« Microsoft update-o-rama | Main | Good Morning America »
October 24, 2006
Richard Dawkins is widely misundertood by people who misunderstand their own stance
Bottom line - Richard Dawkins argues that religion is not only an unnecessary crutch but also leads people to the most heinous crimes, massacres, bigotry and ill-will in the name of religion. He does in fact argue that the world would be a better place without religion.
I agree with him.
Religious people do not. They like to point out that atheist dictators such as Stalin, Pol Pot etc. committed atrocities without the need of religion.
This is missing the point.
Religion is just a huge excuse for people to hurt one another.
'Atheists', secular humanists and those who feel no need for either religion or a label to describe their naturalistic (rational) state all know that religion is unnecessary to maintain a strong ethical and moral framework in their lives.
Religion might even be unnecessary to develop such a framework - unfortunately there is no prospect of a control group anytime soon.
Besides which, just as I believe it is necessary for children to be exposed to flus, colds, and bugs of all description in order to generate healthy, hale grown-ups, I believe that children should be exposed to all manner of religious thought - and I do mean ALL manner, the whole gamut - in order to produce adults that are relatively immune from infestation by irrational thought processes that lead people to mediate all their actions with others and the world around them through a fictitious third party.
We might just as well keep children toeing the line by telling them that Mickey Mouse will beat and torture Minnie unless the child behaves.
Back to the specious argument that Dawkins argument holds no water because atheists can be cruel and unusual in the expression of their power. I believe that Dawkins is arguing off the point a little bit. He is giving a little bit too much weight to religion. I mean no disrespect here and I make the argument as someone who has not put as much thought into the matter as Professor Dawkins. My point is that religion should be a very small part of life. From this viewpoint the Professor may as well be writing large tomes about childrens books (which might have merit!)
I view religion and all its dogma more and more as childrens stories. I mean a certain respect by this as I believe that the various religious books (bible, talmud and even that most controversial of books - the qu'ran) have some value (as outlined earlier) as far as part of the canon of mythology.
Having said all that I think Porfessor Dawkins is fighting the good fight.
When we live in a world where over 50% of the worlds only 'superpower' believe in the literal text of the bible and fervently hope that tomorrow will bring the Armageddon and rapture we need (in Dawkins words) a Churchill to fight the growing tide of religious fanatacism that will, unchecked, overcome all history, rational thought, scientific endeavour, progress, freedom and ironically perhaps any validity that we humans have to the claim of rising above the animal kingdom.
Like all our ancestors, back to the first one-celled creature that mutated to allow it direct its movements, we are a bridge from the past to the future, from barbarism to enlightenment, if we allow our minds to be closed then at best we stumble back, at worst we fall into the abyss, never to tread another path and happy about it.
Amen?
Comments
David
Amen.
Machomacho
"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D
Posted by dottie at October 24, 2006 4:55 AM
Comments
Amen.
Posted by: David at October 24, 2006 6:29 AM
"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D
Posted by: Machomacho at January 26, 2007 2:38 PM