Scattered Responses to the New Atheism
Cory sent me a link to this article;
Wired magazine - "Battle of the New Atheism"
It's an examination of several books by so-called "New Atheists." The "New" seems mostly to mean that authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett "condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God" (my emphasis). Their position is that "Religion is not only wrong; it's evil." It's a thoroughly evangelistic atheism. I point you once again to the article - it's a worthwhile read, and I'll assume from here that you read it.
I am not a new atheist ("NA" for the remainder of this post). I am influenced by the work of Dawkins, and Dennett especially. In Dawkins' naturalist/supernaturalist terms, I consider myself a naturalist. But what's most striking about this debate, and its current flare-up, is that it is over a God I don't believe in either.
The NAs (and As in general) argue against the existence of a God who: acts in our universe apart from physical processes, is magical, cares deeply about individual humans' metaphysical beliefs, and for whom the image of a human father is more than metaphorical. But not all concepts of God adhere to this image; for example, the possibility that God is panentheistic does not seem to have been addressed by the NAs.
The NA's position that religion is evil in itself seems misguided; from Mother Teresa to John Doe in the fourth row to my own self, great good is done and evil is resisted religiously. There must be something else about religion that is evil - a tendency to justify violence, a tendency to use the fear of God to oppress others, the sum total
of religious influence in a utilitarian sense over human history, etc. - but
those things are not "religion" in itself. The NA's argument seems flawed there, unable to clearly identify the problem/evil.
----
Everyone, from fundamentalist to New Atheist, seems to accept the premise that religion is primarily about belief in a supernatural God. I don't accept the premise. I accept science and reason as the primary arbiters of truth, and they sent me down a path of deep questioning (Wired calls it a "slippery slope") and at some point along the journey I discovered following Jesus. It is a way of life - of being and doing - and not a belief system. Right now I'm open and unattached on the metaphysical stuff / beliefs. I'm inverted from the cliche of my generation; I'm "religious, not spiritual." My faith is a holy practice, a Way of living this life here and now, based on a call to service (what Dennett calls "trust") and love beyond reason.
Even if Dawkins, et. al., convinced me of their arguments, I would still be trying to follow Jesus.
Because I think that's what God is all about. Giving yourself in love, as a servant, to the people and the world around you. For those of us who need help figuring out what that looks like in a human being, there's this story I heard...
-h
Wired magazine - "Battle of the New Atheism"
It's an examination of several books by so-called "New Atheists." The "New" seems mostly to mean that authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett "condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God" (my emphasis). Their position is that "Religion is not only wrong; it's evil." It's a thoroughly evangelistic atheism. I point you once again to the article - it's a worthwhile read, and I'll assume from here that you read it.
I am not a new atheist ("NA" for the remainder of this post). I am influenced by the work of Dawkins, and Dennett especially. In Dawkins' naturalist/supernaturalist terms, I consider myself a naturalist. But what's most striking about this debate, and its current flare-up, is that it is over a God I don't believe in either.
The NAs (and As in general) argue against the existence of a God who: acts in our universe apart from physical processes, is magical, cares deeply about individual humans' metaphysical beliefs, and for whom the image of a human father is more than metaphorical. But not all concepts of God adhere to this image; for example, the possibility that God is panentheistic does not seem to have been addressed by the NAs.
The NA's position that religion is evil in itself seems misguided; from Mother Teresa to John Doe in the fourth row to my own self, great good is done and evil is resisted religiously. There must be something else about religion that is evil - a tendency to justify violence, a tendency to use the fear of God to oppress others, the sum total
of religious influence in a utilitarian sense over human history, etc. - but
those things are not "religion" in itself. The NA's argument seems flawed there, unable to clearly identify the problem/evil.
----
Everyone, from fundamentalist to New Atheist, seems to accept the premise that religion is primarily about belief in a supernatural God. I don't accept the premise. I accept science and reason as the primary arbiters of truth, and they sent me down a path of deep questioning (Wired calls it a "slippery slope") and at some point along the journey I discovered following Jesus. It is a way of life - of being and doing - and not a belief system. Right now I'm open and unattached on the metaphysical stuff / beliefs. I'm inverted from the cliche of my generation; I'm "religious, not spiritual." My faith is a holy practice, a Way of living this life here and now, based on a call to service (what Dennett calls "trust") and love beyond reason.
Even if Dawkins, et. al., convinced me of their arguments, I would still be trying to follow Jesus.
Because I think that's what God is all about. Giving yourself in love, as a servant, to the people and the world around you. For those of us who need help figuring out what that looks like in a human being, there's this story I heard...
-h
Scattered Responses to the New Atheism posted by St. Peter's UCC at Monday, December 04, 2006
1 Comments:
Reading this bit of text I cannot help but to sense an element of ecclesiastic despair on the part of the authors. With plus 6.5 billion people in consternation on this planet it is the last thing humanity can afford. Unfortunately the Church (and this includes all believes such as Islam) and Religion is not entirely innocent in my book either. I have also fathomed and captured thought in “Journey to the Truth”
In my research for my book though I came across worrying scriptures in the Quran where AN EYE FOR AN EYE as well as the denunciation of the Islamic faith shall be met by war, is entrenched. Therefore, I guess, unless something change about religion Armageddon is at hand.
Anyway could you be so kind as to give an opinion on my book? Here is a free download link: [http://truthtraders.com/download/_TruthV1_69328-081012-225639-81_0.zip
I must say I do enjoy your blog and hope to hear from you soon.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home