I disagree. In nature things tend to follow the path of least resistance. I have long been of the opinion that believing is easier than thinking. To blindly accept conventions that have been passed down through millennia takes absorbing information without actually processing it. If you do try to process it, one thing you will notice is that those conventions have themselves evolved down the ages. Catholic priests have not always been required to be celibate. The fact that they are now is a bit of a socio-evolutionary platypus. Judaism has split into branches of orthodox, reform, and even "Jews for Jesus". Science takes a lot of brain power. Some, like Newton, and Gould have tried to reconcile god with what has been found through study of nature, but I think Sir Isaac must have had doubts. That he did not express them was probably due to the cultural pressures he must have felt.
Where do they get the idea of monsters? Every child cannot possibly imagine the very same kind of things to be afraid of. Adults tell them the scary stories, just as adults make them pray every evening to a god who might kill them in their sleep and take their soul, but who loves them. (Wh...!!!?)
Yep, exactly. "Be good or Santa won't come", "go to sleep or the monster will eat you" and "love Jesus or he will torture you in hell forever" are all in the same category as far as I'm concerned.
That would be so, in the middle ages perhaps, when the rules of conduct and belief were uniform in a peon's social environment. But this was about modern western people, who constantly have to juggle the implausible ideas of their faith with the products of science; who are daily exposed to ideas and convictions that oppose their own, and are held by their neighbours, their teachers, law-makers and entertainers. That is why it's so much easier to be a fundamentalist, or any kind of bigot, in the southern hinterlands with only a clutch of radio stations owned by the same propagandists, and to avoid mainstream progress. Most people don't understand science, either, and very very few actually practice it. The article didn't claim that science took less brain power than religion: inventing either one would be challenging. It says atheists need less brain power to maintain their unbelief than theists need to keep their faith. I, for one, am not in the least embarrassed about my lack of cognitive dissonance.
There is some truth to this. Still, there are the Westboro Baptists. I have one friend, who I reconnected with recently (my wife is Chief Stalker on our high school reunion committee) who is a retired career Air Force non-com who was, and still is, a devout Mormon. He now works as an engineer for a major defense contractor. I have had many interactions with him, in person and via social media. He knows I am a non believer. We are still and probably will be friends until we die. I still find his beliefs totally wacky. I actually read the first few pages of the Book of Mormon. (Critique; Sounds like written in the language of an early nineteenth century American trying to write in the style of the King James bible). Neil Tyson even made reference to the fact that while 93% of those with PhD's in the "hard" sciences do not identify as religious, what about the 7%? This is the foundation of my refusal to "believe" in science. I do not think religion and science can be reconciled. One is based on belief. The other isn't. I know some science, being educated in engineering. The stuff I have not studied in depth, like biology, I rely on trust of those doing that science.
More exactingly you can rely on the stringent peer review process and the fact that, if something is published that is incorrect, some know-it-all is going to publish a response ripping the article to shreds. You can further rely on the fact that, to be published, the experiments/calculations described must be evidently reproducible and theories evidently falsifiable such that you could check for yourself if you have reason to doubt. There is always a factor of belief in everything. Science has its current accepted ontologies and even to apply the scientific method suggests a belief in its efficacy. But these are based on Occam's razor and evidence respectively.
Boy, this sure has been a hell of a thread for somebody just wishing to introduce themselves, isn't it? But it has been enlightening, and shows that the people on this forum took the new member's question seriously. As for Oxymaroon's comment that "the purpose of religion is to consolidate pre-existing power structures," I would qualify that by saying that that is often the purpose of "organized" hierarchical religions. There are plenty of religions that don't go down that path ... Buddhism, animism, and so on. I'll grant you that hierarchical religions have seized their agendas for horrific ends, but that is also true of hierarchical sciences (witness the crimes that have been done under the name of eugenics and our seemingly limitless attempts to invent superweapons). Which brings us to another issue. At some point, some scientists need to make moral decisions about which way to take research. (A friend of mine severely limited his opportunities in aviation engineering because he refused to work for companies that made warplanes.) A scientist working on a Doomsday virus or a robotic soldier needs to question where their work will end up, and what it could do. One cannot approach these issues with moral blinders. On the other hand, there is much to be feared from people who pursue such things because they think that they are doing God's will. I don't really have answers to these questions. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be asked.
I did say modern, a couple of times. There is a huge break between the belief systems and world-views of people who live in nature - American natives, Lapps, Africans, Mongols, etc. (what might be roughly grouped as animist religions) and the organized systems of peoples who live in stone structures, even if they're not actually walled cities. The latter - roughly classed as hiearchical religions - generally equate godhood with kingship and stratify everyone - gods, humans and others - into classes to which they assign different values, different privileges. There is always a chain of command, in earth as it is in heaven. They regard nature as an enemy and seek to subdue it. This also extends to human nature. For purposes of classification, I would put Buddhism here, rather than there. As to moral imperatives, they may have origins other than "a god said so", but that's the easiest kind to enforce, simply because it's internalized by the subject in early childhood, rather than learned at the age of reason. That 7% is not going to change the average by very much. If you don't understand science but have no problem with evolution or women's rights, you're still saving brain-power compared to someone who wants to be decent, wants to believe, while his pastor preaches idiotic things about creation and intolerance. Some sects - their requirements and tenets - take more effort to reconcile to the modern world, and democracy, than others, but they're all more demanding on the little grey cells than non-belief. PS I just got an alert sez "Vince Higgins is following you," Should I worry?
