Southerly: The Problem With Religion
172 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Am I the only one who finds Richard Dawkins and the other "atheism uber alles" usual suspects to be at least as objectionable as overtly in-your-face religious types? What's the difference between his "There is only one truth, and that's my truth" and that of organised religions?
Late reply I know, Nope you're not the only one by far I suspect.
I have a friend who I refer to as religiously atheist if I want to wind him up. He thinks I'm not a real atheist because I'm not in peoples faces about it.Atheism, like most isms, seems to come in multiple flavours.
Cheers,
Grev -
What's the difference between his "There is only one truth, and that's my truth" and that of organised religions?
Dawkins and his ilk don't go doorknocking, although it wouldn't surprise me if they took it up. But yes, making a belief of unbelief is a royal pain.
Re. Top Gear, I know a few people in the motor trade, none of them find it interesting. It seems to be the kind of show where you head out to the garage to do blokey stuff while the women tune in.
-
The gospel which your Grandfather refers to is probably either the Infancy gospel of Thomas, or the Syriac Infancy gospel.
A day on which I learn something is a good day. Even better when it's as wiggy as that.
Following the link to the Syriac Infancy Gospel: It contains a number of embellishments on the earlier text, including a diaper (of Jesus) that heals.
That's certainly pretty wiggy. From my three children's nappies it's miraculous when one doesn't almost knock you out.
-
Top Gear is certainly a consumer entertainment show, not a trade one
-
Well, here in the States, religion--as with everything else--can be "got" for a price.
-
I'm not sure if the "religious unbelief" thing is really confined to religion/atheism. Christianity has such deep roots in European countries and colonies that we don't really notice that almost all of our way of seeing the world is heavily colored by it. The proselytizing urge extends to wanting to change the way other people see everything. I think monotheism is also symptomatic of a tendency to think in extremes. Which can be extremely bad, but it can also be extremely good. Some truths can only be found that way.
Christianity is a pretty damned arrogant idea, that there is only one God, and that we know Him and have favor with Him. Having been trained to that, it could easily lead to the kind of cockiness that perhaps Truth might even be discoverable. I don't think it's a coincidence that Science's cradle was in such an environment. It's the rebellious child of religion, and it surpasses the parent, but it's still from the same bloodline.
-
I don't think it's a coincidence that Science's cradle was in such an environment. It's the rebellious child of religion, and it surpasses the parent, but it's still from the same bloodline.
Sounds interesting. Do you mean that Western (?) religion has been too either/or?
I have just read The God Delusion and really enjoyed it. Loved the idea of 'memes' and found his concluding arguments about how we atheists can find consolation and inspiration very worthy.
But I felt he left something out. I think back to the novel Gilead which I read recently. Some believers use Christianity as a sort of conduit for a deep understanding of existence.
-
I don't think it's a coincidence that Science's cradle was in such an environment.
You don't think you might be under-estimating the scientific contribution of pagan Greece, Rome and Egypt? (I understand the basic principle could still apply, but you appear in that paragraph to be tying it pretty explicitly to a monotheistic controlling religion.)
-
"I do not greet them with icy rejection... because I know they've had icy rejection from every other house in the street, and I feel terribly, terribly sorry for them."
I feel sorry for them too, as I would for anyone who has imposed this on themselves.
Like the sound of your Grandfather.Thanks for the compliment on my spelling skills, I'll go away and work on my comprehension skills.
*note to self don't write anything when on the way to work* -
You don't think you might be under-estimating the scientific contribution of pagan Greece, Rome and Egypt?
Not to mention the large bodies of scientific knowledge accrued in the Indian subcontinent, millenia before the rise of Greece and Rome.
-
Do you mean that Western (?) religion has been too either/or?
No, I mean more that either/or thinking probably sped science along it's path. It's the strange paradox that only by being wrong most of the time can we hope to actually be right some of the time. If we insist on being right all the time, we discover nothing, and end up just staying wrong.
You don't think you might be under-estimating the scientific contribution of pagan Greece, Rome and Egypt? (I understand the basic principle could still apply, but you appear in that paragraph to be tying it pretty explicitly to a monotheistic controlling religion.)
The works of the ancient world mostly survived because of the Church rather than in spite of it. Yes, they were hugely influential on science, and they were hugely influential on the Church too. The example of Socrates has always struck me as drawing very stark parallels to that of Christ.
-
The works of the ancient world mostly survived because of the Church rather than in spite of it.
Book burning through the ages. Quite interesting in itself. Not all religiously motivated, but at least some were. I think your point is valid in some cases, but they were also guilty of shaping our recorded history on dogmatic grounds. The inquisition in particular.
I'd like to read this book by Protagoras.
On the Gods: Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life. -
As explained to me, by a drunk Marxist, the key to having a successful religion is to have a really big book filled with contradictory information. Then religious leaders sell all subjective truth in religion by reading the bits that appeal to their customers.
I suspect that worked very well for Christianity until the tail end of the middle ages, when some troublemakers started insisting the Bible be printed in the common language and not Latin.
And then a few hundred years later mass literacy took a hold and all heck broke loose.
But no, you're not the only one - this atheist too. I think they are too ready to attribute various ills to religion, which are really just consequences of human nature.
A presumption of one's own moral righteousness is the villain. Not to be trusted in anyone, no matter what form it takes.
And when it takes organised form - as it does in religious groups and political organisations - it is particularly toxic.
-
I used to buttonhole religious door knockers and involve them in theological arguments (being the son of a reasonably liberal Presbyterian minister has its advantages every now and again) - but the fun's sort of gone out that, it's too easy.
I'm married to a man who was thisclose to being an Independent Baptist preacher before he had a crisis of logic and got atheism (to the extent that he has been known to criticise Dawkins as too nice.) He regards door-knockers as generally too theologically ill-trained to be good sport.
No, I mean more that either/or thinking probably sped science along it's path. It's the strange paradox that only by being wrong most of the time can we hope to actually be right some of the time. If we insist on being right all the time, we discover nothing, and end up just staying wrong.
There is a strongly advanced argument that Western Christianity and its attempts to find truth through reason (Aquinas et al.) were fundamentally necessary for the development of modern science, to the extent that it would not have developed in a different culture. I don't know if I agree with this entirely, because there's a strong element of cultural superiority to the whole argument which largely ignores scientific development in non-Western areas, but the case can be made.
-
Over dinner I thought of a better way of saying this: Christian thought and Western science have common roots. The kind of thinking that led to one led to the other also.
This is really based on my own prejudices about science, which are that it is predominantly a highly forceful and proselytizing way of thinking, one that has no real compunction about smashing previous edifices of thinking to pieces, and bugger the consequences of doing so - the Truth is more important.
At least that was its history. Now it may well have gone beyond that again, because it has amassed such a monopoly on the Truth, it is extremely difficult for accepted scientific ideas to be smashed. To challenge the foundations of science receives very short shrift from scientists, who limit the domain of what may be smashed to the domain in which they move, that of the periphery of scientific knowledge, which no one but specialists can even understand. To challenge the core ideas at all is simply considered poorly educated. Kids are taught a huge array of scientific facts without ever being asked to challenge any of them, or being shown how it was that other ideas might have been compelling, and then disproven. This is left until the final years of training - everyone else simply receives these ideas as gospel, and trusts that they have been proven, or is alienated from the entire discipline.
I'm not saying it should be any other way - scientists are successfully trained via this method. But they are actually quite a small proportion of people in the world, and their way of thinking is actually pretty peculiar. The rest of humanity may very well appreciate something a little more inclusive, and I think the rising distrust of speaking in the name of science derives from this. It's moving from a religion of the people to a religion of power, in much the same way that all successful religions do. People resist the idea of children being indoctrinated into anything that claims to be the truth without discussing alternatives, precisely because bad experiences of other religions have taught us to. Indeed, a great many people of scientific bent would rather than children were taught nothing about religion at all. It's amazing that they can't see the parallel in this to the arrogance of Christianity.
-
I don't know if I agree with this entirely, because there's a strong element of cultural superiority to the whole argument which largely ignores scientific development in non-Western areas, but the case can be made.
This troubles me too. It's one of the main reasons I don't trust Western scientific dogma about the roots of science. It seems to me that other kinds of science are possible than the kind that Westerners came up with. There may be more than one viable scientific method, and the dominant one might be suboptimal, but powerful enough to hold the others back.
-
I have no issue with people who adopt the best humanitarian values of the major erligions and tr ytheir best to live them in a practical way for the benefit of all.
But religion performs the rather insidious trick of placing a belief system at the centre of the lives of adherents, without a skerrick of proof.
That's how we end up in secular matters with millions ignoring all the practical, everyday evidence supporting evolution and instead proclaiming belief in Creationism.
The same impetus underlies much of the evidence-ignoring "skepticism" to climate change science and comes from the same faith-blighted centres of political power allied with (or manipulated by) Big Business and its political agents.
The US "Tea Party" / Obama Birthers bizarrely equate universal health care with Communist Democrat Nazis condemning grandmothers to die.
All ustterly bizarre and divorced from reality......but as religions (and most Disney movies) make clear: All you have to do is BELIEVE.
Bugger that.
-
there's a strong element of cultural superiority to the whole argument
Just don't mention "art"
-
The example of Socrates has always struck me as drawing very stark parallels to that of Christ.
There are some interesting parallels between a lot of mediterranean/middle-eastern religions and christianity once you start looking.
Mithras was 'born of a virgin'. And did the whole nailed-to-a-tree-and-coming-back-to-life thing.
Which also appears in Norse mythology, Odin sacrificing himself by being hung from the world tree.
And the number 12 crops up an awful lot.
-
David, larf, I nearly died, as they say in my old Dad's West London manor - but that's OK, I get to come back again anyway. Your Scots Marxist grandad deserves a book on his own.
-
Glad you liked it, Jeffrey. Although I should correct you that my Granddad was an anarchist, not a Marxist! Seventeen years ago that mistake would have cost you a two-hour lecture on the subject.
And thank you also, Mike Hollywood, for your fascinating information on the evolution of the Celtic/Rangers divide. My mum (a Glaswegian) is a Celtic supporter purely on the basis of their inclusive employment policy -- although I don't think she exactly follows the games these days.
-
It seems to me that other kinds of science are possible than the kind that Westerners came up with.
Like....what? Because as far as providing us with testable pieces of information about the world goes, the basic methods of modern science is pretty much where it's at. That isn't to say that they're always done perfectly, but the principle (hypothesise, test, record observations, discard/don't discard hypothesis) is sound.
But they are actually quite a small proportion of people in the world, and their way of thinking is actually pretty peculiar. The rest of humanity may very well appreciate something a little more inclusive, and I think the rising distrust of speaking in the name of science derives from this.
Or maybe because it's to the advantage of a lot of people for science to be discredited. Scientific thinking is really not that peculiar, or even difficult.
Indeed, a great many people of scientific bent would rather than children were taught nothing about religion at all.
Actually, I believe most scientists are strongly in favour of children being taught about religion. All religions. I absolutely am - they're a hugely important part of history, society, and culture. I'm just not in favour of children being taught that one particular religion is inherently true. There's something of a difference there.
-
It seems to me that other kinds of science are possible than the kind that Westerners came up with.
..hypothesise, test, record observations, discard/don't discard hypothesis) is sound.
but how western or Christian ابو علي، الحسن بن الحسن بن الهيثم was, is probably debatable.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Ibn_al-Haytham
But then the similarities between Islam and Christianity far outweigh the differences, relative to Paganism.
Eastern/Western is becoming a little old hat.
-
Kids are taught a huge array of scientific facts without ever being asked to challenge any of them, or being shown how it was that other ideas might have been compelling, and then disproven.
Really? They've dropped stuff like Thomson's "plum pudding" model of the atom from the syllabus? When I were a lad, we were endlessly learning stuff only to find that it hadn't held up to later scrutiny. Like how giraffe's got their long necks. Maybe a teacher can tell us when all this was dumped?
-
How did giraffes get their long necks?
Eastern/Western is becoming a little old hat.
..It kind of insinuates that all those western ships and trade carts carried back empty holds and minds from their destinations. However I feel a truer version is that 'the western' is by and large heavily influenced by the other and ultimately it's lasting contribution is one of refinement and systematization.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.