Sandhedens evige kilde

T.S._Eliot_1923“So long … as we consider finance, industry, trade, agriculture merely as competing interests to be reconciled from time to time as best they may, so long as we consider “education” as a good in itself of which everyone has a right to the utmost, without any ideal of the good life for society or for the individual, we shall move from one uneasy compromise to another. To the quick and simple organization of society for ends which, being only material and worldly, must be as ephemeral as worldly success, there is only one alternative. As political philosophy derives its sanction from ethics, and ethics from the truth of religion, it is only by returning to the eternal source of truth that we can hope for any social organization which will not, to its ultimate destruction, ignore some essential aspect of reality. The term “democracy,” as I have said again and again, does not contain enough positive content to stand alone against the forces that you dislike––it can easily be transformed by them. If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.”

Således skrev T.S. Eliot i The Idea of a Christian Society og Richard Dawkins uddybede pointen med “a jealous God” omkring 70 år senere:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Ordene stammer oprindeligt fra The God Delusion, men citeres ofte af Dawkins selv, som f. eks. i The God Delusion Public Lecture

Er der en pointe her? Noget i retning af at den ene type af blodtørstig etnisk udrenser ikke skulle være at foretrække frem for den anden? Egentlig ikke, for der er selvfølgelig afgørende forskelle. Dawkins er en fornøjelse at lytte til når han irettesætter og formaner og belærer kreationistiske tosser om hvad videnskab og videnskabelighed er, selvom hans kategoriske afvisning af religionen og enhver forestilling om Gud i den grad er forfejlet og enfoldig. På trods er det alligevel svært ikke at foretrække forestillingen om den Gud som Dawkins beskriver, frem for den flegmatiske Gud som moderne teologer synes at tilbede og som vist ikke laver andet end at bære over med mennesket ved at udvise barmhjertighed og godhed og langmodighed. Næh, forman os i stedet om at “there’s hell, there’s darkness, there’s the sulphurous pit; burning, scalding, stench, consumption”. (King Lear, sjette akt, sc 6)

Skriv et svar