Intelligence Squared debate – Atheism is the new fundamentalism

Standard

<embed src=”http://blip.tv/play/g6N9gbO_KAI%2Em4v” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”480″ height=”272″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”></embed> Click on this link to watch the debate

For the first time, this Intelligence Squared debate was live-streamed over the internet, allowing people to watch, and participate, from anywhere in the world. The online audience’s vote is included below.

Initial Vote: For 333, Against 675, Undecided 389

Final Vote: For 363, Against 1070, Undecided 85

Final Online Vote: For 37, Against 889, Undecided 12

The motion proposes that “atheism is the new fundamentalism”, i.e., atheism has replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age, exploring the notion that modern atheism is itself guilty of the very dogma and belief in its own infallibility which it scorns in the religious community.

Speaking for the motion are Richard Harries and Charles Moore.

Richard Harries outlines the features and the history of fundamentalism, arguing that many of the criteria required for it are in fact apparent in today’s atheists. He portrays a set of people with narrow views, arguing against a specific view of God, who forget that some of the greatest philosophy, art, poetry and music has been inspired and supported by Christianity – the very belief system that is accused of restricting the creative process by its refusal to allow for ‘the grand perhaps’ (Browning).

Charles Moore insists that his opponents cannot see the true complexity of the argument, and that they emphasise the physical and the scientific aspect of humanity at the cost of any spiritual understanding. He criticises Richard Dawkins for embodying this crude and narrow pursuit of literal truth above all else.

Opposing the motion are A.C. Grayling and Richard Dawkins.

Professor Grayling maintains that since 9/11, the nature of the debate on religious commitment has become far more serious. He distinguishes between atheism, secularism and humanism. He refutes Moore’s suggestion that atheists cannot fully understand the complexity of the religious experience, insisting that many atheists understand it all too well, having been brought up in a religious family or community.

Richard Dawkins defines fundamentalism as the following: blind obedience to scripture regardless of evidence, allied to extremism. He argues that far from being entrenched fundamentalists, atheists have a commitment to exploring evidence, and a readiness to embrace change, and that we should not mistake the passion of their arguments or their refusal to remain silent for fundamentalism.

Advertisements

One thought on “Intelligence Squared debate – Atheism is the new fundamentalism

  1. The religiose have not been endowed with much gray matter. Their arguments for a deity have been so utterly destroyed, mostly by scientists but also by rational thinkers of other disciplines, that they now fall back on name-calling and mud-slinging. Atheists are now being called militant; probably because the arguments based on rationality were so overwhelmingly won by them that they constitute a well oiled military unit. They are also condemned to end up in hell; mostly by the dumb Afrikaner Bible thumpers who cannot string together two coherent sentences that actually construct an argument.

    The poor religiose; one can only pity them. To think you miss this wonderful opportunity to enjoy life for but a very short time, just because you don’t care to think for yourself.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s