Richard Dawkins (via ageofreason)

See, this is why I dislike Dawkins (well, just one reason, anyhow). Here he is conflating all religions with certain kinds of fundamentalist creationist Christianity. I know a great many people who are religious (whether they are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Pagan, etc. etc. etc.) who are also very much interested in having a scientific understanding of the Universe. Having religious beliefs does not preclude belief in scientific principles or studies. In fact, having religious beliefs does not necessarily mean one even believes in any deities or supernatural forces. I am guessing Dawkins knows nothing about, say, Zen Buddhism? Also, not all religions (not even all forms of Christianity!) are anti-science or anti-evolution. I mean, I shouldn’t have to be saying this! But, well, there we go.

(via lindentea)

I am against Richard Dawkins because he is satisfied with not understanding religion.

(The idea that science and religion are competing enterprises and have been opposed forever and ever only really got going in the nineteenth century. North American fundamentalist evangelical Christianity as we know it was coalescing, and would end up convincing not only itself but Western culture in general that literalism is orthodox [it’s not] and that it has more in common with proto-Christianity than contemporary denominations [sweeping 2,000 years of theological development under the rug. Don’t mind those bumps there, that’s just Augustine and Aquinas and Luther and Calvin]. Even in Western Christianity, religion and science have been inextricably intertwined. Science as an actual academic profession, something that you can make money from, is very, very recent—before it was the pastime of independently wealthy white men, it was the province of clerics. I’m not even getting into how every religion has richly intellectual streams and so on because it’s not even worth my time. To quote Mean Girls, “Do you even go here?”)

(via wildunicornherd)

Well said. I might as well add that Western neuroscience is only now starting to catch up with longstanding Buddhist understandings of the human mind. I’ll leave theoretical physics out of it. Personally I’m perfectly comfortable with science and religion (which, as pointed out above, are actually intertwined) and have no problem moving between — and sometimes synthesizing — different frameworks of perception, ways of organizing knowledge, cognitive assemblage points. I’ve noticed that many literalists who think along the lines of the Dawkins quote above are unable to move fluidly in the same manner but are rigidly and arrogantly attached to a singular existential assemblage. From my perspective, that’s a mental prison.

(via zuky)

Let me just mention that there’s plenty of scientific evidence (Big Bang, evolution, invention of the microchip, etc.) in the Qur’an. Muslim scientists debate all these things A LOT, and they can manage perfectly well. And this assertion also erases the fact that ‘science’ has a long history of being used against marginalised groups like women, people of colour, and the disabled (or people at intersections of all these).

I also read his ‘critique’ of Aquinas and it’s quite clear he doesn’t understand St. Thomas at all.

(via thesadnessofpencils)

Reblogging for commentary. Also, in this history buff’s opinion, there is something inherently wrong with treating religion as a solely theological subject without equating it with art and military and social history. Modern life has its roots in the domino effects produced by religions of all sorts (art itself owes its existence not just to the Christian! Renaissance, but also to the polytheistic Greeks/Romans and pagan animistic fertility cult worshippers who started out with cave drawings). Culture as we know it cannot BE without religion.

On a more personal note, I find it completely possible for someone to not believe in a higher power whilst still being able to appreciate the philosophies espoused by certain religions. Religion is fundamentally about searching for knowledge - it fills in gaps that cannot be explained and tries to do so while instilling a sense of wonder and greatness about the universe so that the search for knowledge does not end. People who stop with whatever is taught by religion are themselves satisfied with not knowing more. 

TLDR: shut your face Dawkins.