Rationality and hope possess the potential to bring Atheists and Theists together to better our world. The New Atheists -- Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and company -- miss something simple yet profound in their polemical attacks on Theists: the mystery of existence itself. We must start with this basic fact -- the fact of existence. That there is an is. That there is a world, a universe at all. That there is something rather than nothing. Existence is a great, awesome, wondrous mystery.
In the face of this mystery, Atheists remain as stunned and speechless, as flabbergasted and inarticulate as Theists. From within the confines, within the perspective of our universe, solving this mystery is probably not even possible. All we can do is reach for answers, always seemingly just beyond our grasp.
And the Atheistic answers to this mystery are no more rational than the religious ones. Is it any more rational to assert that existence arose out of nothing or that existence has always existed than to assert that a divine intelligence -- outside of time and space -- created it? Science, in the end, cannot disprove the Theistic conjecture nor prove one of the Atheistic ones. We ought not therefore conclude that it is by definition irrational to confront this mystery and cast one's lot with Theism. Theism and Atheism are equally reasonable beliefs.
And so, we have in the world, many quite rational people who, facing the enigma of the why-ness of the world, find a Theistic approach more compelling, perhaps even more rational, than the alternatives.
In contrast to the caricatures penned by the New Atheists of a mob or herd of mindless sheep, the ranks of the religious include many rather thoughtful people. Many scientists and other academics and professionals lead lives of religious practice and faith and yet engage fully with the physical, medical, and social sciences and the worlds of politics and literature. Such people are rational and thoughtful and skeptical. They are critical thinkers.
They do not live lives of blind faith, but experience the religious life as a persistent challenge. Instead of a life of entitlement, they live lives of obligation -- to family, to community, to God.
Often, probably usually, such people are able to integrate their religious and professional lives, and many see their contributions to the world as something of a calling, a use of their talents, in some small way, as serving God in the redemption of the world.
It is an insult to such people, Nobel Prize winners among them, to suggest that they are engaged in self-deception, that all people of faith are naïve or stupid or misguided or dupes.
And so, the New Atheists miss a second profound point: the richness, the thickness, the texture of the everyday life of so many believers.
They fail to see, for example, the bonds of community, the ways members of many a religious community remain ready at any hour of the day to assist their fellows and often strangers: to prepare food, watch children, provide financial assistance, visit the sick, and bury the dead.
The New Atheists fail to see the meaning-fullness possible in religious life, in communities of faith, a life of breadth and depth evident to any undergraduate major in anthropology or sociology.
No doubt atrocities have long been committed in the name of religion, as they have in the name of a host of secular ideologies. It is religion, however, as Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has pointed out, that has given the world the very notion of hope. As Rabbi Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, has so eloquently explained, the ancient prophetic tradition of Judaism gave birth to hope, to the idea of progress, to the longing for a messianic age. This prophetic tradition, Rabbi Sacks explains, is a protest against the world as it is, a call to transform our world into a different and a better place. It is precisely a thoughtful, critical and self-critical, religious orientation that can move us in such a direction while avoiding the fanaticism of various religious and secular ideologies alike.
Perhaps religion is irrational. But so is hope. And given the very mystery of existence, I and many other seemingly rational individuals embrace -- and struggle with -- both religion and hope.
Finally, it is in hope that Rational Theists and Rational Atheists can find common ground. We all want a better world, a more rational one. Given the mystery of existence, and the equal rationality or irrationality in choosing Theism or Atheism in confronting the mystery, I call upon Rational Atheists and Rational Theists of the world to unite! To combat the irrationality in our schools, our politics, and our public discourse.
As to being "united", that requires one person or both to "move" to a new point of view -- a thing that rational people are willing to do (that's part of being "rational") but at the conclusion, you no longer have an atheist and a theist; either you have two theists or two atheists.
"Strong" atheists have faith that there is no god. It is an irrational point of view and thus pointless to engage this kind in religious debate.
A person can have certain knowledge of God, or something one calls God (but my experience may differ from yours), but that does not create a theology. I know there is a God with complete certainty, but to you, these words are mere assertion. What it means however is that I will dismiss an assertion that there is no God at all because I know otherwise. Discussion must proceed from our uncertainties, NOT what we know for sure.
