I feel that Dawkins is extremely biased. He's an evolutionary biologists and in his line of work he's been pre-conditioned to not believe something unless there is proof to prove it. I feel that he lets his occupation get in the way of things that he could believe.
Like what another student said in class today, because nobody was around in the time when all of this started we have nothing to go on except our beliefs and the beliefs of others.
As far as the "appropriate" way to discuss religion, I'm not so sure there is an appropriate way to do so. I would think that one of the closest ways to do so would be to simply listen to people and their beliefs and to not try to change or force someone else to change their religion just to be happy.
I'd like to agree that religion itself is very difficult to analyze in any particular one way. An issue with each point of view we've discussed in class has been that it is exactly that: one point of view. However, while I agree that it is difficult to analyze religion in any one way, I believe it is necessary to try in some way. Religion, while personal, is also a global phenomenon that affects everyone's lives. Taking an anthropological approach to religion can help to make sense of WHY people believe certain things, and when discussed in a non-fundamentalist fashion, it can be extremely useful. It seems to me you agree with this point, since you specifically mention how you don't appreciate Dawkins and neo-atheists' viewpoints. I, while an atheist, agree that his stubbornness doesn't get him or anyone else anywhere.
ReplyDelete