Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I'm going to have to go full woscar in this case and side with Sam Harris in that there are facts of conduct, and the listless proselytizing of dogmatic systems is only a means to disseminate viral authority, rather than the fostering of skepticism and analysis.
I wouldn't say these are mutually exclusive. It's precisely the collision between different dogmatic systems that, more often than not, trigger scepticism and require the use of a more rational analysis:
Old Asia Minor was a hotbed of religious proselytising, with different cultures making different judgements about pretty much everything there is to be judged. It's no wonder it came from the fringes of the Greek Empire (that is, in today's Turkey) and not from the core.
India and China sparked similar traditions, albeit way less rigorous than what we're used to, under similarcircumstances (hate to link to dodgy Wikipedia articles, sorry about that).
The problem is a dogmatic monopoly, rather than just dogmatism.
Halcyon+On+On
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.
THE WAR IS ON, SRUSSELL, IT'S TIME YOU PICKED A SIDE!
srussell0018
:haha: 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.
nchs09
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
:haha: 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.
Nou loves japanese .. are you anti-japan?
srussell0018
I'm anti being like how Nou is about Japan.
Joss Weatherby
It's so awesome controlling what russel thinks. I like you russel!
Originally posted by EddieZilker
Don't worry, Lira. I trust you.
Haha, thanks.
But, still, that's appalling, and you can't say religious people are the only ones to blame. Sometimes I feel we really really need some better PR to tear down these fictitious walls :sadgreen:
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Haha, thanks.
But, still, that's appalling, and you can't say religious people are the only ones to blame. Sometimes I feel we really really need some better PR to tear down these fictitious walls :sadgreen:
Hitchens has probably done better PR than most prominent atheists; like Madeline Murray O'Hare, who was just a peculiar person. He'd actually talk to religious leaders and promote tolerance. I absolutely agree with you. The problem is that there are too many people who want to employ a with-us or against-us mentality and who are too eager to paint the issues in black and white terms. That's not just for Atheists. The whole "War on Christmas" is like that, too.
How alienating anyone is going to achieve anything worthwhile is quite a bit beyond me, yet that seems to be the game-plan for many people on both sides of the issue.
