I am agnostic-atheist and a firm believer in the scientific method for understanding natural phenomena. Yet I find myself increasingly disturbed by the actions and claims of supposed "freethinkers" who appear to be reinventing atheism and science in the direct mold of theism, both practices and biases. To make matters worse they seem to be the worst kind of theists: zealots/fanatics... evangelical at the very least.
Here is an article on Richard Dawkins and a few others, who are stumping for evolution and atheism, by attacking religious faiths and offering science as some enabler for morality. Some select quotes...
In the United States, atheists are becoming an ostracized minority. But now evolutionary biologists are trying to turn the tables: According to their argument, religion is the source of evil. Morals and selflessness are not God-given - they are the result of evolution.
When Richard Dawkins, a zoologist at Oxford University, steps up to the altar he seems visibly pleased to see the pews in the church fully occupied. In the best Queen's English, he reads from his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
...
Richard Dawkins is a passionate believer in the theory of evolution, and he has written countless books in which he explains it to his millions of readers. Now, at the age of 65, Professor Dawkins is presenting his legacy to society in his latest book, titled "The God Delusion."
With the zeal of a scientist, Dawkins explains why "there almost certainly is no god" and calls upon the faithful to renounce their faith. "You can be an atheist," he tells his audience, "who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled."
The image of Dawkins at a pulpit, preaching fire and brimstone about the wickedness of heathen savages (from his perspective), is pretty much the best example of where I see things headed, and it is not cool by me. I realize it is an article and the author may make comments that Dawkins would not want to have made, but this is a good view as to how someone outside of science, indeed people who may be religious will see science and atheism.
Zeal of a scientist explaining why there is no god? What real scientists can talk about gods, or should be discussing things in a zealous fashion? What does evolutionary theory have to do with his take on religion? Where can science, or philosophical atheism, deliver concepts of morality?
According to Dawkins, the laws of Darwinism explain why the behavior of most people is essentially moral. In fact, altruism is not even limited to the human species.
...
Dawkins believes that a similar system must have existed among prehistoric humans. They lived in clans that were small enough to keep track of and they helped one another. Like the sex drive, evolution stamped altruism into the brain of man. Modern man has retained this capacity for altruism, which explains why people adopt the children of others and raise them as if they were their own.
Evolutionary psychologist Marc Hauser of Harvard University has studied the moral behavior of religious and non-religious people in various cultures. He concludes that all human beings have acquired "a universal moral grammar, a faculty of the mind that evolved over millions of years," and that they have done so as a result of evolution, entirely without divine assistance.
Here science is clearly merged with atheism and moral philosophy, none of which have any real business with each other. In fact these claims are not science based at all. As we have discussed in another thread "what is science... what is not science?", such methodology is not science. They are looking for (or to my mind inventing) evidence to fit their hypothesis.
It also flies in the face of the counter truth... what people call nonaltruistic and immoral behavior is also part of our makeup. There is no set good/bad found within the genes or able to be applied to any behavior. Certainly not from an evolutionary perspective.
Here is an article on Sam Harris who is gaining in popularity by attacking religion. Mentioned in the previous article as well, this guy is evangelizing for atheism in the wake of 9/11 to point out how bad religion is, with atheism as the backup "sane" and "safe" alternative?
Here is an interesting dual position he never seems to answer...
In less than an hour, Harris condemns the God of the Old Testament for a host of sins, including support for slavery. He drop-kicks the New Testament, likening the story of Jesus to a fairy tale. He savages the Koran, calling it "a manifesto for religious divisiveness."
...
"There is this multicultural, apologetic machinery that keeps telling us that we can't attack people's religious sensibility," Harris says in an interview. "That is so wrong and so suicidal."
So he wants to end all this divisiveness, by attacking people's religious sensibilities? Oh yes, and blames religion for sinful activity, which is sinful in what way if he is an atheist? He at turns uses and blames the same source.
And worse still he is specifically targeting the moderates as enablers of the fanatics and so equally accountable for the tragedies which spring from religion. Obviously there are atheists who have killed people or caused purges. Does that make all moderate atheists enablers in those situations? Apparently not.
He does not address the fact that atheists could very well have flown planes into those towers on 9/11, if they had some political agenda they wanted to further through terrorist activity. Suppose some atheists start burning churches? Or are we to assume that is an impossible occurence?
All of this to me, essentially boils down to atheist-evolutionary theorists attempting to regain social status by mimicking the worst traits of their perceived opponents. They are becoming "the enemy".
Do others feel this is worthwhile to either science or atheism? Is this something that (ironically enough given Harris's arguments) should be fought by moderates within scientific or atheistic communities? If so, how can it be done?
Although I am particularly interested in evo/atheist perspectives on this trend, creo/theist perspectives are also welcome.
(I have no idea where this should go, but my thoughts are either "Is it Science?" or "Faith and Belief")
Edited by holmes, : quote fix
Edited by holmes, : clarity
holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
™ Version 4.2