Good article on Wired about the supposed “New Atheists” including Richard Dawkins & Sam Harris, two published atheists who I respect (and need to read their works! One of Harris’ is on my ‘to read’ shelf.).

Their stance is that it is no longer acceptable for atheists and agnostics to sit by the side and say “religion’s not for me, but it’s ok if it’s for you”. Essentially, the pluralist standpoint. They say that religion isn’t just incorrect, it’s bad, evil, destructive. So they’re trying to get the crowd worked up to start pushing back against organized religion.

Not sure where I stand on it. I’m an avowed atheist, but I’ve long tried to have a respectful, pluralist outlook on religious beliefs.  I have to admit though, I can’t disagree with their points. This is the age of science, and religions are based on hoaky myths and superstitions that sound as ridiculous as the religions that pre-date modern ones and are now looked upon as completely false and mythical like the Greek gods.

I think everyone should have a personal morality and the right to have faith in some sort of spirituality. But there is no logic, no reasoning, and no proof in religion. Actions taken in the name of gods in war and in government are irrational and usually divisive and destructive.

I fully believe that in the long run any sufficiently advanced society will leave religion behind. That may be humanity, it may have to be some other race some day. Morality and philosophy are timeless, but need not and in fact should not be based on a mythos, but on common sense, logic, and just plain decency.  In other words, I believe there is such a thing as the elusive common morality that all individuals in a society can come to accept, though it is definitely a more liberal morality than most living humans today could accept, probably even myself. A scientific society continuing to believe in myths, legends and superstition is fooling itself, hindering its further development.

So, in the end, I think these people are right. But as long as religions and those who follow them don’t interfere in my life, this stance and argument are purely academic and there is no value to be gained by pursuing them. If however (as has happened many times in the past including the last few recent years), religion does intercede in my life or the lives of others, I do feel it is right to step up and push back.
I don’t bring up these beliefs of mine very often as I know they can offend those who have religious beliefs, which is not my intent. Nor is it my intent to sound condescending to them. We all have different beliefs, these are mine. I try to respect pluralism and other’s beliefs, and yet also feel strongly that in the end religion does more harm than good and that believing in something without proof is, in the end, wrong. That will forever be my own personal philosophical dilemma.

Wired News: Battle of the New Atheism