I was chatting with another Neville, and I repeated something which I have observed: Many atheists are as able to be rational about an analysis of religion as many opponents of the “War on Terror” are about a deeper understanding of Islam, Islamism and terrorism. Now, the interesting point is that viscerally, emotionally, I am neither a fan of religion or Islam. But, when speaking of these topics I believe it is important to put feelings aside, as much as humanly possible, and analyze with a cold eye. Allow the data to speak. Unfortunately, I’ve encountered situations where any discussion of Islam which attempts to put aside condemnation is greeted with accusations of moral perfidy. A bizarre inversion of the Islamic ban on criticism of the sacred. Similarly, many atheists, who declare themselves to be rational and empirically driven feel no need to really characterize the distribution of religious belief and practice as it is, rather, their own animosity runs rampant in painting whatever picture they prefer. Consider this comment at Mixing Memory:
You’ve got to be kidding. The mere concept of god, which is all the second study addressed, has almost nothing to do with religious practise. The religious practises of the theistic religions are almost entirely a product of particular traditions, writings and authority figures that make particular assertions about the nature and desires of their god or gods.
We live in a world of bizarre falsehoods asserted with certitude. This is on a par with “Islam is a religion of peace.” Whatever ideals (or delusions) Muslims have about their religion, from the outside its seems rather implausible to declare the faith one of Quaker passivity. “Peace” is renormalized, or interpreted symbolically. I use the analogy to Muslims because they are the more prominent locus of counter-Enlightenment sentiment today, but among many atheists the exact same mental processes seem to induce an uncritical assessment of their own evaluation of the world.
Comments are closed.