Nice Atheists and Mean Atheists (by Becky Garrison)
Faithful Progressive offers this insightful comparison of religious extremists and their secular counterparts.
The historical trends which led to the rise of the simplistic and hateful religious right seem to be operating with full force among atheists as well. Simple fear has a lot to do with it, and fear is rarely the source of the best of moral thinking and behavior. And the same reluctance to speak out that at first characterized the mainline Christian response to the religious right seems to paralyze decent, ethical atheists and their leaders from calling an intolerant atheist what he really is: a dangerous bigot.
Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (aka the four horsemen of the atheist apocalypse) grabbed the media spotlight by bellowing out bestsellers. But when researching my book The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail: The Misguided Quest to Destroy Your Faith, I found other atheists who choose to sing a more tolerant tune.
For example, in my email interview with Hemant Mehta, aka the Friendly Atheist, I asked him why he wasn't one of Dawkins' disciples. He replied, "In message, I am. In tone and style, I'm not. I'd much rather engage in a dialogue with religious people. I know I have the facts behind me and, as an atheist, I shouldn't fear holding my own in a debate or conversation. The New Atheists appear as if they'd like nothing to do with anyone who proclaims a religion. I think there is room to work with the religious while at the same time showing them the merits of an atheist perspective."
While Mehta differs in both his approach and some of his views with Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain at Harvard, they both share a desire to dial down the rhetoric. During my phone conversation with Epstein, he noted how "Christians have a responsibility to reach out to moderate humanists, because by shunning those who want to work with them, they're playing into the hands of the angry atheists."
Where I've found considerable common ground with Epstein and Mehta is that we've both witnessed ample evidence where both New Atheists and certain Christians have invested too much energy into converting the other instead of seeking out areas of cooperation around issues such as the environment, human rights campaigns, and separation of church and state issues. Also, we've both caught heat from our respective camps for our decision to engage in dialogue with our perceived "enemies." Simply put, we'd like to see more attention paid to cooperative acts of charity instead of engaging in Jerry Springer-style free-for-alls that all too often define 21st century intellectual discourse.
Now, I am not proposing a wishy-washy anything goes scenario where Christians park their faith at the door. However, it seems to me there's too much at stake for us not to start exploring the common areas of our humanity, so we can start to build bridges instead of bombs. How can we all move past our prejudices and our distrust of others so we can allow for a safe space to dialogue?
Becky Garrison's other books include Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church and Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you, Becky. This shatters my stereotype of atheists being every bit as rabid as the religious fundamentalists!
Seriously, though, the New Atheists do strike me as being very much like religious fundamentalists in their absolute certainty that they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, stupid, etc. Despite their pretense to rationality, these atheists can be every bit as irrational as their religious counterparts. In this respect, atheism is simply the other side of fundamentalism. Mutatis mutandis, there's not much difference between a hardcore atheist and a hardcore fundamentalist.
On a final note, I consider myself to be a Christian humanist--the term "humanist" should not be reserved solely for rationalists and atheists. After all, it was medieval and Renaissance Christians who restored and propagated logic and rational thought as a way to understand divine revelation. Christians need to reclaim this heritage.
Posted by: Steve | November 5, 2007 4:03 PM
I concluded a two-part post on this topic ending on Oct. 27. Interesting to find others wanting to take the shrillness out of the dialog too.
In my own thoughts about this, I found myself moving to the view that relgious progressives appear to have more in common with those atheists who don't fear religion than they do with religious fundamentalists!
Paul - originalfaith.com
Posted by: Paul M Martin | November 5, 2007 4:16 PM
Is this really a space for deep dialog?
If so, chew on this brothers and sisters;
Matthew 12:31-32,
Mark 3:28-29,
Luke 12:10
Are simpatico with gnostic Thomas saying 44:
'Jesus said: "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."
I take that to mean that God as Holy Spirit, is God that is already within every sister, brother and all Creation, and JC doesn't give a flip if you get him or the Father as God- JC was always on about:
WAKE UP! God is already within you!
His ways are not your ways and Her thoughts are not your thoughts,
Dominion never meant to rape and plunder,
But to nurture, care and love
And if you have not love, you have nothing at all.
And on that final day we all will stand naked before The Creator,
And we have been warned that there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth,
By those who were so sure they were in, because they will be the ones left out.
