Today I read the writings of Vincent Brummer, who attempts to explain why Dawkins thinks the way he does. However, I feel like only Dawkins can really explain his atheist beliefs. In the article Brummer states that Dawkins beliefs are based, “… on the assumption that religion is an explanatory theory that has been made obsolete by the results of scientific enquiry.” I fully agree. It baffles me when people reject the theory of evolution even with this gigantic amount of evidence that supports it due to faith. Otherwise completely sane and level minded individuals believe in events and actions that are strictly un-plausible and accept it, but these same people do not believe in magic or completely insane ideas, that when examined deeply are on the same level of bologna as religion. To Dawkins, religion was a way of understanding the world when there were no answers; in this article Dawkin’s attacks all religion calling it “…intolerant, blind faith, cruel, extreme, and having prejudice.” The author states that Dawkins clearly has a loathing for religion and he is often saying the world would be a better place without religion. In this article they say faith is hermeneutical (which is the study of interpretation theory, and can be either the art of interpretation, or the theory and practice of interpretation from Wikipedia) rather than epistemic (concerned with reasoning about knowledge). Basically, faith is not taken the route of using reason to prove it.
No comments:
Post a Comment