DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring Worldviews: a Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring Worldviews: a Framework Research & Scholarship TEACHR Exploring worldviews: A framework Barbara Fisher Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Education and Science, Avondale College of Higher Education, Cooranbong, NSW Abstract on a day-to-day level, as well as providing a reason In an educational environment where for existence and a role in the world. It is a standard multicultural and multi-faith classrooms have or ethic by which humans live. become the norm, it is essential that teachers Each individual has a personal worldview are aware of, and are knowledgeable about (Christian, 2009, p. 73); even if the individual is Each contemporary worldviews. unaware of, or cannot articulate it. Its formation individual This article provides a general framework may be unconscious or conscious. This is clearly has a for exploring a worldview—in terms of defining, evidenced by the influence of pop culture and how “personal analysing, developing, testing and refining it. modern media in all their technological formats—the worldview; As part of this process, several contemporary purveyors of materialism, consumerism and societal even if the major worldviews—theism, pantheism and ‘desires’—vie for ‘allegiance’ and imperceptibly individual is naturalism—are examined and compared, before shape one’s worldview. In this kind of social unaware of, some classroom implications are considered environment it seems needful to have a conscious or cannot and conclusions drawn. awareness of, and evaluate contemporary society’s articulate it prevailing values and ideals. Worldview defined “Not another suicide bomber?” commented Joshua, The characteristics of a worldview as the family sat watching the evening news A contemporary worldview usually includes ”together. “Why do they do that, Mum?” Joshua is a number of common features. It is intuitively typical of children, growing up in the 21st century, developed and does not require individuals to who have been repeatedly exposed through the have higher or university education, to ‘come up’ visual media, to people performing extreme and with some answers to life’s most basic, yet ‘deep’ often violent acts; the motivation for which may be questions; such as: Who am I? Where did I come predicated by a personal worldview. from; and how did the universe begin? Where am I What is a worldview? In their seminal book, going? Why am I here? What is going to happen to Walsh and Middleton (1984, p. 32) assert, “A world me? These are questions that invite corresponding view provides a model of the world which guides answers regarding one’s identity, origins, future, its adherents in the world.” Solomon (1994, p. 1), raison d’être, and the subject of ‘life after death’. citing Sire (1988), comments, “A worldview is a A world view is often presented as a set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we metanarrative that ties all the concepts of origin, hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the purpose, and destiny together. It is generally basic makeup of our world [and which] helps us by developed over time as individuals engage orienting us to the intellectual and philosophical in cultural experiences, family interactions, terrain about us.” Olthuis (1985, p. 29) defines a religious experiences, education, challenging worldview as “a framework or set of fundamental personal experiences, social interactions, and the beliefs through which we view the world and our expectations of society. For most individuals it takes calling and future in it.” He continues: “It is the formal shape around 20-25 years of age. However, integrative and interpretative framework by which it can be communal as well as personal, because order and disorder are judged, the standard by which shared vision promotes community. Olthuis (1985, reality is managed and pursued.” p. 29) points out, “[it] may be so internalized that A scanning of general literature also reveals the it goes largely unquestioned.” Another feature of term may be viewed as a mental construct or set of a worldview is that it potentially offers both a view postulated coherent basic beliefs (not necessarily of life and a vision for life by proposing ethical and religious) with assumptions that may be totally or moral standards and values (Walsh & Middleton, partially true or false. Furthermore, a worldview 1984, p. 31). Moreover, it may be further refined, informs decision making, influences reasoning and deepened, and codified into a philosophy or creed perceptions, and assists in understanding the world such as Christianity, New Age, Buddhism or Islam. 