An examination of some of the vocal proponents of the New Atheism — the active rejection of religious belief and faith not just as unfounded or erroneous but as dangerous to society and humanity. An interesting read, as someone who — well, who tends the straddle the line of faith and reason, and who finds both comfort and inspiration
my own beliefs while worrying about the threats of others’.
(via kottke)
21 view(s)
Hey! Let’s be intolerant of intolerance! Because that solves everything! Yes!
You beat me to it! I’m working on a post about that same issue of Wired. Briefly, while I am an atheist, I want to take Dawkins, PZ Meyers, et al to task for being total jerks and making things worse.
Imagine how long a marriage would last if neither partner could identify common ground with the other, even when such ground exists. Society, no different.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate for the briefest moment.
There is a tension between passionately held beliefs/reasoning/conclusions, especially those that imply danger to onesself or others (let alone all humanity) and the needs of a civil society. Dawkins does appear to sincerely believe that religion, as an institution, is a monstrous evil, blood dripping from its hands in the past and a clear and present threat to mankind’s present and future, With that belief, what ought he do? Engage in quiet, reasoned discourse while the world burns (or threatens to)? The article was interesting in its discussion the more quiet, polite, “traditional” avenues of atheistic discourse, and how unengaging they are, especially in swaying the opinions of others or driving them to action.
The same, ironically, can be said of a religious/theistic advocacy. There are religous leaders who deeply, passionately, and quite sincerely believe that worldviews other than their own are highly dangerous to individuals, societies, and humanity. It’s hard to condemn them too much for shouting “Fire!” when everyone else is trying to politely decide the best recourse for contacting the local emergency officials. And, similarly, inflammatory bombast not only creates divisions, but it’s a lot more effective at motivating the “true believers” than church teas.
That said, just like the conclusion of the article, my own faith (and exercise thereof) is “the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there’s always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.” In fact, I’m certain that I’m wrong, probably in some significant details, despite my fairly diligent efforts to be right, which to me is why “humility” is generally considered a virtue (though one as rarely exercised as most of the others).
And, of course, as such, as a “religious moderate,” it’s ironic that I’m as much anathema to the Bible Thumpers as Bright Fanatics. That said, that’s the company I choose to keep, eschewing the poles, even if I don’t agree fully with the guy standing next to me. Heck, I don’t always agree with myself — why should I demand it of others?