What do you think about that?
e
PS-i have a question for the powers that be and the anal retentives that attacked on the Bob Dylan thread; is it illegal to leave my website link-or is that breaking Rule 7?
Posted by: eileen fleming | November 5, 2007 4:30 PM
The headline on your article reminds me of the printed roster of the choir I sing in at church. Our piano player is listed as the 'Accompaniest'. She is undoubtedly a very lovely young lady, and a superlative pianist, but…
Or I think of my high-school English teacher discoursing on the degrees of comparison of the English,adjective, as 'athy', 'athier', 'athiest'!
Oh, come on, you guys!
Love in Him…
Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | November 5, 2007 4:37 PM
"I take that to mean that God as Holy Spirit, is God that is already within every sister, brother and all Creation, and JC doesn't give a flip if you get him or the Father as God-"
Then why does he say in Matthew 12:30 that he who is not with him is against him?
I think it is great to reach out and work with those who don't believe. Hopefully, if they can see a sincere and honest expression of faith, they will embrace what they see. If not, that really is their problem.
I did read the back and forth between Hitchens and Doug Wilson. I thought that was a respectful discussion in general.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 5, 2007 4:58 PM
Mean people just like to argue; what they are arguing about is beside the point for them, really, just a handy hook to hang that attitude on.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 5, 2007 5:07 PM
DEAREST Kevin S,
You wrote:
"Then why does he say in Matthew 12:30 that he who is not with him is against him?"
The early followers and lovers of Jesus were called members of THE WAY-being THE WAY he taught one should be; Nonviolent, a Peacemaker and his sisters and brothers where those that DID the will of the Father .
Micah summed that up best:
"What does God require? He has told you o'man! Be just, be merciful, and walk humbly with your Lord." -Micah 6:8
Jesus remained NONVIOLENT and forgiving even while being mocked, whipped and nailed to a cross and he promised that it is the Peacemakers who are the children of God, not the peace-talkers.
2,000 years ago The Cross had NO symbolic religious meaning.
When Jesus said: "Pick up your cross and follow me."
He was issuing a POLITICAL statement, for the main roads in Jerusalem were lined with crucified agitators, rebels, dissidents and any others who disturbed the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces.
The term 'Christian' was not even coined until the days of Paul, about 3 decades after Jesus walked the earth a man.
Jesus was a social, justice, radical revolutionary Palestinian devout Jewish road warrior who rose up and challenged the job security of the Temple authorities by teaching the people they did NOT need to pay the priests for ritual baths or sacrificing livestock to be OK with God; for God already LOVED them just as they were:
Sinners, poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Military Occupation.
What got Jesus crucified was disturbing the status quo of the Roman Occupying Forces of his time, by teaching the subversive concept that Caesar only had power because God allowed it and that God preferred the humble sinner, the poor, diseased, outcasts, widows, orphans, refugees and prisoners all living under Roman Occupation above the elite and arrogant !
100 years before Jesus walked the earth a man, Rabbi Hillel knew that the Hebrew understanding of Hokema; Holy Wisdom; The Feminine Divinity
Was the same as the Greek understanding of The Logos: The Word.
It was the first John and Paul who understood,
The Word was good and The Word was The Logos and The Word was Jesus.
It was John Lennon on 'Rubber Soul' who intuitively knew:
"The Word is just The Way and The Word is Love."
So, with a little imagination, an open heart and mind, one could see that before Jesus walked the earth a man; He was already a SHE!
Hokema, Holy Wisdom; the Feminine Divinity
Now, isn't that good news?
I gotta go now, for I am off to cover a John Hagee Christian Untied for Israel Conference in Miami.
I won't be back on line for a few days, but I HOPE + PRAY you will think about the pearls I have thrown your way.
