Grayling believes in the right of religion but only in the private sphere and that all religions should be equally open to criticism just as any system of thought is. He strongly condemns proselytising young intellectually defenceless children in faith-based education systems.
He then argues that religions have changed so much in their stances and tenets that a practitioner of before would not recognise the same religion today. This apologetic movement is one which I too observe, which religious people hate to admit and which I ultimately agree with (since they seek to get their values in line with modernity and in turn progress. Though their reason for doing so may be more survivalist than moral in motivation, the outcome is still positive).
I highly agree with his point that atheists should deny the label, "atheists" since they are conforming with the theists' definition of them within their own concocted systems of belief and in turn giving such systems special positions. Why are we not also a-fairists, a-unicornists and agnomists? All Gods and such creatures are equally supernatural. Instead, we are naturalists and theists are supernaturalists.
He also asserts that apparent Islamic and Christian resurgence is actually the very common and often bloody death spasm of religion. This is something which I need to consider more.
No comments:
Post a Comment