So contra to what Uccisore says, you say that gods do not exist in external reality but that since we have no viable replacement today for the psychological crutch that belief in gods provide for some people, society is probably better off, at least for the time being, to allow these folks to continue to believe in the reality of gods in much the same way that we allow small children to believe in Santa Claus?
That sentiment is perhaps couched in harsher terms than you would prefer, but in essence does it express your belief?
What are you implying that he condones it in the case of the Pol Pot?
That many ideologies have, unsuccessfully attempted to replace religion in many areas of the world does not excuse the atrocities religions have produced.
The fact that you use the word evil means you’ve adopted an ambiguous religious term to disprove that religion is the root of it.
The concept of evil is a religious one.
If you wish to propose the idea that ideas create violence and suffering then nature provides ample evidence that this is not so.
Violence, murder, suffering are all part of existence and competition and confrontation, as well as the drive towards power and control, is not a distinctly human phenomenon.
That the Pol Pot, using the excuse of an ideal, caused pain and suffering within a particular segment of a population, telling them and themselves that it was for the better good, is no different than the U.S. invading Iraq, causing suffering and destruction to ‘save’ them from a previous state of suffering.
Idealizing one form of violence, as benevolent or as having ‘good intentions’, while condemning another under the naive ruse that it is evil and has bad intentions is exactly how these activities are made possible.
They “got along” in the USA because of its historically white European Christian cultural hegemony. This Christian population has increasingly been turning brown and black, which the more savvy of the organized religious leaders understand. But the change in immigration from origins in Europe to the rest of the world has opened the cultural gates in many respects, one of those being the serious challenging of major, seemingly untouchable, religions. Because they “got along” on the strength of the taboo against any profound questioning of the rationality of religion.
Also, they “got along” because there was an effort to maintain separation between church and state where it matters, so that scientific inquiry and research could be promoted and funded without the religious influence that keeps control of the purse strings and denies vital research because of beliefs like a cluster of cells has a soul and so you can’t use them to cure the diseases of the massively larger groups of cells known as human beings. Finally, they “got along” because it’s only been in the last 100 years or so that scientific and technological knowledge has made the sort of progress that has seriously undermined many claims of the religious texts that were written in antiquity.
Yes, and while Christians may have invented physics, it’s because physics is a real domain of inquiry that it became separated from its Christian roots. Science is science because it’s the one mode of discourse where we’re rigorously honest, and everyone’s in the business of proving everyone else wrong. This doesn’t happen in religion. If it did, you’d slowly see religious organizations as we know them go into decline.
Well then, in that sense science uses language in the way religion does to describe similar experiences. Which begs the question as to why we need religion to do it now that it’s been supplanted by a much more precise mode. Dawkins refers to the notion of transcendent experience (whatever that means; I for one don’t view it as anything beyond the capacity of the mind that operates within our physical bodies) as the result of simulation software in the brain, or that we’re hard-wired to expect agency when it doesn’t exist, so we mistake coincidences for spiritual events, or mistake chemical occurences in our brains for mystical experiences. While it may be traumatic to those emotionally predisposed to the concept that God/Jesus is really their benevolent (if you turn your head aside now and then whilst reading the scriptures) dictatorial lord and saviour, others may view science as offering a novel, and more practical, language to describe these same ‘transcendent’ experiences.
Relatively small minorities have picked such fights to speak truth to power from time immemorial. This is more like the Cold War and you’ll find organized religions increasingly seeking their recruits for the battle in impoverished Third World countries where they can still gain a foothold by offering food and money along with the message of eternal salvation.
Maybe the styles of Dawkins et al just feel like hyperbole because it’s such a radical shift to directly and explicitly challenge the cultural taboo against criticizing religion, particularly in the USA. And I don’t recall ever seeing or hearing them relate historical events inaccurately or to falsely attribute those events to religious-based conflicts. When they do this in the presence of theists, the response is often that this is too simplistic, that these are political or social (tribal) power struggles for which religion is unfairly blamed. And while it’s true that there can be these other factors involved, further analysis often brings us back to the core of conflicting belief systems.
I happen to think that modern scientific atheism, or whatever you want to call it, is a movement of sorts, and I concur that Dawkins is one of its leaders. Which is fine with me, I’m happy that he’s smart and accomplished enough to have taken the reins and run with it. Harris is a bit different, he’s more an advocate of reason and opening up the discourse, because he believes that this will ultimately put theistic religions into the same boat as beliefs like astrology. As he says, you don’t openly express a belief in astrology and sit on the Supreme Court; you can’t practice as a neurosurgeon if you can’t do surgery when Saturn is in retrograde. That he’s willing to go at it toe-to-toe with the theists, that people will listen and buy his books in great quantities (although, as he’s noted, his book sales are miniscule compared to those of “The Purpose Driven Life”) means that this horse, if not having completely left the barn, has at least a portion of its body out in the sunshine.
