Today whilst undertaking some rather boring admin tasks (and actually wanting to be getting creative in my lovely studio) I am been watching Richard Dawkins 'God Delusion' on More4 - I don't disagree with the principal of challenging world faiths - I think it is healthy to challenge and discuss - and after all faith is exactly that - a faith, a belief in something bigger than ourselves, without scientific proof or evidence.
Religion provides us as humans with the option to make choices, follow our instincts (is there scientific proof for instincts and instinctive feelings? ) and for some people it helps provide a framework, and a code of living - a set of guidelines for living well, loving well and looking after each other. I don't think there is a religion in existence that commands, in a literal sense, that human beings go out and destroy each other - and it is my opinion that religious teaching is about encouraging us and empowering us to make our own choices - and should be analysed in the context of an evolving society and culture. I think most people would agree that fundamentalism and extremism is dangerous to the stability of world harmony no matter if it be Christian, Islamic, or Buddhist (it all exists throughout the world though some examples more often reported than other)
Nor do I disagree with the statement that much of the worlds troubles are founded on religious differences. As a fairly open minded person - open to and actively involved in on going debate about the whys and wherefores of organised religion, and interested in its social and cultural relevance - I am surprised to find myself quite offended by Dawkins haughty and patronising tone. It strikes me that perhaps vehement atheists aren't atheists at all - isn't passionately believing in the NON existence of something the same as fervent faith in the existence something - i.e. God or Gods?
Surely choosing not to believe in anything (as agnostics do, to abstain for a belief in anything) is the most humane way of staying out of the religious debate. ..A passive stance rather than an aggressive one? It seems that his outright decrying of religious faith and scripture is almost as aggressive an act as covering oneself in explosives and blowing up fellow human beings (albeit an emotional rather than physical one - and obviously no deaths involved....)
As someone who works a great deal in a religious environment (when not being crafty and creative in Cornwall) - and a great supporter of the plethora of good things that the world religions encourage and foster (as well as criticiser of the bad) I am really Interested in thoughts - all and any are welcome!
PS - I have absolutely no intention to cause offence here - simply to begin an open minded and healthy discussion about the subject. Please, if you are in anyway upset or angry about anything I have said do not hesitate to get in touch with me or post on the blog and accept my sincere apologies - I would be really interested in your reasons and rationale and hope only to get discussion going which promotes the individuals ability to make their own informed choices about what and why they believe - if they do! I have not included a precis of my own religious beliefs since I had no intention to make this stance a personal argument - more a look at the whys and wherefores of the many and varied beliefs of us all!
Hi Annie, all you writes seems quite sensible to me. I have not read nor heard Dawkins; not yet. I can't comment on his ways of presenting his views unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI do have a strong opinion about religions, and can only talk about it with people face to face because it is hard not to get excited about it for obvious reasons: God's name being used to justify lots of wars(for instance).
The only religion I know about is Christianism, having been brought up in a society where it is everywhere present; I can certainely comment on certain ambivalent attitudes a lot of so to speak Christian believers have, and the differences between what they say , and what they do. But there is so much to talk about in fact...I need to read Dawkins, first of all! Then, might be able to get to answer you properly! much love, thank you for writing, Françoise