50 | TEACH | v6 n1 TEACHjournal 6-1.indd 50 27/6/12 7:42:09 PM Research & Scholarship Children are not born with a worldview. Parents may then be compelled to make sense of a personal (or significant adults), society and culture— world that may be spinning out of control, with the together—play a significant role in facilitating a consequence that the person’s worldview eventually child’s emergent worldview. Teachers may also may be consolidated, modified, or rejected. assist in this development, either overtly or covertly, Walsh and Middleton (1984, p. 35) suggest that by exposing children to new insights, experiences by answering four fundamental questions which and information. As children mature, their tap the core of any worldview, a person’s faith understanding of, and reasons for, adherence to a commitment or belief system can be discovered. The given worldview may be modified or altered. questions: Three major worldviews are competing for 1. Who am I? Addresses the nature, meaning allegiance in today’s global society (Lennox, 2009, and purpose of human existence. pp. 28, 29; Rasi, 2001, p. 5; Sire, 1990; p. 40). They 2. Where am I? Deals with the nature and extent are: of reality. • Naturalism—with its ‘loose’ sub-groups of 3. What is wrong? Seeks an answer to the agnosticism, atheism, existentialism, Marxism, cause of suffering, evil, injustice and disorder. materialism and secular humanism. 4. What is the remedy? Explores ways of • Theism—which may be divided into overcoming hindrances and obstacles to Christianity, Islam and Judaism; all of which personal fulfilment. are monotheistic. Each question may assist in discovering and • Pantheism—which includes Buddhism, determining a worldview, but not in evaluating it. Hinduism, Taoism and New Age. A theological or philosophical system can support Expressed in terse general premises, naturalism the evaluation process as it offers a systematic contends: God is irrelevant and either does not exist conception of faith, belief and reality. or it is impossible to determine God’s existence. All According to Nash (1992, p. 55) and Naugle reality is explained in terms of physical elements, (2002, p. 327), three criteria—coherence, reality and forces and processes and that everything can be practicality—need to be applied when evaluating explained on the basis of natural law. Theism asserts the strengths and weaknesses of a worldview. The that God exists; is infinite and personal. He is the evaluation should test whether the worldview fits Creator and Sovereign of the universe. In pantheism, together in a coherent and consistent manner; if God is perceived as impersonal; nature is God, so all the worldview data adequately explain the totality forces and workings of nature are divine; everything of human existence; and whether the belief system is God (Rasi, 2000; Geisler, 1999; Solomon, 1998; works and can be applied in everyday life. If these McCallum, 1997). criteria are met satisfactorily, then a person probably It should be noted, however, that not all is well on the way to discovering and developing a philosophies or religious beliefs are easily personal worldview. catalogued within the three outlined, well-defined major worldviews and their respective premises. Probing and refining a personal worldview Panentheism, for example, is a worldview that Nash (1992, pp. 26-30) and Sire (2004, p. 20) combines elements of theism and pantheism. similarly outline major themes, or presuppositions According to Culp (2009, p. 1), “Panentheism that also may be used to describe a worldview. Because understands God and the world to be inter-related The themes, God, ultimate reality, human worldviews with the world being in God and God being in the kind, knowledge, ethics and corresponding, inform and world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to accompanying questions that are applicable for “define a traditional theism and pantheism”. each theme, represent an extended exploration person, a of the general premises of naturalism, theism and worldview is Discovering, developing and testing a pantheism posited above. more than worldview Because worldviews inform and define a person, a personal All worldviews have a set of beliefs that require a worldview is more than a personal feeling. It feeling some measure of commitment. Because individuals can provide a sense of communality, purpose and may not always be consciously aware of these direction in life, outline cherished and venerated beliefs, they are sometimes surprised by what they values, inform decision making and recommend really believe. For example, various aspects of standards of conduct. In a 21st century multicultural ” a belief system may be more explicitly revealed, classroom, it is inevitable that a variety of worldviews even challenged, when a person is confronted with will be expressed and encountered. Some may be in difficult or changed circumstances. That person conflict or even be perceived to be at ‘war’ with one v6 n1 | TEACH | 51 TEACHjournal 6-1.indd 51 27/6/12 7:42:09 PM Research & Scholarship another (Lennox, 2009, p. 15). This is exemplified or worldview but his or her actions may not always by the intellectual distain which atheists such as match the words. It is the consistency of actions and Richard Dawkins show for theists—which sometimes overall behaviour that most clearly demonstrates is reciprocated—or the current controversy in NSW what a person really believes, and what might It is the over the teaching of Scripture and / or Ethics Classes constitute his or her worldview.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jay Bregman Hilary Armstrong Gave the Gnos
    NEOPLATONIZING GNOSTICISM AND GNOSTICIZING NEOPLATONISM IN THE “AMERICAN BAROQUE” Jay Bregman Hilary Armstrong gave the Gnostics a fair hearing in his “Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian.”1 He basically viewed Gnosticism as having some points of contact with Platonism, but since they were not doing the same thing as philosophers, he reasoned, it would be wrong to treat them as “bad philosophers.” Although Gnostic anti-cosmism is balanced by his nuanced view of certain Gnostic pro-cosmic ideas, Gnostics are “mythicizers,” hence doing something very different from philosophers since, in the last analysis, they think that the cosmos is at best transitory—a place to flee from. However, in the last decade or so, there has been a reconsideration of Armstrong’s view. Led especially by John Turner and others, scholars have affirmed that Gnostics, Middle Platonists, and Neoplatonists indeed have more in common philosophically than had been previously supposed; Gnos- tics were perhaps even writing commentaries on Plato’s dialogues in order to gain a respectable hearing in Plotinus’ seminars.2 Nineteenth-century America was the scene of an earlier engagement with Gnosticism, through which heterodox thinkers paved the way for its current serious reception. I will trace the roots and anticipations of contem- porary discussions, in the Neoplatonic, late Transcendentalist journal, The Platonist, and other North American sources. Metaphysical thinkers of the later American Renaissance painted their religious symbols on a Neoplatonic canvas. A secularizing world had given rise to notions of a universal syncretistic cosmic Theism, which welcomed the “esoteric” strains of all traditions. Alexander Wilder, M.D., a regular con- tributor to The Platonist, also cast a wide syncretistic net: the Neoplatonists taught Platonic philosophy in the form of a religion embracing some of the characteristic features of Jainism, the Sankhya and Pythagorean schools (hē gnōsis tōn ontōn).
    [Show full text]
  • Part Four - 'Made in America: Christian Fundamentalism' Transcript
    Part Four - 'Made in America: Christian Fundamentalism' Transcript Date: Wednesday, 10 November 2010 - 2:00PM Location: Barnard's Inn Hall 10 November 2010 Made in America Christian Fundamentalism Dr John A Dick Noam Chomsky: “We must bear in mind that the U.S. is a very fundamentalist society, perhaps more than any other society in the world – even more fundamentalist than Saudi Arabia or the Taliban. That's very surprising.” Overview: (1) Introduction (2) Five-stage evolution of fundamentalism in the United States (3) Features common to all fundamentalisms (4) What one does about fundamentalism INTRODUCTION: In 1980 the greatly respected American historian, George Marsden published Fundamentalism and American Culture, a history of the first decades of American fundamentalism. The book quickly rose to prominence, provoking new studies of American fundamentalism and contributing to a renewal of interest in American religious history. The book’s timing was fortunate, for it was published as a resurgent fundamentalism was becoming active in politics and society. The term “fundamentalism” was first applied in the 1920’s to Protestant movements in the United States that interpreted the Bible in an extreme and literal sense. In the United States, the term “fundamentalism” was first extended to other religious traditions around the time of the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. In general all fundamentalist movements arise when traditional societies are forced to face a kind of social disintegration of their way of life, a loss of personal and group meaning and the introduction of new customs that lead to a loss of personal and group orientation.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment Fundamentalism and Science
    SISSA – International School for Advanced Studies Journal of Science Communication ISSN 1824 – 2049 http://jcom.sissa.it/ Comment Fundamentalism and science Massimo Pigliucci The many facets of fundamentalism. There has been much talk about fundamentalism of late. While most people's thought on the topic go to the 9/11 attacks against the United States, or to the ongoing war in Iraq, fundamentalism is affecting science and its relationship to society in a way that may have dire long-term consequences. Of course, religious fundamentalism has always had a history of antagonism with science, and – before the birth of modern science – with philosophy, the age-old vehicle of the human attempt to exercise critical thinking and rationality to solve problems and pursue knowledge. “Fundamentalism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of the Social Sciences 1 as “A movement that asserts the primacy of religious values in social and political life and calls for a return to a 'fundamental' or pure form of religion.” In its broadest sense, however, fundamentalism is a form of ideological intransigence which is not limited to religion, but includes political positions as well (for example, in the case of some extreme forms of “environmentalism”). In the United States, the main version of the modern conflict between science and religious fundamentalism is epitomized by the infamous Scopes trial that occurred in 1925 in Tennessee, when the teaching of evolution was challenged for the first time 2,3. That battle is still being fought, for example in Dover, Pennsylvania, where at the time of this writing a court of law is considering the legitimacy of teaching “intelligent design” (a form of creationism) in public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindu Fundamentalism and Christian Response in India
    HINDU FUNDAMENTALISM AND CHRISTIAN RESPONSE IN INDIA Rev. Shadakshari T.K. (Bangalore, India and Pastoring Divyajyothi Church of the Nazarene) Introduction One of the purposes of religion, humanly speaking, is to enable people to live a responsible life. One desire is that religious people may not disturb the harmonious life; rather, they may contribute towards it. Today, religions have become a source of conflict and violence in many Asian societies. This is very evident in India where the inter-relationship among religions is breaking up. The contemporary problem in India is the question of nationalism and the issue of marginalized identities. Christians are caught between two: participation in the nationalism in the one hand and commitment to the cause of the marginalized on the other. There is an awakening of nationalism, which bears strong religious stamp, which is strongly promoted by the Hindutva ideology. At the same time there is a strong awakening of the Tribals and Dalits. In this context, the question comes to our mind: how do Christians in India serve both nationalism and marginal groups when both of them are opposing each other? I am not promising the absolute answer for the question raised. However, this article provides some clues by analyzing the historical development of religious fundamentalism and suggesting an appropriate response for Christians. Though there are several religious fundamental groups in the history of India (including Hinduism, Islam, Sikhism, and others), this article limits its study to the religious fundamentalism of Hinduism. The importance of Hindu fundamentalism lies in its very contemporary and nationalistic scope, compared to other, more regional expressions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art and Science of Framing an Issue
    MAPThe Art and Science of Framing an Issue Authors Contributing Editors © January 2008, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP). All rights reserved. “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 The Art and Science of 1 Framing an Issue an Issue and Science of Framing Art The The Battle Over Ideas 2 Understanding How People Think 2 What Is Framing? 4 Levels of Framing 5 Tying to Values 6 Why Should I Spend Resources on Framing? 6 How Do I Frame My Issue? 7 Step 1. Understand the Mindset of Your Target Audience 7 Step 2. Know When Your Current Frames Aren’t Working 7 Step 3. Know the Elements of a Frame 7 Step 4. Speak to People’s Core Values 9 Step 5. Avoid Using Opponents’ Frames, Even to Dispute Them 9 Step 6. Keep Your Tone Reasonable 10 Step 7. Avoid Partisan Cues 10 Step 8. Build a New Frame 10 Step 9. Stick With Your Message 11 “Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. … Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.” —Deborah Stone, Policy Process Scholar, 2002 2 The Battle Over Ideas Are we exploring for oil that’s desperately needed to drive our economy and sustain our nation? Or are we Think back to when you were 10 years old, staring at destroying delicate ecological systems and natural your dinner plate, empty except for a pile of soggy– lands that are a legacy to our grandchildren? These looking green vegetables.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of the Problem 1
    Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF OPEN THEISM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF INERRANCY A Report Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology by Stuart M. Mattfield 29 December 2014 Copyright © 2015 by Stuart M. Mattfield All Rights Reserved ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As with all things, the first-fruits of my praise goes to God: Father, Son and Spirit. I pray this work brings Him glory and honor. To my love and wife, Heidi Ann: You have been my calm, my sanity, my helpful critic, and my biggest support. Thank you and I love you. To my kids: Madison, Samantha, and Nick: Thank you for your patience, your humor, and your love. Thank you to Dr. Kevin King and Dr. Dan Mitchell. I greatly appreciate your mentorship and patience through this process. iii ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this thesis is to show that the doctrine of open theism denies the doctrine of inerrancy. Specifically open theism falsely interprets Scriptural references to God’s Divine omniscience and sovereignty, and conversely ignores the weighty Scriptural references to those two attributes which attribute perfection and completeness in a manner which open theism explicitly denies. While the doctrine of inerrancy has been hotly debated since the Enlightenment, and mostly so through the modern and postmodern eras, it may be argued that there has been a traditional understanding of the Bible’s inerrancy that is drawn from Scripture, and has been held since the early church fathers up to today’s conservative theologians. This view was codified in October, 1978 in the form of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy.
