[Vision2020] Are you enabling extremism?

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

I'm not sure if you are saying you agree with Dawkins exactly or not.

But these questions have relevance in most communities...And the good
theistic people of faith among us will not judge too severely, I hope, for
raising these questions, so your "good will" should remain...with some
exceptions.

I agree for the most part with the claim that a broad acceptance in
society of legitimizing absolute belief in propositions that contradict
evidence or are weakly supported by evidence, that are central to a person's
ethical outlook, does offer "cover" to extremists who take the idea that
faith alone, absent reasonable evidence, can justify destructive or cruel
behavior (like martyrdom for a suicide bomber guaranteeing a place in
heaven).  If it was widely assumed that reasonable evidence is necessary for
believing, for example, that the Bible or the Koran are the direct inspired
literal word of God, rather than books of wisdom that should be interpreted
metaphorically or allegorically, etc., more people would question the
extremism these books inspire, when they are applied too literally in some
cases.

But get ready... You will be labeled a "secular fundamentalist" for thinking
that central beliefs in life should be supported by evidence.  In other
words, some will claim you are an extremist!

What can we say about the state of intellectual discourse when those
who think central beliefs about life should be based on reasonable evidence
are labeled in this fashion?

Sad.

I also describe my view on the idea of a supreme creator of the universe by
a monotheistic God as agnostic...There is not enough evidence to support or
deny such a proposition.  However, I believe a profoundly spiritual view of
life on Earth is possible without absolute belief in a creator God, and
without insisting on core beliefs that are not supported by evidence.

Ted Moffett


On 9/30/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I was listening to NPR a little while ago, and they had Richard Dawkins
> on the program.  He is the author of "The God Delusion", and is one of
> the best-known athiests out there.  Part of his notoriety comes from his
> clear, direct, and usually taboo questioning of religion.
>
> For example, in this broadcast, he expressed the argument that the idea
> of "faith" (meaning unquestioning faith) is dangerous for a number of
> reasons.  For example, it is dangerous because it teaches you to accept
> explanations without questioning them, which is anti-science.  He also
> described the argument that I'm sure you've all heard, that faith
> encourages certain individuals to commit very anti-social acts such as
> shooting abortion doctors or flying planes into the sides of buildings.
> In answer to this, the question that was put to him by the interviewer
> was: "don't you have to make a distinction between the extremist and
> everyone else"?  I found his answer intriguing.  He said that of course
> the average person of faith was a well-mannered individual that would
> never execute an act of extremism.  However, what they are doing is
> enabling extremism by putting a moderate face on it.  Not his exact
> words, but the general gist of it, anyway.  For example, a well-mannered
> person of faith might raise a child into that faith that becomes an
> extremist.  The danger as he sees it is that faith allows any act to be
> justified, no matter how cruel or how evil an act it is.  If you think
> God is telling you to do it, then, by God, you'd better do it.  This, of
> course, is not helped by the fact that the holy books of the most common
> Western religions contain passages that can be rationalized as a reason
> for murder, among other crimes.  For example, my favorite, "you must not
> suffer a witch to live".
>
> So by treating faith as if it was a good ideal, it enables extremists to
> use it for almost any purpose they care to name.  So, are you enabling
> extremism?
>
> I should point out that I don't happen to be an athiest, I'm an agnostic
> on the idea of a Creator god.  I do have a problem with "blind faith",
> so I can sympathize with him here.  I also think that this question has
> a lot of relevance in this particular community.
>
> Paul
>
> P.S.  There's nothing like blowing whatever good will you might have
> garnered in the community with one simple post...
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070930/a4d5d9aa/attachment.html