I'm not saying that we should maliciously go out and forcibly disillusion people of their beliefs, and that's not what Dawkins is doing. Telling people his views is relatively innocuous because it still leaves people with the choice to believe, not to believe, believe openly, or believe closetedly.
Sure, becoming an atheist can tear families apart, but if the beliefs that family holds is stronger than their bonds of familiar-love for one another, then those beliefs are corrosive and destructive, and need to be weened away. One doesn't find families of people with different ideas of how gravity works estranging each other when they don't agree.
What would be dangerous is if we made religion illegal, or if we made up false and terrible consequences attributed to belief in religion: eg/ if you keep believing, then the natural laws of the universe will condemn you upon death to being drawn down into the centre of the earth where you'll burn forever in the earth's molten core.
THAT would be dangerous.
Sure, becoming an atheist can tear families apart, but if the beliefs that family holds is stronger than their bonds of familiar-love for one another, then those beliefs are corrosive and destructive, and need to be weened away. One doesn't find families of people with different ideas of how gravity works estranging each other when they don't agree.
What would be dangerous is if we made religion illegal, or if we made up false and terrible consequences attributed to belief in religion: eg/ if you keep believing, then the natural laws of the universe will condemn you upon death to being drawn down into the centre of the earth where you'll burn forever in the earth's molten core.
THAT would be dangerous.
If you believe it, question it. If you question it, get an answer. If you have an answer, does that answer satisfy reality? Does it satisfy you? Probably not. For no one else will agree with you, not really.
