|
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
It's quite a far reaching sentiment to condemn "religion." A more reasonable stance would be to condemn monotheistic/Christian/Judaic religions, as they tend to be the ones stifling forward thinking. |
The Abrahamic religions are merely the biggest Germs on the block. Give any other religion sufficient time and history, at flux with geographic and national constitution, and you will have the same result. This is not to excuse nor condemn any religion, however, because...
| quote: | It's unfair to simply speak out against religion as a whole, simply for the fact that there are so many religions, many of which I'm sure he knew very little about, and that have practices which don't run in opposition to what Hitchens deems beneficial and/or necessary.
A person being religions (regardless of which religion) and a person being a skeptic aren't mutually exclusive. There are, I'm sure, countless scientists and skeptics who are religious. |
...You're right. I believe the problem has far more to do with the concept of religiosity than its Headquarters, but that's also not to say that any degree of conviction is a negative thing. After all, as most are apt to point out, Atheism and Theism butt heads, despite both sides being religiously convinced they are the in the right, and must convert and persuade their stances ad nauseum.
| quote: | | His mistake, I think, is that he tends to condemn the religious person sometimes, and doesn't always leave his criticisms to the institutions or doctrine of said institutions. When he does this, he is weakening the points he tries to make, regardless of how reasonable the points are. Blanket statements, such as surmising that all religion inhibits the progression of knowledge, are rather unnecessary and even flat out wrong in many cases. |
This is where I will take a single issue, though; Criticising institutions is easy and ambiguously vague. "Look at the Crusades!", or "Scientists would never start an Inquisition or blow up a bus!", etc. say almost nothing whatsoever. But to hold people accountable for their own actions and their own self-reliance and ability to question the world and its various authorities is the very framework of scientific thought, and the only method by which our species can overcome its limbic imperatives. Religiosity does not foster skepticism nor does it value progression; It concedes only to the absolutes and the statics, and wishes no discussion, if it is sincere, on derivable truths from any method but the adherence to dominion. And it's certainly not exclusive to Theism.
Now that I got that out of the way, Religions, themselves, are of great anthropological and introspective value. Even if I wished them away (which I most certainly don't), they're not going anywhere, anytime soon, nor is religiosity in its multitude of aspects. The best we can do is attempt to get along amicably, with the understanding that a tolerant, multicultural society is the most successful one, and more so when it has clearly-defined limits to that tolerance, many violations of which are staples of religiously-dominated societies throughout history.
___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
|
I'm not even religious at all. I was raised Catholic but now I really don't care either way. I mainly just think that anything that Nou is so adamant about must be a bad thing. I think people who are on the absolute extreme of both ends are both focusing too much on things that ultimately don't really matter. As with most things, it seems to me that somewhere in the middle is the best place to be.