Hitchens, who hasn’t gotten quite as much attention as them, but deserves to, is perhaps the most eloquent and uncompromising of them all (and the first chapter of his “God is Not Great” is transformative in its pure eloquence, IMO), is really the champion of the intellect. And although his own is considerable, he doesn’t believe in speaking ‘down’ to the poor and uneducated but instead makes a strong case as to how religion does.
And yet it can be a civil rights matter. While it’s fine that she’s not bothered by the comments of your co-workers, it’s naive to believe that there aren’t plenty of places in the US where she (and her children) could be socially ostracized and, worse, denied employment or harrassed to the extent that she might have concerns for her family’s safety. And not just by white people, BTW. Sure, I think the pluralization factor helps open the gates, as I noted above. But to the extent that we instead become a nation of religious believers who are now people of color…well, that doesn’t solve the problem.
Well, I find it to be fundamentally irrational and have already expounded as to why quite a bit although, granted, not nearly as much as others who have expounded on why it’s rational for them to believe in it as they do. That they can play the probabilities in a way that suits a particular logical construction doesn’t convince most of us on the critical things, like virgin birth or the dead guy issue…and I’m not even touching the tenants of the Koran here. I have no problem if people choose to believe that, EXCEPT that they will simply not leave the rest of us alone…we must be either killed as infidels or harangued into accepting Jesus Christ as our personal savior (versus the impersonal sort of savior, I imagine). But, aside from all that bother of getting blown up in the marketplace or at the least accosted there by a young person with a blank look and a pamphlet to hand me, I find the belief itself to be ridiculous, delusional (in the Buddhist usage of the term!) and ultimately beyond justification. And there are plenty of cogent explanations as to why…PLENTY! That anyone should be expected to feel hesitant to express this in this way because of some cultural dictate that ‘faith’, granted its supposed status as a moral quality in and of itself, is not to be detracted from is a blatant form of censorship. I certainly wouldn’t fight to the death for the idea of Jesus, but I would for the first amendment because, imperfect as it is, that’s the idea that transforms human life and provides the moral foundation for the kind of society that I want to live in.
Maybe, but I think there are plenty of moderates who would find that just too distasteful to do. Anyway, I’ve seen an amazing degree of social change in my lifetime, and it more often than not began with the radicals who challenged authority in exactly the same ‘in your face’ sort of way. I don’t think you can ‘get rid’ of religion, at least not for a long, long time, but I think you can make people more aware of the need to elevate reason in our public (and private) discourse and thereby diminish religion’s ability to lead us in toward such extremist stupidity as ID or such tragedies as 9/11. This isn’t something that I think most religious moderates would have a problem with in the first place.
I was at a friend’s house last night and saw snippets on TV of the stereotypical sensationalistic news magazine show about a little British child who was kidnapped. She was apparently taken from an unlocked Portugese resort hotel room where her utterly moronic parents left her sleeping and unsupervised (with her 2-year-old twin siblings!) to go off partying with their friends at the hotel bar, something they apparently had been doing every evening for that prior week so that a predator could easily plan ahead when best to walk in and abduct her. The volume was low, but what drew my attention at one point was images of all these people back home lighting candles and praying for God to return the little girl safely. I could only roll my eyes at it and wonder about asking God to please step in now, rather than, say, at 10:00 p.m. on the night when the guy had his hand on the doorknob. Or perhaps to have put the idea in the parents thick heads not to leave very young children unattended in unlocked hotel rooms, which God hadn’t seen fit to do so before the little one was kidnapped and, odds are, raped, brutalized and murdered. It seemed to me that perhaps a middle-finger salute aimed toward the God who’d allowed that to happen would’ve been a more RATIONAL reaction.
I think that religion plays an important role in society and that there is no readily available replacement for it. It serves as a wonderful vector for kicking off thought about things like metaphysics, as well as maintaining cultural continuity through ritual, providing moral instruction and communal cohesiveness. So, I do value religion for what it offers. From there it is easy to see my position on gods, since in the West the notions of god and religion are nearly inseparable, and for all the talk of nontheistic religions like Buddhism, in the native context there is certainly a lot of spirits and ghosts that are taken literally even if they oughtn’t be at the philosophic core of the religion. While I don’t think that god exists as an external reality, I do think the juice is worth the squeeze – I’m valuing the ritual more than the sheep, you know?
Ing,
Well, I was thinking more about Europe as opposed to the US, but your point is well taken. I would point out, however, that other systems of belief were not as amicable towards the development of science as Christianity. In Christianity the universe is inherently knowable since it was designed for humans by an omnipotent God. This is in stark contrast with traditions like Daoism where the universe is inherently unknowable or Buddhism where a constant universe is illusory so understanding can only be understanding-of-the-moment. That is why there were things like natural immutable laws and all that in early science, because it was an outgrowth of Christianity and Christianity provided fertile soil for early science in a way other traditions don’t. Yangming famously asked whether one can understand the nature of the Universe through the veins of bamboo. His point was that you can’t, and it would be foolish to try. However, in the Christian case that bamboo was made by God so, yes, actually, you might be able to.
