Militant Atheism

Interesting stuff

I do recognize that one risks an immediate loss of credibility by defending any attribute of religion. If this is you, I suggest you turn your head or bury it in the sand if possible.

Here's my Lutheran upbringing coming through... I really don't get the conflict between intelligent design and science. If something can be proven to exist through science, isn't that part of God's creation? (Forgive my use of "God" - it's not accurate given today's general definition, but necessary to demonstrate my point). If we were created in God's image, with a capable intellect, isn't it our responsibility to use our brains to interpret ancient text appropriately with consideration for what we know of the properties of our universe? Doesn't science give us a more accurate picture of age old truths and allow us to re-consider those that have been perhaps interpreted incorrectly? Seems pretty easy to resolve the contradictions - always in the favor of both scripture and science, and never at the expense of either.

Of course, this is really all about the bible thumpers who insist the earth was created 6000 years ago. I propose it is this stubborn approach to scripture, and not science, that is most effectively destroying religion.

Through refusing to remove their heads from their asses, such individuals are discrediting the legitimate religious institutions and belief systems that fully recognize and encourage all scientific understanding. Who are we to judge whether the big bang was part of God's design? All we know is...it happened, and those people who have staked their lives and reputations on the conviction that it didn't are preserving their own necks at the expense of not only their own credibility, but the credibility of associated spiritual institutions; nowadays all religion.

In other words, there can be no contradiction, only a fuller understanding of both as they are necessarily dependent on one another regardless of career-saving rhetoric.

Now, to turn the coin. With all due respect for the brilliant Mr. Dawkins, I insist there are several practical and logical reasons to resist an all out assault on religion.

As tempting as it sounds given the militant droves of "God doesn't want me to think," "I've never picked up a Bible and read it" church goers, "attacking religion as a whole" requires attacking the basic philosophical understanding integral to western civilized society. So, if religion is absolutely dependent on science/facts, how is science dependent on religion? As odd as it sounds today, civilized conditions permitted through the advance of religion have been critical to the advance of science.

Take the principles of individual liberty for example (Adam Smith, Lord Acton, Thomas Jefferson). It only requires the fact that individual liberty was accepted by the extremely Christian colonies in 1789 to demonstrate the compatibility of the two. But, more to the point, there would be no civil liberty if there were no Christ or Christianity - not because the ideas didn't exist among the literate - but because the majority of people would never have understood them properly otherwise (ironically, a situation similar to today, and the cause of our problems).

I expect most of the scientists at the TED conference are fluent in the rational justification for civilized behavior - or submit to living that way simply to accomplish their goals. Either way, such individuals will themselves benefit less from religion. What is important is that Christian scripture demonstrates very complex ideas in a way accessible to people without twelve degrees. It is a powerful force for civilization that anyone with life experience can identify with the value of graceful interpersonal behavior so eloquently stated in a book several thousand years old that appeals not only to reason, but also to human emotion.

But, just like a scientific thesis, no one can comprehend the value of a text they have never read. And today, I propose the rampant misunderstanding of Christianity is dangerous to science, and therefore civilization. On the other hand, I wonder how easily most atheists have dismissed Christianity based on its unsavory public appearance rather than its philosophies. I would subscribe to a militant educational approach to restore the proper understanding of Christianity, and refute its internal enemies, but it would involve massive upheavals of ideas now ingrained in thumper thought. I consider myself a Christian, but not the type you're familiar with, and would be intimidated by the thought of dealing with the completely unreasonable (more so than dealing with most Atheists).

Most crucially, I don't believe one ought to assume any sort of higher power without considering the justification and reviewing the materials carefully. Christians should know this. Assuming that one can coerce rather than persuade another to adopt the same conclusions is itself contradictory to Christian principles.

At any rate, a discussion about religion is so mired in false perceptions and assumptions on both sides any point is diluted by its mention. Sad.