“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Richard Dawkins
Personally I could not agree more.
2007-11-20 00:27:09 · 40 answers · asked by Birdy is my real name 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I SOOOO AGREE.................
Relgions teach people that "it is God's way" "god's will" etc... It is easy for people to beleive blindly ina religious organisation that spares them the mental anguish of having to think and rationalise something for themselves.
Do you not wonder what it would be like if more people questioned things and were not content with the "religious" answers?
2007-11-20 00:43:40 · answer #1 · answered by mcmaddysmum 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
On a broad-scale level, I disagree with the quote. I don't think having a religious faith prevents a person from seeking understanding of the world; it simply provides a different foundation from which they pursue that understanding. Many of history's greatest thinkers and scientists were religious people, including Albert Einstein, to name one.
On a personal level, I would think that "teaching people to be satisfied with not understanding the world" would have a very serious positive value. No one person is ever going to understand everything that they encounter; there will always be people, events, circumstances, or ideas that just won't make sense. In many aspects, having a religion offers a comfort that not knowing everything is not necessarily a bad thing, and it can help to reduce stress while still offering hope.
That quote appears to come from someone looking for an excuse to condemn religion, and I would have to believe that the quote is celebrated and appreciated by others of the same mind. However, I don't see the quote as being accurate, and therefore I think it hurts the cause of those that embrace it to condemn religion.
2007-11-20 00:38:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I love that quote, but I also can see Todd's point of view, too. He's right that it is a mistake to lump everyone together, because Todd is one of the most inquisitive as well as intelligent people I know, and he is a Christian.
However, I agree that for many people, religion provides sufficient answers for people who don't really question things all that much. I do think, though, that many people will question things whether their religion teaches them to or not because it is their nature to do so.
2007-11-20 00:44:59 · answer #3 · answered by Linz VT•AM 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Agree
2007-11-20 00:30:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Do you understand the world? Are you satisfied? That's stupid, you're stupid. You can't have a full understanding of the world, not in your life time anyway. Religion is about faith, and that will remain that way until you die.
2007-11-20 07:39:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree whole hearted.
A reminder to all of those that obviously have forgotten or did not know to begin with, Dawkins is a biologist and a biologist's concept of understanding the world has little to do with understanding psychological aspects of the world.
2007-11-20 00:41:29 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Boy it's a shame Dawkins didn't live in the time of Isaac Newton (not a christian but did believe in God and religion), He could have helped Newton be more curious about the world. Calculus, Physics...just think what Newton could have also done if he wasn't satisfied with not understanding the world.
Oh wait, it didn't blunt his inquisitiveness at all.
I think Dawkins is making a general statement about the type of people that aren't curious about anything anyway. There are types of people who if they didn't have religion would just probably watch Wheel of Fortune repeats and not contemplate the universe. It's a mistake to throw everyone else into that bucket. A belief in a religion is just one aspect of what someone believes.
So, no I think the quote tries to say too much.
2007-11-20 00:36:22 · answer #7 · answered by Todd 7 · 5⤊ 4⤋
hey they were GREAT in House Party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9...grant it 10 wasn't all that good......but didnt they win an oscar for 2?
2016-05-24 07:43:24 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree.
2007-11-20 00:33:34 · answer #9 · answered by Cotton Wool Ninja 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree, and to those who do not, I would just add that while there is nothing wrong with satisfaction, in this case it encourages complacency with ignorance when for all we now know this ignorance is not necessarily impossible to overcome. Ignorance is really only bliss when all hope has been lost for enlightenment. I still have hope and I am not satisfied with obvious fairy tales.
2007-11-20 01:51:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Religion is part of the world, to deny it would be to deny understanding the world. I don't agree with many of the religions, and I don't follow any particular one myself, but I understand it's value in understanding the world, and in everyday life because so many people are devout to some degree in some/any belief. As long as something exists, we must try to co-exist with it, not stamp it out.
2007-11-20 00:31:19 · answer #11 · answered by Devo 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