All good 2U,
e
http://www.wearewideawake.org/
Posted by: eileen fleming | November 5, 2007 5:32 PM
Thanks Becky for this article. Recently, I had a conference in Arizona. I rode home with a friend, one I knew a little, but not a lot. We were talking about nature when he asked me what I thought of it. Well, I said that I love nature and that it is such a blessing. And that is what started the conversation "blessing." Because to him that equaled God. So he asked me about my faith a little, then he started opening to me and told me he was an Atheist. Being me, I smiled and said will you please tell me more. He looked confused and told me I was the first person who believed in God who wanted him to tell them more. I just responded with laughter and a huge smile. So, he did. For three hours. And I learned a lot about Atheism and why he is one. He told me all of the biological stuff about nature. Very fascinating by the way. But then he just started opening up to me about everything. I just continued to listen and give him the opportunity to let me know what he needs to tell me about Atheism and about why he does not believe in God. When I understood why he didn't believe was the first time in my life when I truly got it. Really at my core. Got who he was a bit, who I was a bit. But really who God is a lot.
Posted by: | November 5, 2007 5:50 PM
you must read "the language of God" by Fancis Collins! Then continue to love your atheist converstions!
Posted by: matt anderson | November 5, 2007 7:08 PM
spelling correction. continue to love your atheist conversations...sorry
Posted by: matt anderson | November 5, 2007 7:09 PM
There is a difference between an atheist and those athesist that support a strong humanistic belief system. Humanism is a philospy that willfully denies all that God has revealed . It chooses to insulate your worldview to the possibilities and the truth God reveals to all of us who believe .
I know athesists who live better lives then what Christians are suppose to , and their rewards are Bibical in as far as family and certain positive results regarding their family . . Bibical truth and actions work for the non believers as well as the believer in far as many of the reprocussions go , good or bad.
But people who shove their belief because they know more , or are better then you always seem to have a different motive then what most of us share for the Love of God for .
God cares about how you live more then who you vote for . I think when the church gets that down the rest will fall into place .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 5, 2007 7:40 PM
Interesting irony: The article from which Ms. Garrison quotes begins by decrying hate speech and bigotry, then talks about "the simplistic and hateful religious right" being driven by fear. Interesting; I know INDIVIDUALS on BOTH the religious right and religious left who seem simplistic and hateful and fearful, but I also know MANY (RR & RL) who are not! So, it seems to me that a statement which labels the entire religious right as "simplistic and hateful" is actually "simplistic and hateful" (and probably
fearful as well) - i.e., hate speech!!!
Why must we do this? Please note BeliefNet's rules of conduct: "Courtesy: You agree that you will be courteous to others, even when disagreeing, and even to those whose beliefs you think are false or objectionable. When debating, express your opinion about a person's ideas, not about them personally. Do not make negative personal remarks about another's ... intelligence, character, ... mental health, education or any other personal characteristic.
Let's stick to talking about the specific ideas of the religious right with which we disagree, rather that labeling people who are Christian conservatives with a broad brush and calling them hateful and simplistic and fearful!!!
Posted by: Ken | November 5, 2007 9:08 PM
What an excellent article! I have been an Atheist for over 4 years now and was so disappointed to see that many are hateful and intolerant to religion. I don't feel that I "fit in" with those type of Atheists. I don't want to convert anyone and am passionate about the right to believe/not believe in whatever we choose without being shunned. I feel so strongly about this because I am pretty much a "closet Atheist"; my friends and husband know, but our families don't. Religion isn't going away and those that believe in a higher power are always going to outnumber those of us who don't. I am not offended by religion at all and I support those that believe. Believers need to see that not all Atheists are intolerant and Atheists need to see that not all believers are "bible-thumpers". If we can all just accept one another and not try to force our beliefs on each other we can live in harmony!
Posted by: Kari | November 6, 2007 9:37 AM
Well said, Ken. Labels abound in our world, and always have. They allow people to denigrate and demonize someone who is different from them.
My wife's uncle once had a significant conversation with an atheist. He began it by saying "There won't be a winner or loser in this...let's just talk." Neither of them got hung up on labels, and neither should we.
Jesus told us to,love one another...how can you truly love someone whom you label?
Pray for Peace, and Speak Out!
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO | November 6, 2007 9:37 AM
This was a great post. Thank you. I have a few athiest friends and most are respectful in small ways. It's good to see them get some positive feedback for once. Usually all we see are the angry athiest, kind of like all we see portrayed on the media is overzealous and self righteous evangelical. Thanks again.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 6, 2007 10:05 AM
I will address one reality that makes bridging the gap relatively difficult. Call it a variation of Pascal's wager. Simply put, we have more invested in the afterlife than do atheists.
