I was struck by a phrase at the end of the article

"One searches in vain in the company of militant unbelievers for signs of the creative doubt that has energised many religious thinkers."

I'm left wondering how much of that creative doubt the author would find amongst militant religious types (fundies). Unbelief has it's fundies just as religion does and we are unlikely to find serious thinking or a search for deeper understanding amongst the millitants.

Perhaps if the author compared apples with apples he may find a different situation.

R0bert

Robert said:

"Unbelief has it's fundies just as religion does and we are unlikely to find serious thinking or a search for deeper understanding amongst the millitants."

Does this mean what I think it means? I assume you would agree with the author's characterisation of Dawkins, Hitchens et. al. as "militant" atheists, so by your statement, is the reader to assume you mean that the above are not capable of "serious" thinking or searching for "deeper understanding?" Does a belief firmly held, necessarily render its holder incapable of nuanced thought?

Or have I misinterpreted you?

i guess it's too much to hope that these nasty, obtuse, thoroughly stupid articles will ever cease. "militant"? nonsense, unless dawkins has started throwing bombs. questioning belief? yeah, sure, within the narrow parameters which faith permits. "secular humanism" as insult? truly unbelievable.

the underlying idea, that atheism is life without meaning is preposterous. can't you guys get it? to be atheist is not a way of life, it simply means we don't believe in gods. if you want to, go ahead. if you want to try to prove it, go ahead. but stop pretending your beliefs are so obvious that everyone must share them. and stop pretending you're questioning your faith. for a moment, think about what the word "faith" means. grow up.

The author of this article does seem to be quite confused. For starters, lumping 'atheist', 'secular humanist', and 'science' together as though they are one and the same. Someone can believe in all three, or any combination. Further more, the concept of 'human progress' is not the exclusive domain of any one, and I'm quite sure many people with faith are just as concerned with 'human progress' as those without.

As for myths, I'm puzzled as to what one would consider an atheist myth. Science deals with observations and logical conclusions, and is quite open about criticism. Secular humanism is about how we should behave, and has no must-be-true stories about the past. Atheism is quite simply no believing in any deity, no stories, myths or absolute rules. Quite different to the myths of religion that are absolute and cannot be questioned. So much for creative doubt.

Few people argue that the religious stories aren't compelling, or don't have moral points to make. But that is a separate issue to believing them to be an accurate historical recount of what happened. I think the story of King Arthur and the knights of the round table is a compelling story. Though I doubt it actually happened. Choosing an arbitrary, unchangeable selection of stories (true or not) to determine morality seems like it could lead to gaps or oversimplification of ones moral choices. Life is far too complicated and frequently changing to determine a static set of arbitrary rules.

The final paragraph criticizes atheists and secular humanists as lacking creative doubt and questioning their beliefs. It's been my experience that most of these people have chosen their path after questioning their previous faith and finding it wanting in truth, reason and purpose.

Ultimately, what I find most detestable about religion isn't the blind faith, stories, rituals or rules, but rather the political organizations that seek control and to dictate what is the one unprovable truth.

Dear Foyle...

and of course you speak from the vivid personal experience and perspective of a semi tribal existence where the only law was 'kill or be killed/enslave (or kill) or be enslaved' etc.. where the only borders between groups where their by virtue of pure raw 'power' balances.

Or..perhaps you (shallowly) look back from your cumulative 'Western/Post modern' experience of reality and evaluate ancient situations on that basis?

Or..perhaps you are just trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and claim a righteousness greater than Moses or Joshua... while enjoying the luxury of the freedom and peace which their exploits in fact contributed to... (yes..I can easily make a viable historical connection)

Joshua.. Moses BADDDDDD
Foyle.... GOOOOOD.

Perhaps you should look at each incident they were involved in, and evaluate them in terms of:

Did they do anything out of carnal spite, lust for power, hate of mankind
OR...
Did they treat their enemies as enemies.. did they kill those who would have SUREly killed them,.... Did they do what God TOLD them to do in cases of mass executions... did those specific events give us any permission or valid example to follow? If so..how?

yes.. there is much to think about aye..
blessings

Once more we hear about militant atheists, anti religious missionaries, evangelists of unbelief,
I am not as educated as the learned professor. In my mind his word spin is dazzling
It’s the last sentence that sums up this professor’s thoughts though!
“One searches in vain in the company of militant unbelievers for signs of the creative doubt that has energised many religious thinkers. While theologians have interrogated their beliefs for millennia, secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed. Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks - without that faith's redeeming doubts.”
‘Militant unbelievers?’
‘Searching in vain for any creative doubts by these unbelievers?’
The fact that atheists were hunted to their death while theologians honed their debating skills for many hundreds of years to try to make some sense out of religious nuttery, endeared them to their followers who either knew no better, or worse, were cowered into following the bible bashers lest they were thrown into jail or killed and/or tortured, and they blindly followed the teachings of these ‘mythical truths’ . The fact that there are more vocal atheists now, than ever before, is because they are now able to vent their thoughts, without the fear of being put to death. So the religious do-gooders try their hand at name calling.
Creative thoughts are in the minds of the beholder. But creative thoughts out of the bible? Give us a break! Any child can come up with fantasies that are far kinder then those in the bible!
There are more murders in that book then there are truths, mythical or not. There are more incitements to hate by those brandishing their bibles then any creative atheists can summon up.
Ubique