Phileas S5 – Atheism for dummies
December 13, 2009 by Florent
Filed under - The Phileas Club, .Episodes, Featured
As you can imagine, this show talks about Atheists and their views.
When I mentioned I wanted to do a show on the topic, I got more interest from readers and followers than ever before. Many offered to be on the show, which I am very thankful for; I am sorry I couldn’t include everyone who offered their input. We did manage to assemble an excellent panel though, and while we did tackle Atheism in all the ways I hoped we would, we also talked about many topics related to it. It is inevitable I suppose; as this is one of the most debated issues I know, we couldn’t really expect to focus solely on that one idea. I hope that listeners will get both information and entertainment out of the show, and I do welcome any comment on the blog. Each time we have discussed a controversial topic after one of my blog posts, we have managed to keep things civilized and polite, and my wish for this one (if people wish to discuss) is that it stays that way. I’m confident we will (because we’re all so awesome 
but it bears repeating…
Thanks again to the panelists, and thanks even more to you for listening.
Listen to the show:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
And to find out more about our wonderful hosts, go here:
- Patrick from France
- Julio from Argentina / Netherlands : Alternaria.tv
- Kirsten from US : The Bird’s Brain
- Tom from US : Tom Merritt .com
- Shawn froms US : Shawn Coons
Great show patrick, you know i’ve been waiting for this!
If I am being perfectly honest, I don’t think it follows in the same suit as previous ‘for dummies’ shows as there was actually very little about atheism itself. I felt the main bulk of the discussion was about the fallacies of creationism and the bits in between were more aimed at understanding the religious take on atheism. In the islam for dummies show, I recall turki explained alot about the religious faith and its (his?) beliefs so I kinda expected to hear alot more about why atheists think the way that they do, how they come to these conclusions and why…. and then hear what the religious panellists had to say about that.
It was great as you say, to hear you guys discuss it in a manner that did not descend into unhealthy disagreement, but talking about creationism was kinda easy. I would have prefered to hear more more discussion revolving arounds atheisms relationship with mainstream religion… as it very much seemed (rightly so) that we were already all in the same boat about intelligent design. I feel it was a slight lost opportunity.
But please dont take this the wrong way though, I am a big fan of both you and your show patrick and as I said, your uncanny ability as a presenter to keep the conversation civil and flowing is evident. Your guests were great to listen to as well!
Yes I agree, but I also realized that it would be difficult to do a truly lengthy discussion about Atheism, beyond: “well, God doesn’t exist and everything’s still cool”… When you develop the discussion beyond that it starts to become an explanation of why you don’t believe in God.
Or at least that’s what I felt like trying to moderate the debate.
So I do absolutely agree that this was a different show from the other “for dummies” shows we did, which I wasn’t expecting either to be honest, but in retrospect I’m not sure we could have “explained” Atheism in the same we we did for Islam for example.
Patrick, your avatar pictures are getting more and more menacing as time goes on. LOL
I would like to think that it was possible to explain atheism in a similar way to islam, if not the same way…. but there are definitely going to be noticable differences as one is a belief and one is a lack of belief. I think alot of the time though modern atheism often ends up being a brutal dissection of religion. Although Dawkin’s is my hero, I have a particular respect for Sam Harris and his articulation when explaining his views on the subject. The ‘diamond the size of a fridge’ buried in his back yard is a playful yet effective analogy, compared to some of dawkins scathing comparisons (supernatural, capricious, malevolent sky-hookery) LOL.
Still, its a huge subject.
So presumably you are breaking for christmas now patrick, when are you thinking about your next episode?
The best way to find out why we atheists think the way we do is to read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, or Carl Sagan to name a few. Sagan did it for me 20 years ago. Harris and Dawkins just solidify it.
Thanks for the discussion!
I have read all of the above and am a frequenter of the ‘clear-thinking oasis’. But I never tire of hearing intelligent people talking sense, especially when it comes to religion and atheism. Although, there was discussion on the subject of morals which I found particularly interesting, I would have liked to have heard more of you intellectual heavyweights talk about other things like Pascal’s wager, how you became atheists, maybe even things like the scientific advances on the ‘god particle’, or even the american constitution on a government free from religion. Perhaps as a whole it is too broad a subject to discuss in 90 minutes though. *shrugs*
I tell you what I have noticed in my ongoing research on the subject though. If you watch or listen to alot of interviews (this podcast no exception), i have noticed a trend with religious people in the way the describe their faith. Nowadays its very common for people to open their description of their faith with something like: “well i believe what god means is this” or “it its my belief that the bible indicates that”. More and more I feel, faith is becoming subjective and interpretive which I would say is quite revealing about societies changing attitudes to everyday critical thinking… but I also think its revealing about that persons willingness to bend and flex their biblical interpretation to fit in with the current zeitgeist. That being said the alternative (creationism, ID, fundamentalism etc) doesnt even bear thinking about.
