New Atheists as Prophets: Bringing the Vatican to Justice

[laconicsax]

http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/2002

Paradoxically, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism">New Atheists are playing the traditional role of prophets—those on the leading edge who see what is real and sense what is emerging and who then speak their truth. Prophets facilitate cultural evolution.

In speaking their truth, prophets typically do not mince words. Disrespectful of established authorities and insitutions of their time, prophets say what few want to hear. They make people uncomfortable. Religious prophets of the past spoke boldly and unflinchingly on behalf of Reality personified, i.e., God. Some of them even risked or lost their lives because of their deep moral commitment to serve God/Reality by speaking out. Today, leaders of decidedly nonreligious perspectives are speaking boldly on behalf of their sense of ultimacy — an ultimacy discerned evidentially by the worldwide self-correcting enterprise of science. Significantly, this sense of ultimacy is shared, at least to some degree, by religious liberals of all faiths. But the New Atheists have stepped into the role of prophets today owing to the simple fact that we religious liberals have been too nice. We have not been willing to risk our reputations, our congregations, our peaceful countenance. In hindsight, we have been shown by the New Atheists to be cowards.

We liberals and progressives are so devoted to our interfaith dialogues and to respectful tolerance of others' beliefs that we have been hesitant to critique anyone's scripturally-based beliefs, worldviews, interpretations, or religious practices. However, when the leaders of one's own faith tradition are systematically being outed for a category of sin (indeed, secularly understood as crime) that, to modern minds, is the lowest of the low, tolerance and peaceful language are dispensed with. Consider the scathing language used by http://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times columnist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Dowd">Maureen Dowd of late. Dowd (no relation to me) is a Roman Catholic, and one with an enormous pulpit! In the past few months, she has written no less than five searing (read: prophetic) columns against practices within her own faith tradition: "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28dowd.html">A Nope for Pope", "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html">Should There Be an Inquisition for the Pope?", "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04dowd.html">Devil of a Scandal", "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/opinion/07dowd.html">The Church's Judas Moment", and "http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/opinion/11dowd.html">Worlds Without Women".

Maureen Dowd is serving as a modern-day prophet. Prophets are absolutely necessary to ensure that institutions stay relevant: that they evolve. Without prophetic voices our institutions stagnate. If they stagnate for too long, they degenerate, even toward the despicable.

Prophets outside the Church are also playing their role in pushing for change. Most searingly are the attacks on religion made by the New Atheists...

Is it really prophetic to call a spade a spade? The Church has helped protect child rapists for a very long time, and I don't think that trying to organize an opposition is really prophetic.

Who knows, maybe I'm just too jaded to consider the possibility that protecting rapists might be acceptable.

[Angry Dragon]

1. I am not sure of being prophets

However, I have felt that if a belief can not stand up to questions it brings into question whether that belief is valid. If one hides behind beliefs and is not open to new ideas, hides papers and writings, stays behind closed doors, then I question whether truth really lies within.

The early Christians were willing to die for their beliefs. I question anyone that stays in a religion that promotes inequality. It is fair to question these people.

[trotsky]

2. Well that's bound to make a few heads explode.

In speaking their truth, prophets typically do not mince words. Disrespectful of established authorities and institutions of their time, prophets say what few want to hear. They make people uncomfortable.

Damn, that's exactly what the religionists bash "new" or "uppity" or "militant" or "fundie" atheists for. Go figure.

[laconicsax]

3. It's the same for minority or oppressed groups.

Think about the criticism of LGBTQ activists, feminists, ethnic/racial minority activists, etc. It's all the same "shut up and be grateful for what you're given" crap.

[uberllama42]

4. I think "prophet" is a little generous

Self-criticism is very important. It's great to have Catholics like Dowd calling out the Church. Calling her a prophet, though, is over-the-top. That doesn't seem like useful terminology to me.

The thought that Christopher Hitchens is a prophet makes me laugh.