A reasonable response
Richard Dawkins, like other anti-theists and fervent atheists, can be a self-righteous little git can't he? On whether we should join forces with decent Christians like Rowan Williams to fight fundamentalism, he said:
"If we are too friendly to nice, decent bishops, we run the risk of buying into the fiction that there's something virtuous about believing things because of faith rather than because of evidence. We run the risk of betraying scientific enlightenment."
For those wets like me who think that's a little, well, shit stirring, here's what Norman Geras has to say on a practically identical issue:
Should egalitarians today regret the efforts of Christians who fight for a more equal society because of Christian teachings about helping the poor? I know how I would answer these questions. I would say No. Presumably, someone might answer Yes on the grounds that getting beneficial effects from bad, faith-based, beliefs isn't worth it, because it might give those beliefs some extra life. But how is this different from the illiberalism of thinking that moral truth is encompassed by a single set of ideas, and denying that there are alternative ways - sometimes even starting from questionable premisses - of living a good life?
It IS possible to be an atheist and not piss off most of humanity after all.
Cory
