Previous First Next
I usually do a New Year’s post, and here it is the 2nd
already, so, here’s an article that fits in with my current series.
I’ve been thinking about “intellectually honest” ways to
approach religion. This is something my fellow atheists balk at, sometimes
vehemently. It shuts down any possibility of discussion when you simply call
someone’s point of view stupid. It also gives the theist the opportunity to
call them stupid, or maybe stupider, because they can’t see that maybe
something that has been part of humanity for a few thousand years has some sort
of basis and maybe even some value.
The question to engage then is, how do you determine what is
intellectually honest? In this article, he recounts a conversation where he wants
someone to reconsider a dogmatic position and they answer with how they “can’t
do that”. This is definitely intellectually dishonest. Further, their reasoning
is, if they reconsider that Biblically based position, and find their
grandparents were wrong, they will have to reconsider every other position.
Sadly, their grandparents probably did reconsider some
position, so applying new perspectives to traditions is actually traditional. For
example, most people in the United States who have slave owning ancestors now
hold a different position on that. We all are free to choose whose ancestors we
want to agree with. Biblical non-literalists can be found throughout Christian
history, even in the Bible.
Atheist or theist, admitting you were wrong is a great way
to open a conversation.
The series
Jesus tells us he teaches in allegory, Book of Mark
Allegory of burning cities
"For the kingdom is like..."
