Image Credit: www.catholica.com.au
Last summer I was intrigued by a book review about Alain de Botton’s “Religion for Atheists”. In the review, that was partly an interview with the author, Botton explained that being an atheist didn’t mean you had to hate religion, but that you could learn lessons from it, seeking knowledge wherever it can be found.
Seeing as I had till that time only come across the equivocation of violent hate-speech from atheists towards religion, I enthusiastically ordered my book online and started reading it the day it arrived. These are the first few sentences from the book:
The most boring and unproductive question one can ask of any religion is whether or not it is true – in terms of being handed down from heaven to the sound of trumpets and supernaturally governed by prophets and celestial beings. To save time, and at the risk of losing readers painfully early on in this project let us bluntly state that of course no religions are true in any God-given sense. This is a book for people who are unable to believe in miracles.
Although deeply confused by this statement in comparison the understanding I had received of this “project” from the book reviews and Botton’s interviews, I read on, despite Botton’s unequivocal admittance that this book was for those who couldn’t believe in miracles (I am a dreamer).
Botton’s book progresses to talk about various religious ceremonies and practices such as Passover. However, every time he began to explain a ceremony, his sharp diction lead me to feel he was condescending, while at the same time wanting us to learn from such rituals, almost sarcastically. I will admit that I didn’t finish the book because it was painstakingly crude at points and his rage towards organized religion reflected in his words — what I personally deemed hate-speech and made “reading for pleasure” not so pleasurable after all.
Many of my close friends prefer to have no religious affiliation and present a strong understanding of their disapproval of organized religion. In discussions with them, I have never walked away with a feeling of dislike towards them or a feeling of being talked down to because I am “religious.” What I find of zealous, professing atheists is their desire to speak condescendingly to all those who do not share their views, which leaves me to wonder what the difference is between them and those who are considered “religious fundamentalists.”
Hate is not the answer to anything. Nothing is ever achieved by hurling insults, cloaked in a feeling of superiority based on beliefs. This rings true for those who deem their religion superior to the belief system of another, just as much as it rings true for atheists who believe their understanding of the world is more enlightened than those who “believe in miracles.”
The New Atheists, a group of “intellectuals” who are always ready with pen in hand to blame any shortcoming in the world on the religious inclination of its citizens, have taken a particularly shrewd view towards Islam. In recent articles by Nathan Lean at Salon and Murtaza Hussain at Al Jazeera, specific mention was made of Sam Harris and his apparent hatred towards Islam in particular. When Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian tweeted these articles, he was sent hate-mail by Harris himself. In attempt to providing the entire picture, the email exchange has been made public and can be read here.
I will leave the readers to decide whose views they think are spiteful or unreasoned. It is said that there is a thin line between freedom of expression and offensive talk; whether those lines are being crossed by the likes of Lean and Hussain or Harris is something for everyone to decide on their own.