Atheists believe (generally) that there is no afterlife, and certainly no heaven or hell. Christians believe that there is a heaven or hell, and that atheists will reside in the latter. To atheists, this introduces an element of conceit. An atheist has no particular problem with a Christian believing in Jesus, but is understandably troubled by the presumption that, if the atheist were to die today, he or she would be condemned.
Christians can (and usually do) smooth over this rather troubling roadblock by moving toward areas of common understanding, as Garrison suggests here. However, an atheist only needs to read the Bible to know where he or she stands in our eyes.
This strikes me as a legitimate impasse. Both sides can exercise a certain measure of cognitive dissonance, in hopes that the 800 pound gorilla in the room won't start smashing lamps, and civil American discourse is conducive to precisely this phenomenon.
Alas, certain spheres (e.g. politics, literatureworld issues, the internet) are less conducive to civility. Those who thrive in these arenas are going to articulate the dischord between Christians (and religion at large) and atheists, heightening the conflict by taking it to its logical conclusions.
This might be impolite, but it is more honest. And so it would seem that there is an inherent trade off between authenticity and civility. Garrison prefers the latter, and I am inclined to prefer it as well. Christians, however, should understand what we lose in the equation.
Posted by: kevin s. | November 6, 2007 10:29 AM
if there is a heaven, & i sure hope there is, i think we are all going. that may or may not be in the good book, but my personal experience of a gracefully loving god leads me to no other conclusion. but i won't allow belief or disbelief in that to keep me from loving people, engaging them, and trying to kindle that divine spark within them that unites all existence. i have atheist friends who are more christ-like than most christians i know & christians friends who are hateful and bigotrous, go figure. arguing theology through science is a fool's game with no winners, only precious time wasted and unnecessary walls built. all i can tell athiests is i affirm that there is a 'more' & i seek to engage it every way i can, including through friendship w/ them, & that 'more' moves me and strengthens me, & opens my heart to seek justice in the world where it doesn't exist, & i know the virtuous teachings of religion are true not through scientific ways of knowing, but because my heart tells me they true, like all things worth living for like romantic love & art & music & literature & ice cream.
Posted by: nad2 | November 6, 2007 11:50 AM
My wife's uncle once had a significant conversation with an atheist. He began it by saying "There won't be a winner or loser in this...let's just talk." Neither of them got hung up on labels, and neither should we.
Posted by: Doug & Jan in CO
That is a beautiful way to start a conversation !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 6, 2007 5:39 PM
All people are intended to be a gift from God to one another.
That holds wherever any of us are on - or off - the path that can lead to him.
If I am teachable, if I am of service, if I am humble - I can accept this gift that others are.
They have as much to give to me as I to them.
In relating to them as equals, I will come to see through the glass less darkly, to come closer to knowing even as I am known.
Knowledge is not a zero-sum game. Everyone has something to teach you, whether you have recognized it yet or not.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 6, 2007 8:49 PM
Thank you for a very civil discussion!
As an atheist I think I know where the anger of the "mean" atheists comes from. First, there is the (quite justified) fear of persecution. We know that our safety in this society is a precarious and recent thing. As the politics of America becomes more allied with the majority religion (Christianity), some of us resort to a pugnacious defense.
The other source, I think, is that some (not all) atheists feel that reaching correct opinions is all that matters. Their skepticism makes them quite fearful of "errors"--instead of teaching them to be humble in their human ignorance.
Kevin S. is quite right in his post that the difficulties between believers and atheists cannot be easily smoothed over. The one he highlights--the concept of hell--is a doozy. If there is one thing that I find difficult to swallow about Christianity, it is the idea that a loving God would countenance a system of perpetual torture. It is much easier for me to see it as a dogma invented by vengeful human beings to punish non-believers. And from what I know about sin, it seems to me that its consequence in this world and in our "souls" is much more inevitable than any postumous torture.
Posted by: Dale Fedderson | November 6, 2007 9:54 PM
If there is one thing that I find difficult to swallow about Christianity, it is the idea that a loving God would countenance a system of perpetual torture
posted by Dale Fedderson
Thanks for your input Dale . I think many Christians have at one time thought about the same thing . Our culture appears to be moving closer to your comfort levels then it is for many Christians .
