The Dalai-Lama had an op-ed in the New York Times a couple of days ago. His piece was titled “Many Faiths, One Truth” and in it he laments the lack of tolerance he sees among not only the religions of the world but also among those darned atheists.
Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.
Isn’t that just so cute. He notes that in Europe there is a violation of libertarians principles towards Muslim clothing and architecture. He then notes there is a violation of basic human rights in the violence against Muslim immigrants. Next he throws in atheists who criticize religion. Then he notes the warring that goes on in the Middle East.
Okay, let’s review.
- Not letting people wear the religious garb of their choosing is bad.
- Violence against members of a particular religion is bad.
- Criticizing religion is bad.
- Religious war is bad.
It’s like one of those tests where the question is “Can you choose which one doesn’t fit?”
To be fair, the Dalai Lama sticks to atheists who “issue blanket condemnations”, not merely those who criticize religion. Fair enough, right? Well, it would be if there was a whole group of atheists out there actually doing any such thing. I’m hard-pressed to think of a one and I consider myself well-steeped in atheist literature and happenings. Hell, even Richard Dawkins has repeatedly gone out of his way to point out that religion can be a source for good. Of course, that would be inconvenient for the Dalai Lama to acknowledge.
But notice the Dalai Lama’s stereotypes. There is no such thing as a “radical atheist” (save for Douglas Adams who used the term to be sure no one would confuse him with being an agnostic; of course, this was clever semantics and connotations on his part). “Radical atheism” implies that atheism comes with some sort of philosophy or ethical system. It doesn’t. It can’t. It’s a factual position. No morals, no ethics, no shoulds or oughts, no ideology, no nuthin’ follows from atheism. The same goes for deism, agnosticism, and the belief that rocks are usually really hard.
The Dalai Lama really means anti-theists. That’s an entirely different set of individuals. I include myself within that group, but I separately consider myself an atheist. And just as the same goes for millions, it goes the other way for millions of others. That is, it does not follow that because one is an atheist that one is also an anti-theist. There’s no way to know an atheist’s position on whether religion is generally good or bad or whatever without actually asking the atheist.
But that would have been too difficult for the Dalai Lama, I guess.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Politics and Social, Religions | Tagged: Anti-theists, atheism, Dalai Lama, Many Faiths, One Truth, religion | 15 Comments »
