Hi Auldsoul,
I do enjoy reading your posts. I know that on this particular topic we shall probably agree to disagree, but can I play with you for just a moment? First, I must say that any debate has certain rules that both sides agree to play by. My point to Nicolaou was that on an open discussion message board, atheists and theists play by different rules, so to speak. There is nothing wrong with that. Anyone can and will post their opinion. If I may be so bold, atheists tend to follow strict rules of logic and theists follow rules of spirituality. From an atheist's logical standpoint, an extraordinary claim is a claim in the existence of someone for whom no concrete evidence exists. Let me pick on Santa Claus for a moment. Does Santa Claus exist? Yes and no. Certainly millions of children look forward to his visit every Christmas. Thousands of men dress up as Santa Claus every year at shopping malls, etc. But does the actual man exist? Logically, no. However, some may say that he does exist in the spirit of giving, the spirit of happiness and joviality; so what's the harm in telling children that Santa comes on his reindeer to give them presents every Christmas?
Does god exist? I, personally, have no concrete proof that he exists. I don't believe the claims made by Creationists because I understand the mechanisms of biological evolution. I look at the world with its complexity; the beautiful, the horrific, and the mundane; and I don't see god(s). But millions believe in god(s) and look forward to getting something from him/them. Many might say that the spirituality of mankind is a reflection of the divine in us. I believed in The God for most of my life. I would sincerely love to find out that He exists and really is a God of Love. If He is out there, he needs to let us know. And no, the Bible doesn't cut it anymore with me. I hope you'll try to understand my point of view.
Dave
Why is it considered so wrong to be anti-religious or aggressively atheist?
by nicolaou 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
PrimateDave
-
Big Dog
The sickness of secularism
The threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion.
Soumaya Ghannoushi
Articles
Latest
Show all
Profile
All Soumaya Ghannoushi articles
About Webfeeds
October 31, 2006 04:57 PM | Printable version
We are witnessing the rise of an arrogant secularist rhetoric founded on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress, dogmas which arouse ridicule in serious academic and intellectual circles nowadays. Hearing its proponents defend their rigid notions, you would be forgiven for thinking you were in the presence of the fathers of positivism: Auguste Comte, Diderot, or Condorcet, or that you were back in the Victorian and Napoleonic eras with their high hopes of remaking the world and human destiny in light of the utopias of reason and progress.
These high priests of rationality, who in Britain include in their ranks such names as Richard Dawkins and Anthony Grayling have erected a world of dichotomies, borders and fences: secular v religious, rationality v superstition, progress v backwardness, public v private. This simplistic worldview fails to take account of the complexity of cultural and historical processes, or of intellectual and human phenomena.
"Reason" itself, whose praises they sing night and day, is a perpetually changing mixture of many overlapping elements. It is neither abstract, nor intentional and does not confront the rich, labyrinthine human world as its other. It is quintessentially imbedded therein, in its emotions, languages, historical experiences, religious traditions and cultural heritage. There is no such thing as an ahistoric reason.
This means that we do not have one but many rationalities, the Christian European, the Islamic, the Chinese, the Indian to name a few, each stamped by the specific conditions of its evolution, and in turn incorporating a multitude of sub-rationalities. Neither do these traditions of rationality exist isolated from each other. They have much in common, the product of the interactive and communicative activity of cultures.
Aristotle's logos, Descartes' intellect and Kant's transcendental reason, are illusions, which no self-respecting thinker can afford to defend in the 21st century. The truth is that today's self- proclaimed guardians of enlightenment and rationality are offshoots of the intellectual poverty of eighteenth century positivism and scienticism, who disfigure philosophy and thought, history and reality. They are the victims of what may be referred to as a sick secularist consciousness.
