Comment on this entry
Voicing Our Disbelief
TPM
January 05, 2010
In recent years, we have witnessed a flood of books, aimed at the popular market, issuing robust challenges to theistic religious belief. A rather puzzling expression, “the New Atheism”, has been applied to this body of work, particularly the contributions of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. They, in turn, are sometimes referred to, apparently with affection, as “The Four Horsemen”.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/05 at 12:10 PM
Very interesting article Russel, but I still son't see any need for assertive, "militant" atheism.
I am, of course, against the interference of religion in public policy, and against the interference of religious persons in the private lives of others.
But I affirm the right of everyone, including religious persons, to believe what they want to believe in the privacy of their own heads, or of their chosen group of interlocutors.
To deny this right is to open the door to bigotry and fundamentalism -- the same bigotry and fundamentalism that have resulted in holy wars and the inquisition. Let's not open that door, and continue to believe in the fundamental principle of live-and-let-live.
Posted by Mike Treder on 01/05 at 01:35 PM
Giulio, perhaps we should make a distinction between the overt damage inflicted on society by religion -- as when believers try to pass dogma-based laws, etc. -- and what I consider equally troubling, the covert damage that religion can inflict on society. I'm referring here to the insistence by many believers (and even some skeptical accommodationists) that there are "different ways of knowing" or "different paths to truth."
The assertion that legitimate truth or knowledge can be attained through some spiritual pathway or another, and that such knowledge has equal validity with that acquired through rationality and scientific experimentation is not only nonsense, but is also actively harmful. People who accept this idea are consequently shutting themselves off from critical thinking, and therefore are far more susceptible to misleading and dangerous proposals like "vaccines cause autism," or, even worse, that prayer can do as much good for a person's health as can medicine.
Until all religious beliefs are fully confined to an individual's mind alone and those individuals make no attempt to convert others (including children) to their way of thinking, there will be a strong need for adamant atheists to continue promoting rationality as the only acceptable approach to acquiring knowledge.
Please understand that I'm not talking about banning religion or shutting off free speech in any way. In your comment, when you "affirm the right of everyone, including religious persons, to believe what they want to believe" and present that concept as somehow in opposition to the aims of atheism, that's a false comparison. No one that I know of is trying to deny the rights of believers to believe what they want.
All we're asking is for people to take a good hard look at the effects that religious belief has had on society -- both overtly and covertly -- and consent to the idea that reason and science should take precedent over faith and superstition. There is no need for accommodation.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/05 at 02:58 PM
@Mike: I disagree. This is thought-policing.
Note that I agree that reason and science should take precedent over faith and superstition, in public policy making.
But I have no issue with those who think that there are "different ways of knowing" or "different paths to truth.", and stand behind their right to discuss and practice their conviction, as long as they don't try to force me to listen.
Note that similar arguments based on "covert damage" can be (and have been) used by "moral majorities" to oppress minorities whose chosen lifestyle they don't approve of.
Posted by veronica on 01/05 at 07:52 PM
"..when believers try to pass dogma-based laws, etc."
What if a group of legislators, whether they're religious or atheists, try to pass a law that they claim only /coincidentally/ coincides with Biblical (for instance) dogma? Say, for instance, an anti-abortion law. Should we disbelieve the religious legislators but not the atheist ones?
Posted by Mike Treder on 01/05 at 08:36 PM
That depends on the argument being made by the legislator(s) in favor of the law. If they can provide convincing utilitarian and/or ethical reasons for the law apart from any reliance on scriptural or clerical authority, then the proposal can be evaluated based on those merits.
Posted by Giulio Prisco on 01/06 at 04:23 AM
@Mike: No one that I know of is trying to deny the rights of believers to believe what they want.
This is good. Your ...is not only nonsense, but is also actively harmful made me think otherwise, but I see I was mistaken.
It is important to resist all temptations to police other person's private thoughts, sensibilities and dreams. Doing so would be a first step on a very slippery slope towards outcomes that we don't want to see again.
This does not mean that we should not do our best to promote rationality and scientific thinking as the best way to manage our world and our society.
Posted by veronica on 01/06 at 04:32 PM
@ Mike Treder -- So, sticking to the issues, and not focusing on where one /gets/ one's ethics is the way to go, right? So why do I still suspect that if a legislator were to promote a law that you don't like, you would quickly Google the man's name, find out if he went to a church, uncover the severe views of the pastor, and use that as a weapon against him?
Posted by Mike Treder on 01/06 at 08:45 PM
Why do you still suspect that? Because you assume everyone else is as narrow-minded as you are.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog