User:Devilishlyhandsome/Atheism 3.0.1
+ + + +
+
| Part of a series on |
| Atheism |
|---|
+ +
Atheism 3.0 is a term applied by commentators to the position of a small group of atheist writers who, while not believing in the existence of God, maintain that religion still has been beneficial to both individuals and society.[1][2]
+
The first-known usage of the term dates to October 2009.[2]
+
Austin Dacey, formerly a United Nations representative for the Center for Inquiry who has been classified as an Atheism 3.0 author, has criticized the taxonomy.[3]
+
Dacey is reported to have criticized the New Atheism movement for insisting on the removal of religion from the public square on grounds that doing so would shield religion from criticism and circumvent debate on morality.[4]
+ +
The following three books have been called Atheism 3.0 works: Good without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe by Greg M. Epstein, The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life by Austin Dacey, and An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Humanity is Better Off With Religion than Without It by Bruce Sheiman.[2]
+ +
References
[edit]+
- ^
+
Burke, Daniel (19 October 2009). "Atheism 3.0 finds a little more room for religion". USA Today. Religion News Service.
Faith provides meaning and purpose for millions of believers, inspires people to tend to each other and build communities, gives them a sense of union with a transcendent force, and provides numerous health benefits, Sheiman says. Moreover, the galvanizing force behind many achievements in Western civilization has been faith, Sheiman argues, while conceding that he limits his analysis, for the most part, to modern Western religion.
"More than any other institution, religion deserves our appreciation and respect because it has persistently encouraged people to care deeply — for the self, for neighbors, for humanity, and for the natural world — and to strive for the highest ideals humans are able to envision," Sheiman writes. +
- ^ a b c
+
Burke, Daniel (15 October 2009). "Atheism 3.0 finds a little more room for religion". Religion News Service.
The old atheists said there was no God. The so-called "New Atheists" said there was no God, and they were vocally vicious about it. Now, the new "New Atheists" — call it Atheism 3.0 — say there's still no God, but maybe religion isn't all that bad.
+ - ^
+
Dacey, Austin (26 October 2009). [http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/10/the_secularist_case_against_atheism_30.html
+ "The secularist case against "Atheism 3.0""]. The Washington Post.
Religion News Service classifies me and my book The Secular Conscience among the 3.0s. I have to say that I'm not all that happy with the taxonomy....The "Atheism 3.0" label may be motivated by a desire for fresh intellectual options, but it confines secular critiques to a conversational agenda set by religion (with a peculiarly Western conception of religion at that).
{{cite news}}: Check|url=value (help); horizontal tab character in|url=at position 109 (help) + - ^
+
Burke, Daniel (19 October 2009). "Atheism 3.0 finds a little more room for religion". USA Today. Religion News Service.
Atheists who insist that religion be removed from the public square are doing themselves a disservice, argues Austin Dacey, a former United Nations representative for the staunchly secularist Center for Inquiry and author of The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life. A godless public square not only shields religion from public criticism, it also circumvents a broader debate on morality, he argues.
+ + + +
+