|
|
|
| Taral-DLOS wrote: |
See, I can't do Richard Dawkins. He takes the anti-religion view too far. Good scientists, and good atheists, don't disparage those whose world-view includes a religious or spiritual side, as long as the scientific realities of the world are also taken into account (read: you need to be respectful and tolerant of those who believe in evolution AND religion, but Young-Earth Creationists are fair game).
I listen to a lot of media that's produced by people who are scientists or who are otherwise Left-of-Centre, and the good ones don't talk crap about religion in general. They talk crap about when people deny science. So I can listen to Science...Sort Of and Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Dan Savage any day, but Bill Maher is a bridge too far, and I think Richard Dawkins might be too.
But maybe I'm wrong; I'll be honest I haven't read any Dawkins, just the book descriptions. If it's not as bad as I think, let me know. |
I've only seen a few interviews with Dawkins, and this is the first book of his that I've read - though I'm familiar with a lot of the arguments he puts forth from my time on the internet. So far he hasn't really attacked a religion, merely the belief in the existence of God - and by that he means all gods, not just the Christian one. That being said, the later chapters, which I haven't yet read, do sound like he'll be tackling Christianity specifically. So far, though, he's provided quite cogent arguments and I'd recommend it simply on that.
However, there is one distinction I'd like to make.
| Quote: |
| ... good atheists, don't disparage those whose world-view includes a religious or spiritual side, as long as the scientific realities of the world are also taken into account |
I can't put my finger on it, but there's something not quite right about this sentiment. Give me a moment to puzzle this out. In the mean time, maybe if I ramble on a bit about something which might be close to the mark? Hopefully it may answer this.
From what I've read - and again I might be wrong, since I've not read the latter chapters - Dawkins makes the point to be able to question everything, including religion, and disparage accordingly. On this, I am in complete agreement. If an idea (in this case, a belief), is so closely held, and is obviously popular, then it should be open to criticism. The more accepted an idea, no matter what the idea, the more analysis it should receive. If it is found wanting, then it should be disparaged. I've found this to hold true for Dawkins' writing. Dawkins has obviously found religion to be wanting, and so criticizes it.
Okay, so I think I've got it. I think what you're saying, in terms of 'includes a religious or spiritual side', is those who believe in God. Dawkins, from my own reading and watching of his videos, attacks specific religion and religious practices which are certainly quite harmful to individual peoples and to the society at large and also logical fallacies for the assertion that a personal God exists. This is not exactly the same as attacking the belief in a higher power. According to wikipedia: 'Dawkins said that, although he would not accept it, a reasonably respectable case could be made for "a deistic god, a sort of god of the physicist, a god of somebody like Paul Davies, who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen" but not for a theistic god.'
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it. These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.
|
|
