Why is it that refuting religion is, by social and perhaps cultural standards, considered rude when to refute some other form of belief like praise for a sports team, music taste or political affiliation is completely acceptable in a social context? Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris puzzle over this question, amongst others, in the absurdly titled, four horsemen discussion.
To those unfamiliar, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and Harris are all well published and respected authors. Each has achieved some form of prestige in regards to their work on religious skeptisism and the atheist movment.
Back to the question then.
Generaly speaking, unlike sports and music taste, religion encompasses a large part of the lives of those whom consider themselves religious. Religion is a way of life or at very least influence the way you live yours. Thus to question some ones religion is to question their very way of life. To denounce their religion is to denounce the way they live their lives. To assault someones way of life in this fashion certainly can be considered rude and, to some degree, maybe even unethical.
Perhaps there are specific situations where it is okay to offer criticism and others where it is not. When verbally attacking someone, one must ask him/herself for the reasoning behind the argument. Is it an attempt to simply create frustration and annoyance or are they under the impression that by changing the mind of as many people as possible the world will brick by brick become a better place?
Growing up in a place full of argument, I believe thoroughly there are few things as useless and pointless as arguments and criticism without any real aim. I agree with many of the things Dawkins and co address but they leave me wondering what exactly the fruits of their labors are. I would be interested in reading testimony's of individuals whom abandon faith due to the writings or speeches of any of the men mentioned.
No comments:
Post a Comment