The Pitch: Banning All Religion

[Inchante]

I have to say that I'm entirely ignorant about this person. So I can't comment much on this but to say that I definitely believe science and morality are two separate spheres. Also, Eugenics, according to current knowledge, doesn't make sense for human beings. There is more genetic diversity between people within same "race" than there is outside of it. Race is more of a social construct than anything else. (More about science and morals further down.)

Oh, yes, I know that eugenics makes no sense according to current science. My point is that people who are religious can be and are demonized in media despite the fact that they may be correct (in philosophy if not in fact) on the subject they are talking about.

I hope you didn't get that from my post because I am more than willing to listen to other peoples' points of view. I'm sorry if I gave you the impression otherwise!! I enjoy talking to other people even when I disagree with them. It's a great opportunity to learn things or to look at something in a way I wouldn't have thought to, left to my own devices. I've already gotten a little bit of that from speaking with you!

Oh, no, not you at all. I'm recalling past conversations I have had on the topic.

I definitely agree with you. I think that extremism needs to be dealt with, though, and not ignored. I would never stand for someone trying to take rights away from Christians, for example... which is why I would never support the banning of religion. Do I think we're better off without it? Sure thing! Do I think I should do my best to educate people out of it? Sure thing! But in the end, it is their choice. Forcing such a choice on them would be an affront to personal freedom, something i feel is very important. But I don't believe there is anything wrong with trying to sway someone to your side, especially through education (not public education, you know what I mean!).

Oh, I agree, extremism does need to be dealt with, that is why I said "if left unchecked".

I do not feel that science is godlike or infallible. But it at least tries to find out the answers and is ever changing as mistakes are corrected. It is an ongoing process based on our current knowledge and not a static position staunchly defended by the faithful. And that's what I like about it. Some things are very well established though. Evolution ties well into many different fields... and a literal interpretation of the Bible does not hold a place for that. Neither does it hold a place for basic knowledge about our solar system.

Like I said, its ability to change is its greatest beauty. Perhaps we need to find a sphere of moral philosophy that is capable of testing and changing its answers.

Nice quote! I agree that science is not where humanity should go for moral knowledge, because that is not science's purpose.

Nor could it answer questions of ethics and morality, that has to be up to other fields of philosophy.

Perhaps I am arrogant to think that I know better than so many people who embrace religion... But I look at the havoc that religion has wreaked in my own life and those of others around me and I think, "there has got to be a better alternative to this." I think one could make a great case for how humanity at large would be better off without certain teachings. But would the faithful give them up if they believe those teachings were born on the lips of their god?

People wouldn't give up those beliefs if you could prove without question that there was no such thing as god. Like I said, I thin some people need that belief in some greater knowledge, in some greater power than themselves.

I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with religion when you were growing up. I was fortunate, in that I had parents who, though they are christian, allowed each of my siblings and I to seek our own answers when it came to religion. As a result, I am Deist (after a time bouncing between atheism, agnosticism, and Wicca), my sister is Rastafarian (I think for more than any other reason because it allows her to justify smoking pot), and my brother, after a stint with Buddhism, is now Christian.

Also, I grew up an still live in the inter-mountain west, which can be conservative in parts . . . but it is a small government, "mind-your-own-dawned-business" type of conservatism.

I don't mind proselytizers. If someone tried to force me to be a Christian I'd get a little feisty, though. Force is not the way. How do you feel about people taking their beliefs and imposing them upon others by making it law, though, such as in the case of gay marriage? Because that's a pretty big issue for me, even though I'm currently in a heterosexual relationship. It boils my blood.

That is an instance of imposing a belief system on another. Boils my blood too.

I don't believe it is slander, though. I think (but am not sure) that to call it slander would mean it had to be untrue or misleading. And it is neither. It just isn't positive...

Right, well that is what I mean. There are many religious teachings which modern society views as negative, and rightly so. I don't have a problem pointing those out so long as we can be just in doing so and say, "though religion can lead to bigotry, it can also lead some to openness"; "though religion a teaches x science teaches y"; etc.

I think it would be irresponsible to teach only one side of an issue. Perhaps more than anything, we need to teach people how to analyze and question.

I first declared myself to be an "atheist" at the age of 13. That is because I questioned religion, the only religion I knew at that point in my life, and found it lacking.

Also, I can't post the video I spoke about in my last post yet because I'm new and my post count has to be 50 or greater. If you go to youtube and search for "RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilisation" you can find it.

If you go into the advanced post, a youtube icon will appear above the table. Hit that button and HTML brackets will appear on the table. Copy and paste everything between "v=" and "&" (some don't have an &) from the URL between the two brackets and you will be able to post your video.




It is an interesting video, but I don't necessarily think the information is all that new . . . at least much of it can be inferred from the fact that our evolutionary history is that of a gregarious species. That is, for the sake of survival, we have developed characteristics which require us to empathize with and depend on one another. Indeed, I am more than willing to bet that the dogs and dolphins will have the same "mirror neurons" they found in primates. As I am willing to bet they will find them in all sentient and gregarious species.

One thing I think that the presenter misses is competition between the other and the self, the other and the self can refer to groups as well as individuals. This is a huge part of human survival instinct, and as long as humans are competing for space and for resources, our instincts toward empathy will be subject to the instinct of, for lack of a better term, "supply and demand".

Phenomenology, a school of philosophy developed in the early-to-mid 19th-century, has a great deal to say about all of this. It is worth looking into.

As far as his analysis regarding heaven and utopia, I suppose he would be correct regarding a lack of empathy in such places if such things could possibly exist. Christians believe that heaven is its own type of existence characterized by an all consuming love, a complete and total empathy, perhaps that is what is necessary for a place without suffering to exist. I don't believe in either, personally, but "it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket", to quote Jefferson, for others to believe so.