For the record, sauropods did not eat grass, as when they lived, it had not evolved yet
One of my heroes, Richard Dawkins (who is a scientist), has a lot to say about the impact of religion on science and society. Two of his observations are as follows:
- Indoctrination of children (who are naturally trusting, do not know any better, and in a sense 'cannot defend themselves), into religious world-views (particularly those which are damaging to rational senses, threatening and stressful, and fostering of intolerance), is quite literally a form of child abuse.
- Many great works of art, literature, and entertainment have been historically inspired (or even commissioned) by religious beliefs and believers, but not believing in the religion itself does not diminish our ability to enjoy these things. Enjoying a work of fiction or fantasy does not require belief in the story to be appreciated (we don't need to think Dr. House is a real doctor to marvel at his exploits).
I agree with both of these observations (as I have coincidentally agreed with almost everything Dr. Dawkins has said since around 1990), but currently find myself in somewhat of a grey area. Suppose I have discovered a religiously motivated piece of work, a song, which I find catchy, fun, and almost charming in its blatant agenda. I would like to think that the fact that it is religious won't stop me from enjoying it, and puzzling people with my recitation of it.
However, I am also not a fan of child abuse... Am I, in fact, obliged not to therefore enjoy the song 'Behemoth Was A Dinosaur', as documented in the video below (3 minutes and 10 seconds into it), on principle?
I'm thinking... probably.
Tim.
- Indoctrination of children (who are naturally trusting, do not know any better, and in a sense 'cannot defend themselves), into religious world-views (particularly those which are damaging to rational senses, threatening and stressful, and fostering of intolerance), is quite literally a form of child abuse.
- Many great works of art, literature, and entertainment have been historically inspired (or even commissioned) by religious beliefs and believers, but not believing in the religion itself does not diminish our ability to enjoy these things. Enjoying a work of fiction or fantasy does not require belief in the story to be appreciated (we don't need to think Dr. House is a real doctor to marvel at his exploits).
I agree with both of these observations (as I have coincidentally agreed with almost everything Dr. Dawkins has said since around 1990), but currently find myself in somewhat of a grey area. Suppose I have discovered a religiously motivated piece of work, a song, which I find catchy, fun, and almost charming in its blatant agenda. I would like to think that the fact that it is religious won't stop me from enjoying it, and puzzling people with my recitation of it.
However, I am also not a fan of child abuse... Am I, in fact, obliged not to therefore enjoy the song 'Behemoth Was A Dinosaur', as documented in the video below (3 minutes and 10 seconds into it), on principle?
I'm thinking... probably.
Tim.