Atheists need to lighten up

this is a great post from Mormon author Orson Scott Card:

link

He hits the nail on the head wrt this new brand of atheistic Jihadism. Here's a choice quote:

"Let zealous atheists behave as we do. Send out your missionaries to teach any who are willing to listen. But don't deliberately seek occasions to offend others when nothing is at stake; and willingly admit whatever good things others believe in and do."

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris would be wise to heed this motto. They come off as unbearably strident, intolerant, and arrogant in their beliefs and attitudes. 'Smarter-than-thou' is no better than Holier-than-thou. As Card says, it's faith (in Science) without charity.

What atheists need to do is understand that while they may have a good grasp of modern science, they have no particular advantage when it comes to answering the need people have for meaning, and they offer excruciatingly cold comfort for those in need of solace in the face of suffering.

We (atheists and agnostics) will not convince the rest of the world that they no longer need the crutch of blind faith unless we address these deep issues somehow. I've argued before that the main reason some intellectual types who one might expect to "know better" than to believe patently mythical tracts, often have an unacknowledged agenda. Orson Scott Card alludes to it in this passage:

"Even if every word they said happened to be true, why do they assume that society or individuals would somehow be better, or better off, if their favorite doctrines were universally held? Why shouldn't atheists assume that people ignorant enough to believe in gods, devils, angels, heaven and hell are actually happier and should be left alone?"

Think about what he's saying here. The fundamental argument is that the truth of the matter is not what is most important. He's explicitly acknowledging that even if there was incontrovertible evidence that religion was wrong, we might still be better off believing it. That's a pretty interesting comment from someone who professes to believe in a religion that many people find quite incredible. I don't mean to question Card's faith: I'm simply pointing out that by his own admission, objective truth is not as important as the overall impact on society that religion brings.

If you dig deeper into the writings of religious intellectuals, you see many comments of this nature. Their main thrust usually comes down to this: lack of religion leads to moral degeneration. They point to the eugenic practices of the Nazis (Card erroneously calls them atheist; they were nominally Christian, though it's pretty clear that was a cynical sop to the populace. Their driving ideology was of course Nietzschian, "God is Dead", we are our own gods, etc)

The real fear I think these people have about atheism is a legitimate one. If we throw off the shackles of religion and tradition, where will we find our 'moral compass'? What will keep us from 'playing God', in the worst way -- ala Nazi racism and eugenics, or the indiscriminate disregard of life shown by non-religious leaders such as Stalin or Pol Pot?

I've written before about how I think these issues need to be addressed. Despite claims to the contrary, science *does*, I believe, have something to say about these issues. It's a complex argument, and not nearly as satisfying as simply saying "it has been written". Maybe it could be reduced to a 10-commandments-style set of soundbytes. Or, more likely, Youtube clips.

Merry, merry, quite contrary!