Point-by-Point Analysis
Let us start at the beginning.
I suggested respect as a starting point, because it is almost always more useful than disdain.
False, respect is indeed vital for beliefs and ideas that are worthwhile, constructive, and sane, a category which religion simply does not fit in. In my view, all religions are based off of false stories, spread through the years by greedy leaders who only had one dream in their lives, power. Now, with the light finally being shined on the ludicrousness that they have been teaching throughout the years, they begin to lash out and demand 'respect'
Well to put it simply, let's use a comparison. In America, the average intelligent citizen will not respect the ideas of an astrologer, mind/palm-reader, ufologist, or fringe conspiracy theorist. I simply take this one step further, I honestly do put strict religious belief in the same category as the items previously listed, and do NOT believe that they should be treated any differently then they already are.
If we can't quite manage love, then maybe respect, meaning a sort of appreciative, interested curiosity about others and willingness to listen to them is a good second.
To put it simply, interested curiosity is lumped here with respect and willingness to listen. That is absurd, just because you are interested in something does not mean you should by any means have to respect it. A common example here would be any historian studying an atrocity, or more specifically the perpetrator of that atrocity. That historian does not need to respect that person just because they have interest, and the fact that this is suggested here shows complete disregard for simple logic. Something by no means new to the religious community.
Also, I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to religious people, I'm simply saying that while listening, I do not have to respect or condone one single word that they say.
"Wherever people live, whenever they live, they find themselves faced with three inescapable problems: how to win food and shelter from their natural environment (the problem nature poses); how to get along with one another (the social problem); and how to relate themselves to the total scheme of things (the religious problem)."
I simply do not think that the world 'religious' should be used at the end of that quote. Why can't we simply look at how we fit into things via our knowledge of the universe? Why should it be so hard for people to realize just how small we are when compared to this universe at large? There is absolutely no reason Religion should be brought into this debate, except for the fact that it can completely end ALL discussion, by saying 'God did it', and pretending that logic was used to completely throw all logic out of the window and make this decision.
Modernity's claim is that science is the adequate and sufficient path to all human knowledge and that technology is capable of producing unending progress and (material) human betterment, and that's what it's all about.
Finally, some truth in the article, it's a shame he says it through sarcasm and immediately tries to refute it...
To be sure, the modern era, science and technology, have brought enormous gifts and accomplishments. But their promise of unending human progress and human betterment has proved a false one.
Really? Really? How can you even possibly say this as you type this article out sing computer technology no doubt unthinkable 50 years ago. Do you drive a magical driving machine as well, did science and technology possibly have anything to do with that? And what are these crazy boxes in our living room that give us information at the blink of an eye.
What's that, you have a sickness or disease, or maybe you've been severely wounded. Why don't you stop by one of your local hospital rooms, get healed, and then tell me how science and technology hasn't produced significant progress and betterment. Honestly, the list of inventions that make our lives easier, safer, better and progressive is seemingly endless. This argument however, is CONSTANTLY used by the religious debaters. They claim this era of science rule is killing our society and making human beings behind... give me a break.
St. Augustine prayed, "Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee."
Generalization anyone? I would venture to bet that there are less (proportionally) restless atheists than there are restless believers. I mean, at least atheists don't have to 'worry' about whether or not they will get into heaven every day right?
The story of modernity -- the story of progress and plenty -- is spiritually empty and environmentally unsustainable.
Wait, didn't you just say that modernity didn't bring progress, what is with this backtracking? Of course it is spiritually empty, but is that truly a bad thing? Why does one have to be spiritual to be a good person? The morals of atheists and non-believers are just as sound, and ARE NOT based off of those in the bible. Believe it or not, I believe that people naturally know what is right and wrong because we have successfully evolved to understand these 'morals'.
And quite frankly, I put the quotes around 'morals' because there is only one TRUE moral, and that is the golden rule. "Treat others as you would like to be treated." If this was the only moral taught, and religion was completely thrown out the window, well, society would probably be a whole lot better.
I believe there is such an unseen order, one of which I catch glimpses and intimations in nature's order and splendor, in human courage and kindness, in the arts and beauty.
Yes, these are all true, BUT, none of them by any means can, or should be attributed to any higher power. Natures order and splendor has been established through millions of years of evolution, which as worked to achieve one goal, and that of course, is to make the world as orderly as possible.
Human courage and kindness is, as stated above, based completely off of the golden rule. We are nice to others because we know that is the right thing to do, as we wish it was done right back to us. We are courageous because we know that if the situation was switched, we would expect another to be courageous for us. We act out of our faith indeed, but not of a higher power, but instead, our faith in others, something that many religious people seem to lack.
Arts quite simply and shortly, come from the mind of naturally talented individuals, who practice and practice and practice until there work is good enough to be considered beautiful.
Notice anything about these three things mentioned in the block quote now. NONE OF THEM require any substance of God or a supernatural being to be true, in fact, the make a heck of a lot more sense if God is completely removed from the equation.
And finally...
As a Christian, that unseen order is, for me, defined by Jesus Christ, though it is not confined to Him.
This ABSOLUTELY irritates me to no end. He doesn't agree with what I have said above, and contributing courageousness, kindness, arts, and order to completely beautiful, sophisticated, and most importantly, worldly, sources.
He instead decides to conclude that Jesus Christ (and God) are completely responsible, and to quote John Stossel, "Give me a Break."
Comments are closed on this story.