« A Little Windy Omission | Main | Actors In Glass Houses »

Fidei defensor

Britain being overtaken by 'militant secularists', says Baroness Warsi - Telegraph

British society is under threat from the rising tide of “militant secularisation” reminiscent of “totalitarian regimes”, a Cabinet minister will warn on Tuesday.

I very happy a Muslim woman can represent a Protestant country to a Catholic ruler. I hope all their imaginary friends get on very well. And while I love the heritage of the Church of England and the richness of it has given our society I prefer truth to beauty. I prefer a society which is sceptical of priests and of politicians. And only when Richard Dawkins starts to send his young disciples to kill and die in the name of The Selfish Gene will I worry about militant atheism.

Comments

Englishman, occasionally we disagree.

Firstly, Dawkins is truly and primarily in the business of selling
books: you are now part of his network of free advertising.

Secondly, there are finer crimes (as in smaller but still existent) than
killing people: first they discredited the god-squad ...

Thirdly, Dawkins is wrong: the existence or otherwise of God cannot be
determined by the same method (rational science) as is used to determine
the 'laws of physics' (and all that springs from those). This is
because there is a fundamental failure of all those laws of physics (eg
conservation of mass/energy) during the instant or period (or concept of
the instant or period) of coming into being of the universe.

Dawkins and his like are unable to answer either of the questions: how
did the universe come into existence and is/was there any reason why it
came into existence. I too cannot answer those questions, but I do not
deny their validity. Nor do I deny that hypotheses (many being
wrongful) are useful steps along the way, just as was the (partially
faulty) science of Aristotle, Ptolemy and others. Dawkins (as far as I
can see with my low-cost low-timewasting assessment of his uninteresting
ideas) ignores the first question and denies the validity of the second
question (basically: "What is the meaning of life, the universe and
everything?").

[Aside, for God: if (as I suspect) there is a possible transfer (in some
circumstances) between entropy and mass/energy, things get to be
differently interesting. Try categorising that hypothesis (which
potentially could lead to a sort of 'intelligent design') as
unscientific: it hurts the brain. The entropy/mass/energy hypothesis
lacks evidence, but so once did the hypothesis of existence of
sub-atomic particles.]

As for the 'use' of religion: it gives more purpose to continuing to
live, in really difficult circumstances, when most people have given up
on the best output of the dreary pure utilitarians. G K Chesterton
warned of what people will believe in when they give up believing in
God: I warn of what they will do when those subsequent ideas are
invalidated - and utilitarian ideas are subject to invalidation by
ordinary (ie utilitarian) methods.

If you seek truth over beauty, you need to be careful about your
definitions - and not make your journey too 'pure'. Otherwise you are
destined for disappointment in life, through the unavoidable ignorance
of each and every one of us, on the bigger questions.

IMHO, there is truth in beauty, and there is beauty in searching for
truth. There is little of either in a dogmatic narrow-mindedness,
whether it is from a positive or negative belief.

Best regards

Post a comment