|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Faith
Militant atheists under fire in new book | from Samuel - Thursday, September 13, 2007
accessed 1434 times I wasn't sure whether to put this in "Faith" or "Faith No More"
Copy/Pasted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20283685/
Militant atheists under fire in new book.
Author begins to doubt his own non-belief after search for God.
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 2:09 p.m. ET Sept 11, 2007
function UpdateTimeStamp(pdt) {
var n = document.getElementById("udtD");
if(pdt != '' && n && window.DateTime) {
var dt = new DateTime();
pdt = dt.T2D(pdt);
if(dt.GetTZ(pdt)) {n.innerHTML = dt.D2S(pdt,((''.toLowerCase()=='false')?false:true));}
}
}
UpdateTimeStamp('633251309706400000');
LONDON - BBC broadcaster John Humphrys is an agnostic who finds militant atheists as infuriating as religious extremists. How can they be so certain they are right?
After his own Christian belief foundered, Humphrys went “In Search of God” by asking Anglican, Jewish and Muslim leaders to prove to him that God existed.
The radio dialogues provoked the biggest listener feedback he has ever had in half a century covering Nicaraguan earthquakes, Northern Ireland riots and harrying evasive politicians on BBC Radio’s flagship Today show.
Organized religion no longer holds sway in today’s Britain but he discovered his compatriots had a thirst for spirituality in a celebrity-obsessed, consumer-driven materialistic society.
Millions found no easy answers even if their honest doubt may provoke scorn from both atheists and religious fundamentalists.
Humphrys, with the journalist’s instinctive distrust of the dogmatic, now proudly joins their doubting ranks with a new book “In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist.”
“Unless you are on the fairly extreme wing of either religion or atheism ... I am not sure you can ever be at peace with yourself because there will always be questions,” he told Reuters in an interview to mark the book’s publication.
“Unless the Archangel Gabriel appeared to me in the next 10 minutes or possibly tomorrow morning and said ‘I am saving you, here are your wings, cone and join me’ I shall always have doubts.”
The book was prompted by interviews he did with Britain’s Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Muslim theologian Tariq Ramadan, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans.
He said Williams exhibited a strong sense of his own uncertainties while the other two, basing their beliefs on The Old Testament and the Koran, appeared “pretty certain.”
But they all failed to convince Humphrys, who ends up describing himself as a devout skeptic.
In the book, the acerbic broadcaster turns much of his firepower on atheist writers like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, author of the bestseller “The God Delusion.”
“Their level of intolerance is unacceptable for somebody who claims to be presenting an intellectual, academic case,” he said.
Humphrys argues that the faithful have every right to believe in God and complains that atheist academics “not only hector but deride people.”
“To suggest that religion is the greatest evil, the greatest danger, the greatest threat the world faces is simply nonsense. There is no historical justification for that claim at all.”
So, after locking horns with a trio of razor-sharp theological minds and sifting through thousands of reactions from listeners, what has all the soul-searching produced?
After a lifetime puzzling over an insoluble conundrum, Humphrys concluded: “I am not prepared to say there is nothing there. I do believe there is something there. What the hell it is, I have absolutely no idea at all.” |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from ........
Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.redicecreations.com/mtsarforum/viewtopic.php?t=19
(reply to this comment)
| from rainy
Saturday, September 22, 2007 - 22:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Samuel, I and the rest of the world saw the youtube video you made for Britney, good on you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btqKicPJJsk
She loved it so much she made one back for you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVcmHcHIsYc
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Lance
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 - 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wouldn't the term "militant Atheist" be a bit of an oxymoron?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | |  From vix
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 07:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Militant is defined as 'favouring confrontational methods in support of a cause' (and I think it follows, as a natural counterpoint, that one can be militant in opposition to a cause or stance as well). Perhaps my understanding of 'confrontational' is different to yours, but I think that 'militant atheist' can certainly be descriptive of some individuals. Whether or not it's appropriate in the context of this article is really quite a subjective issue.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From thatata
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
A militant pacifist, however facetiously! Should you perhaps speak something in the defense of Pacifism, down in the 9/11 article, I would love to hear your ideology or lack of one! My personal opinion! Thanx! I know you would, no,you wont, no, I know, nothing. Its all on you!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From thatata
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 12:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks. By the way Im not trying to disrespect you, I respect you in a way, I think well forgive me for perhaps excessive quoting:
" Despise the sensibilty of nobody. Each man's sensibility is his genius."
