My interest in Kitcher’s critique of the New Atheism began with this post over at Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True. In response to that post — and it was much longer ago than I had imagined — I wrote the following (the first part is a quote from Jerry’s post):
- “Kitcher is guilty of assuming that most people are not sophisticated or educated enough to handle the burden of life without the crutch of religion.”
I think that is a mistake. I don’t think that’s what Kitcher is saying at all. I think what he’s saying is that, even those who don’t need the crutch of religion, those who have turned religious beliefs into mythical tales, still find sustenance in religious community.
It’s probably true that some people don’t have the intelligence or the ability to live without religion’s crutch, but this isn’t Kitcher’s point (although I seem unable to access a free version of Kitcher’s paper, so I can’t say for sure). Kitcher is in fact saying that the public use of secular reason is a requirement, and he doesn’t seem to see any problem with that requirement being conventionally enforced. In other words, religious believers are quite capable of dealing in purely secular terms with matters of public importance. However, he also seems to be saying that religion provides the kinds of social support necessary in order to live reasonably meaningful lives, lives that give individuals some sense of participating in historic events.
I tend to agree with that. If one were to ask me, “What do you miss most about life in the church?”, I would have to say the sense of community, the sense of belonging to a group of people whose purpose is greater than that of any individual member of it. Indeed, belonging to a church community, with a regular round of meetings and opportunities to socialise, provide a kind of structured time within which to live an individual life.
However, where Kitcher, it seems to me, goes wrong, lies in supposing that people who, in some sense, sit fairly loosely to the specific religious beliefs of their faith communities, will find no other points of conflict between their lives as members of faith communities, and their lives as members of secular society. The error here is in supposing that even liberal or non-realist faith positions have no implications for how things go in the secular world. This is manifestly untrue. All churches, even very liberal churches, take certain moral stands which are in basic conflict with secular morality, mainly because of a lack of consensus with the churches themselves. The acceptance of gay and lesbian people, for example, the role of women, and women’s reproductive freedom, the rights of those who are suffering unduly to decide regarding the time and manner of their own deaths: all of these are areas of conflict within even the most liberal of faith communities. To remain within the faith community is to (at least tacitly) endorse these moral stands, even though, within the faith community, an individual may be on the secular side of the controversy.
I think, if non-believers are serious about non-belief, and want to see non-belief extended to larger numbers of people, then they must somehow provide for the hunger for belonging and commitment that churches now satisfy. There are always going to be people who can function very well on their own, as strong individualists, but there are many people whose lives will be, without some sense of social belonging, ‘solitary, poor, nasty and brutish’ (to quote Hobbes), especially if they are long. What many religious feel about atheists is that they are striking at the very roots of social belonging, not of belief, and until atheists have learned the lesson that many people not only crave a sense of belonging, but need some way of publicly celebrating the stages of life, their successes will be limited by the number of those who can in fact live happily without any living connexion with a continuing community.
I suspect that what many people find threatening about the “New Atheism” is that it seems to them primarily negative, seeking to pull down, rather than to build up. If the numbers of people who are in moral conflict with their faith traditions could find a role to play in a community of non-believers, with a sense of moral purpose in the world, and some understanding of how life can be meaningful and flourishing in the absence of belief in supernatural friends, the course of unbelief would, I think, run more smoothly.
Of course, many atheists will think that this kind of community undertaking is religious and ideological, but it need not be, as some liberal Christians have made clear.’Theologians’ like John Spong or Don Cupitt are as unbelieving as the most earnest Gnu Atheist, though they dress their unbelief in the handmedowns of religious language. And, surely, explicit atheists can be no less imaginative and creative than they. Perhaps humanist associations provide the answer, or someone may come up with something even better and more convincing. But it does seem to me that Kitcher may have put his finger on the pulse of those people for whom unbelief might be an attractive option, if its social expression were more attractive. (However, I write this without having read Kitcher’s paper, and I may be wrong. This nevertheless expresses some of my own reflections on unbelief an the possibility of community.)
As a consequence of this comment, which Jerry Coyne sent to Philip Kitcher – a philosopher he admires — I was briefly in contact with Professor Kitcher, who sent me his three papers, “Beyond Disbelief” (published in 50 Voices of Non-Belief), “Militant Modern Atheism,” and “Challenges for Secularism.” He also sent me a copy of his book Living with Darwin, whose last chapter deals with the same issues of the relationship between the New Atheism, secularism generally, and religious belief. This is an incredibly rich source of reflection on contemporary atheism, and especially the variety that Kitcher labels as militant and modern, or, otherwise, as Darwinian atheism. It is worth pointing out that Russell Blackford, in a seven part series of posts, has discussed Kitcher’s critique over at Metamagician and the Hellfire Club. This link will take you to the seventh, and that should get you to the rest as well.
