There are two kinds of atheists, ordinary atheists who do not believe in God and passionate atheists who consider God to be their personal enemy.
This is from
a review by Freeman Dyson of Daniel Dennett's
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. Mark me down as an ordinary atheist. Dyson touches on an issue that came up in the
debate between Ophelia and me back in January and February. He writes:
I see no way to draw up a balance sheet, to weigh the good done by religion against the evil and decide which is greater by some impartial process.
Snap. It's what I said then. But for both believers and unbelievers there's another issue that is probably more important in determining their belief and unbelief, respectively. It's the issue of the truth or otherwise of religious belief. Here Dyson opts for a standpoint that puts the issue beyond the reach of any rational adjudication. These are just two incommensurable types of knowledge:
Science is a particular bunch of tools that have been conspicuously successful for understanding and manipulating the material universe. Religion is another bunch of tools, giving us hints of a mental or spiritual universe that transcends the material universe. To understand religion, it is necessary to explore it from the inside...
But will this plea, then, work for just
any self-enclosed belief system? And if not, why not? It's an interesting review.