Stalin was an atheist. Atheism is rooted in scientific naturalism, therefore, science enforces mono-thought, discourages philanthropy, and espouses genocide.
Okay, my statement is hugely disingenuous. Far more than Richard Dawkins’ statement: "Religious faith discourages independent thought, it is divisive, and it is dangerous."
Far more disingenuous–but not beyond correspondence. That’s simply because of all the exceptions. Ghandi, King, Mother Theresa, et al, were all people of faith. But in bondage, divisive, dangerous? only where the non-violent struggle for peace and freedom is dangerous and divisive.
However, where Richard Dawkins will get my ear is at the same place where Mahatma Ghandi has my ear. When Ghandi said, "If it weren’t for Christians, I’d be a Christian," he was offering a valid criticism drawn from valid historical reasons. And if you’ve read growmercy for awhile you’ll know how much I agree that there are fundamentalist strains of religion that are exactly as Dawkins says. And it’s these strains that need ameliorating.
But Dawkins seems to want the totalizing effect. The riddance of all religion, from which will spring a free and peaceful world.
For me the issue is not God’s existence, but a particular interpretation of God. The God that Dawkins describes and thinks most people of faith believe in, that is, the retributive, vengeful and violent God, must be extinguished by a profound atheism.
As you may already know, today marks the death of Jerry Falwell. May he rest peacefully.
Falwell’s God, while loving, was also the wrathful God of the Old Testement. This God of polarity, is in effect the same as the God of Dawkins, and must as well be met with a profound atheism.
Technorati Tags: Richard Dawkins, Stalin, Christianity, Religion, Jerry Falwell
Bravo
very well put
Thanks for taking time to show us the neccessity of continuing in a certain kind of atheism and a certain kind of faith, hope and love
Many years ago when I first read that the religious people of Rome thought the early followers of Jesus were atheists and worthy of death, I was confounded.
now I am encouraged
Thanks for this comment Len.
Dawkins takes a run at fundamentalists and you offer a muted amen that these harsher strains of faith could be improved upon. But try explaining to your I-found-it, relational evangelist that he could add some highlights to his old gray faith, or that gay people aren’t confused heteros who don’t try hard enough, or that one weekend Bill Gothard seminar damaged more young lives than 50 Easter “Be-insâ€, or that George Bush isn’t the the less intellectually accomplished member of the trinity, and I think you’ll find, as my experience has taught me, that you’ll soon be banished to the outer darkness, cut off from fellowship and circumcised for your hideous views. And that’s among the kinder, trendier fundies. I don’t think you can attribute the same level of virulent oppositional behaviour to Dawkins who quite regularly discusses the issues with religios of all persuasions. While he may hold a dim view of religion, he does admit that he could be convinced by evidence, something fundamentalists refuse to contemplate – as Jerry Falwell modelled so effectively right up ‘til yesterday. And I thought I heard some corrective thunder issuing from a noodly appendage late last night. But then again, I could be wrong.
There’s no banishing going on here at Grow Mercy. The crime is that it ever happens. Thanks for your voice Jeff.
In the interviews I’ve seen and heard, Dawkins appears to be singular in purpose. Looking for proof, perhaps. More evidently, by clearly articulating what he finds unattractive or repulsive, he implies a yearning for someone/something that is clear, consistent, contemporary, calm, and caring. Isn’t that a ‘seeker’? Where are the seeker-friendly?
Insightful comment Fred. Dawkins has said that the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. And yet the more I about Dawkins, the more I’m taken by how much he lives his life with purpose.