Posted on 03/30/2007 6:20:58 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Atheists Split Over Message By JAY LINDSAY
BOSTON -
Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.
Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."
Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.
The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.
Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.
Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy - part of the school's chaplaincy corps - Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.
"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."
In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.
The celebration of a "New Humanism" will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement, and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.
Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."
The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems, Wilson said.
"I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," he said.
Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there's room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism. "I don't think everyone needs to take as uncompromising a stance as I have against faith," he said.
But, he added, an intellectual intolerance of people who strongly believe things on bad evidence is just "basic human sanity."
"We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while," he said in e-mailed comments.
Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.
"Likewise with the God of Abraham," he said. "There is nothing 'fundamentalist' about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible."
Some of the participants in Harvard's celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists' tone.
Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and "far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews."
"It's only the sense that religion deserves special respect - the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against - that people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion," Pinker said in e-mailed comments.
Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment. He has questioned whether teaching children they could go to hell is worse in the long term than sexually abusing them, and compares the evidence of God to evidence for unicorns, fairies and a "Flying Spaghetti Monster." His attempt to win converts is clear in "The God Delusion," when he writes of his hope that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."
A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.
Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can't be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.
Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition of America, sees a growing public acceptance of people who don't believe in God, pointing to California U.S. Rep. Pete Stark's statement this month that he doesn't believe in a supreme being. Stark is the first congressman to acknowledge being an atheist.
As more prominent people such as Stark publicly acknowledge they don't believe in God, "I think it will make it more palatable," Brown said.
But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away.
"The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies," he said. "The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them."
--
I was raised a Catholic too, but there's not much hope for me.
Wowie zowie.
Pingout tomorrow for sure.
Are you an atheist, then, because your idea of God does not seem to hold true in this life? Jessica Lunsford was a prime example of a bad thing happening to an otherwise good person. Perhaps you missed the part where without free will, we'd all be zombies. This isn't a computer simulation - people do horrible things to each other. Why that means there is no Creator is something only you can answer. It's pretty clear you've got a very solid idea of God in your head and because God doesn't live up to your standards, He doesn't exist.
Thanks for being one of the classic atheist exhibits.
Good - you're back.
I never went anywhere...
LOL - poor guy has already condemned himself to hell...
The Sheep MUST BE separated from the Goats..
Have you ever seen a non bitter atheist?
"I've always laughed at how militant many atheists are.. if there is no God, what's the point?"
They want to destroy God for the rest of us believers. In doing so, they will, not only "kill" God, but also the Western Culture that Christianity gave rise to.
The ultimate goal of atheist and humanist is the corruption and moral decay of Western European Culture and its people.
Just sent you a freepmail.
Reality is not an axiom-based system of formal logic, so I don't see how your statement can be mapped to any particular meaning, nor how it might be sequitur to the discussion.
We are defined by nature. Civilization only gives the weakest man the ability to kill the strongest.
The ability of the stronger man to kill the weaker (or less often, the weaker man to kill the stronger) is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the existence of a civilization. And a civilization is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for men to kill other men, regardless of their relative strength.
bookmark
Jesus says in all those verses I cited that prayers are answered. Jessica, as true blue of a believer as you'll find, didn't pray for material gain-- only for her kidnapper to stop kidnapping her, stop raping her, and stop burying her alive in a sack. Her prayers weren't answered. The prayers of 100% of amputees have been ignored, too. What believers attribute to answered prayer is merely a random event-- regardless of how improbable it might seem.
And dismissing this failure to answer Jessica's prayer and every single amputee and all the many other people who would meet any reasonable requirement for having their prayers answered as part of God's plan while believers report on getting their prayers answered for getting their prayer answered to find their car keys.
The God that I don't believe in is the one covered in the Bible. I am not going to waste time knocking down other religions' gods.
We have anarchy, not free will. Free will is interpreted to be something given to us by someone. We have chaos. We have randomness. Anarchy, chaos, and randomness don't speak to our world being controlled in any way by the Bible God. Every example of man's "free will" is evidence that we are alone in the world. Whether you are a good person or do good things, it doesn't at all follow in a causal way that you will be rewarded. Good things happen to good and bad people, and so do bad things.
Is it possible that some supreme being created the universe and then left his creation alone, no interaction, for evermore? Yeah, sure. But that doesn't change my view that there is no God by any degree of certainty worth concerning myself with-- and besides, the value of worshiping said God is the reward in the afterlife and since the Bible says God does interact with us, I can't take seriously that God has an afterlife for us or that we have any actual idea what is required to get there.
I am perfectly happy about knowing that death is it. It's not depressing to me at all. I enjoy life and living just fine.
Well said--although I'd prefer to live foreever, or at least a very, very, very long time. But I don't believe things just because I would like them to be true. You can't make deals with existence, such as "If I believe X, then I'll get to live forever."
And for the audience: Morality can only come from each individual, since each individual must decide for himself what is right and wrong. Even if you think your morality comes from a transcendent source, it is you who must decide that your moral code comes from a higher authority, and it is you who must decide to live by that code (whether for that reason, or for some other.) There is no getting around that fact.
How do you define "evidence"?
It sure is... we are born, we reproduce, we die...
"What's he that was not of born of woman?" (Macbeth)
It sure is... we are born, we reproduce, we die...
"What's he that was not of born of woman?" (Macbeth)
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
Just had to get in a little defense for us who are doomed to live only one life and then become wormfood. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.