But it was never a rational debate! Peter Kay never sought to advocate creationism, all he said was he found comfort in something that was irrational.
It was valid in the sense there is an irrational 'crutch' that almost everyone relies on. Its difficult for me to concieve of how anyone can find gambling a joyful or comforting activity yet millions do. 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.
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. I'd never advocate biologists being given an obligation to take your unicorn beliefs seriously but them questioning your beliefs on the basis you found them comforting is pointless.
edit to your edit
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
is being 'comforting' really the best that religion can do these days?
|
Id say its the most important thing it can do these days, for whatever reason, in times of crisis people are less likely to turn to the works of marx, smith or wittgenstein for comfort, and far more likely to pray. The best it can do is what nothing else does.
Interestingly im basically asking 'is this the best you can do' in relation to Dawkin's remarks. If you take into consideration the sacrifices of Giordano Bruno or Galileo, questioning an individual's comfort is quite a come down.