Blogwar over Godwars!

It's a full-on blogwar over my post, 15 Things Militant Atheists Should Ask Before Trying to Destroy Religion.   Cenk fired back, and I replied.  I responded to Smirking Chimp's Weldon Berger in the comments.

Slightly longer Elton: 

"Criticizing a few atheists for making vague and unsupported claims about the effect of religion on society - and asking for more inquiry - is the same as demanding scientific evidence for atheism itself."

I responded at greater length in his comments section, too.

Scientist/blogger PZ Myers mischaracterizes my argument completely.  I replied as follows:

PZ - You accuse me of creating straw men, and then you set up one of your own. I never said any atheists (much less all of them) believe religion is the "root of all evil." I said two of them were suggesting that humanity's social ills would decrease if all religion were eliminated. And I said that I don't find the arguments in favor of this position convincing, given that religion has provided benefit as well as harm.

You write "I do not believe that religion is the root of all evil, and I don't know any atheists who do." Me neither, and I never said so. And while my list of questions may seem self-serving and rhetorical to you, there is an unending stream of atheists who defend their position by saying: "Oh, yeah? What about the Crusades?" 

Of course religion contributed to conflicts such as the Crusades, as I've always acknowledged. That's why I wrote that I suspect organized religion has caused more harm than good, although I can't prove it any more than Richard Dawkins can. Still, the ills caused by organized religion may be caused more by the organization part than by the belief part.

But if you don't know any atheists who argue that - philosophical arguments aside - society's problems would be reduced without religion in any form, I can point you to a few who do.

I suspect that's not true, and that's what I wrote.

He says he doesn't want any more Koufax awards and will remove his name if nominated.  Otherwise I'd suggest you nominate him here, despite his misinterpretation of my piece.  He's a terrific science writer.

But I assume Elton's still open for a Koufax, so nominate his great blog busybusybusy instead.  This isn't personal.

Comments

[Greg Laden]

I believe these are all reasonable questions to ask, but I have the following three criticisms:

1) some of your questions are really different versions of the same issue. For example, we could ask more generally what role has religion had in inciting or facilitating violence in general.

2) I think these ARE questions that atheists ask all the time, of themselves and of religion, and I think that atheists generally find that the answer to many of these questions is "yes, religion is a weapon that has had many victims.."

3) Personally, I think what has really put an edge on this particular blogwar is not so much this set of questions but rather the "militant" part. Atheists see themselves not as militant, but rather, as (if anything) reacting to militantism (If that is indeed a word).

My answer to almost every one of your 15 points is roughly the same: So what if religion is not 100% responsible as a motivating force behind, or a tool to facilitate, any one of a number of dark and evil acts or tendencies of humankind? It remains a questionable practice, and has a very questionable premise.

BTW, I heard Dawkins in an interview a few weeks ago, wherein someone called in and asked, essentially, your question number 1. His answer was "No."