Here is a great interview on Salon of Richard Dawkins, author of many books on evolution and the problems with religion. I agree with the vast majority of his statements, but do disagree that religion serves no good -- it has served as an important social support and has provided a means to channel some people into more productive pursuits than they would otherwise have entered into. I have not read his works, but now I plan to...
Nonetheless, these functions could and should be provided by a philosophy with scientific foundations rather than by faith in things that have no scientific foundation. In other words, these functions should be provided by philosophical frameworks that, even if they take advantage of similar methodologies, such as self-hypnosis or faith, do so consciously and openly, and promote an evolutionary and science-based understanding of life.
I also disagree with his seeming belief that without religion, most disputes would be amicably disposed of. Although many disputes are caused by or exacerbated by dogmatic faith, there are other reasons, rational reasons, to fight and have wars as well.
A quote from the article, noting the obvious:
Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter.
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)