It is, of course, the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, which is a cause for celebration if you’re of a scientific mind. But how much celebration is really appropriate? [image courtesy Wikimedia Commons]
Responding at the Guardian to artist Damien Hirst’s gushing foreword to a new edition of The Origin of Species (as well as to Darwin’s unfortunate position in the middle of the tug-o’war between fundamentalist religion and militant atheism) Andrew Brown wonders whether the pedestal on which we’ve put Darwin is too high – and whether some of his more fervent supporters, in using him as an icon against religion, have in fact made a religion of him:
… treating Darwin, or any other scientist, as a wonder-worker just turns science into a priesthood. That doesn’t do anyone any good, neither scientists nor the rest of us. Darwin was a good man and his theory was a great one. But believing it, even understanding it, won’t make the goodness and the greatness rub off on the believers.
To be honest, the whole battle between the crusading atheists and their target pockets of the irrational is starting to worry me in just the same way as the fundamentalist sects. I’m an atheist myself, but I work on the principle that if I object to having someone else’s ideology crammed down my throat, they probably won’t like me doing it to them either.
And, as a matter of pragmatism, persecuting the irrationally religious does little beyond creating martyrdom, and the last thing we need is more people fixated on that.
“To be honest, the whole battle between the crusading atheists and their target pockets of the irrational is starting to worry me in just the same way as the fundamentalist sects. I’m an atheist myself, but I work on the principle that if I object to having someone else’s ideology crammed down my throat, they probably won’t like me doing it to them either.”
Completely agree. The whole “atheist bus” campaign, for instance, appalled me. Stupid, short-sighted and confrontational.
So, what should atheists do? Allow creationism to be taught in schools? Allow them to scare people with superstitious nonsense? It’s not like religions are pulling back their missionaries.
Not at all, Chad; defending the right for equal treatment and proper educational standards is perfectly justified; it’s like defending against a political coup, in a way. But attacking their right to choose their beliefs is hypocrisy… and attacking the marginal lip-flapping weirdos who believe god made man from mud just gives them more credibility in the eyes of those unwilling or unable to think for themselves.
Neither atheism or Christianity or Islam are the problem; the problem is – and has always been – evangelism. It’s a cultural virus and spiritual Ponzi-pyramid rolled into one, and it’s ugly no matter what ideology it propagates, because it values adherence to dogma over independent thought.
We live in a world where southpark is possibly the loudest voice of reason in the mainstream media.
Once you’ve accepted that fact just pick a joke religion with the appropriate level of sex and drugs for your personal preferences.
I’m sticking with eris since I’m old school but you may find bob or anonymous more up your street.
Sorry, I’m still stuck on Damien Hirst writing the introduction to TOOS. What? Why? Is Hirst trained as a scientist? Does his covering skulls with diamonds or preserving sharks in blue formaldehyde somehow grant him deep insight into natural selection? (Okay, granted: making in the world of modern art, *that’s* survival of the fittest, or at least the luckiest. But still.)
Actually, this is what it would look like if Darwin were a religious icon:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin
Well said, Paul. The best way to refute evangelism is not to stoop to their methods, but instead to demonstrate by example the contrasting qualities of integrity, curiosity, and a willingness to question everything.