Two interesting blog entries I read this week, one with some old news put in a very compelling way, but another that took the topic of secular “belief” and closely examines it. But first, the fundamentalism topic to get that out of the way….
Valerie at Debunking Christianity has a short post:
<> Harris Hedges Debate
In it, she discusses a debate had between the author of Letter to a Christian Nation (Harris) and the author of American Fascists:The Christian Right and the War on America (Hedges). The crux of the argument is that Harris believes religion innately creates violence and divisiveness, while Hodges contends that only the fundamental factions of religion are responsible for the crimes of religion.
What Harris says, and Valarie agrees with, is that fundamentalism is simply one facet of a flawed and fundamentally brutal and superstitious belief system. Religion will have its moderates and liberals, sure–but as long as there is belief in religions that come from an ancient, barbaric people who advocated great violence and intolerance–violent and intolerant fundamentalists will always exist as an active component of religious belief.
Valarie makes a fantastic point:
As a psychologist, I find it fascinating that so many smart people refuse to admit in public (or perhaps to themselves) that we need to scrap our tribal traditions and rework our sacred texts if we are to serve peace, love, and life itself. Rather, they try to redefine Jehovah or Allah or Christianity or Islam, so that the evil flows not from these constructs but from something outside of them. They sing the praises of belief while denying its power.
She has her own book that looks interesting: The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth.
The other topic is that of secular religion, as discussed in the Skeptico post:
<> Adopting Secular Religions (Or Not)
This article talks about a critic of those who attack faith, a Karl Reitz, and his belief that eliminating religious belief will only lead to secular religions–such as was seen with Stalinist Communism, Maoism, Nazi fascism, etc.
Religious defenders often use Communism and Nazism as examples of atheism, and the horrors and crimes atheism propagates. Of course they ignore that the majority of the Nobel Prize winners have been atheists (and agnostics. But they also don’t get what Reitz is talking about in his criticisms: Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot, et. al., created cults of personality around themselves and their ideologies. They created, in effect, secular religions. Stalinist Communism wasn’t a result of atheism or even an example of an atheistic society–it was one religion being replaced by another. It was a mass of people absolving themselves of reason and critical thinking, and replacing the blind faith in a god with blind faith in Stalin and Lenin and the Soviet Union. And that’s what Reitz believes will happen when ancient religions are finally gone.
However, the article on Skeptico reveals his argument to be a false dilemma. He believes it’s an either-or situation: believe either in ancient superstition or atrocious secular fascism. There’s a third option: neither. Putting trust in the scientific method, in reason, and critical thinking. When people do that, even godless fascists can’t win. As this quote from the article explains:
Secular leaders such as Stalin or Mao could only stay in power and keep their “faith†alive with an iron fist. Such measures, contrary to the will of the people, are ultimately doomed to fail no matter how brutally they are applied. Contrast that with (for example) Islam. Muslims didn’t have to be forced by their leaders to riot in the streets to protest the Muhammad cartoons and demand an end to free speech; they did it because they believed God wanted them to. That’s why Islam is still going strong after 1,300 years (and Christianity after 2,000 years), while the Soviet Union collapsed in about 70.
Related posts:
