Reply
Wed 14 Mar, 2007 09:08 am
Glad its not just me.
Yes.
Tho religion in a different form would probably become a substitute so we'd be back to square one.
We would just find something else to justify killing one another. People would still fight about property, skin color, oil, etc. North Korea, Russia and China have all done a good job of suppressing religion - it hasn't done their societies any good. Some of the greatest philosophies about peace and equality have religious roots, so I prefer not to throw out the baby with the bathwater (so to speak).
Good point green witch,
I don't necesarilly mean supressing religion, more like, supposing it didn't exist.
I fear the only way to eliminate religion would be to eliminate people. (Maybe that would be a good thing.)
There will always be people willing to exploit the fear and uncertainty of others...and make a living doing it.
There will always be people who prefer answers, no matter how unprovable or arbitrary, to uncertainty; people who will thrive in a world divided into "us" vs. "them" and no other.
And yet, there will also always be people inspired by these wobbly fables, leading exemplary lives, confounding everyone--including their fellow believers.
At least, it would be better off without the wars waged in the name of religion or the attitude some believers have that they are "saved" or in some way superior because of their beliefs, which, of course, are the products of their needs and emotions and not their intellection.
I was just thinking, I used to be a devout christian, so I know how it feels, but to all the atheists out there who have never been religious:
You must think religious people are really, really, thick. Really stupid. Completely different from yourselves.
I could completely understand that opinion.
The potential of religion has been tapped only by very few people. Fundamentalist (fairytale) religions of the masses are the most dangerous forces in the world.
I have had mixed feelings on this in the years since I tossed my own religion to the winds. I was pretty hostile in those first years after. One day another friend with my same religious background (Catholic to Nowaynohow) said she'd decided that she'd been too harsh, that religion in many places, many times, many hearts, had been a force for good. That resonated with me, since I've known it to be so, at its best, myself.
So I find myself nodding along with Green Witch's post, while not disagreeing that religion can potentially, never mind, can.. has been an unlimitedly dangerous force.
The Pentacle Queen wrote:I was just thinking, I used to be a devout christian, so I know how it feels, but to all the atheists out there who have never been religious:
You must think religious people are really, really, thick. Really stupid. Completely different from yourselves.
I could completely understand that opinion.
I just find the whole religion thing strange. I don't understand how anyone in this day and time can take the books literally. I find religion in equal turns to be baffling, amusing, somewhat scary and sometimes, downright ridiculous.
And the fact that millions believe it doesn't change my mind a bit.
P
The Pentacle Queen wrote:I was just thinking, I used to be a devout christian, so I know how it feels, but to all the atheists out there who have never been religious:
You must think religious people are really, really, thick. Really stupid. Completely different from yourselves.
I could completely understand that opinion.
No, not at all. You view with the benefit of hindsight. Religion has extremely solid defenses supporting it within a human mind. Surely it was a huge step for you to jump off that cliff? Did you have waves of guilt and doubt about what you feared may be a satanic trap...or just "bad"?
At the very least, you didn't just accept it the first time someone said "There are no gods"?
Pauligirl says regarding religion "And the fact that millions believe it doesn't change my mind a bit."
I agree. The fact that millions of people are psychotic doesn't change my mind a bit, either.
Doesn't change my mind either.
I do think people use it as a structure to live by, and that sometimes that structure can bring good.
I would say, in ancient times and up till the start of the 19th century, I feel that religion or anything that fused a mass of people into a single goal in life, was beneficial, and the longer it lasted ( it seems to me ) the more it enable that masses to understand the best way to organize and install a future for themselves and was far superior to the small tribal life that was not fruitful and kept them tied to a hand to mouth existence. However the 19th century has brought us to the stage where, with more education-experimentation and forward thinking, the harder it's becoming for religion to hold it's ground against science and free thinking and as we move further into the future, the less people will need their ancient time's beliefs... but I do fear, the Islamic nations that are really run by their religions, have a long way to go before they question their faith and step into the future.
Well, that's my guess anyway.
anton bonnier wrote:I would say, in ancient times and up till the start of the 19th century, I feel that religion or anything that fused a mass of people into a single goal in life, was beneficial, and the longer it lasted ( it seems to me ) the more it enable that masses to understand the best way to organize and install a future for themselves and was far superior to the small tribal life that was not fruitful and kept them tied to a hand to mouth existence. However the 19th century has brought us to the stage where, with more education-experimentation and forward thinking, the harder it's becoming for religion to hold it's ground against science and free thinking and as we move further into the future, the less people will need their ancient time's beliefs... but I do fear, the Islamic nations that are really run by their religions, have a long way to go before they question their faith and step into the future.
Well, that's my guess anyway.
I would have agreed with this until recently, when I see a lecture about science in the 10th century, when Baghdad was the scientific capital of the world...
Quote:One reason for the scientific decline can be traced back to the tenth century when the orthodox school of Ash'ari challenged the more rational school of Mu'tazili theology, or even earlier when caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847-861) started to suppress the Mu'tazili theology. The orthodox Muslims fought the Shia Muslims and other Muslim branches, as well as several invaders(Mongols, crusaders etc) on the Islamic lands between 1000 - 1300. In the end the Sunni orthodox were victorious and the more strict Ash'ari school replaced Mu'tazili thoughts in the Islamic lands. That replacement and numerous wars and conflicts created a climate which made Islamic science less successful than before.
How many times in history has religion served to stand in the way of the acquisition of human knowledge? Admittedly the reverse has also been true, (Gregor Mendel leaps to mind) but on the whole, I think religion holds us back, resisting every step forward.
Yes, it was very hard for me to just 'give up' my religion.
I've posted my story on another thread. The sun worship one i think.
But I was very young.
I don't think religion was of too much use before the 19th century. Think of all the wars.
It just served as a 'science' substitute.
Pauligirl, I can completely understand why you would say that.
I would be interesting to know how many fundamentalists were born into fundamentalilist families, and how many 'converted' to fundamentalism.
Could anyone find that out?
My guess is that pretty much all the fundamentalists were born into fundamentalism.
There is a long article about global warming in last weekend's Sunday Times Magazine to the general effect that the game is up and 50 years will see the end of civilised life as we know it.
I have no idea whether that thesis has any validity but if it has, and the editor etc must think so, then Science has been one GIANT mistake and thus the Pope was quite right to persecute Gallileo.
A species seeing itself off in four hundred years is unheard of. But the article does say that if we cut our emissions by 60% we might be able to stop the cascade of processes it says are set in train. (Fat chance of that eh- you children of plenitude.) (1% growth does wonders for the Dow).
But it is interesting that A2K does seem to attract non-believers disproportionately and by doing so gives non-believers a false sense of the attraction of their position. The last poll I saw gave 90% of US citizens as "believers". So while non-believers pat each other on the back and reassure each other it seems they are a small minority electorally.
As "religion" comes from the latin word "religare", meaning to bind together, the A2K non-believers might be said to be a religion. One would then need to have a guess at the social consequences of its success in order to know whether or not it was worth trying out.
All you need do is imagine that everyone is converted by your wisdom to non-belief. Everyone. How can one preach a position without allowing that one will convert everyone by the sheer power of logic and commonsense.
If the article was correct, and really a one in fifty chance is not worth taking, then Gallileo's victory (only a symbol of course) has had the social consequence of offing us. That we are not called Faustians for nothing and that old Pete's grandma was right when she said electricity is the work of the devil.
Personally I don't give a sod either way. I just like hanging out with a few pals and seeing what comes up. As Andy Warhol said- "Not doing it is the most fun".
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace