I have no problem with the ideas proposed in the articles. I consider it 'atheism on training wheels'.
Spinoza would be proud. If all I had to consider about a fellow human's religious beliefs is that he/she believed in a non-personal entity that he/she chooses to call god that is synonymous with nature; I would be very happy and would likely let the argument drop in favor of more meaningful conversations of nature and humanity.
The second article suggests something similar, but from a different perspective. Dowd strikes me as an atheist in all but name. His emphasis seems to be on everyone getting along for the sake of progressing naturalist and humanist ideas, but wants to hit the reset button on vitriol which he seems to blame on the emotive 'pre-evolutionary' baggage associated with all 'isms'.
If the label 'New Theism' helps people feel comfortable in dropping the last vestiges of their traditional religious indoctrination, I don't see the harm. The training wheels will eventually fall off and, in the meantime, we could enjoy a ride together.
Spinoza would be proud. If all I had to consider about a fellow human's religious beliefs is that he/she believed in a non-personal entity that he/she chooses to call god that is synonymous with nature; I would be very happy and would likely let the argument drop in favor of more meaningful conversations of nature and humanity.
The second article suggests something similar, but from a different perspective. Dowd strikes me as an atheist in all but name. His emphasis seems to be on everyone getting along for the sake of progressing naturalist and humanist ideas, but wants to hit the reset button on vitriol which he seems to blame on the emotive 'pre-evolutionary' baggage associated with all 'isms'.
If the label 'New Theism' helps people feel comfortable in dropping the last vestiges of their traditional religious indoctrination, I don't see the harm. The training wheels will eventually fall off and, in the meantime, we could enjoy a ride together.
