An evangelical atheist

N ew Statesman ^ | 05 August 2008 | Carl Packman

[Soliton]

In his capacity as a scientist his efforts should be directed at safeguarding the longevity of Darwinism which, with the unsettling figure given by the British Humanist Association that at least 40 UK schools teach creationism, has the potential to be under attack from certain organs of the religious community. But given his more demanding role as fundamentalist, cedes all religiosity as dangerous, thus quashing any potential union to debilitate the creeping infection that is intelligent design, a topic where moderate atheists and those of faith can meet eye to eye. Indeed, Darwinism is not under attack from the religiously moderate, so why is there need to slur them?

The books by The Four Horsemen (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) may well be trendy accessories (shown quite clearly by the numbers in their sales) but can they really solve the creationism-evolution argument in schools, or will they only create a small, solitary corner for themselves?

It’s quite clear that what the New Atheists are doing is lumping all the religious together in one bundle, just like the religious fundamentalists would do to atheists. Dawkins, in choosing to pursue a form of emotional firebrand atheism over the discipline of the scientist, is no longer the champion of reason, but an old problem this time on the other side of God. Even dyed-in-the-wall atheists like Bertrand Russell recognised a minimum of contribution religion has given to civilisation notably when he illustrated that religion informed "Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they become able to predict them."

[Soliton]

Religion serves an important purpose in the world. That is why it exists. Dawkins, Myers and the like help the enemies of science by seeking the adoration of elitist atheists.

[Flycatcher]

Got a little problem with the phrase “evangelical atheist.” By definition, an evangelical brings (literally) “good news.” I’m a bit hard-pressed here to understand how declamations asserting “no God” and “no afterlife” is “good news.”

[Liberty1970]

There are, for all practical purposes, no 'enemies of science,' if we define science as the methodological acquisition of observational knowledge about the natural world and the patterns of change within it. There are plenty of enemies of 'science, falsely so-called' however, that is, people who makes claims going far beyond the observational evidence (or at odds with it), while claiming that their beliefs are demanded by 'science.'

But I guess saying so makes me anti-science... it's getting silly when famous inventors and patent holders and authors of copious scientific and technical papers etc. are aribtrarily declared 'anti-science' for not having the 'right' beliefs about a past neither they nor any other scientist has directly observed.

By these modern standards, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Galileo and just about every other famous scientist prior to or contemporary with Darwin was 'anti-science.'

[grey_whiskers]

Let's send Dawkins to Islamabad to spread the "Good News" that "There is no Allah!"

There have been plenty of Christian missionaries martyred -- and since many Islamic countries really are closer to theocracies than even the United States under George Bush, it seems that they need this news more than America.

Cheers!

[Soliton]

Let's send Dawkins to Islamabad to spread the "Good News" that "There is no Allah!"

He just came out against muslim indoctrination publically in London. He would probably be safer in Islamabad.

Cheers to you to!