Many regular readers of Lime Kettles will know that I am by no means a religious person... I am now sure in my own mind an Atheist and place my "belief" in that I want to be a good person to my friends and family and to all people I encounter, but I have no need for biblical stories, church on Sunday and in fact think that organised religion is a cult that I believe does more harm than good.
I am also now concerned about how religion indoctrinates children into a rigid way of thinking that when given the opportunity to explode into at best "exclusionism" of others to the worst militant action in the name of God - i.e. suicide bombings.
A person who has crystallised this for me is Richard Dawkins and his book the God Delusion. He tells a clear and coherent and using logic, scientific fact and in some cases mathematics to propose a hypothesis that God does not exist and that it is the creation of man via a neurological reaction within our DNA. What this means in laymans terms is that we are in built to question our purpose in the universe and that we have eons ago created god(s) to supplement this biological urge.
Pretty out there theories but if there is one thing that I agree with Dawkins is that Evolution is fact, Creationism is no truer than fairies and pixies in the garden and that Religion of all types is a poisonous mind trap that can be exploited by others.
Now in Australia, we allow free speech and anyone can voice their opinions. Religious people do this all the time with door knocking and preaching in various ways to convert a person to join their faith. Each religion has their own views, but essentially it is all the same... "we're correct, all the others are wrong, join us".
Now however, the great paradox is if you sprout the view that you dont have any God and you believe in science / evolution and that we're simply carbon based life forms that have evolved, then you get shot down.
Case in point was that last night I bumped into (missed the first half) of Richard Dawkin's documentary "The Root of All Evil" which was on the ABC last night. He came across to me as a person exploring religion and its beginnings and proposing his theories as a counter view. It was logical, clear and well presented. He interviewed an American Evangelist and a Muslim Cleric in Jerusalem and engaged with them on debate.
In both cases the Preacher and the Cleric were both very aggressive, very intimidating and both had an absolute hatred in their eyes for Dawkins. In the case of the Preacher, he had a truly "evil" look about him that Niki and I thought was quite disturbing.
Then in response to the show, I read this article in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is really a pro-religion dismissal of Dawkin and his theories. Clearly the writer has a religious influence in their life, so it is no surprise that it is anti-Dawkins.
What chilled me though was the paragraph about the interviews with the above mentioned Preacher and Cleric:
"As a Lourdes priest, a Colorado Springs evangelical pastor and a Jew-turned-Muslim leader discover in Dawkins's uncompromising interviews, his inquisition is just as persistent, his version of "the greatest story ever told" just as offensive."
Hello? What about the nutcases being interviewed??
This is my point, no matter how much you want, you cannot in this day of freedom of speech speak ill of religion. You are deemed "delusional" (pun intended) and an immoral evil person. But as Dawkins puts it "We are all atheists. People of Faith are atheist to all but one God - their own. I in turn, have just gone one God further"
3 comments:
"I [..] place my "belief" in that I want to be a good person to my friends and family and to all people I encounter..."
One thing that struck me from last nights broadcast of "The root of all evil: God Delusion" was that some religious people think atheists have no values. Your above statement suggests you have encountered this assumption.
I just wanted to say, that a person doesn't need to 'believe' to have values. All people can logically distinguish right from wrong, using the simple method of putting yourself in other people's shoes.
While formulating my own ethical code, I also look to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This document is a testament to the values that can be achieved through thought, rather than belief. Further, I believe the 'laws / commandments / guidelines' set out in this document, provide a higher set of values than many religions.
So, rather than believing that I'm a decadent atheist, I actually believe I have a 'higher' set of values than most religious people.
Spot on mate!
Couldnt have put it better myself and the UN document is actually a good moral code no matter one's "faith".
Perhaps this should replace the biblical "Ten Commandments".
And as a postscript to the SMH article, it is good to see that 95%+ of the comments of that blog are pro-Dawkins.
Perhaps the "Silent Majority" are now realising their voice?
Clay, if you thought that article was bad, did you read the accompanying op-ed piece by Radio National presenter Rachael Kohn?
I fisk it in my blog.
I just wanted to say, that a person doesn't need to 'believe' to have values. All people can logically distinguish right from wrong, using the simple method of putting yourself in other people's shoes.
Every time the proposition is put to me by a Christian that morality requires religious belief, I respond by posing a simple question:
"Are you telling me that the only thing keeping you from embarking on a murderous rampage is the fact that your holy book forbids it?"
If the answer is yes, you're probably dealing with a psychopath and you should start running very fast in the opposite direction.
If the answer is no, then this means that the Christian actually refrains from murder for the same reason we atheists do: there are rational reasons for avoiding it.
The point is, as you say, values and ethics can be--and I would argue, should be--the product of reasoning and reflection, not blind faith or dogmatism.
Post a Comment