header
"New theists" or "Religion 2.0"
  • SimonSimon June 2012
    Can't say I agree entirely with the following article and the links therein, but it is certainly close to the way I think about things:

  • exchemist June 2012
    Blimey! This certainly seems at first sight pretty radical in its vagueness, though after more thought I think I can discern what they are driving at......

    I can't help but feel rejecting "belief" in favour of "knowledge" may be a wrong turning, however. In many of our other discussion threads now, it is clear most of us acknowledge limitations to certainty, even in science. Is not the provisional trust we place in a theory a form of (highly rational and justified) "belief"? Or do we say it is partial or imperfect knowledge? I'm unsure. But I worry that the writer may be letting himself be bounced by the New Atheists into allowing "belief" to become a dirty word, denoting some sort of second-rate thought process with no place in a coherent view of the world. I'm not comfortable with this at all. (The danger of this "marketing" approach to religion, so prevalent in the US, is that the technique of soundbites cheapens and coarsens language - and ultimately thought itself.)

    But it's certainly interesting to read about the opposite extreme to that of the fundamentalists.