And although I really like Richard Dawkins, I often find myself cringing at some of what he writes, especially extemporaneously, especially on Twitter, often outside his biological expertise.
I think secular activism does no good if one presumes in any way, that religion should, or could, be defeated. I think both ideas of that argument are utterly delusional. Interestingly, Dawkins is one of the people who first led me down this path. He first came up with the concept of a cultural meme, a genetics-like idea which transmits itself through culture. Now there are other ideas which may have elements of evolutionary psychology to their arguments, which are ideas which I would only cautiously embrace.
The main force of my personal atheism is now addressed to a concept embraced by many of the atheist horsemen, but likely originates from Daniel Dennett. That even if religion may be an evolutionary adaptation (the evolutionary psychology hypothesis) or a cultural effect (the memetic hypothesis), or something else entirely, it might behoove us to try to understand it, how it works, and if there is anything that should be done about it. Given that, what?
I always go back to a statement by Dennett in a discussion at Hitchens' home between him and Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris, often entitled "The Four Horsemen" video.he also expresses it in detail in his wonderful book, "Breaking the Spell." He basically opines that, no matter the correct hypothesis, religion is very likely a permanent fixture in culture. Rather than defeating it, maybe the world ought to find a way for it to evolve into a less virulent form. His book is a detailed and compelling argument for research and education on these topics, to understand religion more deeply.
That's why I don't see religious people as necessarily a threat. Even my religious friends here might see it the same way, that the threat exists with extremism, not religion per se, especially given it's nearly universal adoption worldwide. This may be because religion may very well be embedded into human culture, if not our genes. And by its elimination, as Dennett posits, "we may take the hind side" of those actions.
But there is no doubt that religion is often a horrible influence on world affairs. I cannot say that I see much of the same for secularism, let alone non-belief.
An interesting post.
R&K
= new reply since forum marked as read