Today I re-read the article “Dawkin’s Religion” by Vincent Brummer. In this article the author tries to pick apart the arguments Dawkins makes in his books that in essence denounce religion. The article is very much pro-religion and often calls on misinterpretations of Dawkin’s take of the biblical writing to make its main arguments. This seems to be a common theme from all the authors that denounced Dawkin’s views; often calling upon Dawkin’s definition of faith which is belief without evidence. To me that is the whole foundation of faith but this is not the same for most of the authors. In Brummer’s writings he quotes one of Dawkins’s arguments in Dawkins’s book he states that religious beleivers, “hold beliefs
that flatly contradict demonstrable scientific facts as well as rival religions
followed by others. People not only hold these beliefs with passionate certitude, but devote time and resources to costly activities that flow from holding them. They die for them, or kill for them” (Dawkins 178). Religion is to some extent an unnecessary waste of materials and time, to some religion has provided a new sense of being while to others it is just an activity that has to be done to please the peers. To both groups, how is it plausible to believe something and live your life by something that has constantly been disproved? Yet some people still hold the disproven. Which is why Dawkins holds religion as a malignant virus that turns sane people to become irrational.
No comments:
Post a Comment