Od nekdaj nisem pristaš javnega razpravljanja o (ne)obstoju Boga, saj se mi zdi to trotlziher recept, kako po najlažji poti zanetiti prepir. Bolj sem naklonjena temu, naj vsak sam zase najde sprejemljive odgovore, svojih stališč pa ne vsiljuje drugim.
Te dni pa sem naletela na super prispevek Nathana Schneiderja, v katerem razmišlja, da niti ni pomembno, ali nekdo veruje v Boga ali ne. Veliko bolj pomembno je namreč, kako posameznik argumentira svoje prepričanje in kako se njegovo mišljenje odraža v samem obnašanju. Dejstvo je, da dobre in slabe ljudi/ideje/dejanja najdemo na obeh straneh spektra (verujoči-neverujoči). Poleg tega pa smo verjetno že vsi doživeli, kako označiti nekoga za vernika/ateista še prehitro postane izgovor, da mnenja sogovornika sploh ni vredno upoštevati ali spoštovati:
What are we really talking about when we debate the existence of God? I think it can become a shortcut, a way of side-stepping more necessary and more difficult questions.Denouncing others as atheists, or as believers in a false God, can become an excuse to treat them as less than human, as undeserving of real consideration. When terrorists attack in the name of a certain God, it can seem easier to blame their religion than to consider their stated grievances about foreign military bases in their countries and foreigners backing their corrupt leaders. When religious communities reject scientific theories for bad reasons, it can seem easier to blame the fact that they believe in God, rather than to notice that other believers might accept the same theories for good reasons. Good ideas and bad ideas, good actions and bad actions – they’re all on either side of the God divide.
