While I agree with many of Richard Dawkins’ views on religious fundamentalism, it frustrates me how he accuses anyone who believes in God or who is open to the possibilities beyond life & death as being foolish, deluded, ignorant or incapable of rational, independent thought. And it particularly annoyed me how he’d bang on about religious folks needing to raise their consciousness (what I would consider to be a spiritual term). He may have implied he was more ‘enlightened’ too. Talk about holier than thou.
He also insinuated that agnostics were fence-sitters, even though he went on to clarify thoughts. I’d rather be open-minded and balanced than have extremist views in either scientific or religious thought, it doesn’t mean I don’t have any opinions. Some of it I found rather enjoyable & entertaining but a lot of it I found frustrating, condescending & repetitive. Like most books, it probably made me think &/or re-affirm my views but I don’t think my belief system has particularly changed.
“I do agree that we need people like Dawkins to balance out the crazy evangelical nuts. Especially, as when the man (monkey?) in charge of the worlds superpower has led us head first into what is clearly becoming world war 3, and religion is fast becoming an excuse for continued violence, on every side.
HOWEVER. “Have an opinion for Christ’s sake.”…:) sitting on the fence is *not* the same as being a brainless moron ready to fall in line with whatever comes along or easiest to get by with. Personally, i have opinions by the barrel load XD, but i always *always* have at the back of my mind the thought that if someone comes along with an arguement and wants to try and persuade me to think otherwise, if that arguement is strong enough, there is always the possiblity that my opinions could change. How can you be open to learning new stuff and view points if you go through life thinking THIS IS MY BELIEF AND THATS THE END OF THAT sorta thing. though this doesn’t make them any less valid, by their very nature the more measured, thoughtful views & ideas will always be drowned out by the hardline, extremist ones, whose main prioties include convertion and the spouting of their own opinions above everyone elses.
Personally, i dislike both sides of the dawkins/religion arguement equally. Though I think its important for ppl like dawkins to keep challenging the church, it goes beyond that…it seemed to me he picked the christian faith as an easy target, yet i think the crooks of what hes really saying is, all faith is bad, its all mumbo jumbo, you don’t need to rely on anything like that to get by, only what can be percieved with scientific research. And i really do believe that that is just as extreme and ridiculous a view as a fellow in a funny costume trying to tell me some guy built the world in seven days, because a book says so… I think spirituality, faith, whatever you wanna call it is just as important and informative as hard scientific fact. specially in a world so full of materialism and instant fixes of whatever we want whenever we want it, as long as we can afford it.
The outrage from the religous camp as a response to Dawkins is interesting… especially considering that despite the fact the opinions of either side are opposite, they are both equally as dogmatic and extreme in their view points… both sides want to see the other shut down and silenced, both seem to feel that the world would be a better place on one hand, without scientific reason, and on the other without religion. It must feel weird for the religious establishment to see what is ultimately a mirror of their own traditional style of preaching presented to them, yet in the guise of their true polar opposite.
But I guess as long as the masses need someone who seems to know what theyre banging on about,to tell them what to think, no matter how ludricrous what theyre saying is, people like Dawkins and certain aspects of organised religion will continue to flourish, and people will continue to be outraged by them….”
Alex Procter
“Science moves within the realm which we can – in part – comprehend and perceive. God – being well outside of our limited abilities of understanding – cannot be broken down into scientific statements and observations (or even experiments), and thus does not fit in the limitedness of the scientific minds. Science – I would assume – thus cannot prove the existence of God… Have you ever considered trying to prove the existence of “love” through scientific observations?” – Anon