I finally had a reply from the Right Honourable Lord Polkinghorne himself, to my email questioning the idea of "militant atheism".
"Of course there are ethical atheists. I certainly respect them and wish to work with them where it's appropriate. However false ideologies do not only correspond to erroneous beliefs. They can also lead to terrible actions. The Church has not been free from this kind of error (crusades, inquisition), but the twentieth century atheist regimes are truly frightful examples. I would not express myself quite as uninhibitedly as Nicholas does, but the point remains one that has to be taken into honest consideration."
I've taken it into consideration and my considered opinion is: the whole idea is a frightful load of bollocks (US: "testicles"). Thanks for the offer, but I don't want to work with religious types. I also reserve the right to slap them round the back of the head with a wet flannel where it's appropriate.
What does he mean by "error"? A typo on a holy manuscript, perhaps. Or a slight misunderstanding, maybe. The idea the crusades and the inquisition were an "error" only conjures up a scene staring Eric Idle and Michael Palin. "No, I said 'burn their steaks', not 'burn them at the stake'..." ... "Oops."
People don't group together to actively not believe in something. In my experience, atheists are more likely than not to be very suspicious of any signs of a herd mentallity going on. But it seems atheist are getting desperate. The Brights are encouraging atheists and agnostics to "... join with us in this extraordinary effort to change the thinking of society—the Brights Movement." while being quick to reassure us that ... "We so not think alike on many action issues, and beyond the other principles below, it is not the movement’s desire to press for conformity."
I think the "so" is a typo, and not an attempt by The Brights to appeal to American teens.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The Future is Bright
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The Brights sounds like a religion to me. Is it? Joining together... Not thinking alike on many issues... Not pressing for conformity... But wanting to change society (into conforming to their beliefs?). All recognisable in many a religion.
Out of interest, do they plan to seaparate Muslim governments from Islam in the same way that they'd like to get the church separated from the state? That'd be quite hard as they are essentially one and the same aren't they?
I think you're confusing "religion" with "organisation" or perhaps even "lobby group".
Religions specifically worship a god or gods, or believe in a supernatural force that governs the universe.
I have no idea what their ideas are regarding Islamic states. I presume, if The Brights are allowed to exist in Islamic states they will push for their non-religious principles.
No harm in that is there?
I think I read at the weekend that I am a super; I believe in the supernatural - brights don't. They're bright; I'm super - all very positive init?
So would you have an interview question that went, 'Are you now or have you ever been religious?'
And would the answer 'yes' lead to the door following a brief encounter with a wet flannel? And would that be legal in your world?
lol
Of course not, Steve, we welcome unto the house of atheism, even those who have yet to see the proper way fully. After all, we're here to help such as those along the path to non-religious enlightenment.
As to the "wet flannel", that phrase is not to be taken literally. Of course, anyone can see, the flannel is a metaphore for the cold and painful dawning of truth on the newly rational mind.
Besdies, that part of my comment was written a long time ago (yesterday evening) and is to be discounted now that society has moved on.
Remember, he who lives by the ambiguous text...
Post a Comment