종교와 신앙에 관한 인용
강조는 내가.
You can attack other’s political view, criticize a football coach but cannot attack one’s religious faith. It’s a kind of immunity from criticism that religion enjoys, despite being proven to be mostly illogical.
Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women — they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established.
The parameters you use, are the effect of the morality that is already with you, assimilated from different sources in your life time.
I link the marking of children as ‘Jewish boy’ or ‘Muslim child’ as a child abuse, since, in childhood they are yet to choose their religious views. Not only that, they are brought up in a way that he gets separated from other religious groups and views so that he follows the religious faith of his parents. Obstructing the view of children clearly comes under child abuse.
인터뷰 전문 The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins으로부터 인용. 번역도 있다.

July 28th, 2007 at 7:18 PM
종교인으로써, 맘에 드는 의견은 아니군요.
July 28th, 2007 at 7:58 PM
L.A.Feuerbach의 “Das Wesen des Christentums” 및 “Das Wesen der Religion” 도 참고 바람…
July 28th, 2007 at 11:01 PM
저 글의 번역문을 보고 생각하건데, 그저 억지주장만 부리면서 교회를 강요하는 “광신도” 레벨의 아줌마랑 뭐가 다른지 모르겠습니다.
이 관점은 제가 종교인 이라는 것과는 무관합니다.
July 28th, 2007 at 11:17 PM
억지주장이라고 할 수는 없어. Richard Dawkins의 저서를 하나라도 읽고 나서 판단해도 늦지 않을 거다.
July 29th, 2007 at 12:20 PM
저서 하나만 추천해 주세요. 그래야 제대로 판단할 수 있을 듯 싶네요.
July 29th, 2007 at 4:33 PM
The Blind Watchmaker를 추천합니다. 우리나라에는 눈먼 시계공이라는 제목으로 번역본이 나왔습니다.