So I've been on a kick recently - listening to some of the "New Atheists" on podcasts during my commutes. One of the things that they all seem to "preach" is about the effect of religion with regard to violence and war. While I believe that religion can undeniably have an impact, it seems to me that nationalism, racism, etc. play equal or often greater roles.
I assert that the tribal nature of humans breeds violent conflicts. Religion is often used as a tool of manipulation, but I think it's more of a tribal attribute than a spiritual one.
Many of the theists that I've heard will raise this point and I think it's very fair to do so. This is another example of humans abusing religion and not necessarily a problem with religion itself. The fact that religion can be made so pliable seems to be the real source of the problem in this context.
Monday, August 9, 2010
The sting of death
I was listening to a Sam Harris lecture podcast this morning. He mentioned the notion of "the sting of death" as a contrasting point on how people spend their time here on Earth. Religion puts an interesting twist with the introduction of the afterlife. If you truly believe in the afterlife then where is the pain in dying? What importance does that put to your life here on Earth?
It brought to mind stories told by American soldiers in the WWII Pacific Theater. Several American accounts discussed the attitude about life and death for the soldiers on both sides. The claims were that the Americans were mainly pushing forward with dominating thoughts of survival. They contrasted this with the often suicidal tendencies of the Japanese soldiers. For the Japanese, there was ultimate honor in death. There was ultimate dishonor in surrender. There were eternal rewards to them and their family for faithfully serving their emperor. The American soldiers considered these different attitudes as a key element to victory. Personally, I would say that our geographic isolation and massive industrial might (not to mention the two atomic bombs) were probably the biggest keys to success. However, it's hard to discount the attitude of the soldiers fighting the war on the ground.
These American soldiers, as mostly Christians, no doubt believed in an afterlife as well. Apparently, either the common dogma of Christianity or the American political importance of the individual didn't promote fanaticism to the point of intentionally suicidal acts. However, even the Christian view of an afterlife must have some sort of diminishing importance to life on Earth. Our time here seems relatively inconsequential to the the eternity of the afterlife.
For an atheist, there is no solace in an afterlife. Life on earth is EVERYTHING. It is the beginning and ending of your personal existence. I'm reminded of a scene from Dead Poets' Society:
Christians often tell me that without God, there's no reason to adhere to morals (that, in fact, there are none without Him). I'll make a similarly sweeping statement in return. If Heaven is eternal and tantamount, what's the point of life here on Earth? Are we here to simply feed God's ego by worshiping Him and giving thanks to Him for our entire existence here? If there is the promise of a wondrous afterlife, how easily could you be manipulated into being a kamikaze pilot ... or a suicide bomber ... or any sort of martyr for your God? I assert that the lack of an afterlife makes our time here infinitely more precious.
It brought to mind stories told by American soldiers in the WWII Pacific Theater. Several American accounts discussed the attitude about life and death for the soldiers on both sides. The claims were that the Americans were mainly pushing forward with dominating thoughts of survival. They contrasted this with the often suicidal tendencies of the Japanese soldiers. For the Japanese, there was ultimate honor in death. There was ultimate dishonor in surrender. There were eternal rewards to them and their family for faithfully serving their emperor. The American soldiers considered these different attitudes as a key element to victory. Personally, I would say that our geographic isolation and massive industrial might (not to mention the two atomic bombs) were probably the biggest keys to success. However, it's hard to discount the attitude of the soldiers fighting the war on the ground.
These American soldiers, as mostly Christians, no doubt believed in an afterlife as well. Apparently, either the common dogma of Christianity or the American political importance of the individual didn't promote fanaticism to the point of intentionally suicidal acts. However, even the Christian view of an afterlife must have some sort of diminishing importance to life on Earth. Our time here seems relatively inconsequential to the the eternity of the afterlife.
For an atheist, there is no solace in an afterlife. Life on earth is EVERYTHING. It is the beginning and ending of your personal existence. I'm reminded of a scene from Dead Poets' Society:
Christians often tell me that without God, there's no reason to adhere to morals (that, in fact, there are none without Him). I'll make a similarly sweeping statement in return. If Heaven is eternal and tantamount, what's the point of life here on Earth? Are we here to simply feed God's ego by worshiping Him and giving thanks to Him for our entire existence here? If there is the promise of a wondrous afterlife, how easily could you be manipulated into being a kamikaze pilot ... or a suicide bomber ... or any sort of martyr for your God? I assert that the lack of an afterlife makes our time here infinitely more precious.
Joined The Atheist Blogroll!
Tangent Talk has been added to The Atheist Blogroll. You can see the blogroll in my sidebar. The Atheist Blogroll is a community building service provided free of charge to Atheist bloggers from around the world. If you would like to join, visit Mojoey at Deep Thoughts for more information.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Evolution is not "just a theory"
Evolution is considered as much a fact as the theory of gravity. Do not confuse the common language definition of theory with the scientific one. In common language, the use of the word “theory” is synonymous with “hypothesis”. When science declares something to be a theory, it is considered an independently confirmed fact. Despite this, all science is open for critique with evidence. If contrary evidence arises, then the theory must be revised or dropped. The fact that life evolved on this planet is not in question in the scientific community.
"But this can't just be some cosmic accident - it's too complex and perfect"
I will concede that the complexity of the universe is a somewhat compelling reason to believe in some sort of intelligence. I believe that we are slowly discovering our universe. I don’t think that our current lack of understanding is any sort of proof of our ancient myticisms. However, the question of things being too improbable to happen by chance is a fair point.
If you listen to/read some of Richard Dawkins with regard to evolution, you will find that evolution isn’t random chance. The only parts that are random are the genetic mutations themselves. These mutations are mostly failures, but occasionally they are for the better. These successful mutations survive to the next generation. This process has repeated for millions and millions of years, leading us to where we are now.
In his latest book (which I have not read, but have heard podcasts about it), Dawkins paints a compelling picture with a discussion of leopards and gazelles. If you look at leopards, they look like the perfect gazelle killing machine in every way. If you look at gazelles, they look like the perfect leopard avoidance machine in every way. It appears that leopards and gazelles are magnificently designed.
This perfection is not by mistake or chance though. Thousands of years of natural selection has bred them to be exactly where they are now. If you can’t hunt properly, you die and provide no offspring. If you can’t avoid being hunted, you die and provide no offspring. The fact that evolution within a species occurs this way is undeniable and not random.
"Ok, but how does a new species form?"
Once some sort of geographic separation occurs, species may evolve to the extent that they can no longer interbreed with their long lost relatives. This is the scientific distinction of a species. This evolution, over a large amount of time, can create massive differences in species with a common ancestor.
"But this still has no explanation of how it started and who started it"
Many atheists fall back to the Big Bang as the how and who. I'm not so sure. I accept the Big Bang, but I'm very much in the "I don't know" camp with regard to the beginning of life and whether some intelligence was involved. My gut tells me no, but this is really just a guess. What I'm more confident about is that it isn't supernatural in a deity sort of way, based on my life's observations and "faith" in what scientists know to this point. I am not 100% sure, but that's because it's impossible to know at this point.
"But this can't just be some cosmic accident - it's too complex and perfect"
I will concede that the complexity of the universe is a somewhat compelling reason to believe in some sort of intelligence. I believe that we are slowly discovering our universe. I don’t think that our current lack of understanding is any sort of proof of our ancient myticisms. However, the question of things being too improbable to happen by chance is a fair point.
If you listen to/read some of Richard Dawkins with regard to evolution, you will find that evolution isn’t random chance. The only parts that are random are the genetic mutations themselves. These mutations are mostly failures, but occasionally they are for the better. These successful mutations survive to the next generation. This process has repeated for millions and millions of years, leading us to where we are now.
In his latest book (which I have not read, but have heard podcasts about it), Dawkins paints a compelling picture with a discussion of leopards and gazelles. If you look at leopards, they look like the perfect gazelle killing machine in every way. If you look at gazelles, they look like the perfect leopard avoidance machine in every way. It appears that leopards and gazelles are magnificently designed.
This perfection is not by mistake or chance though. Thousands of years of natural selection has bred them to be exactly where they are now. If you can’t hunt properly, you die and provide no offspring. If you can’t avoid being hunted, you die and provide no offspring. The fact that evolution within a species occurs this way is undeniable and not random.
"Ok, but how does a new species form?"
Once some sort of geographic separation occurs, species may evolve to the extent that they can no longer interbreed with their long lost relatives. This is the scientific distinction of a species. This evolution, over a large amount of time, can create massive differences in species with a common ancestor.
"But this still has no explanation of how it started and who started it"
Many atheists fall back to the Big Bang as the how and who. I'm not so sure. I accept the Big Bang, but I'm very much in the "I don't know" camp with regard to the beginning of life and whether some intelligence was involved. My gut tells me no, but this is really just a guess. What I'm more confident about is that it isn't supernatural in a deity sort of way, based on my life's observations and "faith" in what scientists know to this point. I am not 100% sure, but that's because it's impossible to know at this point.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Political parties and Rep. Paul Ryan's Roadmap
I have not been as plugged into politics as I used to be. I used to read a lot on the Internet, listen to talk radio, and listen to the talking heads on TV. Over time, I've become sickened by the divisiveness to the point where it makes it hard to stomach. As a result, I rarely listen to talk radio or watch TV talk shows anymore. I do try to stay up-to-date on current events, so I'm hardly unplugged. Most of this information is via Google News however.
I was reading today about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and his Roadmap. I am very much a capitalist and a fiscal conservative. I'm not sure if his direction is one that I would support, but appreciate the effort and am intrigued. His point is spot on - we cannot sustain our current government. Something must be done. A plan must be in place. I have not heard a plan to deal directly with this problem other than people saying we need to have one. So, from this standpoint, I applaud Rep. Ryan for having one.
The current direction is more government programs, more spending, and more taxation, I've heard this quote attributed to old Maggie Thatcher, but I believe it's really a paraphrase:
"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
I empathize with the left and their agenda. I really do. Government can, and often is, an institution that can do really good things. An economics professor of mine once posed this question to a student however:
Professor: "Are you for cleaner air?"
Student: "Ummm ... yes, I suppose so." (knowing they were being set up somehow, but...)
Professor: "So you are are FOR less education for children?"
Student: "What? I ... err ... what do you mean?"
Professor: "Well, there is a limited amount of money. So, if you're going to clean the air more, that means there will be less funds for other things - like educating children."
It's not that I'm against various social safety nets, etc. The problem is reality. We must work within the constraints of reality and resources. When the government creates programs and spends money, they are doing this with the resources of the free market. That doesn't make it inherently evil or inappropriate, but there are consequences. The left doesn't seem to acknowledge this or even understand it. As a result, I've often voted for Republicans in the past. Starting in 2004, I've voted for Libertarian candidates when possible. As a fallback, I vote for Republicans. I rarely vote for a Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton for President twice. That's the only time I can recall voting for a Democrat.
The main problem with Republican politics for me is religion. If it weren't for its seemingly complete deference to the religious right, I would probably be one. When I hear a Republican talk about fiscal and governmental issues, I often find myself nodding my head. Then, they turn to the other side and start ranting about abortion, gay marriage, and other such issues. I'm immediately turned off.
In contrast to the head nodding, another large problem I have with Republicans is rampant fiscal hypocrisy. So many are massive tax and spend socialists in practice, but just over different programs (or in a different way). They may talk the talk, but its about liberal programs and not their own.
Regardless of this ramble, good luck to you, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). If you can at least get the ball in the right court, you will have been successful.
I was reading today about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) and his Roadmap. I am very much a capitalist and a fiscal conservative. I'm not sure if his direction is one that I would support, but appreciate the effort and am intrigued. His point is spot on - we cannot sustain our current government. Something must be done. A plan must be in place. I have not heard a plan to deal directly with this problem other than people saying we need to have one. So, from this standpoint, I applaud Rep. Ryan for having one.
The current direction is more government programs, more spending, and more taxation, I've heard this quote attributed to old Maggie Thatcher, but I believe it's really a paraphrase:
"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
I empathize with the left and their agenda. I really do. Government can, and often is, an institution that can do really good things. An economics professor of mine once posed this question to a student however:
Professor: "Are you for cleaner air?"
Student: "Ummm ... yes, I suppose so." (knowing they were being set up somehow, but...)
Professor: "So you are are FOR less education for children?"
Student: "What? I ... err ... what do you mean?"
Professor: "Well, there is a limited amount of money. So, if you're going to clean the air more, that means there will be less funds for other things - like educating children."
It's not that I'm against various social safety nets, etc. The problem is reality. We must work within the constraints of reality and resources. When the government creates programs and spends money, they are doing this with the resources of the free market. That doesn't make it inherently evil or inappropriate, but there are consequences. The left doesn't seem to acknowledge this or even understand it. As a result, I've often voted for Republicans in the past. Starting in 2004, I've voted for Libertarian candidates when possible. As a fallback, I vote for Republicans. I rarely vote for a Democrat. I voted for Bill Clinton for President twice. That's the only time I can recall voting for a Democrat.
The main problem with Republican politics for me is religion. If it weren't for its seemingly complete deference to the religious right, I would probably be one. When I hear a Republican talk about fiscal and governmental issues, I often find myself nodding my head. Then, they turn to the other side and start ranting about abortion, gay marriage, and other such issues. I'm immediately turned off.
In contrast to the head nodding, another large problem I have with Republicans is rampant fiscal hypocrisy. So many are massive tax and spend socialists in practice, but just over different programs (or in a different way). They may talk the talk, but its about liberal programs and not their own.
Regardless of this ramble, good luck to you, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis). If you can at least get the ball in the right court, you will have been successful.
Why label myself an atheist?
I was reading a blog post about the term "atheist" and thought my comment to it warranted its own here.
One of the comments noted that calling oneself an atheist is "like if someone asked me my hobby, and I said 'Well, I don’t collect stamps'." This is a good point. I am an atheist within the realm of religion, but really the only reason I care to label myself is because of the theists. If it weren’t for religion, I probably wouldn’t care.
My political philopsophy is libertarian, but that doesn’t label my beliefs either. It just states that you can live your life as you wish provided it doesn’t stop someone else from living their life as they wish.
In my own personal life, I am much more of a traditionalist with regard to family and behavior. Most people assume that I am a Christian and a conservative, because that’s what they mostly are here in the Bible Belt. I look and act the part, so therefore I must be one.
Just because I live that way, does not mean I judge how you live though. I have friends that march to all sorts of different drums. My only judgement is that they are rational and generally intelligent.
I may have to ponder a bit on my own personal label. For now, I'll stick with atheist libertarian. This is because within the discussion of politics and religion, this sums it up.
One of the comments noted that calling oneself an atheist is "like if someone asked me my hobby, and I said 'Well, I don’t collect stamps'." This is a good point. I am an atheist within the realm of religion, but really the only reason I care to label myself is because of the theists. If it weren’t for religion, I probably wouldn’t care.
My political philopsophy is libertarian, but that doesn’t label my beliefs either. It just states that you can live your life as you wish provided it doesn’t stop someone else from living their life as they wish.
In my own personal life, I am much more of a traditionalist with regard to family and behavior. Most people assume that I am a Christian and a conservative, because that’s what they mostly are here in the Bible Belt. I look and act the part, so therefore I must be one.
Just because I live that way, does not mean I judge how you live though. I have friends that march to all sorts of different drums. My only judgement is that they are rational and generally intelligent.
I may have to ponder a bit on my own personal label. For now, I'll stick with atheist libertarian. This is because within the discussion of politics and religion, this sums it up.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Coming out?
I was listening to a Richard Dawkins interview podcast today. He mentioned, as I've heard him say several times, that being at atheist is similar to being in the closet for homosexuals. I don't claim to know what it's like for a homosexual to be in or out of the closet, but this analogy hits home.
I am not ashamed of being an atheist, but I am not willing to have that be "out there" for all of the world to see (although I have in isolated discussions). I don't want to deal with the ramifications of it. Christians, particularly the more Evangelical ones, are so closed-minded about it, don't understand it, and subsequently have a target for the witnessing they always hear about in church.
My wife "outted" me once at a neighbor's barbeque - it just happened to come up in a conversation about churches. She didn't know that I was uncomfortable with it because I've been open about it with closer friends. I wasn't upset with her for doing it, but I did have to deal with the super-churchy wife next door for about a year. I finally had to bluntly tell her to stop trying to save me - I wasn't interested.
I'm not even out to my children. My wife is a mostly non-practicing Catholic. I'd probably define her actual views as agnostic or even a deist, but she is a cultural Catholic and will probably hold to that. As a result of my general indifference and her background, we've raised our children as culturally Catholic. We pray before every meal and the kids have gone through all of the rights of passage. They know we're not really all that into religion as a family and have heard us be critical of the more fundamentalist denominations here and there.
My oldest is in 8th grade now and I wonder if and when this discussion will come with her. I also wonder how I will handle it. I don't think I can lie or would want to. I'll need to discuss this with my wife at some point.
I am not ashamed of being an atheist, but I am not willing to have that be "out there" for all of the world to see (although I have in isolated discussions). I don't want to deal with the ramifications of it. Christians, particularly the more Evangelical ones, are so closed-minded about it, don't understand it, and subsequently have a target for the witnessing they always hear about in church.
My wife "outted" me once at a neighbor's barbeque - it just happened to come up in a conversation about churches. She didn't know that I was uncomfortable with it because I've been open about it with closer friends. I wasn't upset with her for doing it, but I did have to deal with the super-churchy wife next door for about a year. I finally had to bluntly tell her to stop trying to save me - I wasn't interested.
I'm not even out to my children. My wife is a mostly non-practicing Catholic. I'd probably define her actual views as agnostic or even a deist, but she is a cultural Catholic and will probably hold to that. As a result of my general indifference and her background, we've raised our children as culturally Catholic. We pray before every meal and the kids have gone through all of the rights of passage. They know we're not really all that into religion as a family and have heard us be critical of the more fundamentalist denominations here and there.
My oldest is in 8th grade now and I wonder if and when this discussion will come with her. I also wonder how I will handle it. I don't think I can lie or would want to. I'll need to discuss this with my wife at some point.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Leaving Christianity for the wrong reason
Anne Rice announcement
I've never read an Anne Rice novel and don't know really much about her outside of the context of her vampire books. This news article is very short and goes into extremely little detail. My blog entry here is not exactly in response to Anne Rice's rejection of Christianity, but was loosely inspired by it.
If you've read any of my previous blog articles, you will know that I am certainly not a Christian or any flavor of a theist. However, the reason to leave a faith like Christianity should not be for the reasons listed in the above article. Human bastardization of your faith is no reason to abandon it. There are many valid trains of thought that can lead to the abandonment of faith, but human error should not be one of them.
Ms. Rice's reasons stated were because Chrisitianity is "anti-gay ... anti-feminist, and anti-artificial birth control." This may very well be true under Catholicism and other denominations, but is not inherently true to the faith itself.
Anti-gay
It's debatable whether the Bible is anti-gay. Let's presume that the few places that it appears that way does mean that homosexuality is a sin (which I do not). So are a billion other things that "normal" heterosexual Christians do all the time. PEOPLE have made being gay some sort of mortal sin. There's no evidence that the "sin of homosexuality" is any worse than any normal sort of sin. Hypothetically, I would certainly put adultery above homosexuality in the severity of a sin, yet where is the outrage against adulterers?
If your problem with Christianity is with the homophobic insanity of many Christians, there are denominations that are much more gay friendly. There are several that actually embrace it.
Anti-feminist and birth control issues
I believe these are both Catholic problems. Many other denominations, while not particularly pro-woman, are not anti-woman either. I think the more Evangelical denominations do preach the "proper gender roles" based on antequated ideas, but these are also human interpretations and manipulations. I would imagine that Catholics and Evangelicals are also the culprits with regards to the hows and whens of having babies.
Odd bedfellows?
So this seems like an odd place in which I'm standing as an atheist. However, I don't think it's that odd. I think that religion and spirituality (or lack thereof) is a journey for most thinking people.
I would not recommend basing your world viewpoint on how some ignorant assholes (as many millions as they may be) twist it. As Eddie Izzard so eloquently spoke, "Stalin was a mass-murdering fuckhead." Stalin was also an atheist and gets thrown in our face by Christians all the time. He does not define atheism any more than homophobic celibates in drag should be able to define Christianity.
I've never read an Anne Rice novel and don't know really much about her outside of the context of her vampire books. This news article is very short and goes into extremely little detail. My blog entry here is not exactly in response to Anne Rice's rejection of Christianity, but was loosely inspired by it.
If you've read any of my previous blog articles, you will know that I am certainly not a Christian or any flavor of a theist. However, the reason to leave a faith like Christianity should not be for the reasons listed in the above article. Human bastardization of your faith is no reason to abandon it. There are many valid trains of thought that can lead to the abandonment of faith, but human error should not be one of them.
Ms. Rice's reasons stated were because Chrisitianity is "anti-gay ... anti-feminist, and anti-artificial birth control." This may very well be true under Catholicism and other denominations, but is not inherently true to the faith itself.
Anti-gay
It's debatable whether the Bible is anti-gay. Let's presume that the few places that it appears that way does mean that homosexuality is a sin (which I do not). So are a billion other things that "normal" heterosexual Christians do all the time. PEOPLE have made being gay some sort of mortal sin. There's no evidence that the "sin of homosexuality" is any worse than any normal sort of sin. Hypothetically, I would certainly put adultery above homosexuality in the severity of a sin, yet where is the outrage against adulterers?
If your problem with Christianity is with the homophobic insanity of many Christians, there are denominations that are much more gay friendly. There are several that actually embrace it.
Anti-feminist and birth control issues
I believe these are both Catholic problems. Many other denominations, while not particularly pro-woman, are not anti-woman either. I think the more Evangelical denominations do preach the "proper gender roles" based on antequated ideas, but these are also human interpretations and manipulations. I would imagine that Catholics and Evangelicals are also the culprits with regards to the hows and whens of having babies.
Odd bedfellows?
So this seems like an odd place in which I'm standing as an atheist. However, I don't think it's that odd. I think that religion and spirituality (or lack thereof) is a journey for most thinking people.
I would not recommend basing your world viewpoint on how some ignorant assholes (as many millions as they may be) twist it. As Eddie Izzard so eloquently spoke, "Stalin was a mass-murdering fuckhead." Stalin was also an atheist and gets thrown in our face by Christians all the time. He does not define atheism any more than homophobic celibates in drag should be able to define Christianity.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Evangelical atheism
I just read an interesting article about "New Atheism" and its "prophets" - among them Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I have been listening to many of their lectures and TV appearances in the last week or so on YouTube and have been riveted. I have not ready any books on atheism, but have been interested many times to read Dawkins' The God Delusion.
In contrast to my interest, the article linked below decries that this New Atheism has "... parallels with religious fundamentalism [that] are obvious and startling" and is an interesting read:
Evangelical atheism
I have used this term myself for years to describe a particularly "aggressive" atheist friend of mine. The thought process is that it's not enough to simply demand equality and recognition. The stupidity of theists must be remedied. They must be converted and society must be freed from their stupidity.
I believe this to an extent, but this is way more extreme than I'm interested. I ultimately don't care what another person does, but am frustrated by their interest in what I and others do.
With regard to the article, the term "evangelical atheist" is synonymous with how I've used it to describe my friend and how the author describes the New Atheists. While I agree in premise with the article, there's a fine line here. For example, I feel like I understand Dawkins' position much more than I do Hitchens. Hitchens seems much like my friend in that they seem to want more of an atheist jihad - you're either with us or against us. Dawkins' position seems to be more of a frustration and an attempt to enlighten. I can almost hear him thinking:
"I'm a world renowned evolutionary biologist! I've seen all of the evidence that supports not only evolution, but Darwinian evolution. What is wrong with you people? Ok, Richard, calm down. They've been indoctrinated. They can't help it. Try to explain it as calmly as you can."
Regardless of how calmly he tries to address critics, he, like Hitchens, often comes across as condescending. However, I don't think Dawkins means to do so. I think he is trying to be as blunt about his position as possible because it doesn't work any other way.
I think the article brings up a good point with regard to their fundamentalist nature though. I just don't know how you can't get this riled up to start any sort of movement and not have that sort of zealotry. It seems like it comes with the territory.
In contrast to my interest, the article linked below decries that this New Atheism has "... parallels with religious fundamentalism [that] are obvious and startling" and is an interesting read:
Evangelical atheism
I have used this term myself for years to describe a particularly "aggressive" atheist friend of mine. The thought process is that it's not enough to simply demand equality and recognition. The stupidity of theists must be remedied. They must be converted and society must be freed from their stupidity.
I believe this to an extent, but this is way more extreme than I'm interested. I ultimately don't care what another person does, but am frustrated by their interest in what I and others do.
With regard to the article, the term "evangelical atheist" is synonymous with how I've used it to describe my friend and how the author describes the New Atheists. While I agree in premise with the article, there's a fine line here. For example, I feel like I understand Dawkins' position much more than I do Hitchens. Hitchens seems much like my friend in that they seem to want more of an atheist jihad - you're either with us or against us. Dawkins' position seems to be more of a frustration and an attempt to enlighten. I can almost hear him thinking:
"I'm a world renowned evolutionary biologist! I've seen all of the evidence that supports not only evolution, but Darwinian evolution. What is wrong with you people? Ok, Richard, calm down. They've been indoctrinated. They can't help it. Try to explain it as calmly as you can."
Regardless of how calmly he tries to address critics, he, like Hitchens, often comes across as condescending. However, I don't think Dawkins means to do so. I think he is trying to be as blunt about his position as possible because it doesn't work any other way.
I think the article brings up a good point with regard to their fundamentalist nature though. I just don't know how you can't get this riled up to start any sort of movement and not have that sort of zealotry. It seems like it comes with the territory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)