Are the agressive accomodationists on the rise?
I had a look at this review in the New Scientist thinking it might be an interesting read.
Now this is my own opinion but it seems to me there are a growing number of writers creating a platform for their own brand of atheist-bashing.
These comments struck me:
The suggestion by Harris and others that the world would be less violent without religion - and especially without Islam - also looks hollow when you consider the crimes against humanity committed by atheists. Prior to 2001, for instance, one of the most prolific dispensers of suicide terrorism was the secular Tamil Tigers.
The scientific atheists' disregard of evidence when making their case "makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist", says Atran.
I see this sort of thing a lot these days. I'm always on the lookout for new reading material and find increasingly I'm put off by authors with an axe to grind and this season's trendy target is the atheist (be it new, aggressive, militant, fundamentalist or now "scientific").
The author mentions Sam Harris as well as Richard Dawkins which got me thinking about his "concentric circles".
I have two questions:
Is there an increase in accommodationism? or is this just me being more sensitive to it?
Is this an example of how far out Sam's circles extend? are religious extremists ultimately enjoying protection from reasoned academics?