Funny that most of the well-thought of philosophers were also the most literal theologians.
When I read this and you began that intellectuals are calling for destruction of religion, I kept thinking, “Sure, except for those who aren’t, like Zizek, Butler, Virilio, Dolar, Salecl, Sloterdijk, and others.” If Marxism is ever to come to fruition, then a religion must exist – what religion? The Christian legacy is the most precious of them all. As G.K. Chesterton noted long ago:
Hi Rounder, how have you been these days?
Science is quite recent, whereas ancient religions are, well, ancient.
Tradition is a good place to start, but a bad place to stop at!
New age science movements already exist which are shedding new light on all sorts of subjects as regards the supernatural.
“Science” is not a religion either, it is results from experiments, that’s all sceince EVER WAS.
Atheism, however, is a “religion”; it is the anti-religion.
Religions belief falls into the realm of personal freedom, thus cannot be “taken away”.
The best bet would be for scientists to cut out the atheist materialism from their bias, and then do some REAL research about the supernatural/spiritual-unknown, then publish the results of such tests on a massive scale.
The reason why religion is [arguablly], basically “bad” is because it’s so old and stale. It just needs allot of upgrades, like your PC.
~
Materialism is very efficient in the secular world, thus I can see why governers of the secular would would sometimes be in deep want of more materialism & less spirituality in the nation.
Once scientists eventually cure or stop old-age-degenerations, this will be a huge leap towards materialism existence, as death and metaphysical existence [detatched from the body] is no longer such an issue for the human.
~
So friends, “religion” [in general] does not need to be destroyed, it just needs some upgrades… The only question is:
Who’s unbiased enough to do the upgrades?
=(
So there will be allot of opinionated spiritual pissing contests in the future, as now… oh well.
Some religions are degenerating/retarded, whereas others are evolving and growing. Natural selection is going to alter religions, as it always has.
Evolution is pretty damned slow, but hopefully it will eventually clear up religious problems more then it has…?
It’s a complex issue… Democracy won’t overpower religion any time soon, though… Communists could squish some religions, but Democrats can’t.
06.13.06.1334
It is a sound proposition you have made here—one that asks not for the devaluation of humanity’s understanding, but the evolution of it. However, I am curious to the extent of this “elimination.” For millenia, religions have risen and fell—being merely orientations of a belief—but spirituality still appeals on levels that religion could not begin to touch on. So what I am asking is, are you speaking in favor of eliminating mythologically-based orientations of exploring spirituality (false truths), or are you speaking in favor of eliminating spirituality all together?
If religion is merely a means of controlling the weak-minded, would not the solution to rid religion be that firstmost of ridding personal ignorance through the education of open-mindedness?
God can only be known by faith alone. Science will never prove the existence of God. The Edge Foundation is a reality club. Do you see the incongruity of your arguments? You mention that Sam Harris is getting his doctorate in neuroscience, researching the natural basis of belief, disblief and uncertainty, by functional magnetic resonance imaging. What will this prove? That there is no Holy Spirit?
You mention Steven Pinker, who makes much ado about nothing without backing any of it up. He says, "In response to this situation, most sensible people advocate something called “religious tolerance. While religious tolerance is surely better than religious war, tolerance is not without its liabilities. Our fear of provoking religious hatred has rendered us incapable of criticizing ideas that are now patently absurd and increasingly maladaptive. It has also obliged us to lie to ourselves — repeatedly and at the highest levels — about the compatibility between religious faith and scientific rationality.”
What liabilities is Pinker speaking of? He mentions religious tolerance in one breath, and mention religious hatred in the next. Do you see his intentional twist? Then he mentions that we are incapable of criticizing ideas. What do philosophers do?
Is religion the enemy? Or are you, with your intolerance? Rounder, my suggestion for you is to concentrate your intellengence, and yes you are intelligent, on the philosophical understanding of who you are, and not the scientific.
I think that religion is the fever. We should concentrate on ignorance, which is the infection.
As long as gross ignornace walks the land there will always be various forms of fevers.
I believe that religion will persist until all things representing the unknown are easily accesible (physically and mentally) to mankind. (i.e., the stars, the planets, outer space, the bottom of the oceans, the earth’s core, etc.). Until all things unknown are answered scientifically and reasonably, religion will persist.
coberst is right.
I have to disagree there. Religion, at its basis, is metaphysics, meaning beyond physics. Now, science or physics will never be able to give an answer to the core question of many religions, namely, how did we get here? Now, at first glance, this may appear to be answerable by modern physics/cosmology which can attempt to explain the manner in which the universe unfolded from the apparent initial cause. However, physics cannot explain physics itself, as this is circular.
