Cheer Up Charlies
Black Should Go for 'Reason' Not 'Balancing'
RECEIVED Fri., Aug. 26, 2011
Dear Mr. Black,
I am a fan of your publication, so I was stunned to read about "Hardcore proselytizing atheists" [“Page Two,” Aug. 19]. This seemed more worthy of that other local, but daily, publication.
Where are these creatures? On the street corners with pamphlets? Coming to your door? On TV every morning? Are they in public office using the government imprimatur to parade their ideas?
Or is this just some hypothetical straw man which one can dredge up for "balancing" effect?
The inference that opposite ideas are the same is just ignorance. Most of what passes for religion in the "Western" world isn't even presented the same, since it involves preaching, mindless rituals, and, most importantly, blind faith. Most of irreligion comes up (if it isn't self-censored by the fear of being labeled the same as its opposite) in private conversation.
If somebody asserts the "one and one is three" (and they're not even capable of conceiving of non-Euclidean systems), they're just wrong. Someone else stepping in to say, "Let's compromise! You who are insisting that 'one and one is two' are being the same as the other person. 'One and one is 2.1' or 'we can't say' is the most reasonable position" is still wrong.
Also, you lowercased "atheist" but uppercased "Christian." I'm sure you were just dutifully following convention, but how can that be objective?
I would like to conclude by noting that the dictionary defines "theism" as belief in a supernatural and personal god (though in a way that reminds me of Russell Baker's column years ago about reading the definition of "semiotics," which caused him to stagger). Not believing in that is Atheism. That needs to be made clear.
Darwin had a simple idea, based on the rejection of the supernatural.
Reason can prevail – but not if its advocates don't get their act together.
I am a fan of your publication, so I was stunned to read about "Hardcore proselytizing atheists" [“Page Two,” Aug. 19]. This seemed more worthy of that other local, but daily, publication.
Where are these creatures? On the street corners with pamphlets? Coming to your door? On TV every morning? Are they in public office using the government imprimatur to parade their ideas?
Or is this just some hypothetical straw man which one can dredge up for "balancing" effect?
The inference that opposite ideas are the same is just ignorance. Most of what passes for religion in the "Western" world isn't even presented the same, since it involves preaching, mindless rituals, and, most importantly, blind faith. Most of irreligion comes up (if it isn't self-censored by the fear of being labeled the same as its opposite) in private conversation.
If somebody asserts the "one and one is three" (and they're not even capable of conceiving of non-Euclidean systems), they're just wrong. Someone else stepping in to say, "Let's compromise! You who are insisting that 'one and one is two' are being the same as the other person. 'One and one is 2.1' or 'we can't say' is the most reasonable position" is still wrong.
Also, you lowercased "atheist" but uppercased "Christian." I'm sure you were just dutifully following convention, but how can that be objective?
I would like to conclude by noting that the dictionary defines "theism" as belief in a supernatural and personal god (though in a way that reminds me of Russell Baker's column years ago about reading the definition of "semiotics," which caused him to stagger). Not believing in that is Atheism. That needs to be made clear.
Darwin had a simple idea, based on the rejection of the supernatural.
Reason can prevail – but not if its advocates don't get their act together.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Smith
Richard M. Smith
