VIRB

Currently the debate in Belgium between the two main language groups (French and Flemish speaking) has become rather heated where the fire's been simmering since the beginning of this country. As in every debate between two opposed visions there seems to be a simplification of ideas which appeal to the larger crowd. It is this appeal which I'd like to discredit here where I thoroughly believe it doesn't allow for honesty. Reality isn't simple and needs a lot of conversation between people. Continuous dialogue is absolutely essential to guarantee the human layer in reality.

The essentialisation makes it easier to present coherent ideas of things that are really not that coherent at all. The same argument applies to the religion debate. Atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are absolutely right in the comments they make about religion. The problem is they refuse to dig deeper where the debate must be held at a number of levels. Clearly their approach of religion is very fruitful and should be considered, but it must also be seen as a simplification of reality in order to make it more comprehensible.

Religion is multi-faceted and can't be debunked just by these neo-atheists alone. It deserves, just like any other aspect of religion, the necessary time to keep discussion between people going instead of rendering it impossible (and highly frustrating).

It might sound as if I'm all too optimistic about the fruits of dialogue in a world where people often just give up on ever reaching agreement between people. I can testify of this frustration when trying to communicate with my own family. One thing I highly promote is education where the polarizing of opinions is often caused by a lack of it. Statements should be elaborated and opinions continuously questioned by those proclaiming them. This is something science propagates and we should embrace passionately. An example often given is Einstein who provided some ideas for future scientists which could help them to disprove his theories.

Atheists these days should rediscover the dimension of understanding other opinions, ideas and beliefs. Anthropology seeks to understand humanity where single ideas or stories like 'the flying spaghetti monster' are functional and even funny, but they polarize ideas which deserve to be discussed thoroughly.

As someone who most believers would call an atheist, I want to show understanding and genuine interest for humanity by shedding some light on aspects in religion which make it a lot more colourful than just the grey zones Harris and Dawkins point out.

What about religion as language for describing reality? What about genuine religious experiences which ask for a language to express them? What about the power of coherence which religion can offer to people who don't have the intellectual capabilities to step out from under the Golden Canopee? I'm sure we can come up with more questions.

I'm constantly trying to disprove my own views and through this process I tend to find more and more truth. It keeps my mind open, makes me learn and hopefully adds an acceptable level of humility to my life (that last part is admittedly a struggle). Traditional religion is found guilty of polarizing and keeping people form learning but this is a pitfall we shouldn't adopt when criticizing it. I must say the typical atheist arguments are powerful where most religious people can't find decent answers to them (mostly because of their own lack of openness and learning). But this shouldn't keep us from already thinking ahead and coming up with answers to our own criticisms. Religion adapts itself to society and thus will some day come up with some good and some bad answers to our criticisms of which the latter we should already anticipate today.