Tags
Christianity, God, Heathen, Heathenism, Jesus, Magic, Pagan, Paganism, Religion
Okay, despite the name of the article, I’m really not going to get into why I hate Jesus. That’s something for another time, and another place. Although I probably will throw a bit of it in here. The real reason for the title of this post is because I finally broke down and watched this video that everyone (at least it seems that way) in the Religion tag has been going on about.
See, lots of people like to be down on religion. They like to treat it like it’s some Ultimate Evil. Even among Pagans and some Heathens. Personally, I think this is a bit odd, once you really start looking at it.
A lot of people like to hate on religion for several reasons, but the big ones seem to be the hypocrisy, the bigot-ism, the hate, the causing all the war, and stuff like that. But when you get down to it, really, only three religions have done those things: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Maybe it’s the fact that we’re so indoctrinated to believe that that Monotheism is the only “Real” religion in the world in the West, but when you get down to it, that’s three religions out of hundreds. Now, I’m not saying that other religions haven’t done some of those things, but they did do them differently. My Pagan ancestors invoked the Gods and their religious practices in war, but the only time we actually had a religious war was when the Christians showed up to force our conversion. To my knowledge, the Pagan Romans didn’t either (unless you count the Zealot Jews who wanted to drive out the beardless, pig eating Pagans). The Celts, didn’t, Hindus haven’t (except where the Muslims have tried to convert them like the Christians did my people).
Now, the guy in the vid does have a bit of talent. And he makes some decent points about his religion from his spiritual point of view. But while he may think that Christ is the only god (I heartily disagree) and that Jesus came to abolish religion (I was under the impression Jesus showed up to try and get rid of the Pagan Roman Empire and return the Jews to Judaism as opposed to assimilating with the Romans) that doesn’t mean he’s right about all religions.
Religion actually has some positive side effects (that in some cases have been used negatively by Monotheism). It provides a way of looking at the universe and life (or in the instance of Paganism, multiple views all at once). It helps link people together, helps build and maintain the culture, and it binds us to our godly kin (or creators, depending on who you’re talking about).
Thing is, religion isn’t our problem. Yes, religions are made by mankind, often with the help of the Gods of said religion, but that doesn’t make them bad or wrong. If there is a problem, and it shows up in the religion, then it’s a problem of the God or Gods in that system, and how they work with the people in that religion. If, as this young man says, there is a problem with his religion (Christianity) then it is because of what that God taught his followers. If there is hypocrisy and “sin” it is because the followers have learned it from their religion. If there is intolerance, it is because the God of that religion taught it to them, by telling them they were “superior” because of their faith.
And really, if there is religious war, there’s only one group that’s caused that, and it’s because their God has told them he is to be the only one worshiped on this world, even if he can’t seem to pick between the two big ones at the moment. But of the hundreds of other religions out there, that hasn’t happened. So don’t be down on all the religions. Just the ones causing the problem: the Children of Abraham and his God.
The rest of us are happy to get along with each other just fine.
Son of Hel 
The problem I have with religion is that it is a remnant of an earlier time, and of a less sophisticated way of thinking, which does not provide access to truth. Religion is an outgrowth of methodologies of explanation which fails to produce rationally justified conclusions. Yes, many religious traditions are also hideously disgusting and even harmful directly, but what really gets me is that religion simply does not provide anything worth believing wanting to believe.
With the advent of the scientific method, we are able to see the extent of how religious thinking generally fails at giving us access to reality. It’s ability to bring us together and maintain culture are actually aspects of our nature which we often attribute to religion but which are really a part of our natural behavior patterns whether one has a religion or not–take the atheist community as an example.
As far as religion’s ability to give us a way to look at the world and life, it has helped people. But the question is whether these views on life are necessarily derived from religion per se or to our natural behaviors. I already addressed how it gives us ways to look at the universe; religious methodologies tend to be unjustifiable when compares to better methods. But when it comes to things like morality, quality of life, etc many people think that religion still holds a monopoly (or at least a strong primary status), and I think they are wrong.
Sam Harris’ recent work (The Moral Landscape) is one way to address this point, but popularized one. More serious demonstrations of a morality derived from a scientific or materialist’s view of morality exist (See Hilary Putnam, for example). But to me one of the best questions asked was by the late Christopher Hitchens at various talks over the years. Here is one example:
“name me a moral action committed by a believer or an ethical statement uttered by one, that could not have been made by a non-believer?’
Then almost taunting the audience, he continued with, “but if you were asked to name an evil action preformed or a vile statement made by someone attributable only to their religion or faith, no one would hesitate.”
You may object that this is leveled against monotheistic faiths, and not pagan, but I don’t think this is necessarily the case. The fundamental point here is that when one accepts supernatural or otherwise non-material realities, you claim to have access to something that despite its not being demonstrated to actually exist, acts as an influence on people without rational justification and so it has limitless capability to say just about anything. When you believe things on faith, you believe them without justification and they can therefore be used to rationalize actions that one could not support with a scientific worldview. Some horrific acts can only be “justified” by faith, since without it you would actually have to at least try to make an argument based on real things.
So, with all due respect, while I have less issues with pagans when it comes to social policy agreements or lifestyle, you are in the same boat with Christians, Jews, and Moslems when it comes to claims about the nature of the universe, and it is there where I have my problem with religion. Christians cannot demonstrate their supernatural realities any more than other religious tradition can.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment. It is always nice to see the scientific atheists come in with their own conversion speeches and attempt to save the ignorant, religious masses.
You will forgive me though, if I will point out that there are many “evils” which cannot be done without Scientific Justification. Most of which are as horrible as those justified by religion. Regardless of the ability to “prove” one’s religious reality via scientific methods, on a purely moral level I have found science and atheism to be just as reprehensible as just about any religion. Which is really not that surprising, seeing as modern science came out of the Monotheistic Mindset and has taken many of its ideas to heart in regards to dealing with other paths in this world.
LikeLike
I challenge you to demonstrate how it is even logically possible for atheism to be responsible for anything.
Atheism is a negative position. The answer “no” to the question “do you believe any gods exist?” Nothing can be derived from that.
Science is simply a methodology for investigating the universe, and not equivalent to what people do with its conclusions. It grew up around monotheism, but that is not the same as growing out of it.
LikeLike
@shaunphilly, I accept your challenge.
You say that from answering No to the question of “Do gods exists” means nothing can be derived from that. But logically this is false. Much can be derived from that, running from the nature of the person who says the gods do not exists, to how should they live their lives with no gods or divine consequences to their actions. While I do not believe that morality flows only from the divine, many do believe that. And some will say that because there is nothing out there to make one behave morally, then there is no need to do so. Or better yet, because there is no higher power than the person themselves, they can legislate their morality and decide what is and is not moral.
For the Record, I am a person who legislates his own morality, regardless of any divine beings.
As for Science, it was the methodology to which I spoke. Science, in its purest essence, is the seeking of knowledge. However, time and again we have seen those who sought this knowledge scientifically, but certainly not morally. The Tuskegee experiments, the work of the Nazi Scientists (who were real scientists using the scientific method), those who have used human testing without consent (both in the medical and psychological fields), arguably for some those scientists who do animal testing. Or perhaps those scientists who create drugs with side effects more horrible than the problem, when they could just as easily create drugs with little to no side effects, simply so they can sell more drugs. Or perhaps the medical field, which despite having more funds and technologies, has succeeded in not creating a cure for any diseases since polio, for the simple fact that they get more money from the things they don’t cure than the ones they do.
You can say that science is not what people do with it, that it is merely a tool. But then, you argue that religion is merely a tool as well. Yet you say religion is bad because of what people do with it. Should it not be so for science as well? Are we to judge by double standard, simply because you like one, but not the other?
