Just give me that old-time atheism!

[Kire]

Kust give me that old-time atheism!


"Not believing in God is no excuse for being virulently anti-religious or naïvely pro-science," says Dylan Evans, a professor of robotics at the University of West England in Bristol.

Evans has written an article for the Guardian of London deriding the old-fashioned, "19th-century" atheism of such prominent thinkers as Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller, instead proposing a new, modern atheism which "values religion, treats science as simply a means to an end and finds the meaning of life in art."

Indeed, he says, religion itself is to be understood as "a kind of art, which only a child could mistake for reality and which only a child would reject for being false."

Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse, whose new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, lays much of the blame for the growth of creationism in America — and for the increasingly strident attempts by the religious right to have evolutionary theory kicked off the curriculum and replaced by the new dogma of "intelligent design" — at the door of the scientists who have tried to compete with, and even supplant, religion.

More: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1116770647079&DPL=IvsNDS/7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

[Double T]

1. Spiritual Without The Burden And Boasting Of A Religion

[starroute]

2. Ars gratia artis? That seems peculiarly 19th century in itself

Personally, I prefer to find the meaning of life in reality -- or at least in as close to reality as current science can get us.

Art may have been an acceptable supplemental guide to reality at one time, but 20th century art pretty much sucked -- largely because it never got a clue as to how to interpret the universe of relativity and quantum physics.

And religion as a kind of art? Give me a break! Inferior story-telling, so-so poetry, and the few good bits have been worn to death in much the same way as having your favorite rock song turned into background for a commercial.

The world is desperately in need of new frameworks in which to understand our peculiar situation as the dominant life-form of one brief evolutionary moment in the multi-billion year history of a single planet in an unimaginably vast universe. Bronze Age religions aren't going to get us there. Neither are 18th century symphonies. Science, and careful philosophical examination of the implications of science, are our only possible path.

[Eric J in MN]

3. It's by Salman Rushdie! nt

nt

[onager]

4. Better 19th-century atheism...

...than 14th-century religious beliefs.

And excuse the fuck out of me, Mr. Ivory-Tower Academic Evans, but I'd love to see you compare the relative "childishness" of atheism with the belief in a Big Imaginary Invisible Friend In The Sky.

If religion is an "art," lest we forget, its primary color must be red. BLOOD red.

This line of...cough...reasoning is nothing new. While admitting I haven't read these two in depth, I certainly recognize the overall strategy. It seems very similar to C.S. Lewis' hokum about "I just gave in, and decided God was God."


Yeah, C.S., way to have A Long Dark Night Of Spiritual Struggle...

[beam me up scottie]

5. It's funny that you neglected to post the author's actual opinions

or his name.

I mean, I wouldn't want to suggest that you completely missed his point because you have a problem with reading comprehension.
But then to assume otherwise might suggest you deliberately left out the most important paragraphs because they didn't bolster your own point of view.

The author is critical of the confused Evans who seems to think that atheistic scientists should just shut up about religion.
I particularly like the way the author compares the pseudo science of Dylan Evans to that of Michael Ruse:

"Evans' position fits well with that of the American philosopher of science Michael Ruse"

It should, Michael Ruse believes evolution is a religion and that scientists are trying to exchange one for the other.

Evans equates religion with art and believes that it should be treated as such.
Not surprising coming from someone who can't even understand what atheism is and is not.

****
Evans' "Atheism Lite," which seeks to negotiate a truce between religious and irreligious world views, is easily demolished.

Such a truce would have a chance of working only if it were reciprocal — if the world's religions agreed to value the atheist position and to concede its ethical basis, if they respected the discoveries and achievements of modern science, even when these discoveries challenge religious sanctities, and if they agreed that art at its best reveals life's multiple meanings at least as clearly as so-called "revealed" texts
****

****
If religion were a private matter, one could more easily respect its believers' right to seek its comforts and nourishments.

But religion today is big public business, using efficient political organization and cutting-edge information technology to advance its ends. Religions play bare-knuckle rough all the time, while demanding kid-glove treatment in return.

As Evans and Ruse would do well to recognize, atheists such as Dawkins, Miller and Wilson are neither immature nor culpable for taking on such religionists.
****

The author is Salman Rushdie

[onager]

6. No kidding, BMUS!

That was an excellent article by Rushdie...a guy who knows a thing or two about the consequences of pissing off Fundies.

The Select-A-Quote bit by the OP was very strange, and gave just the opposite impression of what the article actually said.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Those damn liberals,

it's all their fault for teaching atheists to read...

[arwalden]

8. Thank You!

[beam me up scottie]

9. You're very welcome!

nt

[trotsky]

10. Well done, bmus!

I'm sure we'll see lots of that reciprocal respect for atheism any day now.... <chirp chirp>

[beam me up scottie]

11. *snort*

I know I'm holding my breath...
:evilgrin: