(no subject)
I think it's easy to have canned arguments about God. The European Enlightenment can be characterized in some ways as a revolt against the authority of the Church, and the former's core values--reason, the practical, humanism--seem to stand in opposition to those of an institution that emphasizes faith, the eternal, and divinity. The outcome of this interaction, especially in Europe, has been the creation of a secular humanist culture which views religion as largely irrelevant. The standard argument goes something like: why do I need religion to be good? Shouldn't I just be good because it's the right thing to do? Why should I believe in something that's invisible and inaccessible to reason--especially when it's supposed to be all-powerful and there's so much suffering in the world?
The continuing difficulties that evolutionary theory faces in the U.S., and the recent popularity of works by prominent mathematicians and scientists (such as Richard Dawkins) proclaiming scientific atheism as a panacea to the world's problems, belie the ways in which the very existence of a faith vs. reason "debate" presupposes a certain misunderstanding. It is easy to criticize the most facile, naive theology of fundamentalist elements without ever actually confronting the substance of Western religious traditions; it is somewhat more difficult to admit that perhaps we don't have the right idea about God. The cosmic bogeyman who punishes those who refuse to believe in him is a simplistic picture of God shared by many atheists and fundamentalists alike. What I find troubling is the tendency to want to leave it there, as though the revolutionary insights of 17th and 18th century Europe are somehow the final word on what constitutes truth. Have we learned nothing since then?
The continuing difficulties that evolutionary theory faces in the U.S., and the recent popularity of works by prominent mathematicians and scientists (such as Richard Dawkins) proclaiming scientific atheism as a panacea to the world's problems, belie the ways in which the very existence of a faith vs. reason "debate" presupposes a certain misunderstanding. It is easy to criticize the most facile, naive theology of fundamentalist elements without ever actually confronting the substance of Western religious traditions; it is somewhat more difficult to admit that perhaps we don't have the right idea about God. The cosmic bogeyman who punishes those who refuse to believe in him is a simplistic picture of God shared by many atheists and fundamentalists alike. What I find troubling is the tendency to want to leave it there, as though the revolutionary insights of 17th and 18th century Europe are somehow the final word on what constitutes truth. Have we learned nothing since then?