I will also point out that it is religion’s duty to offer moral instruction. You and I might disagree with that moral instruction because we are coming at it from a different perspective, but I do think it is good that these questions be asked and thought out.
I agree that science and religion are different. Outside of the post-modern clique, I don’t think too many people will find that statement controversial. I also agree that there is a difference between philosophia and a philomythos. This divide has been recognized since Aristotle.
Outside of Zamyan’s “We”, I haven’t seen a method whereby science has supplanted religion in total. Aspects of religion can be replaced by science, but that is (thankfully) all.
That is a point well taken, but see my “atheism and a path forwards” thread. What has replaced the fallen institutions in many cases is as problematic as what came before. I mean, come on, as a feminist you have to feel fairly betrayed by modern “Getting a boob job is feminism!”-feminism. As for historical events, I think that they do simplify various historical events like 9/11 and make them just about religion whereas the true situation is a good deal more complicated (and I don’t mean that in a tinfoil-hat kinda way).
To me a lot of it seems like the modern scientific atheism is really just the latest version of logical positivism. Given how poorly that movement turned out the first time, I am reluctant to endorse its latest form.
I just think that as people are exposed to more people of different cultural backgrounds, they can’t help but become more tolerant of other ideas. Sure, there are bound to be some reactionary groups like the KKK, but look at how their influence has waned over the past 100 years and continues to do so. It isn’t a racial thing, it is a cultural thing.
Anyways,
I think what you’re saying is fine and dandy, but then, I don’t. Lies sometimes seem necessary but aren’t really. Like I get the point. Schooling textbooks use millions of hypothetical problems to solve in order for children to learn by, but what if they didn’t? What if what we learned was all factually based? What if we didn’t take algebra in high school or read Shakespeare’s plays? What if we were sent out with our diplomas without it? What then? Would we learn as we went along instead of on foundation? But what foundation is a false one? Rocky, that’s what. Pointless, too. We learn in a way that is not only built from fable, but also takes a portion of our lives mandatorily to learn what we don’t need to learn in order to succeed in it. You see what I’m saying? Again, where’s the value here?
This doesn’t mean that lies can’t be helpful, they are; but help in education doesn’t require any.
It all depends on what you think the goal of education is.
I, for one, like the sciences and think they are terribly important to modern life. So, it follows that I would like for them to continue to be taught. Since reality is terribly complicated as well as interconnected, it follows that certain “dumbed down” or even incorrect models have to be applied to start the process.
I mean, really, kicking off mathematics with the proof that 1+1=2 while proving that additive function of algebra exists would be a terrible way to kick-start the process.
Small steps, sure. Or what would it be like if kindergarteners were given hard core calc formulas? I mean they’ve already petitioned for children to be taught sex ed early into childhood, but nobody thinks to give them a higher education in math?
And that, of course, is the key difference between reality as we construct it and reality as we understand it – between means and ends.
Sex ed is by-and-large an end. It has a very specific goal (either preventing pre-marrital intercourse or reducing teen pregnancy, depending on who is designing the course) so it has more in common with indoctrination/ritualization than it does with knowledge. Mathematics, on the other hand, is a means that we use to model reality and thereby understand it. You don’t need to understand oogenesis to avoid getting pregnant, but you do need to understand addition before multiplication can make sense.
I think it’s a mistake to say that we construct reality. Some folks misunderstand what this implies. We don’t “construct” reality. We construct “interpretations” of reality.
For example, we may construct an interpretation of reality in which sacrificing babies to the Rain God in the early spring improves the chances that our crops will succeed. However, whether sacrificing babies to the Rain God in the early spring really does improve the chances that our crops will succeed is a function of reality, not a function of our interpretation of reality.
But there is an underlying reality to understand with respect to rain and crop failures. In the case of sex ed, making an argument for an underlying reality is quite different. That is the point I am making. We do construct a lot of our reality almost entirely. The rest we construct an understanding of.
This fallacy many associate with perspectivism, that we construct reality by believing this or that is what many use to defend positions they are incapable of providing rational arguments for and evidence for and to attack those that can.
The idea that this is “you reality” and that it doesn’t touch me, is a defensive tactic, meant to excuse absurd positions.
Reality isn’t a human construct. We either percive it or we do not.
Our perspectives on it are constructs and their accuracy and validity can be measured against reality.
That’s what I had assumed that you believed. You disagree entirely with people like Uccisore about the existence of god(s) in external reality even though you are reluctant to express that disagreement. In short, you support religion (to whatever degree that may be) for essentially the same reasons that you support the propagation of the Santa myth among small children; i.e., it can be instructive both practically and morally for certain people who seem to need it.
Since people without the belief in god seem to be at least as moral, by most common standards of morality, and as law abiding as people with beliefs in god seem to be, this notion that the threat of God is necessary to keep the hoi polloi in line, as it were, seems to me to be somewhat of a dubious proposition.
I would say that either sex ed reduces teen pregnancy or it doesn’t. That is reality. It cannot do both because reality is only the way it is and it is not both the way that it is and some other way at the same time.
