He describes his astonishment that, at the start of the 21st century, religious faith is gaining ground in the face of rational, scientific truth. Science, based on scepticism, investigation and evidence, must continuously test its own concepts and claims. Faith, by definition, defies evidence: it is untested and unshakeable, and is therefore in direct contradiction with science.
In addition, though religions preach morality, peace and hope, in fact, says Dawkins, they bring intolerance, violence and destruction. The growth of extreme fundamentalism in so many religions across the world not only endangers humanity but, he argues, is in conflict with the trend over thousands of years of history for humanity to progress – to become more enlightened and more tolerant.
1 comment:
The problem is that despite what he might think, Dawkins leaves many questions unanswered, like why we are here and why evolution started. Religion seeks to answer those, and until science provides a better answer, faith has a place.
The main problem people have with Dawkins is that despite his complaint about religion, his views are about as entrenched as your average cleric. Yes, some of them are based on scientific fact, but some aren't.
However, I do agree with your second point. I used to think that religion was a good idea in any case, for the reasons you give. I really don't think it did me any harm until recently, other than repressing me a little bit. But now it's causing me pain and misery, and does so to millions of people every day for many different reasons. Therefore, we have to be very sure about God to justify religion. I'm just not sure I am any more...
The problem, of course, is that religion is part of the very fabric of society. Secularists would have a much stronger case than feminists for wanting to start from scratch, but it's never going to happen...
Anyway, I like the idea of you blogging - do so more!
Post a Comment