And whats interesting about this quotation is, the fact that the one who said (wrote) this was perhaps a despiser himself. I like to question people on there beliefs though. I think its a way to understand. We cant understand everything, but perhaps we can understand people. By the way Im not sentimental.
I myself, is not, uh, am not political. I like what? Im not political, ha ha ha, sorry, damn, I like democracy but I think the heart of everybody is anarchy.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vix
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 09:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Did I say anything about it requiring physical violence? I don't understand how you read that into what I said. When I said it was subjective I meant that I do not personally think that 'militant atheist' is an appropriate description of Dawkins et al, but that's my subjective opinion and I'm quite alright with someone else thinking differently, according to their subjective definition of what 'confrontational' might mean.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From J_P
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 06:32
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I think evangelical is quite limited to Christianity, is it not? While there are equivalents in both theists and athiests (all kinds) parties you would not likely find "militant" athiests as readily as you would find the religious counterpart.
I dont agree that there is anything negative about athiesm (not in the bad sense, just the contrary sense), except to the degree that the majority grows up with the notion that the null hypothesis is that religion is true, and having to prove otherwise, rather than the opposite. One doesn't "not" believe in something as their religion, instead the null position is that there is no god until proven. But we are forced to explain that position with evidence that any religion cannot hope to provide.
When responding to stupid claims or arguments from theists, one can be forgiven for either giving up trying to reason with them, or showing frustration at the lack of reason employed by them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From afflick
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 07:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
To date, I have not ever had a problem rebutting a Christian argument. In fact, there was a time where I believed my knowledge of the Bible would help in my interactions with Christian believers, but curiously that has so far not proven to be the case. In any case, using logic and the fallacy of faith have been very effective weapons. I've noticed many Christians don't really know their Bibles but have just read passages along with the pastor or have allowed the leadership to dictate the "correct" meaning.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 07:16
 (Agree/Disagree?)
It is precisely the Christian connotation that makes that term so attractive to me - as in my opinion they are in fact emulating most of what I consider to be most pugnant of religion, and applying it to their own (lack of) belief.
Even aside from the very name "a-theist", atheism is a negative argument, which is the fundamental reason why I cannot endorse it. Ultimately, to define oneself by the absence of something is to subject yourself to it, and that is a position I'm not going to take. Just because other people believe in something, and define themselves by that belief - even if they are the majority - doesn't mean that I'm going to allow myself to be defined for not holding it.
I would consider calling myself an 'atheist' to be as stupid as calling myself a 'non-boomerang-thrower'. Since it's not a part of my identity, it is silly to define myself by it.
I also utterly reject your claim that "you would not likely find "militant" athiests as readily as you would find the religious counterpart" - as dramatic and recent case in point, I present the Communist regimes in China, the USSR and Cambodia.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I get where you are coming from Ne Oublie however I don't think it is quite as simple.It seems to me that if a large majority of a population were boomerang throwers, and it formed a major role in the societies identity, and further a term for those who did not throw boomerangs was in common use. It would not be so odd to describe yourself using that term when asked about your boomerang throwing stance. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Friday, September 21, 2007, 04:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah yes, the old 'commonality' lark so favoured by atheists to justify their position, which in my opinion can be opposed for a number of reasons.
For one thing, it's all too much a version of the ol' religious 'persecution complex' - "Poor, persecuted me, the whole world is against me - but I don't mind because I know that they're only fighting me because they're afraid of the truth of what I'm saying, and struggle is only making me stronger."
You can also call into question the accuracy of the statement, what with the growing numbers of non-religious adherents in Western society, coupled with places like Eastern Europe, Russia, China, etc, I think that there is an argument that 'atheism' enjoys at least a significant minority within the world's population - and possibly even a plurality when compared with individual religions.
But most importantly, I would say that 'commonality' is a red herring, and that the real issue is rather of 'relevance'. I mean, following that logic, every time I entered a bank I would be assuring people that I'm not a banker, or that I'm not a medical professional simply by merit of being in a hospital, or imagine walking into a police station and having to specify that "No, I'm not really a police officer".
See, that is the real issue - religion or atheism is an irrelevance to me. There is therefore in almost every context absolutely no reason for me to profess atheism, agnosticism, or whatever. That is because the properties which make me what I am are not defined by a belief - or absence of belief - in a deity. I don't care whether people think I'm religious or not, because that is their own perception and assumption.
Atheists so often go to great lengths to 'atheize' religious morality; "Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm a bad person!", etc. Creating new lables for themselves, "humanists", "new age", whatever - essentially therefore making a religion out of non-religion. I don't need to do that, because I just am what I am, and while I may debate over how I define myself, I really couldn't give a toss how I am defined by others in this regard.
So that is why I said in the chatroom last night that "Atheists and Christians have more in common with each other than either do with me."(reply to this comment) |
| | From J_P
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 08:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is a difference between defining yourself as something (American, Programmer, Linux Enthusiast) and matching a definition (non-boomerang thrower, computer owner, athiest). If you do not throw boomerangs, you are a non-boomerang thrower (not that you throw non-boomerange, but that you do not throw them). This may be a perfectly accurate description in context, but does not form part of your core defintion. You are not defining yourself by it, but it is still accurate.
Since I do not believe in any form of deism, I am an athiest. But that is not my religion as some might try to suggest. I do not believe in a non-god, it is the lack of belief in any kind of god that is part of my description. This, to me, is the default position to start in and cannot be considered "silly".(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AndyH
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 16:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ne Oublie, J_P, I think you will find this interesting. I was researching Thomas Huxley on account of this evolution debate. I was not aware that in addition to being "Darwin's Bulldog", he also was the first to use 'agnostic' in this context. This helps me understand the term better, and it's relationship to atheism.
On what agnostic is:
"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter.."
On atheism:
"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father who loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. "
So, having read this, I would establish my view of the balance: Agnosticism is a kind of humble admission that one does not know what one cannot know. While atheism is a term only made necessary when relating it to Christian Theology. By these definitions, I am both an atheist, and an agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley_and_agnosticism(reply to this comment) |
| | From Quiza
Wednesday, September 19, 2007, 19:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Do you mean being in a negative position does not in any way "exempt one from" the risk of holding the militant tendencies you reference? It seems "absolve one of" would be applicable to those atheists who have militant tendencies, but no more than with Christians, etc., is it a foregone conclusion that atheists will so adhere to militancy (hence needing to be "absolved"). If you don't do it, no need for absolution. (reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Friday, September 21, 2007, 04:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rumsfeld's metaphysics said "a humble admission that one does not know what one does not know" best, in his famous quip that there are 'known knowns' and 'known unknowns' and 'unknown unknowns'.
To argue agnosticism against atheism is really to open up a realist/anti-realist, epistomological debate. Whether we can actually lay claim to a capacity for sorting truth from falsehood or whether the closest we come to truth is a warranted assertablity. A realist(objectivist) agrees with article two and three of Rumsfeld's creed in claiming that truth can transend human knowablity but through this builds a bridge to anti-realism over a chasm between truth and knowledge. The phyrric upshot in this is where truth comes completely apart from knowledge and knowledge is deprived of any claim to objective warrant.
Are such names as "God" bound to a descriptive paradigm between "believer and non-believer" or is it "truth-tracking" in a Kripkean way that goes beyond paradigm-relativism (if it is referenced to a genuine truth then the reference is preserved regardless of theory change)?
You philosophical leaning determines whether you are agnostic or atheist.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Phoenixkidd
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 - 08:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Read up a bit on this John, and he really is quite a quack.
See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Humphrys
This man thinks he is invincible, he is a poor testament to the millions of agnostics that are nuetral and choose to remain quiet about their beliefs.
