I'm back from a partial Advent hiatus. I've spent my time being silent and listening - what Advent is all about - and reading. I am working my way through The Passion of the Western Mind by Richard Tarnas. What I have discovered thus far is this fascinating relationship between rationalism and the mystery religions going all the way back to Classical Greece.Which brings me to Mr. Grinch there in the picture - Richard Dawkins - perhaps the world's most famous anti-theist. It has become very fashionable and highly marketable to pose as an Ayatollah of Atheism and do your damnedest to stamp on, grind down, piss all over, and destroy faith. Many, many books are being sold to the disbelieving and/or doubting public. If I was more fundamentalist, I would say that Satan himself couldn't do a better job...but I'm not, so that last comment is more metaphorical than literal.
As I was lying in bed last night I thought of yet another allegory for how I understand some of these folks. As is often the case, brilliant flashes in the night often seem rather dim in the light of day, so forgive me if this is the case here.
Little Dickey made an important discovery one day while pouring over his World Book Encyclopedia - a tomato is a FRUIT! He was astounded because everyone seemed to understand that tomatoes were vegetables. He was beside himself and could hardly wait to share this discovery with the world.
He got out his little soap box and stood on the corner downtown and began to declare at the top of his lungs - "People, you must listen to me, you are misguided and I am here to correct you!" No one was really paying him any mind and his little face started to get as red as a -- you guessed it! -- a tomato!
"Listen to me!" he said stamping his tiny foot, "Tomatoes are NOT the vegetable you believe them to be...it is all a LIE!" At this point a kindly old woman stopped to listen, mostly to humor herself -- she had seen Dickey in the midst of his little tirades before and knew it was easier to allow him to think he was being heard. "Tomatoes are fruit! No longer delude yourself by continuing to insist that they are vegetables - free yourself from this ignorance!"
Dickey sighed and stepped down, seeing that only old Miss Grace had stopped to listen to him.
"Dickey," she gently challenged, "I think maybe you are missing the point."
"What do you mean, Miss?"
"Well, it doesn't really matter if people think tomatoes are fruit or vegetable. We love them just the same. They are delicious no matter what they are. Some people like them cut up on salads. Others cook them down into wonderful sauces. Still others chop them up and add them to stews and soups. No one really thinks that much about whether they are fruits or not."
Dickey pondered this for a bit before replying, "All the same, I think people need to get their facts straight." And with that he picked up his soap box and headed back home.
Old Miss Grace just chuckled to herself. Little Dickey would never change. "All he can see is facts and trivia and numbers and such. Why, oh why, can he not see the bigger picture?" She shook her head and decided to head over to the grocer's for some lovely heirloom tomatoes to have with lunch. Dickey's rant had given her quite the taste for a nice juicy ripe tomato.
7 comments:
Or in this case, instead of a tomato (which I like) can we use the metaphor of a sebaceous cyst? There's no sebum in them, they are really "keratinous inclusion cysts", but no one cares about that b/c they are benign, smelly cheesy stuff drains from them, and people just want them to go away or be removed. LOL
There is no bigger picture. There are mysteries yet to be solved and mysteries beyond the comprehension of our brains, but saying that lighting candles, talking to the air and swinging smoke tell us anything about anything but ourselves is crap.
Somehow the bigger picture, "the point" never manages to be expressed when people claim contacts with the spiritual.
Can I ask, with all due respect, if you've read any of Dawkins' books? He's an evolutionary biologist. By definition, that fact contradicts much of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theology.
Furthermore, depicting his writings as angry, petty, foot-stomping rants is rather unfair to a very intellectual and educated man.
Just because you don't agree with his arguments doesn't mean you should belittle and mock them. That puts you on the same level as the your opinion of "Dickey" Dawkins.
(Again, with all due respect.)
Brad, that was a relatively snarkless comment, thank you. Evolutionary biology does not stand in opposition to the world's religions universally.
Both of these comments actually serve to make my point. They both reveal a profound misunderstanding of faith, religion and spirituality - something exploited by Dawkins and his ilk who are mainly about selling books.
The tomato allegory may very well be overly simplistic but the intent was not to "belittle" Dawkins as much as to highlight that the scope of the argument misses the point.
These anti-theists are bashing faith and religion for not being science. What I have found interesting in the book I have been reading is that a healthy cultural balance of rationalism and mystery were important even to the classical Greeks. It is very much a part of who we are.
There are many examples of faith and religion that are cookie cutter simple and superstitious. There are many folk who are willing to take their side on the line that has been drawn in the sand and blindly deny science.
I believe the line in the sand is misguided.
As for Mr. Dawkins - I linked to an interview of his. He seems to sum up his beliefs rather well there, don't you think?
Brad - labelling actions which express a belief, opinion, faith or whatever as "crap" hardly constitutes effective debate and merely polarises sides.
Scott - I have read Dawkin's works and I admire him intensely as an evolutionary biologist. However, his works on religious belief are superficial, lacking in any depth and not in any way reflecting the breadth of belief or thought behind it. All faith paradigms are simply labelled as bland superstition because they are not empirically verifiable. Then again, from the world of astrophysics, neither is Dark Matter - at this time it is merely a strong candidate that fits observable phenomena - science's own 'God of the Gaps' perhaps? Also saying that his work contradicts theology is a ridiculously superficial statement that equates the majority understanding of myth, legendary and poetic expressions of the indefinable with the soundbite ravings of closed-minded fundamentalism.
Open-mindedness is required of all belief systems, theistic and atheistic. Prejudicial stereotyping is less than helpful
Dawkins will readily admit to being a blunt and zealous advocate for his beliefs. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. It's much like what is often heard from the other side of the divide.
As a scientist, he's opposed to superstition, especially as a way of steering one's life. He considers God an unprovable hypothesis. As such, he's expressing frustration and, frankly, disgust, with those who'd let a myth control their behavior.
No one needs God to be a good person. I don't steal because I believe some guy carried a stone tablet down from a mountain with a warning from God. I don't steal because it's a pretty crappy thing to do to other people.
Even those who claim "spirituality" rather than adherence to a specific dogma should be able to see the difference. Bill & Ted may not be eloquent philosophers, but "be excellent to each other" should be all you need.
I maintain my argument that atheism does no harm, but religion does. I doubt I need to cite examples at this point.
Just be who you are, find your own way, make your own decisions. Figure it out on your own. Don't ask for help; make your own luck.
That's a portion of my version of atheism. It's how I got to where I am. And that's all I can say.
One shouldn't blame religion because humans have used it to defend vile behavior - humans kill for all kinds of reasons, whatever is most expedient. Chimpanzees one of our close primate cousins also commit tribal "warfare" and kill other chimps, all without the need to hang the responsibility on religion's door.
It is an insanely lame argument to blame human violence on religion. Human violence has occurred because humans are violent.
In Rwanda they killed each other based solely on a made up Belgian "racial" categories: Hutu and Tutsi
And look at some of the atrocities done in the name of "Science" - Dr. Mengele anyone?
Post a Comment