Some very interesting ideas presented in the podcast. I’m going to listen to it again … As always Patrick keeps the conversation very civil — a notable talent.
I think I heard Patrick mention his “disbelief” (for lack of a better term) of why many Christians find it hard to subscribe to the Theory of Evolution? And why they can’t coexist in a Christian’s worldview … Is that a sufficient summary?
I would maintain that it’s not simply a minor issue, but rather evolution invalidates a core foundation of the Christian faith. The bible states that the entrance of sin in the world was brought to pass through the disobedience of Adam and Eve. A consequence of this sin is that death was also brought into the world. However, evolution teaches us that the earth’s layers were formed on millions of years of fossils (the evidence of death) long before humanity evolved to its current form. Evolution then gives justification to throw out the idea of sin. Without the acknowledgment of sin, there would be no need for a Savior. If there is no need for a Savior, then there is no need for Christianity. That is why Christian groups will fight tooth and nail against evolution – because it endangers their worldview. Conversely, an Atheist will fight tooth and nail against the personal notion that there is a God – because it endangers their worldview. Neither party is willing to budge on their core ideas.
While the above paragraph doesn’t create a strong argument for my faith, I hope it sheds some light on how a Christian thinks. I would enjoy learning more how an Atheist thinks and welcome the opportunity to read Sagan’s works – is there a good starting place? Cosmos? A particular article he’s written?
Since this is a podcast about Atheism I find it out of context to talk more about Christianity, however if anyone reading this is interested in pursuing a discussion about it, I’d be more than willing to talk. Please email me at todd.miltenberger@email.com.
Patrick- thanks for this. I’ve been a loyal listener for a while now, and this is probably the best show you’ve ever done. As an American, I can vouch for how difficult it is to “come out” as Atheist- even in a relatively liberal region like the Pacific Northwest.
Interesting to me, though, is the almost “dogmatic” nature of the arguments that are made by Dawkins and others on behalf of Atheism- one almost gets the sense that even if Almighty God himself (herself…itself?) came down and punched him in the nose, he would still make the same arguments he does today. Of course, the same is definitely true of those on the religious side, if we could conclusively prove that there is no God.
Which I guess is why I personally fall where I do. I don’t believe in God, but I kind of hope that I might be wrong… Because how cool would it be if those fairy tales were true, and there really is somebody up there watching over us and making good things happen for us- no wonder those believers are so happy all the time! The problem is, I’m a student of history, and I know where religion, particularly Christianity, comes from- cobbled together from pieces of Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Assyrian, Judaic and Norse mythology, and it makes me feel sorry for those people who choose to believe the lie (although I think those people may be happier for it.)
So although I know in my heart that there is no God, it makes me a little sad.
Hehe Atheists are indeed not getting the best deal out there…
Thanks for the kind words though, I’m very glad you enjoyed the show.
it is a bit sad, but Carl Sagan’s ‘Pale Blue Dot’ kinda goes some way to fixing that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
Really fine show. I taught a graduate seminar a few years ago on rhetoric and religion (I teach rhetoric) and much of what was touched on here we spent a great deal of time on, too. Anyway, given my predilections (I’m not a believer; I’m with Tom on the dummy front), thought I’d seriously second Dr. Kiki’s joke about teaching rhetoric. Seems like one of the biggest difficulties with science is the lack of many public (and patient) explainers. This involves more than just critical thinking. It means understanding who your audience is at a given time (scientists, academics, lay-folks of whatever stripe) and what sorts of arguments and explanations will resonate best with that particular audience. That’s Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric (as a faculty for discovering the available means of persuasion). Most people don’t have the time or the interest to learn what a peer-reviewed journal is, what the scientific method is, what a theory is (Patrick’s point is square-on), unless it can be shown persuasively first that it really matters to them. People can be engaged with new ideas and learn how to parse what’s being given to them (my 5-year-old son has started doing that; figuring out when I’m making stuff up and when I’m giving him serious truth). So it’s never “just rhetoric” (Tom uses that phrase a lot in various podcasts; I know what he means and generally love him, but it always hurts a little), but is always to starting point of communicating ideas.
