In a recent Channel 4 programme, 'The Enemies of Reason', (http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/E/enemies_of_reason/ ) Dawkins claimed that paganism and spirituality is in some ways as damaging as theism, because it encourages people to see the world in an unscientific way.
I know atheists and pagans are pretty close on R&S, and I quite like most of them, as they don't try to impose their beliefs on others. But does Dawkins have a point? your thoughts?
2007-09-23 06:59:11 · 33 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes. I agree with Dawkins.
But that doesn't mean that paganism and spirituality are a bad thing.
They would be bad if the beliefs were inflicted on everyone else.
2007-09-23 07:14:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is little difference between the other "pagan" beliefs such as astrology and seances, and religion . Except for the fact that these things are not as well organized into groups . Atheists are usually considered a sub group of pagans . But not all pagans are atheists . Some pagans believe in things like astrology and card reading . Sometimes it is hard for a scientific atheist to know what is real and what is false . For instance there is much contradictory information out there regarding vitamins and food suplements . At least some of that information is outright false and being used to sell books and products .
2007-09-23 07:14:33 · answer #2 · answered by allure45connie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not an atheist, but I don't think it's necessarily unscientific. There are certain things that science cannot, per its own rules, find answers to. For some people, those questions need to be answered in some manner - and for many of those people, religious belief is a method of doing so.
A great number of the Pagans I know are rather scientific, when dealing with the things that science can address.
2007-09-26 04:04:51 · answer #3 · answered by ArcadianStormcrow 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The key to this question lies in understanding that 'belief' is an insidious mind-killer... it is the ILLUSION of knowledge... it cuts one off from the open-minded and intellectually honest (willing to actively question and doubt one's own assumptions) consideration of alternative possibilities.
A 'paradigm', however, is different from a 'belief'. A paradigm can be regarded as an interesting or useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. Looking at or thinking about things in a different way often enables one to teas out insights that might not otherwise be accessible.
So... if someone choose to embrace a 'pagan' point of view as a paradigm for contemplating the natural world and their place in it, and their interaction with it... I do not see a huge problem with that. If they start BELIEVING it... then it is as Dawkins says... in SOME ways as damaging... but only (mostly) on an INDIVIDUAL level... not on a SOCIETAL level. But I find pagans, wiccans, etc. to be a thousand times more tolerable that evangelical christians
In any event, it is BELIEF that is the main problem, rather than the specfic flavor of 'belief'.
.
2007-09-23 07:44:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure I agree. I think there is in fact a difference. I think religions that want to CONVERT do the greatest damage, by far. It's especially clear on these board, in fact.
He's probably right about it encouraging non-scientific thinking...BUT, in my own humble opinion I don't see worshipping at your little altar is "damaging" as such.
I don't believe in imposing atheism on people in their own homes. That's as bad as religious dictatorship.
The most damaging thing I see, is religion forcing its way into matters of state, threatening separation of church and state. And I hate to say that, but it's really only some branches of christianity and islam that do that.
Have you ever met a pagan that wanted to force his/her religious view into legislation? Personally I haven't. Not once. I've met many christians and muslims who do.
Also I have a little theory that polytheism is somehow less harmful than monotheism. But I'm still figuring out why exactly.
While I agree with Dawkins on a rational level, emotionally I can understand people's need for spirituality.
2007-09-23 07:19:54 · answer #5 · answered by Krelboyne_Girl 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you are an atheist, then I'm the freakin' Queen of England! You are a nauseating human being (and I use the term "human being" very loosely). I've looked at your other questions. You are overly aggressive, barbaric and useless. Do everyone a favor and walk off a tall cliff! Oh, and btw, Ambivalent is Jewish - you're so dumb you couldn't figure that out? Why would her answer get 6 TDs? She told the truth as she knows it - but around here, truth doesn't count for anything. All that matters is spite and hatred and lies.
2016-05-17 04:54:35 · answer #6 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have a lot of respect for Richard Dawkins, but I do feel that he has himself become radicalised by the post 9/11 world. He blames faith itself for the state the world is in, and while he does have a point that blind faith always has a potential for danger, I don't agree that faith must be rejected.
My personal compromise on this is simple: I'm an Agnostic as far as the question of a deity goes, because it is an open question. I base my moral and spiritual attitudes on a mix of Wicca, Buddhism, Taoism, a big dose of Philosophy, and yes, on Christianity as well - Each has good to offer as well, but it's up to us to realise that, whatever their origins (divine or otherwise), they were developed for and by man, and as such are not perfect. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and realise that each religion offers a rich heritage of culture and philosophy that has value.
I only accept things based on evidence - but rejecting things out of hand purely because they do not fit a specific paradigm is just as bad. In many ways rejecting even the idea of, for example, the paranormal, or the existence of a soul without conclusive proof otherwise is as bad as rejecting evolution despite the proofs it brings to the table. To me the essence of science is Open and Objective Curiosity. A true scientist is amazed and intrigued by everything, wants as eagerly to be proven wrong as to be proven right. Too many scientists today, in my opinion, erect their own religion around the theories and models they have come to support. Even Einstein, as important as his work was, fell into the same trap when he could not look at Quantum Mechanics objectively.
2007-09-23 09:11:48 · answer #7 · answered by dead_elves 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He does have a point. Reason is always important; it is the universal human method for understanding the world. While belief systems can vary and do nothing to establish verifiable truth, reason can help humans see and understand the world.
I like most Pagan posters, and some moderate/liberal Christians. Mostly because they too have dealt with the problems of religious fundamentalism and support the separation of church and state that allows us to live in harmony. We can have views that are in diametric opposition, but none of us are willing to change laws to force our views of spirituality onto other people.
2007-09-23 08:34:07 · answer #8 · answered by Dalarus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some minor ways yes. The major difference being that I have yet to see a Pagan (or anyone other than a Christian) attempt to tell me that I must believe as they do, or try to write their beliefs into laws that everyone must follow.
2007-09-23 07:12:45 · answer #9 · answered by t_rex_is_mad 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not that we are that close to Pagans, it's just that we have more respect for them then christians. Most Pagans don't go around trying to convert everyone or tell others they are going to burn in hell forever if they believe differently.
And just because Dawkins is an Atheist doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything that he says.
2007-09-23 07:06:55 · answer #10 · answered by Blue girl in a red state 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