Luddly Neddite
Diamond Member
- Sep 14, 2011
- 63,947
- 9,980
- 2,040
New Atheism’s Fatal Arrogance: The Glaring Intellectual Laziness of Bill Maher & Richard Dawkins
For all their eloquence, New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel.
....
But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.
It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer? Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.
For me, the "falsity" does matter but I liken it to homosexuality.
I don't understand a sexual attraction to one of the same sex. I simply accept that it exists and that others have every right to their own sexuality.
Same with a belief in a god. I don't understand it. Even though I think its a strange delusion, all I can do is accept that some people do believe.
I also don't understand why that belief is "meaningful" or what the benefit of it is. I do accept that, for some, it is and, apparently, there are people who do benefit from it.
And what about the other side of this coin?
Exchange the positions of atheism and belief and the op/ed is just as true.
Is it possible for either side to 'understanding how the other really thinks or feels'? Is it important? Do you even want to understand how others feel and think?
Thoughts?
For all their eloquence, New Atheists show little interest in understanding how believers really think or feel.
....
But there’s something missing in their critiques, something fundamental. For all their eloquence, their arguments are often banal. Regrettably, they’ve shown little interest in understanding the religious compulsion. They talk incessantly about the untruth of religion because they assume truth is what matters most to religious people. And perhaps it does for many, but certainly not all – at least not in the conventional sense of that term. Religious convictions, in many cases, are held not because they’re true but because they’re meaningful, because they’re personally transformative. New Atheists are blind to this brand of belief.
It’s perfectly rational to reject faith as a matter of principle. Many people (myself included) find no practical advantage in believing things without evidence. But what about those who do? If a belief is held because of its effects, not its truth content, why should its falsity matter to the believer? Of course, most religious people consider their beliefs true in some sense, but that’s to be expected: the consolation derived from a belief is greater if its illusory origins are concealed. The point is that such beliefs aren’t held because they’re true as such; they’re accepted on faith because they’re meaningful.
For me, the "falsity" does matter but I liken it to homosexuality.
I don't understand a sexual attraction to one of the same sex. I simply accept that it exists and that others have every right to their own sexuality.
Same with a belief in a god. I don't understand it. Even though I think its a strange delusion, all I can do is accept that some people do believe.
I also don't understand why that belief is "meaningful" or what the benefit of it is. I do accept that, for some, it is and, apparently, there are people who do benefit from it.
And what about the other side of this coin?
Exchange the positions of atheism and belief and the op/ed is just as true.
Is it possible for either side to 'understanding how the other really thinks or feels'? Is it important? Do you even want to understand how others feel and think?
Thoughts?
