Overgeneralization

21Apr07

What can you say about people who like chocolate ice cream? Not much, I think you’ll agree. We can infer from the fact that they like chocolate ice cream that they like ice cream, at least one sort, but not much more. What about people with dark skin? Not much. We know that they have dark skin, so barring strange genetic mutations we can infer that at least some of their ancestors lived in a climate where dark skin was beneficial. Anything more than that is baseless speculation. They’re certainly not inferior to people with other skin colors, as racial idiology would have us believe. There’s just not much to be said about people with dark skin.

What about, say, Christians? We can certainly say a lot more about Christians, but Christianity is really a bunch of belief systems. Every Christian belief system has an opinion about what constitutes a true Christian, so there’s considerable variation within the religion. We can, at the very least, assume that they value the Bible in some way and that they believe in Jesus as messiah.

Even though Christianity is a bunch of beliefs, we can say a lot more about Christians than we can about people with dark skin or people who like chocolate ice cream. That’s because people who like chocolate ice cream are really just all people who (assuming honesty) would answer “yes” to the question, “Do you like chocolate ice cream?” Similarly, dark skinned people are those who (at least if you gave them some magical truth serum) would answer “yes” to the question, “Do you have dark skin?” Christians, on the other hand, cannot simply be defined by their answer to a simple question. That’s not a critique of Christianity, it’s a simple matter of fact.

So when Dinesh D’Souza for the third time raises his point, we should recognize the ugly face of overgeneralization. Here’s what he writes this time:

Atheism seems to have nothing to say to people when there is serious bereavement or tragedy.

This point, he says, is still unrefuted. I wonder what he has to say about people who like chocolate ice cream. Or dark skinned people. Or theists. Because let’s face it, what is atheism? Who are atheists? They are people who, if we assume they are honest, will answer “no” to the question, “Do you believe in a god?” Naturally, then, theists are people who will answer “yes” to the same question.

Before he writes off atheism because it has nothing to say about this, then, D’Souza should investigate what theism has to say to people where there is serious bereavement or tragedy. If he did, I think he would be surprised. Theism has nothing to offer either. That’s because theism per se is just a position on a single question, just like atheism per se is just a position on a question. It would be absurd to demand that theism should have an entire philosophy and comforting words to offer relatives and friends in the aftermath of a tragedy in light of this insight.

What, exactly, can a theist offer to comfort people after a tragedy just by being a theist? “Hey, look, I believe God exists.” That’s pretty much it. Similarly, what can an atheist offer to comfort people just by being an atheist? “Hey, look, I believe God doesn’t exist.” That’s pretty much it. Does D’Souza think people will care what he believes? I bet they don’t give a shit what Dinesh D’Souza believes or doesn’t believe about the existence of God. Theism doesn’t entail the belief in an afterlife. Theism doesn’t say anything about the god or gods you believe in. Being a theist means simply being a person who believes in a god or gods, nothing more. God could be a careless bastard or a loving, impotent entity that curses itself for not being able to do anything about the misery we live in.

So, when D’Souza compares atheism to religion, he’s comparing apples to oranges. Christianity is a set of beliefs. Atheism is a lack of belief on a single topic.

Sure, we could generalize using statistics. We could say that X% of atheists are also philosophical naturalists. Y% is a secular humanist, and so on. But the only generalization that will be valid for all atheists is their answer to a single question under circumstances where they would be prevented from lying.

That’s not to say that atheists don’t have anything to offer. They (hopefully) aren’t defining themselves solely by their lack of god-belief. I don’t. I’m a lot of things. A person who lacks belief in a god is but a simple facet of me. I’m sure atheists have something to offer. In fact, this criticism can be seen as a form of misguided praise. That atheists are able to simply be without displaying a huge sign reading “I DON’T BELIEVE IN GOD” should be a blow to anyone screaming that their religious rights are being run over by militant nonbelievers.

Filed under: atheism, philosophy, religion, theism   |  4 Comments