At 03:18 PM 1/23/2009, dmb wrote:
Marsha said to mel:I just recently got myself in big-time, hot water
with a family member with the most innocent, yet challenging, little
question, When it comes to their religious beliefs people are really weird.
dmb says:Religion means many things and depending on what one is
discussing, exactly, you both seem quite right to me. As mel's
excellent post points out, there is obviously a whole lot that
Dawkins doesn't understand about religion. He does a fine job of
bashing the literalists of religion, of which there are many
millions, but he's not much use to anybody who's gone beyond sunday services.
Hi Dave,
It's true that Dawkins' book does not represent the high country. If
scholars want to argue the existence of God, or the number of angel's
dancing on the head of a pin, they should be respected, I guess, but
it hasn't much meaning or impact. I've already stated that for me
God does not exist and God does not not exist. The concept of God is
as empty as the concept of lawnmower or the concept of lungs or the
concept of Turkish
Taffy.
I wish I could share this family argument. This person said they were
an agnostic. They reacted like a fundamentalist. So I'm happy that
Dawkins' book has sold many copies to the general public. There are
too many fanatic's out there indoctrinating little children. And for
too long the fanatics had no voice opposing their dribble. I am
relieved that Dawkins is offering an atheist's point-of-view, even if
it's low-brow.
I suppose this is my not so humble opinion. Thanks for trying to be fair.
Marsha
As far as getting into hot water with believers, that is a sure sign
that you're dealing with someone who is clinging to an unhealthy
form of belief. If a person can't debate or discuss their religion
without getting upset, that person is probably a fanatic. If mere
questions cause an emotional outburst, then their religion is very
likely an emotional crutch rather than a genuinely spiritual path.
Funny thing is that Dawkins is one of those fanatics. I heard him
interviewed on a radio show recently where this was completely
obvious. Unlike Sam Harris, he gets rather agitated at mere
questions about his own scientific dogmatism. The questions put to
him were actually quite appropriate and they were asked with
kindness but Dawkins turned into a big harry crank anyway. His
response was almost frightening and it was exactly the sort of thing
that leads people to claim that atheism is a religion too.
Did you catch that line at Steve's new blog? Atheism is a religion
in the same way that NOT collecting stamps is a hobby. I like that.
It seems pretty clear to me that religious experiences are a fact of
life. There are gazillions of reports from every time a culture and
so it seems totally foolish to dismiss religion in that sense. But
when people go around insisting that virgins literally give birth or
that "saviours" literally come back from the dead I think its
perfectly appropriate to roll your eyes and walk away. As my
psychology of religion professor suggested, when somebody asks you
if you're saved you can ask them a very reasonable question. "Saved from what?"
.
.
Science does not know its debt to imagination. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