These contrast reason's absolute virtue with the evil of a straw man they have christened religion: a pack of superstitions, fairytales, demons, and angels, which intervene in the world only to corrupt and destroy it. They fail to realize that just as there are different species of secularism - the intolerant and the dogmatic (such as theirs), the open and the tolerant - there exist multiple forms of religion. Religion can be legalistic, spiritual, Gnostic, rationalized, conservative, innovative, quietist, reactionary, moderate and radical. These many expressions do not exclude one another but may be present in the same type of religiosity. An example of such intricate overlapping is the great Muslim thinker Abu Hamid al-Gazali (d. 1111), who was at once a brilliant jurist, philosopher, theologian, and mystic.
Just as they simplify the breathtakingly complex phenomenon that is the human being, these missionaries of secularism impoverish the social order, filling it with sacred boundaries between the private and the public, and strictly laying down what may and may not be practiced in each. You may indulge in your religious "superstitions" behind the thick closed doors of your home, church, temple, or mosque. But the moment you step outside into the light of the secular sphere, you must discard your cross, turban, or headscarf. Communication, they insist, is only possible within uniformity. Such was the argument used in France to ban the Islamic headscarf in schools and government offices last year, and which is gaining currency in Britain today.
What these ignore, willingly or naively, is that unless you suffer from schizophrenia, everything in your cognitive universe is interlinked and forms part of a single coherent whole through which you make sense of the world, its components and what takes place therein. There is a difference between recognizing the sanctity of the private and transforming it into a high fenced prison cut off from the rhythm of public life. A measure of the dynamism of a public sphere is its ability to incorporate multiple modes of expression and forms of life. If the radically secularist have a problem communicating with those who dress or speak differently from themselves, it is their problem and a symptom of their exclusionist dogmatism. It is not the problem of the religious.
Secularist dogmatism is no less dangerous than its religious sibling. Secularism itself can be, and indeed has been in many historical instances, highly destructive. We should remember that Europe's modern history is scarred with the brutality of secular totalitarianism. Neither the Jacobites, fascists, Nazis or Stalinists were priests or theologians. They were fanatical secularists who worshipped in reason's grand temple and sacrificed hundreds of thousands for the god of progress, fervently vowing to create a new man and a new world on the ruins of the old.
With the retreat of Christianity and shrinking of the ecclesiastical institution in Western Europe, the threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion. What we should be dreading today is the tyranny of an arrogant secularism which hides its exclusionist and intolerant face behind the sublime mask of reason, enlightenment and progress. -
XU
Are you talking about everyone in general or people on this forum? I think people here are tired of having someone yell at them about them not being correct or right. We all did the same thing to territories of decent christians and atheists alike. "What you believe is bunk! Millions now living will never die!" Maybe some of us don't want you or anyone else to say to us that we shouldn't believe what we choose to believe because we can't prove it. Who cares? I mean, I know you do. But you want to help people, and you should know that you can't really help someone until they are ready. Also, look at this country's history. Everyone assumes Christianity is correct. Of course it's going to raise everyone's hackles. Expecially with the Christian Coalition at the helm and jesus fish bumper stickers everywhere you look. sorry, i don't know if you are in the US, but that's reality here for the time being. Just a basic understanding of human nature and our defenses would allow you to understand the reaction you get from people.
-
ackack
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Though beliefs can be based on the stars, tea leaves, simply having this sort of proof for a belief does not make the belief desirable or true in any meaningful sense. Homeopathy and astrology fit this well. Believers will point to their mass of "evidence", but these beliefs still have very real negative effects.
ackack
-
LittleToe
Actually a burden of proof only exists when you attempt to prove something to someone else.
Hence a believer can offer no definitive proof, and neither can an atheist. It's ultimately a case of what side you wish to take and whether or not your experience has been such that you feel there's been enough evidence in that experience to convince you personally. All very subjective, but life's like that
-
ackack
LittleToe, I believe I said a burden of proof lies with a claimant. I'm not really sure what you are attempting to correct.
Atheists will argue that atheism requires the fewest new assumptions about how the world works, and hence, is more reasonable.
ackack