I was looking forward to this topic, and I have to admit I was a little frustrated by the flow of the conversation. While having an non-athiest like Shawn is a good idea for finding points athiests should clarify, it was spoiled by his complete lack of interest in asking a single questions about “what is athiesm” and simply usuing the platform to list his beliefs with little or no inight toward their source. This is the problem with this discussion. If you set it up so that an athiest has to refute unfounded beliefs rather than start from facts and explain themselves from scratch, the athiest seems to be a negative person and has to chase down so many strange ideas they can’t put forth their own important ones. I’ve heard Shawn before (How I WoW of course) and I think hes a nice guy and I find some of his ideas interesting, but this was not the place for it. Still, I enjoyed the rest of the discussion so please take my comments as a continuation of the discussion and not a complaint.
The comments to this episode seem to indicate that famous athiests are as stubborn about what they believe (regardless of any new information) as any religious person is. This is unfairly putting wordws in their mouths. While some people may decide to believe there is no god the same way a person may decide to believe a certain religion, this is not usually the case. Its like a multiple choice question on a test. While some may have guessed ‘C’ was the right answer, most who chose ‘C’ selected it because they knew the answer with some confidence. If you pester enough people who got the answer right, you might find someone who can’t really explain why they chose ‘C’ well, and by exposing them you cast doubt on all the people who legitimately got the question right. If you listen to someone like Sagan, you will find that while he’s firm and poetic about the things we do know, he wasn’t making any attempt to obscure the fact that we still have a lot to learn and that there is opportunity to disprove anything.
As an athiest I can say the following:
In trying to understand how the universe works, I too have questions about how things got started. How do I get such an answer? I try to get to it through logic and experiment (mine and others). We can observe and cleverly surmise the makup of objects within our vicinity, from planets to the sun to the stars and other things. We can see where things are moving and how fast, and we calculate an expanding universe. Expanded from what exactly, and how it was triggered is a question I haven’t personally answered yet. I would have to pursue Cosmology to be at the front end of that discussion. I admit to not knowing every last detail behind the Big Bang Theory, for example. So while some may have a firmer understanding, and a more refined set of questions than I have, this is where I am currently at. Now, as for life starting, there is really no mystery anymore. We know how RNA and DNA comes from chemistry and we know how simple life can change through randomness and evolve in an selective environment. While amazingly complex, it is not absurdly complex as some might lead you to believe. So while I don’t know the details of the universe’s beginning, I do know the phyical rules that seem to apply and lead to us being here as living, thinking creatures. While I’d love to have more answers (and look forward to acheiving them) I will do so based on my understanding of things which will certainly be influenced by other people’s ideas. While there are a number of possibilities, many of which I’m sure I’ve never thought of, the idea of a supreme being or a god as the cause is easily rejected. I can understand how the idea of such a thing came about in a time when we knew a lot less about the universe than we do now and more things were simply beyond explaination. But religion is passed down, not through logical development of an idea as more answers are uncovered, but through indoctrination. One is to accept, not question. As we answer more questions, the rediculousness of those ideas become more apparent to more people. Not everyone looks so deeply, or has a desire to question their indoctrinated beliefs, but we live in a day and age of free flowing information where more people can gain the knowledge to learn for themselves that religion is both wrong and irrelevant to the questions of how we got here. Sure, some still guess ‘C’, and other’s may even cheat off their neighbor and choose ‘C’ too, but more and more people are becoming athiests through their their own logical development, not because someone elese told them to.
I’m sure I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I’m not sure making every point in a single post is the way to go.
I agree with what you (and many others) are saying, but I feel that we did address the beliefs of atheists, especially when we said that science barely attempts to “describe the universe”, which we elaborated on.
Basically, your argument is very well formulated but this takes up about 10 minutes of a show at most, and then we’re sort of done with “describing Atheism”. Unlike for shows like Islam or republicans for dummies…
I was hoping to do something more along the lines of what you and others were hoping for (“explaining” atheism for an hour”), but in the end I’m not sure I knew how to do it, so I chose to evolve the show into a civil discussion about the motivations and reasonings instead, which I think is valid also.
