Thank you Costica Bradatan and John Gray.
Interesting piece very relevant to the cultural elephant in the room (at least in America). This elephant also relates to the popular perception that a scientific and a religous belief perspective are mutually exclusive.
Lots to unpack but highlights include:
“[Grey] uses paradox not just for rhetorical effect but to a philosophical end.”
<thank you. rhetoric abounds already.>
Voltaire and Nietzeche, as perceived atheists, are rexamined.
“no such thing as secularism”
The idea that religion is born from a fundamental need to make meaning.
The author suggests religion is irreplacable in our meaning making process.
I propose extending this more broadly: culture is irreplacable and religion is a social structure of culture. This is consistent with the authors’ arguements.
While categorization is reductionist at times, the breakdown of ‘types’ of atheists is appropriate and beneficial to the big picture “layman” discussion.
“Atheist” and “scientist” have become confused as synonomous. “Atheist” is largely a stigma in many local American communities. If you believe this is irrelevant to the endeavor of science, please consider public school textbooks and science. Evolution is less frequently taught (in the South, at least), then cited as theory and then discredited.
Why? Because text book order demand stems from state boards of education.
Please check The Revisionaries, a documentary demonstratig this process.