[thechat] rationality is not enough (was: New Year's Resolution)

[Chris Marsh]

Joe

> I've read Gould for years, and was saddened by his passing.
> Dawkins is a great thinker, but his thoughts on religion are
> stupid. I read some essay of his that was saying religion was
> the problem, and that without religion we'd be much better
> off.  I find this hollow, and can only think that one of the
> greatest mass murderers of the 20C was Stalin, head of an
> athiest state. Ho hum as far as that goes. Here's the essay -
> http://www.edge.org/documents/whatnow/whatnow_> dawkins.html

Having read the link that you posted, I would have to disagree that his
thoughts are stupid per se. I didn't get the sense that Dawkins was
necessarily saying that we should abandon religion absolutely. It seemed
to me that he was commenting on the disproportionate respect given to
people's religious beliefs; and with this I would have to agree. I don't
understand the logic in my being liable in criminal law for expressing
an opinion regarding a religion, while a member of this religion is free
to trample my secular and political beliefs at will, simply because they
don't involve some mystical deity.

I believe that having come to the conclusion that life is what it seems;
a collection of cells allowing us consciousness until these cells
deteriorate to the point at which they cease to function; I treat life
as more precious than most religious believers. Life is cheap when you
believe in an afterlife, thus atrocities can be more easily justified in
the name of forever.

However, I also did not get the sense that Dawkins was defending the
"state" as an alternative to religion. Rather, it seemed that he was
grudgingly taking shelter in the shadow of the rock to avoid a hard
place.

Just my $0.02...

[..]

Regards

Chris Marsh