Obviously, this is going to be only the opening round in a discussion which I hope will take us much farther afield. (I am already well past the mid-way point for an average length post.) I have chosen to begin with the idea of Darwinian atheism. Rather surprisingly, perhaps, not having read the paper, the above is a pretty good summary of what Kitcher has to say in the central part of the “Militant Modern Atheism” paper. It is a solid piece of thought, clearly argued. The most important point that he is making is that religion serves a purpose in society as we know it, and there does not seem, at the moment, anything to replace it. It is true that there are societies where religion does not play a large part in people’s lives, and where the church structures that exist are certainly underused. This seems to be the cased in Scandinavia. However, there also seems to be a sense, even there, that the church community plays an important cultural role, and this probably should not be ignored. Even if people stay away from the church, there is a church from which they are staying away. As Oriana Fallaci said so passionately in her equally passionate book, The Force of Reason (La Forza della Ragione), “I am a Christian,” even though she does not believe. She is an unbelieving Christian. She believes, as she says that
… men have invented Him out of solitude, powerlessness, despair. Meaning, to give an answer to the mystery of existence. To attenuate the insoluble questions that life throws on our faces. [185]
And then a moment later, she says,
In other words, I think we invented Him out of weakness, namely out of fear of living and dying. Living is very difficult, dying is always a sorrow, and the concept of a God who helps us to face these two challenges can bring infinite relief: I understand it well. In fact I envy those who believe. [185]
So, even though churches remain empty, they very often have the ghostly presence of those who are staying away from them, and would miss them if they were gone, because the church still represents for many that something greater than they in terms of which, even though they are not now an intimate part of it, they measure themselves, there, in the silences, where they meet with their fears.
Kitcher’s claim is that the Darwinian atheists — and he calls them that, not because of Darwin’s stance towards religion, but because many of them acknowledge a debt to Darwin — not only do not use the best arguments that are available against religious belief, but, more importantly, that “they pay too little attention to questions that might arise for erstwhile believers after the demolition is done.” (“Challenges for Secularism” CFS hereafter in this and later posts — on a Kindle Loc. 27/3%) This seems to me to be an issue not sufficiently addressed, and some of the concerns are expressed in my comment in response to Jerry Coyne’s post, “Kitcher versus Dennett: Is New Atheism Counterproductive” from Why Evolution is True (above and here). On Tuesday – I’m getting this out a bit earlier than intended, since I have to be away part of tomorrow) I shall take a closer look at Kitcher’s arguments against religion, arguments which he believes are better than the ones considered by Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris (although I will say now that I think Hitchens does in fact use the argument from Symmetry to good effect). I’ll end by quoting what Kitcher thinks is the manifesto of the Militant Modern Atheist (with much of which he agrees, by the way):
In times when violence carried out in the name of religion abounds, when many groups of people seek to interfere with the private lives of others because those targeted are allegedly violating divine commands, and when important discoveries about the world in which we live are questioned, or even denied, because they are supposed to be incompatible with authentic messages from the deity, it is easy to think that things have gone too far. Polite respect for odd superstitions about mysterious beings and their incomprehensible workings might be appropriate so long as the misguided folk who subscribe to them do not seek to convert, coerce or eliminate outsiders, but, when the benighted believers invade the public sphere, it is important that they not be earnest. Further, respect should not extend to the deformations the faithful exert upon the minds of the young: just as children deserve to be protected against parents who refuse to allow them to receive medical attention, so too they are entitled to defence against forms of religious education that will infect and corrupt their abilities to think clearly and coherently. We no longer inhabit the arcadias of Waugh and Wodehouse, in which fanatic believers and their aggressive challengers who ask where Cain found a wife are equally figures of fun. Because of religious belief, our world is an oppressive and dangerous place, and it is time for those who value reason, justice, tolerance, and compassion to do something about it.
Next, we will consider what Kitcher thinks is wrong with this — although that is already sketched in in the response to Jerry’s post above.
Just a quick note: in my copy of 50 Voices of Disbelief Kitcher’s essay is Beyond Disbelief. Thought I should clarify that reference.
