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.