Religion, irreligion, atheism, secularism and failure to communicate

[methodius]

There was a discussion on Christopher Hitchens on the journal of poliphilo , one of one of my LJ friends, the other day. Christopher Hitchens is one of the "new atheists", who, along with others like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, are the atheist equivalent of Christian Fundamentalists like Fred Phelps, a kind of atheist Taliban.

I followed it with only

Comments

[djproject]

this "oxygen out of the room" idea is why i don't take dawkins, hitchens, harris seriously and particularly the idea of "no religion = no problems." and i really don't take it seriously when they - and dawkins in particular - start talking about evolution in a way that can be construed as a secularist dogma* and yet still religion for holding on "unverifiable ideas."

*yes you can accuse the christological debates as "violent nit-picking." but what should be emphasized it was an internal discussion within the CHURCH as to "what was right" when compared to what was passed down by the apostles. did the first generation articulate perfectly what was espoused in nicea 325 or chalcedon 451? probably not. but it doesn't make it wrong ... "o Heavenly King..." =] while it was debated in public and public spectacles were made of it, it wasn't really *for* the public in the same sense that if you weren't a communicant, you could care less about it. and then again i just realized i've preached to the choir ... again =]

i could go down about my own ongoing struggles reconciling my classical liberal/libertarian tendencies with my faith (which in some cases is not that big of a struggle ... it's only when i confront someone with *very* deep convictions =] ). but i think it's own post =]