- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
“…I think Richard (Dawkins) is wrong….I think that there's something else. I think the creativity in nature is so stunning and so overwhelming that it's God enough for me…”
How exactly is Dawkins wrong? Since when did he say that nature was not ‘stunning’? I’ve read many of Dawkins’ books and have watched him lecture and I would say that from his writings and lectures he finds nature pretty stunning. Do you really think that scientists have to abandon reductionism to see “awe and wonder” in nature?
“Richard's view, and those of the new atheists, is simply not going to reach out and persuade those who hold to the standard Abrahamic religious views to consider something else. Whereas I hope what I'm saying may help create a new kind of sacred space.”
First of all, what are you, a scientist or a counselor? It’s not the job of the scientist to try to “bridge the gap” between science and superstition with some kind of middle of the road touchy feely claptrap.
Secondly, the tag of ‘new atheist’ is a misnomer. There isn’t anything ‘new’ about it. Atheist comes from ‘a’ (without) and ‘theist’ (deity). Putting ‘new’ in front of it implies that something has somehow changed. Atheists today are exactly the same as atheists from a thousand years ago or atheists a hundred years ago. Some things really do never change!
