| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
06 Feb 2006 11:25:25 PM |
| Object: |
Should we treat religion as a science? |
Should we treat religion as a science?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1703814,00.html
Julian Baggini
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian
Is religion a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis, evolution or
belly-button fluff? The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks it
is. In his new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon, he argues that religion should be examined in the same way
as any other aspect of human behaviour, with the use of biology,
neurology and psychology.
In the past, religious thinkers were often the greatest advocates of
studying their beliefs through the prism of reason and experience.
"Natural theologians" such as the 13th-century philosopher Thomas
Aquinas thought rational inquiry would simply confirm what all
respectable people thought: Christianity's creator, God, exists and He
is Good. And in the 18th century, William Paley argued that the idea of
a universe without a creator is as dotty as that of a watch without a
watchmaker.
.
|
|
| User: "Ex_OWM" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 02:32:01 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers. Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
If the ID'ers had taken that honest approach, they would have gained much
more respect for their arguments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 05:59:08 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
In a way, but only as "The Science of Wishful Thinking".
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
"'True Perfection' would not be sadistic enough
to create anything other than its exact equal."
************************************************
Bonus sig:
"Every Buddha just needs some Buddha to love..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Inez" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 09:19:40 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers.
I don't know why kids should specifically be made aware of this, since
as you say, the TOE doesn't claim to give all the answers. No subject
gives all the answers, and it would be a strange ritual to start each
class "Now we will study Geometry/Home Economics/History, which doesn't
give all the answers."
Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
And how to find a clitoris. That is important information that kids
can really use.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Panama Floyd" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 03:00:48 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers. Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
If the ID'ers had taken that honest approach, they would have gained much
more respect for their arguments.
Answers like this are why the scientific method must be applied to
religion. When even the *mention* of studying religion in the way
humans have studied other behaviors is made, the special pleading
begins. Why on earth do we still do this? To paraphase Sam Harris, it
would be insane to believe that the Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor in
face of the evidence against it. Why do people stop looking at the
evidence when the subject turns to these hoary old myths? It's time to
get serious. Apply the scientific method to the behavior of religious
people, and apply it to origins of their myths. Mankind will still
quarrel with each other, but removing the righteousness might reveal
the real reasons we fight.
-Panama Floyd, Atl.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ex_OWM" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 03:22:25 AM |
|
|
"Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139302848.130279.85910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the
areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
Answers like this are why the scientific method must be applied to
religion. When even the *mention* of studying religion in the way
humans have studied other behaviors is made, the special pleading
begins. Why on earth do we still do this?
As Berryo pointed out, the article was actually a different 'meme' than I
was implying, I was just using it to have a personal rant.
I have no problem whatsoever with a scientific approach to analyzing
religion - that it is indeed the approach I try to take to my own beliefs -
provided that it is done in a neutral and objective manner, as all science
should be, not starting from the premise that it's all a load of
superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
The only problem I see is the actual practicality of doing so - by
definition, we are talking about intangible beliefs, not measurable
evidence, and I cannot visualise how the best minds of science applied to
the study of religion could really come up with anything more conclusive
than the ideas of generations of philosophers and theologians.
I would like to be proved wrong on this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 04:16:18 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"Panama Floyd" <panamaflyd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139302848.130279.85910@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the
areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
Answers like this are why the scientific method must be applied to
religion. When even the *mention* of studying religion in the way
humans have studied other behaviors is made, the special pleading
begins. Why on earth do we still do this?
As Berryo pointed out, the article was actually a different 'meme' than I
was implying, I was just using it to have a personal rant.
I have no problem whatsoever with a scientific approach to analyzing
religion - that it is indeed the approach I try to take to my own beliefs -
provided that it is done in a neutral and objective manner, as all science
should be, not starting from the premise that it's all a load of
superstitious mumbo-jumbo.
The only problem I see is the actual practicality of doing so - by
definition, we are talking about intangible beliefs, not measurable
evidence, and I cannot visualise how the best minds of science applied to
the study of religion could really come up with anything more conclusive
than the ideas of generations of philosophers and theologians.
If you mean is there a point where we can say 'we have found what
causes religion in people' the answer is no.
If there is a question of how we can examine faith and religious
beliefs to either motivate or delineate behaviours and interactions
then we can certainly do this. The psychology of religion is something
that is already examined both as a direct effect on inidividuals and as
part of social psychology. There are also other techniques such as
conversation analysis and forms of discourse analysis that allow us to
deconstruct the manner in which religious discourse is formed and
implemented in an empirical fashion. Ethnography and Foucauldian
Geneaology are more labour intensive processes that open up other areas
of discussion but are quite difficult to apply as techniques.
The main limitation of any examination of social phenomenon is that the
study is limited to the cultural appearance of the phenomenon itself.
In other words the study can be objective, incisive and precise in its
deconstruction of the subject, but may only be correct for that
instance or that specific subject (e.g. a study of Lutheran religious
practices and its impact on education does not extrapolate to
commentary on all Christians - you would also have to take into
consideration historical and political imperatives for the region and
see if it was actually being Lutheran that was impacting on education
issues, or the impetus was in fact to become Lutheran in that area and
the social values were inherited from some other source).
Basically, it gets complicated very quickly but it certainly does not
mean that it is only 'philosophy' or cannot assist with understanding
religious concepts and socialised behaviours.
I would like to be proved wrong on this.
As everyone here points out, there is no proof to be had - just an
ongoing examination of facts and observations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ex_OWM" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 03:42:18 PM |
|
|
"Alexander" <alexanderhudson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1139307378.505474.49770@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ex_OWM wrote:
I have no problem whatsoever with a scientific approach to analyzing
religion ... The only problem I see is the actual practicality of doing
so
If you mean is there a point where we can say 'we have found what
causes religion in people' the answer is no.
The main limitation of any examination of social phenomenon is that the
study is limited to the cultural appearance of the phenomenon itself.
In other words the study can be objective, incisive and precise in its
deconstruction of the subject, but may only be correct for that
instance or that specific subject
... Basically, it gets complicated very quickly but it certainly does not
mean that it is only 'philosophy' or cannot assist with understanding
religious concepts and socialised behaviours.
I think you are basically confirming what I said, that a scientific study of
religion has very limited potential.
I would like to be proved wrong on this.
As everyone here points out, there is no proof to be had - just an
ongoing examination of facts and observations.
I didn't mean that I would like to be proved wrong in my religious beliefs,
I meant that I would like someone to convince me that religion can be
studied and analyzed in a scientific way ;)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 09:03:01 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers. Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
If the ID'ers had taken that honest approach, they would have gained much
more respect for their arguments.
There is no honest approach for ID: the whole concept is founded on the
deceict that science can be used to "prove" the existence of God. As a
concept, this is as much anti-faith as it is anti-science.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 05:00:41 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
Agreed
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers. Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
Certainly, but such religious beliefs belong in church and Sunday
school, not in a public school science classroom.
If the ID'ers had taken that honest approach, they would have gained much
more respect for their arguments.
If they'd taken the honest approach, they'd be totally unknown.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nmp" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 06:17:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 03:00:41 -0800, it was decided that VoiceOfReason
should write:
Ex_OWM wrote:
I believe, for example, that kids in school should be made aware that whilst
TOE gives many answers, it does not provide - or even claim to provide -
*all* the answers. Equally, they should be made aware that many people
believe in a creationist God. I am not suggesting that they should be taught
any specific religious interpretation, just that they should be made aware
that there are different viewpoints, which I consider to be fundamental to
sound education.
Certainly, but such religious beliefs belong in church and Sunday
school, not in a public school science classroom.
Er, no. They do need to be in there. Or else you will leave the students
totally unprepared to dealing with people who have certain beliefs. There
is nothing wrong with a Social Science class teaching about the contents
and beliefs of several of the most important religions. One could make it
a comparative study of sorts. Also, please include the arguments *against*
religion. Believers or not, everybody needs to know about these. And do
not "let the students decide" but have them do tests to ensure that they
registered and understood what they were taught. If they need to decide
anything for themselves, they can do so later.
I think it's a shame that so many people have all sorts of opinions about,
for instance, islam, or other religions or even atheism, but they do not
know the least thing about it. They do not understand how others might
think at all.
If the ID'ers had taken that honest approach, they would have gained much
more respect for their arguments.
If they'd taken the honest approach, they'd be totally unknown.
True. They would not have "invented" ID then, which is just a redressed
creationism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Berryo" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 02:57:31 AM |
|
|
Ex_OWM wrote:
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
No.
Religion is not a matter of science, it is a matter of *faith* in the areas
where science and logic cannot provide answers.
As a practising Christian, what annoys me about the ID'ers is their devious
and pathetic attempts to present their religious beliefs as some sort of
pseudo-science instead of having the courage and honesty to stand up and
state their beliefs for what they are.
