I guess this is now "Discussing fath and delusion part 1"...
DavidMWW and Sean, this is for you if you followed the link through...
Hmm. In commenting on a friend's blog on an idea to rent advertising space on the side of a London bus to counter all the terrible religious propaganda to which atheists are subjected every day (read the blog posts for yourselves by clicking on this link http://www.jonworth.eu/atheist-bus-campaign-starts-to-roll/#comment-119187 or the link to Jon Worth's blog on the side bar of this page), I seem inadvertantly to have encountered the radical atheism that exists in small pockets the UK.
My friend was excited because the website www.richarddawkins.net now connects to his pledgebank page to fund said bus advert. He knows my concerns over shoddy analysis in general and shoddy analysis in politics and religion in general. We've discussed the Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" previously and so I posted a comment, slightly tongue in cheek:
"You must be horrified that Dawkins is linked to the campaign!
While the “Blind Watchmaker” is interesting (”blind, pitiless indifference” is a phrase to chill the soul of any believer whose god is only used as a comfort blanket), the laughable “The God Delusion” is as near as a declaration of atheism as a faith position rather than the logical, sensible thing he pretends as any I’ve seen (memes, anyone?) Plus building a false god, saying it’s pathetic and then knocking it down is not really engaging with believers on what they actually believe. I wouldn’t believe in the God he portrays.
But I digress. You know well I’d rather trust Jesus than Dawkins and it’s not a position I came to lightly either, as a freethinker.
If atheism in the bus campaign is about freethinking and (let’s face it) evangelism of an atheistic worldview, then steering well clear of Dawkins has got to be key. But the need for money to spread the word leads to uncomfortable allies in all sides on what has to be the most important thing people will ever decide on in their lives.
I wish the campaign well, and note simply that anything that gets people talking about faith issues is a good thing from my perspective too!"
Which of course can now be read by anyone following the link from Richard Dawkins' official site.
The thing is, I really do think that the analysis in that book is a bit shoddy.
I can offer my analysis, but really Alistair MacGrath has done it with far more eloquence so I will instead recommend his book "The Dawkins Delusion". This is not a diatribe against atheism, it's a gentle exploration building on the sense that has been building particularly amongst the Christian apologetics community that while one doesn't mind a critique of one's beliefs, it would be nice if so-called examinations of the Christian faith was actually based on what mainstream Christians believe rather than weak parodies and on rigorous scholarship rather than internet or other-sourced misquotes.
I'm not one of those Christians that takes offence at everything (hope that shows from the tone of the posting I put on Jon's blog). I don't own a nodding Jesus, but fine if people want to, they can. I find a lot of christian poetry twee and lacking in artistic merit (but if it brings comfort, fine).
I went to see Jerry Springer the Opera and found it a bit disappointing because I thought it juvenile, not just because it was offensive, but I thought trying to sue the BBC for blasphemy in broadcasting it was a bit pointless given all the other stuff that gets broadcast.
I also oppose pettymindedness, blinkered behaviour, and oppression, whoever originates it.
But when atheism effectively becomes a faith in its own right, moving from noting that the science neither proves God nor is conclusive against him (i.e. agnosticism) to saying that only those claiming that there is a God need to offer proof because everything else say that there isn't, then it has moved from objectivity to statements of belief. And that should chill the heart of any true atheist.
Atheism, Dawkins delusions and the no.11 bus
recent posts
archives
Posted in rose22's blog 2008-07-14
journeyman Well thought out. It is true that atheistic fundamentalism is as much a "religion" as those that it attacks. An article on "Dawkins Delusions" was done by unamuno on this site that you might find interesting. He is a microbiologist....and a skeptic.
TerrorBytePresentsOMG Oh yes we've all heard of those fundamentalist atheists blowing things up, going on killing sprees etc etc. You dont need god or religion to be good or evil btw.
rose22 TerrorBytePresents actually I agree with you. Did you read my post? It's actually about good use of evidence, not an attack on atheism.
Not believing in God does not make you a good or evil member of society. If you read my later posts on the issue, you'll see my atheist friend is actually one of the most moral, socially couragous people I know, really trying to make the world a better place and committed to the causes he espouses to make it so.
Being an atheist certainly doesn't mean you are a terrorist - but nor does having a faith. (I take the point about fundamentalism - I'm not sure I can remember an attack committed in the name of there is no God so it's all pointless, but equally religion is often the tool used by those with more political aims to persuade others to undertake actions they would not otherwise do).
But just because people commit atrocities in the name of a faith does not make them typical of believers, nor does it mean they've understood what they purport to believe in.
Atrocities commited by people of faith are especially horrific because you can identify the moral code that they are supposed to self-identify as living by. This is obviously much more difficult if there is no moral anchor, because right and wrong become points of view, not of And don't pretend people of no faith are all scrupulously good - Stalin and Pol Pot both held atheist worldviews and were responsible for the deaths of millions. They didn't do so in the name of atheism, true, but that's also kind of the point. God didn't matter so wasn't mentioned.