Letters to the Editor
Serai1
Published Letters: 503 Editor's Choice: 32
-
Thank you, Chris Hedges
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I went through a period of being an atheist, and have always felt sympathy with their (lack of) beliefs, because I understand their viewpoint, even if I'm not there anymore. But lately, the fundamentalist strain has really put me off. For me, it's the rampant assumption that religion can only be experienced as a blinkered, troglodytic clinging to nonsensical fantasies. That's more than a bit self-serving. It's also prejudiced, showing a marked disrespect for human intelligence. There are many ways to view a religious belief, and most of them are not literal. It's not religion that causes harm, limits freedom and impedes science, it's the literal view of religious ideas.
If my science teacher conscientiously guides my class through learning and understanding our lessons, urging us always to remain open and curious, and to acquire as much knowledge as possible, that's good, right? What if she does all that at the same time as being a Catholic nun, and telling us that scientific knowledge is the greatest testament to God's glory there is? Does that change things? Why would it? If I say that the immensely beautiful and complex realities of the universe bolster my belief in a Divinity that is symbolic of those realities, what's the problem? Why must the "New Atheists" (nice term, there, specific without being accusatory, thanks) treat those with religious beliefs as if we were all of us the same?
I'm so tired of the shouting match that the religion/science debate has become. I've never understood where the whole literalism fad came from in religion, or why anyone would ever want to pursue it, and I certainly don't understand the antipathy between religion and science. It's such a non-issue; they can co-exist just fine. I'm very grateful to read Hedges' interview; now I can point to it and say, "Read that. He explains it very well."
For those who are interested, on the other side of the aisle is evolutionary theologian Michael Dowd, who is urging religious people to abandon literalism and embrace science as a worthy endeavor. There's a great interview with him here:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/dowd_qa
Scientific knowledge cannot be bullied by religious truculence, and religion cannot be obliterated by wish-fulfillment. Science is about the reality of the world, and religion has been part of our make-up since before we were human. (Read Jane Gooddall on evidence of the common ancestral pathways between humans and chimpanzees on this point.) If we could just strike a balance where religion would occupy its place in life and science would occupy its own space, and people could just freakin' relax about it, we'd be in great shape.
Before the folks using both sides for unsavory purposes get us mired in something we can't get out of.
-
Oh, one more thing
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just as not all religious people are rabid, fundamentalist warmongers, all atheists are not bigoted, unyielding...well, warmongers. I think the point is that those that are</> get a lot of attention, and the ones with the microphones are the ones that catch people's eyes. It's not that Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins are the majority of atheists, but they can be taken that way since they're the only atheists getting the spotlight. (In that aspect, that of getting media attention, they are very like those loudmouthed, haranguing neoconmen who've hijacked the whole concept of religion.) That's what makes them a problem, at least as I see it.
-
Ah, dear Harlan
[Read the article: Still has a mouth, and still must scream]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The cutest, most erudite and most utterly exasperating human being I've ever met. I still hold the incident where he threatened me with a baseball bat as one of the highlights of my life. (Too bad I never met Erik; I'd have loved to tell him that story.) I can totally understand those who say they love him, just as much as those who say they hate him. He is utterly unique, a genius, a raconteur, a comedian, a gadfly, and an utter asshole.
Please, Mr. Ellison, do rock on.
-
@Tideswimmer
[Read the article: Still has a mouth, and still must scream]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of my favorite Harlan quotes was his reaction to being told "I have a right to an opinion!" His retort: "NO, sir. You have the right to an INFORMED opinion!"
-
Wha?
[Read the article: Are you offended by a tampon ad with a beaver?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it's a cute ad. Better a sense of humor than the kind of pussy-footing around the subject you see here in the States. (Pun intended.) People really should lighten up.
-
Heh.
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is nothing so vilely manipulative as using lyrics or quotes at an emotionally fragile moment. My ex RUINED The Princess Bride for me that way. Took ten years before I could watch that movie again.
Thanks, BB. As usual, you get it.
-
@Erik Tkal
[Read the article: "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You mean pro-lifers are ignoring the fact that Horton's signature line is about people who actually live in the world, and instead are applying it to fetuses? They're putting the potential existence of something that may or may not someday be a human before the benefit of real, living human beings?
My, my. Imagine that.