Back to the lab

That's what we call a Socratic steely-eyed stare down.

But to the issue of atheism, I tend to have a problem with the term and this seems like as good a place as any to vent. My problem, as Jonathan Miller described in his great BBC program(me) "A Rough History Of Disbelief," is that claiming to be an atheist sort of goes against the whole idea of it -- that atheism itself has garnered almost sectarian connotations. An atheist (read like the word "atypical") is simply someone opposed to a belief in god. So labelling yourself an atheist in terms of religious belief is a silly notion. For example, we don't have a special word for people who don't believe in the Boogey Man. So the thought of successfully avoiding all theism only to join another (labelled atheism) troubles me. I don't want a label because I don't speak for or with all atheists. Can't I just be normal, and the rest of the crowd be theists?

This New Atheism being described in the Wired article seems unnecessary. Dawkins never wanted to call his program "The Root Of All Evil" but it's managed to fuel the bonfires of religious atheists (what else should we call those who hold up atheism as a mantra to be indoctrinated?). I think ordering a sort of crusade or jihad in the name of atheism is wrongheaded and, well, incredibly ironic. Couldn't the simple answer to the atheist question be, "I've never talked to a burning bush"? Why insult theists simply because you don't agree with them? Going up to people and telling them their god is imaginary is akin to calling them delusional. You can't expect to win the debate from that starting point.

Of course, it's always funny that these extremist atheists are so quick to condemn Christianity and Islam more than other religions. Where is the outrage against Buddhism? Or are smaller, peaceful religions not evil by their definition?

religious atheists (what else should we call those who hold up atheism as a mantra to be indoctrinated?)

I'm not sure that this isn't a straw man. Even Dawkins is OK with personal religion, so long as

1) it is not used to make decisions for others (so, no religion in public policy, and no holy wars deciding when people die)

and

2) children are not expected to inherit it.

Granted, he reserves the right to mock people for holding inconsistent beliefs, but even he isn't in favor of any kind of compulsory reprogramming.

That said, Dawkins does attempt to win converts. But he does this because there is positive value to being an atheist -- you never make a decision based on outmoded belief systems. You are more capable of acting as a rational, intelligent agent. And the more of those a society has, the better off it is bound to be.

The reason to insult theists is because they empower leaders who attempt to impose their backward rational on all of society. And the reason why no one complains about Buddhism is that it isn't being used as the excuse to prevent women from having access to abortions or to prevent scientists from having access to stem cells or for blowing up civilians.

Dawkins' war isn't against any set of gods, per se, but against inconsistent, irrational thought, and there aren't a ton of Buddhists making headlines by attempting to make bad policy based on the Eight-Fold Path.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: