There has been a cacophony of new posts on religion. I have a hard time believing that there are people willing to dismiss their own atheism. Yes I wrote what you just read. "I am no Atheist" you may respond. "Yes you are," I retort. You don't even know the names (much less the qualities)of the, literally, thousands of gods you do not have a belief in. You also, don't appreciate the art, poetry, and ethereal-ness of those other religions to which you do not adhere.
The new movie "expelled" comes out on Tuesday. It is being shown in 2 large theaters in town. However, the simple movie "Sicko" wouldn't appear in the same theater's here. I HIGHLY doubt that "Religioulous" (a movie with Bill Maher) will be shown anywhere in Utah. It makes me ill that closed-mindedness is allowed, nay worshipped, here. I am deeply ashamed of my fellow Utahn's. LDS (crap) films are booked in every theater in town, but reality is just to harsh to be shown!
It seems that my bitterness was not as abated as I thought. The trigger was the visit of the Pope to the USA, and the recent posts about religion and gods. I heard one of my fellow liberals (I use the term loosely) try to slam someone, on the right, for calling out the pope for allowing (defending) child rape. "How dare he be so bigoted against catholics? People who do such good works in the world?" -- Fah! How about telling people the "truth?" Doesn't that matter? If the pope was CEO for some child day-care company, he would be in jail!
I hear those who say, "yes, the church is false/evil/dogmatic, but we did get great poetry and art from those theisms." No offense, but "bullshit!" Do the costs of religion outweigh the benefits? Hell no!
Anybody wish to say that the Sistene chapel makes up for even one priest ripping a young boys anus until bloody? I DARE YOU to defend that position! I dare you to defend the position that LDS art somehow compensates for the Mountain Meadows Massacre! That the child rape of Joeph SMiths 14 & 15 year old wives, tne the children in the Texas FLDS cult somehow doesn't reflect the base nature of relious belief is just plain ignoring reality. How dare it be suggest that the music, poetry, and art generated from a rligious context somehow make religion tolerable and decent!? If you believe this you may go Straight to the hell of your own imagination!
Sound rough? Some have said we ought to respect and tolerate religious beliefs of others. This is usually code for: "don't challenge their delusions. We don't want to hurt their tender feelings. We don't want them mad at us."
I don't want them mad or upset either. And, if believers keep their religious beliefs to themselves there is no need to have it even come up. However, when it comes up I won't give people the impression that I agree through passive concession, acquiescence, nor seeming behavioral indifference.
Is this rational dogmatism? No. And here is why. I am MORE than willing to change my mind if someone makes one reasonable argument. Not many... one. Is the opposition as honest? If one is willing to listen to all arguments and make a reasoned judgment; and another is unwilling to consider the same. Who is the dogmatist? The dogmatist ignores information and selectively and passionately adheres to beliefs no matter how clearly wrong. I don't pick the fight, but I am damn sure willing to brawl when someone else drops the gauntlet. In my country the religious right has thrown down the gauntlet (and they do it on a continual basis). So when Dawkins, and other atheists fight back (they/we didn't picks the fight) They are not being raucus and rabble-rousing. They/we are defending a position which is, and has been for some time, under assault and demonized.
HH
Addition: I saw this on a response to a youtube discussion: "The Church of Science doesn't conduct nearly enough indoctrination, miseducation and molestation of children to fit the criteria of a proper religion.
3 comments:
I admire and respect the passion you communicated in your post. I'm so baffled right now by this exact subject,...waffling between my intense desire to demonstrate respect for others and "tolerance" (Shane stop rolling your eyes)... and the need to voice my views that run counter to very strong cultural voices. Trying to define what "anti" really means. You've given me food for thought HH.
SE,
Nice to hear from you. I don't mean to fan any flames here. To me "anti" is any voice which expresses opposition. NOw some "anti's" are quite rational and make thier points with no emotional roiling. Others, like me (and Shane on some topics) have no such compunction. We care passionatly about what we "know" to be true and are willing to express the arugment along with emotion.
I do not admire the conundrum you are in one bit. If my wife were, nature forbid, a "believer"; she and I would simply part ways with the understanding that we could not reconcile such a difference. I am delighted to inform the blog-reading public that I married an agnostic and we get along just dandy.
I am a little dimayed that my son called himself and "agnostic" at school. He expressed that it is just easier to get along with his religious classmates if he does. Social pressure during the teen years is significant and I can understand (sort of). It makes my sick to think that any Atheist would have to "soften" his/her stance in order to avoid being punished by the general public. Thus, the passion. I am out...loud... and proud of my rationalism. Anyone who wishes to condescend or dismiss me simply because of this is unworthy of my attention.
Wishing you the best! Let's do lunch in Ogden sometime soon if you have the time.
HH =)
I think you've nailed it on this one--but I would take it a step further and say that it isn't enough for religious people to keep their beliefs to themselves. If your beliefs are oppressive, I would prefer that you didn't keep them to yourself. I want to know about them, so I can actively resist them. Oppression, after all, should never be tolerated. It should be RESISTED. So yes, I completely agree with you about the need to "fight back". If people didn't practice their beliefs (or support those that do), then I might allow for some tolerance, but, as you point out in reference to pedophilia, etc., that clearly isn't the case with institutionalized religion.
I also, as you know, relate to your annoyance over people distancing themselves from their atheism, and I love this line: "You don't even know the names (much less the qualities) of the, literally, thousands of gods you do not have a belief in." Still, I understand why some people have a negative perception of the "atheist community" and, most especially, to Dawkins. Most of what you wrote about dogmatism is true. It's the religious people who are the dogmatists. There is, as you point out, no such thing as rational dogmatism. But there are dogmatists in the atheist community, and I think Dawkins is one of them. As far as I know, I don't disagree with him about religion (I've never read him on this subject, and, since the topic doesn't presently carry much weight with me, I don't intend to), but I think he's very dogmatic about Darwinian (or, in his case, non-Darwinian) evolution. On that subject, he appears to be extremely willing to overlook the evidence to bolster his being "right". On the other hand, when you write "I am MORE than willing to change my mind if someone makes one reasonable argument," I believe you.
Living in Denver, I don't experience the religious oppression that you and my other blogger pals experience, so the subject isn't as important to me. I have other battles to fight, you might say--but I'm glad that you and others are refusing to back down. Viva la resistance!
Post a Comment