Myth: Militant atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are demonizing Christians, labeling them anti-science and anti-intellectual.
Response: Atheists today are no less vocal or sharp in their criticisms of theism and religion than they were last year or ten years ago; however, there have been a few very high-profiles books and criticisms which appear to have set some religious theists on edge. They are not accustomed to such pointed, direct attempts to refute or undermine their beliefs and feel they are being demonized by irreligious atheists. Disagreeing with someone and saying they are wrong is not demonization, however.
For one thing, the criticisms leveled against religion, religious beliefs, and theism are no worse than â€" and in most cases are quite a bit less nasty than â€" many of the things which conservative religious believers have been saying about atheism, secularism, and godless liberalism for many years now. The people complaining today about being demonized did not, as far as I know, raise their voices in protest against the demonization of others by members of their own community. When demonization is only bad when it's done to you, then your complaints only end up being self-serving.
Demonizing someone means representing them as evil or diabolic. Atheist criticisms may portray religion, religious beliefs, or religious theism as evil or harmful, but it's quite rare for atheists to do this to religious believers as a class. Some may indeed do this, either because they really hate religious believers or simply because they carelessly allow attacks on beliefs to slip over into attacks on believers. Either way it's definitely wrong and shouldn't happen.
At the same time, though, believers themselves shouldn't treat criticism or even attacks on their religion as attacks on them personally. People may regard their religion and their theism as the central axis on which their lives turn, and even treat attacks on their religion as a personal insult. This does not justify saying that critics are "demonizing" them as individuals. If an atheist is able to maintain a distinction between a belief and the person holding the belief, then the believer should try to do so as well.
As to the claim that Christianity is being treated as anti-science and anti-intellectual by atheists, there is a lot more validity to this. Atheists do frequently criticize Christianity, especially conservative Christianity, as anti-science and anti-intellectual â€" because very often, that's precisely what Christianity is. Research shows that about half the people of America believe that the universe is a mere 6,000 to 10,000 years old, for example. They only reason they believe this is because of conservative Christian views of the Bible, religion, and science â€" it's not Buddhism or Taoism causing people to adopt such a manifestly false view of reality.
This belief about the age of the universe is wrong, and unequivocally so. It's not disrespectful to say so, nor is vociferously arguing against this view an example of "intolerance." Furthermore, any religion which encourages, promotes, teaches, or supports such a view can only be deemed anti-science and anti-intellectual â€" the same goes for more "moderate" efforts, like Intelligent Design. It's a complete denial of everything we have learned from most fields in the natural sciences as well as of the basic methodology by which science operates (and due to which science has proven so much more successful than religion).
As for being anti-intellectual, there are examples of Christians promoting exactly that in reaction to atheist criticisms. One person wrote in to the Times: "Why does Professor Richard Dawkins begrudge us our illusions? Knowledge is not necessarily a solution." I don't think that a person can get much more anti-intellectual than to say that they would rather have illusions (presumably comforting and comfortable illusions) over knowledge. When a religion encourages people to prefer to be deceived rather than acquire an accurate understanding of reality, it is unquestionably anti-intellectual.
There is nothing about religion which absolutely requires it to be anti-science or anti-intellectual. Religion is simply a type of belief system and there are certainly secular belief systems which are anti-science and anti-intellectual as well. There are, however, strong tendencies in religions which incline them towards totalitarianism, absolutism, and dogmatism. These qualities can be key components in an anti-science, anti-intellectual stance, and it's to be expected that religion might be this way more often than chance would dictate.
There is nothing militant or intolerant about criticizing any belief system which is anti-science and anti-intellectual â€" not even if one attacks or mocks such a belief system. Given how much our species and our societies today depend upon science, technology, and the best possible use of the human intellect, we need to fight such belief systems as much as possible. If people hold to a belief system that teaches them to believe manifestly false things for bad reasons, they should be told this and encouraged to give up this belief system for something better.
No comments:
Post a Comment