What Maxwell fails to acknowledge are the ambitions of his own enterprise. The faithful yearn to see their doctrines gain ultimate acceptance, ever striving toward theocracy. Ridicule and marginalization are societies tools for regulating irrational, and/or unpopular beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
While I don't see this problem being as prevalent as some, he does eloquently sum up a legitimate problem. I like that he uses irreligion instead of atheism too. The pendulum is swinging necessarily towards irreligion as default. As a religious person I am fine with this as it is a reaction to a real problem. However, I do believe that spiritual beliefs are intrinsic to humanity and inform many of our thoughts. It seems to me that pretending they don't exist would be like pretending your thumb isnt there. It would be difficult to describe picking up a hotdog without it. I feel like spirituality is an elephant in the room these days. We all know it's there and it's silly to ignore.
Making decisions on societal norms and legalities is tough business. I hope that we mature as a society to be able to include our spiritual biases in the discussion while respecting others beliefs as well.
I believe that imposing ones will on others or believing ones own system is the correct one is a part of being human. Irreligion does not circumvent this, it merely cloths it differently. If we really want to progress we will all have to adopt an attitude of humility and acceptance.
Ridicule does have a role to play in society and I see it in a very Wittgenstinian sort of way. The community will decide what is correct in the end. It's clearly messy business. Where do we draw the line when one religion believes in cannabalism or polygamy or sacred underwear. I don't know the answer to that. But this problem isn't unique to theism and it's not ever going to go away. It's good to keep talking about it though.
Thanks for the post!
Good thoughts, Bret. What do you mean by "swinging necessarily towards irreligion as default" ? What do you see as being "a real problem" ?
Curious.
We agree on a lot in this post!
I don't think 'irreligious' types are necessarily ignoring spirituality. I thing they have their own ways of defining what that means to them. I think 'Naturalism' is a popular alternative. Something I'm very interested in is the need for a new vocabulary for spirituality. In a sense, I see one currently taking shape. Sam Harris has some surprisingly interesting things to say related to this (starting at 4:37 and leading through Part 6-7):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NWYXubfUgc&feature=related
The new 'popular' spirituality I envisage doesn't offer many of the comforts or explanations that does, say Quakerism. But I find comfort in certain stories I tell myself, and in things like secular humanism, and inspiration in Camus, etc.
Thanks Matt! I just mean that Christian thought had an intellectual monopoly on science and sociology for a long time. Sometimes dogmas and traditions stood in the way of intellectual pprogress. It also blocked progressivism. Things are swinging away from this and towards naturalism. This seems to be a reaction to the intellectual tyranny this religious dogma had imposed. It is my hope that science can thrive without the shackles of dogma be it naturalist or religious. So that is the problem as I see it. As a believer I have to own this legacy. I think it's unfair to say that the problem was solely the fault of religion. It just so happens that Naturalism being newer can claim innocence from such offenses. If the problem is a human (psychological) one and not simply a matter of a belief system (philosophical) then that defense doesnt hold. That is how I see it.
Post a Comment