How to wean humanity from religion?
I've obviously been neglecting my blog here. Since my last post I have moved and gotten a new job.
I just finished an interesting book, The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Harris's basic premise is that religion is going to result in the end of humanity. He is especially hard on Islam, comparing it's current state to that of Christianity in the middle ages (e.g., the killing of heretics). He imagines what a radical Islamic state might do with a nuclear bomb. Considering that many of the 9-11 terrorists were well educated and believed that they would been going to great honor in heaven by killing unbelievers, this is a scary idea!
Harris asks why religious beliefs are exempt from criticism in the West? When you look at them, you have to admit that many religious beliefs are pretty wacky. Which is more plausible? The transubstantiation belief in the Catholic church or that aliens abduct people for anal probes? Why do religious people put so much stock in what are written in inconsistent books that are so obviously the work of the backward time they were written in?
Now to the real point of this post. If we need to get past religion, how do we lead the believing world to do this? Harris points out one of the biggest stumbling blocks. It is considered wrong to criticize anyone's religious beliefs unless it is deemed a cult. But how different is a cult than a main religion? Is a snake handler sect a cult? I for one don't see much difference in these beliefs and others that the mainstream religions espouse. However, there's a very good chance that if I criticized a coworker's religious beliefs that I would be fired on the spot. In the mainstream media, religion is also a sacred cow (pun intended). Non-believers are marginalized and have zero clout with either of the two main political parties as demonstrated in the Tampa city council.
When religious beliefs are challenged, it is very hard to get the issue examined in a rational manner. Anger or violence is the usual the result. Clearly, in the current environment, a direct challenge is counter productive. However, I do believe that when the religious attempt to use public institutions to promote their irrational views they must be opposed vigorously (e.g., intelligent design in public schools).
I believe a more effective campaign would involve an under the radar viral approach directed at the young. Clearly, many people are indoctrinated at an early age with religion, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out. It is probably easier to challenge their beliefs when they have not had time to form strong emotional attachments to them yet. Maybe they can learn that God doesn't exist at the same time they learn that Santa Claus doesn't either.
I just finished an interesting book, The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Harris's basic premise is that religion is going to result in the end of humanity. He is especially hard on Islam, comparing it's current state to that of Christianity in the middle ages (e.g., the killing of heretics). He imagines what a radical Islamic state might do with a nuclear bomb. Considering that many of the 9-11 terrorists were well educated and believed that they would been going to great honor in heaven by killing unbelievers, this is a scary idea!
Harris asks why religious beliefs are exempt from criticism in the West? When you look at them, you have to admit that many religious beliefs are pretty wacky. Which is more plausible? The transubstantiation belief in the Catholic church or that aliens abduct people for anal probes? Why do religious people put so much stock in what are written in inconsistent books that are so obviously the work of the backward time they were written in?
Now to the real point of this post. If we need to get past religion, how do we lead the believing world to do this? Harris points out one of the biggest stumbling blocks. It is considered wrong to criticize anyone's religious beliefs unless it is deemed a cult. But how different is a cult than a main religion? Is a snake handler sect a cult? I for one don't see much difference in these beliefs and others that the mainstream religions espouse. However, there's a very good chance that if I criticized a coworker's religious beliefs that I would be fired on the spot. In the mainstream media, religion is also a sacred cow (pun intended). Non-believers are marginalized and have zero clout with either of the two main political parties as demonstrated in the Tampa city council.
When religious beliefs are challenged, it is very hard to get the issue examined in a rational manner. Anger or violence is the usual the result. Clearly, in the current environment, a direct challenge is counter productive. However, I do believe that when the religious attempt to use public institutions to promote their irrational views they must be opposed vigorously (e.g., intelligent design in public schools).
I believe a more effective campaign would involve an under the radar viral approach directed at the young. Clearly, many people are indoctrinated at an early age with religion, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out. It is probably easier to challenge their beliefs when they have not had time to form strong emotional attachments to them yet. Maybe they can learn that God doesn't exist at the same time they learn that Santa Claus doesn't either.
posted by Paul Carter at 10:33 AM
0 comments
