What better way to begin the new year than by having the irrepressible Pat Condell putting religion in its place?
Mano Singham
Just another Freethought Blogs site
What better way to begin the new year than by having the irrepressible Pat Condell putting religion in its place?
Although I cannot in good conscience abandon all of the tenets of my ancestors, I find the arguments quite persuasive.
I wish I were wise, oh how I wish it.
Condell never disappoints. His speeches are incredibly forceful.
Granted, religion (especially hierarchical, institutionalized religion) has a terribly spotted track record over the course of history. Granted, many (maybe even most) religious leaders (at the top, anyway) are probably con artists, preying on people’s fears and gullibility. Granted, the most uncritical, popular expressions of piety are, in fact, a constraint upon society. Yet all of these facts do not add up to an infallible proof that ALL religious people (or religious belief and spirituality itself) do not deserve to be treated (a dialogued with) in a respectful, civil manner.
I have the same problem with this video that I have with most of the “new atheist” movement (the Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris crowd). It divides the world into the exact same kind of dichotomous, good vs. evil, black-and-white thinking for which the most absurd religious fundamentalist sects are notorious. They’re just switching the roles, and instead of calling secular society “the devil,” they’ve nominated religion to fill that role. The inward experience of religious conviction has also been, in many instances, a powerfully positive force for progress and social change. Martin Luther King Jr? Nelson Mandela? Would Mr. Condell be willing to say, “your faith is a joke” with such brash arrogance to people like these? I should certainly hope not.
Fundamentalism of all stripes--not religion or spirituality as a whole--is the opponent of productive, reasoned discourse. And I believe that also includes fundamentalist atheism.
Also, even if there absolutely is no God and we could prove that ALL forms of spirituality are detrimental to society, this would still be an unproductive and unhelpful--perhaps even anti-intellectual, because of its obvious lack of epistemological humility--manner of discussing the subject. Many people, right or wrong, genuinely believe in these faith traditions. They build their lives around them. So why would they listen with an open mind to anyone who comes across as a bully toward the one thing they value most--even if what they’re clinging to is, in fact, an illusion? When a baby tries to put a coin in its mouth, do you hit the baby over the head, or do you speak to it gently? When a person believes something irrational--for reasons known much better to themselves than to any third-party critic--can you change their minds better through name-calling or through candid, respectful dialogue? No one likes a fire-and-brimstone lecture from a Fundamentalist, and that includes how religious people feel about Fundamentalist atheism.
I think a good New Year’s resolution for people of all faiths and of no faith would be to discuss these things with civility and respect, recognizing that every human being, regardless of what he or she believes, is at least worthy of being treated like a person.
Slow down there, ace. Even if we know that something isn’t real AND that belief in it has harmful effects, we shouldn’t talk about that because it would display a lack of “humility”? I’m sorry, but that is just breathtakingly silly. This is a classic case of being one of the Emperor’s courtiers, deathly afraid to speak up about his nudity.
“Also, even if there absolutely is no God and we could prove that ALL forms of spirituality are detrimental to society, this would still…”
I agree with Steve that if you could know these things absolutely one would have a moral, or an intellectual duty to oppose them. And I doubt much humility would be owed in that case.
But since we do not, and cannot, know these things absolutely, I agree that some humility is called for.
I agree with the criticism of fundamentalism and suggest that, in general, people believe what it is convenient to believe and do what they want. I don’t really buy the argument that religion causes much of anything at all (although it often provides cover and camouflage) any more than I believe that atheism is responsible in any meaningful ways for the bloodthirsty and ignorant comments of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris. But fundamentalism does provide an atmosphere conducive to extreme actions, in my opinion.
I think the respect issue comes down to the fact that for many believers, their belief is tied to their own identity, so when you insult their faith, you insult them. My own policy has always been to stick to the facts, and let them speak for themselves, rather than making statements like “your faith is a joke.” (Even if it is)
Only a scientific illiterate would think that anything but a tautology can be known “absolutely”. When I encounter people who are agnostic about Zeus and Santa Claus rather than just about the god or gods they happened to be brought up with, perhaps I’ll be more impressed by this lame simulacrum of an argument.
Q.E.D.
But what was demonstrated is not what you think was demonstrated…