HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 7, 2006 I'm going to address concerns I have with his latest piece , because it represents what I feel are a colossal set of misunderstandings (or worse) about atheism. [1] To be something you should believe in something. [2] If you don’t believe in anything then it stands to reason you’re nothing. I can recite many things Atheists don’t believe in but nothing they do believe in. Charles Darwin was an Episcopal Clergy student in his youth. He came from a prominent English Unitarian Family of mostly Doctors. Darwin’s belief in God and lack of faith in the strict religious teachings of the day brought him to study biology and eventually create the theory of evolution. There’s no mention of Darwin ever losing his faith in God. [3] Atheists hold Darwin up as their God. Why is that? I've numbered some of the sentences to refer to them more easily. If sentence one is correct, then sentence two stands to reason, since both statements represent the same idea. If sentence one is incorrect, then the rest of that idea is incorrect. Sentence one is wide open and imprecise – something tricky to apply logic to, but lets try this angle. Everyone believes something and everyone has a philosophy. Some folks build up their personal belief system based on a combination of tradition and superstition known as religion, others base their system, where possible, on rational thought and evidence. Everyone augments their personal belief system to some degree with personal experience. Using this approach, we can consider that statement a straw-man argument, which puts a good chunk of the rest of his notions about atheism in jeopardy. It's a bit like saying that to be a dog you need to have k9 teeth and four legs, and then suggesting that beagles aren't dogs. Darwin grew up believing in God like most people do today and did in that time. He married his first cousin and had children with her, knowing that such kids often have health issues. One of his children died, and this crushed Darwin as he partially blamed himself. He quit attending church thereafter. He didn't create the theory of evolution, he discovered it. So did Wallace, by the way, at about the same time. The two worked independently. Wallace isn't often mentioned, something that would no doubt irk him to no end were he still alive. Sentence three is also wrong. It's hard for me to determine if this is willful ignorance, or just ignorance. As I've said in other articles, ignorance isn't a negative word, it simply means a lack of knowledge. Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is deceitful and negative. Evolution is universally accepted by science. You don't have to be an atheist to accept or understand evolution. But it seems that if you are a political conservative in America in this day and age, you must oppose it, or, withhold support, or proclaim that there is some controversy about the theory. Atheists are sensitive to the attack on evolution because many atheists champion the value of science in increasing the knowledge of humankind. The attack is coming from certain fundamentalist American Christian sects with clear, ulterior, motives. If the attack was geared towards electromagnetism instead, atheists would also object. Here is Ken's second paragraph: [1] It’s possible there are two separate but equal theories of how life was created and still have God a part of both. [2] I find those who’re cretin there’s no God suspect. [3] The written word of God has survived over four thousand years. I haven’t seen an Atheists holy book around anywhere I’ve been. [4] Since Atheists claim, they aren’t organized into units such as churches or meeting halls how do they spread their word. [5] Is it up to each individual Atheist to fabricate their own parables then pass them on by jungle drums? Sentence one of course is true, it is possible. No other theory has yet been discovered, however. A scientific theory has a specific set of criteria, and the other philosophies or religious dogmas which addresses some of the same issues are not scientific theories. As for sentence two, Ken is free to find atheists suspect, however, this has nothing at all to do with evolution. Sentence three is interesting. He is of course referring to the Bible. Lets keep that in mind for later. Four and five again display ignorance; I cannot determine if it is willful or not. Since atheism is not a religion, but a lack of religion, “we” have no holy texts or meeting halls. Taking five alone for a second, Ken seems to be implying that religions fabricate their religious tales, at least, I think so. I find this type of thing is common and strange. Theists will often proclaim that atheism is “just a religion”, implying that a religion, a belief system without evidence, is a negative. After all, if atheism is in fact a religion, it would be at least equal to the other religions, so I fail to understand what benefit this claim has to the theistic side of this philosophical debate? The next paragraph is interesting: There’s an alternate theory no one seems to have considered. That’s God has no religious affiliations whatsoever. Jews consider Moses their spiritual leader, Muslims Muhammad, Christians Jesus Christ. All seem to put God on the back burner when it comes to honoring their religious leaders. If all have rejected God as the ultimate source for spiritual leadership then why would God choose to be part of their religious beliefs? My point is no one’s qualified to make an educated declaration of what is and what’s assumed to be the truth about God. Remember sentence three in the previous paragraph? Which 4,000 year old holy book is Ken talking about? All three faiths mentioned, (which are by no means the only major faiths in the world today), have different holy books. Yes, they have text in common, but they also have unique text which gives each faith a very different outlook on the universe. Here is part of the next paragraph, perhaps the most interesting and puzzling bit of writing: I believe God is all things to all men. It’s a matter of what they want him / her / it to be. God can be the sunrise over a snow-capped mountain. God can be the sunset on a tropical island. God can be that voice that warns is of danger or gives us advice when we seek it. [1] God can be the good in us. [2] Can an Atheist claim an affiliation with a higher power or do they assume they’re the highest power. If God can be anything to anyone, what was the point of sentence three above, the one that referred to a 4,000 year old written record of God, a book that atheism lacks? Does Ken want it both ways? Does he want to present himself as the good, all American, Christian and appear so open-minded about the nature of God as to seem downright “new-age”? If the latter, why give special significance to the Bible? If the atheists are a lesser species for lacking their own ancient holy book, what about those folks that just think of God as the beauty in nature? Aren't they also suspect for not following the particulars of an old book? I've noticed that Ken has argued in similar fashion before, and I can't be sure if he realizes it or not. He's said he is not a Christian. Then he said that Christmas trees are exclusively the tradition of Christians. Then he said atheists are lesser beings because they do not have their own tree, and went on to defend the Christmas tree. But, Ken is also not a Christian, therefore, he also has no tree, therefore, isn't he also a lesser being? As for sentence two, well, does Ken think that all atheists are non-good people? Once he answers that question, then he can use his own statement in sentence one to find his answer. In other words, if atheists can be good people, then they can accept a higher power, if a higher power is defined as simply the good in people as Ken suggested. Couldn't his whole article really be summed up like this, “Atheists are substandard people because they tend to be my political enemies in the current political climate”? I have no quarrel with Atheists and there lack of faith. What I do have a quarrel with is their trying to make the rest of the word adhere to their views. If Michael John McCrae wants to write an article each day professing his love for his savior Jesus Christ so be it. The Atheists don’t need to read them. Mac and I have the same right to our beliefs as any Atheist has to theirs. Skip Toomaloo has every right to quote scriptures no one need read them that doesn’t care to. I think based on previous paragraphs, Ken clearly has a quarrel with atheists and their belief systems ["Systems" is plural because atheism is simply a statement of a lack of belief - there is no unified belief system which all atheists adhere too. Some atheists are humanists, which is a belief system]. And based on this paragraph, Ken would deny atheists, and only atheists, the right to defend their views and positions. Does Ken really expect atheists to refrain from responding? As for adhering to views or forcing views on others, to understand what he means depends highly on which Ken Hughes we are dealing with. Are we dealing with the Ken Hughes that gives special credence to the Bible? If so, then Ken might approve of Christian-specific policy concerning abortion, homosexuality, divorce, and a host of other issues that explicitly force one ideology on everyone. If we are dealing with the Ken Hughes that can define God as nature or beauty, then perhaps Ken would champion the pro-choice position. After all, this position would allow everyone to exercise their own, personal, view of the world without infringing on anyone else. And what about gays? If God is the beauty of trees swaying in the wind, then we can ignore that a certain holy book defines homosexuality as an abomination, right? Ken ought to have little issue with gay marriage or unions, I would think, at least on "moral" grounds... For all of his seeming praise of liberal positions such as plurality, religious freedoms, and respecting the rights of fellow Americans, I'm afraid I can see little more than a political statement meant to garner support for personal aims, for conservatives in general, and for Christian conservatives in particular. While I find Mac's and Skip's view of atheism more disturbing in some sense, I also find them more genuine. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
