|
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But I'd still argue (and I'm sure you'd agree) that it would be better to live in a world in which the conceits of religion are openly challenged than in a world in which they are not. That such a world will not be a "utopia" is of course true, but only in the sense that no possible world could ever be a utopia. |
I agree that religion should be challenged, and I'm all for it myself: However, it is one thing to criticise religion; the position of HHD is not as moderate as that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I think you're right in suggesting that there will be religions for as long as there are communities of human beings, but surely that's even more reason for religious thought to be held up to rigorous scrutiny by the dissenters, not less. |
I can't see that change in the immediate future. Given more time, the trend could sway either way: perhaps we are slowly going to a godless future in which this is going to have as much an impact in daily life as astrology nowadays, but regardless of the outcome, I do agree with you that criticism is necessary, and I'm firmly against any sort of "sacred respect". Hell, I was expelled from a Catholic school age 9 exactly because I refused to let the nuns get away with it 
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
That I advocate the truth of a certain idea is not to say that I will it as a particular "goal", much less that I think people who believe otherwise are somehow existentially misguided. I may think theists are "incorrect" in their claims, but - barring the more extreme cases - I'd rarely let my judgements pass any further than that. |
And we're, I think, on the same boat here.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
To "live a godless life" is of course my choice - "mine and mine only" - and to choose for oneself is, as Sartre put it, to choose for all mankind. That's not to say that you would (or could) ever make choices for others on their behalf, only that you must recognise the importance of "authenticity" in choosing: what you wish for yourself you must also wish for all others in the same circumstances (which is why there's always a touch of inauthenticity - or "bad faith" - in the fundamentalists of one faith who denounce the otherwise identical rationale of a fundamentalist of a different faith). |
"Being and Nothingness" is still on my to-read list, but based on the little I know about his thought (and I may be widely off the mark here), I don't think I'm in a position to imagine others are in the same circumstances I am.
If someone else had lived the very same life I did, then yeah, I think being an atheist would be the most authentic choice he could possibly make. However, I don't think I've got an existential doppelgänger, so I'm in no position to make choices for others.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Are you presenting this as an analogy as to how religious moralities are formed in the real world? Because I think you have it backwards: the rules come first, the Gods are introduced later to legitimise those rules. |
No, because I do agree with you here as well. I've heard some very cute arguments from recent religious developments here in Brazil that claim God legitimises very modern cultural changes.
And they firmly believe their position is inspired by something supernatural! My favourite claim is that the spirits (in a local religion) support Esperanto because it's a world language. Yeah, right 
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
The legal books of the Old Testament are a pretty blatant example of this. Many of the "laws" have direct corrolaries with laws from other Near-Eastern texts - primarily Babylonian, with some passages showing an almost word-for-word correspondance - that were penned hundreds of years before the name YHWH even came into existence. Some of the later layers of the OT (namely the "P source") demonstrate the re-interpretation of earlier Jewish myths to support the power of the priestly caste (Aaronid, specifically) with regards to sacrifices, temple worship, proscribed rituals and so on. In both cases, the human desire to impose rules (many of them being arbitrary and senseless) on others came first, the idea to claim the divine origin of such rules came second. At the risk of making a claim that I cannot possibly substantiate, there's probably not been a single "law" attributed to divine inspiration that cannot be better attributed to more terrestrial, human, political motivations. |
And, once again, coming from a naturalistic background, it's no surprise we agree here as well.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But who on Earth is suggesting that with the opposition to religion must come opposition to every position a religious person has ever articulated? That all religions have clear injunctions against the indiscriminate killing of human beings (though usually with pretty clear permission for killing people in basically every other circumstance) says nothing about the validity of religious claims, and everything about the universality of human experience. What it demonstrates is that moral claims should be made to stand and fall on their own merits - that is to say, judged against some objective criteria like "universal human sensibilities" - not on the basis of tradition or claims to divine justification. A good idea is a good idea, and a bad one a bad one, regardless of its origin. Surely no atheist would wish for anything more than a universal recognition of this simple fact. |
Indeed, but my point (coming from a previous thread) is that just because we're atheists it doesn't mean we didn't inherit a set of religious values from the religion we broke from.
The reason why I'm saying this is because there seems to be a smug universalism in the words HHD that can apparently be summarised in the following sentence: "Religion is bad therefore we should all refrain from being deluded by this sort of superstition". I should be prepared to accept the fact that, no, there may be a person out there to whom religion may be a good choice.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Oh come on, surely not? The promotion of a particular view or opinion does not instantly equate to proselytism, and it's always struck me as a very lazy argument to try to equate the "new atheists" with Christian evangelizers.
Firstly, Christian proselytism is firmly rooted in the concept of material conversions. The aim is not to engage in an open dialogue concerning the nature of our shared experiences, nor to express or justify its own world-view in any particularly sincere manner, but merely to convert as many brute numbers as possible. The reason for this is best likened to virology (the most successful religions will always be those that encourage reproduction if only for the sake of its own reproduction), but that's a little beside the point. The real point is that the methods and intentions of the "new atheists" are completely different from that of religious proselytisers, at least beyond the superficial (and completely meaningless) resemblence that both want to convince others that they are right. |
Are they really completely different? Thus far, I've failed to notice what the main differences are between the "New Atheists" and the missionaries that try to convince you they're somehow enlightened and want you to convert to their world-view.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
And again, let's follow that logic to it's natural conclusions: if simply having a strong opinion and wanting it to be heard is sufficient to denounce one as a "proselytiser" then we're going to find ourselves weidling the designation almost everywhere we look. Desmond Tutu was a fundamentalist proselytiser against apartheid, Keynes was a fundamentalist proselytiser against laissez-faire economics (and he even had the gall to retain certain assumptions of classicalist theory - what a fraud!) and Ghandi was a fundamentalist proselytiser against British imperialism (but even then he used the British language to express his opposition to Britain - how could he possibly claim that he represented a break with traditional British values when he himself used the same language?). Who in this dichotemic world of proselytisers and pluralists is not a completely objectionable hypocrite? |
Well, and I'm prepared to reach this conclusion and make the very same objection: Suppose a small community in India wanted to keep the status quo as a British enclave in this country Ghandi wanted to set free, would Ghandi be entitled to say independent was the best possible outcome to all Indians?
Sure, this puts me in a very difficult position: What if a black community in South Africa opted for the perpetuation of apartheid for whatever reason? Do we, as champions of the free world, have any right to convince them it is not a good idea?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But like I said in my previous post, there's something very patronising about that. "These people are happy not knowing about the fragile epistemic foundations upon which all religions are based, let's leave them alone in case their poor minds explode with despair at knowing what our apparently superior minds can handle with complete ease". |
No, I don't think they're happy and ignorant. Most of the time, they're happy and think everyone else is ignorant! That's what I'm trying to get at: Can we criticise their thoughts? Of course! Unless they're out to endanger the well-being of others (such as terrorists) or have an impact on our life (such as politicians) do we have any right to expect them to disrespect them (Dawkins just called a bunch of people "idiots" in a way in that interview I posted, and he's prepared to say theists are "deluded"), or expect them to "see the light" someday? No, not at all.
Even if this isn't your position, you've probably noticed that there's a lot of atheist animosity against religion these days. Is this really a good way of criticising an idea you disagree with?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
In the first place, that people might feel uncomfortable hearing certain ideas is no excuse to shelter them from said ideas. There are many people who are extremely uncomfortable with the idea that gay people are quite normal, healthy human beings, but I don't think that their irrational sensitivities are any reason to exclude them from having to hear any ideas to the contrary. Secondly, I think religious people are much more capable of handling arguments against the veracity of religious claims than you give them credit for. Just because not "everyone is out to seek the truth" that's not to say it's right to shelter them from it. |
But I'm not saying religion shouldn't be criticised 
All I'm saying is that the way the "New Atheists" criticise religion is heartbreakingly pointless and maybe even bad for future dialogues.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But these aren't dogmas: enlightenment claims concerning the nature of the world evince their superiority not through any kind of rational circularity, but because they provided better (and more useful) explanations of the world around us.
One can believe in the "rationalist dogma" of heliocentrism - that is to say, a belief borne (initially) of rational deduction - or the more intuitive assumption of geocentrism. Now of course we cannot say that either is absolutely correct - much less that the former will make you happier or more moral than the latter - but still: try getting a spacecraft to Saturn if you think the Earth is the centre of the universe. |
Precisely because that's one goal we value. Tell to any theist that science can provide better explanations: the sort of explanations they require has nothing to do whatsoever with how to manipulate the practical world. We could land on the moon and establish a colony there - it doesn't explain why we're doing it.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But you seem to have this rather odd notion of a pluralistic "liberty" that is best maintained by everyone keeping their opinions to themselves and never saying anything that might "impose our goals" on anyone else: what kind of liberty is that? |
No, that's not my position at all. Like I said before, I'm for criticism, I just tend to be cautious when this criticism seems to call for the suppression of idea unless you've got a very good reason not to wish for its extinction.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Neither do I, and I'm pretty sure neither do they? |
Judging by their books, this is pretty much what I think they implied. I can even go as far as reading the books all over again just to check.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Antithesis: Yes you are.  |
___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]
|
An Austrian bishop has described a German music festival stampede where 21 people died as a sinful event and suggested the deaths may have been God's punishment for losing faith.
