Dawkins isnt pro-evolution as such, hes pro-science. He isnt advocating Darwinism as much as hes advocating a scientific approach to the world - namely trying to base your beliefs on evidence to the greatest extent possible, rather than believing whatever feels nice. With this is mind, his attack on using beliefs as a crutch seems quite reasonable - it is intellectually dishonest to believe something purely because you want it to be true, and I dont think there is anything wrong with pointing out the irrationality of others.
Quote:
|
Don't misunderstand me, im not questioning debates on creationism, but i am...disheartened that the debate has now reached the level of critisicing the comfort an individual obtains from an idea/activity irrespective of how irrational it is.
|
But this is the level that the debate has been on for a long time! We've known for centuries that large parts of Christianity are incorrect, but many people still believe in them because they want them to be true. What do you want Dawkins to say? Should he stick to presenting rational scientific arguments? But noone
listens to rational scientific arguments.
Quote:
|
I think David Icke's beliefs are profoundly odd, but i don't question them on the basis that he finds comfort in them. It's irrelevant.
|
Christianity isnt being questioned on the basis that people find it comforting. It isnt being questioned here at all - the 'questioning' was completed many years ago when it was shown within all reasonable doubt that Christianity was not a correct or useful picture of the world. Evolutoinary biologists are not arguing over whether Christianity is true, for the same reason that Classics students are not seriously arguing over whether Greek mythology is true. We're at the stage beyond disproof, where we now want to find out why so many people continue to believe in something that is manifestly false. And this is where notions of comfort come in.