I blogged recently on Rod Dreher's moving account of his conversion to Orthodox Christianity. Last week the one and only John Derbyshire wrote an essay on his loss of religious faith. I thought I must be nuts to like both, finding them sane and thoughtful. But apparently I am not alone-- both Dreher himself and Catholic columnist Michael Novak have written sympathetic essays in reaction.
Derb has to be the most honest writer alive today. He never tries to give offense but refuses to give lip service to anything he believes is not true. This makes him unpopular among some who should thank him for not being blinded by his own "side's" prejudices.
(By the way neither his style nor his unbelief has anything to do with atheist bomb- throwers like Dawkins. I love Dawkins' best evo- bio stuff but railing at the Amish and finding God at the root of all evil after the past century's anti- religious tyrants would be silly if it were not perverse. Was it Odious who said that the self- described "brights" should be called "smugs"?)
Me? I am with Derb more or less, with a deep sense of awe at the mystery of the universe and a fascination with evolution. I have an attachment to my Catholic roots and an interest in Buddhism. John, does that make me a "Mysterian"?
2 comments:
I am an atheist, the term "Bright" rubbed me the wrong way from the start. Smug is fitting. I think a lot of atheists (speaking mostly of my internet interactions) get so chafed by religious zealots they become the atheist version of the very thing that chafes them... Dawkins, though I agree with him in principle when he calls people on their superstitions. I get a little uncomfortable with his method. He pulls no punches. I tend to think he does that for the entertainment value. Everyone loves a little controversy and confrontation.
Heh. I said that articles about one subject written by an expert in another as though their expertise carried over should be called "dawkins". I have since repented of this, since it is both impolite and unfair.
Post a Comment