A good article yesterday in the Guardian by Russell Blackford, on the subject du jour which is secular or atheist tactics, should atheists be "respectful" of religion and is it ok you use humour and mockery to get across important points regarding the truth of religious promises and the desirability of the separation of church and state.
I particularly liked the following paragraph, for me it provides a perfect counter to the all to frequent whining of apologists that religion is true, good and harmless and we should offer it unconditional respect.
When religion claims authority in the political sphere, it is unsurprising — and totally justifiable — that atheists and skeptics question the source of this authority. If religious organisations or their leaders claim to speak on behalf of a god, it is fair to ask whether the god concerned really makes the claims that are communicated on its behalf. Does this god even exist? Where is the evidence? And even if this being does exist, why, exactly, should its wishes be translated into law?
Either one or more religions is true or they represent the biggest con job there has ever been and billions of people have been duped into wasting emotional enthalpy, time and resources when those things could have been better spent focusing on the betterment of society, self development and our fellow beings. Our existence on this planet is all too brief, we should care more about how we spend it.
5 comments:
It is strange that we are told by our government to not offend religion, which has no basis in fact, yet they choose to ignore scientific fact.
Perhaps the bishops should be compiling the UK's dangerous drugs list on the basis of divine revelation.
Speaking as a believer... please don't link us with the government. From the beauty, logic and order of this world I can see clues to the creator. But I still can't try to explain New Labour.
And I don't understand why anyone should spare us from offence. As long as we're allowed to point out that most atheists are duffle-coat wearing sad sacks you should be able to respond in kind. Seems fair to me - but then you should see what I have to wear on a Sunday morning.
Scientific "fact" - always provisional, of course. Scientific "facts" are always dependent on someone not falsifying them later. And on the assumption that I'm not just imagining you all exist. But scientific hypotheses, conclusions and working assumptions - based on the best current evidence, and subject to further scrutiny - you're right, Chairman Bill - they'll always come second to political considerations.
G, "duffle-coat wearing sad sacks" - I haven't owned a duffle coat since I was 8 years old?.. :)
CB, I'm sure the Bishops feel they could do this, they claim to "know" everything else that's good for us. That's kind of the problem I suppose, politicians are becoming too much like Bishops.
Hi Steve - re duffle coats. I know, it's an awful stereotype. I think I got it from memories of Michael Foot... But then I've not worn an anorak since I was 8 despite being a Chemist and a computer person, both of which are meant to be anorakophile professions.
Don't think the Bible actually prohibits any drugs at all. Just tells you not to drink too much alcohol, which sounds pretty sensible. Some religions are pretty keen on them, of course. Not that I'm advocating drug use, of course, I've seen far too much damage from heroin in particular, but it's not a debate that should be conducted the way the government is at the moment.
G, Michael Foot, I remember him, probably a really bright guy but so unsuited to modern sound bite politics, shame really. I agree the drugs debate is seemingly a political one in this country, not that there's anything wrong with that, but why bother asking for scientific evidence when you have already made the political decision?
Post a Comment