Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
I enjoyed the "The God Delusion"; I'm in general, possibly total, agreement with Dawkins; but even as someone solidly on his side of the argument, the book came across as unnecessarily contentious. I'm not convinced that the tone used would help convince those on the fence.
|
But at what point are you "unnecessarily contentious?" For fundamentalists (of all ilks) simply making a claim that conflicts with their religion is offensive. Take a look at any news article on a site with a commentary area that touches on a scientific issue that in any way implies the reality of evolution or of a universe older than 6,000 years-- you will find angry, indignant screeds from people who are insisting that it is all a lie and the people who believe that will burn in hell. And I'm talking about dry, scientific statements here-- a statement about the age of a fossil or event, with no claims whatsoever about "thus, this means that religious people are wrong."
For fundamentalists
anything other than total capitulation is "contentious". So that begs the question-- where should the line be in trying to pander to the feelings of people whose beliefs collide with the evidence? Some think it is better to be
nice than to be
right. Others think that the facts are what matter and whether or not someone is offended by the facts is an irrelevant side effect.