    [Show full text]
  • A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion
    ABSTRACT Rejecting the Definitive: A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion Ethan Gjerset Quillen, B.A., M.A., M.A. Mentor: T. Michael Parrish, Ph.D. The trouble with “definitions” is they leave no room for evolution. When a word is concretely defined, it is done so in a particular time and place. Contextual interpretations permit a better understanding of certain heavy words; Atheism as a prime example. In the post-modern world Atheism has become more accepted and popular, especially as a reaction to global terrorism. However, the current definition of Atheism is terribly inaccurate. It cannot be stated properly that pagan Atheism is the same as New Atheism. By interpreting the Atheisms from four stages in the term‟s history a clearer picture of its meaning will come out, hopefully alleviating the stereotypical biases weighed upon it. In the interpretation of the Atheisms from Pagan Antiquity, the Enlightenment, the New Atheist Movement, and the American Judicial and Civil Religious system, a defense of the theory of elastic contextual interpretations, rather than concrete definitions, shall be made. Rejecting the Definitive: A Contextual Examination of Three Historical Stages of Atheism and the Legality of an American Freedom from Religion by Ethan Gjerset Quillen, B.A., M.A. A Thesis Approved by the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies ___________________________________ Robyn L. Driskell, Ph.D., Interim Chairperson Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Baylor University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Approved by the Thesis Committee ___________________________________ T.
    [Show full text]
  • David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2020 David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance Jarrett Delozier [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delozier, Jarrett, "David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance" (2020). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2382 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DeLozier 1 Introduction In the history of philosophy of religion and natural theology, David Hume is an immensely influential contributor. One of his most important works in the field is his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which contains his greatest treatment of natural theology, specifically the design argument. However, there’s a big problem which the Dialogues present to understanding Hume. Eleven of the twelve parts of the Dialogues contain Hume’s sharp criticisms and attacks on the Design argument. But in the final part, in what is often called “Philo’s Reversal,” he seems to completely reverse course by renouncing his skepticism and endorsing the Design argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing Fundamentalism by Legal and Spiritual Means
    H UMAN R IGHTS & H UMAN W ELFARE Addressing Fundamentalism by Legal and Spiritual Means By Dan Wessner Religion and Humane Global Governance by Richard A. Falk. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 191 pp. Gender and Human Rights in Islam and International Law: Equal before Allah, Unequal before Man? by Shaheen Sardar Ali. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000. 358 pp. Religious Fundamentalisms and the Human Rights of Women edited by Courtney W. Howland. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999. 326 pp. The Islamic Quest for Democracy, Pluralism, and Human Rights by Ahmad S. Moussalli. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. 226 pp. The post-Cold War era stands at a crossroads. Some sort of new world order or disorder is under construction. Our choice to move more toward multilateralism or unilateralism is informed well by inter-religious debate and international law. Both disciplines rightly challenge the “post- Enlightenment divide between religion and politics,” and reinvigorate a spiritual-legal dialogue once thought to be “irrelevant or substandard” (Falk: 1-8, 101). These disciplines can dissemble illusory walls between spiritual/sacred and material/modernist concerns, between realpolitik interests and ethical judgment (Kung 1998: 66). They place praxis and war-peace issues firmly in the context of a suffering humanity and world. Both warn as to how fundamentalism may subjugate peace and security to a demagogic, uncompromising quest. These disciplines also nurture a community of speech that continues to find its voice even as others resort to war. The four books considered in this essay respond to the rush and risk of unnecessary conflict wrought by fundamentalists.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Papers on Theism (Just a Little) and Non-Theism (Much More)
