Sunday, February 10, 2013

Limitations of an Atheist perspective

Douglas Murray has a good piece in the Spectator about the limitations of atheism which he wrote as an accompaniment to a debate at Cambridge Union with the former ABC, Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins, and Tariq Ramadan, ‘This House believes religion should have no place in the 21st century’ :

The more I listened to Dawkins and his colleagues, the more the nature of what has gone wrong with their argument seemed clear. Religion was portrayed as a force of unremitting awfulness, a poisoned root from which no good fruit could grow. It seems to me the work not of a thinker but of any balanced observer to notice that this is not the case. In their insistence to the contrary, a new — if mercifully non-violent — dogma has emerged. And the argument has stalled.
These new atheists remain incapable of getting beyond the question, ‘Is it true?’ They assume that by ‘true’ we agree them to mean ‘literally true’. They also assume that if the answer is ‘no’, then that closes everything. But it does not. Just because something is not literally true does not mean that there is no truth, or worth, in it.
Religion, whether you believe it to be literally true or not, provided people, and provides people still, with a place to ask questions we must ask. Why are we here? How should we live? How can we be good? Atheists often argue that these questions can be equally answered by reading poetry or studying philosophy. Perhaps, but how many people who would once have gathered in a place of worship now meet on philosophy courses? Oughtn’t poetry books to be selling by the millions by now?
We do not have many vessels for truth-carrying in our age. 

No comments:

Elements not Stages of Grief from the NY Review of Books

Jessica Weisberg Elisabeth K├╝bler-Ross later applied the same five stages she identified in the process of dying—denial, anger, bargaini...