April 4, 2007
Editor's Note: In the previous article, we described how some atheists are objecting to being called "fundamentalists," especially by a humanist leader.
HNN would like to know your thoughts on this controversy.
Do you think it's OK to refer to certain atheists as being atheist fundamentalists?
Is there a better term than "fundamentalist" to describe those non-believers who are uncompromising in their blunt criticism of religious beliefs?
What do you think about labeling certain atheists or humanists as extreme, militant or intolerant?
Do you believe that the non-religious should take a soft or a blunt approach to speaking out against religion?
How can "New Atheists" and "New Humanists" work together?
To send a letter to HNN, click here or use the "Letter to the Editor" link that appears in the box in the upper right hand corner of every article in HNN.
The following are two short columns on the topic of atheism and tolerance that came to us before the recent controversy:
HNN would like to know your thoughts on this controversy.
Do you think it's OK to refer to certain atheists as being atheist fundamentalists?
Is there a better term than "fundamentalist" to describe those non-believers who are uncompromising in their blunt criticism of religious beliefs?
What do you think about labeling certain atheists or humanists as extreme, militant or intolerant?
Do you believe that the non-religious should take a soft or a blunt approach to speaking out against religion?
How can "New Atheists" and "New Humanists" work together?
To send a letter to HNN, click here or use the "Letter to the Editor" link that appears in the box in the upper right hand corner of every article in HNN.
The following are two short columns on the topic of atheism and tolerance that came to us before the recent controversy:
The End of Faith?
GUEST COLUMN By LARRY KUENEMAN
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
April 4, 2007
I am saddened (and often put off) that most who call themselves humanists or atheists often rant about those who belong to a religion, which is almost as bad as the animosity seen between religions. This ranting, in my opinion, lessens the value of whatever message the ranter may have. People who believe in God did not come to their beliefs as a means of distressing us. In almost all cases they learned their beliefs at the knee of their parents, who learned in precisely the same manner, back thousands of generations.
The facts of how religion came about started out simple, but now are terribly complex, and each belief grew over many millennia to become what it is today, and this is so for all deistic-based religions.
Early humans were doubly handicapped -- they did not have the advantages of a spoken language (although they did have rudimentary communicative abilities), and they had no concept of any aspect of science. This meant that when they saw the events of nature, only two words (and only in concept form) were all available to them. This meant that the event that would have certainly terrified them would have been the "what," leaving only "who" -- who caused that? In time, "who caused that" became "who is the super being that caused that?" And this, of course, was the beginning of gods.
We are presently seeing writings by authors like Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, who is a tad harsh, and Sam Harris, The End of Faith. Harris implies that we may be witnessing the beginnings of the end of faith as a source of belief. I for one think he is correct. Certainly the religionist’s will go kicking and screaming, but in time, given that we, as a species, are far smarter than we were just one hundred years ago, it will likely take place.
Let's all ease up on people who believe in God. They got that way honestly. In time, faith-based belief will likely be replaced by fact-based belief. We may not live to see the world that way, but things seem to be headed in that direction. Believe in yourself and in how you have come to believe. You are right. Ranting at others only shows weakness in your own beliefs.
Larry Kueneman is an HNN reader from Idyllwild, Calif.
Giving Up the Angry Humanists Who Hold Down Our Movement
GUEST COLUMN By JEFF NALL
For HumanistNetworkNews.org
April 4, 2007
A letter to the editor appeared in the Feb. 7, 2007 edition of Humanist Network News in which a reader voiced his frustration at the inclusion of my series of interviews with Christian activists.
Yes, there are still fundamentalists who ignore reason, and we must combat such ignorance as best and as well-mannered as we possibly can. But we should not allow the religious views of a minority of Christians dominate and ill-inform our perception of an enormous percentage of Christians, many of whom are hungry for the same kinds of reform humanists desire.
Humanists must beware of insisting on unanimity of thought. Our nation currently finds itself in a foreign policy debacle with most of the world viewing us as the greatest purveyor of violence, led by a man who thinks diplomacy is an all or nothing game -- "you're either with us or against us."
My interviews with progressive Christians showed that Christianity is far less monolithic than fundamentalists and the mainstream media would have us believe. Many Christians approach scripture with skepticism equal to that of an avowed atheist. Most importantly, progressive Christians share our core humanist values.
While some progressive Christians maintain that Christ was divine, they nevertheless manage to agree with us on principles of human rights, reason and science. If we refuse to build alliances with people who do not agree with us on every single issue, we will never be strong enough to stand up to the Religious Right.
If so many people favored bridge-building to name-calling, why wasn't this reflected in the media? The truth is that angry humanists are in the minority. And for too long have they have elbowed their way through the room, raising their voices over calmer voices of reason.
For me, the first and foremost commandment of humanism is to make the here and now a better place for as many people as possible. I'll work with and talk to anyone to accomplish that end.
Jeff Nall is a community activist and regularly contributes to publications such as Online Journal, Toward Freedom, and the Humanist. Jeff is a board member of the Humanists of Florida Association and has spoken at conferences such as the 2006 American Humanist Association conference. His recent work, “A New Vision for Freethought: Reaching Out to Friends in Faithful Places,” appears in the current issue of the AHA journal, Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism. And his essay, “Illusion of Conversion,” which tackles Catholicism's supposed spiritual conquest of the Aztecs in the 16th century, appears in the current issue of The Journal of Graduate Liberal Studies: Confluence.
prev story