As Ms. Allewalt and I bring our series of columns to
a conclusion I want to express my appreciation for her willingness to take part
in this effort. When I presented the idea to her it was with the assumption
that she would speak her mind, and she certainly did. For some years now Ms.
Allewalt and I have continued an ongoing conversation, and while we seldom, if
ever, find agreement on the topic of religion, we have managed to find common
ground on other subjects. I am grateful also for Sentinel-News editor Todd Martin’s kindness in agreeing to publish
our columns. He was immediately receptive to the idea and graciously provided
the space for our writing. And, certainly, I must also express appreciation to
the readers who took the time to read our offerings and to share with us their
comments.
In preparing to write my final thoughts about this
series of columns, I gave a good deal of thought to not only what I would say,
but also to how I would say it. The tone in which one writes and speaks is just
as important as the words one uses, I believe. In our present historical and
social context, we seem to have all but forgotten about the importance of
maintaining a civil and thoughtful tone. I believe in respectful discussions,
even when there are great discrepancies between the beliefs being discussed,
and while it is obvious that Ms. Allewalt and I are very far apart in our
beliefs about religion, I have endeavored to strike a proper balance between
tone and honest critique. Any critiques that I have offered, I should note, are
aimed solely at concepts and beliefs rather than at Ms. Allewalt herself, or
any other atheist for that matter.
I must admit that, shortly after submitting my
columns to the Sentinel-News, I began
to wonder about what this series might accomplish. As I mentioned in my
introductory column, the gulf between belief and unbelief is a very wide chasm,
and my fear was that Ms. Allewalt and I might simply talk past one another, or
lapse into characterizations that would be too broadly drawn. Religious
believers and atheists alike too often sit in judgment of one another and use
arguments based upon stereotypes that are neither effective nor worth making.
From my perspective I take offense, for example, at the insinuation atheists
often make that religious people border on the delusional because of their
beliefs. Richard Dawkins, in his book The
God Delusion, makes it very plain that this is the manner in which he views
religious people. Dawkins is certainly not alone in his insult. The late
Christopher Hitchens, who was often a quite brilliant writer and astute
observer of human nature, proved to be neither in his swipe at religion and
religious people, pompously titled God Is
Not Great: How Religion Poisons
Everything. Everything? Only the most biased amongst us could make such a
claim.
It is not only the insinuations made about people of
faith that I find to be both erroneous and offensive; I also take exception to
some of the most basic claims made by atheists. There is, for instance, the
claim that the more people know the more likely they will be – or should be –
to abandon their religious faith. Generally couched in demeaning language that
assumes religious belief is equal to holding outdated, ridiculous notions that
no right-thinking person could conceivably hold, it is a point of view that
mistakenly compares anything ancient to nothing more than outdated and
infantile ideas unworthy of consideration by modern people. Sam Harris, for
instance, in his book The End of Faith,
remarks that to the ancients a wheelbarrow would be a breathtaking example of
technology. Mr. Harris evidently has never taken note of the architectural
achievements of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and other civilizations.
The ancients also gave us math, astronomy, and, among other wonderful and
beautiful examples of brilliance, literature that continues to have a powerful
influence on humanity. That we continue to read and study the Iliad and The Odyssey bear witness to the brilliance of ancient philosophers,
and they have achieved a literary status that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris
will never see, reminding us that history has a way of separating the wheat
from the chaff. Ancient does not automatically equal outdated and irrelevant,
and to make such a claim is both silly and arrogant.
I would also fault atheism for not being as
self-aware as it claims. Atheists often present themselves as having a level of
objectivity that is not possible among religious believers, but I find that
atheism is absolutely no more likely to foster objective thinking than any
other belief system and is just as prone to fall victim to the same error that
affects all of humanity, which is the inability to be adequately self-aware so
as to see our own shortcomings. There are plenty of people on both sides of the
belief versus unbelief debate that are blind to the fact that they simply see
what they want to see. One person’s great insight is another’s foolish claim,
and we make that judgment based upon what we already believe. Richard Dawkins
is a great commentator on religion if you are already in agreement with him,
while to others, like myself, he would be better served to save his commentary
for his field of expertise, which is science.
Speaking of science, I am somewhat bemused at how atheists
sometimes claim that a laboratory is solely their domain and a place where
religious believers are not welcome. No one owns science. Science is a tool, a
method of study and discovery that is populated by people of many points of
view, none of which disqualify them from scientific pursuits. Science has
benefitted from a long line of religious believers who have, and continue, to
offer their God-given intellects to the interest of discovery and progress.
And while there is much left to say, I am now out of
space, but again, I thank you for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment