Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“In describing their atheism as illiberal, I do not mean to imply that the new atheists are closet totalitarians. On the contrary, all of them understand themselves to be contributing to the defense of freedom against its most potent enemies, at home and abroad. Yet the fact remains that the atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens is a brutally intolerant, proselytizing faith, out to rack up conversions. Consider, for example, the sloppiness displayed by all of the authors in discussing their political aims. Do they seek to defend the secular politics favored by the American Constitutional framers? Or do they have the much more radical goal of producing a secular society–a society in which the American people, as a whole and individually, have abandoned religion? The former is a liberal goal, the latter an illiberal one; and it is inexcusable that each book leaves readers guessing which objective its author favors…
The last thing America needs is a war of attrition between two mutually exclusive, absolute systems of belief. Yet this is precisely what the new atheists appear to crave. The task for the rest of us–committed to neither dogmatic faith nor dogmatic doubt–is to make certain that combatants on both sides of the theological divide fail to get their destructive way. And thereby to ensure that liberalism prevails.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This is how I believe as well. I always tell people this when they are getting upset, because someone called them a name or is spreading a rumor about them (mostly teens who complain about this kind of thing going on in High School)… if something is not true, there’s really no reason to get upset about it, right? Usually people name-call for two reasons (1) to make the person upset and (2) to try to ruin that person’s reputation in the eyes of others.
Ironically, (2) sometimes happens only if (1) succeeds. So I usually tell people that if you brush off people’s attacks on you and show that they don’t affect you, it shows you are confident in yourself and that shows other people that the attack most likely is not true. When someone gets angry, however, it usually shows they are defensive about the accusation and makes people wonder if there is some truth to the accusation.
Now, I use the opposite approach if someone is attacking someone I know. I feel it is right to come to the defense of my friends or family or coworkers if they are unfairly attacked. But if someone does it to me, I just blow it off, since I know it’s not true, so I’m not going to waste time worrying about it.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:45 PM
This should be the first comment, or part of every theist/atheist thread, going forward.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM
saint kansas on December 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM
Thank you for this post, saint kansas. Through the last few years of meeting people such as yourself, it has helped me to break down my stereotypes of self-described atheists.
I think we all hold our prejudices and stereotypes in life and sometimes it takes meeting people to help break these. I know I broke down a lot of the stereotypes and ignorant prejudices that I held when I went to college and met so many different people from so many different backgrounds. Aside from the degree I earned, that was what I felt was the best thing I did in college. I can’t tell you how much I grew as a person from just sitting around with friends during late night BS sessions and study sessions. Priceless.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM
Unfortunately, it is the loudest bad apples in any group which taint the stereotype of the group.
From all the “discussions” of religion on this site, it is obvious that many theists have come across annoying atheists which have framed their view of atheists as a whole and many atheists have come across annoying theists which have framed their view of theists as a whole. It’s unfortunate.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:56 PM
There is something very sad about a person that doesn’t know God. Kind of like a hollowness or lack of purpose to their lives.
Religion doesnt guarantee righteousness, but rather the opportunity to bring good into your life.
I have no idea what atheism does for anyone. However I do see what it does to those that practice it.
Sad really, that emptiness they project.
leanright on December 2, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM
MiM, and Saint Kansas, you two, and a few others here, set the standard on how belief/non-belief should be viewed, argued, if at all.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 2:02 PM
You know what is interesting is that the debate over abortion is about as divisive as the debate of theism vs atheism. Just as some atheists just cannot comprehend theists, I have come across pro-abortion people who just cannot comprehend how someone can be anti-abortion. The “right”
to promiscuous sex with no consequencesof a woman to choose what to do with her body has been so ingrained in some people, that they cannot even fathom believing otherwise.I think the debate of theism vs atheism and pro-abortion vs anti-abortion are the two most divisive debates currently going on in this country.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Hey Jaynie59, with such slight, but significant changes, you make a lot of valid points, well worth to consider. Respectfully,
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Thanks, Entelechy. Ironically enough, I have found myself being able to discuss these divisive issues with less emotion and more rationally the more I have struggled with my faith and lost some hope in my life and lost confidence in many things I used to be so certain about. I used to let my passion get the best of me and debate too emotionally. But now I find myself trying better to understand the other sides to issues. I have not given up on my values and principles, however I have learned, gradually, to not be so adamant of pushing them on others and saying they are wrong and I am right.
Sometimes, I still get carried away, but lately I have been trying my best to not let myself have my passion and emotion get the best of me. Granted, I am still a work in progress, so I may fail in the future from time to time, but I’m glad I have done a decent job here recently.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I meant to mention that I was speaking here from an atheist standpoint (here by chance, by luck, etc). I’m still a Christian and believe I was put here for a reason by God.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Ennui? – we’re still free to choose, for now. Let’s fight to remain so, believers and non-believers.
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Absolutely agreed.
inviolet on December 2, 2007 at 2:47 PM
For all of you who complain about the existence, or frequency of, these posts, don’t read’em.
I find them to be very thought-provoking and worth my time, every time.
If ideas opposing your own beliefs bother you so much, maybe a little self-analysis is in order.
hillbillyjim on December 2, 2007 at 2:53 PM
corr. ……existence of…..
hillbillyjim on December 2, 2007 at 2:54 PM
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 2:12 PM
MiM, good on you for never giving up on your values and principles. Hard as it might be to believe, I used to be way more passionate in my youth. I hope that some of my tempered self is attributed to good/bad experiences, rejoicing/despairing, learning from both, and some acquired wisdom to know better.
Know that deep down, most people lead quiet and often desperate lives. My grandma used to say “life is a jar full of caca, with a rim of honey at the top”, and she was a wise owl. Only those who don’t care, or don’t know that anything happens at all, are, or pretend to be, always happy. One good glance around the world is enough to make one despair.
Yet, most of us do get up in the morning and tackle challenges anew, for us and for the world around us, in small and big ways. And rays of hope, and of progress, spring often from the most expected/unexpected sources.
I highly recommend that you read Transition, by Will Durant. Anything by Will and Ariel Durant is a great read, but for the phase you’re going through this one will be balsamic. And he writes so angelically beautiful.
I won’t judge you or others, whatever your beliefs, so long as you’re decent, as our buddy RushBaby would say, and you are, proven so often, in so many ways. You also appear to be a great person, professional, colleague, coach and writer/communicator. May you find hope in your life again because you have so much to offer.
It is great that you comment here on HA more often, lately. For the most part the knuckleheads here are good ones, even if we disagree on this, that or the other. It’s an interesting, challenging, thought-provoking, informative, and often entertaining place to hang out in. With the very best regards, respectfully,
Entelechy on December 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Thanks for the heads up, Entelechy, good thread to scan, got a million things going on, not much to add today.
Seems to me we have explored atheism/theism to the point where the camps are all colonized along the continuum, and some polite adults such as you and Michael in MI have finally surfaced to advance the debate to a tone of curious exploration rather than reflexive combat.
RushBaby on December 2, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Yeah, basically. Certainly you have the “right” to opt out of life, in the sense that government has and should have no power to interfere (yeah, I know that’s not quite how it really is). It is inarguable, though, that your action will have an effect on other people, and it is ignoring that effect, and putting your own exit desires ahead of the pain of your family and friends, that is regarded as “selfish.” Isn’t that basically what “selfish” means?
I wonder if you’ve ever had anyone you cared about exit from your life in this way. I think you’d understand better if you had.
It would be nice if they did, but it’s really a separate question; it doesn’t really alter the matter of the moral evaluation of the action of suicide. Besides, it’s not something people always volunteer.
It’s not wholly clear to me whether you were arguing from your personal beliefs, or from your imagined vision of what you think you would believe if you were an atheist. If the former, it doesn’t make sense because there’s a separate religious reason to shun suicide (”Thanks for the gift of life Lord, but no thanks, I’m throwing it back”), and if it’s the latter…well, I’ll just say that I think your vision is very distant from what you’d actually find yourself believing if you were nonreligious.
Splunge on December 2, 2007 at 5:45 PM
It is the latter. I thought I explained that somewhere, but maybe I didn’t.
And I have found myself imagining the idea that there is no god and atheists are correct. That thought leaves me with the idea that there is nothing wrong with suicide, were I to choose to do it, because there is no punishment and I was not here for a reason anyway and I shouldn’t stay here simply so as not to hurt the feelings of others.
This also gets to the point of who defines “selfish” and “moral”. You take away God and purpose and everything is relative really. Anyone can be right about anything. What you I think is selfish, others could think is their right.
I have not had someone in my life commit suicide, but I have had a friend attempt it. It hurt me that she tried, because prior to that she had told me that my influence on her life was such a positive thing and I took comfort in that and felt great that I could bring that positive influence to her life. After I found out that she attempted suicide, I felt horrible, because I felt I must have let her down somehow.
But I never felt she was selfish for doing what she did. I felt she must have been hurting so much and even my influence was not enough to take away that hurt.
I have had people come into my life, become very close friends, use me to help bring comfort to their lives and then just leave my life when I needed them to bring some comfort to my life. That hurt like hell. Granted, it made me realize that I cannot depend on anyone ever again, to the point that I don’t trust anyone and I don’t allow myself to build friendships with people anymore, because I don’t trust one word they tell me, based on the many lies I have been told by people in the past. I initially felt those people were acting selfish, but I have had people tell me that I need to just get over it, because not all friendships and relationships are supposed to last and people cannot stay in relationships/friendships just for the sake of one person. A person has to live their life how they want to, not according to how others want them to live.
Taking that last sentiment, I determined that if a person should live their life how they want, not according to others’ expectations of how they should live, then they should also be able to end their life, if they want, and shouldn’t have to continue living, just because others expect them to do so.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 6:21 PM
They already tried that “exporting secularism before democracy” thing. They called it Communism.
It was Godless and presupposed, at least by Marx, that eventually the crushing government control it gave to political leaders would fall away into a perfect utopia.
Faith and reason are not on opposing ends of a single spectrum MB4.
BKennedy on December 2, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Sure. I agree with that, they shouldn’t have to and they don’t have to. But they’ll have to put up with the idea that others may consider that selfish.
In my book, “selfish” doesn’t automatically mean “wrong.” Heck, it’s selfish to keep a roof over your head while anyone, anywhere in the world, doesn’t have one. That doesn’t make it wrong, not even a little.
I think it’s right to live your life by your own priorities and your own moral judgment (which you are of course free to delegate to your faith). Others’ expectations can be worth listening to, but are not a final determinant. My own moral judgment would tell me that it’s wrong to shun friendship and trust just because those don’t work out sometimes. To live is to never stop trying, never stop taking risks. At least that’s how I see it, and if I were to lobby you, it would not be about your faith, but about that issue.
Splunge on December 2, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Actually, they won’t, since they’ll be dead. The only people who will have to put up with it are all the people complaining about how selfish it was. The person will not have to put up with anything anymore since they’re dead.
Michael in MI on December 2, 2007 at 8:00 PM
As a Christian who enjoys a little friendly discussion/debate, what’s the harm? Are you afraid you’ll be convinced that Jesus’ claims were true?
jgapinoy on December 2, 2007 at 10:56 PM
We should be able to disagree agreeably.
jgapinoy on December 2, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2