by Teleprompter
As the number and visibility of atheists and other freethinkers increases, some spectators have questioned whether atheists are becoming more fundamentalist.
Let chaos ensue: how does one judge who is fundamentalist and who is not? What does it mean to be a fundamentalist — are vegetarians, environmental activists or gun rights supporters fundamentalists, too? Where does one draw the line?
Meanwhile, atheists contend that they are subject to a vicious double standard: when nontheistic individuals speak prominently about their beliefs in public, they are lambasted as fundamentalists; yet when popular religious figures share their ideas, they are hailed as devout.
How many people have been dismissed as fundamentalists only because their beliefs are unpopular? How does the term “fundamentalist” retain its meaning in the context of those who do not wield it thoughtfully?
“Why are atheists so uptight about religion?” I have been asked. “Isn’t that a form of fundamentalism?”
People are confused. There is a lack of transparency in the public religious dialogue which prevents meaningful consideration of the issues. Many people are baffled by what atheists want and who is fundamentalist and who isn’t.
How can freethinkers solve this problem of misguided perception?
Individual atheists must clarify why they oppose certain aspects of religion, and there must be a common meaning to the term “fundamentalist” that is universally accepted.
If atheists want more people to understand and support their ideas, they must clearly and plainly answer these two questions.
Is “New Atheism” Misguided?
Pullquote: I believe that most of the criticisms made by the “Four Horsemen” are accurate, but why are they accurate?
Many observers have argued that “new atheists” such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have presented a distorted version of religion in their writings.
Can any critique of religion adequately capture the diversity of opinion which is represented by the entirety of the world’s religious traditions? This task may be impossible for any popular treatment of religion to accomplish.
However, critics of the “Four Horsemen” (the nickname which has been bestowed upon writers Dawkins and Hitchens, along with writers Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett) still insist that even the summarized view of religion expounded by these authors is badly mangled.
Do Dawkins and his allies intentionally state falsehoods? Have they said untrue things about religion? I believe that most of the criticisms made by the “Four Horsemen” are accurate, but why are they accurate?
Dogma: Not As Good As The Movie
Pullquote: When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is the belief that an opinion or viewpoint about the world must be true no matter what the circumstances may be or what new experiences may indicate. Dogma is the bedrock of fundamentalism.
Whether embraced by cronies of Joseph Stalin or friars of the Spanish Inquisition, dogmatism kills.
It is dogma which leads Pope Benedict XVI to claim that condom use is evil, even though it saves lives. It is dogma which leads parishioners to accept that priests can do no wrong, even when they abuse children.
It is dogmatism which leads to violence. When individuals believe in their ideas absolutely, then they will be prepared to do absolutely anything for their ideas.
Dogmatism is a weakness inherent to all human beings. Both atheists and theists alike are capable of suffering from its effects. Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
Pullquote: Opposing dogmatism universally, instead of opposing religion universally, bridges the us/them divide between the religious and the non-religious.
We’re all capable of being irrational, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be rational: it means that we should try even harder to be rational.
Adherence to dogmatism limits our critical thinking, exposes us to abuse from authority, and leads to underdeveloped empathy and an over-reliance on unalterable rules instead of real-life experience.
Not all religion is dogmatic. Not all atheists are dogmatic. All people should oppose dogmatism, whether they are religious or not.
However, it should be acknowledged that religion is highly likely to lead to dogmatism, and religious people should heed the criticisms of Dawkins and his peers.
Most importantly, the proper antidotes for dogmatism are skepticism and critical thinking. If atheists really want to switch the frame of reference for theists, then they should oppose dogmatism by elevating skepticism and critical thinking. Then, change will be inevitable.
Teleprompter blogs at Avert Your Eye.
Dare I say it, ‘amen”. Hehe
So now religion is okay, as long as there’s no dogma involved? I’m pretty gung-ho about removing imaginary, fairy-tale, faith-based nonsense from the world, but I draw the line at nitpicking the terminology by which we practice. Honestly, it’s easier to explain ourselves as anti-religion than anti-dogmatism, mostly due to the fact that most religious people in America don’t know what the hell “dogma” is.
Is there a religion without dogma?
No, religion is dogma + supernatural belief.
The real question here is does supernatural belief act as a catalyst for dogma, because it requires a lack of critical thinking.
Probably.
Supernatural belief is taken on faith, after all.
I agree with opposing dogma. Have you seen this video about dogma on YouTube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmsis-motuY
Wow, superbly done. Indeed many atheist are fundamentalists. These fundamentalists think themselves pure: void of all cognitive illusions, always true to reason and consistently level-headed. They see the wiping out of theism as the answer to the world problems. This simple and incorrect worldview reeks of fundamentalism. I am so refreshed when I read books like “Super Sense” by Bruce Hood and now this blog !
“Indeed many atheist are fundamentalists.”
Really! And how, specifically?
Atheists who are fundamentalists are those who refuse to accept the possibility ( no matter how slight it may be) that there is some greater force. When we shut of our minds to a possibility, we become dogmatic.
There are not such atheists. We don’t reject the possibility, we just state that there is no evidence, not even indication, such force exists.
That’s quite a claim. I’d bet some small bills that there exists some atheist somewhere who is as inflexible and immune to evidence as their religious counterpart.
As opposed to theists who refuse to accept the possibility ( no matter how large it may be ) that there is no greater force. When you shut your eyes/mind to the echoing lack of evidence YOU become dogmatic.
I’m an atheist! And I think if a “greater force” (gravity?) does exist (which I see no reason to believe it does), It doesn’t give two hamster farts about humanity.
So see, I entertain the possibility that “force” exists. I just don’t care if it does, since it’s utterly irrelevant to the world I happen to live in.
That’s strange. Even Dawkins (the “evil ATHEIST with a big A” himself) only places himself on 6, on a scale of 1-7 where 1 is absolute belief in God, and 7 is absolute rejection that God exists.
But even if an Atheist is at a 7 on the “Dawkins scale”, how does that make him a “fundamentalist?
Please list the fundamental tenents of atheism and give examples of how their application is “fundamentalist”.
wut, have you read the rest of this thread? Please see my response below where I say this:
“Dogma isn’t inherent in atheism, it’s inherent in human beings. So it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist, as long as you’re human. Is that clearer?”
Actually, that was a response to one of your comments.
If there is no dogma, what is religion?
You get the “spiritual” people. People who are still superstitious but without the benefit of community or ritual. (can’t recall who said it first)
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/07/09/mouth/
@ Peter
Religion can captures much more than just dogma: Community, self-reflection and kindness.
I think separating out dogma in analyzing religions is a wise move.
But those qualities of life can be had without belief in the supernatural.
I don’t see a claim there in the previous comment that those qualities of life are unique to religion.
No, but those things don’t make religion religion, either, so… what’s the point?
I would ask what’s the point of changing the subject when the first commenter only said that religion is more than simple dogma? Whether religion has a point or not is unrelated to whether it is simple dogma or more varied than that with both good and bad sides.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding point now. Let me try to clarify:
Yes, he meant – I suppose – that religion brings more than dogma. But those things he mentioned are not exclusive to religion; those things are not what makes religion religion. Dogma, on the other hand, while not exclusive to religions, is a great big part of what makes a religion, well, a religion.
If you leave only those things as mentioned above – community, self-reflection, kindness, you don’t have a religion, you have something else altogether. A charity or a club, mayhaps.
You are correct, the poster did not say those qualities are unique to religion.
My point was why then do some people require the supernatural to achieve those goals?
Without dogma isn’t “religion” nothing more than a social club built around superstition?
Yes, and who are you to judge that as something that is inherently bad?
Lots of people may enjoy “a social club built around superstition”.
I think it’s slightly arrogant to judge people for that; do you agree?
To simply ask a question does not mean a conclusion has been reached.
I never said anything about anything being “inherently bad”. Those are your words.
So yes I agree, you have been rather arrogant.
Fentwin, you’re hilarious.
Also, I only said “slightly” arrogant, not rather arrogant, so I am disappointed that you felt compelled to reach for the sophomoric “gotcha” moment.
So yes, thank you, you are right that to simply ask a question does not mean a conclusion has been reached — however, the tone of a question can imply the attitude that the questioner regards toward a particular subject.
I apologize if I misidentified your beliefs, but are you not arguing that religion is pointless?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but if I’ve missed the minutiae of your argument while still identifying your major assumptions, I don’t think I’m all that far from the truth, really.
Also, I did not say that you are arrogant, I said that the idea may be arrogant. I was not personally attacking you, so I think it was over the line when you called me arrogant.
I am very frustrated right now, because I am trying to be civil, but failing at it miserably.
You said yourself that questioning something is not necessarily conclusive — so why did you conclude that I think you are arrogant when I was only questioning whether the idea was arrogant?
Addendum;
As well, you almost engaged my question in your attempt to play disciplinarian.
I simply wonder why some people need or even just prefer the supernatural to be content?
No judging, just a simple question to help one understand a certain dynamic.
I enjoyed reading your article though I am a little disappointed in your initial emotional response to my original question.
Have a great day.
Fentwin, I am a human being, and I am emotional.
That’s sort of what I am trying to say.
I apologize that I have misinterpreted your statements – I am trying to work through them as best I can.
I hope you realize that being emotional is part and parcel of the human experience, and I am saddened that you are disappointed in that.
Please continue this discussion.
“Have a great day” is the worst thing you’ve said so far – it makes me feel like I’ve really wronged you.
I would say that in the end, religion is pointless. What benefit to society does religion, in and of itself, lend to society?
As far as tone, what can I say, the mindset of the reader has as much influence as the author.
Again, I did truly enjoy reading your post and I apologize if we both got off on the wrong defensive foot.
Further, I do understand your question, and I struggle with it myself.
Why do people need religion?
However, I just want to clarify that it is my belief that we should back off a little bit and let individuals struggle with the balance between religion and rationality instead of universally condemning them for their choices.
I think people really desire ritual and community and I think religion can provide these things.
However, I really do think you gave a great question, and I apologize for not conveying this better.
Fentwin, I also apologize for getting off on the wrong defensive foot, and I’m glad that you enjoyed my post.
