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
1 comment:
Sorry, I didn't see this post, until I commented on the more recent one!
Ok, I think I'm in agreement with a lot of what you say in this post.
Just a few points on the three reasons you cite for the debate:
1. I'm a bit reluctant to use the word gnosis (that's the Greek for "knowledge", right?), as the alternative to "religious expression", given its historical association with particular early Christian groups! ;) But, that's just semantics I suppose.
Since I'm a scientist, obviously I consider the scientific process a rigorous and rational one. And so, would hold it in high importance.
But, I also think democracy is unfortunately one of the better political systems we have come up with so far. One of the ideal principles of modern democracy is that the viewpoint of the majority should be weighted in consideration. It is very tempting to abandon this principle, when you think that the popular viewpoint on some issue is completely off-track. But, if you consider democracy preferable to other systems, e.g., dictatorships, then all you can do is try & convince them of the error of their ways. You unfortunately have to respect their opinion!
Also, from a philosophical point of view, I would have to admit that the scientific process is merely a specific belief system in itself - one that I believe in myself, of course!!!
2. There is a large bias in most (!) societies against people from many different religions. Atheism is not an exception to this rule!
In Northern Ireland, there is still huge bigotry between Protestants and Catholics - all of whom consider themselves Christians! If anything, an atheist would probably be better recieved there! ;)
3. Well, again, this is the difficulty in endorsing democracy! You wouldn't be the first person to agree with the principles of democracy, and then start to say, "Well, those people don't really know what they're talking about. They shouldn't really be included... And those people too, they're not being rational..."
It's a slippery slope to then concluding that actually the only one who properly gets all the subtleties of the important issues is myself... Maybe, I should be the one to make the decisions... after all, most of what I say makes sense... to me, at least... :p
Obviously, I'm joking here, but I assume you get the point. If you agree with the principles of democracy, then unfortunately, you have to "respect" other people's viewpoints. You don't have to agree with them though! And you should be allowed to try & convince them of your own viewpoint...
Post a Comment