It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: (a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender…

— Geneva Convention/Protocol I, Art. 37 (From Wikisource)

That august and self-important publication The New York Times has recently started a “philosophy” blog called “The Stone” and take it from me, it’s pretty damn awful: lots of middlebrow religious apologetics, precious little real philosophy. Still, it can at times make for interesting reading, if one reads with the eye not of a philosopher by as a connoisseur of cultural pathology. Here’s a recent item which caught my eye, written by one William Irwin, the chair of philosophy at King’s College in Pennsylvania (don’t fret, I had never heard of it either). It plays on a rather tired theme (“can’t we all just be more humble about our religions or lack thereof”) using a rhetorical mode that this non-believer can readily recognize, that is, smug condescension toward non-believers wrapped in the cloak of false humility. Irwin claims irenic intentions:

What is important is the common ground of the question [Faustus: about God, or whatever], not an answer. Surely, we can respect anyone who approaches the question honestly and with an open mind. Ecumenical and interfaith religious dialogue has increased substantially in our age. We can and should expand that dialogue to include atheists and agnostics, to recognize our common humanity and to stop seeing one another as enemy combatants in a spiritual or intellectual war. Rather than seeking the security of an answer, perhaps we should collectively celebrate the uncertainty of the question.

Why do I see it this way? Well, for one, he appears to buy into a smarmy argument by Gary Gutting (also on “The Stone,” surprise, surprise) that even if we don’t believe that there is a God, we should hope that there is one. The gutting of Gutting will be the work of another day here at Pyrosophy. Let me note for now that Irwin thinks that non-believers should at least be acting like believers, at least some of the time.

The nonbeliever might embrace the ethical teachings of Christianity, the yogic practices of Hinduism, the meditative techniques of Zen Buddhism, or any of the vast array of teachings and practices that the world’s religions have to offer. Such embrace may lead the nonbeliever to belief in God, or it may not.

Now if we’re being genuinely humble, humble on all sides, shouldn’t we be reciprocally suggesting that believers ought to at least sometimes act like nonbelievers, perhaps engaging in one of their mental exercises? It will do Irwin no good to insist there are no such exercises, because here’s an obvious one that many non-believers (myself included) do rather a lot: think really hard and for a good long time about the proposition that the nature of reality is only what physics says it is and nothing more. If this be so, should you want to to continue to live and, if you should want to continue to live, how should you live?

The unwillingness (or inability) of Irwin to specify a way for believers to reciprocate on the humility act is the tell, the giveaway that his call for disarmament in wars of religion is only superficially directed at both sides. When looked at carefully it turns out to be humility for thee, infidel, but not for me. It’s a false flag of truce.

This is not to say that religious peace is a bad idea. Pessimistic atheists like me in particular would like nothing better than to get on with their lives in peace, as long as we can enjoy our ecbasic liberties. This fact would suggest that there is an obvious path to peace, one which would begin with religious people (Christians especially) giving up on the idea that because they’re so special they have the right to police what’s in the bedrooms and on the bookcases of nonbelievers.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that give-up to happen.