Sometimes we get so busy looking for answers that we do not take the time to properly think and consider the questions, or even try to winnow down which questions are most important. We get so focused on answering these questions that we do so without properly considering them, savoring them, searching them for all the related questions and issues and mysteries hidden within the bigger question.
In so doing we short change the question and ourselves and wind up with incomplete and/or misleading answers. Or worse, we wind up creating an answer when one really does not exist, or at least no clear one yet.
I won’t claim that these are the most important, but I do think they are important and worth spending a moment contemplating before rushing off to answer them.
Perhaps the real conflict is not between the atheist and the theist but rather between those who care for the whole of humanity and who work to improve the lot of all humans and those who do not?
If this is so then how do identify which is which? Even the most repressive and evil dictators say they do what they do in the name of humanity.
And how to identify what actions are good for humanity and what actions are not?
Then, given the fractious, divisive, and argumentative nature of humanity, how to attain those goals needed for the betterment of mankind?
And finally, can these questions be answered and resolved without violence?
And as I was putting the finishing touches on this blog I thought of one more question.
Both the theist, and the atheist, the creationist and the scientist, often level the same charges against each other in regards to arguments – ignoring evidence, not thinking logically, being biased by their own beliefs and so forth. Given that each side perceives the other as being biased and, to a greater or lesser degree, blind to evidence and reason how, can I be sure that I am not?
As I said, some questions for consideration. Even if you think you have the answers already it is a good exercise to contemplate them again, afresh; putting aside your answers for the moment. A proper appreciation of the questions not only makes your tentative final answers that much more solid but, just as important, it also allows one to better understand and, hopefully, empathize with those who disagree.
Hi, I noticed your blog when I commented on Sabio’s post. Good points, Atheists get so ticked when I tell them I’m not an atheist even though I do not believe in any god. I find some (not all) to be combative. Julian Baggini wrote an excellent post on this once. He pointed out that atheists seem to think that science is on their “side”. When really, science is about the data, not the people. The more Dawkins engages creationists the more he gives power to their nutty ideas, I think. I call myself secular (or simply non religious) to differentiate myself from these folks.
Thanks for your comment amelie. Too many people seem to think all atheists are alike and that all are rather…. belligerent.
And I agree with your statement that many if not most atheists seem to think science is on their side. Its actually on neither side. Science does show that some theist’s ideas about how the world and their God works is wrong. But there is a large variety of theistic thought too and much of it is totally compatible with science.
Dawkins, while writing wonderful books on evolution, is rather shallow in regards to religion I believe. He treats all theistic thought the same and ignores the more rational and liberal strands. However, I do agree with him engaging the creationists. Unfortunately I think that even if ignored that creationism would intrude upon our public schools at the expense of teaching science.
I also totally understand you calling yourself secular instead of atheist. (y)
Enjoy!