ZukzukFri, Jan 4, 2008 I think the whole Theist/Deist - Atheist discussion really kicked in after 9/11 and is mainly propagated by people who fear a curious cocktail of bronze age dogma and 20th century firepower.
People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christoffer Hitchens, comically calling themselves "The Four Horsemen", drove the discussion to new heights of aggitation (mainly Hitchens and Dawkins) and sophistication (Harris and Dennet) through countless discussions and lectures in universities and on other podia. The mainstream media picked up on some rather succesful atheist/naturalistic books that followed this interesting explosion of criticism on faith-based lifestyles, and launched the discussion into the mainstream domain.
If this is so, why do people argue about this? And I'm choosing the word "argue" because it seems that this phenomena as reached far beyond the meaning of "discussion". Well, it's seems that the most logical evidence is that "isms" fight "isms", that there is this human characteristic of reason imposing, developed throughout millenniums.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Even the most interesting discussions on the topic (I'll include this one as an example) end in a sort of intellectual stalemate; what I mean by that is that none of the parties is able to succesfully convince the opposite side of any of their numerous points. I think that is partly because of the innate incompatability of the rivalling worldviews, but also, or even mainly so, because it takes a lot of time, energy and courage to break through self imposed barriers in your consciousness, which you have grown to love and charish.
I think the whole Theist/Deist - Atheist discussion really kicked in after 9/11 and is mainly propagated by people who fear a curious cocktail of bronze age dogma and 20th century firepower.
People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christoffer Hitchens, comically calling themselves "The Four Horsemen", drove the discussion to new heights of aggitation (mainly Hitchens and Dawkins) and sophistication (Harris and Dennet) through countless discussions and lectures in universities and on other podia. The mainstream media picked up on some rather succesful atheist/naturalistic books that followed this interesting explosion of criticism on faith-based lifestyles, and launched the discussion into the mainstream domain.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. Even the most interesting discussions on the topic (I'll include this one as an example) end in a sort of intellectual stalemate; what I mean by that is that none of the parties is able to succesfully convince the opposite side of any of their numerous points. I think that is partly because of the innate incompatability of the rivalling worldviews, but also, or even mainly so, because it takes a lot of time, energy and courage to break through self imposed barriers in your consciousness, which you have grown to love and charish.