DISQUS

creases · 6 months ago

My tradition of "atheism" runs from Feuerbach to Žižek — it's a history of humanist critique of religion, and uses the techniques of psychology, anthropology and literary theory to frame the "problem" of religion. From the perspective of this tradition, what is really interesting is what is going on under the surface of the factual claims that religions make. That's what accounts for why people believe in myths, or religious doctrines like the Trinity. Dawkins basically can't account for this; for him, the surface claims are wrong or incoherent, therefore religion is basically pathological. He can't make sense of it, therefore it doesn't make sense.

A humanist tradition of atheism is way, way better poised than Dawkins's materialism to have a conversation with religion at the theological level.

(I may have just hit on a potentially interesting general conception of atheism: that for which religion as such is a standing "problem".)

Chaz · 6 months ago

I write stuff like this when I'm stoned out of my gourd. Posted at 7:04am I note, so that's a pretty late night, I'm thinking.

I wish people would be a lot less stupid about their religious beliefs, but there's many centuries of evidence that this is a forlorn hope.

So I do my best to ignore it all, and get on with my own stuff.