Friday, April 11, 2008
The Illusion of Atheist Superiority
Some of the most religious people I have ever met are atheists. Sounds ridiculous.....doesn’t it? But the preceding statement is a truism. The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin root (religo) which means ‘to bind’ or ‘to obligate’. When viewed in such a context the enthusiasm which many an atheist shows in denying God creates such ‘an obligation’ to a philosophy....... that to call it anything else seems completely ludicrous. Now it is not that I am critical of the atheist's belief, for like any other free thinking being they too have the right to a choice...... but to describe oneself as existing on a higher level of being free from religion, simply because one has rejected the supernatural makes no sense whatsoever. All that has happened is that one belief system has been substituted for another, and the ‘escape from dogma’ that so many atheists rejoice in trumping, is nothing more than a falsity that has blinded the perspective of its holder.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First, I do not think you can point to any single source for this supposed atheist dogma. In most cases, I think, atheists are scientifically literate and look to the scientific method as the best method we have for discovering truth. This is still not dogma. Because dogma is "a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down" (from dictionary.com) and the scientific method changes as new techniques are developed for applying it.
In "The God Delusion", Dawkins states that he will concede that there is a chance that God exists but that, in his assessment of the facts, it is so unlikely that it is not worth discussing. Therefore, he believes that God does not exist. This is considered "Strong" atheism and means an active disbelief in God. I take a similar but softer view but take one step further to say that, if he existed, the fact would be irrelevant to our everyday lives. However, If sufficient evidence were presented that God exists and that he is the God of one particular religion, I would change my belief.
What constitutes sufficient evidence is a wide point of contention between atheists and theists. Where theists will accept anecdotal evidence and hearsay, the atheist, or more correctly, the scientists will require verifiable data. Data that can be repeated consistently.
So, the difference between the dogma of religion and the reason of science is that those that take the scientific view are able to alter their mind to be in line with the logical conclusions of the body of evidence. Those that believe the dogma of a religion generally are not willing to accept evidence contrary to said dogma.
A perfect example is creationism. The obvious implications of many of the current findings of science are that the creation of this universe did not follow the story of Genesis. So people like those at "Answers in Genesis" find elaborate excuses as to why Genesis is still right. In science if a hypothesis is shown to be wrong, the scientists do not, usually, spend lots of time trying to make the facts fit the hypothesis. What they do is discard the hypothesis and come up with another that does fit the facts. Again, no dogma.
Excellent comment.........I will reply as soon as I have some time...
Thanks
Post a Comment