| StoreTags: new, atheism, god, religion, science
Author: nagrom on January 04 2007
Viewed 11144 times. 12 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: emulsion, astroid, cbit, datathinner, soft, Doron, flies, bsr, GregTArtZ, mixedtape, everamzah, nicknotis
-->
link
Interview with Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith".
Basically a very rational argument for questioning, not religious freedom, but the acceptance of religion in society.
Also, if you scroll down a bit, there's an article about the origins of public school, which I implore everybody to read before sending your kids off to be hammered into cubes.
Anybody who was intrigued by the public school blurb, you may be interested in this book on the subject by John Gatto: link (it's free online)
| |
Comments
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bsr
i disagree. given every situation where survival may be necessary on average i'm quite sure that the violent option would improve the chances of survival. the animal kingdom displays this - they're not after all a bunch of cute fuckers mowing each others lawns. we're in a position of luxury. do you not read stories of people fighting for food handouts? desperation, starvation, exhaustion are not situations in which people are likely to think logically and organise themselves for the greater good.
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bsr
and back to my illustrative point in the last post (previous page) - what emotions are being played on - a sense of religion? or something more primal and natural?
[edit - in fact this is a very good point - bush is playing both sides - your primal fear for yourself and family (enlarged to the size of a country) AND he's also manipulating the christian majority by littering his speeches with allusion to god and his 'faith'.
you take religion out of the equation and you still have a leader manipulating the public for his own ends - in this case ensuring the usa has oil in the next 50 years]
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
bsr said: "given every situation where survival may be necessary on average i'm quite sure that the violent option would improve the chances of survival.
do you not read stories of people fighting for food handouts? desperation, starvation, exhaustion are not situations in which people are likely to think logically and organise themselves for the greater good."
the mistake i think your making is crediting situations of danger/desperation/struggle somehow being more 'real/essential/at the heart of things' than situations of peace. i just don't see it that way. there are many different situations you might find yourself in. just because our ancestors used to live in more dangerous times (which shaped aspects of our species that we still display today) in the early days of our evolution doesn't give the state of experiencing danger/deprivation any greater importance or significance than a state of peace and safety. neither situation has anything to do with the core of 'what it is to be a human'.
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bsr
no - i just think the scales tip to the side of violence. again i feel your formulating your views from the incredible position of luxury that we're lucky enough to find ourselves in. if something dramatic changed on the planet the more primal emotions would emerge - my point is that they're a lot closer to the surface than you think they are. 'being human' like i said earlier for me means: 'dirty smelly lumps of fat and mucus who shit and cheat and kill'.
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
bsr said: "no - i just think the scales tip to the side of violence. again i feel your formulating your views from the incredible position of luxury that we're lucky enough to find ourselves in. if something dramatic changed on the planet the more primal emotions would emerge - my point is that they're a lot closer to the surface than you think they are. 'being human' like i said earlier for me means: 'dirty smelly lumps of fat and mucus who shit and cheat and kill'."
Of course i realise that i'm in a very privileged position.. that if there was some collapse of civilisation where i live it wouldn't be long before i was behaving in a way that would probably involve more fight-flight than altruism. but so what? this doesn't say anything about 'the core of what it is to be human' (it doesnt suggest to me that the flightflight behavior i'd quickly adopt is somehow more 'me' than the altruistic behavior i previously displayed).
heres a counterpoint to your mucus lump, no less or more true:
being a human means being an inconceivably complex and beautiful organism that creates and reasons.
i'm happy to say i don't feel that theres any justification for holding the bleak view you described.
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bsr
and also shits and snores 
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Doron
cbit said: "the mistake i think your making is crediting situations of danger/desperation/struggle somehow being more 'real/essential/at the heart of things' than situations of peace."
Whether real or not, natural or not (its a cause for another thread surely) we live in a society that promotes fierce competition, if youare going to a job interview you are competing against an unknown rival for bread. its pretty simple, you probably wouldnt give up a good job oppertunity for the sake of somebody else, simply out of the goodness of your heart, and in most cases your not aware of his needs in the first place only your own. simplistic i know, but it seems relevant to me.
as for the debate, its a complex issue, and i hate to simplify it more. i dont support the idea that religion is a root cause of our problem, rather a symptom, but in the tradition of western medicine, if you eliminate the symptoms maybe you find a cure for the disease, who knows.