I think Dennett's actually talking from the "meme" perspective and
therefore
religion can be scientifically investigated in the same way that you
would
scientifically investigate mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mcv" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 03:53:10 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Berryo <steven.berry@polyglobe-group.com> wrote:
I think Dennett's actually talking from the "meme" perspective and
therefore
religion can be scientifically investigated in the same way that you
would
scientifically investigate mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
I don't think schizophrenia is a meme. Ideas like enlightenment, human
rights and democracy are. So religion could be studied like those ideas
are studied.
mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film
.
|
|
|
| User: "Berryo" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 04:04:41 AM |
|
|
mcv wrote:
In talk.origins Berryo <steven.berry@polyglobe-group.com> wrote:
I think Dennett's actually talking from the "meme" perspective and
therefore
religion can be scientifically investigated in the same way that you
would
scientifically investigate mental illnesses such as schizophrenia.
I don't think schizophrenia is a meme. Ideas like enlightenment, human
rights and democracy are. So religion could be studied like those ideas
are studied.
Yeah, schizophrenia was perhaps a poor example, although I'm sure
it's possible to argue that certain memes could be responsible for
tipping
a susceptible person "over the edge".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 09:45:17 AM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139289925.747176.304130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Should we treat religion as a science?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1703814,00.html
Julian Baggini
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian
Is religion a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis, evolution or
belly-button fluff? The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks it
is. In his new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon, he argues that religion should be examined in the same way
as any other aspect of human behaviour, with the use of biology,
neurology and psychology.
In the past, religious thinkers were often the greatest advocates of
studying their beliefs through the prism of reason and experience.
"Natural theologians" such as the 13th-century philosopher Thomas
Aquinas thought rational inquiry would simply confirm what all
respectable people thought: Christianity's creator, God, exists and He
is Good. And in the 18th century, William Paley argued that the idea of
a universe without a creator is as dotty as that of a watch without a
watchmaker.
Before the age of science and reason there was no evidence that proved or
indicated
religious belief was irrational. When Galileo in the 16th. century started
using scientific evidence to
show the irrationality of then current beliefs he was put under house arrest
by the Pope and his
publications were restricted.
New and more accurate scientific discoveries have shown that religious
beliefs are irrational
and totally unsupported by the physical facts of the Universe.
Present objective verifiable knowledge relegates religions to the realm of
myths and fables the same
as the heathen idols of the ancient world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Vaughan" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
08 Feb 2006 07:22:07 PM |
|
|
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1139289925.747176.304130
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Should we treat religion as a science?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1703814,00.html
Julian Baggini
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian
Is religion a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis
more like schizophrenia or other mental disorders
--
Mark Vaughan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
08 Feb 2006 09:14:03 PM |
|
|
Mark Vaughan wrote:
more like schizophrenia or other mental disorders
Not really. Religious beliefs are adhered to partly to make sense out of
our existence. The fact is that were are all accidentally here. We are
happenings. But we are wired to ask questions and expect answers. Very
few people have the intestinal and intellectual fortitude to admit that
our existence has no cosmic meaning whatsoever and that our existence as
individuals and as a species is futile. We come, we stay a while, we
die. In the end it is all for nothing. So we can either learn to have
fun with the little time we have or we can look for Meaning and Truth.
How many people do you know who can live with the idea that nothing
really matters in the long run?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
08 Feb 2006 09:42:59 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Should we treat religion as a science?
No, but we can use science to study the phenomenon of religion - which
is what Daniel Dennett is talking about.
8-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Buhler" |
|
| Title: Re: Should we treat religion as a science? |
07 Feb 2006 03:02:07 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Should we treat religion as a science?
OK.
I get to be a "negative control".
(signed) marc
Oh.. but if I end in Hell, I get
to be a Hells Angel there as
a sort of positive control.
M. Buhler
Parramatta
NSW
..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Let's cool down and look at this rationally |
09 Feb 2006 06:37:51 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Should we treat religion as a science?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1703814,00.html
Julian Baggini
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian
Is religion a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis, evolution or
belly-button fluff? The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks it
is. In his new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon, he argues that religion should be examined in the same way
as any other aspect of human behaviour, with the use of biology,
neurology and psychology.
In the past, religious thinkers were often the greatest advocates of
studying their beliefs through the prism of reason and experience.
