(December 9, 2014 at 7:31 am)robvalue Wrote: David Mitchell did that? I'm surprised.
Sadly yes, to quote his Observer column:
“What I don’t understand is why so many people, the religious and the irreligious alike, have swallowed the idea that atheism is the most rational conclusion to draw about humanity’s position and state of grace. Even those who oppose atheism do so in terms of its being too rational: lacking imagination or faith. ‘Just because there’s no actual reason to believe in something doesn’t mean it can’t be there,’ they say.
But atheism isn’t the most rational approach - agnosticism is. You can’t know, so it’s irrational to say that you do. An atheist or religious observant might counter that agnosticism - saying you don’t know if there’s a god or gods - isn’t a conclusion at all. They’d have a point - but in that case, I say it’s irrational to draw a conclusion. We don’t know and we can’t know.
Atheism is also a leap of faith, albeit a nihilistic one. It might as well be a religion - many of its adherents evangelise about their philosophy and beliefs as much as the religious do. They claim their opinions to be certainties. They viciously criticise those who believe otherwise. They are, in some cases, emotionally attached to the idea that there’s no God and dislike being gainsaid as much as the Pope or an Ayatollah does. They then wrap up this annoyance as anger at the terrible suffering religion has brought to the world - as if they truly think it’s the religious beliefs themselves, rather than humanity’s in-built urges to kill, persecute and suppress, that led to the Crusades or the Troubles or the failure to address the AIDS Pandemic."
His piece would make more sense if Atheism was defined as the knowledge that there is no God. He's also fortunate to have been brought up amongst the very moderate CofE beliefs, and not in the bible belt in America.
