February 27, 2007
Believers vs. Non-believers
Britain's new cultural divide is not between Christian and Muslim, Hindu and Jew. It is between those who have faith and those who do not. Stuart Jeffries reports on the vicious and uncompromising battle between believers and non-believers.
From The Guardian:
The American journalist HL Mencken once wrote: "We must accept the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." In Britain today, such wry tolerance is diminishing. Today, it's the religious on one side, and the secular on the other. Britain is dividing into intolerant camps who revel in expressing contempt for each other's most dearly held beliefs.
"We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism," says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. "Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell.
"You have a triangle with fundamentalist secularists in one corner, fundamentalist faith people in another, and then the intelligent, thinking liberals of Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, baptism, methodism, other faiths - and, indeed, thinking atheists - in the other corner. " says Slee. Why does he think the other two groups are so vociferous? "When there was a cold war, we knew who the enemy was. Now it could be anybody. From this feeling of vulnerability comes hysteria."
"We live together but we don't know each other," says Tariq Ramadan, the Muslim scholar and senior research fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford.
More here. [Thanks to Dhiraj Nayyar.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 05:06 PM | Permalink
Comments
I do not live in England and so I can not with any experience or authority say what they are up to, though it is perhaps not at all that much different that what is taking placed in America. But to call Dawkins a fundamentalist because he has a set of beliefs is at best plain silly. If Dawkins is an ethist and argues his position, and that makes him a fundamentalist, then so too all science people ho are atheists are fundamentalist. Nutty idea.
But then non-believers do not go about beating on believers but ask, generally, not to trample on their rights NOT to believe and to accept some notions that are disliked by the god-fearing: that being gay is ok; that abortion is a right etc etc It seems to me that the believers put aside their beliefs and come down allo too often in a heavy handed way against those not accepting their beliefs.
When Nietzsche said God is Dead he meant that after Darwin, a whole new way of looking at Life began to reshape our thinking.
Posted by: fred lapides | Feb 27, 2007 8:10:58 PM
One person claims a glass is full of water. A second person points out the apparently cruel fact there has been no evidence of water whatsoever. In the minds of some, a sense of justice apparently demands some sort of compromise agreeing there may indeed be half a glass of water, in spite of an absence of evidence of any water at all. Calling the skeptic a "fundamentalist anhydrousist" is no substitute for presenting evidence of water.
Posted by: prometheus | Feb 28, 2007 12:10:15 AM
" 'We are witnessing a social phenomenon that is about fundamentalism,' says Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark. 'Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England. Most of them would regard each other as destined to fry in hell.' "
I don't think I've read anything as weird as this for quite some time. Dawkins doesn't even think there is a hell, for Pete's sake; how could he regard someone as destined to fry in it? And I have a very hard time imagine him blowing up a subway!
Seems as though the good Dean of Southwark needs to take a few very deep breaths.
Posted by: JonJ | Feb 28, 2007 12:22:27 AM
Interesting stuff. This new century's religious/philosophical issues are turning out to be quite exciting (sans the violence, of course).
Posted by: beajerry | Feb 28, 2007 1:37:08 PM
What an asinine thing for Colin Clee to say. Richard Dawkins is not blowing people up, disposessing people of their land, or encouraging the stigmatization of homosexuals. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has he ever advocated genital mutilation, the shooting of abortion providers, or murdering authors for writing books he does not agree with.
Clearly, his offense is to have said that some of the things Mr Clee believes are not true.
Posted by: Penry | Feb 28, 2007 4:15:35 PM
What a silly man. I'm an atheist, and if you want to believe in really dumb, unproven crap -- say, astrology -- go for it. What I don't want is to have you voting, running government, or murdering non-believers because of it.
Because astrologers tend to keep their silly shit to themselves, I don't really care about astrology. When 84,000 Muslims think it's okay to murder the head of state and blow up the Canadian parliament in the name of Islam...that's a problem.
Like or dislike Richard Dawkins, he's right that there's no evidence for god, and oh, the poor primitive dears whose feelings are hurt for hearing him say so in hopes of bringing about a more reality-based and peaceful society.
Posted by: Amy Alkon | Feb 28, 2007 4:31:16 PM
As I am British my immediate reaction to this piece was bafflement. It is a simple fact that religous attendance in Britain is plummeting, with the only growth occurring among new immigrants. The controversy the Dean is referring to is entirely media driven. The fundamentalists on either side are small, noisy minorities. You can't have religous warfare if there is no one to fight the battle.
Posted by: Simon | Feb 28, 2007 5:06:18 PM
I continue to be amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent, rational people who line up behind an argument supported only by the most cursory, circumstantial evidence, namely: that "religion" reliably causes people to be cruel or unkind to each other. No studies are presented which help establish such a claim, no logical arguments are proffered. No data at all. The high water mark of scientific rigor involved is typified by remarks like "Well just look at the Crusades! or the Inquisition!" Wars in Ireland, the Levant, and the Balkans are trotted out as though it was perfectly self-evident that the only thing these populations could have to squabble about is grounded in their religious differences. Honestly, the laughable attempts of creationists to establish ID as a "science" are not as empirically or logically paltry as this alarmingly widely held belief that religion is a corrupting force.
What's even madder is that belief without foundation is the very thing the radical Vulcanist set claims to be in combat with. How very religious of them!
