Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I recognize that there are zealots on both sides, but I don't see how the "believers" can be generalized as the ones who are always close minded
|
Nobody is as open-minded as they think they are. Especially not in subjects like this.
The problem is both sides are speaking different languages to each other. It's like that embarassing lady in the 7-11 who, when the foreign cashier doesn't understand what she said, just repeats it louder. Rinse and repeat, perhaps adding wild gesticulating and flecks of spittle.
Further, not are they speaking different languages I honestly believe they are talking about two seperate things. I think people of faith need to re-evaluate what it is religion says about the world. It is no longer "The Book Of All Things". It doesn't tell us how the universe began. It doesn't tell us how life started. The purpose of religion is not to explain the natural world. It's to explain the human world, the human condition, and the human experience, things which science does a poor job (in my opinion) of explaining with any real meaningfulness.
Further I think the dogmatic atheists would do well to allow their science to explain the natural world and stop there, staying away from telling people about the nature and meaningfulness of their personal experience.
The world changed unbelievably quickly for religion in the last three centuries, and even more so in the most recent, and it's only now beginning to adapt. It was thrown overboard and it's just struggling to keep afloat. That a lot of what religion used to do for people is no longer necessary doesn't invalidate the concept of or disprove the existence of God.
edit: To clarify, I don't mean to suggest atheists can't make heads or tails of their personal experience. Religion is one system of thought that attempts to explain it; there are many others (including secular ones).