Blundered across this in an academic paper, put together by a U.K. professor of philosophy, purporting to be the distilled creed/philosophical arguments for the Dawkins' style New Atheism.
I'm curious what the group thinks of it.
I believe that the cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. I believe that no other reality, divine or otherwise, exists. There is no life after death, no meaning to life apart from life, and no events or experiences, individuals or scriptures by which any supra- natural reality can be revealed. The cosmos forms the boundary of our experience. I believe that human life has no meaning apart from itself: that while there is purpose in life, there is no purpose to life. There is no ultimate justice, no final act of grace and no salvation. This is not a providential universe. I believe that not everything is permissible. For while that which increases happiness is not always a good, that which increases misery is always an evil. I believe that by the deployment of human reason and the acquisition of knowledge, by the development of moral law and the cultivation of compassion, the suffering of humanity can be alleviated and the condition of our lives improved. I believe that the path to individual and collective happiness lies in being educated to reality, and in being thus released from the irresponsible and pernicious illusion of religion, for which there is neither evidence nor need.
I believe that the path to individual and collective happiness lies in being educated to reality,
I have my doubts. It's a sensible ideal on paper, but I don't think humans are capable. We are capable of reason to some extent, yet prone to bias and unreasoned behaviour perhaps by our very nature. I wonder if the best we can manage is to be rational about our irrationality, and identify those critical areas to which honesty and reason must be applied while letting the rest slide.