Red Nemesis
The Blind Critic
Originally posted by Ordo
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."Its things like this that bug me. Dawkins is quick to point out the flaws of organized religion. I agree with him there are many. The problem is most of these are endemic to systems (governments, corporations, even science itself) and not religion in particular. Dawkins actively characterizes religion and faith and then dismisses it.
Referring to people to adhere to religion as "delusional" is way over the line. Yes, some of them are. But all of them are not. Dawkins consistantly sacrifices enlightened understanding of science for firebrand athiesm.
I think that the distinction between religious and scientific zeal (or zealotry in service of any other organization) is that religious zealotry can
never be rationally supported. The problem, present in many other edifices, is
inherent to religion. There
is are (presumably) rational arguments for (and against?) communism, capitalism, Wal-Mart, democracy, taxes, moral relativism, moral absolutism, cultural imperialism and what have you. Religion has no such argument.
By its own volition, Religion has no rational argument.
It is this glaring weakness in the religious opinion that Dawkins seeks to attack.
I disagree. I don't doubt any of Dawkin's advancements in evolutionary theory. I've mentioned before a lot of them are great (though like hsi views on religion he has a bit of a totalitarian view on the dominance of his ideas). He knows his science, he doesn't know religion. Thus he can't construct a good a dialogue on the relationship between the two.Dawkins' problem is that science doesn't directly contradict religion. By claiming it does so, he simply CREATES confilct between the two. He is British and doesn't understand a lot of the work that goes on between science and religion here in the US (I'll claim we're more adept at this because we actually deal with large parts of the population (even majorities) that actively deny evolution in any form). He ends up damaging more than he explains.
Science has disproved aspects of religion (if one can ever disprove anything) and I'll agree with that. However, LOGIC, not science are the only mental exercises (and the ones I use) to contradict principles like God. Science can provide evidence, but on these matters, it can't get us from A to C...only A to B. This is progress no doubt, but its not an achievement...and Dawkins clearly thinks his work is such an achievement. I'ver heard him say so in person.
I don't think I disagree with any of this, except that you seem to be downplaying science's utility in an argument against religious faith. If someone believes in God 'because (H)e answers [my] prayers' then science can ascertain if the prayers are answered. Science can validate (
not) the claims made in Genesis. In so far as Yahwe is a
personal God, then science is one of the greatest foes of religion.
Frankly...I dont feel religion doesn't have any more power than it had...and it probably has less. There are always nutters, religion is constantly in a state of decline and revival. Some aspects fo religion endure, but a lot of the dogma and details have fallen to the wayside over the years.
My classmates were taught ID as a 'valid alternative' to evolutionary biology because the Diff. Bio teacher is a religious man. To sell the influence of religion in America short would be unwise, especially in the 'red states' where religion is strongest. (Texas, here's looking at you. Nebraska isn't great either.)
...and religion has never stood up to stcrutiny...Dawkins aside.
👆