science vs religion? new atheism is a religion – the conversion tactics are dishonest.

agree that Science is right about the things that Science is right about. I love Science and all that it does. But New Atheism has become a Religion of today. It has a strong following of adherents, it has spokespeople on TV that do talks to convince people that are akin to TV Preachers but are standing on top of a limited viewpoint of History to do so and, is actively recruiting conversion.

It’s the methodology that is used to bring people in that bothers me.

I was of the time of Carl Sagan, who was never an Atheist but rather Agnostic. He was a Skeptic and was against the abuses found within some religions – as much as he was against the abuses found within the sciences, but felt that mainstream religions were doing just fine and he didn’t go on the warpath against reasonable people being reasonable.

That’s the main difference; the active recruitment, the ’cause’. But instead of “Good Christian Soldiers Marching On” it becomes “Good Nonbeliever Soldiers Marching On”.

I’m not against education; nor against atheism or against religion; and personally, I find those guys all nice guys and easy to listen to. I’ve seen Universe from Nothing – and spent a year and a glued to the Science channel (where these guys started to show up more and more, and saw other prominent scientists start not showing up as much) – But I have a strong B.S. detector; and when a bunch of people try really hard to convince me of a single idea.. my red flags go up and I get a funny smell up my nose.

Hawking disappointed me most of all; I love him to death and I’m still a great fan of the man and his work and his entertainment. But when he did an hour show on “God need not exist”.. and was painting a picture of religion that was *really* cardboard-looking and didn’t even LOOK like any religion I ever knew… I realized that he had become one of the followers.

Just compare Carl Sagan to Neil Degrasse Tyson sometime and you’ll hear the difference. It’s subtle. I’m not anti Neil Degrasse Tyson; I love listening to him talk; he’s like a warm teddy bear and he’s very interesting. But his grasp on History is limited; anything before 1800, he gets more and more wrong… and it’s part of an agenda. That’s where the difference is; the agenda aspect of it. But the rest of what he talks about? I like.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


one × 7 =

Leave a Reply