He has written a book entitled, "Lost for Words" which laments the misuse of the English Language? CHrist English is one of the least homogenous languages in the World today, borrowing so many words and entire idioms from German, Latin and French.
John Humphrys, I ask you, "What about all the crazed up Fundies there are in the world today? You know the kind that send their kids to anti-gay camp, the kind that send their kids on expeditions to reach the heathen spring breakers in Fort Lauderdale? The kind spend thousands on rent, so they can set up shop next to family planning facilities? The kind that spend thousands on ATM machines at Mega Churches to keep their flock paying up? The kind that send their children to war thinking they are doing God's Service to help the so called enslaved world and keep our oil supply line? What about the kind that keep on having kids when they have no ability to properly care and provide for them?
As finally a free minded cult-fundie raised person I ask you, "Why bring this attack on us nuetrals and agnostics?"
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from afflick
Friday, September 14, 2007 - 08:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
How can one be "militant" about something they don't believe in. "I don't believe in the tooth fairy. Argh! Death to all who do!" I myself am an atheist and find the prospect laughable. Why would I expend energy contemplating and steaming over something I DON'T believe to be true? What I do instead is focus on, you know, life. Maybe you could get one?
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from exfamily
Friday, September 14, 2007 - 00:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I used to share an opinion similar to the author's. I was (an) agnostic, and I thought atheists as stubborn and foolish as Christians, because IMO one could never know whether a god existed - so how can Christians claim there is a god when there's no evidence for any, and likewise how can atheists claim there is no god when there's no proof for its nonexistence, or at least one can never know that it doesn't exist.
Fortunately, I "saw the light". While the Christian god's existence (or any other god for that matter) is hypothetically possible, so is anything else including Russell's teapot.
However while possible, it's too improbable to seriously consider. In fact it's so improbable, that disbelieving in its existence is probably a sane option. If you remain agnostic about anything you cannot know for sure, well then you'll be agnostic about most everything.
Using the oft-repeated argument, I am an atheist for the same reasons that you are an a-thor-ist. There is no evidence for any god, just as there's no evidence for Russell's teapot orbiting some far-off planet. It may be there, but there is no evidence for it and so no reason to believe in its existence. The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that the teapot is orbiting X planet. Likewise the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that a god exists. They must provide evidence for its existence. Until then, we may safely conclude that it doesn't exist.
I would like to see the author apply his complaint of "how can they be so sure it doesn't exist" to the FSM. The only reason why his argument might strike a chord is because the traditional gods have been here for thousands of years, but at the same time they have no more proof than the FSM. Apply it to the FSM or Santa and you'll see what a weak and emotional argument it is.
(reply to this comment)
| From thatata
Thursday, September 27, 2007, 15:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
"if you remain agnostic about anthing you cannot know for sure, well then you'll be agnostic about most everything."
And if youre an athiest about something u think u know, youll be athiest about other things? WTF?
Is there an athiest car an athiest plan for living, an athiest this or that? The truth is, is, is, that we can never be sure how to live. We live. How do you live? Are you so sure? Are you a closet agnostic ( Im kidding). But, what is the atheistic way to live? It will have u stumped, admit it.
Atheism has nothing on Agnosticism, both are disbelief.
Whats your opinion junior science hobbyist? Or are you just going to give me the thumbs down? Yeah, give me an evolutionary link, that will do just fine! ;)(reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Saturday, September 29, 2007, 09:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I wrote:
"If you remain agnostic about anything you cannot know for sure, well then you'll be agnostic about most everything."
You wrote:
"And if youre an athiest about something u think u know, youll be athiest about other things? WTF?"
If only you would have stopped to think about what I wrote before commenting on it! Never mind, I will explain.
The idea is that we can never know anything for certain. Now I'm not sure where mathematics falls under this, but that's why I said "most everything".
So anyway, I say that most things can't be know for certain. That is, you cannot know completely, fully, absolutely, 100% etc, most anything.
For example (assuming you have a job), you don't know you will go into work on Monday, even if you plan to. You might have an accident which prevents you from going.
You don't know for sure that your partner or child loves you, even if he/she says that he/she does and acts like it.
