Angry Atheists

Shula moderated the Wednesday SFU philosophy cafe about the new wave of militant atheists.  Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Danial Dennet have done much to bring atheism to the main stage so that atheists can feel comfortable coming out of the closet.

While most in the group are non religious,  there were a few who spoke for the religious side.

It is always quite personal when it comes down to religion.

However,  the points I got out of the discussion was

1.  For the average person not involved in academic scientific research,  it is just as much an act of faith to trust scientist as it is to trust religion.  It comes down to who they choose to trust because they do not know enough about science to see the scientific inquiry process in action.

2.  Science itself is affected by human weakness like herd mentality and lack of independent thinking.  There is definite favoritism involved in the publishing of papers and choice of research area as well as "accepted opinion".

3.  Some attribute religion for the great art and culture in human history but Hitchens and Dawkins, the atheists would attribute it to the great wealth of the church over the ages and artists have a choice of working for the church or the monarch but not too many other people until the Venetian bankers came along.  Michealangelo better walk the churches' line to paint what is appropriate for the church.

4.  The religious side also attribute our morality from the bible and other religious teachings.  This is where Hitchens and Dawkins point out all the other horrible episodes of slavery, unequal treatment of women, killing of the enemies etc to show that we have been just picking parts of the bible that fits our morals.  Besides, the Greeks, Egyptians, Chinese, and other cultures have their moral code either before the new testament or independent of it.

5.  While the religious texts do treat matters of morality, codes of behavior, and meaning of life which science does not,  the objection is that it is a prescription without discussion or explanation.  So it addresses the subject but do not shed any more light on it.

I think the biggest difference is that religion approach life from a know it all position because the supreme being know it all and we are suppose to listen and follow.

Therefore, the important thing in religion is finding the right authority to listen to. Which supreme being, if there is one, is the one we should listen to?

The scientific inquiry method and philosophical discussions starts from a position of ignorance and build knowledge from observations, logic, and repeat experiments. The path of discovery is filled with disagreements, setbacks, and new discoveries that contradicts previous findings.

And we never know how much more there is to discover.

We don't have to trust Newton or Socrates, we only have to repeat their experiments, or examine the logic of their arguments.  Even if they both turned out to be fakes and they stole their ideas from someone else,  it is their ideas that matter, not the person.

With religion, the choice of god is everything. Whether it is the Greek gods, the Christian, Jewish, or Islamic god, or the Hindu god,  it is the deity that promise to provide the answers.

Whether there is a god or not,  the religious approach certainly discourage independent thought and promote following without question.

Dawkins thinks we should not bring up children in only the religion of their parents but that children should be encouraged to think independently as well as be told about other religions as well as atheist perspectives so that they can make an independent choice when they grow up.

I would agree.