RE: Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?
June 17, 2015 at 9:38 am
(This post was last modified: June 17, 2015 at 11:26 am by nihilistcat.)
Another observation about inquisitions ... in many cases, we blow localized (barely significant) incidents in history way out of proportion, to excuse things like mass executions. As I implied above, inquisitions and other forms of mass murder and torture were par for the course in western history. The fact that a church was involved in at least one of those incidents is hardly a compelling argument for anything, besides the fact that churches are just as fallible as the men who created them, and indeed, religion merely reflects the primitivity of its authors. In fact religion memorializes that primitivity, and transforms it into a moral code.
"Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid." Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak.
Another point. Even before the inquisitions, the Catholic church imprisoned people for heresy. But then, in the heat of argument, we start talking about what the other guy did, and how what we did wasn't quite as bad, when none of this is relevant to the threshold question, which is: are the foundational claims of religion, the claims that grant it its authority, bullshit? If they are, then the claims made by a priest or pastor or rabbi or some other cleric should be considered no more compelling than the claims made by a street beggar. Indeed, the homeless man can probably offer much better insight into human nature than some cleric who in many cases lives a reclusive, esoteric life, with all sorts of bizarre fears regarding his own sexuality, and a neurotic impulse towards an unattainable purity.
That said, I've encountered many religious people dedicated to helping the poor, stomping out racism, etc. Incidentally, they usually have a much more progressive outlook (even towards their own religious doctrines). It grants people solace to think that their son, who was unjustly killed by a police officer or in a gang shooting or whatever, is in a better place, and I'm just not callous enough to look that mother in the eye and explain to her that her beloved son is most likely just worm food. So until science comes up with a better alternative, religion will stick around. Atheism isn't for everyone, and sometimes, reality sucks. So I have no naive preconceptions about religiosity or atheism; and religion does not have a monopoly on tyranny. So my hope is merely that people become a little more skeptical, accepting of well settled scientific principles, and reject the tribalism which has been a hallmark of religion through time.
I also think Protestantism made important innovations. Here's a video clip of a lecture on this subject from the philosopher, Slavoj Zizek (who can explain this much better than me):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUGR1SsTD0
Zizek also did a wonderful lecture entitled "why only an atheist can believe" ... but it's much too long to present here.
"Morality makes stupid.-- Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these experiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the acquisition of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the development of new and better customs: it makes stupid." Friedrich Nietzsche, Daybreak.
Another point. Even before the inquisitions, the Catholic church imprisoned people for heresy. But then, in the heat of argument, we start talking about what the other guy did, and how what we did wasn't quite as bad, when none of this is relevant to the threshold question, which is: are the foundational claims of religion, the claims that grant it its authority, bullshit? If they are, then the claims made by a priest or pastor or rabbi or some other cleric should be considered no more compelling than the claims made by a street beggar. Indeed, the homeless man can probably offer much better insight into human nature than some cleric who in many cases lives a reclusive, esoteric life, with all sorts of bizarre fears regarding his own sexuality, and a neurotic impulse towards an unattainable purity.
That said, I've encountered many religious people dedicated to helping the poor, stomping out racism, etc. Incidentally, they usually have a much more progressive outlook (even towards their own religious doctrines). It grants people solace to think that their son, who was unjustly killed by a police officer or in a gang shooting or whatever, is in a better place, and I'm just not callous enough to look that mother in the eye and explain to her that her beloved son is most likely just worm food. So until science comes up with a better alternative, religion will stick around. Atheism isn't for everyone, and sometimes, reality sucks. So I have no naive preconceptions about religiosity or atheism; and religion does not have a monopoly on tyranny. So my hope is merely that people become a little more skeptical, accepting of well settled scientific principles, and reject the tribalism which has been a hallmark of religion through time.
I also think Protestantism made important innovations. Here's a video clip of a lecture on this subject from the philosopher, Slavoj Zizek (who can explain this much better than me):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUGR1SsTD0
Zizek also did a wonderful lecture entitled "why only an atheist can believe" ... but it's much too long to present here.