Just a question for you , how do you handle say the consequences of sin that never appear to materalize with so many people ?
I think even Christians have a problem with that also , justice appears to be something the human mind can distort quite easily, an example is that culture changes , so will the view of justice . Thus changing justice from generation to generation .
I think I said that right ? .
Posted by: Mick | November 6, 2007 10:19 PM
Dear Dale and anyone else,
What do you think about this?
"I said, 'You are "gods": you are all children of the Most High God."-Psalm 82:6
It has been said that evolution is being held up by fundamentalism and the surge of fundamentalism throughout all faith paths sends shivers through cynical atheists and mystics alike. The bumper sticker actually did get it right: "We are spiritual beings having a human experience."
According to the 1987 classic, The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, Dr. Scott Peck defines the spiritual life as fluid and that one may pass back and forth repeatedly through any of the four-probably more-stages of the soul.
Stage one upon this journey -that begins from within-is essentially our infancy in the spiritual life. Like a wild child, a person in this stage reflects the inner chaotic and anti-social, unregenerate soul that is interested only in its own self-satisfaction and ego, much like the stereotypical spoiled child. Stage one people may claim to love others, but their behavior reflects they love their own pleasure, money, power, prestige, and security above any other. For stage one people, it really is all about them.
The good news is that the vast majority of humanity responds to that inner tug which is God, for lack of a better word. Catherine of Sienna wrote that within us all is the divine diamond. But life and all our baggage dulls the flame of our divine brilliance. Stage two souls seek to "let their light shine" and will live virtuous lives and do many good works. They also can be judgmental of others, self-righteous, rigid of thought, cold of heart, legalistic concrete literal thinkers and may even be guilty of a lukewarm faith. They want to do right and they even may desire to love and please God, but have not yet fully opened up to the Inner Light, as Joan of Arc did when she challenged church and state and persisted that she had intuited God within -even while being fried.
Stage two souls have not yet been set fully free and prefer the security of a higher human authority than themselves for guidance. They submit to institutions, scripture, dogma, ritual, ministers, or gurus. This is the most appropriate stage for older children and most adults who live busy lives just trying to keep bread on the table and a dry roof above. The difference between a stage one and stage two soul, is that a one wouldn't even notice a neighbor in need, while the two has awoken to the fact that we are to be our neighbor's keepers and they will respond to a friend-and like the good Samaritan, even to a total stranger in need.
Most theologians would agree that the opposite of faith is not disbelief: the opposite of faith is fear. Stage three souls have not just fearlessly awoken, they have evolved! This evolution has led them to the realization of what Christ was really talking about in the Sermon of the Mount AKA:The Beatitudes which sound like crazy promises, but is the litmus test of how we will be judged, if we claim to be a Christian.
About 2,000 years ago, when Christ was about 33, he hiked up a hill and sat down under an olive tree and began to teach the people;
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven."
In other words: it is those who know their own spiritual poverty, their own limitations and sins honestly and trust God loves them in spite of themselves who already live in the Kingdom of God.
How comforted we will all be, when we see, we haven't got a clue, as to the depth and breadth of pure love and mercy of The Divine Mystery of The Universe. God's name in ancient Aramaic is Abba which means Daddy as much as Mommy and He/She: The Lord has said, "My ways are not your ways. My thoughts are not yours." -Isaiah 55:8
Christ proclaimed more: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
The essence of meek is to be patient with ignorance, slow to anger and never hold a grudge. In other words: how happy you will be when you also know humility; when you know yourself, the good and the bad, for both cut through every human heart.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they will be filled."
In other words: how happy you will be when your greatest desire is to do what "God requires, and he has already told you what that is; BE JUST, BE MERCIFUL and walk humbly with your Lord."-Micah 6:8
"Blessed are the merciful, they will be shown mercy." In other words: how happy you will all be when you choose to return only kindness to your 'enemy.'
"For with the measure you measure against another, it will be measured back to you." Christ warns his disciples as he explains the law of karma in Luke 6:27-38.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they see God."
In other words: how happy you will be when you WAKE UP and see God is already within you, within every man, every woman and every child. The Supreme Being is everywhere, the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end. Beyond The Universe -and yet so small; within the heart of every atom.
"Blessed are The Peacemakers: THEY shall be called the children of God."
Oh how happy the WORLD will be when we all seek justice and pursue it, for there can be no peace without justice.
"Blessed are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires, theirs is The Kingdom of Heaven." And one fine day the lion will lie down with The Lamb and man will make war no more and that is the Kingdom of God.
Now, a stage three soul may well reject Christ as God, but often agree with the philosophy of Jesus, which Thomas Jefferson laid out when he weeded out the miracle stories from the gospels and clarified the teachings and ethics of Christ in:
THE LIFE AND MORALS of JESUS of NAZARETH
1. Be just: justice comes from virtue which comes from the heart.
2. Treat people the way we want to be treated.
3. Always work for PEACEFUL resolutions, even to the point of returning violence with COMPASSION.
4. Consider valuable the things that have no material value.
5. Do not judge others.
6. Do not bear grudges.
7. Be modest and unpretentious.
8. Give out of true generosity, not because we expect to be repaid.
9. Being true to one's self in more important than being loyal to one's family...those who think they know the most are the most ignorant...
A stage three soul will see that a neighbor is everyone on the planet and not just those who think and look the same. Stage three's are seekers, doubters, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and frequently adults who grew up disenchanted with institutionalized religion. Their inherent intellectual curiosity leads them to seek their own way towards the Mystery of the Divine through philosophy and the study of multiple faith paths choosing and discarding according to their "inner light." Stage three souls often become activists for social justice and reform and the new wave of philanthropy from the blessed trio of Warren Buffet, Linda and Bill Gates fills mystics -and maybe some cynics?- with hope for a future that honors the unique sacredness of every life.
It has been said we are all called to be mystics in the market place and a stage four, such as Thomas Merton and Rumi give voice to that experience of the curtain being lifted and seeing through the glass a bit less darkly.
A mystic can best be understood as one who is in love with the divine mystery and is viscerally connected to the unity of all creation.
Mystics are not navel gazers, they feel the pain of the world within their hearts and grieve at what humans do to the other when they have no clue that The Divine is within the other as much as within themselves.
Mystics have detached from their concepts of God-not by their own efforts, but by the invitation and action of God upon a willing and simple soul in love with Pure Being, AKA:God.
The mystic fool, Saint Francis, the leper kisser of Assisi, was so head over heels in love with God in everyone and all of creation that most people of his time considered him crazed, or at least, extremely eccentric.
One needn't be a mystic or move beyond stage two on the spiritual journey to do what is good and right just because it is good and right.
On that foundation alone people of faith, atheists and agnostics can surely find something to agree upon.
"I said, 'You are "gods": you are all children of the Most High God."-Psalm 82:6
Or would only a mystic see that?
e
Posted by: eileen fleming | November 7, 2007 12:00 AM
Eileen,
The love in me bows to the love in you. From one mystical traveller to the next may my father's joy only grow in you.
p
Posted by: payshun | November 7, 2007 3:33 PM
I'm all for patient, humble, and generous exchange and interaction with secularists/agnostics/atheists.
But it does them and us no favors to water down our theology and faith. As kind and gentle and welcoming as Jesus was to sinners and the marginalized, he also says too much about judgement and exclusive discipleship for us to try and whittle his truth to fit the spirit of this age. The modern theology of the 20th century attempted this with disastrous results. People need to take ALL the words of Jesus seriously- his concern for the poor, his concern for the marginalized, and his concern for those of us who would pick and choose what to believe.
Posted by: Matt K | November 9, 2007 12:16 PM
I've read "Breaking the Spell," and I have no doubt in my mind that Daniel Dennett is NOT a mean atheist. He has, in fact, repeatedly stated that he is not anti-religion and he even occasionally goes to church (for the music). To group him with a raving mad lunatic like Hitchens is abominable.
Posted by: Jeffrey | November 9, 2007 3:13 PM
Galileo said :
"Religion tells us how to go to heaven not how the heavens go."
Science and religion operate in different spheres at different levels.
They can be complemnentary rather than contradictory or conflict~ary (word?) with each other.
Perhaps?
Posted by: | November 10, 2007 12:06 AM
I think religion messes you up. I am embracing atheistism. Im so turned off by this so called religious war and all the consumer sheep who follow it and allow it to happen.
Posted by: samantha | November 20, 2007 10:39 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?