|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 08/08/2006 : 13:43:44 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote: quote:
But when you turn on the news, Marf, do you see Jews boycotting movies? Do you see Muslum senators trying to stop women from getting abortions? Do you see Quakers trying eliminate sexual education from the classrom?
Rarely. The majority of the religious who try to make their religous beliefs a part of our country are Christians.
Um, yes, that is true, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with what I criticized. If Dawkins had merely added an adjective (such as “conservative” or “orthodox” or “fundamentalist”) in front of “religion's” there wouldn't have been a problem.
Dave wrote: quote:
Actually, Marf, I think Dawkins' generalization is as valid as the statement "men have penises." Yes, there are exceptions, but these things are, in general, true. A rash generalization might be "since Marf is a Humanist, so must be the rest of her family." Rash generalizations come from having too small a sample, and I don't think Dawkins is thinking about just fundamentalists, or even just Christians. Rules about sexual conduct spring from many religions. Islam certainly isn't innocent of it, and between them and the Christians, that's some 64% of all the world's religious people.
I don't agree at all. Here is what Dawkins said: …rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment. If we are to look at either world religions in general, or the history of religion in general, and certainly modern religion in the first world, we do not see a nearly universal “morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment” (certainly not as universal as men possessing pensises!).
Even if one tries to argue that such “morbid obsessions” are almost universal, there is a problem of correlation not equaling causation. Obviously societies require some sort of morality. The more large and complex the society gets, typically the more complex the moral customs become. Sex is always going to be a topic in moral discussions because it can be quite risky, and it affects our relationships, family structures, and reproduction. Many moral systems have been obsessed with sex to a destructive extreme, but this is as much circumstantial to environment and cultural history as it is to religious beliefs. You can't divorce religion from culture. Notice how relaxed most Christian communities have become in the modern world – that is because mainstream Christianity in the educated world has changed to accept modern values. Dawkins makes the mistake of pinning everything extreme and irrational in morality on religion, even though religion is entirely unnecessary for such morbid obsessions, and the majority of religions have run the gambit from morbid obsessions to more practical and flexible moral systems.
BigPapaSmurf wrote: quote:
I have no doubt however that if any religion was in the place of Christianity in America they would act the same way.
That's in interesting idea. What do you mean by the “same way”? Would they have the same moral system, the same taboos, the same methods for oppressing women and gays? Whatever worldview is dominant will most guide social morality and laws. Despite the fact that the majority of the people in America self-identify as “Christian”, American society's social morality and laws are dominated by modern secularism. Clearly Christianity has changed. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 19:09:47 [Permalink]
|
Well thinking one needn't fuss about the environment because God will come back when we get Armageddon going certainly has issues with supernatural beliefs. Praying certainly does. Believing loved ones are in heaven is pretty supernatural.
I don't quite get your last sentence? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 20:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't agree at all. Here is what Dawkins said: …rather than religion's morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment. If we are to look at either world religions in general, or the history of religion in general, and certainly modern religion in the first world, we do not see a nearly universal “morbid obsession with private sin and the evils of sexual enjoyment”...
I am forced to disagree, since Christianity (the primary religion in the modern Western world) - whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or what-have-you - is devoted to the idea that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross wipes out sins, the majority of which are "private" in that they don't hurt anyone else in the first place. Do the liberal Catholics you know get to skip Confession, or do the liberal Catholic priests say things like, "carnal knowledge of the two strange men you picked up in a bar two nights ago isn't something you need to ask forgiveness for, child"? The fact that these major religions (even the "progressive" versions of them) continue to punish that which secular society has (largely) been shrugging at for the last few decades says that yes, religion has an obsession with the privates lives of not just the adherents, but everyone else, too.
(Though I know relatively little about them, Hindus apparently used to take the obsession to the other extreme, revelling in sex in general, and even worshipping an erect penis as a god.)quote:
...(certainly not as universal as men possessing pensises!).
Well, if you'd like to quibble about what percentage makes a general truism...  quote:
Even if one tries to argue that such “morbid obsessions” are almost universal, there is a problem of correlation not equaling causation. Obviously societies require some sort of morality. The more large and complex the society gets, typically the more complex the moral customs become. Sex is always going to be a topic in moral discussions because it can be quite risky, and it affects our relationships, family structures, and reproduction. Many moral systems have been obsessed with sex to a destructive extreme, but this is as much circumstantial to environment and cultural history as it is to religious beliefs. You can't divorce religion from culture. Notice how relaxed most Christian communities have become in the modern world – that is because mainstream Christianity in the educated world has changed to accept modern values. Dawkins makes the mistake of pinning everything extreme and irrational in morality on religion, even though religion is entirely unnecessary for such morbid obsessions, and the majority of religions have run the gambit from morbid obsessions to more practical and flexible moral systems.
And that's a completely different argument - and a much more compelling one - than the one about Dawkins making a rash generalization.
You also said:quote:
I don't think most of the problems with religion have very much to do with supernatural beliefs. More like hyper-active group identity that becomes so strong as to encourage irrational ideas and behaviors.
I'd agree. I mean, I've seen both the real and potential dange |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 23:16:51 [Permalink]
|
In response to Dave: quote:
I am forced to disagree, since Christianity (the primary religion in the modern Western world) - whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox or what-have-you - is devoted to the idea that Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross wipes out sins, the majority of which are "private" in that they don't hurt anyone else in the first place.
You state that as if it is so clear what it means, and as if all Christians understand that concept in generally the same way. I would agree with this statement, but would also argue that how things like "sin" and "salvation" are conceived has always ranged a great deal among Christians.
quote:
Do the liberal Catholics you know get to skip Confession,
Heh, heh... actually a good number of them do. Most just go to church during holidays, actually.
quote:
or do the liberal Catholic priests say things like, "carnal knowledge of the two strange men you picked up in a bar two nights ago isn't something you need to ask forgiveness for, child"?
There is a big difference between thinking premarital sex is wrong and obsessing about its "wrongness". The prejudice against homosexuals comes from traditional concepts of gender roles, which all human societies have adopted in one form or another. The Biblical condemnation of homosexuality refers to Pagan sex rituals, prostitution, and man on boy sexual relationships. In other words, all sex acts that involve an unequal and potentially abusive partnership. It doens't even remotely resemble today's monogamous gay unions which are modeled off fairly new heterosexual equal-partnerships. Culture has changed, and mainstream religion is still catching up. But that's pretty much normal. The morality people practice always changes more quickly than the morality they espouse. There are perfectly practical reasons to endorse monogamous and avoiding sex before marriage. Those endorsements only become problematic when they get extreme, resulting in social shunning, or worse, legal punishments for personal transgressions. How are religious moral rules any different from secular ones? Isn't one common secular moral rule that cheating on one's spouse or sig. other is wrong? And yet most people will do it at least once in their life. There is nothing wrong with social morality that has rules about personal conduct, as long as it doesn't get extreme.
quote:
The fact that these major religions (even the "progressive" versions of them) continue to punish that which secular society has (largely) been shrugging at for the last few decades says that yes, religion has an obsession with the privates lives of not just the adherents, but everyone else, too.
First of all, you and I apparently have different ideas about what religions are "progressive". Second of all, what do you mean by "punish"? The only religious groups trying to punish people as far as I can tell are those in the religious right.
quote:
Well, if you'd like to quibble about what percentage makes a general truism...
Yeah, that would be silly.
quote:
And that's a completely different argument - and a much more compelling one - than the one about Dawkins making a rash generalization.
But Dave, that was part of my argument that Dawkins was making a, well let's say "inaccurate" then instead of "rash", generalization.
quote:
In other words, education appears to drive people away from God, but it doesn't drive people away from belief in anal-probing ETs. Why might that be?
Good question. I think part of it might have to do with irrational beliefs cultural evolving. What I mean by that is, I think most people today when pressed will admit that faith is not rational. The ones who stand by their faith then go with the argument that it isn't better to be entirely rational about everything. However, due to the great success of scientific and linear, rational thinking in discovering facts about the natural world and developing technology, people are being more and more convinced that they must be rational and scientific. And most of those silly beliefs are anal-probing and what-not claim to be scientific, or at least based on rational thinking.
There is also the simple matter of not everyone knowing what credible sources of info are and how to find them, or not having access to credible sources of info, or not being smart enough or mentally trained well enough to detect fallacies. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
