|
Tuesday, 30 January 2007 14:29 |
Athiest disputes arguments
made in spirituality column
I am writing in response to those like Dr. Marc Mullinax who want to cling to their childish beliefs in the supernatural. As a nonbeliever in the supernatural, I would like to point out several facts.
Atheists do not believe that all of the worldës problems will be solved by getting rid of religion. Only those problems caused by religions will be solved or prevented by ridding society of religion. However, as one looks at the world today, this would be a good start.
Dr. Mullinax, like most, do(es) not tell us what he really believes. Does he believe in the personal god who is keeping score on all of our daily activities and then deciding whether we go to heaven or hell? Does he believe in life after death? Does he believe that the only way to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus? etc., etc.
Like
most professors and especially those in philosophy and religion
departments, Dr. Mullinax must toe the line and say they believe in god
or look for another job. God-believers cannot tolerate logic thrown at
their beliefs in the unproven.
Kill the messenger has always been a favorite tactic of those whose cherished beliefs have been questioned.
Nonbelievers do
not care if believers keep their faith in myths, superstitions and
fantasies. They only want believers to stop killing people in the name
of god and religion.
John A. Henderson, M.D.
Asheville
EDITORëS NOTE: The following is Daily Planet spirituality columnist Marc Mullinaxës response to the preceding letter.
ï
This is the
first time Iëve been castigated by a member of the atheist crowd. Iëm
taken aback at the tone, for itës not so much an atheist whoës done the
writing, but a fundamentalist. I had dinner with an atheist last week,
and he well-represented his thought ÇƒÓ and with so much charity ÇƒÓ that I
came to respect atheism better. And now this....
"Childish
beliefs" ÇƒÓ this is obviously a nod to Freud, for whom religious faith
is immature. But let us reason together. To have this epithet pitched
to me makes me not want to catch it, and let it fall harmlessly to the
ground, for it speaks more to the speaker than the target. Get to know
real, live, faithful people and youëll hardly call them "childish" with
so much undisciplined ease.
"Only those
problems caused by religions will be solved or prevented by ridding
society of religion." Here you do not tag which problems you speak
about. I surmise you speak about killing in the name of God, which is
the subject of a great song by Ziggy Marley, "In the Name of God." OK,
I get this. But let us absent God from this scene. Do you think that
Human Nature will so miraculously change such that weëll stop our
killing ways? I doubt it. Our resourcefulness will create for us new
reasons to kill our enemies. "God" is just the most convenient reason
my correspondent can think of. He knows as well as I that weëll hang
our prejudices on any hook that weëll turn into a weapon. Merely taking
God out of the equation will change little. He knows that.
I am charged
with not telling folks what I believe. I am guilty. My purposes in the
column are to try to fill in incomplete pictures. A few weeks ago, when
I panned the Jesus Video ... well, the hate mail is still coming. In
that column, as well as in the "Dear Sam Harris" column, I attempted to
show how incomplete both subjects are. I am not required, either by my
college or by this newspaper, to spill my beliefs. But any careful
reader can suspect what they are. The questions this reader asks of me
are way too simplistic and Iëll be glad to meet him for lunch sometime
and discuss these. Dutch pay.
I am not
required by my college to toe any ideological line. My mission is to
have students aware of the historical conversation that precedes them
with regard to whatever topic is at hand. On some days, this means I
take the voice of a Buddhist, or an Evangelical Christian, or a radical
critic such as Nietzsche or Marx. Anything to get the points across.
"Kill the
messenger?" Hardly. You read how fair I was to Sam Harris, thanking him
for over half the column for keeping believers honest. My attack was
not ad hominem, but to his public record. He could be such a more
effective atheist if he were to exercise a little more discipline. I
wish he were more effective. But heës lazy and he relies upon
non-thinking readers for his ability to slouch and use a broad brush
against faith.
Finally, I am
just as strong a believer in keeping people from killing anyone as my
interlocutor (see column on capital punishment two weeks ago). And if
itës any DIScomfort, it has been recent historical atheists who have
been the most voracious killers of their fellow human beings; viz., Mao
and Stalin.
So whoës calling this kettle black?
Marc Mullinax
Asheville
|
