I just came across this article called "Thank God for the New Atheists," written by Michael Dowd, and I can't tell if his views are just twisted or if he is very subtly trying to convert religious folks into epistemic rationalists. Sample quotes include:
Religion Is About Right Relationship with Reality, Not the Supernatural
...
Because the New Atheists put their faith, their confidence, in an evidentially formed and continuously tested view of the world, these critics of religion are well positioned to see what’s real and what’s important today. It is thus time for religious people to listen to the New Atheists—and to listen as if they were speaking with God's voice, because in my view they are!
...
...we cannot understand religion and religious differences if we don’t understand how the human mind instinctually relationalizes—that is, personifies—reality.
...
God is still speaking, and facts are God’s native tongue—not Hebrew or Greek or King James English.
Ah, yes. The only way to true religious understanding is through science and realizing our anthropomorphic biases...uh, wait. What? This guy seems to be calling for a religion grounded in science and rationality, but then he says things like:
The bottom line is this: whenever we Christians slip into interpreting scripture literally, we belittle the Bible and dishonor God
So I'm confused. It makes me think that he's a crypto-rationalist trying to convert religious believers into rationalists. If that's true, it does seem like really effective strategy.
Since that summer in Colorado, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens have all produced bestselling and highly controversial books—and I have read them all.
The bottom line is this: whenever we Christians slip into interpreting scripture literally, we belittle the Bible and dishonor God. Our best moral guidance comes from what God is revealing today through evidence, not from tradition or authority or old mythic stories.
The first sentence warns agains taking the Bible literally, but the next sentence insinuates that we don...
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.