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bsr
(that was a friendly nod that we've had a good discussion that i feels gone as far as it can - i've enjoyed it and i'm sure you'll agree it's a vast improvement on ones we've had a couple of years ago)
[edit -in response to your edit - it's not bleak, it's reality as i see it, i'm happy and thrilled to be experiencing 'this', but we're forever on a knife-edge - it's the way i see the world]
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
word. it's been interesting. (i'm aware that i probably sound quite 'brainwashed'; most of the stuff i mentioned is lifted to a greater or lesser degree from 'the god delusion', i enjoyed the irony that it was a best seller over christmas )
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
doron said: "Whether real or not, natural or not (its a cause for another thread surely) we live in a society that promotes fierce competition, if youare going to a job interview you are competing against an unknown rival for bread. its pretty simple, you probably wouldnt give up a good job oppertunity for the sake of somebody else, simply out of the goodness of your heart, and in most cases your not aware of his needs in the first place only your own. simplistic i know, but it seems relevant to me."
you could make the case just as strongly (if not more so) that modern society depends first and foremost on cooperation.
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
I think the question as to whether self-interest or altruism is more powerful in determining human choices is interesting, but this thread in the debate here seems to be treading water at this point.
I like the idea of anarchy, and while i'm not terribly fond of capitalism, I think one of its strengths is that it serves both self-interest and altruism through trade, (the basic idea of the competitive advantage).
cbit said: "In a world of people who's dupeablilty had been dramatically reduced..."
i would really love it if people were less dupe-able, and i'm sure everyone here would agree. but i don't think "religion" is the cause of dupeability, but a symptom. I think astroid's points above about the atheist atrocities (you forgot the holocaust!) attests to this point.
I think if we could broaden the point from atheism to anarchy we'd be gettting closer to the heart of the matter.
What i mean is, religion is a subset of the tools manipulated by power hungry would-be dictators who manipulate the workers into acting against their own self interest. Most people seem comfortable operating in groups where the authority receives little scrutiny or challenge; IMO, there are people whose sexual drive has been perverted from love/orgasm-seeking to power/pain-seeking behaviour, and this seems like a basic weakness that some percentage of humans will continue to succumb to. the solution to this problem is psychological in nature, and IMO religion can be a tremendous tool for ppl who wish to change culture for the better.
The problem isn't religion per se, it's the religion that teaches you to hate your body, to hate vaginas, to hate orgasm. That religion is driving more people to divert their urge for sexual satisfaction to more indirect gratifications.
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dach
Nice point about the competition in an interview. I never thought of it like that.
Maybe it is time to rethink the values of a society where you compete against another person for bread, knowing that there is enough bread for everyone.
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
flies said: "i would really love it if people were less dupe-able, and i'm sure everyone here would agree. but i don't think "religion" is the cause of dupeability, but a symptom. I think astroid's points above about the atheist atrocities (you forgot the holocaust!) attests to this point."
i didnt say that religion is the cause of dupeability, but _a_ cause.
also: children taught to be religious are taught to be dupeable (by being taught that faith is a virtue). In this way religion is very much a cause of dupeability (as opposed to a symptom of it).
also its worth pointing out that the holocaust was in (large?) part made possible by hitler's manipulation of the german people's christian faith, they were made to believe they were doing the lords work:
hitler in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 said: "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
01/05/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
i guess i have to agree that fundamentalist religions promote willful ignorance.
as far as my own perspective, i will say that i am not an atheist/agnostic, I have 'seen things' which make me 'believe in something greater', but I do not partake in any religion since i haven't found one that suits me. I like quaker meetings really a lot tho. I would also like to try buddhist services, since i like group meditation very much.
edited: Jan 05 2007
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
flies said: "i guess i have to agree that fundamentalist religions promote willful ignorance."
the point that sam harris and richard dawkins make is that religious moderates enable fundamentalism by reinforcing the attitude that it's inappropriate to critisise another's belief as soon as it happens to be a religious one.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|