dreamer_easy (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dreamer_easy) wrote2007-01-06 09:15 pm
dreamer_easy) wrote2007-01-06 09:15 pm
Entry tags:
Oh, Richard *slaps forehead*
I dug up a Sunday Times (24/1/07) interview with Richard Dawkins re The God Delusion, from which I quote:
But if religion only amounts to coffee mornings and more upbeat passages from the New Testament, why the pressing need to turn its followers atheist? "I don't exactly want to turn people, I suppose." That's what you say you want to do in your book. "Well, I think they're missing something. The scientific world-view is so exciting, so breathtakingly enthralling when you think of what we now understand. Here we are sitting on a planet that may possibly be the only planet in the entire universe which has anything like life. We don't have it for long. What a shame to spend your few decades grizzling and grumbling about your lot when you could be revelling in the fact you exist at all." And religion is the barrier to such pleasures? "I think so, yes."
To a Neo-Pagan (or indeed a Zen Buddhist), whose religion is rooted in nature, this is the most bizarre nonsense - although frankly, I'm unsure that Dawkins realises there are religions other than the Abrahamic trio. More to the point, the idea that a scientific worldview is mutually exclusive with religious faith is also bunkum. According to National Geographic, a 1997 survey revealed that 40% of US scientists believe in a God who answers prayers. NG points out that an even larger proportion may believe in some kind of deity, and quotes physicist Brian Greene: "The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
But if religion only amounts to coffee mornings and more upbeat passages from the New Testament, why the pressing need to turn its followers atheist? "I don't exactly want to turn people, I suppose." That's what you say you want to do in your book. "Well, I think they're missing something. The scientific world-view is so exciting, so breathtakingly enthralling when you think of what we now understand. Here we are sitting on a planet that may possibly be the only planet in the entire universe which has anything like life. We don't have it for long. What a shame to spend your few decades grizzling and grumbling about your lot when you could be revelling in the fact you exist at all." And religion is the barrier to such pleasures? "I think so, yes."
To a Neo-Pagan (or indeed a Zen Buddhist), whose religion is rooted in nature, this is the most bizarre nonsense - although frankly, I'm unsure that Dawkins realises there are religions other than the Abrahamic trio. More to the point, the idea that a scientific worldview is mutually exclusive with religious faith is also bunkum. According to National Geographic, a 1997 survey revealed that 40% of US scientists believe in a God who answers prayers. NG points out that an even larger proportion may believe in some kind of deity, and quotes physicist Brian Greene: "The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
no subject
(I think Dawkins would find my own beliefs particularly irritating in their slipperiness.)