Even if the observation about human nature is correct, I don’t think it necessarily changes anything about the argument concerning religion on a personal or societal level.
There seems to be an inappropriate focus on singling the secular vs. religious ‘conflict’ out of the larger whole of ideological associations to which people find themselves attached. If find that it is still an oversimplification as people are often aligned with many of those listed groups (religion, personality, nationality, political ideology, racial/ethnic, etc.) simultaneously (and in many cases they are interrelated). I cannot deny the fact that changing or removing one of these popular associations will likely affect the actions of society but I find this statement to be a tautology. By making the statement ‘possibly more’ without adding ‘possibly less’, the criticism seems to favor religion as a stabilizing factor (Which is almost always the intended point when someone makes the original assertion, so I am happy you carried this through.) when in reality this argument makes no case for the value of one over the other. Even if we assume human society will always be defined by arbitrary associations (and that we can just chop religion out leaving the rest unchanged), the typical qualities of what constitute a religion (or a particular religion) can make religiousness as an individual or a society more or less dangerous (relatively speaking) than the other listed associations. The effect of removing religion as a factor for public thought would certainly change based upon which conclusion turns out to be true. Is it even possible to remove religion as a major foundation for people on an individual level without drastically altering they way view the other team structures in our society? -Trevor On Nov 18, 5:03 pm, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "At least as much evil has been done by secular nations as religious > ones." > > This critique of secularism is more insightful than we usually give it > credit for. > > Sure, the simplistic version is easy to counter: Look closely at any > "evil" secular state and you'll see that the problem is not > secularism, but a quasi-religious commitment to some ideology or > personality. As Sam Harris famously quips, "I know of no society in > recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too > reasonable." > > But the real force of this criticism is its implicit indictment of > human nature. Without a robust religious tradition (so the argument > goes), people will inevitably attach themselves to something else, be > it a personality, nationality, political ideology or racial/ethnic > group. The attachment will be every bit as irrational and dangerous > as religion. Possibly more. That's just how people work. > > This criticism is not so easy to reject. We can point to all the > individuals who get along just fine without religious convictions, but > that's beside the point. A people does not always behave like an > individual. We have Europe, I suppose, but the jury is still out > there. Will liberal values hold up against the passion of Islam? > Will "liberalism" itself become quasi-religious, persecuting the un- > PC? > > Theoretically, this is an emperical question. It says nothing about > the objective truth of any religion, of course, but it might inform > our politics or social impact strategies if it were true. Most of us > are not merely interested in getting rid of religion. We want to > improve society. How would it affect us if the critisism were proved > correct? > > Aaron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
