A Unified Atheism?
Why is there a lack of unity among atheists? I think that it is because atheism is not ultimately a philosophy though it can be. It is not a belief though it can be. It is not responsive to religion but it can be. It is not responsive to philosophy but it can be. How so? Because anyone who says they do not believe in a god is an atheist. They may not know a hill of beans about science, religious claims, philosophy or even atheism.
They may be literate. Or they may not. They may be brilliant or down right embarrassing. We atheists who are a thinking lot come from different backgrounds and cultures. We seldom agree with each other about issues that would be beneficial to our own welfare.
There are those of us who love the new Atheism and are interested in science. We think all we have to do is show the scientific facts and religion will say sorry we were mistaken. We see NOW! When we do so we forget that Christianity and Islam are based upon the supremacy of a book and often their gods come in a close second.
Those of us from religious backgrounds on the other hand are divided over a historical critical approach or a mythicist view. We seldom consider which is the most plausible criticism of Christian belief. We argue with each other rather than Christian apologists. ( I personally think that since historical criticism is the Christian method of biblical interpretation it should be the arena for debate whether mythicism is ultimately correct or not!!!!)
There is the area of ethics. What secular approach to religious morality is viable? A secular humanism? A cultural relativism? Sam Harris? A deontological view based upon a legal logic? Anarchy ( my favorite)?
Can there be a united front? Perhaps in focusing on what is false with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Age or what have you we can offer a plethora of counters to their claims while we can agree to disagree about our own differences. Perhaps those views can be resolved after the more pressing issues of the dangers in continued religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy.
Written by Tommy G. Baker
They may be literate. Or they may not. They may be brilliant or down right embarrassing. We atheists who are a thinking lot come from different backgrounds and cultures. We seldom agree with each other about issues that would be beneficial to our own welfare.
There are those of us who love the new Atheism and are interested in science. We think all we have to do is show the scientific facts and religion will say sorry we were mistaken. We see NOW! When we do so we forget that Christianity and Islam are based upon the supremacy of a book and often their gods come in a close second.
Those of us from religious backgrounds on the other hand are divided over a historical critical approach or a mythicist view. We seldom consider which is the most plausible criticism of Christian belief. We argue with each other rather than Christian apologists. ( I personally think that since historical criticism is the Christian method of biblical interpretation it should be the arena for debate whether mythicism is ultimately correct or not!!!!)
There is the area of ethics. What secular approach to religious morality is viable? A secular humanism? A cultural relativism? Sam Harris? A deontological view based upon a legal logic? Anarchy ( my favorite)?
Can there be a united front? Perhaps in focusing on what is false with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, New Age or what have you we can offer a plethora of counters to their claims while we can agree to disagree about our own differences. Perhaps those views can be resolved after the more pressing issues of the dangers in continued religious fundamentalism and orthodoxy.
Written by Tommy G. Baker
0 comments:
Post a Comment