The process of non-thinking called faith

To quote Richard Dawkins:

I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe. The 21st century should be an age of reason. Yet, irrational, militant faith is back on the march. Science, we're told, should not tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tiptoe respectfully away? The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Killing for God is not only hideous murder, it is also utterly ridiculous. Religion is a about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and passage of time. See Russell's teapot:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

In a sense, we are all teapot atheists.

I've been entertaining myself with Dawkins' Root of all evil documentary on YouTube. The file is rather inconveniently split into several small pieces but it is definitely worth watching. While I do not completely share his enthusiasm in fighting organized religion (or religion of any kind), I certainly do agree with him. And with the video, well, if called upon, panties I will wear. Big White House panties or small, delicate European briefs. I feel Dawkins shares the kind of view that Tiedemies expressed when I was trying to define myself being an agnostic instead of an atheist.

Well, admittedly Dawkins' quest for "truth" goes perhaps one or two notches past the point of being pragmatic. To his question "isn't bracing truth better than false hope?" I would say "no". Or at least "no, not always".

Link 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaD6D54L4o
Link 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kcKInudkq4&mode=related&search=

By the way, this blog will remain written in Finnish. This small exception will just prove the rule. In short, I was just too damn lazy to translate the stuff to Finnish. Sitäpaitsi olen kiroillut ja hääväväläillyt koko päivän suomeksi.

[Edit: typos, typos and more typos.]