbral world. I don't believe in much, nor many. But I do believe in him, and in those in whom he believes.

10 Sep 2007
Laurie

As a fairly militant atheist I take a different view of the roots of good and evil.  The gross determinants of behaviour are genes and environment.  The exact role of each in particular acts of great goodness or great evil can be argued but it would be a very ill informed individual who believed themselves absolutely incapable of either. 

 

There are a number of classic psychological studies which demonstrate how quickly people can become cruel and unjust in an environment designed to elicit those responses.  Similarly there is a significant body of research suggesting that altruistic acts actually make people feel happier.  I think various religions, by a close study of human nature, arrived at these conclusions and so have been beneficial both to individuals and societies at various points in human history.  Unfortunately, as these truths were embedded in systems claiming absolute truth for a particular mythology, the wider effects of religion have not been so benign.

 

I believe, along with many others, that humanity would benefit significantly if we could rid ourselves of the mythologies that accompany the profound truths that exist in some religions.  We would then be free to create societies which enhanced the conditions that elicit goodness and reduced those that produced evil.  Pope got it right:

 

Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.

 

We waste our time attributing good and evil to supernatural causes and only appease ignorance when we become apologists for them based on the kind of anecdotal evidence produced by Mr Dalrymple here.  After all for every anecdote of an altruistic nun there is a parallel one of a pedophile priest.  The only fair conclusion to be drawn from the contradictory influence of religion in these cases is that religion, per se, was not the direct cause of either behaviour.

12 Sep 2007
Mike Mitchell

Well done, Mr. Dalrymple.  I am a quiet atheist who neither broadcasts nor disguises his opinion.  However, I must agree with you that, almost without exception, the  good people whom I have known were (are) religious to some extent.

I also agree that displays of anti-religiosty have featured some of the most despicable people I have known.  The psychology of this phenomenon is beyond my  understanding.

Appreciate your writing very much.

Cordially,

M.

14 Sep 2007
Flash Gordon
Since he has have literary interests I hope Mr. Dalrymple will agree with me that a very interesting example of goodness is portrayed by Joseph Conrad in his short novel The Shadow Line. An unnamed young man is made the captain of a ship in the Far East. He is excited and confident, but soon learns that his youth and inexperience makes him vulnerable to serious mistakes when multiple crises ensue. This is the story of a young man rising to a struggle, facing his immaturity and mistakes, as well as his conscience. He accepts his responsibility and in the process achieves his manhood. He could easily have blamed others, and may have been tempted but he did not. He lacked maturity and experience but his good heart saw him through. It is a tale of goodness and the young protagonist is at least as interesting, if not more so, than Jack the Ripper, Robespierre, Charles Manson, or William Jefferson Clinton. Much more interesting than our former president, I would say.

14 Sep 2007
Francis W. Porretto

This article is yet another demonstration of why Theodore Dalrymple is among the finest essayists and analysts of our time. He writes of what he's seen with the clarity of a superb journalist...and adds insights from the heart that would shake the soul of Satan himself.

Thank you, Dr. Dalrymple.

 

17 Sep 2007
EXL
Some excellent thoughts. At times however I was distracted by the "poor editing". Many instances of word duplications or replacements, such as: "Suffice it to sat".

But I applaud the ideas presented.

17 Sep 2007
Rebecca Bynum
Dr. Dalrymple often uses words in an usual manner. For example, the word "access" in the first paragraph is used in the sense of "sudden increase."

18 Sep 2007
bipolar2
** In defense of Nietzsche **

If Michel Foucault used Nietzsche to justify his lifestyle choices, Nietzsche can't be blamed. In the anglophone world, N still gets bad press. Usually in a dismissive aside.

Obviously, you don't know N. Usually I find writers damn him, ranting about an N who doesn't exist -- the egoist, the evolutionary ethicist, the prophet and madman. As far as they know, N "spake" in tongues.

Ignorance is no excuse.

For 33 years, Walter Kaufmann's 4th edition of "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist and Antichrist" has stood ready to educate anyone, even the rhetoricians and literati who practice philosophy without a license.

For 53 years Kaufmann's "Portable Nietzsche," and for 39 years his "Basic Writings of N" have been available to clarify "the Overman", "the will to power", "order of rank", "beyond good and evil" and all the other notorious phrases ripped from their context and misused even by those whom N hated.

The Wagner Case, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, and N contra Wagner (all complete in the Portable N) come from the summer and fall of N's last year 1888. None of the so-called "new atheists" [Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Onfray] can compete with N, philosophically or as a stylist in Twilight and Antichrist.

For example, French philosopher Michel Onfray in "Atheist Manifesto" tries to take up where N leaves off. N's understanding of Epicurus overwhelms that of Onfray since N had "the will to power" as counterpoint to the pleasure principle. See section 49 of Twilight where Goethe becomes both an overman and greatest artistic exponent of the will to power.

Kaufmann also translated as a standalone volume The Gay Science [maybe The Exuberant Science would be a more useful title today]. There's also a longish essay on N in Kaufmann's "Discovering the Mind", a trilogy
consisting of
    * Goethe, Kant, and Hegel
    * Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Buber
    * Freud Versus Adler and Jung

Has there been a great philosopher since N? I think not.

Not one is more relevant, as N said about himself, "some are born posthumously."

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

27 Sep 2007
Ellen

'How little people know who think that holiness is dull ... When one meets the real thing, it's irresistible.' C.S. Lewis.

28 Sep 2007
Doug McMillan
Mr. Dalrymple, you have observed, contemplated and analyzed a lot of the human condition. Thank you for sharing your analyses with us. That is itself a form of great goodness.

30 Sep 2007
keith merrick
I think Theodore Dalrymple is a wonderful writer. When I return home from a day spent in an English city centre and want to understand why I despise most of humanity, it is to him that I turn after finally settling down with a cup of tea and switching on my computer. And this article, like a breath of fresh air, describes the possibility of goodness, rather than his usual theme of evil, in all its guises. Apart from anything else, he is a wonderful stylist and it's a real pleasure to read anything by him. Even so, I have one small criticism with this artcile. I was a bit confused by the paragraph on Michel Foulcault. I know that Dalrymple dislikes this postmodernist writer, and I am 100% with him on this. However, I really don't see a similarity between Foucault's ridiculous penchant for calling virtues vices, and Dalrymple's inability to be as good a person as he would wish. It's not even a question of degree. Foucault is a bitter twister of 'the good', whereas Dalrymple recognizes what is good but can't dispel a certain selfishness in himself. There are no parallels to be drawn between these two failings.

18 Feb 2008
Graham McEwen
Although I largely agree with the article, I would suggest that the point about Foucault’s father is a bit off. In terms of employment one may assume that he was among the most well compensated in his village or locality. Without questioning his good work or the income he received, I would not regard him as an example of pure altruism, and in this respect he differs from the African nuns discussed later in the article.