I was (and still am in many ways) an acolyte of Richard Dawkins and the new atheism movement although I would now consider myself very distant from it now. That whole movement identified genuine criticisms of dogmatic thinking in religion. Where it went too far was in assuming that if something was not literally or scientifically true that it could not hold meaning or truth.
This is where the religious right is owed an apology. In defending the learned wisdoms and traditions of our ancestors the religious right was never incorrect regarding the hubris and arrogance of man. The inherent presupposition of our technological and industrial society is that religious beliefs are antiquated since no direct attribution to those values can be ascribed from them. At least this is the zeitgeist formed from modern institutions wholly divorced from religion in their left leaning influenced maxims, from which many people (intellectuals especially) exist entirely within.
The slippery slope is real. For every inch given a mile is taken. Resistance to the incessant advance of "progress" merely for the sake of "progress" justifies the position of the religious right, and for that I too owe them an apology.
"Why the fuck is this fence here? It is so damn old! Does anyone know what it does? Look, it is made of poorly assembled dry stone, and there are gaps in it. I can see one from here! Wait, is that section of the fence a hedgerow? It is totally shit! Look, I can't see any reason for this fence, so we should just tear it down."
Later:
"What do you mean that the fence was an important boundary marker? Holy shit was it a reference point for an entire system of surveying markers? It marked the borders of a nation? Why didn't anyone tell me it was important!"
they aren't divorced. They just invented a new one to worship. In many ways they are way more dogmatic than most people that can actually call themselves religious ever were.
I was (and still am in many ways) an acolyte of Richard Dawkins and the new atheism movement although I would now consider myself very distant from it now. That whole movement identified genuine criticisms of dogmatic thinking in religion. Where it went too far was in assuming that if something was not literally or scientifically true that it could not hold meaning or truth.
This is where the religious right is owed an apology. In defending the learned wisdoms and traditions of our ancestors the religious right was never incorrect regarding the hubris and arrogance of man. The inherent presupposition of our technological and industrial society is that religious beliefs are antiquated since no direct attribution to those values can be ascribed from them. At least this is the zeitgeist formed from modern institutions wholly divorced from religion in their left leaning influenced maxims, from which many people (intellectuals especially) exist entirely within.
The slippery slope is real. For every inch given a mile is taken. Resistance to the incessant advance of "progress" merely for the sake of "progress" justifies the position of the religious right, and for that I too owe them an apology.
Later:
they aren't divorced. They just invented a new one to worship. In many ways they are way more dogmatic than most people that can actually call themselves religious ever were.