The key difference between the old and new atheism is in their views of mankind. For atheists like Marx (pdf), religion expressed, in a backward and limited form, human aspirations to greatness: "Man ... looked for a superhuman being in the fantastic reality of heaven and found nothing there but the reflection of himself." He continued: "The criticism of religion ends with the teaching that man is the highest being for man, hence with the categorical imperative to overthrow all relations in which man is a debased, enslaved, forsaken, despicable being ... " Today, Hitchens says of religion's destructive impact: "What else was to be expected of something that was produced by the close cousins ... Extremists are everywhere especially in religion, eh? Interesting. But I must say, I don't agree with Mr. O'Neill's take on "new atheism". While true that the likes of "new atheists" such as Richard Dawkins may hold harsher views against religion than their atheist predecessors, I don't believe there's anything wrong with exposing religion for the harm that it has done -- and continues to do -- to society. The fact that some "good" may also come from religion doesn't make up for the harm done any more than an abusive spouse buying his wife a new diamond ring makes up for the black eye and broken bones he gave her. |
View the Top Clips from January 3, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||