On religion
Jun. 29th, 2011 11:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerNot sure why you regard religion as anything but a sop for those afraid of the dark invented by bunnies who worked out a way of working indoors and avoiding heavy lifting.
So said![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lewis_p_bear, in a comment to the previous post. I didn't think anyone had escaped my views on religion, but clearly my subtle hints on the subject have been too obscure, so here goes.
I don't believe in any god. I don't regard any scripture as holy, or inerrant, and in fact believe that all holy scriptures contain large admixtures of myth, fiction and propaganda. I believe that many religious organisations have far too much secular power and wealth, that they abuse it, and that they should all, at very least, be rigidly controlled by the state to prevent this. And I believe that our best tools for understanding the universe in which we live are reason and the scientific method.
But facile, unthinking, smug, sneering contempt for all religion in general, of which the above comment is as pure an example as I could wish for, makes me spiteful. And anyone who wants to argue that it should not, because of creationism or anti-abortion campaigns or paedophile priests, is invited to consider the manifold resonances of the old and utterly irreligious saying about two wrongs and a right.
Religion is a manifestation of humanity reaching out to the universe. Deny the impulse that gave rise to religion and you are denying the impulse that gave rise to science. If fear of the dark gave us gods, it also gave us the electric light. If a dislike of heavy lifting inspired priests, it also inspired the inventor of the wheel. I think it was more than that. And I don't believe anyone has any right to declare that something is no longer needed because they don't see or understand the need for it. Indeed, I'd go with Chesterton and say that only when they truly understand the need for it (as the commenter above clearly does not) will they be qualified to say that it is no longer needed.
Science has not eradicated the need for religion, because it does not address it. Science cannot take the place of religion, because it will not fit it. Science has nothing to say about religion, and vice versa.
What I have to say about religion is that I have many religious friends and many secular friends, and as to intelligence, freedom of thought, perception, courage and honesty I find nothing to choose between them, and I will not tolerate anyone implying otherwise.
I'm disabling comments on this, because I don't want to argue about it. It's not negotiable.
So said
lewis_p_bear, in a comment to the previous post. I didn't think anyone had escaped my views on religion, but clearly my subtle hints on the subject have been too obscure, so here goes.I don't believe in any god. I don't regard any scripture as holy, or inerrant, and in fact believe that all holy scriptures contain large admixtures of myth, fiction and propaganda. I believe that many religious organisations have far too much secular power and wealth, that they abuse it, and that they should all, at very least, be rigidly controlled by the state to prevent this. And I believe that our best tools for understanding the universe in which we live are reason and the scientific method.
But facile, unthinking, smug, sneering contempt for all religion in general, of which the above comment is as pure an example as I could wish for, makes me spiteful. And anyone who wants to argue that it should not, because of creationism or anti-abortion campaigns or paedophile priests, is invited to consider the manifold resonances of the old and utterly irreligious saying about two wrongs and a right.
Religion is a manifestation of humanity reaching out to the universe. Deny the impulse that gave rise to religion and you are denying the impulse that gave rise to science. If fear of the dark gave us gods, it also gave us the electric light. If a dislike of heavy lifting inspired priests, it also inspired the inventor of the wheel. I think it was more than that. And I don't believe anyone has any right to declare that something is no longer needed because they don't see or understand the need for it. Indeed, I'd go with Chesterton and say that only when they truly understand the need for it (as the commenter above clearly does not) will they be qualified to say that it is no longer needed.
Science has not eradicated the need for religion, because it does not address it. Science cannot take the place of religion, because it will not fit it. Science has nothing to say about religion, and vice versa.
What I have to say about religion is that I have many religious friends and many secular friends, and as to intelligence, freedom of thought, perception, courage and honesty I find nothing to choose between them, and I will not tolerate anyone implying otherwise.
I'm disabling comments on this, because I don't want to argue about it. It's not negotiable.