Religion resembles bulls in that the controversies it raises are almost as old as the thing itself. At the beginning of this century there was a new offensive in the old war: in the Anglo-Saxon field there appeared several books that were atheist or, better, anti-religious, signed by media essayists. They caused a stir among people little fond of theoretical debates and won imprudent ecclesiastical condemnations that came very well to their editors. In 2007, four conspicuous crusaders without a cross (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris) maintained a friendly colloquium on their antiteological ideas, simplifying the arguments to the maximum (The Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Harp editorial). They are all heirs of old Bertrand Russell and his Why I am not a Christian ?, adding anecdotal meanders to his arsenal, but not always capturing the teacher's irony well. Conclusions: in the rational field, science is unbeatable by any theology and religious dogmas do not favor moral behavior better than a healthy lay decency, sometimes quite the opposite. Victory by thrashing of the atheist club. Undoubtedly, the gullible deserve it, better than believers, who take the Scriptures to the letter and claim that the Bible defeats Scientific American in their field.
To attend a parturient, an obstetric manual is better than Becquer or Rilke, but that does not mean that lyricists also teach truths about love. Isn't it more profitable to read religion in poetic terms, as Santayana wanted, than scientific or legal? If the divinity has to be rational and the sheriffs of our customs, better dispense with them and change their arrogance for teachers and police ... But maybe at times pray for emptiness: “God of the impossible, save us from the necessary! "
You can follow THE COUNTRY Opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to the Newsletter.