Exactly. That peer review is the source of my trust. First, let me respond to this as calling this thread a University, of sorts. The notion of the formal University dates to the start of the Age of Enlightenment. Those early Renaissance intellectuals looked back to Socrates who saw advancing knowledge being advanced by asking questions. Nowadays, universities are regarded as formal institutions deeming formal levels of certification; Bachelor to someone who has learned what is known of the world, Master, who has mastered a specific field of human knowledge, and Doctor, who has contributed to the breadth of human knowledge. Originally the University was an institution of doctoral studies. It was not as formal. Religion and science had equal status. Socrates gathered around him curious seekers of truth. Second, refer to the highlighted section of the quote. I am an engineer. I currently work in the biomedical fields. Growing up I was a huge aviation enthusiast. I could probably kick ass among members of this forum on a trivia contest involving military aviation. In spite of that, I have matured into a pacifist. I could write thousands of words on that (and probably will). I am currently looking for a job, one that preferably deals in plowshares rather than swords. Being an atheist does not limit one from having christian ideals.
Religion didn't create language. It was the capacity to imagine such things as can't be seen or explained rationally... we Homo sapiens are so irrational it is amazing we've survived this long. Perhaps it was a sense of our own morality that first spurred ritualistic behavior. Finding patterns in nature; the seasons, the cycles of the Moon, the tides, etc... that we were at the mercy of such workings was, I think, intolerable. We need gods as much as they need us. Religion is a byproduct of an irrational mind, and in my opinion, so is Science.
Hmm. It sounds like you use the term “religion” to refer to what some book I read recently calls “story”—the ability to speculate events that aren’t happening in front of one. Except it sounds like you distinguish between what could rationally happen and what couldn’t.
Interesting that you would mention... fire. It allowed us to cook meat and greatly expand or diet, which in turn gave us the needed calories to support a larger, more active brain. And btw, scientists don't exactly know how, when, or why we acquired language. There are several theories, none of which seem right to me.
Exactly this! I like the term you've used, "story"... to conceptualize things that are part real, and part fantasy. Since that's what we do as fiction writers, I think we owe a debt to Religion.
Well that at least is accurate, since the novel, which has probably influenced all of us, evolved from hagiography, while much of our oldest literature is rooted in religion.
Well, if this all I end up getting out of this forum, that's just fine. Some of your comments and ideas will be with me forever as they are, yes, enlightening. Am I correct that most of you have science or engineer backgrounds as opposed to ... I don't know, humanities, history, philosophy, or social science of some sort? Well I have a debt to religion - I wouldn't be here without it. Ironically I sit here writing about my "problem with religion" when I owe my life to its silliness. My parents were set on three boys and then I came along 8 years later because the Church said the "rhythm method" is the only acceptable way to "enjoy" sinless sex. If anyone has ever seen the movie, "The Man From Earth," I can't stop thinking about how much this thread reminds me of that movie. It's about a group of University professors who get together in a mountain cabin for a goodbye party for one of the younger scholars who has decided to retire and move on. When the ice breaks and he's questioned about why he's leaving, he makes an extraordinary claim, and the ensuing discussion rings something like what you've all written but with greater drama, of course. But there is one difference - we are missing our token Christian, "Edith," who was played by Ellen Crawford. Do you think we can find her or him? And isn't this what's so unfortunate? Any rationally thinking Christian can't handle the cognitive dissonance. (However I do admire the ones who somehow do.) I imagine there are those out there itching to join in but they are faced with a roadblock that's just not passable. But maybe I'm wrong?
I think it partly depends on which branch of Christianity you're talking about. In my childhood, I think I'm correct in remembering that a whole lot more people were comfortable with a metaphorical reading of the Bible, and therefore had zero issue with simultaneously having faith in the Bible and believing in the Big Bang and evolution. The many bazillion years that it took the universe to form and coalesce were seen as being presented, in metaphor, as the seven days. Adam and Eve metaphorically represented evolution from sludge to thinking humans. And so on. I don't know if there are still plenty of Christians who see things that way and just don't talk much, or if everything has veered.
"I'd like to thank the Catholic Church for the rhythm method of birth control without which I wouldn't be here at all." -- Billy Connolly
One wonders just how many of us are out here, and I suppose another irony is that I complain about our world's population problem. Admittedly I'm part of it. Maybe I should feel guilty about driving at rush hour.
What I find is that so many people don't talk about religion, or especially atheism due to its "stigma." I recently asked my dermatologist if she or her colleagues believe in evolution. Her response was that while she certainly accepts it, she never discusses the subject with others. Many people whether religious or not don't like potentially contentious subjects - they don't want to rock the boat. How boring is that? Exchanging ideas, even when opposed, should be regarded highly in society as a whole and not just in academia or, well, in forums like these. But what is regarded highly in our society is faith, even if it's faith in a religion you're not associated with. Should we respect, or at least tolerate, faith? I think not. We can respect people, but not what or how they believe. What's more important, however, is that your chicken is stalking my bug, and that could be disastrous.
We are all part of it. There is no going back and blaming people. There is only going forward and trying to prevent generations that won't be loved, nourished or cherished.
Shouldn't you at least stick around to review some people's literary efforts? And maybe even submit some of your own for review? I mean, like, it's meant to be a writing workshop, no?
Yeah. One of my better experiences in high-school, about millennium ago, c. 1966, was Thursday afternoon informal discussion circles in the library. One of our regular guests was Father Kevin, a [cute] young progressive priest, who was happy to kick around evolution and geology and the metaphorical passage of biblical time and the possibility of ordaining female priests, and all kinds of ideas. All that dialogue has been shut down of late. Pity!
