He calls them the religious impulse and identification. The religious impulse is the belief that there is an order to the world that comes from something other than this world itself. It is this order that offers the possibility of a meaningful existence. Where Albert Camus, for instance, thought that the fundamental fact of human life was its confrontation with a universe that refused us meaning, those who possess the religious impulse commit themselves to the belief that the transcendent can offer us precisely the meaning that Camus was unable to find.
Identification involves participating in various religious practices as members of a community. These practices help create a communal feeling, one that links a participant not only with fellow worshippers but also with a past history of participants. They also bring one into contact with the transcendent.
Identification, however, is a two-edged sword. While it creates bonds among fellow practitioners, it also creates boundaries between them and those who are not practitioners. This exclusionary aspect of identification can set the groundwork for religious violence, which is one of the most damning charges laid by the New Atheists at the feet of believers.
Crane devotes an entire chapter to a discussion of religious violence. He points out — and this needs always to be borne in mind — that extreme violence is not unique to religion. Soviet, Nazi, and Chinese Communist violence were all committed in the name of programs that were distinctly unreligious, and to call them, as some have done, a different kind of religion is to stretch the idea of the religious beyond all recognition. Crane argues that it is a mistake to claim that religious violence is founded on the theological content of religious doctrines.
Rather, it is often through a combination of conflicts about rules for living or worshipping, identification, and more general aspects of human psychology and culture that such violence takes root. For instance, the conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims arose out of a dispute about the proper heir to the Prophet Muhammad, and the Troubles in Northern Ireland had more to do with the historical treatment of Catholics, and the general place of Ireland in British history, than with any dispute about the truth of Catholic or Protestant religious doctrines.
While it is difficult to deny the role of identification in religious violence, it seems to me that we might distinguish proximate from more remote causes of such violence. The latter may play an underlying but still determining role in creating conflict. This point might be obscured in the examples to which Crane appeals, since they involve conflicts within particular religions.
It saddened me that anyone at the Guardian would think it was appropriate to ridicule Dawkins in this manner and I was further disappointed by the accompanying article by Jonathan Jones which was a weakly argued personal attack on Dawkins, using poorly researched material to deliver the pathetic notion that Dawkins "just wants to be the cleverest kid in the class".
The irony of the piece was that it smacked of having been written by someone desperate to prove his own cleverness. As much as I hated Jones' article, I can understand what might have prompted it.
I have in the past criticised Dawkins' approach myself and I'd like to think I'm not part of the "angry atheist" brigade. It can be all too easy to fall into the trap of being perceived as a "dick" when challenging people's beliefs.
They seem to think that tackling such beliefs is a question of dispelling ignorance, of educating people in the "right" way of thinking. Sadly, it's not that simple. Such atheists and skeptics would do well to remember that we are all capable of holding irrational beliefs and that there are myriad social, economic, cultural and educational factors that determine what and how people think.
Heck, I'll go out on a limb and suggest there might even be genetic factors involved in determining the extent to which people may or may not be susceptible to holding religious beliefs. Atheists and skeptics can feel incredibly frustrated by the beliefs of others and feel that they have to "correct" them, and in doing so they can come across as condescending, patronising and aggressive.
It's not always accidental. Several prominent atheists and skeptics have been accused of deliberately behaving like "dicks"; let's face it, calling believers "deluded", as Dawkins famously does, is not exactly diplomatic. Location: Somewhere on this 3rd rock from the sun. Does anyone agree? I used to be an atheist. After a series of understanding I concluded that there is no such thing as God.
For many years I was a proud atheist. But then I realize how condescension becomes a part of an atheists existence. It's like they seek debates and confrontations to make a point. I notice this on forums, in real life. Look at Bill Maher. He is an intelligent person but he wastes so much of his energy and thought on berating the religious brigade.
Richard Dawkins writes a whole book trying to proove his point. Imagine the years he must have spent on the research and writing. I am not saying that a religious person is rational and correct on most cases just the opposite but there is some good in those ancient texts. The intentions must have been good but Father Time changed all that. I think the most apt term for all mankind is agnostic.
We just don't know anything. In the history of man we have known nothing, currently all 7 billion of us afloat on this massive cruise ship in the middle of this cosmos know nothing. Science is a tool trying to find the answer but clearly we haven't found it yet.
What could be the answer It could be either. Furthermore I notice that events and moments change a persons perspective. I have known hardcore deniers become religious after an incident and likewise I have seen god worshippers suddenly loose all faith and belief. Currently as a 28 year old I don't think there's a god. But there could be some force governing this universe.
Just as easily there couldn't be one. No, I don't agree. In my experience, when it comes to personal intercourse, atheists go about their own business - usually trying not to offend anyone - until someone tries to drag them into religion. When on a public forum, they don't usually go looking to attack anyone by creating insulting posts, but do respond to posts like the OP. Originally Posted by blktoptrvl. None of the people I know who have said they are atheists are like the OP's characterization.
They are people who have travelled, have jobs that interest them and do a great deal of reading. We have many long discussions one-on-one and in groups which cover many things, but I cannot remember atheism ever being a topic.
0コメント