I sincerely do not know if there is any benefit that religion in and of itself provides to society — however, I believe that individuals should have more leeway to figure this out for themselves. I don’t know if it can be up to us to figure out whether or not religion has benefits — I think it should be up to the individual.
Anyway, thanks for allowing me another chance in this conversation.
I’d like to clarify the “pointless” aspect. My original question was “What is religion without dogma”. Christianity without the dogma (as I was taught as a child, and later rejected as a young adult, ~ 16 – 18 years old) is a social club.
I understand the social aspects community, and per the post above, kindness and self-reflection. All good things. What I don’t understand is the need for the belief in the supernatural to achieve these things. Whether there is a god or not, humans can still gain a sense of community. Self-reflection and awareness are possible without an omni-overseer.
And despite debate, disagreement and misunderstandings and all the other dynamics of life, I still like to think that reasonable people such as we can part in a friendly manner. Hence “have a great day” was indeed sincere.
Thanks, Fentwin. I’m sorry that I didn’t take your words at face value…I am just trying to stay afloat over here. But that’s why I write…so I can express strange ideas and encourage criticism. It’s just tough separating yourself from the process of it all.
I also don’t understand why the belief in the supernatural is necessary to achieve all of those things, but essentially, if it does achieve all of those things…I don’t know any more than you do whether religion should have a role to play in society, but I am just barely opening the door to say that it might have a role somehow.
Even if we do disagree, I am glad that we can part in a friendly manner, and I hope that you accept my apologies.
Tele; “However, I just want to clarify that it is my belief that we should back off a little bit and let individuals struggle with the balance between religion and rationality instead of universally condemning them for their choices.”
Agreed. I am not an atheist evangelist so to speak. I would never think to condemn someone for their religious beliefs. I never see a reason to “preach” about my non-belief. I may think religion is irrational but thats not up to me to decide for someone else. What some one wants to believe as true is up to them to a point (e.g. letting a child die from a treatable disease by just praying over them I can’t see as being right. Though once someone is an adult that should be their choice.).
The only time I really have a problem with someone’s religion/dogma is when they try to implicitly insert their beliefs into the government as policy or they try to instill into my classroom. Otherwise, live and let live as my grandmother used to say as she dragged me off to church. :)
@ Peter: Is there a person without dogma?
I tend to agree. Better to be catmatic.
What does it mean to be a fundamentalist — are vegetarians, environmental activists or gun rights supporters fundamentalists, too? Where does one draw the line?…How does the term “fundamentalist” retain its meaning in the context of those who do not wield it thoughtfully?
“Why are atheists so uptight about religion?” I have been asked. “Isn’t that a form of fundamentalism?”
Here’s a suggestion: instead of just assuming that fundamentalist means bad person or fanatic, why don’t you get yourself access to a dictionary and find out what the word actually means? Dictionary.com might be a good place to start. Then you could tell all those people that the word does not mean what they think it means.
Ah, the age-old prescriptivism vs descriptivism argument. If you limit your use of “Fundamentalist” to “people who believe in the Five Fundamentals”, no-one is going to understand why you’re labelling liberal churches as Fundamentalism.
Oh, and if you’re going to make an argument from the dictionary, you might want to read as far as definition 3 in your cited source, which covers Teleprompter’s use of the term exactly.
Defining the term “fundamentalism” by the dictionary is naive, no offense. Instead, it would be much better to argue for a historical definition. Heck, the people who invented the term and were the first to self-identify as fundamentalists might be a place to start.
Wiki’s got a good article on it. Highlights:
Christian origins
Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian academics and theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the first decade of the Twentieth Century.[11][12] It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations during and immediately following the First World War.[11][12] The movement’s purpose was to reaffirm orthodox Protestant Christianity and zealously defend it against the challenges of liberal theology, German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other “-isms” which it regarded as harmful to Christianity.[11][12]
The term “fundamentalism” has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) which defined those things that were fundamental to Christian belief. The term was also used to describe “The Fundamentals”, a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by Milton and Lyman Stewart[11][12] This series of essays came to be representative of the “Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy” which appeared late in the 19th century within the Protestant churches of the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the “five fundamentals”:[13]
* The inspiration of the Bible by the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
* The virgin birth of Christ.
* The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin.
* The bodily resurrection of Christ.
* The historical reality of Christ’s miracles.
By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as “fundamentalists.”
Since then, the focus of the movement, the meaning of the term Fundamentalism, and the ranks of those who willingly use it to identify themselves, have gone through several phases of re-definition,[11][12] though maintaining the central commitment to its orthodoxy.
[edit] Later usage
The Iran hostage crisis of 1979-80 marked a major turning point in the use of the term “fundamentalism”. The media, in an attempt to explain the ideology of Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian Revolution to a Western audience which had little familiarity with Islam, came to describe it as a “fundamentalist version of Islam” by way of analogy to the Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. Thus was born the term “Islamic fundamentalist”, which would come to be one of the most common usages of the term in the following years.[14]
=======================================
I think teleprompter’s on the right track when he uses the word dogma. That resonates well with me. Anyone who accepts something as dogma — something that’s absolutely unquestionable — is a fundamentalist, I think, and I agree with him that any human being is susceptible.
I don’t think historical definitions really matter all that much, unless you’re interpreting historical documents (because the question is, what did people mean when they used that term back then).
Right now, the definition of a word is how people are using it. It doesn’t matter if people are using it “incorrectly” (which is, I suppose, different from the dictionary meaning or common acceptance). When enough people use a word “incorrectly” it then becomes “correct.”
I quote Bill Bryson who gives some great examples:
Yeah, I agree, which is why I used the word “historical definition” and suggested “starting” with the first “fundamentalists.”
I didn’t mean to imply that we should rule out contemporary usage; on the contrary, contemporary usage matters a great deal!
But I understand “historical” to include “contemporary.” Start in the past and work your way forward … you might learn something that way — like the fact that garble used to mean to clarify!
And really, I was only trying to debunk the notion that one could develop an understanding of what a fundamentalist is by looking in the dictionary. No, one needs to understand the history of such a term to have a complete understanding.
I think fundamentalism as it relates to atheists is on the cusp of contemporary usage.
“Others in turn, such as Christian theologian Alister McGrath, have used the term fundamentalism to characterize atheism as dogmatic.”
A term used as a reaction against the New Atheists. Since atheism is virtually antithetical to dogmatism, this is a rather disingenuous charge. And since it is on the cusp of popular acceptance I choose to resist it. On the other hand the use of the term ‘evangelical’, as BR has used elsewhere, is a fair description. This enthusiasm about spreading the gospel of atheism is what distinguishes the “New Atheists”.
… really? That’s awesome.
(refering to the words and their meanings.)
I don’t appreciate that tone, Reginald, especially when you yourself have some room to improve your ideas.
If you had read my entire article before you said that, you would know my definition of fundamentalism, which for your information, includes coming to a conclusion about an article before one finishes it.
Have a great day.
The problem is that you follow this-
with this-
But you don’t really say how this applies to the “Four Horsemen”. Which criticisms are accurate? Their beliefs boil down to not believing in things without reason, which is the opposite of dogmatic. I don’t understand how your definition applies.
Nevermind. I can’t read.
Criticism coming from the “New Atheists” is not just about one idea: “religion is evil”. Rather, religion is being attacked on 2 main fronts:
1) Falsity. Religion promotes objectively false data as truth to be accepted by “faith” (lobotomy)
2) Danger. Religion makes it acceptable for Tribalism+Dogma to come together until they produce something horrible.
Of course, Religion isn’t the only promoter of false beliefs, but it makes criticism of false beliefs taboo.
It’s also not the only promoter of Tribalism, but it’s the most prominent one in our society and is used by most other memes that thrive on Tribalism. For example: both Republicans AND Liberals use religious rhetoric in their campaigns, and apparently the Communist party recently made an unholy alliance with Christianity by creating a “faith commission”.
Overall, I think that the label “New Atheist” or even “Atheist” to be misleading. It’s necessary but not sufficient. We’re so much more than that. Yes, there is a “We” – the people who value freethought and the scientific method.
Some may be Liberals, some Libertarians, some even Republican, some deist, but we all agree that there are no voodoo forces operating in Nature, which makes religion and new-age-spirituality bullshit.
Teleprompter,
Very well-written; I appreciate reading thoughtful comments from your side of this issue.
One thing I’d be curious about your perspective on, though. When defining fundamentalism, I agree that dogma is as good a starting point as any. In my opinion, one of the implications of thinking dogmatically as you’ve described is an explicit desire to eradicate points of view that differ from one’s own. Obviously, we see that in both Christian and Islamic fundamentalism to varying degrees.
As a Christian myself, albeit a rather moderate-to-liberal one, and as one who grew up in fundamentalism, I share some of your concerns about dogmatic/fundamentalist thinking, especially when it comes to religious folks who want to eradicate atheism (and even free thinking in general).
The point of similarity that disturbs me between religious fundamentalism and the new atheism is the desire to eradicate the worldview of the other. When I read Sam Harris, for example, I get very concerned, because he seems to be willing to stop at nothing short of the eradication of all religion and religious thinking everywhere.
I’m not trying to get us into a debate about whether or not atheists should accept/tolerate religion or not.
I’m merely wondering if the desire to convert and “don’t stop until we’ve convinced the world that we’re right” can/should be part of the definition of fundamentalism; and, if people from the other side of the debate perceive the same parallel between the two schools of thought that I pointed out above.
As I recall, Sam Harris has a lot of appreciation for eastern religion, See the last parts of End of Faith.
Yeah that was definitely the worst part. ;)
I’ve never read Harris’ books, just various articles, etc. on the interwebs. I don’t have a clue what he thinks about Eastern religions.
He appreciates “spiritual experience”, for lack of a better word, not Eestern religions wholesale. That focusing your consciousness in a certain way can give transformative, reproducible effects; and that this problem can be approached in a rational way, without beleiving a bunch of superstitious woo. I can dig it.
***The point of similarity that disturbs me between religious fundamentalism and the new atheism is the desire to eradicate the worldview of the other.***
Br, I always enjoy your posts because you are very fair and intelligent during discussions on here. I can certainly see a parallel between fundementalism and some “new atheists” on eradicating opposing worldviews. I don’t think that a majority of new atheists share that desire, but I imagine a substantial percentage does.
But I would also say there is a basic difference between, for instance a fundementalist Christian sect and Sam Harris, when they both imply that they would enjoy the “eradication of other worldviews different from their own.” On one hand you have Harris calling for people to impose sound, accurate criticisms of specific aspects of a believer’s faith when they make unsubstantiated claims like: a cluster of dividing human cells 8 hours after conception has a soul. He does this in the hope that the criticism will weaken the foundations of the believer’s faith eventually leading to keeping the believer quiet about his faith in matters of politics etc. (best case scenerio) or going all the way to causeing disbelief.
On the other hand you have “its our way or the highway.” Much criticism of opposing world views is rooted in dogmatism, and tends to attack the totality of the other view ie “nothing about your world view is correct because ours is entirely correct.” I fear this line of thinking greater than those who use sound science and reasoning to systematically deconstruct impossible claims made by the faithful.
Plus, I think if you polled atheists you’d find far more who would just prefer not to hear anything about God or Jesus or Allah coming from our politicians and various decision makers, than those who want it to be illegal to believe in God.
Thanks, I try. I don’t always succeed, but I do try to be generous and open-minded. Thanks for taking the same tone with me in your comments. I appreciate that.
There are definitely glaring differences between religious fundamentalism and the new atheists; you’re right, I don’t think anyone is trying to make religion illegal, while there certainly are religious zealots who strive to make every religion/non-religion illegal but their own. You’re correct to point out those differences.
This is a sticky point for me. On the one hand, I support the separation of church and state in that I don’t think the government has any business endorsing one religion over another or has any business promoting religion in general. But on the other hand, there are religious people in government, and like it or not, one can’t completely separate religion and politics. As long as people have opinions, and as long as those opinions are informed by culture, philosophy, and religion, religious views are going to make their way into politics. That’s simply a reality. Yet, I don’t think we ought to be legislating religious beliefs, and we religious people need to be cautious there.
So, when I hear things like “Get your religion out of my government,” I actually hear, “Get religious people out of my government,” because in my view, you can’t just take a scalpel and cut religion out of the person — no matter how hard you might try.
Take Harris’ opposition of Collins as a very recent example. As I’ve read his protests, I’ve essentially heard him make the argument that Collins’ faith will inevitably taint his science, in spite of the fact that Collins is generally very well-respected, and his faith hasn’t “corrupted” his science in the past.
To me, that’s fundamentalist thinking. It’s working from an unquestionable assumption, namely, that religious thinking will always corrupt/taint science, and moving toward a conclusion, namely, that Collins cannot fulfill his duties, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, namely, that Collins has always done good science.
As a religious person, that type of thinking is scary, because it seeks to exclude me from public discourse simply because I’m religious, and that to me is no better than than making religion/atheism illegal.
You shouldn’t hear that. It’s not about cutting religion out of a person — it’s about cutting it out of a government that represents people of many religions (and us nonreligious folks). So I’m fine with, say, a Muslim in office, as long as they don’t try and pass laws that favor Muslims over others or want to promote Islam on public buildings. I assume you feel similarly?
And I feel the same way about Christians, Hindus, Mormons, etc. It’s not that I don’t want them in office — though of course I prefer people who think somewhat like myself — I just don’t want their religion in our government. There is a way to keep it separate. Just like if I was in office, I wouldn’t try to put “WE DON’T TRUST IN GOD” on our currency or on public buildings, or trying to restrict who can run for office based on my non-religious beliefs. They can do the same, and should.
Yes, we agree.
On some issues, it’s cut-and-dried. Don’t spend gov’t money to put “In God we Trust” on the side of a building. Don’t create laws that force people to acknowledge religions. Etc. I get that, and I agree with you.
However, I do think there are other issues in which it’s not as clear. For example, what really constitutes a human life? (euthanasia and abortion). My (tentative) answers engage science, philosophy, and religion — and I think it’s perfectly appropriate for all three to be engaged in public discourse as well. In other words, I’m not sure the way to keep them separate is always obvious (and in some cases not even sure it’s possible…).
Here in Brazil – a heavily religious country, where, curiously, different faiths seem to blend and mix into each other – we had one such case regarding the abortion of anencephalic foeti. The Catholic church (largest and heavier here) opposes it, whereas the law – and more importantly, the justice – does not.
A supreme court magistrate once went about it on a popular magazine, and I earned some very deep respect for the man. While he is Catholic, and personally does not agree with abortion, he understands that his position as a judge overruled his personal inclinations and philosophies over the rule of law – and law says anencephalic foeti can be aborted, much like those conceived via incest, rape, or whose existence threatens the health of the mother, as long as you have a court order authorizing the abortion. Abortion is illegal in every other situation.
That’s the kind of thinking I would like to see. “I may not personally agree with it, but I know what I am here for, and I know the laws and the constitution and the will of the people, so I should abide to it whether it goes counter my personal morals or not.” That’s what I see – from afar – most seriously lacking in this whole discourse. Opinions are that, opinions. Feelings are personal. The law isn’t supposed to be.
“Not all religion is dogmatic”
Evidence please.
OT but very relevant to this blog. Where do trolls come from:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,4149,Dembski-Exam,William-A-Dembski—designinferencecom
“provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade).”
I believe that this has been outed as a poe over at Pharyngula.
My mistake…it was not a poe. Follow up here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/intelligent_design_supporters.php
Interesting I am atheist, but am I a fundie?
Wel let’s see.
* I do not convert people.
* I do not go from door to door to put atheist magazines in the busses.
* I do not go to religieous forums to try to prove them wrong.
* I do not expect to just believe me, I tell them to check it for themselves.
* I write on atheis blogs.
* I don’t care if you blieve or not, just don’t convert me!
* I condemn hurting people even if it comes from Atheists.
Tele said “As the number and visibility of atheists and other FREETHINKERS increases”…
The very word “freethinker” being a compound of two is, in itself an oxymoron of sorts. The assumption here is that within your capacity to “think freely” that it will lead one (or many) to that freedom with which you claim to “think” from and thus effect an ever-increasing liberty free from “dogma”, religiosity, etc.
While sounding novel and original what you have actually (and unknowingly) espoused is the re-invention of the proverbial wheel. For the truth that sets one free is of an eternal quality, is of a spiritual nature and kind and yet is housed (again unknowingly) within us, but “above”, superior to the faculties of logic and reason which have been so developed, strengthened since our youth by society, etc now assuming the dominant role and aspects of our very being, usurping their Head (Christ within). But when perfectly aligned and subject to the Head, the spirit of wisdom, truth and life within, then and only then do reason and logic perform their rightful duties in splendor, in beauty and reach their true and high potential.
But, since you deny the very existance of “Spirit” calling it nonsense (in the true meaning of the word since it makes no sense to your faculties of reason & logic) that we should be obligated, wholly dependent upon some unseen and intangible “Force” that we neither know or trust…you “logically” come to this conclusion and understandably so. Ironically, it was that very same thing, a type of freethinking (venturing outside of truth, innocence) that has catapulted humanity into its current-day conditions. And so, in the perceived light (a darkness indeed) you advocate it’s perpetuation, its continued vanity.
Yet there is a place, even a Person of Innocence, Purity, Truth who would dwell within each of us and lead us “out” into that place of freedom that you claim to seek by these contrary and unfruitful means, ie “freethinking”. For the ground and soil of your being can not grow anything new and true unless it first be fertilized with the eternal Potential, that life-giving Spirit. Self effort is self defeating. Our own light compared to The Light is as the moon is to the sun, lightless having no light of its own yet it THINKS otherwise.
The truth of every man is Christ perfected in Him.
But how do you know, John? Where does your knowledge come from?
;)
BR…”I” dont know anything yet the Spirit of Truth leads us and guides us into ALL truth, right? So we say with Paul, its no longer “I” that lives but Christ lives (is doing the living) in me…Gal 2:20. This is the true work of the cross, a full exchange, our (dead, false, adamic) lives for His (uncreated, true, eternal) life. Christ restores us to the condition of Adam before the fall and that is a condition in….GLORY. We dont want to be as those who are living the lie (from the wrong nature).
So we hear (if we want to) these true words…as for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and YOU HAVE NO NEED FOR ANYONE TO TEACH YOU; but as His anointing (tangible presence of the spirit) teaches you about ALL things, and is TRUE and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. 1 Jn 2:27.
But do we really believe (trust) Him? That is what makes all the difference my friend.
And so, “if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just AS THE TRUTH IS IN JESUS, that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self…and that you (BR) BE RENEWED IN THE SPIRIT OF YOUR MIND, and PUT ON THE NEW SELF, which IN THE LIKENESS OF GOD has been created in righteousness and holiness of THE TRUTH (the original, pre-fall, God intention BR).
The words that imprinted on my heart are “as the truth is in Jesus”. Now if we are wholly “in Him” then the Truth is (also) in us. Hmm…what is man that thou art mindful of Him”?
Much light and blessings.
I want to hit my head on the wall. Over. and. over. again.
You’re not alone. I tried to have a discussion with John C for several months, and I tried and tried, and then I saw other commenters doing the same thing, going even farther than I ever got, and I saw the same things happening again and again.
John C will probably always say the same things, no matter what you say in response.
Wouldn’t it suck to learn very late in life that you could have known truth all along? What’s worse? Having to listen to crazy John C declare the same things over and over (while there’s still time, your still young) or to continue to…not know and live it?
Have we not become as the proverbial frog in the pot of boiling water (this lowered life condition) and become acclimated to not knowing? To concede, resign?
I tell you the truth-that we CAN KNOW it, He died that we might. That is love.
Wouldn’t it suck to learn how much time you wasted, later one, running after the stars?
Its been like that from day one. The first article I saw him post on he lied about not being here to proselytize, only to admit on another article that he came to Witness. If he was going to change his tune it would have happened by now.
I never admitted that I was “here to witness”, you will not find such a post for it is not the case. I have no personal agenda. Also, as promised I have cut way back on UF participation which I believe even Daniel would attest to. I know, not enough huh? lol.
What can I say? I love you guys! :)
Cutting back on witnessing is not the same as not witnessing. Its like cutting back on rape.
Poor, very poor analogy.
Not if you think religion is bad. The fact that it does some good makes it even worse; it’s easier to point out that something is all harm than it is to point out that it does more harm than good.
“I never admitted that I was “here to witness”, you will not find such a post for it is not the case.”
You lie.
I remember your post as do others.
It didn’t make the port over when Dan updated the website.
John, I was just teasing you … hence the *wink*
I was hoping to curtail the inevitable stream of “How do you know” questions that get thrown your way each time you post :)
All best, John.
And thanks for the kind words and prayers (dare I say?). Back at you.
“spirit of wisdom”
“truth and life within”
You do realize that these phrases, which your paragraph is chok-full-of, are meaningless right? How does one quantify the “spirit of wisdom” within another human? I bet the measuring stick is your own beliefs…weird
Everything you’ve ever typed on this forum translates as “this is what/how I believe, and you are in error until you share this belief” to probably 99% of the readers.
Thanks, Teleprompter. This is fine insight and a good reminder on where the divide actually lies and perhaps more importantly where it does not.
Personally, I’ve taken to the tactic of attacking faith. By faith, I mean the belief in something despite either no credible evidence, substantial evidence to the contrary, or a combination of both.
One could certainly make the argument that religion implies faith. After all, if a religion were based on scientifically and empirically verifiable constructs… well… we’d call it science, right? One could also argue that religion without faith is philosophy. I can agree with that to some extent. Some practitioners of Buddhism do not seem to have faith in anything in particular. They live by a philosophy attributed to the Buddha. They believe that living by this philosophy will make them happy. They see other Buddhists who are happy. No faith involved.
Should we call Buddhism a philosophy instead of a religion? I dunno. There are some sects of Buddhism that do very much resemble religions, and do espouse beliefs about the nature of reality that have no scientific foundation.
The problem, I think, is that the “marginally religious” — people who practice cultural religion without the magic and praying and such — will feel threatened either way. If we atheists go out of our way to assure them that we’re not attacking religion, only dogma or faith, they’re going to correctly deduce that our attack is still aimed at pretty much all religion. They will rightly see that their cultural way of life is threatened by our attack, even if we aren’t particularly concerned by them.
I’ve been seeing a lot of criticism of “New Atheism” around the blogosphere lately. In all honesty, it puzzles me. The thing is, I see a lot more criticism of “fundamentalist atheism” than I’ve seen anything I could call fundamentalist atheism. Where are these fundamentalists? I haven’t seen one street corner atheist preacher yet. Not once in my entire life. I see websites where atheists are posting about how angry they are at being marginalized, or that science takes a backseat to religion. Is that what everyone is upset about? If so, that’s not fundamentalism, and I call shenanigans for a double standard.
Hambydammit,
You know I’m a regular commenter on your website, so I’d hope you’d remember that I am familiar with your approach to religion, and for what’s it worth, I essentially agree with that approach.
Did you read the section of my post where I, in fact, did lament about a double standard between atheists and theists? Because I said what you said.
I’m not criticizing “new atheism”. I’m trying to establish a guideline for how “new atheism” can succeed without succumbing to charges of fundamentalism.
I consider myself a vocal atheist. I don’t bring it up in RL to people unless they ask me about it, but I write a lot about atheism and skepticism on-line, as you are also doing.
I want atheists to no longer be marginalized. I don’t want science to take a backseat to religion. We have the same goals, Hambydammit, and we’re taking almost an identical approach.
Please examine the words of my article more closely; I think you are missing something if you think that my main idea here is that I’m attacking “new atheism” or calling it fundamentalist. If you read my words closely, you’ll understand that I am saying nothing of that sort.
My mother is a Christian. Her church feeds people who are hungry. She doesn’t judge me for being an atheist – her advice is to question everything. She has never told me to go to hell. In fact, she happens to be a universalist. What do you want me to tell people like her?
My idea is that religion doesn’t have to be dogmatic.
My idea is that “new atheism” should succeed, and it shouldn’t be dogmatic, either.
My idea is that we should elevate skepticism and critical thinking.
My idea is that we can get religious people to agree with us that skepticism and critical thinking are important, and maybe that will lead them to agree with us on other important issues. Maybe it will even change their perspective? I don’t know.
But what if religious people perceive an emphasis on critical thinking as an attack on their faith? Fine, I say. Faith without critical thinking is the kind of faith we should oppose.
I’m not out to destroy anyone’s cultural way of life. I’m not here to tell Ferrari drivers that they should drive a Corvette. I’m not here to tell chocolate lovers that dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate.
I’m not here to say that my choice, that my preference, is absolutely the only way.
I don’t believe that religion is true, but if it helps people, who am I to say that it should be eliminated?
I want to focus on what I believe is truly important, and I believe that skepticism and critical thinking are truly important, and if other religious people or other atheists disagree with my approach, I’m secure enough that I won’t be offended by it.
Teleprompter, I get you. I didn’t think you were attacking new atheism. (I still don’t know what new atheism is. Nobody’s ever defined it well enough that it made sense to me.) If anything, I was just offering a slightly different approach — faith, as opposed to dogmatism — and also backing you up that religion is not necessarily faith based or dogmatic.
The thing is, I’m still trying to work out whether or not I think religion is necessarily a bad thing. I am inclined to think so, but only because my own definition of religion includes necessarily non-scientific beliefs about reality. Any set of ideals for living that are derived from science… well… that’s science, or philosophy.
I’m also trying to work out how to effectively attack bad critical thinking, dogmatism, and faith while giving “religion as a whole” a get out of jail free card. Every time I’ve ever said that religion itself might be ok, everyone jumps up and says, “OK… I’m a good person, and I’m religious, so I’m ok… because I’m a good person.” Everybody thinks they get to jump on the other side of the fence because after all, religion is ok, but only if you practice it the right way.
Too much like a No True Scotsman for my taste.
So I dunno… Maybe I’m one of the shits who’s clogging the system by insisting on attacking religion. The thing is, I can’t think of any way to allow a loophole without every theist in the country trying to jump through.
That’s a great point. I am also going through a similar struggle, trying to work out these questions for myself.
And that’s sort of the point, isn’t it?
Working these questions out for ourselves? Isn’t that the point – not immediately reverting to some kneejerk opinion.
That’s why I wrote this, because I am thinking this through and I think it should be thought through rationally.
Good post, Tele.
I knew when reading it that the comment thread below would almost certainly prove your point. UF has a ton of ideologues who can’t let the slightest hint of a nice thing be said about the opposition.
Anyway, good work.
I refuse to think of you as an opponent.
What, you mean you don’t view us as evil godless demons with an agenda to turn all elementary school kids into homosexuals and make the US into a communist nation that worships Satan himself? Obviously you don’t listen enough to conservative talk radio. ;)
Actually, I do believe all that. I’m just putting up a front so that you’ll convert to Jesus.
/sarcasm.
Atheists for Jesus, eh? Not a bad idea.
If you do not see me as an Opponent,then you are not one of the Ideologues from the subject of that sentence.
Perhaps I should have used “scare quotes” around the word “opposition”, to be clearer.
I guess I just don’t understand who the Ideologues are.
Pingback: What is all this nonsense about atheist fundamentalists? « Life Without a Net
“I want to hit my head on the wall. Over. and. over. again.”
lmao – after reading Daniels reply to John C, I spit my drink all over my keyboard!
Too fine a distinction? I don’t think there is any such thing as religion without dogma. All religion is dogmatic. New-agey energyism is not religion.
…maybe “Fight Dogma and Religion”? There are plenty of examples of irreligious dogma, and none of them have favorable results.
Now, you guys are talking! It’s my right to believe in God, as long as it does not harm anyone, say much as I believe in anyone’s right to marry whoever they want, as long as its consentua, or your right to not believe in anything, l. All that irrespective of what YOU want me to not believe. There’s liberty in that.
Name one religion that does not have a negative effect on anyone.
Shouldn’t the question be name one relgion where the positive benefits out weigh the negative ones?
Maybe. My point was that “as long as it does not harm anyone” is a huge catch. Believing in gods is always harmful. In the mid-nineteenth century, people had the right to own other people. “Rights” granted by a government to its citizens are not the arbiter of right and wrong.
I’m suspicious about this “right to believe anything”. Do you have a right to believe that the moon is made of cheese? Do you have a right to believe in Canada’s future dominion over humanity? Do you have a right to believe that women are inferior to men? I suppose, technically, but beliefs are where actions come from, and many beliefs are evil.
If religion were truly a private matter, the “right to believe anything” argument might have more weight. Unfortunately, religion has perhaps the single biggest influence on mankind; claiming it’s private rings hollow.
I customize my religion so it does not harm anyone. I’m Christian, by the way.
“It’s my right to believe in God, as long as it does not harm anyone”
And it’s our right to criticize your beliefs. Apparently you think your beliefs should be above criticism. That’s religious dogma for ya!
This is the one I always find most difficult. There’s one thing to say that someone should have the right of religous freedom but it’s something else to say that their faith must be respected and be above criticism.
You said that, I didn’t!
“Dogmatism is a weakness inherent to all human beings. Both atheists and theists alike are capable of suffering from its effects.”
Please list the fundamental tenents of atheism and give examples of how their application is intolerant and dogmatic.
Not wishing to second guess Teleprompter but “capable of” doesn’t mean the same “inherent in”.
Dogma isn’t inherent in atheism, it’s inherent in human beings. So it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist, as long as you’re human. Is that clearer?
Yep I think my ‘second guess’ was ok …
Faith-based Ideology. A known direct cause of the death of millions.
Faith-based everything else – a probable cause of the death of millions more.
“Free will”, “race”, “superiority of men”, the “dominion of man” …
I would say a Christian is a fundamentalist when rather than subscribing to Jesus’ explicit commandment to love,
John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
he or she subscribes to a list of commandments made by men but backed by scripture.
In an atheist fundamentalism would be someone who attempts to describe the rules for a “true” atheism.
I guess it boils down to rules before fools.
Dare to compare:
http://www.canada.com/life/atheists%20care%20about%20religion/1873906/story.html
I’m not the only one who’s saying this.
Religion is not dogma. Religion is knowledge based science.
Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator, this paper I presented at the 1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, held at The Lonavla Yoga Institute (India), Lonavla, Pune in 2006. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.
AND
‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:
For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.