I realise that the last thing the world needs right now is another piece on atheism vs. religion, but I need something to get me back into this blogging malarkey and it might as well be this.
Westminster Central Hall recently played host to a debate on that very subject, fielding an impressive line-up of anti-theists making their case against religion. Although I haven’t had the chance to listen to the podcasts of the events yet, the snippets I’ve read/heard don’t suggest that the likes of Dawkins, Grayling and Hitchens had anything new to say on the matter. It was, it seems, ‘the God Delusion’ on stage.
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m an atheist (though not an anti-theist – I don’t have any religious beliefs, but I don’t hate them). The idea of having to go up against the intelligence and erudition of those three speakers would terrify me, and I have the greatest respect for their writing abilities. However, by going for polemic over intelligent criticism I think they’re backing the wrong horse and actually doing the ‘cause’ of atheism a grave disservice.
There seems to be a common misconception that the way to prove yourself right is simply to prove your opponent wrong. This is the approach often adopted by Dawkins and co. when it comes to religion.
In my opinion though, the best way of winning people round to your side is to make the best defence possible of your position and then allow others to make up their own minds. Books such as the ‘The Selfish Gene’ probably do more to erode the more dogmatic strain of religious thought than a whole army of ‘The God Delusion’ books could. In the same way, if Grayling managed to unentwine his passionate advocation of humanism from his (rather lazy) attacks on religion his arguments would seem all the more persuading. Hitchens, as an essayist, falls more into the critic rather than advocate camp, but his arguments would have far more weight if he stopped allowing his dislike of religion to get in the way and returned to writing pieces with the restraint of ‘The Future of an Illusion’.
This is what I want to hear from these people – not why religion is stupid, but why it is unnecessary.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Still heading in the wrong direction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think I would agree with them on many points however. More often than not, I do think 'religion' is stupid. Many of the things Dawkins says in the God Delusion I whole heartedly agree with.
Now when you say religion (or a right relationship with God) is unnecessary you'll need to define what you mean by necessary. If it turns out God is true then you will look back on your life and see that your very existence is dependent upon Him.
From that perspective it will be difficult to claim that relationship to Him is unnecessary. For then you will realize you always had a relationship to Him. The question will then be where were you in that relationship? Were you open to His promptings or were you to busy running your own show?
But I know what you are saying. The opposition to compulsory prayer in school, and obligatory submission to others religious viewpoint is something I will stand firmly with you on. I'm also very much sold on Dennett's call to have unbiased factual teachings on ALL world religions as a part of each students formative education. I think we could avoid a lot of silly misunderstandings if we actually understood one another. Let's not circle the wagons! Get the information out and let the merits of the beliefs speak for themselves! As a common people we must all be striving for the truth in all things. Enforcing belief in one view or another from a top down hierarchy may be a recipe for uniformity, but it will be a baseless uniformity which breeds resentment and distrust.
Religion is rife with this. Good thing for me Jesus was not a very religious fellow.
Now when you say religion (or a right relationship with God) is unnecessary you'll need to define what you mean by necessary.
Yes, that bit is annoyingly vague, isn't it.
What I meant was that all these individuals believe that it's possible to live a rich, fulfilling and rewarding life without religious beliefs, and it'd be nice if they could direct their intelligence and writing ability to making the case for that - as they have done, quite brilliantly in my opinion, elsewhere - rather than simply attack those they disagree with.
I think I would agree with them on many points however.
This is perhaps the most tragically overlooked point in the debate - our metaphysical beliefs are, in many ways, far less important than our immediate concerns. Once you equate secularism with freedom of conscience, it's easy to see why atheists and theists can be on the same side against he more dogmatic and undemocratic elements among us.
Post a Comment