Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Further on the issue of believers v. the "New Atheists", non-believer Theodore Dalrymple has an excellent one in City Journal: What the New Atheists Don’t See - To regret religion is to regret Western civilization.:
I first doubted God’s existence at about the age of nine. It was at the school assembly that I lost my faith. We had been given to understand that if we opened our eyes during prayers God would depart the assembly hall. I wanted to test this hypothesis. Surely, if I opened my eyes suddenly, I would glimpse the fleeing God? What I saw instead, it turned out, was the headmaster, Mr. Clinton, intoning the prayer with one eye closed and the other open, with which he beadily surveyed the children below for transgressions. I quickly concluded that Mr. Clinton did not believe what he said about the need to keep our eyes shut. And if he did not believe that, why should I believe in his God? In such illogical leaps do our beliefs often originate, to be disciplined later in life (if we receive enough education) by elaborate rationalization...
Via Barney Zwartz at The Age from whence we find this further exchange.
It's an interesting article, but like most who cover the subject, Dalrymple appears to confuse 'belief in God' with membership in a religious group.
The atheists who are critical of religion seem to object mostly to the excesses and rivalries that religious 'team spirit' can produce. Of course, these atheists belong their own 'team', and they've caused some problems too....
Hmm...that's not how I read them. I see Dennett and Hitchens and Dawkins as arguing against the revolt to reason that belief in the supernatural seems to suggest. They use the excesses of organized religion to show where it all leads, but at root they seem upset with the idea that pure scientific reason can't account for everything -- and the moment we admit the limits of science, all that other bad stuff is sure to follow. They don't like the idea of "God," period, nevermind organized religion. I think saying the mostly object to "membership in a religious group" is giving a bit too much credit to this particular group. Of course, I've read bits and pieces of them and seen them speak, but never read their stuff in depth, so maybe they mitigate in their books (I've read Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"), but I've not seen the proof of that yet. ;)
They don't like the idea of "God," period, nevermind organized religion.
That's true. I haven't read much of what they say either, but I've read some of their articles and I've heard them speak. They base their argument on the idea that if it can't be explained by our current scientific knowledge, it's "supernatural". That weakens their argument, since there is so much out there that science can't explain.
Like Dalrymple, atheists like Hitchens seem to think that belief in God=belief in religion, and they use these terms interchangably.
Sol:
You will get this: http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2007/12/04/why-atheists-are-so-angry/