From: Purdy
Subject: Just An Opinion
I've never seen anything more silly than a site expecting the reader to take seriously an article written about denominations and religion....WRITTEN BY A SECULAR HUMANIST AND ATHEIST! Amazing. You want to be percieved as a reliable source of information? Seems similar to an anti abortionist writing an encyclopedia treatice reproductive rights.
Let's take a close look at what Purdy is arguing here: because I am a secular humanist and an atheist, I cannot be considered a "reliable source of information" about "[Christian] denominations and religion." Because I am neither religious nor a theist, anything I write about religion or theism must be so tainted by bias, prejudice, and perhaps even hate, that my articles are completely unreliable -- much like articles about reproductive rights written by an ardent abortion opponent.
These are pretty serious accusations, but is there any merit to them? Is there any reason to think that reliable information about the history, philosophy, development, theology, and nature of religions can only come from a religious theist? In fact, a religious theist arguably has just as many biases and prejudices as irreligious atheists, but in the other direction. How trustworthy is a book on the history or communism written by a communist? It might be completely reliable, but because of the biases of the author it would be wise for readers to take the information with a grain of salt. Why can't we say the same about books on religion or theism written by religious theists?
Everyone has biases and prejudices. Because of this, no one should use just one source for information on a topic, especially a controversial topic where there has been a great deal of debate, disagreement, and conflict -- even violent conflict where people have died in large numbers. If I were in charge of putting together an encyclopedia on reproductive rights, I'd be sure to include articles from the perspective of abortion opponents. If I didn't, readers wouldn't get enough information in order to make their own decisions.
The articles I have here on religion and theism are indeed biased. I make no attempt to hide that bias, but I do attempt to be fair despite my biases. Because of both my efforts to be fair and my biases, I think that I provide a good source of information that can be placed alongside other sources -- usually from religious theists -- and thus help people develop a fuller, more accurate picture than they would be able to otherwise. There are lots of religious sites on the internet, including several here at About, all of which are written by religious theists from the perspective of religious theism and for religious theists.
This site provides a more independent, academic perspective on many of the same topics -- as well as some religion-related issues not usually addressed by believers. Even most atheist sites don't offer the same level of information on religious history, philosophy, and doctrines. I think that the material here is very reliable. I'm sure that there are errors because I'm not perfect, but those errors don't exist because I am a secular humanist or because I am an atheist.
I'm sure that Purdy isn't the only one who has had such a reaction to the material on this site, but if they wish to make their case they must demonstrate not only that I make consistent errors, but also that those errors stem from my being an atheist. Otherwise, they leave themselves open to the charge that they are simply anti-atheist bigots who are seeking to suppress an atheistic, secular, and humanistic perspective on religion and theism.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment