Fundamentalist Atheists? (tradition, beliefs, missionaries, mission, preacher)

[des]

I heard an interesting sermon at the UU today. (Yes I did go today, and probably will go again). Anyway, it was "The Defense of Atheism". She talked about Harris' books and Dawkins book, and how they were anti-liberal. It goes by the extreme stand they take, that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and esp that agnostics and religiously liberal/progressive people are aiding and abetting terrorists and actually as bad as fundamentalists and more confused.

She also defended the atheists in the UU family who she believed were not really represented in these books. (She feels that there were not represented in these books, and are a much more heterogeneous group than they imagine).

In fact, I think, she didn't use the term, that they act like fundamentalist atheists. The term doesn't seem to make much sense, but consider. 1. There is one true path. Everyone else is deluded, misinformed, etc.
2. They are evangelizing their beliefs. Not just defending them (in fact, not really defending them), but saying you need to be like us. Believe like we did. 3. Great harm will befall the world if they don't follow our word (s).
(More in Harris' books). (That the only answer to radicalized Islam is radicalized atheism.)

I was happy I heard this. I have been rather stirred up over them. Also I went over to samharris.org and signed on as someone else. I found it a very intolerant and rather nasty bunch. This does not jive with the atheists and agnostics I know that are just not like that.

BTW, she said that some high percentage of UUs were atheists, of several "flavors". She also talked about functional atheism. This is where you believe in a deity but it doesn't affect you.

Any thoughts.
--des

[lilithu]

Hi des,

You might be interested in this thread.
The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Just keep in mind that it's in the atheist forum and therefore I should not have posted there as I did. (I didn't notice that it's in the atheist forum.)

Hmm... also this one.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum...ad.php?p=58183




I would *LOVE* to read a copy of the sermon btw. Does this church put up copies of past sermons online?

[Stairs In My House]

I have been feeling the same way for a while. I haven't read Dawkins' new book but I've read a few interviews with him and I consider him to be the Ann Coulter of atheism. He insists on attacking people without even trying to understand them, and as soon as anyone suggests he might benefit from actually learning a little bit about religion before condemning it, they are accused of fraternizing with the enemy ("the courtier's reply").

The problem with Dawkins is one I've seen before, where someone trained in natural science assumes that those same analytic tools can be applied just as easily to cultural analysis. Feynman did it when he wrote disparagingly about the Japanese language after his brief visit to Japan. His assessment was unbelievably naive and completely uninformed by contemporary linguistic theory, but he felt that being a physicist qualified him to go on at length about it in his autobiography, and I actually had someone quote it all back to me when I said I was learning Japanese many years ago.

Any analysis of religion has to be at least in part a cultural analysis (and I would say it must be wholly a cultural analysis, but that's just me). Dawkins has not demonstrated any knowledge of current thinking on the matter, and everything I have heard from him sounds identical in both form and spirit to the way European colonists and missionaries talked about indigenous peoples during the colonial era: full of ignorance and bigotry, the product of a small mind that cannot imagine a point of view outside its own.

[Stairs In My House]

Originally Posted by lilithu

I would *LOVE* to read a copy of the sermon btw. Does this church put up copies of past sermons online?

In two weeks at my church (First UU Columbus, reprezent!! ) the sermon topic is "Is religion dangerous?" I have a feeling it will be along the same lines. The sermons get put online eventually, so I'll make sure I link it in this thread when it does. Rev. Mark is usually pretty good, and this is the sort of topic that he would knock right out of the park, like he did with the one on Islam.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Stairs In My House

I have been feeling the same way for a while. I haven't read Dawkins' new book but I've read a few interviews with him and I consider him to be the Ann Coulter of atheism. He insists on attacking people without even trying to understand them, and as soon as anyone suggests he might benefit from actually learning a little bit about religion before condemning it, they are accused of fraternizing with the enemy ("the courtier's reply").

Could it be that we liberal religionists feel this more accutely because we're in an environment (ie- liberalism) that's more predominantly atheist? I mean, I was surrounded by atheists when I was in science and also in leftist activism, so I have an experience of the hostility of atheists towards theism. And I have less first hand experience of the hostility of theists towards atheism. Whareas, for some of my atheist friends, their experiences are just the opposite. And maybe we're all sensitized to and reacting against our experiences??

