I've read Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed it. I count myself as very much in step with the so-called 'new' atheist movement for a number of reasons which overlap with those publicized by the 'Four Horsemen': Dawkin's, Hitchen's, Dennett and and Harris. However, in arguing with people, both religious and non-religious, I've found that one of the most frequently-cited objections to the 'new atheist' movement is that its proponents aggressively attack religion and religious people, using ridicule and hyperbole to make their arguments. "Why can't they be more gentle and respectful in their discussions" is a common objection that I have heard. Some go even further to ask: "Why can't we just leave the religious to their beliefs since its really only the extremists who threaten the rest of us...and their motivation is more political and based on fanaticism than it is about core religious beliefs".
Now I don't actually agree with some of these objections. For example, I think that if someone claims a religious motivation for doing something nasty (i.e. a terrorist who blows up people or property), then, since there aren't any 'rules' about what constitutes religion vs. non-religion (...as someone raised Unitarian, I can personally vouche for that claim), we ought to take the claim at face value. In any case, it is quite clear that religion can inspire people to do nasty things; history definitely bears this out and nobody sensible really argues with this.
Furthermore, I do agree that the religion that is taught to everyday people in churches, mosques, synangogues etc throughout the world often does encourage people to think in a systematically irrational way and is at odds with healthy intellectual skepticism, rational ethical thinking and open debate. That is not to say that sophisticated religious intellectuals/theologians who question beliefs and discuss their doubts openly do not exist. I have debated these issues with many such people......the problem is that high-brow theological philosophy is NOT what is taught 'on the ground' in churches, Sunday schools and the like. For example, your 'average Joe' raised in a Christian tradition is taught that Jesus: a) is the son of God and part of a trinity, b) was born of a virgin (Mary), c) routinely performed miracles, and d) was killed (and martyred himself for our sins) but then rose from the dead . Furthermore, Joe, if he were raised in a more enthusiastic evangelical church, might also believe that Moses literally parted the Red Sea, rivers sometimes ran with blood, animals and plants were loaded onto a big ark by Noah (who lived to be 800 years old), the Earth is 6000 years old, and that Lot gave the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah free license to rape his two daughters in order to save some angels....and that the latter act was not just sane, but just. Clearly, these beliefs constitute either very dubious super-natural claims for which there is simply no evidence or they are based on barbaric and pseudo-ethical principles. Insofar as it actually works, convincing large numbers of people that such things are 'truths' is dangerous. How are we to expect citizens to intelligently choose candidates based on the quality of their arguments in democratic elections or make rational choices about how to raise and educate their children and participate in society if they have been taught to systematically distrust 'evidence' in favour of 'faith' and trade in-built ethical inclinations for a religiously-inspired hodge-podge of retribution and martyrdom? "Ahhh, but its all taught as a metaphor....you are not supposed to take it literally", I hear the critic say. So which part should I believe literally and which part should I take as a metaphor? Is Jesus the son of God or not? Was his a virgin birth or not? Is a communion wafer the body of Christ or not? If a coupla dudes claiming to be angels show up on my doorstep, should I shove my cat out the door so the citizens of Spryfield can have their way with him? These (except for the latter, I hope) are issues that different denominations of Christianity are well known to disagree over....they are certainly not universally accepted to ALL be metaphors.
Where I do think I differ from Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and and Harris is that I am willing to entertain the idea that HOW we go about eradicating the irrationality of religious belief in the world might matter a lot to our potential success in this project. Generally, I think that the fundamentalists committed to their beliefs will simply be enraged by ridicule and haranguing. They will (and do) fight back against atheism, characterizing it as if it were worse than Satanic worship and warning the yung-uns to stay out of our clutches. This is probably counter-productive. Instead, I think that it might be possible to try to eradicate the really stupid 'wings' of religious movements by arguing against things like Creationism, Intelligent design etc as well as decry religious terrorism simply because of its terrible consequences. By not pushing for complete eradication of religion through a 'shock and awe' approach, we can quietly try to re-establish rationality as a guiding principle in the civilized world. By doing so, I suspect the pernicious and irrational aspects of religions will actually wilt on their own from within their own congregations. As Dawkins has pointed out, this more or less already happened to the Church of England within England as this brand of Christianity more or less transformed into a cultural ritual and artifact. Indeed, many Anglicans (apparently sometimes even the A.B. of Cantab. Rowan Williams) actually do not believe in God, or a literal trinity or that any part of the Bible is literally true.....My point is basically that we should probably promote Enlightenment 'rationalist' values/world-views as much as possible and resist direct attacks on religious institutions/beliefs (with the possible exception of the Catholic church...but that is another post....). By doing this, the crazy parts of religions might dissolve from within leaving the useful parts alone -- i.e. parts like community action, meditation, comforting rituals and its functioning as societal 'glue'.
No comments:
Post a Comment