http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html This was a great read. I thought it might spark some interesting conversation. The author certainly comes to a conclusion that many here would not agree with. I should start things off by recalling something that the author points out. He sometimes refers to the behavior of the "New Atheists" as "prophetic." He often compares their cause to a crusade. A mission, a proselytization. An earnest effort to save the ignorant masses. He is justified, I think. While this new promotion of religion is against it rather than for it, we can still see the same behavioral pattern in Dawkins & co. that is perhaps shunned or admonished by free thinkers. This same confrontational attitude is seen between Democrats and Republicans, a kind of throwing away of the goal of reaching a mutual understanding. "I am right, you are wrong, your beliefs have no merit, and I must save you." Like Christian missionaries, the advocate treats the subject as an inferior for his beliefs, with which the subject always identifies closely. My initial question is, do you think that believing you are ultimately correct justifies this sort of condescension? Or perhaps, do you find anything unethical or immoral about it? Do the ends justify the means here? Another question: perhaps such rudeness without the arms of the Crusaders to force the issue will be ineffective, only alienating those who would be converted. What do you think?
There are some of the New Atheists right here on this forum, wanting to save everyone from themselves. It would be interesting to know what they think.
Atheists would much prefer to save mankind from mythical ideologies. Try and get your facts straight.
I read that article weeks ago and it really pissed me off. Religion IS a method of human relationship that handles alot of human psychological needs very well. Religion is not the problem, it's the 'magic exists' assertions that religions indoctrinate their members with thats the problem. The article is promoting socially attacking people whom are religious. The problem isn't the people, the problem is the magical meme and that's not something resolvable by taking it out on people. I recall at least one blurb where it was asserted that religion is 'evil'. To take a position that objective 'evil' exists yet an objective 'god' does not is a contradiction as both are man made subjective concepts. IMO, the best way to attack the problem of magical thinking is: * Find / invent a religious substitute that meets human psychological needs and doesn't rely on magical thinking... and promote the crap out of it. * Limit the actions that magical thinking can have on society (ex. separation of church and state). * Restructure education so how to think about information and how to relate to yourself/others/the environment are focused on just as much as the information being presented. Hypothetically, this would starve the magic meme and it would die off.
This is largely a strawman. As an atheist, I just want religionists to stop thinking they are immune to criticism simply because they have faith in something. I wouldn't call religion evil, or atheists "crusaders" and I'm not sure it's fair to characterize Dawkins' view that way. The supernatural is irrational and thus misguided and not a benefit to mankind. There can respect for the holders of irrational ideas, but there can be no mutual understanding of the issues themselves, since one is simply belief, and the other based on a rigorous and proven method of finding things out. Personally I think it's fine to have irrational beliefs just for fun, but these can become problematic if we lose the understanding that they are just make believe. Scientific discoveries are open to criticism, that's how science works, and this questioning should be applied to all areas of knowledge. I would never set myself up as a savior of society, because it doesn't need saving. Let things take their course as they may, and people decide things on their own.
I'm all for a good all out fight. Let's expose this religious gibberish for what it is. There are only a few real religious fundamentalists and where the vast majority of people are just sheep and could be pursuaded either way. All the time the atheists stay quiet the casual theists will simply follow the status quo. If we stand up and make a fuss and force people to think then we stand a good chance of revealing religions for what they are - a load of hokus pokus mumbo jumbo BS.
Perhaps we should create a church that features scientific and philosophical thought rather than religious thought? Then get some fundamentalists to blow up other churches.
LOL. So don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating any violence here, that is the domain of religions as we have seen recently and over the centuries. The fight I advocate is one of sheer intellect and logic. Neither should we be attempting to simply compete with religions, i.e. establish our own churches etc, or as Crunchy suggests, provide an alternative. No, what I'm suggesting, and I think it is the same as Dawkins - teach people how to think clearly and hence overturn the current paradigm and create something entirely new. In short we need a complete revolution that will help kickstart the human race into a renewed and clearer direction.
Its the nature of dialectical opposites to be similar, if not identical, in practical application - just like fascism is the ideological opposite of communism, yet if you examine the social patterns of such political ideologies they are virtually identical. Its just unintelligent human nature to respond to one extreme (in this case fanatic religiousity bereft of philosophy) with an equal and opposite extreme (fanatical atheism bereft of philosophy). Nothing changes.
Dawkins knew you would say that. FUNDAMENTALISM AND THE SUBVERSION OF SCIENCE Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. The truth of the holy book is an axiom, not the end product of a process of reasoning. The book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, it is the evidence that must be thrown out, not the book. By contrast, what I, as a scientist, believe (for example, evolution) I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence. It really is a different matter. Books about evolution are believed not because they are holy. They are believed because they present overwhelming quantities of mutually buttressed evidence. In principle, any reader can go and check that evidence. When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously doesn't happen with holy books. ...Maybe scientists are fundamentalist when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by "truth". But so is everybody else. I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere. We believe in evolution because evidence supports it, and we would abandon it overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it. No real fundamentalist would ever say anything like that. ...It is too easy to confuse fundamentalism with passion. I may well appear passionate when I defend evolution against a fundamentalist creationist, but this is not because of a rival fundamentalism of my own. It is because the evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly strong and I am passionately distressed that my opponent can't see it - or, more usually, refuses to look at it because it contradicts his holy book. ...But my belief in evolution is not fundamentalism, and it is not faith, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence were forthcoming. ...As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it teaches us not to change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. ...Fundamentalist religion is hell-bent on ruining the scientific education of countless thousands of innocent, well-meaning, eager young minds. Non-fundamentalist, 'sensible' religion may not be doing that. But it is making the world safe for fundamentalism by teaching children, from their earliest years, that unquestioning faith is a virtue.
actually the reason that dawkins is in the same boat is that he is alluding to some authority that is beyond direct sense perception - its not lclear how his godless theories of creation are as credible as the perception of NZ in the sth hemisphere - NZ is a testable phenomena - his godless theories of existence are a historically inspired speculation based upon an existing body of speculative theory. For science to be credible it must have some person somewhere on the platform of direct perception - if it doesn't meet that requirement, it is theory.
Authority that is beyond direct perception is called reason. I'm not surprised you're unfamiliar with it.
Sounds like you should learn then. Have you read up anything on evolution yet? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't think that's it at all. It is a social issue, not an epistemological one. Fundamentalism has made itself the enemy of science, yes. What interests me is how Dawkins or one of his followers would justify his type of reaction to the threat. Forget the bombs and the jihad; I'm talking about things like creationism and other instances where science is politicized by fundamentalists who oppose it for ideological reasons. And they do not just show disagreement, they show disrespect. The way Dawkins responds to this attack -- an attack not only on science, but on civil, open discourse and free thought -- strikes me, at least, as somewhat hypocritical, since the same lack of respect for the opposition is evident in his style of debate.
Saying religion is evil is as stupid as saying money is evil. No, it's not religion, it's not money, PEOPLE are evil. Just admit it damnit.
You wouldn't trust the direct perception of a scientist's observations of the machinations of evolution, because they might measure a lizard's leg with a ruler, and who knows if an inch is always an inch. God could have expanded or shrunk the universe anywhere. You know as well as I do that a scientist's lifetime is short compared to geologic time. Is your knowledge limited to only those things an individual could learn (and trust by percieving) in one lifetime?
