Fluffy
A fool
This is a debate that is open to everybody. If you are a non-believer and would like to debate this issue with just other non-believers then please go here.
There appears to be three main stances that non-believers take towards religion:
1) The Richard Dawkins approach
2) The Daniel Dennett approach
3) The UU approach
If you are unclear on the significant differences in position between Dawkins and Dennett or believe there to be none then I suggest you read this article which is a review of the God Delusion by Dennett which was published in the Free Enquiry.
Dawkins' approach can largely be characterised by the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Religion is the cause of many troubles in the world (or the root of evil as he puts it) and we should focus on evangelising theists to raise their consciousnesses to the truth. Indeed he describes this as the main objective of the God Delusion. Respect should only be given where it is earned and because religious claims are ludicrous, it devalues the idea of respect to suggest that they deserve any.
Dennett refers to himself as an agnostic on this issue and appears to be in favour of reforming religion in order to get rid of the aspects which are considered bad and also that religion can be the cause of great beauty. He seems to be especially in favour of non-literal religion such as is advocated by the Sea of Faith movement. He also feels that mutual respect is a key aspect of achieving any progress towards this end.
The UU approach is largely unconditional support of and communion with religion as it exists today. Troubles in the world are caused by extremism and not religion and so it is better to form a united front with theists to confront extremism rather than trying to get rid of or reform religion. Mutual respect is a natural state that should be encouraged and whose only goal is greater understanding, tolerance and unity.
So which stance do you think, barring a few minor details, is the correct one to take? Is there a fourth stance that you think is better than any of these 3? Poll to follow.
There appears to be three main stances that non-believers take towards religion:
1) The Richard Dawkins approach
2) The Daniel Dennett approach
3) The UU approach
If you are unclear on the significant differences in position between Dawkins and Dennett or believe there to be none then I suggest you read this article which is a review of the God Delusion by Dennett which was published in the Free Enquiry.
Dawkins' approach can largely be characterised by the idea that the world would be better off without religion. Religion is the cause of many troubles in the world (or the root of evil as he puts it) and we should focus on evangelising theists to raise their consciousnesses to the truth. Indeed he describes this as the main objective of the God Delusion. Respect should only be given where it is earned and because religious claims are ludicrous, it devalues the idea of respect to suggest that they deserve any.
Dennett refers to himself as an agnostic on this issue and appears to be in favour of reforming religion in order to get rid of the aspects which are considered bad and also that religion can be the cause of great beauty. He seems to be especially in favour of non-literal religion such as is advocated by the Sea of Faith movement. He also feels that mutual respect is a key aspect of achieving any progress towards this end.
The UU approach is largely unconditional support of and communion with religion as it exists today. Troubles in the world are caused by extremism and not religion and so it is better to form a united front with theists to confront extremism rather than trying to get rid of or reform religion. Mutual respect is a natural state that should be encouraged and whose only goal is greater understanding, tolerance and unity.
So which stance do you think, barring a few minor details, is the correct one to take? Is there a fourth stance that you think is better than any of these 3? Poll to follow.
.
