quote:
I'm not saying that Dawkins doesn't take a confrontational approach in the book - but it's only confrontational in comparison to the ridiculously non-direct, circumspect, tip-toeing-around-the-religious tone that otherwise dominates the discussion of the relationship between science and religion. I think it's time for the religious to hear matter-of-fact statements about the intellectual vapidity that lies at the heart of their belief structures, and have to deal with it. Bending over backwards to avoid offending their sensibilities is what leads to things like the imposition of Shari'a in otherwise secular countries.
Perhaps there is a bit of a cultural difference here, too.
Dawkins is english, and I can recall being rather shocked the first time I saw how British politicians are questioned by reporters over there compared to in the US. There are NO softball questions for the most part. The political press are really hard-nosed and probing and extremely skeptical. The rancor and directness in Parliament is also quite extreme compared to the US, although it does have a ritualistic flavor to it.
I think that Monty Python got it right in their portrayal of the Grim Reaper in
The Meaning of Life:
Grim Reaper: Shut up, you American. You Americans, all you do is talk, and talk, and say "let me tell you something" and "I just wanna say." Well, you're dead now, so shut up.
At the end of the day, I agree with Crash. I'm tired of reality-denying religions being catered to. All that has led to is to their grasping at power that they use to take away my rights.
The thing we have to keep telling ourselves is that
they are irrational.
Trying to reason with irrational people is pointless.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
