A less tautological anti-God response is that the God hypothesis doesn't really "explain" anything either without a breathtaking degree of question-begging. Personally I'm not taking sides either way, but I guess that won't be good enough come Judgment Day.
My own view is that it is a categorical error to blame this pattern of human behaviour, which is found and has been found among rulers of all religious backgrounds and of none, on religion per se.I think this is absolutely right. And let's not forget that rulers don't have a monopoly on bad behaviour, and that common people equally behave well or badly in ways that seem to have little to do with whether and what religion they follow. Religion is a way people choose to bring meaning to their lives, and as with other loves (like nation, politics, sport or simply another person) it can be constructive or destructive
( ... )
I've tended to act on the assumption that religion is just another sort of ideology, ideologies requiring a bit of uncritical acceptance that (I think) I haven't been able to provide. (Of course Marxist-Leninism vs. Trotskyism doesn't have the character of a religious feud, really!)
This post comes as fresh air to me. As an agnostic, I'm sick of atheist proselitism just as I'm sick of any proselitism - be it religious, or ideological. Thanks for writing about it.
I just used Sagan's example of the invisible dragon in the garage in a discussion, and was reminded how I miss him and his gentle rationalism. Sagan was just as much of an atheist as Dawkins, but he was willing and able to engage religious people. Dawkins is better for atheist, who frankly need somebody to stand up and say I'm godless and I'm proud, but Sagan is the better man, I think.
Comments 5
MiGrant
Reply
Reply
Reply
Thanks for writing about it.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment