The author does not explain the basis of the statement that his made-up religion would be better than existing religions. Is he asserting that his made-up religion would be more pristine than those that have come down through history merely because of its newness? And why does he find flaw with religions' lack of basis in fact if, in the end, they improve life for their adherents? Religion is not about facts; it's about the end results of the myths and rituals it sustains. We live in a world of myth, despite modern fantasies about science explaining the universe and all its mysteries; religion is but a part of the world of myth and of "good enough" explanations for unknown (and perhaps unknowable) mysteries. I'm not claiming vile acts have not taken place in the name of religion; I'm claiming that the good acts religion impels outnumber those, and because the facts of life after death and other matters typically left to religion are unknowable, the factual basis of any religion is irrelevant.
Discuss
HerbieP on June 4, 2008, 11:55 AM
“I’m not claiming vile acts have not taken place in the name of religion; I’m claiming that the good acts religion impels outnumber those” well dr Nurse you’d have a great deal of difficulty substantiating this claim. I think that religion has been used as an excuse for our behaviour both good and bad, with or without it we’d be much the same. Actually quantifying the difference would be a subjective and meaningless task. You’d have to decide which kind of good acts outweighed which kind of bad and then become embroiled in arguments about historical accuracy. In the end it could only be a matter of opinion. However any kind of orthodoxy, religious or otherwise, does limit free thinking and exploration. It is undoubtedly true that religious orthodoxies have ruthlessly subdued ideas that they regard as heretic. I know that various political regiemes have done the same but that is a recent phenomenon. Religions have been at it for a good 5,000 years longer.
sciencesaves on June 4, 2008, 2:08 PM
Religion divides, deludes and controls people. The blind-faithful don’t seem to recognize that, especially in the laissez-faire buffet McReligions in the states.
Belly-up, don’t miss out on the supposed rapture!
While you’re at it, how about a little donation…
dennis ilic on June 4, 2008, 3:02 PM
ss, I think you and musycks need to be separated for a while. Side kick or not.
sciencesaves on June 4, 2008, 3:47 PM
hz, No. I don’t have an imaginary friend to replace him with.
Hey, btw, thanks for the kind comments on the other posts, you’re a gentleman and a scholar! I sent you an email in early april, did you receive it?
Musycks on June 5, 2008, 12:58 AM
Who said I’m not imaginary?!
and you can’t spiit up the dynamic duo hz? think of the kiddies….
Musycks on June 5, 2008, 1:09 AM
sorry for that DrNurse… now that the chat is out of the way..
what would the earth’s history without a supernatural or superstitious overlay look like? could it have been any worse?
we will never know… has religion been a force for good historically? that’s pretty dubious given the version that has been dominant in most cultures aims to divide, demonise and conquer for the most part.. how much was it informing the politics of the day, how much was politics informing it?
aye, there’s the rub.
welcome to the rollercoaster.
sciencesaves on June 5, 2008, 1:54 PM
Ancient Alexandria, Egypt was way ahead of it’s time, intellectually, as a modern city hundreds of years ago, it was a cultural center for great thinkers, and some of the greatest discoveries about the natural world, and the universe were made there.
Religion, politics, and paranoia killed the chance for reason and rationality to create a better world from that humble beginning.
Just one example of the harm done by ignorance.
Teresa Goodell on June 7, 2008, 10:41 AM
Just as I can’t enumerate the good acts carried out in the name of religion, others cannot enumerate the bad acts. Neither of us can prove, therefore, that one side “wins.” My reference to the good outnumbering the bad was based upon a perception that many individuals’ daily actions are grounded in religious guidance. I do assert that most people, and most of their actions therefore, are good or at least neutral. Would this state persist in the absence of religion? Perhaps it would, if people used the optimization of quality of life for human beings as a moral compass. But who knows that they wouldn’t use “optimization of my personal wealth and power” instead? There are undoubtedly people whose actions would be self-serving in the absence of religion, and in particular in the absence of supernatural consequences for their actions.If religion is what it takes to control their self-serving impulses, I’m all for it.
sciencesaves on June 7, 2008, 10:34 PM
drN, Your viewpoint from outside the religious world is a common one, and one of the reasons that religion is so easily perpetuated from generation to generation.
Given the amount of knowledge that we have accumulated, isn’t it time to find a better and more realistic “way” than what was accepted as the norm from a fairly unenlightened and impressionable society?
Sitting the fence and allowing the delusion to continue seems to be standard operating procedure, but somethings gotta give up sooner or later, and I doubt it’ll be the belief in reality…
Teresa Goodell on June 21, 2008, 2:27 PM
My point is that whether or not the facts of religion are verifiable is irrelevant. Its effects are more favorable than harmful, and it addresses qualities of human interaction and action that are not reducible to “scientific” terms. (The definition of science is a separate topic of debate.) For example, religious guidance may be useful when raising your children, whereas science offers very little help.
Teresa Goodell on June 21, 2008, 2:27 PM
My point is that whether or not the facts of religion are verifiable is irrelevant. Its effects are more favorable than harmful, and it addresses qualities of human interaction and action that are not reducible to “scientific” terms. (The definition of science is a separate topic of debate.) For example, religious guidance may be useful when raising your children, whereas science offers very little help.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register