You’re right. I’ll correct it. I was remembering the book by Elaine Pagels whose title Beyond Belief he was echoing in his own title.
I know this is somewhat off the topic of your post, but I wanted to address the point about religion’s position in Scandinavia, being as I hail from there. It’s also quite long and rambling, for which I apologise in advance. I’m quite interested in this topic as I believe the process is not only still ongoing here , but leading to further marginalisation of religion.
It is true what you note of the church being sidelined here, and also that it still seems to serve some social purpose. This purpose has for some time been mostly weddings, funerals and christenings, ie public ceremonial celebrations of major life events. However, the church seems to be losing importance even in this role. What’s happening is that people are finding their own ways of doing these things and the idea that one doesn’t need the church involved in weddings, funerals or parties for new babies seems to be slowly gaining ground. Instead people are making their own celebrations and ceremonies within a community of their own choosing, comprising mostly of their family and friends. The congregation has for long been more or less defunct here as a source of community, so the church ceremonies have become something of an appendix to the actual communal events. In a way people are reverting to something more akin to clan or tribal community, than a religious community. The latter also seems to be becoming less and less capable of working as a social glue.
I believe what has happened is that as religion has lost its formal importance in the society, its social importance has begun to be eroded as well. When people don’t need to turn to the church for any of their needs, they will in time stop turning towards it in matters of community as well. After all, with a community formed by family and friends one is less likely to have to adapt on regular basis to disagreeable people or doctrines. In my social group I know of some religious people who say they pray regularly, but only very few who go to church regularly. Of course my social group is hardly representative of the whole population, but I’m drawing my general impressions from what I have seen beyond it.
As for the churches representing something greater in spiritual terms, that I can not speak for. Those things are in fact not discussed much here at all, so it would be very difficult for me to speculate on the extent to which this is true. However, I would hesitate a guess that the presence of people who pray regularly without attending church services, suggests that they find their spiritual relief through personal practice, rather than the institution. I think it entirely possible that while they would miss the institution on some level if it were gone, they wouldn’t miss it all that much. It might all be part and parcel of faith and religion becoming a very personal thing here. Even in funerals people don’t really talk about god or other religious concepts that much, let alone in normal settings. The more forward ones might wish one god’s blessings at the end of a wedding toast, but even that is mostly limited to the older generations. God-talk simply is not done in polite company, by either non-believers or believers.
“I think, if non-believers are serious about non-belief, and want to see non-belief extended to larger numbers of people, then they must somehow provide for the hunger for belonging and commitment that churches now satisfy.”
On one level, when I see this argument put forward, I can certainly see it’s point. It also tends to get mentioned when theists are arguing that atheists are only “anti” something, only NOT believing in something. That it’s a negative worldview. (Not that I am suggesting this is what you are doing, Eric, but I have noticed that just about every prominent atheist I can think of acknowledges the problem of replacing religious community with something.)
And I do agree that a sense of community and being part of a group is a great way to get things done, keep people happy and give them a valuable safety net, but I’m not so sure it’s strictly the job of the four horsemen et al to replace the social structures of religion.
I see communities of like minded individuals form for all manner of reasons. Sometimes it’s by way of nationality, sometimes it’s sporting groups. Sometimes it’s music. A genre of music (Hip Hop, for instance) can have a scene surrounding it, and communities and loose organisation. And I think the only reason they don’t get the credit they deserve as perfectly valid forms of community which are enough on their own, is because religion is special pleading.
As an aside, I’m not so sure that some prominent atheists, and not so prominent atheists aren’t being a little to hard on themselves as far as being an example of an alternative, positive worldview (Atheism being part of a worldview, not a complete wroldview/way of life itself).
I get a real sense of joy and love of life from reading Jerry’s blog, when he’s discussing coffee machines and jazz and literature, it really does make a mockery of the angry atheist stereotype. Likewise Blackford’s X-men fixation. It’s absolutely endearing. And while the subject matter here is a touch more somber, and tinged with a little sadness, there is also much to be inspired and uplifted by.
I’m not so sure the answer is more active Atheist anything. There may be a role in some circumstances, and in some areas where religion is particularly pernicious (The Atheist community of Austin springs to mind. Matt Dilahunty deserves more prominence, while we’re at it), but really, atheism shouldn’t be the common factor bringing communities and people together, it should just be paving the way for the miriad interests people have to take their rightful place as valid ways to spend our time and build around.