    Quaker Religious Thought Volume 118 Article 6 1-1-2012 Response to Papers on Theism (Just a Little) and Non-Theism (Much More) Patrick J. Nugent Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt Part of the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Nugent, Patrick J. (2012) "Response to Papers on Theism (Just a Little) and Non-Theism (Much More)," Quaker Religious Thought: Vol. 118 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/qrt/vol118/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thought by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESPONSE TO PAPERS ON THEISM (JUST A LITTLE) AND NON-THEISM (MUCH MORE) Patrick J. nuGent am immensely grateful for the opportunity to respond to these I two papers and regret that I cannot be present. I am going to trust that Jeffrey Dudiak’s excellent and thought-provoking paper will inspire good conversation in San Francisco, and I wish take up the opportunity offered by David Boulton’s. I share Jeff’s position as a Christ-centered and theistic Friend, and I regret that he chose not to be more of an apologist for Quaker theism in his fine paper. My position remains that a thorough, contextual, and systematic reading of the Quaker authors of the first one hundred fifty years cannot sustain non-theism as authentically Quaker. Yet I would rather respond constructively to David’s paper as a theological colleague responding to an emerging theology that raises fertile theological opportunities to attain the mature theological credibility non-theism does not yet have.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Atheism, Secularism, Humanism? Academy for Lifelong Learning Fall 2019 Course Leader: David Eller
    What is Atheism, Secularism, Humanism? Academy for Lifelong Learning Fall 2019 Course leader: David Eller Course Syllabus Week One: 1. Talking about Theism and Atheism: Getting the Terms Right 2. Arguments for and Against God(s) Week Two: 1. A History of Irreligion and Freethought 2. Varieties of Atheism and Secularism: Non-Belief Across Cultures Week Three: 1. Religion, Non-religion, and Morality: On Being Good without God(s) 2. Explaining Religion Scientifically: Cognitive Evolutionary Theory Week Four: 1. Separation of Church and State in the United States 2. Atheist/Secularist/Humanist Organization and Community Today Suggested Reading List David Eller, Natural Atheism (American Atheist Press, 2004) David Eller, Atheism Advanced (American Atheist Press, 2007) Other noteworthy readings on atheism, secularism, and humanism: George M. Smith Atheism: The Case Against God Richard Dawkins The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything Daniel Dennett Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon Victor Stenger God: The Failed Hypothesis Sam Harris The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Religion Michael Martin Atheism: A Philosophical Justification Kerry Walters Atheism: A Guide for the Perplexed Michel Onfray In Defense of Atheism: The Case against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam John M. Robertson A Short History of Freethought Ancient and Modern William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist Phil Zuckerman and John R. Shook, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Secularism Janet R. Jakobsen and Ann Pellegrini, eds. Secularisms Callum G. Brown The Death of Christian Britain: Understanding Secularisation 1800-2000 Talal Asad Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity Lori G.
    [Show full text]
  • Creationism Or Evolution
    I CONVERSATIONS WITH CHARLES Creationism* or evolution: is there a valid distinction? Pressure to impose extreme philosophies seems to be I tried a different tack. ‘Many scientists argue that Clin Med increasing throughout the world, including in the so- the mechanisms that they observe, for example 2006;6:629–30 called liberal democracies. I raised one example with evolution, are so beautiful that they are sufficient in Charles and he likened it to another form of themselves to negate the need for a god.’ extremism that I had hardly recognised as such. ‘Is that not pantheism? This holds that creation ‘Charles, do you not think that those in America and creator are one and the same, which is in effect who advocate teaching creationism in primary their position: a position that many of them appear schools are arrogant in the extreme?’ to find emotionally as well as intellectually satisfying. Further, most monotheistic approaches ‘Yes, if the approach is absolute,’ he replied, adding, have a pantheistic element in suggesting that we see ‘but no more so than those who advocate the God in his creation and its beauty. So the two views teaching of absolute Darwinism in this country! may not be as different as the protagonists might One is fundamentalist Christianity and the other wish. Both accept the concept of beauty which fundamentalist pantheism, much as the surely is metaphysical!’ protagonists might not recognise or like the label.’ I turned to the creationists. ‘What are the major ‘But surely the first requires imposing one’s faith on problems for the other side?’ others and the second does not?’ ‘How does God who is outside this world intervene?’ ‘The difference is less than you suggest, Coe! If knowledge implies proof and belief acceptance of ‘Heaven only knows!’ the unprovable then the fundamentalists in both camps are depending on belief, or faith, and not on ‘An appropriate response, Coe! But, once again, just knowledge.’ because you cannot conceive how it happens, it does not mean it does not happen.
    [Show full text]