Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept. 1, 2007: Rational Atheism [View all]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rational-atheism/Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller listSam Harriss Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennetts Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchenss God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkinss The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)that together, in Dawkinss always poignant prose, raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled. Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe
-snip-
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; ...It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise peoples consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in The Burden of Skepticism, a 1987 lecture, You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who dont see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic I Have a Dream speech: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
-snip-
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.
1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe
-snip-
2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; ...It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.
3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise peoples consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in The Burden of Skepticism, a 1987 lecture, You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who dont see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.
4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest consciousness raiser of the 20th century, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his epic I Have a Dream speech: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. ..." If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.
5. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.
-snip-
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
94 replies, 9462 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
94 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Sept. 1, 2007: Rational Atheism [View all]
highplainsdem
Jan 2019
OP
There are some particularly--and intentionally--ill-informed people who won't see the point of #1
Pope George Ringo II
Jan 2019
#1
Sigh. I've made it clear I have nothing against atheism and atheists. I thought posting an example
highplainsdem
Jan 2019
#3
Repeats the strawman that starts with atheists really giving a shit what someone believes
Major Nikon
Jan 2019
#11
I don't think there is difference between changing minds and changing beliefs
marylandblue
Jan 2019
#43
Sure, but somehow you think a religionist will "decide" that evolution is compatible with religion
marylandblue
Jan 2019
#48
But I think we can agree there is a difference between making a persuasive argument...
Act_of_Reparation
Jan 2019
#56
Yes that's my point, although some people object to the word "proselytize"
marylandblue
Jan 2019
#64
It frustrates me greatly that somehow voicing negative opinions about religion...
trotsky
Jan 2019
#66
In all candor, this is why some of us don't view religion as harmless.
Pope George Ringo II
Jan 2019
#17
That's a deal-breaker for a guy who didn't need any deal breakers.
Pope George Ringo II
Jan 2019
#49