I know I'm going on and on but its only cos I'm knee deep in this book and its confusing me!
Dawkins thinks: Religion is pretty evil as a force of division, i.e. it divides people and hence, causes wars, bloodshed, violence, so on and so forth.
I think: The flipside is that religion provides a sense of identity doesn't it? And is as strong a cohesive force as it is a divisive force. And honestly I don't see universal cohesion in the presence/absence of religion. Also, as a point of interest neither of the biggest wars in modern history has been directly because of religion! Does that say something?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I claim 1st!!! Main comment later, let me claim 1st on all other posts!!! Congrats on the new 'baby' btw :-)
Ty, ty :)
And what was the main comment?
Weel, it's the people who start wars, not a religion! Just another thing to blame when we can't see the basic flaw in us humans!!!! You can start a war on just abou anything - say Cleo's nose - so what's the conclusion? Devise a nose-parda?
And, SECOND!
@Cloudy: Zackly my point! Well said! Though actually the nose-parda idea seems quite interesting :D. Wonder if there'll be takers in the Taliban. Heh!
Post a Comment