Even Wired Magazine Agrees
Even Wired magazine agrees: Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett are "fundamentalists":
MY PILGRIMAGE is about to become more difficult. On the one hand, it is obvious that the political prospects of the New Atheism are slight. People see a contradiction in its tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief. They are fundamentalists. I hear this protest dozens of times. It comes up in every conversation. Even those who might side with the New Atheists are repelled by their strident tone.
. . .
Where does this leave us, we who have been called upon to join this uncompromising war against faith? What shall we do, we potential enlistees? Myself, I've decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism – this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism – is too much for me.
The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd.
If only the mainstream media could see the fundamentalism in the passion and intolerance of the Darwin only lobby.
1 Comments:
Re: 'the Darwin only lobby'
Is there really a logical connection between this 'fundamentalism' and the acceptance of Darwinian evolution? It's my experience that most people who believe in Darwinian evolution, including those in the scientific community, are fairly indifferent to religion. The "New Athiests" have nothing to do with science, or with Darwin. Dawkins and Dennett are quite irrelevant in the big picture. They're taking a philosophical position that has little to do with what scientists are actually engaged in on a day-to-day basis.
Post a Comment
<< Home