Starting at the 55 second mark of this video, Richard Dawkins describes the "religious" experience of atheists. As I listened, I realized that what Dawkins was describing very much resembled my own feelings of awe, an appreciation that I am somehow alive to experience an extraordinary world.
Paul Kurtz is not one of the "new atheists,"but he is a first-rate skeptic, having published 50 books on various topics, many of them relating to religion and skepticism. I wrote a rather detailed post about him last month. Kurtz is founder and chair emeritus of the Center for Inquiry. In this 30-minute CFI interview with DJ Grothe, Kurtz expressed that he is not "an atheist," and that one can be a secular humanist without being in "atheist." Kurtz describes himself as a "non-theist," an "agnostic," and a "skeptic." He stresses that people should define themselves by what they do believe, yet to call oneself an atheist is to attempt to define oneself by what one does not believe. He mentioned that while 3% of Americans are atheists, almost 9% of Americans are agnostic, while yet others are skeptical or "religiously indifferent." Kurtz indicates that as a skeptic, he is always willing to look at the evidence, and this is an important part of who he is. He also believes we should all be grounded by a genuine concern for fellow humans. In fact, he suggested that he's thinking about abandoning the term "secular humanism," and replacing it with "empathic humanism." Good will toward others should be the starting point of any ethical system. We should be focusing our efforts on affirming life, and achieving social justice. Kurtz points out that there are such things as "fundamentalist atheists," who he describes as "embittered atheists," people who were "bruised" by religion. These people "bore me now." He is tired of "nasty, in-your-face atheists." These are people who spend too much energy rejecting mythologies of other people. They often engage in intolerant ridicule that borders on "pornographic." According to Kurtz, we can disagree with each other, but we must always do so respectfully. To the extent that we engage in sharp parody and prejudice, this will not further our goals. In fact, Kurtz expressed that he was appalled that CFI supported "blasphemy day." This amounts to "ridiculing" many sincere people. It is not a civilized mode of discussion. Kurtz went out of his way to acknowledge that he had many friends who were practicing members of various religious faiths. He believes in engaging people of other faiths with respectful and reasoned dialogue. "We don't want to be religious bigots."
I recently had the opportunity to view Bill Moyers' 2007 interview of British intellectual Jonathan Miller, who produced the PBS series, "A Brief History of Disbelief." It’s a lively and thoughtful interview (it lasts about 20 minutes). Here are some excerpts, but it is well worth watching the entire thing:
For a very long time, atheism was not an affirmation; it was accusation. I mean, it was talked about, that there were atheists, in those same ways that there were Communists under the bed. You know, there were they were they were around, but no one knew where they were or what they looked like, or and so forth. For me, I am only a disbeliever by virtue of the fact that I'm surrounded by people who make assertions to which I cannot lend my assent. -- BILL MOYERS: When you hear the word "God," what goes off in your head? How do your brain cells fire? JONATHAN MILLER: Well, I mostly, I haven't the faintest idea what people are talking about. -- I hate the word, "spiritual," anyway because it's been hijacked by this ghastly sort of new age lot, who talk about "spirituality." What I would say is, I have moments of - I suppose you might call them transcendent feelings; feelings which rise above what is immediately in front of me. -- I'm reluctant to use the word 'atheist' to describe my own unshakeable disbelief and that's not because I'm ashamed, afraid or even embarrassed, but simply because it seems so self evidently true to me that there is no God that giving that conviction a special title, somehow dignifies what it denies.
Really truly, this guy ("Jesusophile") almost convinced me to believe in his version of the invisible Man in the Sky, especially with his more-than-50% likelihood argument. I hadn't ever thought of that one before. Now to get serious: Unwittingly, he's teaching a class in fallacious reasoning. He's doing it so well that many thousands of people are laughing at him on Youtube. Maybe he should practice his routine in a mirror next time before putting it up on Youtube.
Ah, those blessed Scandinavians. Reputedly cool, calm, collected, rather good race drivers and, it would seem, not really that concerned about gods one way or the other. During my time observing and participating in discussions about religion and its public role over the last few years, Scandinavia has often been held up as a bastion of faithless virtue, a shining beacon of godless goodness, a prime example of what can be accomplished on a transnational scale without referring to scripture but merely concentrating on what works for the populace. Atheist/secularist/humanist commentators often to point to Scandinavian social successes (for example low unemployment, high standards of living, functioning democracies, effective public health care & education) as evidence against the claims of many religious people that if we in the West abandoned our "Judeo-Christian" values or kept our church & state separate, our nations would all fall, unrestricted by fears of celestial surveillance, into a grimy, black crevass of murder, pillage and hedonism (one could argue that the US in the last eight years has fallen into an economic & diplomatic hole of a similar depth, led by a very religious man who was happy to pander to very religious people for his entire reign, but that's a whole other article). According to a recent New York Times article by Peter Steinfel on a study by Californian sociologist Phil Zuckerman (here), it seems that far from there being only two sides to the god coin, the Scandinavians, almost characteristically, have ended up on a third side. And here it is: They don't care.