Posted by: Deets | Feb 28, 2007 6:22:40 PM
I continue to be amazed by the number of otherwise intelligent, rational people who line up behind an argument supported only by the most cursory, circumstantial evidence, namely: that "religion" reliably causes people to be nice or kind to each other. No studies are presented which help establish such a claim, no logical arguments are proffered. No data at all. The high water mark of scientific rigor involved is typified by remarks like "Well just look at charitable giving! or the soup kitchens!" Random acts of kindness in Ireland, the Levant, and the Balkans are trotted out as though it was perfectly self-evident that the only reason people might be able to resist mass rapine and murder is grounded in their religious beliefs. Honestly, the laughable attempts of creationists to establish ID as a "science" are not as empirically or logically paltry as this alarmingly widely held belief that religion is a beneficent force.
Say what, Deets?
Posted by: Soma | Mar 1, 2007 9:25:44 PM
No cigar, Soma. Simply because rationalists have failed to demonstrate that science vitiates religion, doesn't mean we must assume the opposite is true, that science exalts religion.
I was making the very restricted comment that a number of people are making unsupported truth claims to prove that one should never make unsupported truth claims. That's all. I wasn't claiming there was any specific evidence demonstrating a "positive influence" of religion. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's a meaningless question, because we're all religious, in one way or another, and always will be. Dawkins, after all, is one of the most religious writers I've ever read.
Posted by: Deets | Mar 1, 2007 9:51:54 PM
Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.
Posted by: Scott Ahlf | Mar 3, 2007 8:11:16 PM
Religion as manifested in a person's relationship to whatever transcendent/unseen/divine/etc. power he or she believes in is one thing.
Religion as a justification for *any* actions, laws, policies, etc. that touch on the worldly sphere - political, economic, social, cultural, gender, etc. - is only OK if such religious edicts are subject to the same rational and critical examination as any secular law or policy.
"God said so" is not necessary or sufficient as a justification for any human behavior in the social context. (Acts which are purely acts of worship are, as I stated above, a different matter.)
The problem most atheists, and most progressive-minded religious people, have with the fundamentalists is not theological, it's that they want to enact their religious law - their rules for organizing society based upon their interpretation of scripture - and they want their religious law to be immune from any rational critique.
Posted by: Nizam Arain | Mar 4, 2007 5:50:33 AM
Dawkins is a fundamentalist in that he and his ilk demonize and caricature their intellectual opponents, and avoid actually engaging them. (Religious fundamentalists too "argue" their positions). Terry Eagleton and other leftists have pointed this out.
Posted by: ken | Mar 9, 2007 12:39:53 PM
richard dawkins is one among the brave to say that 'the king is naked'.even if majority of people belive the existance of god.the fact is that every one belive the possibility(but foolish)of god.
they finaly makes a decision just by solving two questions.
1.if the god really exist,then as a beliver,there is a lot to gain in the life after death.and for a nonbeliver there is a lot to suffer.
2.even if there is no god, we have nothing to lose.
both these statements lead them to belive in the existence of god.
BUT THE BELIVERS ARE NOT THINKIING THE FACT THAT THERE IS A LOT OF CRIMES DONE ALL OVER THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF GOD.
TODAY IN ORRISSA(INDIA) TWO CHILDREN WERE SACRIFICED IN THE NAME OF GOD.THE PERSON WHO DID THIS MAY NOT HAVE DONE THIS AS A CRIME(IE FOR HIM WHAT HE DID IS TO MAKE THE GOD HAPPY)
IF WE ARE A BELIVER IN ANY RELIGION AND AT THE SAME TIME SOME PEOPLE DOES SOME CRIMES IN THE NAME OF THE SAME RELIGION.THEN WE ARE UNKNOWINGLY GIVING SUPPORT TO THOSE WHO DOES THE CRIME.FOR THEM,A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IS IN THE SAME RELIGION.
UNLESS THEY CHANGE FROM THE RELIGION OR EXIT THOSE CRIMINALS FROM THE RELIGION,THEY ARE UNKNOWINGLY GIVING SUPPORT TO THOSE CRIMES.
THERE IS NO MEANING IN SAYING THAT, 'THE RELIGION AND GOD REMAIN FOR PEACE IN THE WORLD' WHEN THE REAL THING HAPPENING IS COMPLETE TROUBLE.
SO WHAT I FEEL IS GOD NEVER HAD A CONTROL OVER HUMAN (HE IS NOT PWERFUL AS HUMAN)NOR HE DON WANT TO STOP THE CRUELTY GOING IN THE WORLD (IN HIS OWN NAME).IF THIS IS THE STAND OF GOD THEN WHY SHOULD WE FEAR HIM?OR OBEY THE PEOPLE WHO SAYS THAT THEY ARE NEARER TO GOD.
NOW A DAYS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT DEMANDED BY THE NORMAL PEOPLE BUT BY THE CLERGYMEN AND THE PRIESTS AND THE POLITICIANS.SO ITS THEIR NEED. MORE THAN THAT,THE FACT IS THAT THE MOST POWERFUL CANNOT WITHSTAND IN THE HEART OF NORMAL PEOPLE WITHO;UT THE HELP OF POLITICIANS AND PRIESTS.
HENCE, THINK
INDEPENDENDLY
BRAVELY
AND SINCIERLY TOWARDS THE FELLOW BEINGS WHO SUFFER THE MOST.
YOU WILL DEFENITELY FIND OUT THE VACCANCY OF GOD.
Posted by: ashwin | Sep 17, 2007 2:35:40 AM
Post a comment