I’m not saying it couldn’t be done, but in my case I don’t think I would have the formula… Maybe someone else could do it and show me!
Honestly, I would have liked to here more about Atheism on the show too. I’ve tried to read Richard Dawkins to get a sense of one strand of modern Atheists today, but he seems way too narrow-minded and fundamentalist for my liking. I’d love to hear more from other Atheist viewpoints. One of the topics that I would have loved to have spent more time on is how to develop shared/common morals and values in a truly Atheist society.
You write, “But religion is passed down, not through logical development of an idea as more answers are uncovered, but through indoctrination. One is to accept, not question.”
I would say that any belief system – religious or non-religious can be (and often is) passed down through indoctrination, or at least cultural inheritance. I know people of different faiths who believe what they believe because that’s what there parents/family/community believed. But I also know Atheists who have simply had it handed to them and never questioned it.
But I also know many people of faith (myself included) who question all sorts of things, especially their religious beliefs. And it seems to me that sweeping generalizations, like yours, about religious people leave little room for questioning, learning, and discussion.
To answer a few of Shawn’s points (his are in quotes):
“I know people of different faiths who believe what they believe because that’s what there parents/family/community believed. But I also know Atheists who have simply had it handed to them and never questioned it.”
So would you agree that anyone who guessed (used faith over logic) really has no place arguing facts, regardless of what side they’re on?
This is exactly what I was trying to address when I used the guessing on the test analogy. Not all atheists used logic to become so, nor do all defenders of atheism argue well, but that does not mean atheism is faith based or incorrect.
“But I also know many people of faith (myself included) who question all sorts of things, especially their religious beliefs. And it seems to me that sweeping generalizations, like yours, about religious people leave little room for questioning, learning, and discussion.”
Odd. You twist things to say the atheist is “generalizing” and “leaving no room for learning” and the faithful are the ones who question. Seriously? I make no claim that religious people don’t question their religious beliefs. It is simply my own viewpoint that if they still have those beliefs, they haven’t asked the same kinds of questions that I have. Or, at least, they haven’t figured out how to answer them.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind. I think that it is freedom of thought that is important. Whether you think a god actually exists, or that the dead talk to you, or that aliens regularly visit your home, that’s fine as long as you don’t hurt anyone else in some way. But if anyone wants to know what atheism is, please don’t take the dismissal of religion as simply cold or generalized or narrow-minded. It isn’t. Its easy for someone to dismiss it as such in order to avoid the confusion that comes with reality vs indoctrination. If you don’t like it, its fine with me if you don’t try to learn more. But please understand why we laugh at the irony when you cover your ears and call us narrow-minded.
“One of the topics that I would have loved to have spent more time on is how to develop shared/common morals and values in a truly Atheist society.”
The idea that morality was derived from religion is fallacious. I’m pretty sure that idea was addressed on the show. Claiming moral high-ground, like claiming open-mindedness (see above), is nothing more than a debate tactic in this kind of discussion.
Shawn, if you are truly curious about atheism, I can try to answer specific questions to the best of my ability. Everything I’ve said above has been meant to be friendly. I know the topic can lead to hurt feelings, which would never be my intent.
Ok, and now to answer Patrick (his comments in quotes):
“I feel that we did address the beliefs of atheists…..I chose to evolve the show into a civil discussion about the motivations and reasonings instead”
I agree that you did. While some of the initial description could have been clearer, it is a freeform show. If you recorded it 10 times, you’d probably get 10 wildly different shows. I think it was more a case of the conversation drifting off topic for a while that got my comment. I challenge any panel of four to stay on topic for anything! haha.
Oh, and Merry Christmas!
Good episode with some very interesting commentary from all the hosts. Although I would not say I am an atheist (more of a buddhist), I take more of a marxist view to ‘organized religion’.
As such the one area that I think was not really covered that points to the divisiveness of these parties in the US is how both sides are highly politicized. I would argue that this is at the root of the division (and perhaps why opposing views are less antagonistic in a country like France). Whenever an administration supports one side of this argument, it shifts lots of dollars in that direction (often at the expense of the other side). In the last administration funding was cut for many science based programs and at the same time more was allocated for ‘faith’ based programs (dept. of faith based initiatives, etc). Currently, I think we are starting to see the pendulum shift back in the other direction (with the opening of stem cell research, etc)
Personally I would not mind ‘intelligent design’ or creationism being taught in classrooms as long as they would allow evolution to be taught in Sunday school. If they argue that there should be equal time…shouldn’t that work both ways?
