What I would talk about if I had more time:
1) the definition of normal and why people assume that to label one thing "the norm" is labelling those that do not adhere to the norm "abnormal", and that by doing so it is belittling and cruel. I
may expand on this later.
I can't go into detail about this or I wouldn't have time to go back to:
2) Religion (Christianity, to be precise, for no reason other than that's the one I've been assigned to by birth, baptism and education) and what it's all about. I'm on a quest. Not to find faith, but to try to understand how people who are clearly not stupid can take something that is prescriptive and exact and say "so that clearly isn't so, nor is that, but I believe in the basis behind it all". I can't comprehend that, not because I wish to force my non-belief on the religious, nor assert my superior questioning skills, but because it doesn't make sense to me. How can people "just believe"? I'm also curious how people that believe they are following God's path can reconcile tragedy.
My quest, incidentally, makes no sense to anyone. Tne religious take offence, they assume I am mocking; the fundamental atheists reiterate that "it's all rubbish, there is nothing to find out, some (stupid) people "just believe"". And everyone in between wonders why I don't just accept that some people do and some people don't.
I admire Richard Dawkins greatly for his ability to state his point, The Selfish Gene is a wonderful book. However his assertions are cruel on the subject of religion, he shows a lack of compassion for those who have presumably thought a great deal about why they do what they do, and it aims to take away something that forms a structure for people's lives. Really, it doesn't matter if people want to believe in God, it doesn't actually harm them or anyone else (as long as they don't force it on people - as they shouldn't have their belief forced away from them).
I have changed my tune on this, I was firmly in the Dawkins camp at one stage until I realised how offensive it was, how insensitive I was being.
So, some reading matter:
Richard Dawkins - the atheist.
(Not joined by Christopher Hitchens because he does seem to take it too far. Dawkins does argue beautifully).
John Humphreys - the confused.
I have been promising to read both of these, quite possibly for this very purpose, and more than likely here.
The bible, if I can stomach it. It's on my phone. I'm on Genesis 4.3 after a month.
And a book I found in the library entitled "The Dawkins Delusion".
I'll see where I go after that. Nowhere fast probably. I'll ponder on.
1) the definition of normal and why people assume that to label one thing "the norm" is labelling those that do not adhere to the norm "abnormal", and that by doing so it is belittling and cruel. I
may expand on this later.I can't go into detail about this or I wouldn't have time to go back to:
2) Religion (Christianity, to be precise, for no reason other than that's the one I've been assigned to by birth, baptism and education) and what it's all about. I'm on a quest. Not to find faith, but to try to understand how people who are clearly not stupid can take something that is prescriptive and exact and say "so that clearly isn't so, nor is that, but I believe in the basis behind it all". I can't comprehend that, not because I wish to force my non-belief on the religious, nor assert my superior questioning skills, but because it doesn't make sense to me. How can people "just believe"? I'm also curious how people that believe they are following God's path can reconcile tragedy.
My quest, incidentally, makes no sense to anyone. Tne religious take offence, they assume I am mocking; the fundamental atheists reiterate that "it's all rubbish, there is nothing to find out, some (stupid) people "just believe"". And everyone in between wonders why I don't just accept that some people do and some people don't.
I admire Richard Dawkins greatly for his ability to state his point, The Selfish Gene is a wonderful book. However his assertions are cruel on the subject of religion, he shows a lack of compassion for those who have presumably thought a great deal about why they do what they do, and it aims to take away something that forms a structure for people's lives. Really, it doesn't matter if people want to believe in God, it doesn't actually harm them or anyone else (as long as they don't force it on people - as they shouldn't have their belief forced away from them).
I have changed my tune on this, I was firmly in the Dawkins camp at one stage until I realised how offensive it was, how insensitive I was being.
So, some reading matter:
Richard Dawkins - the atheist.
(Not joined by Christopher Hitchens because he does seem to take it too far. Dawkins does argue beautifully).
John Humphreys - the confused.
I have been promising to read both of these, quite possibly for this very purpose, and more than likely here.
The bible, if I can stomach it. It's on my phone. I'm on Genesis 4.3 after a month.
And a book I found in the library entitled "The Dawkins Delusion".
I'll see where I go after that. Nowhere fast probably. I'll ponder on.
No comments:
Post a Comment