|
My friend Mike recently linked here, to 2
extended video clips of four of the top "New Atheists," Daniel
Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins,
discussing the interplay of the "New Atheism" and religion (mainly
Christianity) as well as the criticism that has been leveled
against them that they are rude and offensive. I’ve only had
time to watch the first video, and I found it very interesting;
if you have an hour or two to kill, I think it’s worth hearing
what these guys have to say.
Now, I don’t say this because I think what they
had to say has any merit. On the contrary, I found them all
incredibly naive when it comes to religion, and this is one of
the things which I find so interesting, and even surprising.
These are four very intelligent individuals, yet they really
don’t "get" the concept of what it is that they are railing
against. I could understand it if they would say, "I really
don’t understand this" or "I think I understand what you are
saying, but I can’t come to the same conclusions." However, they
appear to have become foolish in their attempts to be
intelligent, and perhaps have become unaware of what they do not
understand.
Another interesting thing about the discussion
is that you can see the differences in their beliefs (or
non-beliefs). Hitchens seems to have the most understanding of
religion - he just doesn’t like it. One reason why I like him is
that he tries to be even-handed, and at times corrects the
misstatements of the others. Dawkins still strikes me as someone
who is perhaps just foolish. He has apparently tossed aside the
need for logic or reason in dealing with the issue of religion,
and is quite happy believing whatever he wants about what
Christians believe; he has judged religion as loony, and beneath
any sort of honest evaluation. Harris simply seems out of his
league, and Dennett seems content to play the grumpy philosopher.
But, watch the clips and judge for yourselves. Each has some
interesting things to say, and occasionally they do have some
valid complaints.
In contrast to this is another discussion,
between Anthony Bloom, who was a Russian Orthodox Archbishop,
and atheist novelist and critic Marghanita Laski, which is found
in Anthony Bloom’s book God and Man, where it is found as
chapter 1, entitled The Atheist and the Archbishop. The
discussion was televised in July of 1971 for the BBC. Bloom
(1914 - 2003) was a Russian who was educated in Paris as a
scientist and became a physician prior to becoming an Orthodox
monk. He later served as the Archbishop (Metropolitan) of
England & Ireland. Laski (1915-1988) was a professed atheist who,
like our esteemed New Atheists, was intrigued by religion -
although she was not nearly as offended by it as the
aforementioned four. The Bloom-Laski discussion is, among other
things, much more respectful than what I often see today in
similar discussions.
Laski is an atheist of a different sort than our
contemporary quadriad, who would probably toss out many of her
thoughts as archaic. In response to a question by Bloom about
what she thinks about the experiences and assertions of the
millions who would say they are certain there is a God, Laski
replies, "You lead me to the besetting sin of the atheist which
is arrogance, so I think I have to say I don’t know." She also
acknowledges that atheism, as a lack of something rather than
having something, is certainly lacking:
… since the Renaissance for instance, it’s been
all too sadly apparent that in all the arts there has been no
inspiration comparable with the inspiration that religion gave.
There have been no words for secular music that compare with the
music of a Mass. I certainly think that belief in God and the
religions that arose from belief in God did give a shaping and a
pattern to life for which I can see co conceivable substitute
and to that extent I would certainly grant to you that my life
is poorer than that of a believer.
She then says,
I probably haven’t made atheism seem at all rich
and I don’t think it is. I think it’s a very Protestant, very
puritanical faith that, as I say, does tend towards arrogance
because we lack authority. But there is one thing I would say
for atheism, as against religion, and that is this: if you try
to practice it, it trains you in a virtue that I value highly
which is endurance without whimpering …
Again, the "New" atheists would probably toss
her out on her ear, and certainly she speaks with no authority
other than her own opinions. However, it’s an interesting
contrast in attitude, and the whole conversation is worth
reading, if you can track down a copy.
Sunday, December 30th, 2007
www.aldenswan.com/2007/12/
Reproduced with the permission of Alden Swan |