Im the other way round. I dont mind if they dont teach evolution in sunday school, but I do mind that they teach creationism in mainstream education.
A very great show about a real good subject ! Thank’s a lot…
I told Patrick on twitter that I was going to pass this show on to a few friends and let them listen to it and that I thought it was a great show. I never really listened to the Phileas Club before. I know of Patrick from The Instance(reverse hydrocution anyone) and from Movielicious and before he had to stop How I WoW. The fact that he was doing a debate or conversation over atheism made me want to listen.
anyway…here is my take on it all plus an extra 2 cents…
I used to preach for a Pentecostal Organization the Church of God of the Mountain Assembly. Before long I was really liking everything I was doing and making sure I was following the plan God had for me. After a while the “beliefs” of the church countered the faith that I had so I decided to quit the church and the org. To this day i get a lot of crap for being a turn coat and I have been called an atheist just for not believing in organized religion. My belief is the same as most Christians with me going down the line of a Pentecostal’s version of Christianity. To this day and as I am writing this out I have always held my faith in God even when people drill me with questions and try and get me to denounce my God. Which is the point I want to bring up and why I commend Patrick on something…
Shawn Coons, Tom merrit, Kirstin and the rest of the gang did something in a religious conversation that I have never seen done. They didnt name call. they didnt denounce one of the others belief or faith, and they didnt try and cram Atheism. Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism or any other religion down someones throat. They simply stated their belief or faith and went on from there. I commend all 5 of you on doing an excellent job on this. So many times I get drilled with questions and then they get mad when I dont know an answer and I tell them that I live by my faith. I live by what I believe and by no one else’s standards. I live the life God has planned out for me and Shawn hit that point on the head.
As a christian person I am not completely conservative nor am I too liberal. I stick in the middle. I think that all types of creation/evolution or any other theory or guess of how this Earth came to be made should be taught in all classes. Its a person choice to decide what they want to believe. Only showing one part of it is forcing someone to make a one sided choice in my opinion and thats not what they should be doing.
In closing I will be giving this podcast to a few of my christian friends who find that there way is the right way or no way at all. I hope that by listening to this they understand that sometimes people have different opinions and its ok. I dont shove Christianity down peoples throats and I would expect the same from anyone else.
*SIDENOTE* Only a slim amount of certain relgions beleive you need to be baptized to go to heaven btw Patrick. I noticed you said that a few times but I know from a Baptist and Pentecostal point of view…all you need is to confess your sins to Jesus/God and let him save you and thats all. Baptism is just a show for people on Earth to say hey, look at me, I got saved. At least in my view it is.
Thank you for your kind words Jacob, I’m very glad that our little show could reach at least a few people…
Heya Patrick,
As an atheist myself, I was really excited for this episode. I’m a first time reader but was referred to here by Tom Merritt on BoL mentioning that he sat in on the panel.
I have to say though, I was really frustrated with the outcome. For starters, while you probably had atheists on the panel, and while I may have missed it, I didn’t hear anyone say “I am an atheist and this is what I believe”. I’m a big fan of Dr Kiki too. I’m only now just beginning to be out with my atheism in my real life. Revealing yourself is a struggle. So I was very disappointed that it didn’t seem that any of the atheists on your panel (if they were there) owned up to it.
Now again, if they said it and I missed it, I’ll retract what I said. But if they were atheists and couldn’t own up to it, that’s disappointing. You could have filled up a lot of time talking about what it’s like to be an atheist, the varying reasons why people become atheists, the differences between outspoken atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens, vs the more friendly atheism of Hemant Mehta and others.
And if you didn’t have any atheists on the panel, then why bother have the show? Science isn’t atheism. Skepticism isn’t atheism. Evolution isn’t atheism!
Atheism is atheism. Lack of belief in god(s). Hell, some forms of Buddhism is actually atheism. If you can’t have someone who can assertively an unabashedly say, “I am an atheist” then I feel you’re not giving a good “for dummies” primer.
