Atheists - who may or may not be angry
Read a couple of articles on Huffington Post yesterday that both mentioned Richard Dawkins, one by a Muslim, one by someone who was defending atheists but didn't declare his own religious allegiance.
The second writer said that atheists in general, and Dawkins in particular, are not angry or defensive or any of the other things the first writer accused them of being. I beg to differ.
To be fair to Dawkins (I know, I just can't help it) I've only read 'The God Delusion' and then only two and a half chapters. But what I did read persuaded me that he isn't just angry, he is furious. Like other atheists I've come across, he seems somehow afraid that he might be wrong, that there might be something to believe in. after all. In response to this fear he just throws abuse at religion without thinking through what he's saying.
One of the chapters in 'Delusion' is called 'Religious Experience'. It's about 3 pages long and relates only to visions. Now, I've never had a vision but I have had plenty of religious experiences. The Muslim writer refers to the evidence of the religious person's personal experience (and the second writer ignores this in his critique), acknowledging that this does not amount to proof. The second writer calls this irrational - there is nothing irrational about my faith.
Of course, a lot of people are critical of religion and many imagine that this makes them atheists. Jesus Christ himself had very little time for organised religion but he recognised that God and religion are not the same thing. Religion is a human construct and is, therefore, subject to the flaws and foibles that other human constructs are subject to. This does not mean that God does not exist.
And, of course, we have to think about why religion developed in the first place. Surely, it is a response to human experiences of the Divine? Surely, this is not a chicken and egg question? I cannot imagine that the idea of God was created AFTER religion.
My faith is pretty elastic. I believe that there are many paths to God and that many people are on a path to God without even realising it. Like Emmeth in 'The Last Battle', everything good they do is an offering to the Divine even if they do not recognise the object of their devotion. And there are people who believe that they are doing God's will who, like the patient's mother in 'The Screwtape Letters', are actually deluding themselves.
I make no judgement. It's for each person to make their own choices and live their own lives as well as they can. But I do object to being dismissed as irrational and delusional because I recognise the Divine in everything and everyone around me.
The second writer said that atheists in general, and Dawkins in particular, are not angry or defensive or any of the other things the first writer accused them of being. I beg to differ.
To be fair to Dawkins (I know, I just can't help it) I've only read 'The God Delusion' and then only two and a half chapters. But what I did read persuaded me that he isn't just angry, he is furious. Like other atheists I've come across, he seems somehow afraid that he might be wrong, that there might be something to believe in. after all. In response to this fear he just throws abuse at religion without thinking through what he's saying.
One of the chapters in 'Delusion' is called 'Religious Experience'. It's about 3 pages long and relates only to visions. Now, I've never had a vision but I have had plenty of religious experiences. The Muslim writer refers to the evidence of the religious person's personal experience (and the second writer ignores this in his critique), acknowledging that this does not amount to proof. The second writer calls this irrational - there is nothing irrational about my faith.
Of course, a lot of people are critical of religion and many imagine that this makes them atheists. Jesus Christ himself had very little time for organised religion but he recognised that God and religion are not the same thing. Religion is a human construct and is, therefore, subject to the flaws and foibles that other human constructs are subject to. This does not mean that God does not exist.
And, of course, we have to think about why religion developed in the first place. Surely, it is a response to human experiences of the Divine? Surely, this is not a chicken and egg question? I cannot imagine that the idea of God was created AFTER religion.
My faith is pretty elastic. I believe that there are many paths to God and that many people are on a path to God without even realising it. Like Emmeth in 'The Last Battle', everything good they do is an offering to the Divine even if they do not recognise the object of their devotion. And there are people who believe that they are doing God's will who, like the patient's mother in 'The Screwtape Letters', are actually deluding themselves.
I make no judgement. It's for each person to make their own choices and live their own lives as well as they can. But I do object to being dismissed as irrational and delusional because I recognise the Divine in everything and everyone around me.