I've browsed the web for some clips of Richard Dawkins after seeing his confused Darwin TV-series. What I've found - to little surprise - really is a formidable war between fundamentalist atheists and theists. This is much likely a topic I will expand on, or come back to now and then, so this is not a final addition to this debate. However, this is very much my point: there should be no final argument that settles this debate. Instead we ought to discuss the ingredients that makes such a debate reasonable or unreasonable. Suffice it to say, I find it to be the latter.
One of the highlights of my youtube-athlon of Dawkins and "counter-clips" was when he said that he is out to kill religion. This is quite interesting I think. It's kind of a white man's burden perspective on religion. We who art enlightened (Dawkins confused philosopher friend Daniel Dennet has labelled themselves "brights" as in enlightened, and "supers" goes for all the superstitious people) ought to save the... "supers".
I find it interesting why someone who is in a position where his life is not influenced more by religious statements or bodies, than by adversary political parties to the one he prefers himself.
As you may or may not know my theology studies is primarily focused on the connection between religion and politics. What I find is that they are both pretty similar in character in many respects. The starting point may vary, but both then go on to have immediate effect on the society in which they occur. Religion and politics emanate from a view on what the good life (and good way of life) consists of and how we ought to get there. "Love thy neighbour" or "from each other after their capacity, to each one after their needs", is attempts to put adjust injustices and say something about how we ought to live together. I could go on for a long time here making comparisons, but I will leave it at this.
My point is simply this: If pre-scientific ideas is the root of ideologies, politics and religions alike - why should religion be excluded from a conversation regarding he we can reach the good life? I'm asking myself: is science (the science Dawkins intends when he talks about science) presenting some clear cut ideas about what we ought to do with the world? What does science say about the implications of natural selection for instance? Should natural selection be allowed to run its course? One conclusion that could (I'm not saying it's the only logical conclusion that can be reached) be reached is that we should premier stronger individuals and care less about those in need, the handicapped, children, old people etc. Even from a Dawkins standpoint where science has tremendous competence and engulfs "purpose of life"-type questions, science still doesn't give us the answer to what we should do with our scientific evidence. Should we invest billions in mapping the human genome or give these billions to starving parts of the world? This isn't a scientific but a moral question.
So, if we really should kill religion, as Dawkins admittedly is setting out to do, shouldn't we (or Dawkins) present something that can replace its (contested) competence?
Yours theologically
Jonatan
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar