And that is fine! That is actually close to my own view, although since I am not looking at religion as science -- and therefore do not see why people are trying to use scientific methods on inherently non-disprovable ideas -- I say I am agnostic rather than atheistic. (Also, agnosticism says that while I don't believe in gods for me, I am not categorically denying gods for others. It's a more nuanced expression of my own skepticism.)
Anyway, what is not fine is arguing that religious is inherently poisonous, or things like that. I actually agree with Dawkins on some points (such as morality not needing a deity to stand behind it), but I am a religious person -- religion is fairly central to my life -- and the tone of the excerpts of his religiously-oriented writing that I have read is as poisonous as he says religion itself is. That bothers me a lot. But I am going to take speakr2customrs rebuke to heart and force myself to read all of The God Delusion (and may I say that the title alone is insulting?) before I comment further on this issue.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-28 06:11 pm (UTC)Anyway, what is not fine is arguing that religious is inherently poisonous, or things like that. I actually agree with Dawkins on some points (such as morality not needing a deity to stand behind it), but I am a religious person -- religion is fairly central to my life -- and the tone of the excerpts of his religiously-oriented writing that I have read is as poisonous as he says religion itself is. That bothers me a lot. But I am going to take