Rant Mode. Some Religious People Are Really Good.
March 17, 2015 at 10:24 am
(This post was last modified: March 17, 2015 at 10:26 am by Mudhammam.)
Sorry, this is sort of a rant. In that mood I guess.
One of the reasons I consider myself an anti-theist is that I find the domain of ideas of utmost importance and under constant assault. There is another thread elsewhere about the definition of humanity and I think it might be fair to suggest that the idea of an idea is perhaps the most definitive point of contrast between the activities we consider human and those we deem purely animalistic, or of a less intelligent class.
"Free will" evolved with us ungrateful bipeds: "Free will" is really little more than dialogue between our passions and our thoughts, which is to say nothing that wasn't understood by philosophers as old as Plato. What humans perceive as voluntary actions are those achieved by thought, while involuntary actions are overwhelmingly dominated by our passions. By I digress from the title of the thread.
There are some threads of recent that have caused me to ponder if there is enough nuance in the general perception that a great number of individuals (who I feel share my sense of concern for the domain of ideas) seem to convey about religious people. Hopefully no one feels that I'm directly caricaturing their opinions; I speak mostly from the experience of my own biases.
I don't think it is as simple as viewing religion as a project that inevitably turns people good or bad, and I'm inclined to think most here would consider that a no-brainer. Religion exploits ignorance and imagination and in the arena of thought concerned with the real world and not merely fanciful escapism, that of course must be considered to some extent dangerous, though we must be careful how we frame that subject. I take it for granted that any thought of value must first value thought. Most have a sense of direction for how to best safeguard their basic interests in a reality where social interaction is generally not a matter of freedom or will and practically nobody is deluded enough to think of themselves as wholly self-sufficient. We must keep in mind that bad ideas are not restricted to the inner oracles of religious zeal, though its more or less the antiquity of the notions that makes them so easy to identify.
At any rate, my main point is that everyone perceives the world differently and some brains will interpret religion more liberally so as not to erode a socially acceptable conception of goodness that is grounded in valid and sound reasoning, itself but a variety of natural selection that operates on the level of our pleasure and pain. We may have no idea what differences it makes to call our personal ideal an absolute and objective being when reason can suffice as supreme ruler, and we should always be concerned how one can rationally compartmentalize their generally sound approach to experiences that involve their body from their absurd treatment of the "soul" (read: mind), but I think it's a mistake to speak with the presumption that, to put simply, religious people = bad, "the Other."
One of the reasons I consider myself an anti-theist is that I find the domain of ideas of utmost importance and under constant assault. There is another thread elsewhere about the definition of humanity and I think it might be fair to suggest that the idea of an idea is perhaps the most definitive point of contrast between the activities we consider human and those we deem purely animalistic, or of a less intelligent class.
"Free will" evolved with us ungrateful bipeds: "Free will" is really little more than dialogue between our passions and our thoughts, which is to say nothing that wasn't understood by philosophers as old as Plato. What humans perceive as voluntary actions are those achieved by thought, while involuntary actions are overwhelmingly dominated by our passions. By I digress from the title of the thread.
There are some threads of recent that have caused me to ponder if there is enough nuance in the general perception that a great number of individuals (who I feel share my sense of concern for the domain of ideas) seem to convey about religious people. Hopefully no one feels that I'm directly caricaturing their opinions; I speak mostly from the experience of my own biases.
I don't think it is as simple as viewing religion as a project that inevitably turns people good or bad, and I'm inclined to think most here would consider that a no-brainer. Religion exploits ignorance and imagination and in the arena of thought concerned with the real world and not merely fanciful escapism, that of course must be considered to some extent dangerous, though we must be careful how we frame that subject. I take it for granted that any thought of value must first value thought. Most have a sense of direction for how to best safeguard their basic interests in a reality where social interaction is generally not a matter of freedom or will and practically nobody is deluded enough to think of themselves as wholly self-sufficient. We must keep in mind that bad ideas are not restricted to the inner oracles of religious zeal, though its more or less the antiquity of the notions that makes them so easy to identify.
At any rate, my main point is that everyone perceives the world differently and some brains will interpret religion more liberally so as not to erode a socially acceptable conception of goodness that is grounded in valid and sound reasoning, itself but a variety of natural selection that operates on the level of our pleasure and pain. We may have no idea what differences it makes to call our personal ideal an absolute and objective being when reason can suffice as supreme ruler, and we should always be concerned how one can rationally compartmentalize their generally sound approach to experiences that involve their body from their absurd treatment of the "soul" (read: mind), but I think it's a mistake to speak with the presumption that, to put simply, religious people = bad, "the Other."
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
