"Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science"
(Jonathan Sacks)
The trouble with this quote is the false premise that atheism is like some sort of religion. As a default epistemic position it needs no justification, being no more , by definition than a recognition of the absence of god.
The other problem is the idea that we need religion. We do not. This falsehood presumably informs the first false premise,as if atheism has to be a replacement. Morality is encoded in law regardless of religion and usually does much better without it.
Law can change faster then dogma.This makes it more responsive to change. I'd argue there's no good example of religion capable of the flexibility needed: no example that would support the idea we need any religion,
What new atheist is Sacks referencing who "criticizes religion without understanding it (etc)" ? It's a straw man argument lacking even a single example. No, I've almost never heard an atheist advance an argument without the correct and specific biblical quotation. Without a name, Sacks's statement is nothing more than a pejorative polemic, and a self-serving one at that. What a surprise coming from a holy man. This a classic bit of projection.
Religion is all about lies and deception, misusing the awe of nature that is available without religion. Religions exchange the comfort of superstitious delusion for control and manipulation. Maybe it's the best bargain some people can get, assuming they had a choice.
For its dishonesty and deception, religions deserve all the mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing and demonizing that can be mustered. Just what deception is OK and good? Religion is not just about lying to attract believers, it is about denouncing non-believers as inhuman, immoral, mass-murderers. And it is about hiding the truths that are known.
Judaism, with its regard for scholastics, still won't incorporate a single scientific tenet, no matter how beautiful or elegant. Where is the wisdom of that? Judaism is still a form of obscurantism. Still worse are the Conservative and Orthodox versions which degenerate into cults and intellectual masturbation.
The rise of the Internet was the beginning of the death of religion as we know it. When I was a child we all believed the minister and would ask him the god questions but often we had to wait for a week to do so. Today you can find the answer in a few minutes online. If you are honest with yourself you can also see that nothing backs up the validity of the bible. Many things in the book are made up and outright lies.
The rot started when people learned to read, and books started to be published. The Internet has merely accelerated the process.
I agree, we the nonbelievers deserve more powerful opposition to the insanity of religion. It is too bad that we no longer have Hitchens. It seems the opposition has slipped into the making money mode of books, podcasts and endless debates. We must get our act together! The supernatural does not exist so why in damnation are we still debating over authenticity of the so called holy scriptures? No heaven, no gods! GROG
And yet, that's where we are headed.... All religions will die in the long haul.
@skado We are born with no religion. It's not in our genes. It's indoctrination what gets that job done. As we keep moving forward, new generations will dilute the indoctrination effort until is thin enough to get lost in the next cycle. As I have said, none of us will get to see it... it's a slow process
@IamNobody
That's a very reasonable hypothesis, but upon closer examination, I don't think it is supported by the evidence. Of course we are born without organized religion, just as we are born without a specific language, but just as we are born with the seeds of language capability, we are also born with the biological seeds of religion. We are socialized into whatever specific language or religion happens to be prevalent in the area, but we have that potential yearning to be expressed, and it will find an outlet unless all adults are somehow missing from the scene, such as in cases of feral humans being raised by wolves, etc. Even then, eventually, language and religion would reorganize and bubble to the surface. It's in our biology.
[amazon.com]
@skado This is actually a good discussion that unfortunately may end up like I say this then you say that and repeat endlessly. The pre-programming before birth ( if that's what you have implied ) is subjective and you cannot prove it is as I cannot prove it is not. It was a good discussion and probably the bucket should stop here.
@skado Yes but having the biological scafolding for religion does not mean that you have to be religious in the theistic way, religion may fill biological needs but that does not mean that many other things such as philosophy can not fill that same place. You could say that we have the biological framework for rape, (an interest in sex and violence and the genitalia needed ) but that does not mean that we have to be rapists or that we should stop planning for a day, when society is well enough for rape to be ancient history.
@Fernapple
Yes I think you are exactly right when it comes to any one individual. Evolution gives us potentials, but one of the potentials it gives us is the ability to say no to some of our potentials. But the species still carries those potentials, so while individuals can vary, the group at large is still exceedingly likely to express those potentials. So the way we suppress potentials in groups (as opposed to individuals) is through culture. So organized religion (as opposed to the biological impulse to religion) is a cultural corrective to rape, incest, theft, murder, envy, sloth, etc. already, but one that has become corrupted by other potentials like greed, power, fear, pride, etc. So the only way a group can correct the corrective is through cultural revolution, or at least cultural evolution. So call the resulting shift in global worldview by whatever name you are most comfortable with, but it will be filling the place historically occupied by religion.
@skado Yes that is it. But the "shift in global world view" does not have to include the supernatural, which is I think what most people who call themselves sceptics including those here reject. Having said that I do not think that you can ever replace the supernatural altogether, but, to use the rape analogy again, it can be made uncommon and pushed to the outer limits of society. Having said which, even that may of course be pie in the sky, since with a global environmental catastophy on the way, the exhaustion of many resources in the next few years and a huge population making a global pandemic almost certain given enough time, we will probably enter a new dark age first. Who knows.
This also puts a high burden on the religious. In order to be a believer, you must understand deeply, consider context, know where exceptions are, study reflective theology, ignore history, and be averse to criticism. Surely we can then dismiss casual believers who were merely brought up in faith. Posers!