Thank you for this Ocellus. Coming straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak, it has weight. Of course, in Canada this is also true: “God-talk simply is not done in polite company, by either non-believers or believers,” though Canada is much more religious (and churchgoing) than Norway, Sweden, etc. I guess I’m interested to know what might follow religion as a means of social organisation, since churches here in Canada still play an enormous role in small towns and villages. In the city it is not so important, and of course rural populations are declining almost everywhere. So, I am taken by your claim that you “think it entirely possible that while they would miss the institution on some level if it were gone, they wouldn’t miss it all that much.” There is, of course, another dimension to this. Until very recently, I was actively involved as a leader in church life, so it is not unlikely that my own view of things is skewed by this fact.
David, some excellent observations. Yes, I agree with you, there is a real sense of joy, or just plain fun, over at Jerry’s blog, with his cowboy boots, and pakes, and mating eagles, and posts on literature, music, etc. It’s great.
Thanks for the reference to Dilahunty. I hadn’t heard the name. I guess what Kitcher is saying is that, right now, religion performs a function in people’s lives. If we want to convince more people that religion is intellectually tawdry, we also have to show them that there are ways of life that are equally challenging and personally rewarding as the lives they feel that get from religious practice. I don’t think we need to have parallel organisations, but for many, whose lives are deeply invested in religious community, even though they are only marginally members in terms of belief, there must be something that can be provided so that they can make the transition more easily from faith to unfaith. And I don’t think that’s too high an expectation of the atheist community. What shape that transitional community/way of life/opportunity for involvement takes is an entirely different question.
I’m still not convinced it isn’t just going to naturally be replaced, to some extent. But it’s something I need to give much more thought.
Dilhunty is seriously worth delving into. I haven’t listened/watched it in a while, but he co-hosts a TV show called The Atheist Experience. It’s a live call in show, and they get ALL sorts, and it’s an absolute fascination. It can be a car crash at times, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone who knows all the arguments and all the angles backwards like he does. I used to get the shows as a podcast and listen to them in the car, but you could also just youtube him, they have quite a collection of edited highlights.
He lost his faith while studying to be a priest, and his biblical knowledge is extensive. (Those guys also have an excellent wiki called ironchariots. i’ve used it tobrush up on the odd curio.)
A friend of mine discovered the tv show a few ears back, and I really have them to thank for helping me discover many of the blogs and references I know frequent (indirectly, including this one), so I must admit a soft spot for thr ACA in general, tbh.
I can’t help it: I have a tendency of thinking in analogies to test whether the points raised in arguments and opinions make sense in principle or if they only make sense in the specifics of a particular topic.
So I have done with this argument: Kitcher argues that New Atheists who deal only with the belief aspect of the religious will not be effective in getting religion out of the public domain unless and until some adequate substitution can be offered for those who use religion for its social benefits.
I think this doesn’t hold up.
I think this because of the analogy I have used comparing the NA argument against faith-based beliefs in the public domain to the argument against tobacco use.
If one can show that the public acceptance and respect for faith-based beliefs in the public domain have a cumulative negative net effect on the health and welfare of the populace (and I think the NA arguments and ongoing debates and activities try to do exactly this) then what is the next step?
Who cares?
If we understand and accept the evidence that widespread tobacco use supported and favoured in the public domain has a negative net cumulative effect on the health and welfare of the population as a whole, is it reasonable to accept the burden people like Kitcher would have us carry that we must therefore offer a public substitute activity for those who are used to and find personal satisfaction smoking in the public domain? Is that really the job that health promoters are to tackle?
I don’t think we have to take this argument seriously. I think the evidence against something is sufficient to impel public policies to stop promoting and favouring something that has a negative net cumulative effect on the health and welfare of the population. That doesn’t mean that private use must be squashed by the tyranny of the state or the majority or the enlightened; it means that we can reasonably expect patterns of behaviour to change over time to align with what is true if we first value what is true. That is the central issue.
And this is what we see with smoking in countries with an educated population who have a choice whether or not to smoke, which I think finds a close corollary with the decline of religious adherence in much of Europe when a similar choice about personal behaviours is available.
That smoking is on the increase in the developing world or in under-educated and poorer classes of people does not mean smoking itself must contain benefits that outweigh its cost in the health and welfare of the population; it is indicative that the real costs – the true cost – of such a choice have yet to be appreciated… and this continues to be a matter of reaching people – especially younger people – through a constent message back by good information based on what’s true plus the necessary time for generational behavioural changes to occur.
The argument that because many people smoke indicates some basic goodness to the behaviour is without merit in truth. There are other reasons people smoke – some of them with particular social benefits to the behaviour – and undermining the merit of those reasons as good reasons based on what is true is absolutely key to bringing about lasting change.
The same argument I think is key to reducing faith-based beliefs in the public domain: it is the job of the New Atheists who wish to reduce the negative net cumulative effects of faith-based beliefs in the public domain to undermine the merit of those reasons based on what is true. In the same way breathing second-hand smoke was eventually shown to be just as harmful as smoking itself, so too is it vital to show that second-hand religion also causes harm. That is the more important goal than excusing its public influence to suit those currently addicted/afflicted/aligned.
Arguments that divert us from this goal – arguments about tone of the reasonable and educated message we bring based on what is true (like militancy and arrogance and fundamentalism and how likable are its messengers, and so on) – are just that: diversions of a secondary nature.
Kitcher’s criticism of New Atheism based on some argument about what occurs beyond disbelief is just such a diversion of a secondary nature. I don’t care how a non smoker meets some personal need about community involvement if the issue is about why advancing or accepting smoking in the public domain is harmful. Similarly, I don’t care how a non believer meets some personal need about community involvement if the issue is about why advancing or accepting faith-based beliefs in the public domain is harmful.
Re the ‘replacement with something’ theme: Surely this is a substantial variable, with many factors. I am leading a seminar in my community on ‘Adventures in Medical Ethics”, in our university-based Institute for Life-long Learning. Most of the participants are ex-professional something, all are older than the mean or retired, and virtually all are, if religious, religious in a ceremonial or cultural sense only. All of them have several interests, participate in several groups or organizations, and cross-pollinate one another and their community in many ways. These people certainly do not need any specific entity to belong to, in place of a religious dogma or institution. I realize that this is an atypical situation, resembling more Ocellus’s observations than other American realities. But all of the people in my seminar were at one time much more involved with their churches and their ‘faith’ than they are now. Perhaps a little social evolution in action?
I benefit from this blog.
Some very good comments here, including this one from David; this thread got good awfully fast. I agree with David’s general response to Kitcher, but I want to quibble with this:
I agree that “more active Atheist anything” is not necessary as a rebuttal to Kitcher, but I think specifically atheist-community-focused organizations are more worthwhile and indeed vital than the above implies.
It seems to me that atheism needs to be “the common factor bringing communities and people together” for as long as we continue to be on the short end of a very large amount of religious privilege and intolerance held by the society we live in. It’s the same reason that disliked minorities of any kind see fit to band together; regardless of what else we do or do not have in common, we’re all in the same boat regarding the ways the society surrounding us treats us. We’re a community whether we like it or not, simply because the broader populace constructs us that way.
I think David largely recognizes this point, in his reference to “some areas where religion is particularly pernicious”; I guess my argument is that, given the overwhelming religious privilege we live under, atheists in the United States (and perhaps in other places as well, but I can’t personally speak to that) are all Austinites right now.
I live in the “enlightened” Upper Midwest (and it is enlightened by comparison to rural Texas and Mississippi; that’s just not saying much), and I’d say the atheist organizations around me play a vital function in a lot of folks’ lives.
If and when religious privilege and authority are securely shoved out of public discourse, then I’ll agree that atheist organizations don’t serve much of a purpose anymore. That possibility also makes them somewhat beside the point for a response to Kitcher. Nonetheless I think they are, broadly speaking, very important, and I expect they’ll remain so for the foreseeable future.
(I am clearly missing something with how to format these replies. A quick pointer to how to format/quote/bold/italics would be appriciated. Too used to phpBB.)
Anyhoo, there’s a lot I can’t disagree with in the above. I don’t want to undersell atheist groups either, heck, the ACA is the reason I’m posting here, and I live in Melbourne (Australia), that says a lot about the possibilities of these groups to outreach. However, even granting that, I think what I’m getting at is that, as necessary as they are, atheist groups aren’t necessarily what will replace religious institutions. Atheist groups may be the means, I don’t think they’re the ends.
It should be mentioned that my view will be a little skewed as I am in a country where religion is nowhere near as intrusive as the US. There may be a large % of culturally or nominally religious people here, but the % that are practising would be really quite small.
“Re the ‘replacement with something’ theme: Surely this is a substantial variable, with many factors. I am leading a seminar in my community on ‘Adventures in Medical Ethics”, in our university-based Institute for Life-long Learning. Most of the participants are ex-professional something, all are older than the mean or retired, and virtually all are, if religious, religious in a ceremonial or cultural sense only. All of them have several interests, participate in several groups or organizations, and cross-pollinate one another and their community in many ways. These people certainly do not need any specific entity to belong to, in place of a religious dogma or institution. I realize that this is an atypical situation, resembling more Ocellus’s observations than other American realities. But all of the people in my seminar were at one time much more involved with their churches and their ‘faith’ than they are now. Perhaps a little social evolution in action?”
I actually think this is a fair assessment of the experience of quite a lot of people, certainly in largely secular countries. Gut feeling, obviously, rather than observed fact.
Hi again, David.
Formatting here is all HTML, using less-than and greater-than symbols to enclose the formatting instructions. So boldface is “b” enclosed in those symbols, italics is “i” enclosed, and a blockquote is “blockquote” enclosed. Then you turn the condition off with a “/b” or “/i” or “/blockquote” command enclosed between the same symbols.
Yes, that’s fine with me. I think you’re making a perfectly cogent point about rebuttals to Kitcher; I just thought that a couple of your comments seemed more broadly skeptical of the utility of atheist community than the Kitcher subject warrants. No sweat.
I really must read through the Kitcher back and forth again. I read it at the time, but haven’t been back, apart from what’s in this post.
My first comment here was more general musings, tbh, and not limited to Kitcher. I fairly keenly read a handful of atheist bloggers, and have read various comment from both sides of the fence, and it always seems to me that even the most outspoken atheists and secularists are too quick to concede that NAs/humanists etc haven’t a. done enough to promote a positive worldview and/or b. replaced the communities created by religion. Eric Maisel’s The Atheist Way suffers a little from being overapologetic about a lack of community surrounding atheism.
I don’t know, I’m struggling to express a subtle difference here, and doing it with too much other stuff on my plate. I think I’ll hold off on further comment until I get a chance to think a bit more clearly on this.
David, please don’t quiet down on my account! I think your remarks about Kitcher are very well put. I was quibbling about a side issue.
On my more cynical days, I think that those who argue for the great importance of religion in terms of community and structured social activity and a sense of group identity and all that are simply full of baloney. Community et cetera neither originate solely in nor depend specifically upon religious institutions and traditions, but rather are universal features of human interaction which respond to basic human psychology and needs. Wherever humans gather together to pursue whatever they perceive of as worthwhile, and even when humans form simple circles of friendship, structured social activities and group identity and a sense of community spring up spontaneously. It is not incumbent on critics of faith as a way of not-knowing to replace those functions as they are currently realized by religious traditions and institutions because they are already realized in all sorts of ways. People form communities (with all the usual features of communities) around political interests, sports team loyalty, parent/teacher associations, online forums, science fiction/comic book/name-your-nerdity-of-choice fandom, BDSM/kink subculture, and on and on and on. If religious communities have a special place, it is because religious ideas are parasitic on human fear and insecurity — which is why the religiosity of a culture is inversely related to the economic and social security of its inhabitants, and why the Scandinavians are doing just fine without religion thankyouverymuch, and why the corporate-oligarchical U.S.A. with its vast and still rapidly expanding gap between the haves and have-nots is a hyper-religious outlier among developed nations.
This is, apparently, one of my more cynical days.
Thanks Eric for that exquisitely composed analysis. How thrilling if Sam, Richard and Dan could be pointed towards your post and address CFS in the light of it. An Unbelieving Christian, such a wonderful phrase – it suggests reason underpinned by compassion. And why shouldn’t our historic churches and cathedrals continue as sacred spaces, but to the glory of reason instead of the supernatural; quiet spaces in which to appreciate the wonders of our architechtural heritage and the awesome nature of our human origins; spaces in which to contemplate the deep and beautiful question of the big bang/singularity/infinite regress; and then there’s music and poetry and art to bring to mind in the churchy calm, and how this tiny orb on which we fuss is journeying around the sun at thirty kilometres a second, and how once, during the infancy of our species, we told each other stories about the magical origins of all this and built stone circles and churches and cathedrals to propogate and perpetuate the stories and how we killed each other if we didn’t believe them and how we eventually grew up and put aside these things and chose reason over blind faith and belief and how Darwin was a super naturalist.
Pingback: God is dead. Now what?
Pingback: Can Atheism take over the Functions of Religion? Should it Try? « Choice in Dying
Pingback: Hatches, matches and despatches « Skepticlawyer