Why are there observable physical laws? Why do these laws behave in a generally uniform manner in time and in space? What caused the big bang? Why does matter/energy exist?
All these questions are ‘beyond the physical’ and therefore beyond the realm of science. We can speculate scientifically about such things, but scientific speculation is not science, as science is based on emperical observation (though this seems to be getting slightly blurred these days with postulations such as string theory etc.).
Because these questions can never be answered by science, there will always exist people who are willing to have faith about metaphysical entities, and hence forms of religion will always exist.
I haven’t read this thread (except for a bit at the beginning), but it seems to me that a lot of the invective against religion can equally well be applied to the structure of society in general: i.e. specifically, the way that group-identities are constructed on the small and medium scale, and the kind of inimical tensions and antagonisms that arise when you have social dynamics of this variety. Now from a statistical or demographic point of view, I would question whether the relationship between religion and all those nasty things Rounder listed above is causative or merely correlative, but unlike Coberst I do not believe that this “infection” is necessarily a symptom of ignorance, so much as a symptom of the kind of societies that we live in today. A pertinent point I think is made by Zizek when he contends that many of the most fundamentalist groups (such as the Amish, I suppose) are also the least antagonistic towards the larger societies in which they live: concerned, as they tend to be, almost exclusively with the happenings of their own community, and wishing for little else other than to be left alone. In any case I am highly dubious of the thesis that religion is the Great Satan which must be purged from our society (by science), so that peace and love may reign throughout the universe. Firstly in the sense that I don’t think there is any strong causative relation here (the real causes lie deeper, I would speculate); and secondly because even if there was such a causative relation, it is not altogether self-evident that this is even a problem of ‘knowledge’, rather than politics, anyway.
Regards,
James
I think it is reasonable to both believe and hope that religion will one day cease. However, destroying religion should not be the ultimate goal.
I think of this idea much like I think of the phrase “money is the root of all evil”. Money is not the root of all evil, and it is ridiculous to think so. Much evil has been centered around money, but there was certainly evil before currency, and even before language. Money is often correlated to evil; but our goal should not be to get rid of money, it should be to get rid of evil.
Similarly, we dislike religion because it promotes bad behavior - the advocation of intelligent design as a scientific theory, when it is clearly neither credible nor scientific, the proposal of an anti-gay-marriage law in the US, and whole hosts of negative behavior in our world’s history. And yet religion itself is not at the very root of these actions. There have been violent and horrible atheists (though disproportionately fewer, to be fair).
The qualities we view as “good” are those of being independently moral, and of being critical thinkers.
The person who is independently moral has an internal notion of what “right” and “wrong” are, and acts this way without need for threats, praise or condemnation, and without need for the “right” action to be legal or in accordance with the rules of the bureaucracy. The morality spawned by religion is anything but; strongly religious individuals tend towards absolutes that many others would disagree with - “lying is always wrong”, “killing is always wrong”. (What about lying to the Gestappo to protect the Jews in my basement? What about killing the Gestappo if he tries to force his way inside in order to kill the Jews?) These religious individuals promote morality from a fear perspective - do what God says, so that he won’t send you to hell. Certainly some religious individuals have a stronger degree of independent morality within their religion, but this is more the exception than the rule.
The critical thinker, too, has a host of advantages over the imprecise thinker who is more able to make decisions from a purely emotional standpoint. Indeed, the ability to think critically and rationally is one that seems exceedingly rare, and just as valuable to the individual’s ability to reliably and positively affect those around him. When confronted with a moral decision, he does not need to rely on fall-back moral catch-alls (“never lie”), but is more able to assess the complexities of the situation in a way that better allows him to determine the best course of action. This individual is capable of discerning for himself whether or not Bush acted appropriately in, say, the NSA wiretapping scandal - and he discerns this independently of political propaganda from both sides. He is able to separate out his personal moral preferences from the course of action that is best for another individual, another country, or another culture - and would, for example, conclude that only funding pro-abstinence educators in Africa is far more detrimental than funding those who teach about safe sex and how to prevent pregnancy and HIV.
The goal of eliminating religion is a reasonable goal - but a far more worthwhile goal is to eliminate the human failures that lead to religion. Promote independent morality, critical and rational thinking, and the surety of self that allows an individual to not fear death, but rather look forward to a life well lived.
siatd is right… science, like all things of good intentions… (among which, religion) can be horribly abused and it’s certainly not the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything
Of course. Science can only replace part of religion.
Religion has many important components, but the two most commonly discussed are 1) morality, and 2) reality. Religion attempts to tell us how to live our lives, and it also attempts to tell us what things are true, and why they are true.
Science cannot begin to tell us how to live our lives; nor does it purport to. Certainly science affects how we do live our lives, but that is not at all the same thing. The domain of science always has been #2, reality. In this, it not only removes the need for religion, it conflicts flagrantly with most religions, so that one must either choose between the two, or else modify religion (the only one of the two that really can be modified by the whim of an individual and still retain the essence of what it was) to be consistent with science. The more science tells us about the universe, the clearer it is that religion no longer has a place telling us about reality.
Horrors of science - thalidomide, nuclear bombs, nazi testing on jews, and so on - these have all been immoral actions involving science. As many bad analogies tell us, science is like a knife - it can be used for good and for bad. But regardless of how it is used, it is clearly a superior tool to religion for telling us what is true and false.
The task still remains, however, to determine what is right and what is wrong. Once we have that, morals together with science may well provide the answer to life, the universe, and everything - or at least may put us one step closer. In the meanwhile, we must stay vigilant, keep our eyes open, and not criticize science just because it doesn’t solve all our problems. After all, it’s not supposed to.
Religion is needed like a blanket on a cold night, Science is the fire that lights the surrounding darkness. Fanatics are the root of religious problems not the average person, they are mere sheeple being drawn to the light of the fire and blanket. Religion is not about death but about living. All religions are mere social guidelines, they only become problematic when carried to extremes.
Religion has started wars, but it also brought literacy. It has brought hatred, but, it has brought life. For every negative there is a positive.
Science will not be able to kill off religion when has opposites ever been successful in removing its counterpart. It becomes a balance.
I speak as one who has no religion but, can see the need for it.
Plus, it gets some really bad drivers off the road for a few hours each week 
“And now for something completely different”–
We humans seem to exist in a world of changes, many of which ride roughshod over our best intentions. “Life is what happens while we are making other plans.”–John Lennon. We reach for something that would provide meaning for our individaul existences in the teeth of the ultimate change–death.
If there was no death, there would be no religion. IMHO, religion prospers because it addresses our existential angst in ways that science and philosophy do not. I was privileged to hear Sam Harris tout his book on C-Span3, book t.v. I agreed with him wholeheartedly. Religion is a cancer and religious fundamentalism is a bomb begging detonation. Yet, what is around that can replace religion as comfort to individuals who know they will die?
Which… it won’t, because that’s not what science does. Any science that claims that there is meaning to something is going beyond its boundaries. The way science is limited is why people actually come up with the idea to replace religion with it - they find it’s methods to be superior, as they are, within their boundaries, the best solution.
Of course - there can be a lot of not-so-nice things caused by religion. The same could be said about anger, jealousy, pride, etc. And in the same way these things will always exist, I don’t consider it possible to replace religion. Whether it’s just a result of pride, or whether there is a “real” justification to the interpretation of the world, I don’t see how it’s leaving us.
And now, an interesting quote by a smart man:
"Once the last trace of emotion has been eradicated, nothing remains of thought but absolute tautology. " - Theodor Adorno.
Religion vs Science
1st battle: Curing starvation and disease. Science wins because it can cure both.
2cnd battle; alleving overpopulation. science wins because it can stop it.
3rd battle; natural disasters . Science wins because it can repair most damage.
Hold on lets check those results again;
Science can cure starvation, disease, overpopulation and natural disasters but is it? Not really because you have to pay for the answers, Science is not very altruistic, it certainly does not comfort families that cannot afford the cures.
Religion offers comfort and an arm to lean on. It offers solace in time of grief and pain. Science holds it’s hand out and demands payment before it helps. Religion does not.
So while science has the answers, it guards them jealously like a miser until payment is made. Religion cannot solve the physical problems but, it does solve the mental ones that result from science not helping out voluntarily. Hmm, which one is better?
Science needs only to keep on going to destroy religion. Whether it would be good or not is disputable.
Religion relies on unanswered questions. This is how it remains observable. Long ago, when you saw lightning, you were observing god. God was the only explanation for the lightning. Later, science showed that lightning was caused by something other than god, and thus lightning was no longer a proof of God.
Understand?
Science has been making God less and less observable. It is killing religion by severe root pruning. And if God is no longer observable it will no longer exist.
Though it is the base of religion, unanswered questions are not its purpose. The purpose of religion is social benefit, to create a society that cares for eachother. If God was only there to answer questions than all followers would immediately “convert” to science, because science answers questions more fully. The problem is that religion did something stupidly covert. It posed as a science from the beginning, and continues to. In this way it was simpler to understand and easier to observe, because all you had to observe was lightning. But what needs to happen for religion to survive is for it, instead of pointing to lightning and the stars, to point to the greatly observable and beneficial social effects. Instead of saying “God explains death” to people, religions should be saying “Our religion produces a healthier society than any other system”. Which it does, at the moment.