A reader of my blog made a few comments about my treatment of Richard Dawkins in my previous post. My response to those comments is below. I have edited them slightly in order that they make more sense away from the context of the reader's comments. Also, they are slightly disjointed, again because of the lack of context, back I think it all makes sense.
Before my reply though, I would like to add that the previous post was intended as a humorous image of hell. My intent was not to attack either Richard Dawkins or Ian Paisley, that was merely an added bonus.
My reply:
I don't take issue with the content of Dawkins' work. For the most part I agree with it; in the original post I explicitly recognised his ability as a biologist. His views on religion may be exaggerated, but I have no argument with the core of his arguments. Naturally, as a believer, there are some things I outright disagree with.
What I find ironic is his attitude and method of delivery. He makes a big show of being the rational scientist with an open mind fighting the evils of the superstitious religious nonsense. Yet he is as closed to differing opinions as the con-evo southern baptist, the hardcore papist or even your typical middle of the road liberal Anglican. He is as much a religious fanatic as Paisley is. I do not hesitate to call either bigoted.
Absolutely many religious movements have been vicious, nasty things. Some get it right, but they don't tend to last long. But that is true of any organised piece of humanity, be it a government, a public service or a bunch or randoms in the pub. The problem isn't religion, or God; it is humans.
That in itself is another danger of the science can solve and cure everything camp. Science can't by itself, it needs to be pointed in the right direction. That pointing may come from God, or it may not, but to uphold science as God leads to the assumption that something that can be done, should be done. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, napalm and Portsmouth say otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Im afraid you have this all wrong! Why? Well your comparing Dawkins to Paisley [an out and out biggot and zealot] is unfair, and you accuse him of being a biggot.
This is complete nonsense, he is ROBUST and FORTHRIGHT but with the difference being he is POLITE considered and most annoying of all for Theists he makes lots of sense!
People are more than welcome to believe in whatever they wish but that does not mean we have to respect it or give it some special value or place that is somehow beyond scrutiny.
Religion is asmuch about cultural idenity and tribal nationalism but the point Dawkins is in effect making is that if we didnt have religion then the other evils of our collective nature would have one less hazzard or complication to deal with. [Religion]
The main thing is to have people interact with each other based soley on rational thought and NOT what people may believe in their private thoughts.
You are right to have concerns that people dont make a religion out of Science and blindly follow what may seem like logic or a leave it to them mindset.
However that is more a question of building up our appreciation for ethics and morality for the collective goodwill of society.
I could go on but I suspect that you as a "believer" are just angry that someone is EXPOSING the whole nature of "believing" and I can have some sympathy for that. Having a believe does not make you a bad person no more than believing in the real world and real things makes you a bad person.
While religion has many wonderful features and some useful spin-offs ideally it will fade away as humans progress and rational thought gains the edge over time.
For now oyu can take comfort in knowing that Dawkins will not undo thousdands of years of superstition and various dominant religious dogmas. For quite some time people will use religion as a crutch so belief will be around for quite some time anyway.
"he is ROBUST and FORTHRIGHT but with the difference being he is POLITE"
I dispute your claim that he is polite. His arguments are riddled with personal attacks and contempt. Again I repeat, much of what he says is correct and with sound basis. His method of making his arguments is far from polite and rational.
"The main thing is to have people interact with each other based solely on rational thought and NOT what people may believe in their private thoughts."
And when the two coincide? My faith is built on rational thought as well as faith.
"I could go on but I suspect that you as a "believer" are just angry that someone is EXPOSING the whole nature of "believing" and I can have some sympathy for that."
No, I am afraid that you are mistaken there. Three brief points:
1. My problem with Dawkins' is his delivery, not his substance.
2. I disliked him long before I became a believer (which is a fairly recent development).
3. To echo what I wrote above, my beliefs are built on reason which pre-dated my faith.
Thank you for reading my notes and taking the time to reply.
Post a Comment