On 17 Oct, 10:18, gudl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > discussion on Usenet is like making wishes to a leprechaun. Phrasing
> > must be absolutely precise.
>
> Actually you said that he "...does not respond to 'theists bringing up
> their beliefs
> inappropriately"'.
Select one of the following words:
"just"
"only"
"simply"
"merely"
Insert into the statement initially made, after "does not", and re-
read.
Leprechauns, like I said.
> I take it that you said that he did a specific thing that you disagree
> with. I am asking you what he said and why you disagree. Is that an
> odd question?
I'm assuming you're not demanding a detailed and sentence-by-sentence
critique of everything Dawkins has ever said about religion. You're
intelligent enough, I'm sure, to know his position. My position, as I
frequently try to explain, is that religion, or the lack thereof, is
an individual choice, and not something that should be decided by
others. Thus, while I defend the right of atheist and theist alike to
reach a decision to believe or not and express the reasons behind it
(free speech, and all that), I reject anyone's authority to make
demands about what another person should believe or not believe with
regard to religion; and I reject anyone's judgement on another's
sanity or intelligence based on whether or not they have reached the
same conclusion in this area. That means that I oppose militant
religionists who treat non-believers with contempt; and similarly I
oppose militant atheists who treat believers with contempt; and as is
usually the case for those who stand between two extremes, I have
become enemy to both.
Dawkins falls into the category above because he is not satisfied with
simply explaining why he doesn't believe, as he would and should have
every right to do, but because, like some individuals in these groups,
he also adopts a superior position and looks down on those who do not
agree with him. He also relies on simplistic tactics - again often
seen here - like the categorisation of theists as insane or stupid; or
blaming religion as a concept for the evil that mankind inflicts on
itself, rather than recognising it as the weak excuse it so often is.
Given that Dawkins is highly intelligent, and an eloquent and
expressive writer, these tactics are far below him - as they're far
below many of those who make them in here. It's simplistic to argue
that religious people are stupid when there are clearly many who are
not (and when there are clearly atheists who are). It's simplistic to
argue that religious people are insane if in order to do so you first
have to assert a premise that religion is a symptom of insanity
(something that isn't accepted by the psychiatric profession in
general). And finally, to wrap up all the complex problems of human
society and dismiss them all with a claim that "religion did it" does
nothing to address them, but in fact avoids addressing them by
transferring much of the responsibility of those who perpetrate
atrocities, or contribute to injustices, to the bogeyman of
'religion'. It becomes religion's fault - the fault of the *concept*
- that these things are done, rather than the fault of the people who
make conscious decisions to abuse, or to oppress, or to violate, and
then offer flimsy justification by appealing to the 'will of God' - as
though God couldn't manifest His own will if He so chose.
Religion, or spirituality, or the non-adoption of either, is the one
thing that no-one else can help us with. Despite the appeals of the
religious to various 'holy' books or 'miracles', or of the atheistic
to 'logic' and 'objective evidence', there will never be an
'objective' answer to this question - only the individual ones that we
have to reach for ourselves. I believe a civilised society would
respect every person's right, atheist or theist, to reach their own
conclusions on this question, and their right to state and manifest
those beliefs provided - and I say this advisedly, knowing how loosely
'harm' could be interpreted - they do not harm anyone else in doing so.
|
