Reply
Fri 20 Feb, 2009 12:09 am
Ok, I said I was going to get around to this eventually, so here it is.
Obviously we cannot prevent one from believing what she chooses within the privacy of her mind, but should we ban public expression or acknowledgement of religion? Would such a ban accomplish the desire of many atheists to see humankind make better progress without religion than it has with? Even if humankind did make more progress without religion, would banning religion be ethical?
My view: No, it would not be appropriate to ban religion. Although I do not consider myself religious in the traditional sense, I do recognize that for many religion is a source of happiness and meaning. I cannot find it ethical to forcibly remove this source of meaning that has touched so many lives. While I believe there are certain types of progress we might make without religion that we may never make with it, religion is an important and historical part of humanity that we cannot make disappear just like that. Destroying religion means destroying that part of humanity. If someone's life is a tad less stressful because he believes there is an omnipotent being watching over him and will allow him to live forever with his loved ones upon his death, who am I to remove that source of joy for him? Studies have shown that religious beliefs and experiences tend to activate certain areas of the brain. It seems clear to me that the human brain is meant to know religion, and for most, but not all, to believe in it. Even after all the scientific and technological progress we have made as a society, atheists are still a small minority of the overall population, no more than 10 percent, and probably less, in the US. The majority of humanity clearly does not want to give up its religious roots. Is clinging to such beliefs foolish and childish? Perhaps. Is it retarding any further progress we could have made by now? Perhaps so. But a life that is enjoyed by the one who lives it may be more important than a life filled with progress but devoid of any pleasurable emotions that make that progress worth living for. For me it is unethical to rob others of what makes them happy (provided it directly harms no one else of course), and so I find it unethical to ban religion or in any way attempt to force someone to involuntarily give up his religious beliefs.
@WithoutReason,
WithoutReason wrote:Ok, I said I was going to get around to this eventually, so here it is.
Even if humankind did make more progress without religion, would banning religion be ethical?
It would remind me on writing a "new" law on two stone tablets. And everybody could read it but almost nobody would truly understand it.
If there is a way that is truly right and truly wrong and ethics finds it thru their methods, wouldn't people then automatically do the right thing anyway? Socrates said so. So ban would be unnecessary. Until then, ethics for me is just-another-religion, well at least in many aspects of it..:mouth-shut:
@proV,
If you eliminate religion, traditional religion, people will invent their own mythologies to compensate. That the world would be better off without religion is one such mythology common among atheists.
Human beings are mythologically inclined creatures.
@WithoutReason,
Have you ever seen the three part episode of South Park where Cartman shows no patients waiting for the Wii to be released? He then freezes himself but Butters forgets about him. Cartman ends up being thawed out well into the future, the world has renounced religion thanks to Mrs. Garrison and Richard Dawkins liberating the world from its repressive nature. The problem is that the atheists ended up forming different factions. The moral of the story, just because there is not religion does not mean that everyone will see eye to eye on the purpose and meaning of life. People will disagree and form groups with other like minded individuals.
@WithoutReason,
Should we ban wild imagination and free thought also?
Let's get those space helmets on, Big Brother is coming!
@WithoutReason,
WithoutReason wrote:Ok, I said I was going to get around to this eventually, so here it is.
Obviously we cannot prevent one from believing what she chooses within the privacy of her mind, but should we ban public expression or acknowledgement of religion? Would such a ban accomplish the desire of many atheists to see humankind make better progress without religion than it has with? Even if humankind did make more progress without religion, would banning religion be ethical?
My view: No, it would not be appropriate to ban religion. Although I do not consider myself religious in the traditional sense, I do recognize that for many religion is a source of happiness and meaning. I cannot find it ethical to forcibly remove this source of meaning that has touched so many lives. While I believe there are certain types of progress we might make without religion that we may never make with it, religion is an important and historical part of humanity that we cannot make disappear just like that. Destroying religion means destroying that part of humanity. If someone's life is a tad less stressful because he believes there is an omnipotent being watching over him and will allow him to live forever with his loved ones upon his death, who am I to remove that source of joy for him? Studies have shown that religious beliefs and experiences tend to activate certain areas of the brain. It seems clear to me that the human brain is meant to know religion, and for most, but not all, to believe in it. Even after all the scientific and technological progress we have made as a society, atheists are still a small minority of the overall population, no more than 10 percent, and probably less, in the US. The majority of humanity clearly does not want to give up its religious roots. Is clinging to such beliefs foolish and childish? Perhaps. Is it retarding any further progress we could have made by now? Perhaps so. But a life that is enjoyed by the one who lives it may be more important than a life filled with progress but devoid of any pleasurable emotions that make that progress worth living for. For me it is unethical to rob others of what makes them happy (provided it directly harms no one else of course), and so I find it unethical to ban religion or in any way attempt to force someone to involuntarily give up his religious beliefs.
Like everything else, religion is evolving. Changing. As fundamentalism is more and more exposed for what it is, it seems to me that there is sort of an adaptation relative to that. no, religion should not be banned. In my opinion. Things are getting better little by little. The athiest is starting to see the theist, and the theist is starting to see the atheist for what each other is. Someone not to be afraid of. and actually, maybe someone they can learn from. Either way.
@WithoutReason,
WithoutReason wrote:
Obviously we cannot prevent one from believing what she chooses within the privacy of her mind, but should we ban public expression or acknowledgement of religion? Would such a ban accomplish the desire of many atheists to see humankind make better progress without religion than it has with? Even if humankind did make more progress without religion, would banning religion be ethical?
I don't think banning public congregation is the aim of atheists, nor do I think it either conducive or detrimental to progress. The aspects of religion that are detrimental to progress are those that introduce conflict of interest in government and state faculties, such as legislation, funding, and foreign policy. Any anti-theist who's agenda extends beyond the separation of church and state is tending toward fascism, imo.
@Bones-O,
If we are going to ban theism we must also ban atheism. However, here's an article I stumbled upon.
Metro - Atheist ads on OC Transpo in limbo
It would seem they are promoting atheism, but apparently the intentions in advertising atheism are to "let the atheists know they are not alone". Yeah right.:rolleyes:
I think we have to seriously consider to what extent spirituality is possible if the overall level of atheism vs. theism can be tainted by the media. Or at least, how much is spirituality contributing to such divine beliefs. I say we just don't need this evangelical rigmarole.
I wonder how many people are atheists or theists simply because others are, or that they have the freedom to control others through it. That's what we don't need. When religion comes to take advantage of others then it becomes useless; God becomes this pallid paladin. (sorry, had to say that one)
I mean, it seems religion only does harm to the community, from my perspective. It either causes blissful uniformity, or conflict. Googling "pope blames" and "atheists blame" and "theists blame"... everybody seems to be right. I think most couldn't be more off track.
pope blames - Google Search
atheists blame - Google Search
theists blame - Google Search
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:Like everything else, religion is evolving. Changing. As fundamentalism is more and more exposed for what it is, it seems to me that there is sort of an adaptation relative to that. no, religion should not be banned. In my opinion. Things are getting better little by little. The athiest is starting to see the theist, and the theist is starting to see the atheist for what each other is. Someone not to be afraid of. and actually, maybe someone they can learn from. Either way.
In case you haven't noticed, religious fundamentalism in many religions continues to grow in influence around the world. There is a huge Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. that John McCain helped silence in this election cycle, and fundamentalist Islam continues to grow in popularity as the West pokes its nose where it does not belong. As people's future becomes more and more unknown, fundamentalism has a major selling point--the appearance of security.
@Theaetetus,
If I may here; I'd have to agree with the basic conclusion arrived at by the OP. I do not reason that religion, as an emotional aspect of the human brain, could even be banned. (I tend to hold that word
religion on a broader level than the term '
religious belief-system).'
I would propose that through a fair and thorough public education program, the older data base belief-system's sways over the many should be slowly exchanged for the religion of humanism and naturalism. This would not require that the cultural 'treasure' elements of those systems be destroyed, but simply that they will have been exchanged as an emotion for the human need to be religious in nature (that awe of things).
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:In case you haven't noticed, religious fundamentalism in many religions continues to grow in influence around the world. There is a huge Christian fundamentalist movement in the U.S. that John McCain helped silence in this election cycle, and fundamentalist Islam continues to grow in popularity as the West pokes its nose where it does not belong. As people's future becomes more and more unknown, fundamentalism has a major selling point--the appearance of security.
I have noticed Theaetus. I've been noticing for many years. But, I also have been noticing, in a smaller sense, a growing number of people who have been reacting to this phenomenon by overcoming their first impressions , and giving way to a secondary response, which is to try and diagnose the disorder. By studying the original teachings of Christ , and in the case of Islam, the five pillars of Islam, some are finding out that , as Didymos said, "fundamentalists
are somewhat, diametrically opposed to the central message of their religion".
