CelticBear’s Musings

…is the question Skepchick contributor “writerdd” asks in that same-titled article:

♦ Should we embrace moderate Christianity?

Her point is less “embrace” than “befriend.” She wonders if the New Atheist movement is being too hard on the liberal, moderate Christians (which is the majority of self-professed “Christians”) who don’t believe in literal interpretations and evangelism.

I don’t know about you, but I, for one, would rather encourage a moderate, liberal kind of faith where people are free to cherry pick what they want to believe while they conform to modern, secular values and use skepticism to make decisions in daily life. I think I’d like to befriend people with this type of faith and work together with them to keep fundamentalism in check, to preserve the separation of church and state, and to protect the benefits of a scientific and secular society. I’d like to see society become less polarized, not more. I’d like to see people talking to each other instead of fighting with each other.

Honestly, I don’t know what opinions I have on this. On the one hand, I agree with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris who say moderate religions give validity and and justification to the extremists and fundamentalists who do the most damage and spread the most hate. I reject the idea that anyone should live in a deluded state of belief based on ancient myth. Even a moderate belief in Yahweh is no different than a belief in Zeus or vampires or fairies. People who believe in imaginary figures who can be prayed to to intercede in worldly actions is potentially harmful to the individual and the people involved with them.

But then, we’re evolutionarily design to believe in something “bigger than us,” so it would seem. Some of us have transfered this need for an anthropomorphic sky-daddy into an awe at the natural universe. Should we blame people who have a faith, even if it’s based on a 2000 year old cult, when their brain is designed to follow authority and cultural tradition, when they’re otherwise reasonable in their lives? I really don’t know. it’s very conflicting to me.

It’s better to be a liberal moderate than a fundamental evangelical–no argument. But isn’t that like saying, it’s better to be a petty thief than a grand larceny crook? Or better to be unconscious than dead? If you have the ability and capability of living a reason driven life without myth and fantasy having a say in it, to refuse to do so simply compounds the “innocent problem” of moderate belief into intentional delusion–literal interpretations or not. Should this be allowed to continue without at least being remarked upon?

Now, I get the point of the article: in the fight against the spread of hatred and intolerance and theocracy, non-theists and moderate-theists are generally on the same side. It’s like the U.S. and England aligning with the Soviet Union in order to fight Nazism. Stalin might be wrong and misguided, but Hitler was a much worse enemy to both and all. I’m very conflicted about this concept.