This is a self-serving, anthropocentric statment. Long before homo sapiens "got religion" our hominid ancestors muddled through drought, famine and epidemic. Skeletal remains show evidence of disease and fractures (some catastrophic) that occurred well before the individual died. Something kept her/him going as the body healed. Isn't that something *hope*?
There is evidence that certain mammals feel hope. It is easy to fall into the anthropomorphism trap, but elephants will stay behind with a sick individual even when doing so puts their survival at risk. Are they feeling *hope* that their friend/relative may rally? (They might also be feeling empathy, another notion Sacks probably believes springs from religion.)
Emotions, including *hope*, have an evolutionary value and existed long before humans began to thank a deity when times were good and plead with that deity when times sucked. A species that experiences hope -- the feeling that something good will happen in the future -- is simply more likely to persevere through bad times.
I am not a radical atheist; there are aspects of this article I find thought-provoking. But I do have to take exception with Rabbi Lord Sacks self-congratulatory and errant observation.
PS: "Rabbi Lord" is an honorific two-fer you don't see every day, at least not on this side of the pond.
Scientists, "New Atheists," skeptics, are more than willing to celebrate the profound wonder of life. Your definition of "profound" may not be particularly interesting to them, but there is much joy to be found in the world. Much of it can be explained and understood logically; that does not reduce its value.
Symphony of Science
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk
Really?
How about rational Psychics and rational Psychiatrists unite ?
The fact that an atheist has no chance of running for office means a lot of us are not represented in this country and that is indeed anger inducing , because we pay taxes, have children and contribute to
society yet are forced to support other people 's churches who then feel free to demonize and exclude us from honest national conversation.
I think if people were introduced to a good candidate who happened to be an atheist, it really wouldn't affect many peoples' vote. For example, if you ask most people, do you think a twice-married B-movie actor should be president (cough, Reagan), most people will say "hell no". The same thing when you ask them, "should an atheist be president". The candidate has to come first.
Oh, you must mean buzz words like "Fundamentalist Atheist".
The meaning of life isn't about reasons or explanations; it's about awe.
God believes it's important for the righteous to judge the wicked.
God is love.
As far as judging though, this is another tough one. On one hand, The Lord tells us, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged†(Matthew 7:1). On the other hand, the Bible tells us to beware of evildoers and false prophets and to avoid those who practice all kinds of sin. How can we tell who these people are if we don't make some kind of judgment about them?
I think we are to only judge others to the point where we know if they are good or not, but not to the point where we pass the final judgment on their eternal souls. The final judgment is in God's hands.
I reject your Faith because it leaves no room for investigating and studying other Faiths and theories about "Where we came from" and "Why are we here".
As an agnostic I chose to use my ability to think and be amazed at this whole universe that has been proved to me by science.
I will not attempt to tell anyone that I know the answers to these natural questions asked by Mankind and who knows, Maybe all living creatures wonder about these questions. "Where did the Universe come from", "how did it occur" and lastly "Why are we here and how did we get here" ?
Instead, I attempt to discuss these questions and use reason and logic only to be insulted by those like you, when they simply predict my demise into a firepit of suffering for eternity by your "GOD".
I respect those who have faith and understand that "FAITH" does not make them the smartest people in this Universe.
I humbly continue in my quest for answers to these Universal questions.
Peace be with you !
Come now. Our whole reason for existing is to serve as foils for their presumed brilliance. Don't tell them what they don't want to hear.
The majority of New Atheists carry on like former fundamentalist believers. Which is what I suspect many--if not most--of them are. That is to say, they've gone from absolute acceptance of, say, the Bible to absolute rejection of it. They're no in between. And they'll carry on for hours explaining why there's no in between. To them, the world is composed of absolutes. For such folks, science is replacing religion as a safe haven for absolute thinking in that the scientific method provides a solid and indisputable authority for them. And so they clout religion with science, convinced they have the ultimate club. All the while, they deny that they're clubbing anything or anyone. Strange people, imo.