@Elmud,
We have to understand that, despite popular assumptions, fundamentalism is a
modern development. Fundamentalism in the west began as a reaction against higher criticism (historical investigation of scripture) and against science's increasing ability to explain the universe. We also have to ask the question: why did people respond to higher criticism and science with fundamentalism? The answer is the way in which some thinkers began to address religion, especially in the late 1800's; we begin to see a brand of atheism which demeans faith: the response was that uneducated people began to demean science and learning.
In the Muslim world, fundamentalism is mostly the result of Western colonialism. We see this continue today: as foreign powers interfere in the middle east, many of the people grow uncomfortable and trend towards fundamentalism.
When people are antagonized and harassed, you can expect them to become increasingly extreme in their worldview.
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:We have to understand that, despite popular assumptions, fundamentalism is a modern development. Fundamentalism in the west began as a reaction against higher criticism (historical investigation of scripture) and against science's increasing ability to explain the universe. We also have to ask the question: why did people respond to higher criticism and science with fundamentalism? The answer is the way in which some thinkers began to address religion, especially in the late 1800's; we begin to see a brand of atheism which demeans faith: the response was that uneducated people began to demean science and learning.
In the Muslim world, fundamentalism is mostly the result of Western colonialism. We see this continue today: as foreign powers interfere in the middle east, many of the people grow uncomfortable and trend towards fundamentalism.
When people are antagonized and harassed, you can expect them to become increasingly extreme in their worldview.
While I respectfully agree with you partially on this matter, I believe Christian fundamentalism had much earlier roots. Possibly as early as 325 AD. Of course, that really doesn't matter. What does matter is that we see it as it is, try and understand it, help to educate people on it and hopefully minimize the destructive effects of it by exposing it.
@Elmud,
But, by exposing it, one should be mindful of the fact that many base the foundation of their lives on what they believe, so, force of any idea cannot be an option. I digress. Maybe it would be better to just let things run their course.
@Elmud,
No one at Nicea, to my (remarkably limited) knowledge, was what we would call a fundamentalist.
@WithoutReason,
In adding whatever may be of worth on this point, in the discussion, I would argue that the essential point that Didymos Thomas has put forward has a high degree of truth in it. With that, nevertheless, I would temper it with the understanding that the nature of the '
fundamentalness' can be seen to have evolved, and thus
that of today is different from that of early Christianity. Now by early, here, I would put the mid first to later second centuries as a period in which a type of fundamentalism could be said to have been in practice by some groups of Christians (even those of Gnostic sway, quite possibly). Nicea would be way too late, really--
who knows, perhaps some form of some degree of something that we could squeeze under that title 'fundamentalist' may have been around then, even.
I would tend to say that the Essenes could be a candidate group for being fundamentalist at heart.
@KaseiJin,
We can look through history and find some thinkers and sects who share this or that characteristic with fundamentalists: but that does not make them fundamentalists.
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:No one at Nicea, to my (remarkably limited) knowledge, was what we would call a fundamentalist.
My knowledge is remarkably limited too.
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;50130 wrote:We can look through history and find some thinkers and sects who share this or that characteristic with fundamentalists: but that does not make them fundamentalists.
I can only but agree with that, to the extent that the term is quite fixed by modern usage, and thus seeminly has a very narrow range of application--when talking about, and applying it towards, religious belief-systems
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:We have to understand that, despite popular assumptions, fundamentalism is a modern development. Fundamentalism in the west began as a reaction against higher criticism (historical investigation of scripture) and against science's increasing ability to explain the universe. We also have to ask the question: why did people respond to higher criticism and science with fundamentalism? The answer is the way in which some thinkers began to address religion, especially in the late 1800's; we begin to see a brand of atheism which demeans faith: the response was that uneducated people began to demean science and learning.
In the Muslim world, fundamentalism is mostly the result of Western colonialism. We see this continue today: as foreign powers interfere in the middle east, many of the people grow uncomfortable and trend towards fundamentalism.
When people are antagonized and harassed, you can expect them to become increasingly extreme in their worldview.
I just had this thought Didymos. hope I'm not straying off topic. You consider fundamentalism a relatively modern thing. Would you consider the burning of witches to be the act of a fundamentalist group?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace