Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Dawkins refers to faith as a 'virus'. Well that 'virus' brought me a great deal of comfort and assurance when my father died 2 years ago. Who the hell does Dawkins think he is to want me to lose the comfort that got me through very difficult times?
|
No doubt it has. and perhaps his choice of expression could have been less offensive, but we need to allow him his opinion. as I've already said, those views that one person holds are by no means necessarily held with the same regard by another. in the same light, I'm sure when Dawkins loses someone very close to him, he will deal with it in his own way, but without God. in that respect, I believe he is asking, if both ways are possible, why would we need to depend on a system that has no proof behind it? no tangible, credible, tactile evidence that cannot be explained or dismissed in 2015 through the use of science. a belief system, he feels, actually imposes rules and guidelines that aim to dictate the way a person should live. don't forget, he is not singling out your religion, Russ. he is referring to all religion. more intensely, I would expect, to those religions that demand heavy sacrifices by the members not only mentally, but physically. having to pray at certain times every day. not being allowed to educate members of their population. limiting mobility of it's followers. frowning upon those who seek answers to questions that the faith chooses to ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
I have never said there's anything wrong with questioning beliefs as you know. What I do have a problem with is people wanting to eradicate or limit someone's faith purely because they have the audacity to believe in something people like Dawkins "know" to be wrong.
|
as discussed, 'belief', 'truth' and 'fact' are mutually exclusive.
Belief does not necessarily require any solid, physical or tangible evidence.
Truth can be borne from a fact or a belief. for example, if I told you my car is blue, you would have no real reason to question that and so would likely accept that as the truth. if you were then to tell someone else my car is blue, you would believe that you were telling them the truth, when in fact, my car is white. you mis-informed that person, but you were not intentionally misleading them. you were telling them what you thought was true.
Fact requires measurable, tangible evidence. it cannot be disputed. 2 + 2 is 4. there is no changing that.
The problem I believe Dawkins has with faith (belief), is that the rules imposed by those religions can be seen as limiting in 2015. is it beneficial for someone in 2015 to be told that if they do not follow certain rules, that when you die a man in the sky will decide how you will spend the rest of eternity? in 2015, do we even need that threat to be good people? religion, in that sense, can be considered redundant. as people find that which the bible passes as miracles and wonder become proven and explained through science, that faith, that fear of God, dissipates and becomes less prevalent. yet people continue to be good and moral. of course, there are some that are nasty buggers, but then regardless of location, time or faith, they will always be there.
The point is, religion cannot 'prove' anything is preaches, whereas science can. religion says "you should think this. but do not question it, ok?". but it is getting harder for religion to get away with that as science gets better and better. in that respect, is religion going to hold people back because they are scared to accept what science can teach us if it causes cognitive dissonance in those who have a faith? should civilisation allow it's members to be told how to live their lives by a group of men in robes and superiority complexes (as some may see it)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
One of the people Dawkins made lose their faith is a dear friend of mine who went on to attempt to take his own life as a result. Fortunately he wasn't successful.[COLOR="Silver"]
|
That is very sad and I'm glad people where there for that person. but if religion was merely masking serious emotional issues, it was not a cure. faith or not, they should be treating the problems, not masking them. I believe the same can be said for psychiatry, which at times does nothing more than mask mental problems with pills when in fact, confronting the emotional problems will allow the sufferer to get out the other side in one piece. suppressing it cannot last forever. confronting it means you deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
No you're not right there, if someone reads something objective that leads them to lose their faith then that's one thing. Anything Dawkins does or says about religion is not objective.
|
we might beg to differ here. I do not agree with militant atheism, as i do not agree with militant religious groups. as I've said many times, let people believe what they like so long as it is not detrimental to them or others around them. However, I do think Dawkins makes a valid point that we should all question what we do and what we believe in to get an objective view point, rather than just going along with what we are told. unfortunately, religion, in this day and age, is a massive culprit of telling people how to live. But it is one that people have a choice about. Governments also tell people how to live, but we don't have an easy choice about that like we do with religion. with religion, people have the option to just say no and walk away. or at least, they should have that option. and the same applies the other way.