I can tell you're angry, but I'm not sure if you're a Christian who hates atheists , or an "Old Atheist" who hates "New Atheists".
I also don't understand the difference in the beliefs of Old or New Atheists.
I'm fairly new on computers, so maybe this is jargon I'm too old to have heard.
I'd appreciate the help.
And not to be judgmental, but if you are a Christian, you're not going to win any souls with your temper.
I'm not perfect, but I'm a Christian, and the Lord says we must love our enemies.
Sorry I'm coming across to you as angry--my goal is to be critical. I'm calling things as I see them. Atheists have every right to not be religious. More power to them. But when they insist on falsely characterizing believers and their beliefs, someone should call them on it. To love them we must uncritically accept their uninformed dismissals of faith? I can think of any number of reasons why that wouldn't be love.
"New atheist" is a derogatory term used by angry xian atheist haters. It refers to atheists who have the audacity to speak up.
Philosophy and religion can co-exist.....it is a question of answers and whether you accept those answers or not.
When you say,
The New Atheists [...]miss something simple yet profound in their polemical attacks on Theists: the mystery of existence itself.
[...]The caricatures penned by the New Atheists of a mob or herd of mindless sheep, the ranks of the religious include many rather thoughtful people. [...]Such people are rational and thoughtful and skeptical. They are critical thinkers.
Granting the premise is “sometimes true†let’s look at what Christian biology textbook writers against evolution are saying. “Christian worldview … is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is.â€
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20100306/us-rel-home-school-evolution/
Criticism needs to be clear and sometimes abrupt to be effective, not for the fanatics but to those who are moved by fanatics and also those who shelter them. The fanatics are not likely going to change but those who can reason need to be engaged fully. Facts work and have convinced many who have reason, but those facts are often unsentimental. That does not make it wrong to say them and it is NOT AN ATTACK. If feels like an attack when it is unflattering but that is not persecution. A parent exposing a lie of a teen with a fact is not attacking them.
God being a cause and existence being an effect, religious people reason, about cause-and-effect. That's a realm of science too. Do the facts suggest the proposition is true?
It is not enough that something cannot be proved wrong. If something is true it should not lead to error. Examples of cause-and-effect reasoning; Jews were responsible for the plague in Europe because they were less affected by it. Therefore they were killed. The truth-Jews were washing and that was why they weren't getting sick. Religious leaders were against Ben Franklin’s lightning rod because they believed lightning striking homes was God's punishment. I understand in Vienna alone the Jesuits successfully cast out (exorcism) of people 12,652 Devils by means of humiliation (pride being Satan's downfall) using disgusting substances and when that wasn't sufficient, torture. The long-list goes on.
Those defending creation education books have said "Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling,"
Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God? If so consider Mathew 10: 33-40 (&many others)
Question: If This Exemplifies Egotism Than What's the Ideal? The alternative is to not read, or disagree, or acknowledge some possible truth in a disputed premise, don't give sources nor form an opinion based on a fact. Nor suggest a direction of reasoning. Can this be what he means?
My critic obviously reads, disagrees and certainly has an opinion. He did not refute my facts, sources, nor observations. He stated his opinion which was off-topic. Perhaps he means I am egotistical because he does not agree with me. If this is correct then there are unflattering adjectives that describes such actions.
Is he a true believer or perhaps a shill? Regardless, deeming me too flawed is an ad-hominem diversion-fallacy. He isn't seeking my improvement but rather is dismissing my reasoning. Diversion is meant to stop another reader from asking the questions “is this true, is the reasoning valid, does it coincide with my observations, and if not why?â€
You are talking about "proving" your point.
This article is about toleration and mutual respect.
Respect does not depend on "proving" you are right. In fact, the very definition of toleration is disagreement. Toleration is just being OK with that disagreement. It is not trying to get others to admit you are right.
Toleration is not an attack on anyone.
Defectors: Church of Scientology hides abuse
56 years after its founding, the church is fighting off calls for a Reformation
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35768921/ns/today-the_new_york_times/
New York Times
By Laurie Goodstein
updated 2 hours, 47 minutes ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scientologists
http://www.bible.ca/scientology-poor-famous-members.htm
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_scientologist.html