[continued]
Some might try to argue that religion has similarly evolved and developed, for instance moving to the point where most Christians no longer believe that Adam and Eve is anything but allegorical. I'd argue that in this example and others, religion didn't change of its own accord, but simply suffered so many blows from outside - from science - that it was unable to credibly continue with these beliefs and maintain its dignity. How much of the Bible (old AND new testaments) have been quietly dropped from literal belief over the years, because they became too ludicrous to accept in a modern age with greater knowledge of the natural phenomena of the world? (That's to say nothing of our modern sensibilities about equal rights, opposing barbarity, and so on). And each time, they just move the goalposts, God retreats a little further into the background, and they carry on as if nothing had happened. Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy about it, and I think it's the only way religions will peacefully disappear. I think it's a credit to people of Christian cultures that it's (generally) further ahead than Islam in this respect - though obviously there are also historical/political roots as to why Judeo-Christian countries are "further along". But religions certainly won't be stamped out by force. I guess the point I'm fast deviating from here is one that was once made by Carl Sagan, that the very idea of someone saying "You know that's actually a good argument, I hadn't thought of that, my position is clearly mistaken" - something that happens all the time in science - is not a natural part of religion where dogma is meant to be so true as to be everlasting, and any challenge a "test of faith".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strangelet
In the God Delusion he talks about the same probability system we've been discussing. If I remember right he uses a number system of 1 to 7 where 7 is absolute certainty. He says that the possibility that God does not exist is like a 6.999. I respect him for saying this instead something more obtuse. My problem is that he and more so Hitchens and Harris act like the majority of the evil of the world stems from religion.
|
I see what you mean. Dawkins occasionally goes too far in this, but in my experience is more often than not misconstrued and his 'militancy' greatly exaggerated. That's not to say I agree with everything in TGD.
Hitchens and Harris definitely so, Harris more than Hitchens in my view. Which is a shame because he (Harris) has made some excellent points on other matters - on the current 'atheist movement' (his belief that there essentially shouldn't be one) and on the uncomfortable truth about so-called 'moderate believers'. But we've all heard the exaggerated complaints haven't we - that religion is the cause of all suffering in the world. And we've all heard the non-sequitur of a response - that science is dangerous as well. I think by overplaying the role of religion in various world conflicts, he diminishes the importance of other crucial background causes. But then I sometimes get the distinct impression that Harris, more than any of the other contemporary prominent atheist writers, is 'on a journey'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Strangelet
Part of this, I'm sure, is just to provide a champion to the beleaguered atheist cause, which is understandible. But my point is that its no gaurantee the world would be any better without the major world religions.
|
Well it would depend on why religion was no longer in the world. I suspect the world would indeed be better from the kind of slow-burning enlightenment that might prompt a discarding of religion. However there's no denying that at this stage of our development, religion is still also the cause of much good in the world, much charity, much cohesion (yes, really!) and much hope, and I don't think - generally speaking, as a species - we're ready to let go of it just yet, not without something to fill the void. Kant famously wrote about the death of dogma being the birth of morality. Religion is without question a hugely significant system of dogma - the biggest and clearest example of it. It's not the only one, which is why I think it's always a false dichotomy to speak of the harm of religion vs the harm of atheism masquerading as communism. Religion is not the only thing that divides people and is not the only advocating source of dogma, but it advocates the concept to a gargantuan degree. Throughout history, as sources of dogma go, it's pretty unparalleled.
You will I'm sure be familiar with the Weinberg quote about religion (With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.) Several people have since pointed out the missing part of the last sentence:
"...and for evil people to do good things..."
A moral act may be a little more moral when it arises free of the promise of divine reward or punishment, but if it would be accompanied with such a drop in the 'good deeds' of world religions, for want of a better phrase, is that a net loss for morality, or a net gain with the absence of the major source of dogma? I think the world would certainly be better if people had more courage, more honesty, more clear-thinking and a greater appreciation of the truth - all things which it might be said are sorely lacking in religion. But I've not reflected on it enough to form a more solid conclusion. I have to say I'm less interested in the case for or against religion as a source of good or evil than I am in the psychological and epistemological side to the argument, which endlessly fascinates (and dismays) me.
Much more I'd like to address from your post but time really is against me.