Blogger: Mondo Cane - Post a Comment: "Many vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins (who I consider a 'fundamentalist' atheist!) seem to be of the belief that 'religion' can be dangerous to society, citing examples such as terrorist attacks, etc. This does have a ring of truth, especially when fundamentalists are involved. But for me, atheism IS just another form of religion [specifically one believing # gods=0, as opposed to monotheism: # gods=1 or polytheism: # gods>1!]."
There is definitely a difference between the "Atheism as religion" and the brand of atheism I profess. I don't think it is a very good idea to push atheism on others, but not for the reasons you list: more simply, I believe it quite pointless to try to "convert" overtly irrational people with a rational argument. Not that I have not tried in the past, and with educated and intelligent people who were, as I soon found out, not quite rational. Irrationality is, of course, inviolable as much as fundamentalism.
Is religion dangerous for society? I would disagree with Dawkins on that one as well. Misguided people are definitely dangerous for society; people lacking empathy, social skills; self-centered people, violent people, ignorant people; mentally ill and severely irrational people; and of course, every combination of the above. It would however be a difficult argument to make that the existence of religion in itself affects those categories of individuals to the point of being danger for society. Every religion is nothing but a story that people tell each other for various reasons. Its power is just proportional to the desire of people to accept the story as revelation of some mysterious Truth. A story does not make people explode in public places.
A better argument, in some contexts, could be that severe ignorance, poverty and desperation may lead to religion and sometimes to martyrdom as well. As we know, educated people living in a functional society with access to resources and support are much less likely to do that.
However this debate is important for at least three reasons:
- there is a large bias in some societies about considering religious expression as dignified as forms of gnosis. I believe it is absurd to give completely unfounded assertions the same importance of the scientific process, for instance.
- there is a large bias in some societies against people who choose not to profess a religion. I denounce that as obscurantist and unfair.
- there is a tendency in many societies to appeal to religious authorities for opinions of an ethical nature. I strongly believe that very often, these people are among the least qualified to put forward statements about ethics for their less than spotless history (past and present), and the simple fact that their belief being not universal makes any general statement completely unfounded. Better would be to adhere to a better form of ethics based on principles people can agree on without the intervention of metaphisical entities, burning bushes and the like. We should be way past that, by now.
Posts
