Filed under: God Delusion | Tags: atheism, Dawkins, fundamentalism, God, God Delusion, philosophy, religion
Sometimes it beggars belief that Dawkins can write such nonsense and think that he is putting forward a rational argument. To the criticism: “religion is here to stay, live with it” his only response it to complain at the tone of voice that people use to make the argument.
Well I’m crushed by your profundity, Dawkins.
NOT
What this little snippet does show is how intolerant Dawkins is. He criticises “fundamentalist” as being intolerant, but here (as well as in other places) he seems to be saying of the religious, ”drive them into sea”. How intolerant can you get. Dawkins makes lots of criticism of political leaders, but I am just very glad that Dawkins is not one of them.
In this as in many other places Dawkins is not living in the real world. Very nice idea to get everyone believing the same thing then there will be no more troubles. But, one, it is never going to happen and two, even if it does we will still have problems. We need more than an orthodoxy that we can not vary from Dawkins, even if you think that it is totally “proven”.
What we need far more is an understanding of how we can fervently disagree with others and yet respect and accept them.
3 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
“religion is here to stay, live with it”
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 16, 2008 @ 2:50 amThat is neither a criticsm nor an argument – it’s a flat assertion, something claimed to be true without evidence or argument – followed by a command.
I think that it quite clearly is a critisism in that it points out what Dawkins is not doing.
If you think that it is only an assertion in need of proof does that imply that you think it is possible to get rid of religion all together? And how do you think this might be achieved?
Comment by Gordon March 16, 2008 @ 10:04 pm… only an assertion in need of proof does that imply …
It’s in need of the argument, after the argument is presented we can bother about its validity.
It implies that “No it isn’t” would be sufficient response.
Comment by Isaac Gouy March 17, 2008 @ 4:41 pm