"Natural theologians" such as the 13th-century philosopher Thomas
Aquinas thought rational inquiry would simply confirm what all
respectable people thought: Christianity's creator, God, exists and He
is Good. And in the 18th century, William Paley argued that the idea of
a universe without a creator is as dotty as that of a watch without a
watchmaker.
Let's cool down and look at this rationally
http://www.economist.com/books/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5491909
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
A modest suggestion, in intemperate times, for a more temperate
approach to religion
TOWARDS the end of his elegant, sharp-minded essay on the need to study
religion in a dispassionate way (in other words, just as anything else
should be studied), Daniel Dennett teasingly asks his readers whether
they have heard of a people called the Yahuuz. Among these exotic folk,
he informs us, people who reach the age of 80 are expected to commit
suicide, and their remains are then gobbled up by the whole tribe. What
we would regard as child pornography, they call good clean fun; they
also perform, in hilarious public rituals, the things that civilised
folk do in a lavatory. If readers are disgusted, Mr Dennett goes on to
suggest, they may finally have glimpsed what many Muslims feel about
western countries where people drink alcohol, wear skimpy clothes and
ignore traditional ideas about the family.
Had he been writing today, in a month when Muslims and Christians are
engulfed in passionate conflict over the ridiculing of the Prophet
Muhammad in a European cartoon, Mr Dennett, a philosophy professor at
Tufts University, might have used a different metaphor or parable to
convey the difficulties of discussing religion across high cultural
barriers. Just as a set of rules and rituals can seem self-evidently
horrific to some people and perfectly natural to others, the symbols of
religion-holy persons, holy artefacts or holy buildings-can evince
reactions ranging from awe to repulsion to indifference among people
who in other contexts would find little to disagree over.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
By Daniel C. Dennett
Viking; 464 pages; $25.95.
Penguin/Allen Lane; £25
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5491909
Daniel Clement Dennett
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/20d360ce5a164328
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: The God Genome |
19 Feb 2006 05:16:15 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
maff wrote:
Should we treat religion as a science?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1703814,00.html
Julian Baggini
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian
Is religion a natural phenomenon, like photosynthesis, evolution or
belly-button fluff? The atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett thinks it
is. In his new book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural
Phenomenon, he argues that religion should be examined in the same way
as any other aspect of human behaviour, with the use of biology,
neurology and psychology.
In the past, religious thinkers were often the greatest advocates of
studying their beliefs through the prism of reason and experience.
"Natural theologians" such as the 13th-century philosopher Thomas
Aquinas thought rational inquiry would simply confirm what all
respectable people thought: Christianity's creator, God, exists and He
is Good. And in the 18th century, William Paley argued that the idea of
a universe without a creator is as dotty as that of a watch without a
watchmaker.
Let's cool down and look at this rationally
http://www.economist.com/books/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_idT91909
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
A modest suggestion, in intemperate times, for a more temperate
approach to religion
TOWARDS the end of his elegant, sharp-minded essay on the need to study
religion in a dispassionate way (in other words, just as anything else
should be studied), Daniel Dennett teasingly asks his readers whether
they have heard of a people called the Yahuuz. Among these exotic folk,
he informs us, people who reach the age of 80 are expected to commit
suicide, and their remains are then gobbled up by the whole tribe. What
we would regard as child pornography, they call good clean fun; they
also perform, in hilarious public rituals, the things that civilised
folk do in a lavatory. If readers are disgusted, Mr Dennett goes on to
suggest, they may finally have glimpsed what many Muslims feel about
western countries where people drink alcohol, wear skimpy clothes and
ignore traditional ideas about the family.
Had he been writing today, in a month when Muslims and Christians are
engulfed in passionate conflict over the ridiculing of the Prophet
Muhammad in a European cartoon, Mr Dennett, a philosophy professor at
Tufts University, might have used a different metaphor or parable to
convey the difficulties of discussing religion across high cultural
barriers. Just as a set of rules and rituals can seem self-evidently
horrific to some people and perfectly natural to others, the symbols of
religion-holy persons, holy artefacts or holy buildings-can evince
reactions ranging from awe to repulsion to indifference among people
who in other contexts would find little to disagree over.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
By Daniel C. Dennett
Viking; 464 pages; $25.95.
Penguin/Allen Lane; =A325
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_idT91909
Daniel Clement Dennett
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/20d360ce5a164328
The God Genome
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/books/review/19wieseltier.html?pagewanted=
=3Dall
Review by LEON WIESELTIER
Daniel C. Dennett investigates the natural history of religion, hoping
to break the taboo against questioning faith.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
