Still feeling the effects of last night's dose of NyQuil, so forgive some level of incoherence in this post
Quote:
Originally Posted by David E
Saying religion should be abolished because of its historical abuses is like saying you want to abolish car travel because of accidents.
|
And saying that religion should continue to be accepted because it's the contextual basis of our current morality is like saying slavery should be reinstated because it's the contextual system under which our country was made as strong and powerful as it is.
Just because something produced a positive result by one definition of positive does not make it a good thing.
But let me be clear on a few things.
1) I am not arguing that religion should be "abolished". I'd prefer it if people would move beyond it and stop teaching it, but I would never support any sort of legal authority to abolish it.
2) It's not because of historical abuses that I prefer people move beyond religion. It's because of future ignorance. Religion, by definition, promotes irrational thought and requires flatly ignoring observable fact.
Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other. Why? You can trace it right back to the fact that both sides are certain that their religion gives them justifiable claim to a chunk of desert and that any deaths resulting are a small price to pay for doing god's work. And if you think that's just from the Palestinian side, you are sorely mistaken.
STDs and unwanted pregnancy continue to be a major issue in this country because we can't have an honest, open discussion with our children because sex is dirty and wrong because god said so.
Irish schools remain segregated by religion, perpetuating centuries old hatreds that result in bloody deaths.
These aren't "historical abuses". These are real, palpable consequences of the absurd notion that the world should be separated by which invisible deity you pray to.
So here's the calculus that I see.
Without Religion - A continual social discourse on what morals we should ascribe to. Individuals will disagree, individuals will purposely attack that morality and act without it. As a society we would be continually evaluating new knowlege and how it might help better promote morality and well being
With Religion - A continual social discourse on what morals we should ascribe to. Individuals disagree, individuals purposely attack that morality and act without it. Those individual are given extra ammo to act immorally based on their belief that they have moral superiorty granted by god. As a society, we are afraid of new knowledge and actively work to slow its progress because it doesn't agree with the version of the world laid out in contradictory texts.
It bears repeating that there is no evidence that the morality that you are arguing for can be attributed to religion. Religion mimics morality. Religion has changed as morality has changed. Religion doesn't cause that change, if anything it resists it until it begins to lose its influence, and then it changes to garner back more followers.