Originally Posted by
Rocky
Hi Ronde, I think you're making the mistake that many people do in assuming that 'militancy' only means 'fighting' and/or 'physical' aggression. Whilst it does have that connotation, it is not a necassary development of the term. So, it can also be charcterized in this way:
Militant: Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause:
The problem is that connotations count. Using the term "militant" to describe the most vocal atheists is itself an aggressive and combative way to try to make those advocates sound a lot worse than they really are. Describing them as "militant" suggests that these vocal, non-violent philosophers are in some way on a par with militant, extremist members of religions, when in fact this is far from the truth. Describing grey-haired Mr Dawkins as "militant" is basically every bit as "militant" (in your loose interpretation of the term) as Mr Dawkins using the word "delusion" in relation to religion.
Which makes you a militant theist.
Aggressive, 'militant' theism has a long history, mind you. I can't count the number of church hymns I've memorised that use a military, aggressive metaphor - such as "Onward Christian Soldiers", or perhaps this well-loved hymn by William Blake: Jerusalem:
"I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
'Til we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land"
Mental fight? Sword in hand? In a hymn that is arguably the favourite of many English Christians? Well then, how about the NATIONAL ANTHEM of the most Christ-fearing country of them all, the United States of America? From the last verse:
"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Counquering, portrayed as justice and godliness? *Coff IRAQ coff GUANTANEMO coff*
Originally Posted by
Rocky
So, you're right, the vast majority of atheists DON'T act in this way. But there a small very vocal, aggressive, high profile group who do.
A much smaller number than the number of aggressive evangelists, clerics, imams, and other religious leaders, I can assure you. Indeed, a much smaller number even than truly militant, para-military extremists and religious terrorists.
Originally Posted by
Rocky
With respect, I don't believe I do infer that all religions are cults - and if you have taken that from my post, then I apologize, as that was not my intention. But in any event, the point of this thread is not to discuss what religion is or isn't, it is to discuss what 'Militant Atheism' is.
If you look at the title, you'll see that the thread appears to be about what Atheism is in general - and I'd love to start painting a graphic picture of all religion, based on the actions of its most extreme proponents, contemporary and historical, but I don't think you'll want to go there.
Originally Posted by
Rocky
And it is most definitely a cult, given the actions of 'The Four Horsemen' who personify it:
Cult
Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.
They are 'obsessive' about their 'cause' and they are 'an exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric intellectual interest.'
I don't think they're obsessive at all. All of the major proponents of Atheism see religion as being an objectively negative influence on humanity, and the most extreme things they do are debate the merits and detractions of religion and why they don't believe in god(s). It's all very intellectual and philosophcal, and if you want to characterise this kind of thinking as "militant", what you're really doing is trying to smear their thought and speech with a label that has at least as much negative connotation as the adjectives they use to describe religion. The label "militant" is every bit as provocative and emotional as words like "delusion".
Obsessive behaviour would be characterised by irrational compulsion. But I've never heard of any of the people you've mentioned as "militant" atheists behaving in a way that's irrational; indeed, their academic and intellectual rigour suggests the opposite is true.
As for the use of the second and alternative definition for "cult" - you will find that that usage is a CULTural usage for the word "cult," and used in this way - to describe "cult movies," for example - is a relatively benign term. But again, the connotation you're driving for is for a (negative) association with brain-washing, tithe-taking, religious cults. Again, an aggressive, "militant" use of language, which by your own reckoning makes you as "militant" a theist as the atheists you're attempting to discredit for their own use of strong descriptive language.
Bookmarks