To:
Guardian CiF |
|||
In response to the Guardian article, "The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it" by Madeleine Bunting critical of militant atheists and their anti-faith proselytising
Link to
article and thread at
The Guardian. |
Religion developed in response to the needs of individual human psychology, combined with and complicated by those of social bonding and control. It's importance cannot be overstated, so to dismiss it, for whatever reasons, is madness. What we need is a much better scientific understanding of it.
What clearly distinguishes humans from other animals is our "level of awareness", consciousness, the acquisition of which is beautifully described (symbolically) in the first part of the biblical story of Adam and Eve. But why did God curse them for it? Because the ancient Hebrew priests who adopted or made up the story wanted to control their society by instilling fear and obedience in them, I suggest.
Imagine how very different the development of Western civilization might have been if instead the priests had had God praise us for taking such a bold and courageous step, and instructed their people not in blind obedience to God's word (and thus to themselves), but in taking considered responsibility for their own behaviour.
With awareness (and imagination) comes fear of "known unknowns". Death is the classic example, but before the development of scientific knowledge and explanation the everyday world was full of them. Religion provided explanations. Of course, they were wildly wrong, but believing them at least calmed our ancestors' nerves and helped them get on with their lives.
We have a psychological need to "believe" that we understand the world. Nothing has changed in that respect. And a lot of what we believe today is still irrational nonsense. We believe it because it suits us (subconsciously) to do so. For example, we believe (certainly our politicians would have us believe) that we are tackling our massive social and environmental problems (e.g. global warming). We are not - not really - because we have not yet even recognized their "root causes" (which also has a psychological explanation), but we need to believe that we are, in order to allay our fears for the future and for our children.
Much of the disagreement on this thread is in fact misunderstanding, with both sides tending to concentrate on the silly excesses of the other.
I like to think of God as a "concept" for something (although it's not a "thing", of course), the reality of which we cannot grasp. Most disagreements arise from us confusing reality with the different concepts we have of it.
Perhaps the "reality" of our need for God just boils down to some chemical processes in our brains - or perhaps not.
A Rabbi provided the best justification I've ever heard for assuming the existence of God. He said, I cannot prove that he exists, but if I assume he does it helps me to better understand myself, the world and my place in it.
It is interesting, and perhaps of some importance, that religion is capable of bringing out the best and the worst in us.
I would describe myself as an atheist in respect to the Abrahamic (concept of) God. Notwithstanding its immense historical and cultural importance, I certainly do not "believe" in the Bible. But I have a strong faith (trust) in what I prefer to call Providence.
If I want to have a chat, though, unload my fears, express my gratefulness for my good fortune, or my appreciation for the wonders of life the universe and everything, I sometime find it useful to imagine an old man with a beard.
4th Post:
At the moment we are unsatisfyingly and unsustainably bound together by the myth of "British identity" and our dependency on the power structures of this nation state, which we need to replace with something less delusionary, more personally satisfying, and (most importantly) sustainable, before it starts to tear itself apart - which for those with eyes to see, it is already beginning to do.
6th Post:
Capitalism will become extinct, because it is inherently unsustainable. The trouble is, the way things look at the moment, it's going to take our whole civilization, and us, with it.
Why does socialism have to be in competition with capitalism? Why, in our relatively free society, shouldn't cells of socialism develop within the existing, capitalist order? Thanks to modern communications technology, what is to stop such cells arising and linking up, thus creating a real, grass-roots democratic, alternative to anonymous, multi-mass, consumer/capitalist society?
We will never all agree on exactly what kind of society (socialist or other) we want, but that need not stop us creating (initially, thinking about creating) cells of the kind we ourselves want to belong to (their members bound together (L. religare) by agreed criteria, thus making them, in my view, "religious societies"), and linking up and organizing themselves with other cells and groups of cells, and eventually replacing this nation state of ours, the power structures and economy of which are so deeply rooted in and dependent on our animal nature, which is what makes them inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable.
7th Post:
I make no pretensions about being objective or impartial, because I know I'm not. And I want you and others to know that I know I'm not. I'm not trying to set myself up as an objective "authority". I have standpoints and interests which I do not expect (or even want) everyone else to share. I want you to understand me, consider what I have to say and form your own judgments.
I am indeed seeking my own "religious society". At the moment I'm still working on the foundations, often getting stuck and covered in mud and wondering what I'm playing around at, and whether I'm not completely mad. Perhaps I am, but will carry on nevertheless, while hoping that one day others who sufficiently share my vision will join me, or invite me to join them.
We need lots of "religious societies", to cater not just for our racial and cultural, but also for our political diversity (mine, if it gets off the ground at all, will probably be quite small), which will then self-organize (using the freedoms we have, biometrics and the power of the Internet) to supplement and eventually replace the power structures of the nation state, the transformation of which will be accompanied by the replacement/transformation of our capitalist economy. Basically it is about replacing the existing, grossly materialistic, socio-economic order of anonymous multi-mass consumer/capitalist society (which, being so deeply rooted in and dependent on our animal nature, is inherently unjust, inhumane and unsustainable) with one that is rooted in our more enlightened (far less materialistic) human nature.
It's a big challenge, to be sure. But either we rise to it or go extinct.
[yakaboo], having read your comments on this thread, I thought you might also agree with some of mine. Our differences can be amicably resolved by us simply belonging to different "religious societies" (my main one will be native European and "hideously white", of course, although there is no reason not to belong to more than just one "religious society"; so perhaps I will also belong to one that is racially mixed). That should go a little further in answering your question from a previous thread, and perhaps improving the chances of us having a beer together.
http://www.spaceship-earth.org