On Sun, 2014-10-05 at 15:59 +0530, Shenoy N wrote: > FWIW: The problem with deciding to follow one part of religion because > it > makes sense and jettisoning another because it doesn't is that the > follower > comes up against the very reasonable question - if parts of it are > silly, > is it really divine at all? and soon concludes in the negative. That > leaves > with only the everything-is-literally-true people whose tribe seems to > be > increasing not so much because their numbers are swelling as because > the > more rational guys are choosing not to believe in any of it at all. > And > politics being what it is, the loonies are always the first to be > heard.
Yes. But this is the religionists viewpoint of the uncomfortable questions that religion faces. How about science? How come no one is asking science uncomfortable questions about why science finds it OK to discard morality, or not question the discarding of morality without having a clue about why and where morality came from. And no. Religion did not bring in morality. The very same concepts of morality pre-date the religions and exist outside religion. For example, look at this article http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/beyond-marriage.html?_r=0 The author (an economist, I think, certainly not a biologist of priest) starts by saying: > MARRIAGE is disappearing. More than 40 percent of new mothers are > unmarried. > > Later she says: > Can marriage be restored as the standard way to raise children? As > much as we might welcome a revival, I doubt that it will happen. The > genie is out of the bottle. This statement brought a contemptuous smile on my face because the woman is bluffing. This is a classic example of GIGO by an ignoramus who is accustomed to bluffing her way through and does not require to meet the standards that a scientist is supposed to reach. For anything to be declared as impossible, one must first try and understand why something happens and then decide whether it is impossible or not. For example - 150 years ago, flying was thought to be impossible while people were experimenting with "perpetual motion machines". Physics teaches us that perpetual motion without the input of energy is impossible, but heavier than air objects flying is possible. But what about marriage? Why have marriages existed before anyone can remember? Why have marriages been known from before many religions? If you do not know why marriages were thought necessary in human society for over 3000 years of recorded history, how on earth can the concept of marriage be simply dismissed? This is no better than alchemists trying to make gold from base metals. And this is the 21st century? shiv
