VW Workers in Tennessee Vote for Union
38 minutes ago
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Path to Peace
The Path to Peace
Fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or supernatural entity/force. Atheists are open though to such a deity if sufficient evidence can be presented. Atheists typically use and support a process we know as the scientific method. Truth, uncovered by the scientific method, is constantly being altered by new evidence that comes to light. Scientists, and most atheists, always are mindful that their current beliefs in the "truth" may have to be adjusted or even tossed away. Tolerance of new ideas is a scientific virtue.
Religious fundamentalists have no tolerance for either competing ideas or for evidence which may contradict their chosen faith. Atheists object to those of us who claim religious faith without presenting evidence for their beliefs. By objecting to 'faith alone', atheists are not being 'fundamentalist' but are requiring those with extraordinary beliefs to present extraordinary evidence.
A large issue in 'Atheism' today is just how should atheists and other freethinkers respond to theists and believers of all sorts. Purveyors of "new atheism" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens recommend a direct, confrontational approach or "shock value" as you call it. On the other hand traditional atheists such as Paul Kurtz, sometimes are even hesitant to use the word 'atheist' because of all the baggage society has placed upon this word. They recommend a complementary approach with moderate believers working in ways to achieve earthly goals that all sides can support.
Of course there are benefits to each approach depending upon who is being addressed. With religious fundamentalists, I believe the slash and burn 'new atheist' approach is the only way of shocking the potential few converts out of their irrrationality and more importantly prevent moderates from moving to the extremes. With religious moderates traditional atheism can be more effective as reasonable evidence can be brought to bear and objectively discussed. The difficulty with religious moderates is that in defense of their moderate beliefs they provide cover and fertile ground for extremists among them.(witness islamic jihad) In addition it takes generations to modify their beliefs (witness the catholic church). Today we live in a world where those extremists can bring terror in horrendous ways to anyone, anywhere. Can we afford religious moderation when it inevitably fosters elements of blind faith and fundamentalist terror??
Some believe in "many paths to god". I also believe this to be true except that my definition of 'god' might differ. Would it be more appropriate to say that there are "many paths to peace".??
Yes, there are many paths to 'peace', but not an infinite number of paths and the paths that do exist are not equal. The paths to follow are ones which not only make emotional sense to us, and give us inner harmony, but also are consistent with the physical world around us and our own humanity. A path which we find comforting and appealing but is not reflected in the world around us must be rejected and a new search begun. What feels "true to me" may be necessary but it is not sufficient.
Our traditional religious beliefs in the supernatural were born through our emotions during our species struggle to survive on this planet by providing group cohesion and some form of explanation of the world around us. It allowed us to expand our tribes and eventually create great civilizations. The enlightenment brought us the scientific method, technological wonders, and liberal democracy but it also brought us conflict with our traditional beliefs. Humanity must escape the cocoon of blind faith before we can insure our future survival and prosperity and find the peace we all seek.
Fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god or supernatural entity/force. Atheists are open though to such a deity if sufficient evidence can be presented. Atheists typically use and support a process we know as the scientific method. Truth, uncovered by the scientific method, is constantly being altered by new evidence that comes to light. Scientists, and most atheists, always are mindful that their current beliefs in the "truth" may have to be adjusted or even tossed away. Tolerance of new ideas is a scientific virtue.
Religious fundamentalists have no tolerance for either competing ideas or for evidence which may contradict their chosen faith. Atheists object to those of us who claim religious faith without presenting evidence for their beliefs. By objecting to 'faith alone', atheists are not being 'fundamentalist' but are requiring those with extraordinary beliefs to present extraordinary evidence.
A large issue in 'Atheism' today is just how should atheists and other freethinkers respond to theists and believers of all sorts. Purveyors of "new atheism" such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens recommend a direct, confrontational approach or "shock value" as you call it. On the other hand traditional atheists such as Paul Kurtz, sometimes are even hesitant to use the word 'atheist' because of all the baggage society has placed upon this word. They recommend a complementary approach with moderate believers working in ways to achieve earthly goals that all sides can support.
Of course there are benefits to each approach depending upon who is being addressed. With religious fundamentalists, I believe the slash and burn 'new atheist' approach is the only way of shocking the potential few converts out of their irrrationality and more importantly prevent moderates from moving to the extremes. With religious moderates traditional atheism can be more effective as reasonable evidence can be brought to bear and objectively discussed. The difficulty with religious moderates is that in defense of their moderate beliefs they provide cover and fertile ground for extremists among them.(witness islamic jihad) In addition it takes generations to modify their beliefs (witness the catholic church). Today we live in a world where those extremists can bring terror in horrendous ways to anyone, anywhere. Can we afford religious moderation when it inevitably fosters elements of blind faith and fundamentalist terror??
Some believe in "many paths to god". I also believe this to be true except that my definition of 'god' might differ. Would it be more appropriate to say that there are "many paths to peace".??
Yes, there are many paths to 'peace', but not an infinite number of paths and the paths that do exist are not equal. The paths to follow are ones which not only make emotional sense to us, and give us inner harmony, but also are consistent with the physical world around us and our own humanity. A path which we find comforting and appealing but is not reflected in the world around us must be rejected and a new search begun. What feels "true to me" may be necessary but it is not sufficient.
Our traditional religious beliefs in the supernatural were born through our emotions during our species struggle to survive on this planet by providing group cohesion and some form of explanation of the world around us. It allowed us to expand our tribes and eventually create great civilizations. The enlightenment brought us the scientific method, technological wonders, and liberal democracy but it also brought us conflict with our traditional beliefs. Humanity must escape the cocoon of blind faith before we can insure our future survival and prosperity and find the peace we all seek.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
