Follow up on “Investigating Atheism”
A few days ago, I posted an entry called “Investigating Atheism” in which I directed readers to the Investigatingatheism.com website. At that time I had not had a chance to read the website. I have now read, through half the material I have printed and these are my opinions.
In setting up the site, the purpose of Cambridge University seems to have been to present atheism in an unbiased manner. That means that as you read through the History, or Arguments portions, they try to simply present the atheist views without giving an opinion on them.
So if you are an atheist looking for a place where you can go and have your views and non-beliefs enforced look somewhere else. If you are a religious person looking for a place where atheists are being bashed, as the hell bound heathens they are, look somewhere else (I was being cynical by the way, I’m an atheist myself and I don’t think I’m hell bound, for there is no such thing as Hell, except right here on Earth!)
Bottom line: It’s a useless website! It’s not useful to atheists nor religious people. Everyone has an opinion one way or another about us. This website does nothing! What is the point of writing up a website about a controversial subject and not submit YOUR OPINION? The worst, that I have read so far, is the Atheism & Morality page where they make statements such as:
In the strict sense atheism only entails disbelief in God, so in principle atheists can hold a range of ethical beliefs from various forms of secular moral objectivism to moral nihilism. New Atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are vigorous in their denial that atheism must lead to moral nihilism and lend their support to the Enlightenment project of a secular autonomous ethics. However, the suspicion endures that atheism must lead to immorality, and public atheists past and present must devote a significant amount of their time to addressing this charge.
In principle we can be moral? The suspicion endures that atheism must lead to immorality? Whose suspicion endures? How about also saying that “the conviction endures that the ones being suspicious are stupid”. Would that not be more balanced? If you’re going to mention the suspicions of some, why not mention the counter-suspicions (if such word even exists) of others? Now, I can understand that when someone is trying to be unbiased they will try to incorporate both points of view, but where does that leave intellectual honesty? Can a writer be so unbiased as to write something they believe to be STOOOOPID, in the name of fairness? I can’t! It would take a real coward to do that.
Either that,or they do believe that such “enduring” suspicions are warranted, in which case that would cast serious doubt upon the intellectual capabilities of Cambridge University.
The point is that you must have a point. What good would do if someone started writing about racism and said only things such:
Some people believe racism is still widespread in the USA. However, there is an enduring suspicion that this is not the case. Other people are convinced racism has been eradicated, and the above mentioned people are cry babies.
What would that say about the actual state of racial discrimination? Absolutely nothing. This sort of reporting is a waste of their, and most importantly, our time. Save your time and don’t spend more than 5 minutes, if even that, on this website.
Next it would be interesting if the University of Cambridge would set up a website called “Investigating Religion” and start reporting, in an unbiased fashion, about the child molestation in the catholic church, the genital mutilation in the muslim world, terrorism, child indoctrination, their constant fight against science etc, etc, etc.
Something tells me nothing like this will be coming along any time soon. Not from Cambridge University anyway.
4 Comments »