With all due respect to Mr .Dawkins, let me remind his esteemed highness, or those present who are liable to take offence at what follows, that criticizing religion by saying that it makes us satisfy ourselves at knowing that we'll never understand everything, is just plain stupid. The problem with Mr Dawkins and others like him is that they presuppose that the World is slowly evolving to a perfect (Read good) state, and this is merely an intermediate (Read bad) state, and since this is true, the world is currently filled with all kinds of irrationalist, who not having benefitted from the gentile existence and purity of spirit and all that crap that Mr.Dawkins was clearly imbued in from his childhood, are susceptible to believe in the existence of things like God, and furthermore they demand that their religious prejudices be respected.
Well Mr.Dawkins (and all his followers)I have news for you. It is not "unfair" to give so much weight to religious prejudices. And you want to know why? Because unfair and fair, good and bad, are just wine bottles we see the world through, pleasantly distorted out of shape to suit our grotesque fanatsies. What is Respect, that thing that Mr.Dawkins so grudges to give to people with religious beliefs?
What is Respect? We are organisms . We have our interests, not all of which might be in the interest of our nearest neighbours. Those interests might be protecting our own irrational facet, which all of us do have, no matter how vehement he/she might be in insisnting that he/she is a completely rational being. But let us not be so specific. Generally, We show "Respect" to others' interests so that they accomodate ours. That is what is Respect. Clearly, Mr Dawkins, you see that Respect is a human invention which is incompatible with another human invention ,"unfair".
The point that eludes all ardent rationalists is that they fail to understand that any system of logic is based and operated by axioms, which are stated by humans like them, albeit after careful consideration, but by humans nevertheless . There are things that escape the radar of logic, that cant be "explained". They fall short because they try to "explain" god, and since god does not occur to them within the confines of the framework that they made, they deem its existence to be dubious. What they fail to understand is that God is a concept. It is a concept, like logic is a concept, like Respect is a concept, like unfair is a concept, They exist in the mind of humans. So if anything, its "illogical" to question their existence, or to question why one concept commands so much respect. Its stupid. its like trying to stab air. Can you stab air Mr. Dawkins?
As concepts, all of them exist, and thats the way the world is. Saying that something is not good, the world has this wrong with it and that right with it, is plain naive. . People believing in god isnt good or bad. People committing mass suicide because they think that there's a UFO hiding behind Halley's comet and its their last chance to escape earth, isnt good or bad. Psychotic killers who kill in the name of God, rape women and mutilate children in the name of God, this isnt good or bad. The World , isnt good or bad. The world just Is.
So my advice to Mr. Dawkins is , shut the **** up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
havent read dawkins till now
this is very well written but a rather emotional one ...
i dont have an opinion abt athiesm etc
i dont know what to say except that everything comes with a price, religions flourished and gave birth to sciences even ...
i respect the concept of religions
atleast it did something
if delusions are taken away be it god or the delusion that pursuing science is beneficial , or that we should not have any delusions ..., we are questioning the very basis of reality and the question of life univ and everything, taht something is real and other imaginary...
that something is optimal and other a very bad way to do something ....ahhhh... whatever.... the truth is taht there is no real absolute truth (even this statement) ...
in the end, ...people should do whatever they think makes them happy and be ready to pay the price ....
but if god exists and he has powers that men attribute to him, the dawkins are in deep trouble ....
porny do you respect the god delusion idea of dawkins and are ready to accept that it is also a concept , claiming that it is superior to another concept , namely god ?
i dont blame any1 because we all are just following our primeval innate desires ...
I respect dawkins for having an opinion. But god save him if he encroaches on mine. and yeah, i am not an atheist , so I have no problems in invoking God
there you are tripping on the treacherous boundary of practise and theory
since religion and god are no more concepts in the minds of men....they are real for them
and another person says that i dont like this delusion ... lets put another delusion that god is not required ...
i dont know what this species is trying to accomplish .... they run after order and end up in chaos ... but maybe we do need a change ...
but i believe in ^#&@^!(asimov or clarke) who said that if god doesnt exist we would surely invent him ...
This species is not trying to "accomplish" anything untoward trust me. The great weight of humanity is that it can think and not comprehend. Chaos is inevitable. and questions of "reality" and "existence" will follow. For every theist, there'll be an atheist, i have no problems with that. my problem lies with the fact that such people "impose" their irrationality on us. We all have our whims, and we should accept ourselves and others the way we are.
Period
Read this here
or below
@sandman
see, I completely understand what you are trying to say, and I had half-written a post on that once.
It's called, "What is the aim of my life?"
There are three levels to it. What is the aim of existence. Of anything. Of this world. Of you. And my answer is, there's no aim. Which is the same as yours. The world just is. There's no good or bad, nothing matters.
The second level is, what is the aim of a life-form? That, it seems, is survival, and multiplication. By hook or crook, the gene tries to survive (I've heard The Selfish Gene is revolutionary too).
The third, is what is the aim of your life, as a conscious being? And my answer is, whatever gives you kicks. Do whatever your heart tells you to do. That's something we all search for in life. You've got a life. Enjoy it in the way you can best.
Now, you have only used the first level of "the aim of life" to drive your point home, and have completely ignored the 2nd and the 3rd level. In the end, nothing matters, so why care? May humanity rot in hell, who gives a crap?
And you're right. It is so. But the point is, we are stuck inside mortal bodies. We have life. And consciousness. Now, using an ethereal viewpoint makes everything immaterial. But why are we using that viewpoint? aren't we mortal? Don't we have to save our asses? And of our children? Doesn't humanity have to progress, so that our genes can live long? If either option doesn't make a difference from the ethereal viewpoint, why not choose the one which is "good" for "us" in the earthly viewpoint, i.e. in the second level.
If we were cows, then we'd have done it in the usual way, eating and mating. But since we are humans, our consciousness has allowed us to figure a lot of things out. Dawkins is one of the persons who's doing things which are good at the second level.
At the third level, you are free to do whatever you want. This contradicts with the second level, since you have to do things which are good for your/the species' survival. For Dawkins, he has figured out that the second and the third level are the same for him. His heart says, do what is good for the people, and that's what he's doing. This may not be true for you. You may be inclined to kill your entire family to see how it feels like. Or become a mad scientist (bwhahaahahaha) and destroy the earth with an uncontrollable fusion bomb.
I have this technique for preserving the sanity (i.e. conforming with the second level) of my actions. I assume that the 1st level is the only truth, hence none of my actions have any real consequences. So now, I'm free from the 2nd level, and can do whatever I want, conforming to the third level. Seems insane? No. I trust my instincts, and believe in my basic goodness (again, 2nd level). So whatever I do, would be in the interest of my species. Now, this allows me freedom from any pressure/responsibilities from the 2nd level, and so I can keep up the good work. I assume that this technique would work for a lot of people (at least for people contributing to/learning from science). Heck, I'd make this into another post :P.
Post a Comment