I've never really bought into the Richard Dawkins idea of "structured atheism." To me, it's more like replacing one religion for another, newer made up religion. In fact, I find Dawkins' ideas oxymoronic and even cultish.
Thing is, I genuinely get the appeal though. A sense of spirituality based on reason, factual and statistical validation, method! I mean to disillusioned parishioners, where churches haven't changed how they do things for 100 yrs, it's a very smart, modern antidote. But I would argue that if church isn't inspiring you on Sundays, you don't need Dawkins' approach, you just need to go to coffee shop on Sunday instead, or a walk; to get involved in something you've always wanted to do. To Marvel at how wonderful the world really is. Don't overthink it-- that's something both science and religion do too much of.
Yep, that's the author's point too - Dawkins is fun in a rebellious adolescent sense, but his materialism gets quickly superseded by a pluralistic relativism for those who continue down his path. It's been interesting to see the new atheists' fall from grace just over the span of less than 20 years
When I hear the phrase "the Science is settled".....I always know that it isn't. It's just someone trying to promote a "product" or their own Idea.
When I hear some person or preacher screaming hell/damnation or pontificating on some goofy ideology......I know to turn and walk the other way. They are just trying to promote a social type of "product" (cult-like).
Science moves, progresses, in fits and starts and dead-ends and start-overs, but it does move. The only way we humans can ever understand this universe we exist in will be through science, even though it's doubtful we'll ever be capable of a real understanding of the fundamental physical laws that allow its existence as is (energy dynamics, quantum theory, its origin, the basic "rules" or "laws" set at its origin that could even allow matter to exist, etc,etc.) . Being human, our curiousity requires us to try. None of this supports the need for some supernatural being, if that's what you mean by God. In fact I doubt if any two people even mean the same thing when they try to define "God". Whereas religion exists as a way for us poor humans to cope with the realization of our mortality, and of all those we love or care about. Because we are an inherently social species we reinforce each other's desires for a continuation of some existence beyond this one by gathering in groups with shared hopes.And of course these group gatherings are an incredible and necessary social experience. Helping others in need and giving emotional reassurance to each other in religious gatherings is an absolute human need. (I wish I could continue but I'm going to post this half-finished thought because I 'gotta go' right now. My dogs are calling.)
Fascinating piece. I'm sure you'd be interested in another recent piece I read reconciling a personal dissonance between faith and science. Would be interested to get your take on it: https://www.taylorforeman.com/p/why-i-am-christian-again?r=1l2z5n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I've never really bought into the Richard Dawkins idea of "structured atheism." To me, it's more like replacing one religion for another, newer made up religion. In fact, I find Dawkins' ideas oxymoronic and even cultish.
Thing is, I genuinely get the appeal though. A sense of spirituality based on reason, factual and statistical validation, method! I mean to disillusioned parishioners, where churches haven't changed how they do things for 100 yrs, it's a very smart, modern antidote. But I would argue that if church isn't inspiring you on Sundays, you don't need Dawkins' approach, you just need to go to coffee shop on Sunday instead, or a walk; to get involved in something you've always wanted to do. To Marvel at how wonderful the world really is. Don't overthink it-- that's something both science and religion do too much of.
Yep, that's the author's point too - Dawkins is fun in a rebellious adolescent sense, but his materialism gets quickly superseded by a pluralistic relativism for those who continue down his path. It's been interesting to see the new atheists' fall from grace just over the span of less than 20 years
When I hear the phrase "the Science is settled".....I always know that it isn't. It's just someone trying to promote a "product" or their own Idea.
When I hear some person or preacher screaming hell/damnation or pontificating on some goofy ideology......I know to turn and walk the other way. They are just trying to promote a social type of "product" (cult-like).
Science moves, progresses, in fits and starts and dead-ends and start-overs, but it does move. The only way we humans can ever understand this universe we exist in will be through science, even though it's doubtful we'll ever be capable of a real understanding of the fundamental physical laws that allow its existence as is (energy dynamics, quantum theory, its origin, the basic "rules" or "laws" set at its origin that could even allow matter to exist, etc,etc.) . Being human, our curiousity requires us to try. None of this supports the need for some supernatural being, if that's what you mean by God. In fact I doubt if any two people even mean the same thing when they try to define "God". Whereas religion exists as a way for us poor humans to cope with the realization of our mortality, and of all those we love or care about. Because we are an inherently social species we reinforce each other's desires for a continuation of some existence beyond this one by gathering in groups with shared hopes.And of course these group gatherings are an incredible and necessary social experience. Helping others in need and giving emotional reassurance to each other in religious gatherings is an absolute human need. (I wish I could continue but I'm going to post this half-finished thought because I 'gotta go' right now. My dogs are calling.)