Cycling through my news articles for the morning, I came across this plum from Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,71985-0.html?tw=wn_index_10
It is about a group called The New Athiests, who are challenging all intelligent people to clarify their stance on the existence of God. This group is much different from previous groups of atheists, as they not only reject the belief in the existance of God (and consider it a disease), but they also reject all groups of people (agnostics, liberal believers) who may agree with some, but not all of their beliefs. They seem very binary; either you're with them, or against them: 1 or 0.
For a liberal believer of the Christian faith like myself, it is quite disturbing (and insulting). The article is a good read, and and I think it provokes some good thoughtfulness. However, I find it humorous that this Dawkins guy does not realize you cannot have prayer without religion; his belief system will just spark a new religion, thus propogating what he is intending to destroy.
It doesn't seem he looks too closely at the basic tenants of the teaching of all relgions: love, respect, humility, and being a good person. Also, I'm profoundly disturbed by the extremist stance he takes; in this manner, I daresay the New Atheists can be likened to terroristic organizations such as the Taliban and the Branch Dravidians. Please note I have nothing against atheists; I've just have never had any respect for any type of extremist, for those who cannot respect others, but demand respect for themselves.
Strangely enough, while I was reading the article, I started thinking of an old hymn we used to sing in church when I was a little girl. It goes:
"I believe in the sun
Even when it isn't shining
I believe in love
Even when there is no one there.
And I believe in God
I believe in God
Even when God is silent."
Something to chew on I suppose. That's all for now.
And yes! Suzanne has posted quite a bit in the last few days. What could it mean? Probably that she's avoiding doing work. And I would agree! So, back to work I go.
2 comments:
Ah, yes, Wired, the last bastion of uncompromising, respectable journalism in the US! (Not that this is a criticism of you, mind you. I think I just hate magazines of all kinds.) This doesn't sound to me the sort of thing Dennett would say or get behind. But I don't have the time to do the research myself right now, so let's move on.
Anyhow, you have to understand that not all people use the definition of religion that you do. You talk about religion the way it is was meant or designed to be practiced. Most people talk about religion the way it is practiced in reality, in the here and now. Which is why I take a stance that is for the most part against organized religion, because its practitioners tend to divide people into "same Mecca as me" and "different Mecca from me", and ignore all value in the second group. For this reason, I would agree with you that this group is just as religious as any other religion.
You dodge the question of whether religion is actually a good thing by referring to the basic tenets of all religions. That isn't appropriate because whatever the values or ideals are, religion *has* done some amount of harm to this world. The Crusades and the Holocaust are the canonical examples of this phenomenon. I don't think that's a convincing argument *against* religion either, because, after all, internal combustion engines have done a bit of harm here too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't respect anyone who drives a car! (Though if you drive a Hummer, you might be pushing it.)
Ethan
"Anyhow, you have to understand that not all people use the definition of religion that you do. You talk about religion the way it is was meant or designed to be practiced."
That, I do agree with. But just because a bunch of people are not practicing it the way it was meant to be practiced, does not change the inherent way it was designed to effect, to inspire. It's quite a chunk of idealism, but a girl can dream.
"You dodge the question of whether religion is actually a good thing by referring to the basic tenets of all religions. That isn't appropriate because whatever the values or ideals are, religion *has* done some amount of harm to this world."
You are absolutely right. Some interpretations of religion have done some serious harm to the current state of the world, with Christianity being by no means the least offender. While I cannot claim to possess the omniscience to solidly say if relgion is good or bad, I present this instead to chew on:
Suppose a new medication is designed that is meant to help a bunch of people in some way. Some people are adversely affected, even leading to death. However, there are several people that the medicine proves to help out, perhaps even acting as a life saver. Given that the medication does save a few people, even though it affects some people very badly, can you consider it a good medicine? Perhaps, if you focus on the good. But is it a bad type of medication, if you focus on the bad? How do we decide if the medicine is good or not? Should we remove it from the shelves, since it can kill a person? But then what about the number of lives it can affect positively? But should we keep it out on the shelves, given that it could potentially kill someone? These are complex questions, and I cannot hope to give an answer, and I don't think anyone can.
Perhaps the best thing to do is distribute religion with warning labels: "May cause upset stomach, intestinal bleeding, and in rare cases death" :-) I think that if it does some good (and it has positively influenced the lives of several people), then it cannot be dismissed as "not good"; I also agree with you there.
-Suzanne
Post a Comment