Richard Dawkins
Should Richard Dawkins be mocked because of his outspoken views - or should religious leaders analyse and sincerely consider the reasoning behind his observations?
Should believers, particularly fundamentalists, condemn Richard Dawkins for his line of reasoning that religious belief is not a prerequisite for having good ethics? After all, what drives an unbeliever to lay down his or her life for a friend? What drives an unbeliever to be willing to be sent out to a road accident, help the injured or dying, share in the grief and suffering of bewildered parents, risk life and limb to save a family from a house fire, rescue an injured animal at the peril of one’s own life, nurse the sick, care for the aged, help feed and clothe the homeless, and so on?
The conflict between Richard Dawkins and religion is understandable given that Christianity with its present mind set does not see the universal church as it really is. Christianity, unless resurrected to a new life and willing to open the eyes, ears, heart and mind from within, will continue to be a stumbling block towards world peace because of a “them and us” mentality. Rather than being a light on a hill, Christianity has become a fortress, a self serving entity that gives the impression unbelievers are not capable of loving with the same capacity.
While Christians continue to judge Richard Dawkins and others as the devil’s advocates, perhaps what Christians should be asking themselves is why most ordinary everyday people are questioning what purpose religion serves? Christianity’s failure to be a light to the world is the reason many are being disillusioned and more open-minded on atheistic views.
Christians have failed to understand the gospel message if they assume the bible has prophesised a “second coming” either preceded or followed by a final battle at Armageddon where the entire world is plunged into a nuclear holocaust. Christians have also failed to see that the present Pentecostal revival of faith and miraculous healing is in the main, a scam, with theatrical performances by seriously disillusioned preachers.
The time has already arrived where the true source of miraculous healing is evident. The lame are walking, the blind have their sight back, the deaf are hearing, hips are being replaced, legs and arms are exchanged with prosthetic limbs, synthetic lenses are giving the elderly twenty- twenty vision, hearts are kept pumping with electronic valves, kidney failure is being helped with dialysis machines. The claim by evangelists that the source of their miraculous healing power is the work of a god, obviously have limits. For example, if asked to revive the dead, open the eyes and ears of the blind and deaf, help the lame to walk, grow back a limb, etc, the usual stock answer for the fiasco is that either the preacher or the recipient lacks faith.
Clearly, blind faith has become a substitute for common sense.
Christians have to understand the difference between faith and knowledge. This dangerous practice of faith healing has nothing to offer but false hopes. Clinical trials have demonstrated the power of the placebo effect, while hypnosis and the power of suggestion can also trigger a self healing process. The resurrection of the dead, helping the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk, are biblical references called "signs and wonders" which are metaphors for miracles. For example, if someone is poor in spirit, deaf, lame or blind, yet willing to listen, then in turn, his ears and eyes are opened and is no longer deaf and blind, similarly, if a person feels as though there is no hope left, and then hears words of encouragement, he is resurrected to a new life, his bones are strengthened, he is no longer feeling hopeless and feeling lame, his eyes have been opened, he is no longer asleep, he awakes from sleep and rises from the dust. Christians have difficulty coming to terms with the language and meaning of the New Testament because there has been over the centuries, a deliberate effort to discredit the Gnostic views of the gospels. Once the path to spiritual enlightenment is opened no one will need organised religion or a teacher.
Richard Dawkins is simply trying to point out that ordinary, everyday people can be good and decent citizens without religion. His concerns that Christianity is teaching dangerous and erroneous views are well founded.
Submit your Comment
Please feel free to make a comment about anything discussed on this page.
Submit a post using the form below. (Your email address will not be posted)
