Posted on 06/04/2005 3:57:12 AM PDT by MississippiMasterpiece
"Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naïvely pro-science," says Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England in Bristol.
Evans has written an article for the Guardian of London deriding the old-fashioned, "19th-century" atheism of such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, instead proposing a new, modern atheism which "values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art."
Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as "a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false."
Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America — and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of "intelligent design" — at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion.
A staunch evolutionist himself, he is nevertheless highly critical of such modern giants as Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson.
Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished.
Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal — if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts.
No such reciprocal arrangement exists, however, nor is there the slightest chance that such an accommodation could ever be reached.
It is among the truths believed to be self-evident by the followers of all religions that godlessness is equivalent to amorality and that ethics requires the underpinning presence of some sort of ultimate arbiter, some sort of supernatural absolute, without which secularism, humanism, relativism, hedonism, liberalism and all manner of permissive improprieties will inevitably seduce the unbeliever down immoral ways.
To those of us who are perfectly prepared to indulge in the above vices but still believe ourselves to be ethical beings, the godlessness-equals-morality position is pretty hard to swallow.
Nor does the current behaviour of organized religion breed confidence in the Evans/Ruse laissez-faire attitude. Education everywhere is seriously imperilled by religious attacks.
In recent years, Hindu nationalists in India attempted to rewrite the nation's history books to support their anti-Muslim ideology, an effort thwarted only by the electoral victory of a secularist coalition led by the Congress party.
Meanwhile, Muslim voices the world over are claiming that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Islam.
And in America, the battle over the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. schools is reaching crunch time, as the American Civil Liberties Union prepares to take on intelligent-design proponents in a Pennsylvania court.
It seems inconceivable that better behaviour on the part of the world's great scientists, of the sort that Ruse would prefer, would persuade these forces to back down.
Intelligent design, an idea designed backward so as to force the antique idea of a Creator upon the beauty of creation, is so thoroughly rooted in pseudoscience, so full of false logic, so easy to attack that a little rudeness seems called for.
Its advocates argue, for example, that the sheer complexity and perfection of cellular/molecular structures is inexplicable by gradual evolution.
However, the multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do evolve together, gradually expanding and adapting — and, as Dawkins showed in The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, natural selection is active at every step of this process.
But, as well as scientific arguments, there are others that are more, well, novelistic. What about bad design, for example? Was it really so intelligent to come up with the birth canal or the prostate gland?
Then, there's the moral argument against an intelligent designer who cursed his creations with cancer and AIDS. Is the intelligent designer also amorally cruel?
To see religion as "a kind of art," as Evans rather sweetly proposes, is possible only when the religion is dead or when, like the Church of England, it has become a set of polite rituals.
The old Greek religion lives on as mythology, the old Norse religion has left us the Norse myths and, yes, now we can read them as literature.
The Bible contains much great literature, too, but the literalist voices of Christianity grow ever louder, and one doubts that they would welcome Evans' child's storybook approach.
Meanwhile religions continue to attack their own artists: Hindu artists' paintings are attacked by Hindu mobs, Sikh playwrights are threatened by Sikh violence and Muslim novelists and filmmakers are menaced by Islamic fanatics with a vigorous unawareness of any kinship.
If religion were a private matter, one could more easily respect its believers' right to seek its comforts and nourishments.
But religion today is big public business, using efficient political organization and cutting-edge information technology to advance its ends. Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.
As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists.
They are doing a vital and necessary thing.
BILL: By my definition, yes.
So a baby is an atheist? A dog is an atheist? A rock is an atheist? They all have an absence of belief in any gods.
This is supposed to be a wise retort, I guess...?
"So a baby is an atheist? A dog is an atheist? A rock is an atheist? They all have an absence of belief in any gods."
We are all born atheists until someone teaches us to believe in a particular God. A rock cannot be an atheist because it has no consciousness, no beliefs at all. A dog has consciousness, but I doubt it is capable of forming the concept of a god. The question is beyond them, and quite meaningless to their existence.
Don't be idiotic. We were obviously discussing human beings with the mental capacity to think about htemselves and the world. One might as easily describe rocks as unemployed, since they don't have a job.
My new-years resolution was to avoid discussions with juveniles. Goodbye.
The 'only' is yours, not mine. Putting words in my mouth is obnoxious.
I said we decompose. Do you deny that?
A reasonable view I think. It distinguishes "atheist" from "antitheist".
A rock cannot be an atheist because it has no consciousness, no beliefs at all.
Seems here to be a matter of semantics rather than principle. You stipulate, "Let's only apply the term 'atheist' to things with consciousness or beliefs". But, the principle of being without something is unchanged whether you are a thinking person, or a rock.
For example: you are without a belief in the "Rungu-Witau transmutation inception". In every way that matters, your absence of that belief is equivalent to a rock's absence of that belief.
Just illustrating the significance of being without some belief.
Say it like you mean it, Chuckles!
We were obviously discussing human beings with the mental capacity to think about htemselves and the world. One might as easily describe rocks as unemployed, since they don't have a job.
Don't be so frustrated at your thoughtlessness. You're not the first pigheaded "professor" I've run into.
The point of being without a belief, is that it is devoid of any use of those human faculties you describe. Your lack of belief, say 10 minutes ago, in the Schory-Rubenstein hypothesis, is a fact. It also was completely devoid and irrelevent of your mental capacity, small as it is. Absence of belief has NOTHING to do with consciousness. It is presence of belief that makes use of consciousness.
So the illustration of the rock, which was lost on you, was to make precisely this point. The specific point of not having a belief is same in every way that matters whether it be a person who doesn't have it, or a rock.
Our bodies most certainly do, but are we our bodies?
Most of us value a person much more for the things he has done than for his biology. Surely, then, a person's history makes up a big part of how we define that person.
I like CS Lewis's approach to this question:
"I am Ramandu. But I see that you stare at one another and have not heard this name. And no wonder, for the days when I was a star had ceased long before any of you knew this world, and all the constellations have changed."..."Aren't you a star any longer?" asked Lucy..."I am a star at rest my daughter," answered Ramandu...
"In our world," said Eustace, "a star is huge ball of flaming gas."
"Even in your world my son, that is not what a star is, but only what it is made of...."
Very nice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.