Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lurker
Yes, I think you can call him insensitive and boorish but I'm not sure he's arrogant. He has strong opinions which he fights for those opinions. I do think he should widen his range of reading, he could benefit from reading some philosophy(though maybe he would be too arrogant to do that). His attacks on creationism/intelligent design have been necessary though.
|
I agree with the point on creationism/ intelligent design; however, you'll find very few people who actually agree with creationism, in Europe at least. The Vatican officially approved of Darwin around the 1950s (although not without a bit of argey-bargeying).
I say arrogant and insensitive because he extends what religion is when it's bad to cover the whole of religion; he can continue to provide proofs which negate God's existence, and they will remain valid - however, he goes on to absolutely negates the value of a cultural practise (religion) which is abided to by most people on earth. It's intellectual fascism, to my mind. Criticise religion, by all means, say that people are deluded, certainly, but to negate the value of these cultural practises outright... well, when he's got Dawkinsian missions building schools, wells and so on in poor countries (and don't misunderstand me on this - the Christian mission is
very different today to the Mission of up to the early-20th century) then he's got a fair point. However, what he actually does is make juvenile threats to arrest the pope, like a whinging teenager.