Three points. First, if you cannot be polite to the people you are directly addressing, I will ban you. This is not negotiable. (Given that I have been insulting Dawkins throughout the initial post and comment threads, you may or may not get away with being rude to people who are not participants in the conversation, depending on my mood and how hard I am trying to be fair. *grin*)
Second, I think part of the problem here is that you are looking at religion as if it is a pseudo-science, which must have specific tenets that must be logical and provable (or disprovable). This is a faulty assumption. Yes, some religions have some aspects that are psuedo-scientific, but that is far from the only element of religion, and disproving those specific claims does not invalidate religion in general.
Third, if everything is sacred, then everything is sacred. This is not a difficult idea. It means that everything matters. Everything is worthy of consideration and respect. That is not at all the same as saying that nothing is important or worthy of respect. Yes, of course it is impossible to give specific attention to every aspect of the universe within the finite boundaries of a human life and human mind. That doesn't mean the effort is not worthwhile, or that we can't give consideration in general.
Let me make an analogy: You cannot possibly personally understand every aspect of every science; does that therefore mean that you shouldn't try to understand any science? I think you would agree that that is a silly argument. To me, the argument sounds equally silly when you apply it to religion.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-10-30 11:30 pm (UTC)Second, I think part of the problem here is that you are looking at religion as if it is a pseudo-science, which must have specific tenets that must be logical and provable (or disprovable). This is a faulty assumption. Yes, some religions have some aspects that are psuedo-scientific, but that is far from the only element of religion, and disproving those specific claims does not invalidate religion in general.
Third, if everything is sacred, then everything is sacred. This is not a difficult idea. It means that everything matters. Everything is worthy of consideration and respect. That is not at all the same as saying that nothing is important or worthy of respect. Yes, of course it is impossible to give specific attention to every aspect of the universe within the finite boundaries of a human life and human mind. That doesn't mean the effort is not worthwhile, or that we can't give consideration in general.
Let me make an analogy: You cannot possibly personally understand every aspect of every science; does that therefore mean that you shouldn't try to understand any science? I think you would agree that that is a silly argument. To me, the argument sounds equally silly when you apply it to religion.