An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Father Jonathan Morris has an open letter to Richard Dawkins, whom he recently debated over the role of religion and atheism in society.

He concludes with this:

All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism. It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God’s name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.

As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That’s an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it’s not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest. According to all the statistics I have in front of me, it is, in fact, the kind of faith that brings more happiness to more people and makes us more generous and philanthropic citizens, even to non-religious causes.

Here’s my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.

As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn’t require wiping religion off the face of the earth.

Comments

[Steven Carr]

Atheism is a lack of belief , just like sobriety is a lack of alcohol.

All sober people have in common is a lack of alcohol.

All atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods.

Apologising for the crimes committed by some atheists is like apologising for the traffic accidents caused by people being sober, if drunk people apologise for the traffic accidents caused by people being drunk.

[seeker]

I think that fr. Morris is making a logical mistake, though he might be making a good tactical decision.

While it may be correct to say that misanthropes have abused both ideologies, idont think that such an argument excuses either.

Xianity may still be culpable for misdeeds done in its name, and so may atheism, bc the better way to evaluate these systems is based on:
- their direct teachings and primary assumptions about nature, man, and god
- the logical extension of their ideas
- the overall fruits of their application across history

Etc. On this front, while neither has a pristine record, the atrocities of atheism, which Morris so easily forgives as the abuses of fanatical atheists, are not only greater and abundantly more lethal than those of xianity, they much more logically flow from atheism.

Morris should not cede this point in an effort to shed the supposed crimes of xianity, esp since, as I have posted, the crusades and the inquisitions can more resonably be explained as political wars and failings of the catholic church, not xianity.

[skr]

Additionally, even if he gets an atheist to admit that religion is no more responsible for its atrocities than atheism, he will have failed in addressing atheism's main criticism of faith, which is that it is extra-rational, if not anti-rational.

So not only has he abandoned one of the main, valid criticisms of atheism (atrocity as evidence that it fails the test of practical application, and is inevitably cruel and totalitarian by nature, despite its adherents fervent wish that it led instead to human freedom), but he has failed to address the atheist's real canard, which is that faith and reason are antithetical, and that all faiths are essentially equally unreasonable, fantastic, unattested by history, reason, and congruence with reality and science.

So basically, he is attempting a false peace, surrendering one of his strong poits, while asking the village atheist to surrender a weak card, while letting him KEEP his strong cards, imo.