“….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
While an interesting question, I would ask whether it is possible to remove the apparently innate drive towards unity. This is found in sporting events, any political ‘party’, group etc. including religion (s). To feel a part of a whole clearly is found within the human psyche and, unless draconian methods are used, I don’t see how it could ever be ‘removed’. On Nov 19, 2:15 pm, SmuglyDismissed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
