Gotta start this off with a big 'ol tip of the hat to my latest e-friend MoJoey over at Deep Thoughts for pointing me towards this article in Wired. And a thank you to Mr. MoJoey for adding me to his ever-expanding Blogroll of the un-believers.
So I haven't actually made it to the responses to The Church of the Non-Believers, because im still reading the original article. So far its really quite good and I see why It drew so much attention. At the same time what amazes me most is that the author says that people talked about this, there was very little in the way of, your all going to hell, fire and brimstone, and all that jive. This impresses me, There have been few discussions that I've seen on the topic of natural vs. supernatural that have maintained their dignity. Admittedly this was letters and not a back and forth debate that does lent itself to civility. If you want to see an example of un-civilized and highly un-intelligent debate then I refer you to this, YouTube video just read through the comments, their kinda funny. That video itself probably deserves its own post, hmmm.... back to Wired.
It includes a story of an interesting church, the god type, but in trying to defend the church and religion in general it makes it all the more clear that in order to make religion fit our modern world you need to hack it to bits and leave only stories and a god, which is fine, but then there is my cynics view that while it probably does give a lot back to its parishioners, it still seems like commercial exploitation of confused teens, but again I’m cynical. Oh and of course theirs the not so minor point that just because something is useful or helpful doesn't mean its correct. I could be happy thinking that eating pizza will help me lose weight it doesn't mean its true, and it could kill me.
To me this whole debate about the "new atheists" boils down to would I rather lose the most important war in history, or win a battle that gains me nothing? The New Atheists are in it for the war, they see faith in the supernatural as being maybe not inherently evil but build a base that can easily be corrupted not to mention that it's absurd. There is some confusion for me when Dawkins says that he has never advocated for banning religion. Which is a delicate point, we don’t want to Ban it, we want people to really think about what they believe, we want children to be given a chance to learn all the options, if they are given the chance to weigh all possibilities and still chose religion that’s fine. I am convinced that there would be far far more atheists than there are today if we were all given the chance to question god. I'm still not sure if I'm with the New atheists or not, but I think I’m with them. I think the only thing holding me back is my limited knowledge of real evolution, I know a little more than what they taught in school but not enough to really give me the confidence to go in with both feet. So if anyone wants to send me a copy of “the selfish gene” I would appreciate it.
Oooh, got a new author to try out, Dennett.
In fact, he argues that neutral, scientifically informed education about every
religion in the world should be mandatory in school. After all, he argues, "if
you have to hoodwink – or blindfold – your children to ensure that they confirm
their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct."
Hmmm… reading on I’m* not sure I like this guy, to me nothing is un-questionable. There are things that I would feel silly questioning, like Gravity, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be questioned. It seems as if his point is that our morals should not be questioned, well why not, I'm all for more understanding, and I’m staunchly opposed to any one trying to limit freedom of learning.
*(Word wants me to put “I is” which might be correct but it sounds stupid so I is not gunna)
I will say that this author ends this perfectly, we could be wrong. And again this is why even the most extreme atheist cannot be a fundamentalist. I'm still not sure where I want to stand on my atheism, I haven’t told my Mom, most if not all my friends know, or would probably assume it. I have no desire to tell my grandmother, well the Irish one, the other probably wouldn’t care. But do I wish to openly attack religion, sorta. I was passing around a thing today at work about how god hates Christmas trees. Hmm… minor note, Word just automatically capitalized Christmas (again) but not god. Go to Jeremiah 10:1-4 and read the first 4 verses and you’ll get the joke I'm passing around. All I’m saying is that I think people know I'm not religious, but for some reason it’s a big leap from not being religious, even to the point of not believing in god(s) and being an atheist. I think this is simply because of the connotation of the word atheist, which is why I want to be more open about it, like the whole gay pride thing, the connection get mentioned often.
Happy Solstice everyone!
No comments:
Post a Comment