It matters little if science grew from monotheism or grew around monotheism. Plants that come from the same dirt contain the same elements and materials, and are made from them. Be science the branch of that tree, or merely a vine that grew around it, its ways surely have been shaped by Monotheism’s nature.
LikeLike
OK, let me respond to a few things you said there.
First, you said this:
There is already a problem here. If we are talking about logic, you need to make a distinction between the claim that there are no gods from the lack of belief in gods. The answer “no” to that question is nothing (logically) more than the lack of belief in any gods, and is not (logically) equivalent to the claim that no gods exist. For the record, my claim is NOT that gods don’t exist, only that I see no reason to believe any do. That goes for the supernatural in general, as well. I am, primarily, a skeptic.
And from this lack of beliefs, you cannot derive any necessary beliefs of claims. There are atheists who, despite their lack of belief in any gods, belief in objective universal morality derived from some supernatural reality (that does not include gods). Some believe in some Platonic idea of the Good or something else objective, as another example. There are other atheists who are complete moral nihilists. And of course there are many with opinions in the shades of gray. But someone not believing in god, if that is all you know of them, has not logically implied ANY other ideas necessarily about their moral views. So you cannot derive a consequence-free moral system from atheism per se. As has been argued by my good friend Staks, gods are irrelevant to the question of morality, because whether you believe in a god or not tells you nothing about their moral beliefs except that an atheist will not believe in specific god-centered consequences. (but not from consequences in general).
Right. Your religious orientation does not tell me whether this was the case. You had to specifically tell me what you thought about morality for me to know.
As for science…
Science is amoral. It is, indeed (as you are about to address) just a tool.
Science is only a methodology (the conclusions we derive are not “science” per se but technology, knowledge, etc). Religion is not merelya methodology or tool, but an assortment of various pre-scientific or ascientific ways of seeing the world and living which (usually) include methods which are not scientific. That is, there is usually (perhaps necessarily, but that is debatable) a stark different between the ways science and religion address truth, reality, etc.
So, religion is not merely a tool. But the methodologies which religions use are sub-par in comparison with those of science (insofar as religion is not scientific. There are some religious traditions which use science to greater degrees, and it is possible that a religion could exist which is actually coherent with science, although I know of none currently).
The reason I think religion is bad (that is, on the whole harmful even if it has some good attributes), is that insofar as it is a tool, it is a poor tool. And where it is more than that, it offers nothing which cannot be achieved with secular means. There is nothing worth wanting that religion offers, I believe, that cannot be attained otherwise.
In my opinion, science grew despite the environment of religion. In many ways, despite the early overlapping of theology and science, science grew despite its religious environment. The Enlightenment, which was due to the advent of science, was ultimately an anti-religious worldview. There is a real conflict, a deep and philosophical one, between science and religious worldviews–especially the monotheistic ones which dominated the large civilizations where science grew. That is, I reject Gould’s idea of NOMA (Non-overlapping Magesteria).
And let’s not forget that many of the early concepts which science rests upon grew up in the Pagan world of Greece and (pre-Christian) Rome. Thinkers like Democritus, Aristotle, Hypatia, and many, many others were not monotheists. The intellectual history of scientific/philosophic development reaches to pre-monotheistic days and have roots, ultimately, in Paganism.
And while science certainly came into its own during the time and in the place of monotheistic dominance, this does not necessarily imply that monotheism influenced it in any deep philoosphical sense. in the end, you have to address the scientific methods on its merits, and not on where it grew, because science has divorced itself from the ground in which it grew, especially in the last century.
If there are monotheistic influences on the scientific method itself (and not mere specific examples of what particular scientists said at some early point–or even now), then address them. But I don’t see any philosophical influences on science from monotheism anymore, again except in cases of specific scientists who claim that their religion is philosophically consistent with science (I believe science and religion are philosophically incompatible). If you do think that not only can science and religion be methodologically consistent but that science really is infested with monotheistic ideas or philosophical assumptions, I would like to hear about that.
LikeLike
Pingback: A conversation about paganism, monotheism, and science « The atheist, polyamorous, skeptic