I don't know for certain that when I come home, my room won't have burned down.
You don't know for certain that the sun will rise. What if an unforeseen catastrophe happens that destroys the sun? I know the likelihood of that happening is infinitesimally small; but as long as the possibility remains, the probability of the possibility not occurring is not 1.
You don't know for certain that you or your loved one(s) or that anyone at all in your town/city will wake up next morning. What if someone with the necessary power decides to nuke your city? (Or, uses some other powerful WMD.) Again, the probability is extremely low, so low that you don't seriously consider it. But it's not impossible, which means it's a possibility.
My point is that I'm correct about saying that if you choose to remain agnostic about anything you don't know for certain, you'll be agnostic about most everything because you really can't know most stuff for certain, as long as there is some - however remote - probability of another possibility.
You write:
"But, what is the atheistic way to live? It will have u stumped, admit it."
No, it doesn't. There is no atheistic way to live. Christians have a way to live, seeing that they have a divine book that dictates their every move. But atheism entails nothing more than a disbelief in the existence of god(s). How you live your life is for you to decide.
You wrote:
"Atheism has nothing on Agnosticism, both are disbelief."
I'm not sure I understand what that means, but agnosticism isn't disbelief; rather, it is admitting that one *doesn't* (and I believe *cannot*) know.
**
Can someone tell me if BBcode or HTML is used in posts to make italics and bold?(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Saturday, September 29, 2007, 11:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was talking facetiously, because you decided to express yourself in this way:
" If you remain agnostic about anything you cannot know for sure, well then you'll be agnostic about most everything"
And that sounded silly to me. Isnt generally speaking agnosticism a term in relation to the existence of God or the ability to have ultimate knowledge?
You said you werent sure what I meant about atheisms and agnosticism being both disbelief. I think you lie. But I'll explain both in practice (if thats an appropriate word) as well as in admitting that one *doesnt* and *cannot* know, there is disbelief.(reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Saturday, September 29, 2007, 14:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Again, I put to you that agnosticism is not disbelief, but a belief that one cannot know (the supposed subject).
I guess in general usage agnosticism would refer to God, in which case I can understand your misunderstanding of my usage of the word.
I was using it in the general sense, i.e. gnosis means knowledge, thus agnosis would mean lack of knowledge, and agnosticism would mean the belief in lack of knowledge, or that one cannot know, without any allusion to God.(reply to this comment) |
| | From thatata
Sunday, September 30, 2007, 13:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I dont think we'll ever agree and thats alright, but what I want to point out is: that you take liberties with the word agnostic, which perhaps you should feel ashamed of in a debate between atheism vs agnosticism, pro and contra, thats all!
Actually, mabye Ill say more, agnosticism in general usage as well as in specific technical (?) usage is about a position in regards to God or ultimate knowledge, and extremely rarely means a fool who knows nothing. Actuallualy if i remember correctly I did hear a joke (a christian one) about agnostics, in the "good thots" . A christian challenges the agnostic by saying , why dont you call yourself by the latin name not the greek word, an ignoramus.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From exfamily
Monday, October 01, 2007, 01:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe it's just that I sometimes use that word for what it really means, and not always for its adopted usage.
I never said an agnostic is a fool. I said that if you take the agnostic position because you say you can never truly know whether or not God exists, why not apply it to all the other things you can never truly know for certain, which is most everything.
About the joke (har har), I guess that would be because the word ignoramus has a pejorative connotation.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From exfamily
Thursday, September 20, 2007, 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Precisely. Just for the record, I first learned about the teapot analogy on some internet forum, then bought and read a bunch of Bertrand Russell's essays, including the one with the aforementioned teapot.
Also, as mentioned above, the FSM was created long before Dawkins wrote TGD - or at least before it was published.
They are simply analogies that help prove points; and so long as they are beneficial, it really doesn't matter who came up with them, whether Jesus or Russell or Dawkins.(reply to this comment) |
| | from shikaka
Thursday, September 13, 2007 - 22:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Arghhh....article...too...asinine...must...kill...Samuel!!!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]