Mark sent me this from Gaping Void. By Hugh. He wasn't sure if I'd wanted to stick a big spoon in the fiery debate again or not. Neither am I, but I thought I should put it up anyway in its own right. (See how I'm learning to perch on the fence?)
Understandably Richard doesn't want too much religious debate round his yard. But this blog, as you well know, is a bit of a floosy like that. I know I wasn't going to post again until after Christmas. And a bit of a shame it's a possibly inflammatory thing about religion, as opposed to leaving everyone with Bert + Ernie, but there it is.
I had to say something.
Last night I watched Rod Liddle's C4 programme (argument outlined here.) on evangelical atheism. And I couldn't agree more.
I should set my stall out. I'm agnostic. Since I was four and figured out it wasn't for me. I'm probably on the atheist side of agnostic, but after thinking through Rod's arguments, I'm definitely agnostic. Because agnosticism is the only true liberal position.
This is what I thought after seeing The Trouble With Atheism (mostly Rod Liddle's thoughts, but a bit of mine too, so I don't want to put words in his mouth):
1. An account that reduces humans to the sum of their physical parts - and the consequent denial of some kind of spiritual capacity - can lead to some very scary results. Eugenics, for one.
2. Most fashionable modern critiques of religion (Dawkin included) reveal some unpleasant things about their authors. Intolerance. Illiberalism. Despotism. The verve and faith of the blind believer. Profound disrespect for human choice.
3. (Just me on this one). Attempts to produce a normative theory of morality are destined to fail. I spent a long time under the spell of Gewirth's (which tried to prove a universal necessity to behave 'morally' through pure logic) and I tell you it's all bollocks. We won't behave well unless we want to. Why would we want to? Because we're more than animals.
4. A true scientific position (rather than a fanatical, anti-religious one) is 'there may or may not be a god.' Although nothing in science supports the existence of a god, neither does anything preclude it.
5. The problem with human nature is not religion. It's human nature. And the fanatical belief that someone else's belief system is wrong and should be destroyed (whether that belief is religious, or non-religious).
6. Dualism - in subscribing to reason and science, and the mystery of certain aspects of human experience - is an acceptable and reasonable position. Rather than a handy insult for the evangelical atheist.
I'm tired of people assuming atheism is the only intelligent route. I'm tired of the disrespect this shows. I'm tired of hearing scholars like those talking to Liddle, and others, saying people with religious beliefs are 'stupid', or 'wrong'. We're talking about too many people. Whilst they can't necessarily all be right, perhaps we should start wondering why so many of them do believe things we don't understand. Perhaps that's more interesting than assuming they're a bit special.
So after I saw this I watched the first part of Spike Lee's Hurricane Katrina documentary on BBC4. Words fail me. Apart from: look at how many people needed religion there. Watch tonight's second part if you can.
This is what too much C4 does to you.
I'll put up a more cheery post after this one when I find one. Then I'll definitely shut up for crimble.
Recent Comments