In the years since, Christian and Jewish philosophers have responded with their own counter-attacks on atheism and defenses of the possibility of Christian belief. The power of these responses is perhaps the main reason atheist philosophers no longer argue much with the religious.
In leaving the field to amateurs, however, they don't do much for the atheist cause. While Hitchens is a first-rate political commentator and Dawkins a brilliant biologist, neither has any philosophical training (nor much experience of religion--but let that go.) Such windy rhetorical attacks pose little threat to Christianity. In fact, it is said that sales of Hitchens' and Dawkins's books have been mostly to evangelicals who want to "know the enemy!" Whether or not this is true, Christians don't have much reason to fear these enemies, because the enemies don't have good reasons to support their claims. --J. Douglas Ousley
2 comments:
dawkins and other "experts" are not the first to take up positions for which they have no real credentials. it's not to say they can't have an opinion -- most of us have opinions about food served to us, even without any skills or training in cooking or eating it. "the enemy" is a a largely subjective perception, i think. my enemies emanate from a large range of arenas: sibling rivalry, corporate politics, perceived threats, etc. we should take a lesson from dawkins (who really is a bright man, and we should realize that a lot of what he's doing is likely for the fame of doing it) and at least try to know the subject before commenting on it. if that means buying "the enemy's" books, that's completely acceptable. and communication is better than silence, especially since we all come to god by our own pathways!
re: "the boredom of atheism" -- i have friends and relatives who are atheists (meaning, they've chosen this brand of disbelief; they aren't merely lazy!), which seems to mean "criticizing religion" or being specifically anti-christian. (this does not include buddhism, which does not have a god in its belief structure, but does codify belief in the afterlife and in life forces.)
i am unfamiliar with any official efforts to standardize the non-belief of god's existance, so my comments are restricted to observations of those loved ones. it seems to me that criticizing belief and those who believe in god does not construct a belief system in itself. it used to make me upset, but these days, i only feel sorry for those who feel they have to make fun of believers, and grow bored with their arguements maintaining their superiority by denigrating others. as i've grown older, it simply saddens me that many i love do this, especially on the holidays. their right to not-believe is not the problem -- only their hounding negativism, which seems to be a black hole into which they pour hope and faith, a sort of "i told you so" whining. what a poor sort of substitute for the potential joys of the season and beyond!
on the other hand, i also have bible-thumping friends and relatives, which can be annoying or offensive, too. i guess any form of obsession is tiresome. the japanese refer to obsessives as "otaku" which defines someone who is obsessed to the point of affecting day-to-day life -- something that goes beyond a hobby (like anime otaku, or car otaku, or food otaku). the word is also loosely translated as "freak"! (the official name of the group which produces pokemon characters and games is actually a company called gamefreak.)
in the end, i tell myself that as humans, we are blessed because we have the right to choose to believe or not believe. and for all the negativism, i'm still happy to have the friends and relatives i have, and the diversity of peoples and beliefs all around us. happy new year, regardless of your belief or disbelief, or of your otaku!
Post a Comment