|
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? (religion) (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Where the hell did that come from? I'd appreciate it if you didn't make baseless assumptions about me.
In rational objective framework, What is "making sense socially?" And how is "survival of the group" of any significance? Please justify the need for both. |
i suppose it's a remnant from the times when the survival of the group was conductive to the survival of the individual (it's arguable whether those times have ended btw). |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i suppose it's a remnant from the times when the survival of the group was conductive to the survival of the individual (it's arguable whether those times have ended btw). |
i can't see how anyone can argue those times have ended.. everyone relies on so much other humans work on for it to reach your home/life.
food, electricity, fuel, comunications, education, quality jobs, the list goes on.. it's blatant the survival of the individual depends on the survival of society. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by paranoik0
i can't see how anyone can argue those times have ended.. everyone relies on so much other humans work on for it to reach your home/life.
food, electricity, fuel, comunications, education, quality jobs, the list goes on.. it's blatant the survival of the individual depends on the survival of society. |
yes, i might have gotten distracted in the middle of that post and restarted from a slightly different line of thought. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
I have only browsed a few of the posts in this thread and know nothing about the arguements of this Dawkins guy, however how is it even possible to hold the two beliefs that religion is the root of all evil and that religion is nothing more than a creation of man sustained by the stupidity/laziness/whatever of man?
If religion is not a creation of man and is greater or separate than man, then maybe religion could be the root of all evil.
However if you say that religion is nothing more than stories/ideals/etc made up by man and sustained only by the blind/"less informed" following of man, then it is not religion that is the root of all evil but man.
And to say the world would be better off without religion, while holding that religion is nothing more than a creation of man, is wildly innaccurate. The core tenets of the major religions, excluding Hindiusm, today all call for respect and love of your fellow men. It is manipulative demagogues and hapless followers that distort and pevert the core teachings of religion into something else. To remove religion only would still leave the demagogues and followers to distort and pevert whatever is left.
What really is needed is more "perspective", where each person really looks at his/her beliefs, the effect those beliefs have on themselves and the world around them, the claims and outcomes of those beliefs, and his/her own soul with thought and care. And doing all this while always keeping an open mind.
To say that religion prevents or hinders this "perspective" I have mentioned is just a cop-out that humanists make to blind themselves to the nature of man. Religion becomes a scapegoat, while that state of man stays the same and science/"rationality"/the-next-big-thing becomes the new "religion". |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
I have only browsed a few of the posts in this thread and know nothing about the arguements of this Dawkins guy, however how is it even possible to hold the two beliefs that religion is the root of all evil and that religion is nothing more than a creation of man sustained by the stupidity/laziness/whatever of man? |
the title "the root of all evil?" is a marketing device to which the host of the show objected. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
This is just a quick and dirty pre-empt of rebuttals that I see my arguements lend themselves to.
To say that the nature of religion fosters an attitude of hapless acceptance and not one of critical thinking is to again create a scapegoat for the nature of man.
I contend that it is not religion that fosters such a poor "attitude" (for lack of a better word) but that is just the inherent laziness of man. For example, of the general American populace how many people that suscribe to the belief of nonguided macro-evolution actually went out and got that belief for themselves through research and self education? Just go ask your average college student or high school student and the answer you shall get is "Well all the science teachers and scientists say its true, so it must be true."
Please do not respond to just this post, but to this post in tandem with my previous.
=) |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
the title "the root of all evil?" is a marketing device to which the host of the show objected. |
He objected to the name he probably put on the show? That means nothing, I used that phrase becuase it was given, not as a main contention of my post.
And please read and respond to my whole post not just to one statement that does not make up the point of my post. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
He objected to the name he probably put on the show? That means nothing, I used that phrase becuase it was given, not as a main contention of my post.
And please read and respond to my whole post not just to one statement that does not make up the point of my post. |
but i agree with your post! do i really have to play devil's advocate? :p
i was only trying to correct a minor bit of information to prevent judging a book by it's cover (even if the judgement is correct). |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
but i agree with your post! do i really have to play devil's advocate? :p
i was only trying to correct a minor bit of information to prevent judging a book by it's cover (even if the judgement is correct). |
I realized I should have informed myself (stupid hapless me :() about this Dawkins and his arguements/claims, but I don't really have the time right now and the chance at thought provoking debate was too good to pass up. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
In rational objective framework, What is "making sense socially?" And how is "survival of the group" of any significance? Please justify the need for both. |
Psy-t already kinda answered this one, but I'll expand a little bit. Like already mentioned, when an individual is dependant upon the group he lives in, it is in his interest to strive for the betterment of the group, or at the very least to be ambivalent towards it. It is also in interest of other individuals to expel the individual who causes problems or intentionally works towards the destruction of the group. That behaviour is not limited to humans, it is present, although in a less sophisticated way, in every group animal, ranging from monkeys to ants. Animals that are not inherently group animals tend to have a totally different type of behaviour. A good example might be comparing dogs and cats, who are pretty much on a same evolutionary/intellectual level. Put 5 dogs together and they'll form a pack, they'll all protect their young, and they'll all defend each other from hostile intruders. Put 5 cats together and they'll..well..either fight or just run away each in its own direction. But cat's don't need accomplices in hunting anyway. They're pretty skilled and self-sufficient. Dogs are on the other hand relatively clumsy and loud, and they have to work together if there's any chance they're gonna catch something. So basically a dog that is not behaving in accordance with the rest of the pack gets in bad relations with other dogs pretty soon. They usually all gang up on him and chase him away, ultimately greatly decreasing his chances of survival and therefore clensing the pack of the non-social genes. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| So basially youre saying ethics and morals are a kind of pack instinct to help ensure the survival and thriving of the pack? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
So basially youre saying ethics and morals are a kind of pack instinct to help ensure the survival and thriving of the pack? |
when applicable, yes. do you have a different theory to propose? |
|
|
|
|
