One of basic flaws of arguments against religion as such put forward by Richard Dawkins and other "new atheists" is:
to suggest that religion can be universally defined and condemned by referring to various forms of extremism which have flourished in late modernity (and which can be explained as a reaction against Western-style modernity!) is to give a distorted and reductive account of a much more complex and diverse human phenomenon.
Agreed totally. I would suggest behind every religious tension there is a political motivation. If Ireland kicks off again it will be political. The Reformation In N Europe was political. Israel v Palestine is political.
Perhaps secularisation is not such a good idea!
I don’t read or listen to those who preach religion or to those who preach atheism. Generally they are both caught up in an illusory perspective of reality and are not even arguing about the real issues. Those attuned to those issues have no interest in arguing. All they want is to directly experience reality moment by moment.
IMO religion at its core is not a belief system but a practice, and it is a practice not limited to church members. The practice of religion is not eliminated by respect for science either. Half the scientists in the US say they believe in some sort of God concept.
Those who, irrationally try to stir up a big battle between religion and science get no attention from me. I’m with you on this Matias.
it's all a matter of your perspective. Religion provides many people with a sense of security and belonging. It also becomes a cultural beacon within communities around which they identify and work together. The dalai lama explained that our world is a better place with them than without. I feel that might have been a little generous, but he's a sweet and compassionate little man so I'd expect no less. I agree with Yuval Harari's view on religion as a useful human tool subject to malfeasance by the unscrupulous human. I also don't agree with it as a seeker of truth. That it is not. And for those of us seeking truth it is an impediment.
I think it’s a mistake to think that we can eliminate religion or a belief in a god or gods by condemnation of its practices, and holding it to ridicule alone. Man invented god out of a human need to believe that there is something bigger than ourselves on which we can project our needs and inadequacies. It’s not a modern invention, it’s as old as humanity itself, the oldest and most logical was Sun worship. The Abrahamic religions are relatively modern, but have become accepted unquestioningly by generations by proselytising and indoctrination... mass murder and torture, even today this is happening. It’s right for modern day Atheists, such as Dawkins to highlight these barbaric practices and use their high profiles and celebrity to try, by reason, to ridicule and counter the superstitious nonsense that the Bible and Koran and all the other religious books peddle. Reason and critical thought, and a thorough knowledge of science are the only way we will ever change the mindset of a believer. By just stopping the teaching of religion alone, we can never eliminate the human need to believe in something bigger than ourselves, that is, without replacing it with self belief and awareness of the universe and our place in it.
I'm with Popper on this. God is not falsifiable. Science says neither yay or nay to the idea of god. If people take solace in their belief in god, let them. Dawkins should read Popper. He has done great harm by alienating believers from science. His nasty rants have helped bring on the era of Trumpism, unnessarily pitting believers against non believers. Shame on Dawkins for promoting tribalism!
@Gmak Totally agree on that one. I used to acknowledge Dawkins work but over the years he seems to have believed his own publicity and become an atheistic rallying point which denigrates his integrity, and biases some arguments, which is the domain of the evangelist, not the scientist.
@Geoffrey51 I don’t believe in following him like some do, in that way he is acting like a cult leader, but if he can persuade people who read his books and listen to his speeches to start thinking for themselves and reject the dogma of religion, that has to be good.
I look on religion as an earlier form of psychology. If we want to understand the development of our thinking and shared 'grammar' in how we express our human experience, knowing religion's huge place in our history is important. To narrow the focus down to the atrocities caused by religion is definitely reductive.
'extremism' is subjective. The fact that religious education is taught in public schools is 'extremism' to me. The that the Lords prayer is recited at the start of parliament is extremism to me. The fact religious groups are exploiting people out of their money and giving them false hope is extremist and immoral to me.