Sunday, September 26, 2010

Pope Said, Dawkins Said - What Is This I Don't Even

Pope visited England lately, and Richard Dawkins went apeshit basically saying this at the face of organized religion - or Catholic Church, in this case. Apparently pope had the guts to tell another face melting lie about how the history has gone down, claiming that Hitler was an atheist and that Fascism is a direct result of a secular society. I'll leave this apparent non-sequitur as it is and concentrate on the dust Dawkins' response blew up.

I've briefly discussed about Dawkins' manner in expressing himself about religion and science, and their relations. I've only watched a few of his lectures and interviews, but I found out that I think his approach on the matter is somewhat aggressive. A friend of mine stated that Dawkins has become more offensive aver the years, saying that he used to be softer. Now comes along the show he put up to straighten up the Hitler business pope brought up. A blogwriter by the nick Sharpe wrote an entry strictly about this public appearance by Dawkins. The writer seems disapointed in the recent turn of events, thinking that Dawkins' ways have started to resemble a religious order in itself, calling it an unholy crusade.

My opinions differ somewhat from that of the writer's of the entry linked above. It was important to bring up the point that pope was wrong on the matter. I can, however, easily see what aggravated Sharpe into writing that entry, and express himself in a manner that can be considered fallacious - Dawkins took a very aggressive stance. I see this in a negative light, too, as I think it is crucial to maintain healthy relations between the scientific and the religious. I also somewhat agree with Sharpe that in the recent days atheists sprouting out their minds have gotten up with the wrong leg - it seems that they wish to wage war, even if they don't think so themselves. However, even if the motivation isn't waging war many a religious person will definitely see some of the recent actions as attacks to their religiousness, and this is a major problem I've not seen Dawkins - or anyone else, for that matter - adhere even once.

Thus, in the future, I shall write about how I think some of the damage done in bringing superstitious beliefs down from harming scientific pursuit could be repaired. Organised religions can easily "mobilize" their followers, and seeing majority of the people are still theistic, this can result into a frightening religious overrun ruining much of the scientific progress we've gained. We need the soft approach, links between the scientific and the religious. A need exists to express more love, freedom and responsibility on the behalf of actions.

20 comments:

  1. why do people need a god too give love, freedom and responsibility

    ReplyDelete
  2. u should treat people how u want to be treated and help the people if u can and can spare it other than that religion be damned

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice and interesting post, I'm at the same direction with you on that one.
    My blog has no topic, i don't know what i'm doing :<

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nice blog bro!
    Followin n supportin :)
    Check my blog!

    ReplyDelete
  5. As an agnostic I am offended by Dawkins general approach to battling against religion. I'm fine with people disagreeing with the church. But that guy is seriously a cunt. Haha.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree that he has gotten more aggressive recently. These "attacks" are a new tactic for him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. nice thoughts and very informative.
    I will follow u .D

    ReplyDelete
  8. People get too goddamn angry about religion. Also, for the record, Hitler was not an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmm definitely an interesting read, followed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your English is quite readable, no problem. I agree that Dawkins is a bit too aggressive for the goals he's trying to accomplish. I don't know if you're familiar with an English saying, "you catch more flies than you do with vinegar." This means it's easier to win support/gain positive attention with kindness and sweetnes rather than sour, bitter aggression. I've had a few debates with people who had incredibly wacky ideas but instead of ridiculing them I asked them to point out their specific beliefs and present evidence. I've never "won" but I like to think that in stumping them over and over I planted a seed of doubt that would grow.

    Really like your stuff, come check out my blog if you like. I think there's some crossover theme-wise, although I try to be a little more sarcastic and funny (win them over with jokes, first amirite?).

    ReplyDelete
  11. As far as I know Hitler was an occultist who mixed in Christian beliefs. Interesting read though, Dawkins might want to watch his tounge if he wants to win over some more supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's unfortunate that Dawkins have to restort to "yelling" tactics when i'm sure he can debate perfectly civilized without acting like a howler monkey. Much like DerpFiles says about "it's easier to win support/gain positive attention with kindness and sweetnes rather than sour, bitter aggression"

    ReplyDelete
  13. It seems as though almost everyone is intent on conflict in this world. Well, I for one will stand with you in the softer approach, for freedom, progress and love.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I pretty much agree with everybody saying Dawkins' approach is too aggressive. I didn't know about the proverb "You catch more flies than you do with vinegar" produced here by DerpFiles, but I agree what it's saying.

    Trumping knowledge, wether true or untrue, by outright judging the other side is incorrect is bound to rise aggression. It is far better to let arguments roll first, and let the statements and claims follow. In fact, it is not necessary to say or come up with the claim or statement at all, simply only explaining the evidence and arguments. Letting the others make their mind for themselves will probably net more listeners!

    ReplyDelete