Then again, it could just be that we don't like it when people won't see both sides of the argument.

I know that I hate that!

Originally Posted by Stairs In My House

The problem with Dawkins is one I've seen before, where someone trained in natural science assumes that those same analytic tools can be applied just as easily to cultural analysis. Feynman did it when he wrote disparagingly about the Japanese language after his brief visit to Japan. ...

Not just cultural analysis. It's also like Francis Crick thinking that he can solve consciousness just because he helped determine the structure of DNA. But yeah, I agree with you. Many scientists think that the scientific method (reductionism) can solve everything without having a grasp on why it works in science (and therefore may not work elsewhere). I am a firm believer in requiring every science major to study the philosophy of science.

[Stairs In My House]

Originally Posted by lilithu

Could it be that we liberal religionists feel this more accutely because we're in an environment (ie- liberalism) that's more predominantly atheist? I mean, I was surrounded by atheists when I was in science and also in leftist activism, so I have an experience of the hostility of atheists towards theism. And I have less first hand experience of the hostility of theists towards atheism. Whareas, for some of my atheist friends, their experiences are just the opposite. And maybe we're all sensitized to and reacting against our experiences??

For me, it's almost entirely from having been one of "them" myself, back when I was younger and thought I had all the answers. One day I will write a book about this, titled I Was A Teenage Randroid. I remember all too well what I thought of religion and religious people, and how I spoke to them back when I was a militant atheist. Now, maybe there is a certain degree of projecting my old intolerant mindset onto the anti-religionists I encounter these days, but I really do believe that the wording reflects the thinking, and I definitely recognize the wording.

I don't think this is so much a conflict between theists and atheists, though it typically plays out that way. In many ways I could still be said to be an atheist (I don't believe in a creator deity or divine authority), though I would not self-identify as an atheist. What I see is a conflict over the authority of knowledge, with three sides: scientific authority (Dawkins and friends), scriptural authority (Robertson and friends), and personal/experiential authority (liberal religion and tolerant humanism). The first two are similar in that they insist on external authorities for knowledge (science is external in the sense that it is a discourse of inquiry rather than inquiry itself), which may explain why they sound so alike sometimes.

Many scientists think that the scientific method (reductionism) can solve everything without having a grasp on why it works in science (and therefore may not work elsewhere). I am a firm believer in requiring every science major to study the philosophy of science.

Agreed. Reading Thomas Kuhn changed my life, and it saddens me that someone who holds the position of Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford obviously hasn't. There really is no excuse for that.

[Stairs In My House]

Originally Posted by lilithu

This is totally off-topic but... you wouldn't happen to know the Gerhardstein family, would you? I know that my officemate hails from Columbus (and are active UUs).

I don't, but it's a pretty big congregation. I'll keep an eye out for them!

[robtex]

Originally Posted by des

I heard an interesting sermon at the UU today.

I am glad you enjoyed your UU time. I am happy for you. I would suggest you read some of Harris and Dawkins before jumping to that conclusion. I personally don't find either of them to be extremist. Dawkins is considered incidently, to be one of the leading researchers in the field of genetics in the world. They both are really interesting people to read about.

As far as "fundamental atheism, and this might be a good debate topic, I don't think it exists. Fundamental is the subscription to dogma which is absent outside of religion. Maybe the sermon speaker was thinking of extremist.

Many, if not most UU churches post their sermons online. Do you have a link?

Originally Posted by des

BTW, she said that some high percentage of UUs were atheists, of several "flavors". She also talked about functional atheism. This is where you believe in a deity but it doesn't affect you.

Any thoughts.
--des

I have met a number of atheist uu's in person and on the net. I think if you are humanistically bent, and find validity in the 7 princples of UU you can be a UU irrgardless of belief system. Interestingly though, I have met a much much larger number of atheist jews (secular jews) than I have atheist UU's.

[robtex]

Here is a 23 minute clip of Sam Harris talking about religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM