09-19-2011, 05:52 AM
Sorry, talk about your books:
Thank you for your eloquent and passionate response. I am glad you are not for presenting one side of the story alone when it comes to religion. I think that would be a great mistake, and one--unfortunately-- we are already making. Sometimes it seems to me like the whole world of intellectual debate has descended into a Bill O’Reillyesque version of “fair and balanced”, where all we get is a system of polemics in which people only talk over or past one another and never to each other. Unfortunately, even from my fellow liberal friends, I find that I am often given G. W. Bush line of “you are either with us or against us”.
Oh, I agree with you whole heatedly. Religion is not necessary to be a good person. But I don't think it inhibits a person from being good either. If religion is what some people need in order to be a good person, then I am glad they have it. I’d rather people be good and religious if that is what they need than be bad and irreligious. And, make no mistake; I do believe some people need that support, that belief in a higher authority to be good. I say, give it to them.
Religions have certainly earned some ridicule, but I don’t think that it is treated all that carefully. It is obviously despised by many on GS and those opinions are certainly not the product of spontaneous generation. I understand many GLBT peoples’ distaste for religion, especially the Abrahamic Religions, as many have been victims of religiously based bigotry (I know it took me a long time to get over my own anger at religion). Yet, even people who are not gay often rail against religion. There are many people in the media who treat it with similar distaste as those on GS. Some have even made a career of criticizing religion. And yes, we do have websites and videos detailing the inaccuracies, hypocrisies, and biased politics of religion. I just don't think that ONLY talking about its negative aspects is honest, objective, or productive. I don't like institutionalized religion, but I acknowledge that it has its place and serves its purpose for those who do like it.
You know, many people remember William Cullen Bryant (he is the one portrayed as the idiot in the video below as Brady) as a religious zealot, a nut. And, yes, he was religious, but he was far from being a nut. The reason that he feared Darwinism had nothing to do with the fact that it challenged the Christian creation story, not really. No, he was very much afraid of Spencer and Malthus; he was afraid that if people started seeing each other as mere animals, they would start treating each other as mere animals; he was afraid that “the survival of the fittest” would not only be a scientific principal but also an economic and social principal, which was very much against his religious beliefs. Of course, as we learned a few years later with the German experimentation in eugenics, he was terrifyingly accurate in his concerns.
Despite the fact that his fears were realized, he was and still is depicted as his own particular type of monster:
What we don’t have much of in my opinion, are people who are willing to try and listen to each other on either side of the argument. And I think that it is this fact, which causes us to move farther and farther to extremes, and I am sure that you know the dangers of extremism. After all, it is not religion that is responsible for the crusades and witch hunts, the violence between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims, or even the Inquisition. Religion was only the vehicle of extremism and extremism CAN AND WILL attach itself to any idea we humans can have if left unchecked, and that includes atheism.
Many people make the mistake of treat science as if it is an objective, godlike entity; they mythologize it. It has become for some its own form of idolatry. In truth, science is more often wrong than right, which is why human understanding of the world is constantly evolving. That is part of the beauty of science. And science, as much of a boon as it grants us, cannot provide the answer to everything. Indeed, science cannot reach a conclusion on any qualitative subject, and that leaves out a great deal of human knowledge and understanding.
Einstein once said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” This is true in my opinion. Science has not been able to help us develop our humanity. The majority of our current technology has been developed for war--from satellites, space travel, to the internet. On the other hand, religion is ONE OF MANY forms of philosophy which endeavors to develop humanity. Who is to say that religion is not the way to do it . . . at least for some people? And, indeed, some people, many people, do become more humane because of their faith. It may not be necessary for either of us, but if it is for them, so be it.
As to your question about whether truth can be biased, the answer that I accept to this question is yes, truth can be biased . . . or rather, truth, absolute truth--as far as humans are concerned--is unattainable.
Really, the perspective I have is that I don't know what is good for other people, what they should do with their lives, what they should believe, who or what they should or should not worship. I cannot know, just as they cannot know what is good for me or what I should believe or do. Who would want that responsibility to begin with?
So, I don't believe in banning religion because I cannot say what is good for other people. And I don't get upset when they believe something that I don't, though I do dearly love to be right. The only time I get upset and try to do something is when people begin to try and impose their beliefs on me. And, yes, SOME religious people try to do that very thing . . . some secular people do too. And in each case, I stand up and fight for my rights, but I refuse to lower myself to the same hypocrisy that those who would make me conform to their idea of right and wrong are guilty of. I will not condemn people for trying to make me live like they do and then turn around and try and make them live as I do. For that reason, I won't try and slander their beliefs no matter how much I may disagree with them, I won’t try and ban them or prohibit them from practicing their religion. Why? Because it is not what I believe in, and I won’t let those who stand against me change who I am.
Thank you for your eloquent and passionate response. I am glad you are not for presenting one side of the story alone when it comes to religion. I think that would be a great mistake, and one--unfortunately-- we are already making. Sometimes it seems to me like the whole world of intellectual debate has descended into a Bill O’Reillyesque version of “fair and balanced”, where all we get is a system of polemics in which people only talk over or past one another and never to each other. Unfortunately, even from my fellow liberal friends, I find that I am often given G. W. Bush line of “you are either with us or against us”.
Zophia Wrote:There are positive teachings in religions such as Christianity, but those things do not need the religion to flourish. Morality does not need a god or gods.
Oh, I agree with you whole heatedly. Religion is not necessary to be a good person. But I don't think it inhibits a person from being good either. If religion is what some people need in order to be a good person, then I am glad they have it. I’d rather people be good and religious if that is what they need than be bad and irreligious. And, make no mistake; I do believe some people need that support, that belief in a higher authority to be good. I say, give it to them.
Zophia Wrote:Religion is often treated carefully because no one wants to offend anyone. I would like the opposite -- a more critical, truthful eye. The reality is that a lot of things about religion do not stand up to scrutiny...
Religions have certainly earned some ridicule, but I don’t think that it is treated all that carefully. It is obviously despised by many on GS and those opinions are certainly not the product of spontaneous generation. I understand many GLBT peoples’ distaste for religion, especially the Abrahamic Religions, as many have been victims of religiously based bigotry (I know it took me a long time to get over my own anger at religion). Yet, even people who are not gay often rail against religion. There are many people in the media who treat it with similar distaste as those on GS. Some have even made a career of criticizing religion. And yes, we do have websites and videos detailing the inaccuracies, hypocrisies, and biased politics of religion. I just don't think that ONLY talking about its negative aspects is honest, objective, or productive. I don't like institutionalized religion, but I acknowledge that it has its place and serves its purpose for those who do like it.
You know, many people remember William Cullen Bryant (he is the one portrayed as the idiot in the video below as Brady) as a religious zealot, a nut. And, yes, he was religious, but he was far from being a nut. The reason that he feared Darwinism had nothing to do with the fact that it challenged the Christian creation story, not really. No, he was very much afraid of Spencer and Malthus; he was afraid that if people started seeing each other as mere animals, they would start treating each other as mere animals; he was afraid that “the survival of the fittest” would not only be a scientific principal but also an economic and social principal, which was very much against his religious beliefs. Of course, as we learned a few years later with the German experimentation in eugenics, he was terrifyingly accurate in his concerns.
Despite the fact that his fears were realized, he was and still is depicted as his own particular type of monster:
What we don’t have much of in my opinion, are people who are willing to try and listen to each other on either side of the argument. And I think that it is this fact, which causes us to move farther and farther to extremes, and I am sure that you know the dangers of extremism. After all, it is not religion that is responsible for the crusades and witch hunts, the violence between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims, or even the Inquisition. Religion was only the vehicle of extremism and extremism CAN AND WILL attach itself to any idea we humans can have if left unchecked, and that includes atheism.
Zophia Wrote:and contradictions with science start on the first page. Can truth be biased? If something does not make logical sense or is shown to be false, do we ignore it to protect those who believe it, or to protect the institution itself?
Many people make the mistake of treat science as if it is an objective, godlike entity; they mythologize it. It has become for some its own form of idolatry. In truth, science is more often wrong than right, which is why human understanding of the world is constantly evolving. That is part of the beauty of science. And science, as much of a boon as it grants us, cannot provide the answer to everything. Indeed, science cannot reach a conclusion on any qualitative subject, and that leaves out a great deal of human knowledge and understanding.
Einstein once said, “It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.” This is true in my opinion. Science has not been able to help us develop our humanity. The majority of our current technology has been developed for war--from satellites, space travel, to the internet. On the other hand, religion is ONE OF MANY forms of philosophy which endeavors to develop humanity. Who is to say that religion is not the way to do it . . . at least for some people? And, indeed, some people, many people, do become more humane because of their faith. It may not be necessary for either of us, but if it is for them, so be it.
As to your question about whether truth can be biased, the answer that I accept to this question is yes, truth can be biased . . . or rather, truth, absolute truth--as far as humans are concerned--is unattainable.
Really, the perspective I have is that I don't know what is good for other people, what they should do with their lives, what they should believe, who or what they should or should not worship. I cannot know, just as they cannot know what is good for me or what I should believe or do. Who would want that responsibility to begin with?
So, I don't believe in banning religion because I cannot say what is good for other people. And I don't get upset when they believe something that I don't, though I do dearly love to be right. The only time I get upset and try to do something is when people begin to try and impose their beliefs on me. And, yes, SOME religious people try to do that very thing . . . some secular people do too. And in each case, I stand up and fight for my rights, but I refuse to lower myself to the same hypocrisy that those who would make me conform to their idea of right and wrong are guilty of. I will not condemn people for trying to make me live like they do and then turn around and try and make them live as I do. For that reason, I won't try and slander their beliefs no matter how much I may disagree with them, I won’t try and ban them or prohibit them from practicing their religion. Why? Because it is not what I believe in, and I won’t let those who stand against me change who I am.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
