Will honor since be justified?
Well, since my electric has been iffy, I've had to fall back on my other source of entertainment: books. Of course, being me, most of my books from the library had to do with religion. I've discovered that, while books written from an atheistic perspective are interesting and give me a bit to chew on, I'm not a big fan of them. I'm an atheist. Me reading it is beating a dead horse and, in the case of Richard Dawkins, beating my head off the desk. Sounds weird, doesn't it? To view one of the modern leaders of atheism to negatively? Well, there's a reason for that.
Many of the books I read were direct arguments against Dawkins and his ilk. Some of them made the same mistakes as Dawkins' group: they went after the weak link in their opponents' arguments. They were also so interested in defeating their opponent that they didn't really argue their point. Switching back and forth between the two sides was like watching a really boring game of tennis: technically correct but you walked away with nothing. There was only one real point that satisfied me: one author argued that, yes, Dawkins had a point in his arguments but Dawkins emphasized too much that his was the only way rather than a coexistence between evolution and God. There is a strong point there. It says in the Bible that God created all life, not that He created all life in its final form. It's one of the reasons that the argument against evolution baffles me, especially since in only became an "anti-God" thing in the past couple decades. Sorry, Dawkins, but Darwin was Christian. *shrugs*
Of course, there's also the problem where both sides refuse to look at the other side's POV. I need to actually research on Dawkins to see if he was ever religious or came from a religious background, because judging by his arguments, it doesn't seem to be the case. Someone from a religious background wouldn't just argue the basic science of the issue: they would struggle with theological issues, as well. Dawkins didn't seem to be aware there really were theological issues besides the obvious: the case concerning Evil and the like. He viewed it as an incredibly black and white situation, something that definitely pisses off his critics. He also seems unaware that he's presenting pretty much the same argument that has been around long before Darwin. It's not really an issue for him; it's just how it is, just like how it is for those raised with religion. He fails to understand that concept just like his opponents fail to understand his lack of a theological background. He expects to just be able to wipe out religion, not realizing that it's not just one part of people's identity, and his opponents can't understand why he only sees one part of the picture.
The concept of Heaven also came up, something else Dawkins and the others don't really touch on. They focused so much on the science of it that they fail to realize the other implications. When many people lose faith, they become depressed, with some committing suicide. For many religious people, there's no emptiness after death; there is Heaven. Religion is a social outlet. For many, when the rest of the world rejects you, you have your faith and you know you're loved. You're not alone. You have a safety blanket. You have strength to cling to your morals when everyone else is telling you to give up. Dawkins fails to realize that, and I think as long as that's the case, his arguments are always going to fall a little flat.
Religion, while it can't be studied, generally tends to win converts or keep people for emotional reasons. I've been an atheist for years but if I suddenly had a strong emotional, spiritual experience, something that I had trouble explaining to others, I would definitely be affected, possibly even to the point of conversion. An experience like that can't be explained, can't be studied beyond sociologically. Good luck finding hard evidence for it. Often when I hear people explain why they're religious, such emotional experiences come up. Good luck arguing against it. I'm not counting AA in this. That's a totally different rant. And these are generally intimate, private experiences, too, so if you try to push and argue against them, you're going to do more harm than good.
Please keep in mind that this isn't a rant for or against religion or atheism. It's just out of all the books I've read that are one versus the other, similar things keep popping up, and most aren't satisfying in the least. I'm still working on what my library has, though. My current book is pretty fascinating. Let's see how it goes.
Many of the books I read were direct arguments against Dawkins and his ilk. Some of them made the same mistakes as Dawkins' group: they went after the weak link in their opponents' arguments. They were also so interested in defeating their opponent that they didn't really argue their point. Switching back and forth between the two sides was like watching a really boring game of tennis: technically correct but you walked away with nothing. There was only one real point that satisfied me: one author argued that, yes, Dawkins had a point in his arguments but Dawkins emphasized too much that his was the only way rather than a coexistence between evolution and God. There is a strong point there. It says in the Bible that God created all life, not that He created all life in its final form. It's one of the reasons that the argument against evolution baffles me, especially since in only became an "anti-God" thing in the past couple decades. Sorry, Dawkins, but Darwin was Christian. *shrugs*
Of course, there's also the problem where both sides refuse to look at the other side's POV. I need to actually research on Dawkins to see if he was ever religious or came from a religious background, because judging by his arguments, it doesn't seem to be the case. Someone from a religious background wouldn't just argue the basic science of the issue: they would struggle with theological issues, as well. Dawkins didn't seem to be aware there really were theological issues besides the obvious: the case concerning Evil and the like. He viewed it as an incredibly black and white situation, something that definitely pisses off his critics. He also seems unaware that he's presenting pretty much the same argument that has been around long before Darwin. It's not really an issue for him; it's just how it is, just like how it is for those raised with religion. He fails to understand that concept just like his opponents fail to understand his lack of a theological background. He expects to just be able to wipe out religion, not realizing that it's not just one part of people's identity, and his opponents can't understand why he only sees one part of the picture.
The concept of Heaven also came up, something else Dawkins and the others don't really touch on. They focused so much on the science of it that they fail to realize the other implications. When many people lose faith, they become depressed, with some committing suicide. For many religious people, there's no emptiness after death; there is Heaven. Religion is a social outlet. For many, when the rest of the world rejects you, you have your faith and you know you're loved. You're not alone. You have a safety blanket. You have strength to cling to your morals when everyone else is telling you to give up. Dawkins fails to realize that, and I think as long as that's the case, his arguments are always going to fall a little flat.
Religion, while it can't be studied, generally tends to win converts or keep people for emotional reasons. I've been an atheist for years but if I suddenly had a strong emotional, spiritual experience, something that I had trouble explaining to others, I would definitely be affected, possibly even to the point of conversion. An experience like that can't be explained, can't be studied beyond sociologically. Good luck finding hard evidence for it. Often when I hear people explain why they're religious, such emotional experiences come up. Good luck arguing against it. I'm not counting AA in this. That's a totally different rant. And these are generally intimate, private experiences, too, so if you try to push and argue against them, you're going to do more harm than good.
Please keep in mind that this isn't a rant for or against religion or atheism. It's just out of all the books I've read that are one versus the other, similar things keep popping up, and most aren't satisfying in the least. I'm still working on what my library has, though. My current book is pretty fascinating. Let's see how it goes.