...most, if not all of those evangelist atheists abandon reason as well as appear to be poorly researched. I can feel this on a gut level when reading their screed, but because it infuriates me I have a difficult time debunking them. The following says it better than I can, and is able to look at both religion and this "new" atheism with a reasoned approach. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html Surprise! Much of this "new" evangelical atheist material is more indebted to religion than it would like you to believe, and also is more antithetical to reason than many religions (when practiced in a non-fundamentalist manner, admittedly.) There are many problems with religion, but this new crop of "debunkers" miss their mark quite badly.
I now realize that their work infuriates me not because of their attack on religion (I myself feel ambivalent about religion), but because their ideas smack of fundamentalist ideology to the same degree or more than those they proclaim to be attacking. When they employ any of the following: pseudo-science, poor reasoning, a lack of knowledge about intellectual traditions--both secular and religious--and their roots, and, semi-shockingly, their very own version of superstition (when they say religion's superstition is harmful), their whole argument becomes null and void.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
It really is disappointing
One of the many reasons why the Clinton campaign is making me lose respect for Senator Clinton: http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/11/18417/6487/463/474494
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
