Again
Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way:
Since the tendency toward faith and credulity is natural at this point in human evolution, we presuppose that theists have, or think they have, valid reasons for believing. By doing this, we are choosing to call the theist sincere in his or her belief (though not necessarily honest in their evangelistic methods, as discussed below). In other words, we do not consider theists stupid or brutish simply for being theists. The spiteful, vindictive brand of atheism popularized by Madalyn Murray O’Hair and others is thankfully passé. (Even the organization she founded, American Atheists, has changed its tune in this respect since O’Hair’s unfortunate demise.) This change was inevitable because racial slurs have replaced four-letter words as the taboo language in the West. We may not think we’re being bigoted, but it sure is easy to sound bigoted if we’re not extremely careful in our approach to atheistic activism.
We atheists, being one of the most widely despised ideological minorities in the United States, cannot afford to give people legitimate reasons to call us bigoted. The most effective way we’ve found to avoid this label is to start dealing with all theists according the above presupposition. We grant each theist this one benefit of the doubt — on an individual basis — unless and until that theist gives us sufficient reason to think otherwise. And we won’t have reason to think otherwise unless that theist begins to evangelize us because, in presupposing that they have valid reasons for believing, we’re not out to change them.
[From here.]
Though I do detect a bit of a pitfall for arrogance in the claim that faith is a natural part of human evolution. It implies that atheists are perhaps more evolved, being past the point of needing faith. Sigh. But I agree with the "benefit of the doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" concepts. I can't help but think any other viewpoint would be hypocritical.
Since the tendency toward faith and credulity is natural at this point in human evolution, we presuppose that theists have, or think they have, valid reasons for believing. By doing this, we are choosing to call the theist sincere in his or her belief (though not necessarily honest in their evangelistic methods, as discussed below). In other words, we do not consider theists stupid or brutish simply for being theists. The spiteful, vindictive brand of atheism popularized by Madalyn Murray O’Hair and others is thankfully passé. (Even the organization she founded, American Atheists, has changed its tune in this respect since O’Hair’s unfortunate demise.) This change was inevitable because racial slurs have replaced four-letter words as the taboo language in the West. We may not think we’re being bigoted, but it sure is easy to sound bigoted if we’re not extremely careful in our approach to atheistic activism.
We atheists, being one of the most widely despised ideological minorities in the United States, cannot afford to give people legitimate reasons to call us bigoted. The most effective way we’ve found to avoid this label is to start dealing with all theists according the above presupposition. We grant each theist this one benefit of the doubt — on an individual basis — unless and until that theist gives us sufficient reason to think otherwise. And we won’t have reason to think otherwise unless that theist begins to evangelize us because, in presupposing that they have valid reasons for believing, we’re not out to change them.
[From here.]
Though I do detect a bit of a pitfall for arrogance in the claim that faith is a natural part of human evolution. It implies that atheists are perhaps more evolved, being past the point of needing faith. Sigh. But I agree with the "benefit of the doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" concepts. I can't help but think any other viewpoint would be hypocritical.
Labels: atheism
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home