Excellent Analysis of the so-called New Atheist movement
Russell Blackford, writing for The Philosopher's Magazine, has an excellent piece on the so-called New Atheist movement. While there is nothing essentially new about this recent rise of atheistic words and speech, Russell analyses its roots and significance.
He clearly explains why such action is necessary today...
But the situation now looks very different, even in the supposedly enlightened nations of the West. For a start, a revived Christian philosophy is well entrenched within Anglo-American philosophy of religion. More importantly, perhaps, religious organisations and leaders continue to exert social power. All too often, they seek to control how we plan and run our lives, including choices about how we die. At various times, religious lobbies have opposed a vast range of beneficial, or at least essentially harmless, activities and innovations. Even now, one religion or another opposes abortion rights; most contraceptive technologies; stem-cell and therapeutic cloning research; physician-assisted suicide; and a wide range of sexual conduct involving consenting adults. We still see intense activism from the religious lobbies of all Western democracies, and even in relatively secular countries, such as the UK and Australia, governments pander blatantly to Christian moral concerns.
Russell goes on to outline other reasons for the need of writing and speech to challenge the truth claims and moral authority of religion, considers also the criticism of the movement, and has some sage advice for those involved. He summarises with:
There are now many people who do not believe in any God or gods, or in the truth of any religious dogmas involving supernatural entities and forces, and are prepared to say so in public. Many of them have interesting reasons for their views, and it’s valuable for all of them – for all of us – to speak up. It doesn’t even matter if we don’t all entirely agree in our thinking; in fact, the last thing we should want is the hardening of contemporary forthright atheism into a kind of quasi-religious sect with its own body of orthodox dogma. We should go on scrutinising religion from all angles, while discussing our own differences thoughtfully, carefully, and often.
A very well written piece in my humble opinion. I've been thinking a lot lately about the ethics of engaging in religious debate at various levels - from the individual to the society. What's the "right thing to do" and the issue of offending people versus stating your considered position/opinion. What issues to target, and where my hypocrisies lie. Ideas slowly solidifying...