There's too much to appreciate what religion...or at least the need for it...has done for us to confidently call it in any way unnecessary. This was already cited, but I basically have the kind of outlook that de Botton does....
[YT]2Oe6HUgrRlQ[/YT]
...although some theists might see that as trying to swing a free lunch out of life.
You know, I was never a big fan of de Botton... and then he actually suggested that we build an "Atheist Temple".
I'm not an antitheist. I respect people's right to be religious and I don't advocate the end of faith. But the only difference between de Botton and
S.E. Cupp is that SE Cupp is a member of the Tea Party. I'm pretty much convinced that, one day,
both of them will convert to Christianity, and that those conversions will be very public and
very lucrative.
Maybe...I doubt it...but maybe we won't actually have religion...a la a consensus of belief in a deity et al. But I very much doubt we'll still be able to continue without retaining much of the merit that religion has provided us.
Why? What has religion provided that a secular organization can't provide?
And I'm not talking about in the past. I fully acknowledge that we wouldn't be where we are today without religion... aside from the Dark Ages, of course, in which the stagnation can be at least partly blamed on the Catholic Church, which impeded scientific advance by jailing scientists who made discoveries that went against Church dogma and forcing them to recant (see: Galileo).
I wonder how much sooner we would have had cars had the Church never done that...
Like I said... I'm not talking about the past with my question above. I'm talking about now, and moving in to the future...
But just that I don't feel that there are any immutable moral absolutes uniquely borne from religion, I also don't feel that any evils are either. It's a powerful enabler, to be sure, but the good or bad that it may aid in facilitating comes from us.
So religion (a bit like God) can do no wrong? Religion is
never to blame for any evil ever perpetuated by humans? So religion is free from the burden of the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials, or, more current, the Middle East (which, at the end of the day, is Judaism, Islam, and Christianity fighting each other over who has the right to the "Holy Land", which not be considered as such if not for these three religions)?
Again, that notion itself is not the end of the argument to decide on the entire validity and merit of an ideology like this. And you're being way too dismissive of religion's merits, even as a human construct, in putting its harm so overwhelmingly and generally above its good. That's not debating religion, that's persecuting it....which no one or thing deserves.
But what merits does religion provide in today's day and age that can't be provided for any other way?
Sure, that does eat away at it, but it also emboldens its importance to many. In no way does that ensure that they will be more likely to wage wars et al. Wars will always be fought over power...with or without religion.
Yes, but that does not mean that there have not been evils committed in the name of religion.
You mean like the Bible? I've heard it's still pretty popular.
Unfortunately. It really is a horrible collection of myths and fairy tales.
It's not so much disagreeing, it's just that you're taking too narrow...and frankly disrespectful...an outlook on it to be taken too seriously on this. It's like trying to take down a mountain with a rock hammer...sure you'll chip away at stone with each swing, but you'll need a lot more to make a real dent.
I don't think religion will ever become extinct as a whole, but I do believe it will evolve.
See, this is what I don't understand. In what way does religion
deserve respect?
Why should anyone take a "respectful" outlook on religion? Why should religion not be scrutinized as skeptically and as harshly as any other idea?
I feel that respect is part of the problem. Religions have been given a free pass from scrutiny. Mostly because up until recently, you would have had your head on a pike for even questioning it. Much less mocking it. They would burn you at the stake for simply not being religious enough. This is sadly still the case in a number of countries.
AMEN!
Some would say that it was earlier, less developed humanity's way of utilizing and not abusing religion, and not religion's fault for the whole 'head on a spike' thing. Are you willing to even entertain the idea that as we grow 'smarter' and more knowledgable, we might be in an even better place to use religion more wisely and make best use of its merits as a concept?
Or how about throwing it away entirely?
It's because they wanted to do that anyway as an expression of power and fear. Religion just gave it more flavor and excusability. Is that religion's fault, or the fault of those who used it as an excuse? Must we continue the same pattern, or can't we in our more advanced and rational world find a way of not being so barbaric about it?
We could start by letting religion go... the idea of a personal god is already coming untenable. I have a very strong desire to do a poll/study throughout the US to get specifics in what people believe about God, because I'm honestly convinced that Deism is more and more becoming the norm, even though most people wouldn't admit it. I could be wrong, which is why I'd like to see the study conducted.
I've already sent an email to both Pew and Gallup about it, so we'll see what happens.
And I'm not even religious. But myopic, dismissive, and disrespectful scrutiny on religion gives atheism a bad name....which feeds theist's opinions that they are synonymous.
Scrutiny of religion is neither respectful nor disrespectful... and it
shouldn't be. Scrutiny of religion should be and is
skeptical.
Skepticism is the lens through which religion should be evaluated. Respect is not an idea that should even be entertained.
Because we need it, and we've always needed it....or at least need the concept and utility of it...what it provides, or what it can help strengthen. Not necessarily only from or by it for everyone anymore, but we'll probably always have that need. And mutual respect despite disagreeing with the literal premises starts with acknowledging that, I believe.
But
why do we need it? What purpose does religion serve that a secular organization can't serve?
Well...if there was someone who shared your beliefs exactly, and she didn't know him...she'd probably believe that person is going to hell, no? So it's only fair that she believe the same of you, even though she is your friend, since in the eyes of religion friendship doesn't decide that. At the same time, I would assume that she also believed yo had a chance to change that ultimate fate by believing and repenting, etc...rather than feeling you're screwed no matter what you do.
You don't see an inherent problem with the whole scenario? He is going to potentially lose a good friend because she believes in the reality of something that quite simply
isn't real. At least from my perspective, there's a
huge problem there... not to mention the problems it brings up with the idea of a supposedly "loving" god...
Maybe you should at least try actually considering/acknowledging the positives AS positives, and find out more about them, before deciding whether or not to dismiss them. Would you not ask that of anyone who was judging their opinion of you or anything you held to be valuable and dear? I see that as a required qualification of respect when debating anything, on any side, really...especially something of this magnitude...to be rational and fair, if that's at all important.
But shouldn't respect be something that is
earned, not given willy-nilly? Why should
anyone respect religion at
all?
