Following my theme of discussing books…
Let’s discuss The God Delusion. As most of you probably know, this book is entirely about Atheism and how it can be supported as a valid perspective, arguably more defendable and sensible than many relgious beliefs.
Richard Dawkins asks his audience, “What would the world be like without religion?”
An over-analytical person might see this picture and notice that the light between the twin towers makes the shape of the cross, a deeply relgious symbol. Hence, the picture seems to contradict its own message.
The point that Dawkins makes is that religion, although a wonderful thing in and of itself and beautiful, is the main reason for most of the world’s problems. Ireland’s problems? Catholic vs. Protestant. England’s problems throughout history? Unification of the Church. Anglican vs. Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Jewish. World War II? Jews vs. everyone else. The war on terror? A warped version of Islam vs. anyone who dares to not be Muslim. Ever since religion came into being – ever since people found something to believe in that is bigger than themselves – there have been religious battles and wars.
Now, I’m not saying I totally support atheism. I think that people SHOULD have something to believe in; people NEED something to believe in. And I personally am in no way ready or willing to give up my own faith in Wicca.
On the other hand, it simply can’t be ignored that religion IS the major cause of most of the world’s problems. You want world peace? Well great, you’re not going to get it until people either convert to atheism or simply keep their religious beliefs to themselves COMPLETELY.
Maybe though, world peace isn’t about everyone getting along. We’re human. It’s never going to happen. Maybe it’s more about learning to coexist or just leave each other the hell alone. But as long as there’s communism and dictatorship…there won’t be anyone leaving anyone alone. People are greedy. People don’t act like they actually have religion. Every religion in the world has some version of “the golden rule.” Do unto others, harm none, etc.
Richard Dawkins is right that religion has terrible effects on the world and the people in it…but maybe it’s less about discouraging religion and more about encouraging people to believe whatever they want but just keep it to themselves. New golden rule: “harm none and say nothing.”
It’s just food for thought.
Did you find this information helpful? If you did, consider donating.
No related posts.
You DO like to stir this bucket, don’t you? LOL
Although our beliefs differ a great deal, I spent too many years in uniform defending people’s freedom to choose their own religion to criticize anyone for what they believe in. That said, I don’t think anyone has the right to forcefeed their religion to anyone… and that’s what some twisted fanatical “religious” people do today.
As far as I’m concerned people can worship fire-bellied toads if they want… but their beliefs should never cross the line of impacting the safety or prosperity of me and my family.
Oh I totally support that people should be free to worship and practice how and what/who they choose without persecution. But I think that the safest way to avoid persecution about your religion is to not tell anyone what it is (except family and friends and such). Religion really should be one of those topics you dont discuss in mixed company. Makes me the hypocrite of the day, but color me human.
I agree that religion is a problem, but I think you need to separate the belief in God from religion. Religion is anything you practice religiously, and doesn’t necessarily mean worship of God. Faith in God has never been a problem in the world’s history. The problems with Protestants and Catholics could, for the most part, be stopped by simply celebrating the commonness of their faiths. And God is that common ground. That is the biggest problem is that religion says ‘I am right and you are wrong’. God says I am right follow me, and that is not a problem. If we follow God, then we cannot disagree, because we are walking a path. I really don’t believe there is a true athiest. I have talked to many who profess they are, and when we get the discussion going good, they usually find out that they worship something, even if it’s money and then they have a god, so they are no longer able to say they are atheists because they believe in their god.
Two observations (or maybe three or four):
1. I offer a slightly different perspective than Frank – that many of the world’s ills are ATTRIBUTED to religion. Individuals specifically, and oftentimes groups of people, use the guise of religion to obtain power, prestige, pride, and – of course – money! In each of your examples I think you can just as easily point to selfish, arrogant, prideful, greedy individuals as you can religion. But that’s just my $0.02 worth…
2. For a look at the utter impracticality of what many atheists, including Dawkins, believes, take a look at “Nothing Created Everything:
The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution” By Ray Comfort. Comfort actually dedicated this book to Richard Dawkins!
One of the more interesting topics Comfort covers is the assertion by most atheists that they reject religion because it is not logical or scientific. An example from the title of the book – when pressed on where the universe originated the atheist will often answer “From nothing.” So their belief is that nothing created everything, which is obviously a logical and scientific impossibility. You can’t have it both ways: either atheism is based on logic (which means you have to address issues like the origin of matter) or atheism also requires a degree of faith (something came from nothing) which makes atheism another religion.
3. I totally disagree with the need to keep our beliefs to ourselves. Open, sincere, honest, and respectful dialog prevents many misunderstandings – which left unchecked can escalate into bigger problems. Questions from others help me to understand my beliefs better. If what I believe is true, then I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear from questions. If what I believe is false, then the dialog might guide me to the truth.
4. I agree with the assertion that there are very few true atheists. In order to know for sure that there is no God, an atheist would have to possess all the knowledge that has been, is, and will be. That would, by definition, make the atheist a God – and thereby nullify his assertion that there is no God. What most individuals that call themselves atheists that I have talked to really mean is that as far as they know there is no God, but since they don’t know everything they admit to the possibility that God might exist. And that is the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist.
I don’t agree with the statement that “In order to know for sure that there is no God,” An atheist must merely BELIEVE that there is no God.
Religion must rely on one thing. Faith. Faith is the belief in something without proof. That opens up every possibility. You may recall a group called Heaven’s Gate that committed mass suicide in San Diego CA in order to ascend their souls to another “level of existence above human” and reach a UFO that was trailing the Halle-Bop comet in 1997.
I give you this: What if they were right? Is this any more far fetched than to believe that an adopted Hebrew boy would grow up and be given two tablets by a burning bush that would preach a rulebook on life? Not to mention the parting of the Red Sea. OR, that the son of God was put on this earth as a Jewish carpenter?
I don’t have time to site passages from the other religious doctrines. People has spent lifetimes examining such things. I just want to make the point that more people have been murdered on this planet in the NAME of God than any other justification. If there is a God, I bet he’s pretty fed up with our asses by now. I gotta go get my meds…
Here is a recent book that attempts to answer a few questions, including ‘Isn’t religion the primary source of conflict in the world today?’ It is titled “God is Back” and is written by, interestingly enough, two economists (Micklethwaite and Wooldridge), who look at the question from a socio-economic perspective.
From the Washington Post review: “In the end, they criticize both secularists and believers. They argue that the main fault lies not with religion but with the “union of religion and power,” used coercively. They urge their readers to move beyond a good/bad view of religion toward a more thoughtful approach that considers the role of churches in strengthening economies, providing meaningful work and reducing poverty.
A historical question frames the book: Is modernity hostile to religion? The authors give two answers. First, the French Revolution proposed that religion itself was problematic and that societies should embrace secularism. Second, America’s founders envisioned that religious freedom and its resulting competition might foster a healthy interplay of faith and politics in public life. “God Is Back” argues that while Europe has followed the French model of secularism, the American model of religious tolerance seems to be prevailing in the world today.
But the atheists keep asking, Isn’t religion the primary source of conflict in the world today? Wouldn’t a secular world be less violent? Can radically different religions get along in the modern world? The authors say yes, no and yes. They admit the conflicts but insist that the American model provides a hopeful template for religious pluralism and mutual tolerance.”
While certainly not the final word and slam-dunk answer to all the questions, it is an interesting perspective.