Regarding the Words of Dawkins, Some Dukely Scribblins.

I've recently been in contact wi the proprietor o the top-quality blatherin website www.mondoirlando.com, the Duke de Mondo himself, regardin the touchy issue o God, the universe an all things in betwixt. He kindly gave permission for to publish his thoughts on the matter, which follow:

Anyroad, with regards Mr Dawkins, i'm conflicted no end. I don't believe in creation as told in Genesis, i believe that to be a purely metaphorical story, and in The God Delusion Dawkins makes a fine point indeed about how in whoever's name can modern-day theologians openly announce that they believe the story also to be metaphorical, and yet accept the doctrine of original sin? It's all very bizarre. And Dawkins book IS very very good. I've read it and listened to him read it, and both times i've enjoyed it immensely. But whilst everything he says in there pretty much makes sense, i still have belief in some manner of God. whether or not it does what various religious folks say it can do is neither here nor there far as i'm concerned, i know that for ME, personally, it has been an enormous help. But in saying that i'm not religious in the sense that i believe any one dogma or doctrine. I have my own faith which is nothing to do with christianity or islam or buddha or whatever. But i still love Catholicism for it's iconography, i will say that. maybe cause i was raised Protestant, the sights you mind find in a chapel just seem incredibly alluring and strange and beautiful to me. I don't BELIEVE any of it, but that doesn't make it any less affecting, least where i'm concerned.

So the answer to your question is that i agree with Dawkins that religion can be harmful, and i think his suggestion that moderate religious types do as much harm as anyone by paving the way for the extremists is very well made. But in saying that, i know people who are much, much happier and content since coming to believe in one or other religion, and i would find it deeply unpleasant if anyone were to pluck that from them, or to mock them for having it (one thing i DO find very unpleasant about Richard Dawkins is the occasional, although only occasional, tone of deep smugness that creeps in when discussing these things).

i find it fucking incredible, to be honest, that Darwinism is SERIOUSLY bein contested in science classes on account of manuevering by the religious right, and the fact that probably near as many people are harmed by religion as are helped is obviously something to worry about. but i know i felt a lot better in myself and treated others a lot better when i came to consider the idea that there was some sort of God character (not because i feared punishment if i WASN'T nice, which Dawkins, and many others, Neitzche bein one off the top of my head, suggests to be reason why Christians are 'good', and that in fact it's not moral at all, that behaviour. Choosing not to do something because you think you're being watched is no morality worth considering. i don't beleive in hell, as it happens.) to derive some strength from. And maybe it's just me i'm deriving strength from, but it's done me more good to carry on as i'm doing than it did when i was doing the opposite, and at the end of the day that's all i can go on.

aaron
duke de mondo


Hope that sheds some light on things, certainly did for me.
Thanks,
Dave.

Richard Dawkins v God.

First, watch him in action. There's a bit in the middle where conceited members of the audience talk about how amazin they are, but once that starts, skip to about 24 minutes in. Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM&eurl=

Richard Dawkins has fairly made his opinions clear. God is a purely fictional character, invented by man as a surrogate mother/father figure, to variously soothe/protect/motivate/forgive us as we require, and as such, everyone who believes in divinity is deluded, puttin faith in somethin that cannot be enumerated, quantified, or even proved to exist. Worse, this delusion leads to extremist views by logical progression from the original dogma.

I don't feel Dawkins engages fully with the concept of religion. He instead leans heavily on the stereotypes of the religious man: one who teaches his children ‘to believe without evidence’, which, he argues, leads logically on to the phenomenon of suicide bombing and religious extremism, this time showing a lack of interest in understanding the mentality and social factors required for such a fanatic to practise freely.

His theories hinge on the issue of God’s purpose, which, while a fascinatin topic of discussion, by its definition – if we are to conduct such a discussion with the presuppositions of religion in play – cannot be answered.

He often sounds rather frustrated at the fact that his views are even questioned. If you skip ahead to about 24 minutes in, he is confronted by one of the declarations in his own book, the belief that there is ‘very probably alien civilisation somewhere in the universe that is superhuman, even godlike, beyond anything any theologian might imagine.’ He appears insulted to be even questioned on this belief. The UCD Professor, Gerard Casey, performs brilliantly, and in a way perfectly suited to the discussion; he is composed, relaxed, and open to every suggestion Dawkins makes. Kudos.

I'm not havin a go at atheism. I reckon its as legitimate a belief system as any other. What I am havin a go at is someone who is so unashamedly close-minded, to the point of bigotry, on a concept so philosophically open to debate as the existence of God. To take a scientific approach to a matter so intimately connected to the human condition seems like folly, dangerously so. It's noticeable too how Dawkins says nothing on the other Abrahamic spiritual text.

It's easy to be indignant and self-righteous on religion, but it accomplishes nothing, and is really what Dawkins wants. Nor am I sayin there's any way of resolvin the argument to a satisfactory degree; a fella could spend the rest of his days splittin hairs an makin enemies and still be no nearer a conclusion. There are a lot of ideas, and no reason why they can't all be correct. In the end, it's down to the individual to educate his/herself to a degree where doubt can no longer be a factor. So good luck.

Thanks for readin,

Dave.