The Independent has a Q&A session with Richard Dawkins. The first question is interesting.
What is there to distinguish your intolerance from that of a religious fanatic? TONY REYNOLDS, By e-mail
It would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as 'intolerance' because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What's the difference?
I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private 'revelation'. There is a huge difference. - Richard Dawkins
Source: The Independent: Richard Dawkins: You ask the questions special.
I have never heard Dawkins advocate banning religion, true. But his argument is that religion should be relegated to second class status, as in, given no preference or deference. The difference between advocating banning religion and advocating not paying it any attention is quite small.
I have a hard time telling the differnece between Dawkins anti-religion rhetoric and what comes from the leaders of the evangelical camp. It reminds me of a "give no quarter" fight. Plus, it is totally hopeless. The people of the world are no more likely to give up their religion than they are to vote Libertarian in the next election. I guess this is why I don't engage on the whole New Atheism movement, at heart, I am a realist.
4 comments:
I don't see how you get "second class status" from the idea that religious ideas should be examined the same way as any other idea, which is what Dawkins is saying. It seems to me that's just the same status as any other idea.
I guess it is because I hold my own beliefs in high regards.
I agree with John, and given the retort you quoted from Dawkins, I'm a little puzzled as to why you think Dawkins is advocating anything other than parity when it comes to defending ideas.
I think the reason that Dawkins comes off sounding like he's advocating for the second class status of religion, is simply because the strength of his arguments against religion place such ideas within that realm. Equal standing going into an argument doesn't guarantee equal standing coming out of an argument. The fact that the vast majority of human beings are unlikely to give up their religious beliefs says absolutely nothing about the validity of Dawkins's arguments.
I guess this is why I don't engage in the whole let's not upset the majority movement, at heart, I am a free thinker.
There should be freedom of religion and freedom from religion. I should have the right to worship as I please, or not to worship. Just like speech. The idea that "religious centers" get special treatment is a very tough line. My point is that some groups do a lot for the community, and not just faith based stuff. However, the point in which their views are crammed down the throats of those getting assistance is where it should not be tolerated. Churches of ANY nature should have to go through STANDARD guidelines for Non-Profit work just like everyone else, and there should be a clause that states "no cramming of religious ideas down peoples throats." The same goes for everything else. I may choose to believe in religion and unless it otherwise impedes my job or function then what does it matter? Right? The whole argument is a two way street.
I don't agree with anything being second class status, even if I stonchley appose it. We all the have right to our own ideas, philosophy and religion.. even if it goes against imperical evidence.
Post a Comment