For some reason, I picked up a copy of The Progressive the other day. "Letters to the Editor" has long been my favourite section no matter the publication, so I started there. Lo, and let the forehead-slapping out of frustration begin... I don't even have the energy to rant, as the letters were so consistently internally inconsistant that it would take too much typing and I have other things to do.
On to Scientific American instead. Whew.
Michael Shermer, with whom I sometimes agree, writes a generally insightful column for the mag. This one proved quite interesting (September 2007 edition).An open letter to Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, it states that, "Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance." In the short and worthwhile essay, he goes on to present what could be called a five-point guideline for arguing the cause of atheism. In brief:
"1- Anti-something movements by themselves will fail." He quotes Von Mises here, "People must fight for something they want to acheive, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be." (I chuckle a bit at this, as it proves that even Von Mises saw something with clarity.) Really, any parent who is paying attention will tell you that just saying "Stop it" will not get the results- more effective is the addendum, "do this instead."
"2- Positive assertions are necessary." How many times have I heard "Religion is just bad"? Too many. I don't really want to get into the defence of religion, but have to say, unless you can answer the question "Do you have anything better?" without the circular argument that it's better because of what it's not, you're not going to get far.
"3- Rational is as rational does." No schnitt there. Harris (here we go again) suggesting that we could ethically kill someone for holding an idea is rational how, again? Ignoring the tenets of a religion and choosing to see only the extreme elements in order to paint everyone of the beleif with the same inflamatory brush is rational how? That's not even good science, let alone good thinking. Ignore the evidence you do not like? Way to get the big picture. I'll stop now. Sagan is quoted in this; "You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don't see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it." Words to live by.
"4- The Golden Rule is Symentrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the twentieth century, Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic 'I have a Dream' speech: 'In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.' If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same." I think that says it all, and well.
"5- Promote freedom of belief and disbelief." Thinking, and the freedom to think must be guarded for everyone. MLK, again: "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realise that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realise that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom."
I Have a Dream speech entire. If you have never heard the whole thing, please do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As someone who believes in God and is not a member of a Middle Eastern Sky Father religion, to use Mick's term, I find most of these writers fail because they only address the Judeo-Christian faiths. You can disprove Christianity all you want, but how does that disprove Buddhism or Hinduism or Shinto, etc? These books don't address me, so I don't bother with them, although I do buy them for the library.
They do need to be read and understood. What I have seen with a few of them is that people who do not believe in god, or maybe just have doubts, find so little which is positive, that any voice raised simply *must* be right, and the whole line is swallowed without examination.
I am an atheist, but, as has been seen, I have deep reservations and flat out disagreements with Harris- who, by the way, claims to be a Buddhist, which might account for his conveniently leaving out the kamikaze pilots of Japan when he proclaimed Islam to be the only religion which has suicide bombers. I also do not entirely agree with Dawkins, erudite as he may be.
Dennett writes some beautiful essays, but even he does come off as somewhat pompous and dismissive, which will win no one not already either on the edge or in the camp.
In all their studies, it seems at times that none of them has come accros the phrase, "Preaching to the choir."
I thought Dennett's 'Thank Goodness!' was a very human and warm essay on this topic.
Yes, indeed- that is one of my favourites. It is times like that when his curmudgeonliness works in favour of the essay. He is a gentle man, and it does come through clearly there. Really, I do not see him as being in the same grouping as Harris, Dawkins and (certainly) Hitchens.
That he is one of few saying what he is saying right now and getting published tends to throw him onto the same bookshelf. That shelf is pretty sparsely populated, so we have the alphabetical proximity to consider along with the vocalness. Really, of the four, I think his arguments are the most carefully and thoughtfully considered. While I do not agree in total, I do agree with many of his essays on how to live life- which does not involve killing people or otherwise insulting them, but which does involve rooting out the language and vestigal thought patterns associated with religion by realising that Goodness, not God, is responsible for his being able to write an essay because he is still alive after a heart attack.
Post a Comment