Letters to the Editor
-
re: Fine get rid of religion
That's all very lovely, Jared. But why do you choose this path for humankind? Where are you getting your vision of this great society? Why not the opposite? Why not a brutish survival of the fittest world with endless wars over natural resources and gross accumulation of wealth by the powerful and armed while the masses starve to death? Why is one scenario better than the other? On what basis do you deem one "good" and the other "bad"? Your answers to these questions will be your very own "religion."
-
Re: Religion = Delusion
It seems to me that Barbara King is looking at a phenomenon which is very difficult to scientifically define but which exists nonetheless. She is trying to get a handle on the fact that living beings (human or otherwise) have transcendental experiences which are extremely important to them individually and as a group.
"Mankind has simply been caught up mass delusions in which different groups are fully engaged in believing that their delusion is the only way to go."
To be dismissive of the fact of religion in this way in this way seems foolish at best.
-
Then What?...
1At :05:22 PM-- Son of Sisyphus said:
"Fine, get rid of Religion. Then what?"
How about just applying common sense and good will as the replacement for all of the so-called "gods" and "dogma" available to choose from today.
Who knows where treating each other kindly will take us.
What is known, however, is where religion/delusion has already left us.
As Albert Einstein said:
Strange is our situation here on Earth.
Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know; that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends.
-
Rationality and God
IF you like at the question of God in a rational manner, you can only conclude that there is no God.If you apply the scientific process to God, you can only conclude that God does not exist.
Saying that it is okay or good for a 'rational' scientist to still believe in God, is sort of like trusting a bus driver that refuses to believe in cars.
There is a whole lot of bad science out there when you have scientists, or everyday people, that will suspend rationality in regards to invisible dragons in the garage.
-
Re: re: Fine get rid of relgion
"On what basis do you deem one "good" and the other "bad"? Your answers to these questions will be your very own "religion."
You are falling into the fallacy that a moral value system must be based on relgion. Why? It could be based on simple utilitarianism - the greatest good for the greatest number. Social Darwinism has been discredited. We do not live in a Hobbsian world, Bush and his like notwithstanding. Humans are competitive, but they are also highly social and cooperative. Did one man create the internet (and no, I refuse to mention a certain person who is highly admirable for his work in increasing awarness of global warming) A solitary human is incredibly feeble and ill suited for survival. We need each other for everything. That is the basis of morality. Religion is just a disease, like bubonic plague, that we have to get over.
-
Then What? indeed
"How about just applying common sense and good will as the replacement for all of the so-called 'gods' and 'dogma' available to choose from today."
Yeah, so didn't we already try this with atheistic communism in the Soviet Union and China and Cuba? Gosh, those turned out be such GREAT societies!
Common sense isn't all that common, and "good will" can be defined however you like, usually good for you but not for your opponent. In a Darwinistic world, might is right. Atheism is ethically impotent, since it's just a reaction, not a vision.
-
Foolish?...
At 1:09:33 PM-- W Ellery said:
"To be dismissive of the fact of religion in this way in this way seems foolish at best."
I am curious why dismissing religion seems foolish, when violence in the name of organized religion/delusion, is most likely responsible for more deaths on this planet throughout history than anything other than natural physical causes.
It appears that humans have succumbed to the desire to turn over the weakness in their thought processes to religious/delusionists groups, which then fill those minds with absolute and inflexible ideas that inevetably lead to conflicts tha kill off large portions of the population.
-
Hardly Sisiphyian
Common sense isn't all that common, and "good will" can be defined however you like, usually good for you but not for your opponent. In a Darwinistic world, might is right. Atheism is ethically impotent, since it's just a reaction, not a vision.
Yes, that would be why atheism is not a moral code. Nevertheless, people do form moral codes that require them to be good to people who worship the same gods, and fight those people who worship other gods or no gods at all. Religion, if anything, is an excellent in-group/out-group identifier. I say we get rid of that, and just be humans together-- identifying our goals based on what is best for humanity. Can you find a flaw in that?
-
broader definition of religion
I'm coming from the perspective that any value system, with or without a belief in a deity/deities, is in effect a religion. Communism, based on Marxism, is a religion as much as Christianity or Islam. Each makes an assumption about "how the world is" and then structures peoples lives around it. Atheism, because it's just a reaction and not a vision, has no value system, but must adopt one in the realm of human behavior and community.
Oftentimes, atheist humanists with kill off God, but retain all the teachings on love, compassion, charity, equality, and peace that the old religions taught. They throw out the baby but keep the bathwater. But they are not develpoing their ethics in a vacuum. They owe their ideas to the traditions they reject.