The more I read about religion, the more horrified I get. For me, since I've never really considered the existence of a supreme being (apart from myself - oy!) so I have a sort of haphazard approach to learning about religion. And even after finishing this, I'm not really inclined to try o find out about more of them, or more about the ones I know bits about. One feeling that has persisted even after reading this book: it's not god or gods that I have a problem with. It's religion - that seems to be a common feeling.
I bought this with the Amazon gift certificate my workmates gave me and haven't regretted it.
And, of course, as so often happens when reading non-fiction, I now have a list of other books I want to read which is as long as my arm.
4 comments:
I don't have a problem with what Dawkins says, it's how he says it.
Yes religion is bizarre and frankly silly, but it brings a lot of comfort to an awful lot of people. I can think of so many people who are religious and seem to be at peace with themselves, comfortable with who and why they are in a way that many atheists aren't. It just seems OTT to rub their noses in the dirt and insult their intelligence the way Dawkins and so many of his followers do.
The religious extremists are another story of course and I suspect these are the people Dawkins has in mind.
I completely agree with you there. Which is why I'm avoiding things like The God Delusion and the related conversation in That Other Place
;)
Most people who have a belief in some kind of deity (or deities) or other are perfectly kind and lovely people and completely harmless. The wildly fanatical types, If they didn't use religion would use something else. I think Stalin is an example of that kind of behaviour.
One thing I do occasionally encounter though, is the impression that religious people have of atheists = amoral. As though I go around eating babies, stealing things and leading a generally debauched life. Whereas I believe that (most of the) 10 commandments - as an example - are a reasonable way for a society to get along and have nothing to do with God and everything to do with people.
I feel that Dawkins is missing the point. Yes - obviously there's no god. It's simply not needed to explain creation. *But* in the course of their daily lives, very few people give thought to how we got here.
Rather, religion is a social/ethical organising principle. There's a debate to be had on the dangers of regarding a particular way of doing things as ordained by a creator - but I feel Dawkins barely touches on that.
Hitchens: He's a prankster. He aims to shock. What I'd like is a more considered treatment which includes the fluffy side of religion.
Dennett's your man!
D
I'm working up to Dawkins - he seems to be everywhere, so I really want to have a peek. But I really don't like the rabid "I'm right and people are idiots" attitude that I feel coming from him (and his fans) as much as I don't like it from any number of religious people.
Post a Comment