The column by Gregory Pauland and Phil Zuckerman ironically helps explain the tendency in America to distrust (a preferable term to "dislike," I think) atheists while decrying the same.
An example paragraph:
A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.First, let's not assume that people simply assume that atheists are unsavory beings. Many of us have personal acquaintances who provide evidence of unsavory atheism. News reports, in addition, often introduce people to some of the least savory atheists, such as those who appear to actively dislike believers.
Second, it's hard to take an atheist seriously about being "more ethical" than other groups prior to the atheist's having established some sort of standard by which to measure one position as more ethical than another.
It'd be a fun diversion to pick apart this story piece by piece, but instead here's the quick summary: Atheists, if you want believers to like and respect you then avoid falling into the things you dislike in the religious groups you criticize, such as the dubiously justified superior moral attitude and clumsily directed attacks at the other guy's belief system.
And while you're at it, come up with an epistemologically accessible and coherent atheistic version of moral realism.
(There are plenty of atheists I like, by the way)
Oh yeah? Well I never liked you or your stupid blog anyways.
ReplyDeleteYou're such a liar.
ReplyDelete:-)