The last bit I want to talk about was the part about militant atheism. There was a pic floating around about militant atheists here which really highlights how people misuse the word “militant”: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2009/08/michael_ruse_probably_wont_be/militant_atheists.jpeg
Part of the reason why Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ Meyers are so outspoken is because we’re trying to be visible. If it’s militant to non-violently speak your mind and wish to be heard, then I dunno. Disagreement is good! Debate is good. Balance is good! Criticism is good! What isn’t good is avoiding difficult questions for the sake of civility and avoiding conflict. People can be respectful of each other while challenging each other’s beliefs.
I hope you’ll do an Atheism for Dummies 2.0 with some panelists who can own up to Atheism.
I enjoyed the show too, and I’m sorry to be so late to the party here, I’m only now realizing there is more ‘Patrick’ out there than mod tips and movie reviews. (Ahem – sorry Patrick)
I feel the need to take Shawn Coons to task on what may end up being a purely semantic argument but I don’t think it’s accurate to describe a positive attribution to scientific theory as a ‘belief’. For example: I don’t ‘believe’ when the friction necessary to hold a coin between my fingertips is eliminated that it will fall to the ground – I know it – it is fact. The forces involved have been explained and mathematically computed to produce the same result each and every time in the same conditions. My point is, that “knowing” and “believing” are two very, very different concepts which should not be confused. Further, I truly question the rationality, if not the day-to-day effectiveness, of anyone wandering around expecting that the proven theories of gravity and friction can be supplanted under these same conditions. How would you get anything done!?!
Also, conflating the term ‘theory’ in the lay sense with the scientific is often problematic in these conversations. Scientific theories are bundles of facts which support a particular hypothesis. Not bundles of wonder, not bundles of suppositions, not bundles of prognostications – bundles of facts backed by repeatable experiments which prove, through evidence, that the theory is sound.
Moving off beliefs vs. knowledge, one of the things I think has been glossed over here, perhaps out of an attempt at civility, is the entire notion that people can believe whatever they want to believe and we can all just ‘get along’. Patrick, I’m sorry to call you out here, but you seemed to take great pains to articulate that French society follows this course. Don’t you find it odd how raucous things get when your government bans hijabs(sp?) and other public displays of religiosity? In a completely opposite example here in Canada – the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were forced some time ago, by a human rights ruling, to allow the traditional Sikh headdress as an acceptable part of their uniform. This capitulation to irrationality deeply offends me. Whatever other sense of tradition is being cast aside here the RCMP hat, red tunic, pants and boots are ‘uni’ as in one, as in ‘unique’ and I simply fail to understand why someone would join the force with a religious certainty that accommodations must be made for their irrationality. I just don’t get it and, while a minor example, I strongly disagree with it. I have been called a bigot for this which I don’t really care about but this is how hard feelings easily grow where matters of religiosity are concerned. Now, am I going to disrespect or not follow the lawful directions of an RCMP officer wearing a traditional headdress, of course not? What about if the RCMP officer were wearing a yarmulke? Again, no. But I bet you there would be others, likely many, who definitely would feel justified in not only disrespecting but completely disregarding the directions of this officer.
While the necessary caveats, ‘as long as it does no harm to others’ etc. were perfunctorily mentioned I don’t feel it was emphasized in a way which “those-of-faith” truly appreciate – or will necessarily even feel bound by. The tenants of many faiths, including Christianity and Islam, *require* witnessing, condemnation of sin etc. and those are not benign concepts. They are active doctrines that can, and often do, negatively affect others who do not share their beliefs. We can all certainly strive for a world where acceptance of others beliefs is a goal but as long as there are people who think there is an omnipotent “thing” who’s divinely inspired words give direct, if not tacit, permission for them to sidestep their own real and true responsibilities to me, and every other person on this planet, then I’d say we have at least pause for concern; if not a feeling of being in serious trouble.
I respect people, but not necessarily their beliefs and it seems when religion is involved you double-down on the potential for offense to be caused. Irrationality, however couched in a mystical sense of questioning and self-discovery, is still… irrational. What I find quite evident among the religious is the notion that the tradition of faith etc. is an inalienable right – that I must make space for it, give over to it and respect it. Again, I disagree, I try very hard to keep irrationality out of my mindset and sometimes this boils over as something they would call intolerance. I call it a struggle for sanity and the advancement of our species in overcoming our notion that the darkness beyond the light of our campfires must be a source of apprehension and fear. I’d speculate that the source of apprhension comes from not wanting to be eaten – there’s no need to postulate ideas of eternal damnation and hell on top of it.
Great show, great guests and thanks for the forum to discuss.
Cheers,
Phil