Evangelical Atheism and mythology

I've had fun watching some of the google videos uploaded of Richard Dawkins and his crusade against religion.

Such a noble and sincere attempt, I at least admire his boldness to challenge people's beliefs. I don't think he'll have much success in conversion, but I suppose there's always a few meekful ones out there who haven't heard the message yet "You don't have to believe" and will benefit by this permission to rebel and think for themselves, or admit what they thought in silence.

Dawkins weakest point for me is his hypothesis that religion is a CAUSE of irrationality and hatreds and violence in the world. Well, I mean I suppose it must be in the sense that rational individuals don't risk their lives or end their lives easily, and it takes a pretty good story - whether heroism or rewards in the afterlife to concince them to surrender their freedom and life for something greater.

I guess there's an idea that communism's rejection of religion offers a similar goal as Dawkins - in that they recognize the power of religion so in destroying religion, they can fill the void with patriotism to maintain their power. Dawkins isn't fighting for patriotism to country, but patriotism to the scientific process of truth.

I admit I'm "infected" by the religion of science, the romantic belief that "truth" exists and that the scientific method allows humanity to slowly move, even if two steps forward, one back, towards objective truth and understanding of the universe and our place within it.

It would be interesting to have a debate between Dawkins and the late Joseph Campbell. Campbell was a mythologist and considered the power of myths and beliefs to create meaning in our lives. He studied religions and myths creates from many cultures.

When Bill Moyers asked Campbell what he thought the meaning life was, Campbell's first answer, was that there was no meaning, or no singular meaning. Life is being expressing itself, and a will for propogating itself. Well, he said something equally weak. Campbell did not believe in a "pesonal god", so his god was at best some sort of cosmic force. WELL, it's said George Lucas's Star Wars universe and the "Life force" was taken from conversations with Campbell.

When Dawkins was asked about his belief in God in one program, he said it was equal to his belief in fairies. It was illuminating to mean since Dawkins clearly considered fairies as imaginary, while I'd take the same comparison and say I'm equally agnostic about both. Not to say that fairies exist or don't exist, just to say that experiences that have created the myth of fairies may have an existence beyond the myth, and equally experiences that have created the myth of god may also have an existence beyond the myth.

The atheists like Dawkins response to "Why not keep an open mind?" is to compare "Why not keep an open mind about the flying spaghetti monster?" The meaning is neither myth has any clear evidence or attraction so they are equally worthy to close.

The believer's evidence of God is "Why do so many believe?" Using numbers to support their cause. Dawkins would say they're all equally and self-reinforcingly deluding themselves in their closed language of their myths.

Campbell, author of many books including a set called "The masks of God" looked for similarities of the religions and myths, and was fully open to the idea that all of the myths were just different sets of language to the same truths. And by "truths" here I mean, and I'm sure Campbell would mean "inner truths" of experience, of the inner landscape of our being that helps define what we value, what we believe, what we do.

To give credit to the Atheists, I see their quest as pure-hearted, and I do see the failing of religion in that it takes too much credit for worldly truths rather than inner truths. Worldly truths show we're all different because we use different words and symbols. Inner truth says we're all the same because we all must respond to our mortality and love and desires and find meaning. I agree with the Atheists that religion always gets into trouble when it enters into the political world, the world of power over others, of judgement over others. Religion ought never to have entered that world, at least in any sort of collective way.

Individually religion defines who we are and how we act, and it will offer morality issues - like how to respond to violence and power against the weak if you're not harmed yourself. When is it right to step back and when to step forward?

Perhaps the "fundamentalism" is a sort of "blind faith" that you've identified your enemy and a belief that goodness will increase as your enemy's power decreases. It is scapegoating. The atheists risk scapegoating religion and religions scapegoat each other and atheists.

I'm sure Dawkins is smarter than me and could defend himself far beyond anything I'd say. However my best attempt would be that he has overstepped his bounds when he blames religious belief as a cause of evil. I accept it can be A cause, but it is not THE cause, not any worse than any exercise of power in the world.

Dawkins says "Religion allows people to become suicide bombers", so the CURE is to remove the religion and people will reform their erred ways. But patriotism equally can create suicide bombers. And any situation of human conflict between groups who see themselves as separate and the other side as holding their freedom down can lead to a willingness to die for the freedom of others.

I suppose, even as I am naive, I'd call Dawkins naive, for thinking he can simplify humanity into a reasoning being above all else. I don't deny the appeal, but I suppose it's like any sort of desire to outlaw vices. Even if I WISH to be rational, and trry to suppress everything in me that I don't understand (as reasonable), the expressions will find their way out, just like prohibition created a black market. The communists try to forcefully suppress organized religion.

I'm not suggesting Dawkins would support that, but I'm sure he would support ending the tax-deductible status for churches and such. Perhaps he'd also support removing all references to god from our government - our coins and bills - our court houses - our laws - our pledge.

Well, to me it just seems tiring to imagine. I always have fun thinking of my sister's religious expression - wanting the day when the lion will lay down with the lamb - wanting humanity to devote our energy to domesticating all the wild carnivores so we can feed them a vegatarian diet. Laughably outrageous in every respect.

On a last thought, before a few years ago I never knew atheists considered themselves a minority group in danger of being repressed or something. Well, they said "An atheist can never openly run for office" for instance. So they feel disrespected, even persecuted perhaps, unfair their virtues are left unacknowledged.

ANyway, I'm as long as always. I just know there's enumerable questions I can not answer to live my life well. I get pulled by passion, hurt, paranoid, sad, angry, and try to imagine a world where things are much more peaceful. I don't even have to deal with anyone having explicit power over me, except little things like earning a living and paying my bills.

Mostly I'm thinking of trust now, and the golden rule, "Do onto others as you would have them do upon you." or "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Seriously good reflective advice, no clarity of what's best, but the question. It's fun since you don't even always know what's best for yourself, much less somone else! And I think of the Camelot Musical, Arthur's song "How do you handle a woman?" And the ending is simple "Love her, love her, love her." Again no clarity of action, merely re-expressing the golden rule.

Christianity could seem to be so simple, if we just accepted Jesus's two commandments. I wonder why we have to make things so complicated? Is there any religion that would deny Jesus's commandments?

Okay, Atheists would deny "Love God" because they don't know what God is, but maybe they can just shorten it to "Love", or Leo Buscaglia's fun book title "Living, Loving, learning." Who can argue with that "commandment?" :)