Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I used to think getting rid of religion would solve many (if not, most) of humanity's problems. But now I realize most secular people aren't any better than the religious. If anything, secular people don't have the fear of god/hell to keep them in check. For example, it's a heck of a lot easier to rationalize economic exploitation if one doesn't have to worry about a Matthew 25 scenario.
Maybe it's a wash. Religious or not, people are very good at coming up with rationalizations for behaviors that harm others. That's especially true, I believe, if the behaviors achieve money and profit.
I have never imagined that the world would be ALL better without religion, just better. But I have also considered that an impractical thought anyway as in my view humanity as a whole is not ready to move on from religious ideation and it will take literally centuries for that to change.
You are absolutely correct that people find excuses to be crappy to each other even when they don't invoke a god to justify their actions.
I wish the problem was some "sin nature" that could be excised. It is simply human nature, and it is inherent. It can't be removed, it can only be gentled via civil society and unfortunately the church claims to help do this but has a rather checked past in that regard. And we are doing everything we can its seems to destroy what's left of civil society.
I also am skeptical that things such as a "Matthew 25 scenario" really push people to do the right things, even for the wrong reason. I think that carrots and sticks work for a minority of believers but most of them find ways to rationalize or reinterpret the rules to suit themselves ultimately.
I used to think getting rid of religion would solve many (if not, most) of humanity's problems. But now I realize most secular people aren't any better than the religious. If anything, secular people don't have the fear of god/hell to keep them in check. For example, it's a heck of a lot easier to rationalize economic exploitation if one doesn't have to worry about a Matthew 25 scenario.
Maybe it's a wash. Religious or not, people are very good at coming up with rationalizations for behaviors that harm others. That's especially true, I believe, if the behaviors achieve money and profit.
You are right that religious or atheist doesn't distinguish who is good or bad, better or worse. It's the way people act and/or what they do that matters and doing good rather than bad, better rather than worse, will be for different reasons that can't very well be generalized in these ways. I for one am an atheist, but I have no inclinations toward harming others. I have no fears about a "Matthew 25 scenario" but this in no way is why I am inclined to treat people the way I would hope they would treat me.
For me anyway, it's not religion or atheism that should be dropped or kept, and it's not whether religion is better or worse than atheism, secularism, when it comes to promoting the best in us. It's considering all that religion and atheism has to offer in the way of learning and then applying what makes the most sense all considered. For the sake of establishing the truth of these matters and how best to treat one another.
I'm an atheist, so you know where I've landed along these lines so far, and believe me when I explain to you the reason I don't steal, harm or kill other people has nothing to do with fear of a god, hell or any of those kinds of religious notions. People can be good people without being god-fearing people. This is a fact that "god-fearing" people just can't seem to understand or accept!
I'm nearly halfway through it and it seems to be taking no prisoners. It doesn't even like atheism:
I don't agree with this because it has always been possible to reject all gods as either non-existent or irrelevant ... as Epicurus did long before Christianity. Christianity therefore doesn't really define us, though it is the main thing we strive with in the West.
I find myself agreeing with quite a lot in the book though. That humanity as a species is basically hopeless. That the primacy of man over the animal kingdom, and the existence of the self, and of free will, are illusions; idealism, a fool's errand.
I am not entirely sure I agree with his thinking on morality; although he correctly identifies it as rooted in empathy, he seems to regard it as little more than a sop to our conflicted motivations, seeming to prefer that we simply be true to our natures ... if I understand him correctly anyway. I would say no to this. Our natures are not uniformly empathetic or even thinking, so morality to me is a struggle not against "sin" but against our naturally dysfunctional and inattentive defaults.
Finished the book. In terms of flow it sort of degenerates into a collection of small essays in the last half, although content-wise I mostly like it and agree with it. It's definitely clarified my thinking on where we are, or plausibly could go, as a species.
I have felt for some time that humanity pretty systematically deludes itself with an overly high view of itself and its potential for progress. In fact I think one of the more profound insights in the book is at the very end, where he terms progress as a form of time idolatry -- the notion that things are not valuable for what they are, but for what they could be improved to be in the future. So rather than enjoying our rightful place in the natural order and within our own nature, we are always dissatisfied, always striving for something and excusing it as an investment in, depending on your ideology, your future, future generations, or the afterlife.
He also has some interesting ideas about the most self-actualized existence for people. He thinks that agricultural societies are the worst, hunter-gatherers or city-dwellers have the most potential. I don't know about that but this is the sort of book that will stretch your thinking and provoke useful thoughts. Highly recommended.
In case the reader has missed the rest of the reply chain, the book is Straw Dogs by John Gray.
Finished the book. In terms of flow it sort of degenerates into a collection of small essays in the last half, although content-wise I mostly like it and agree with it. It's definitely clarified my thinking on where we are, or plausibly could go, as a species.
I have felt for some time that humanity pretty systematically deludes itself with an overly high view of itself and its potential for progress. In fact I think one of the more profound insights in the book is at the very end, where he terms progress as a form of time idolatry -- the notion that things are not valuable for what they are, but for what they could be improved to be in the future. So rather than enjoying our rightful place in the natural order and within our own nature, we are always dissatisfied, always striving for something and excusing it as an investment in, depending on your ideology, your future, future generations, or the afterlife.
He also has some interesting ideas about the most self-actualized existence for people. He thinks that agricultural societies are the worst, hunter-gatherers or city-dwellers have the most potential. I don't know about that but this is the sort of book that will stretch your thinking and provoke useful thoughts. Highly recommended.
In case the reader has missed the rest of the reply chain, the book is Straw Dogs by John Gray.
Though I am one who can easily recognize what progress we humans have made and can still hope to make, I certainly wouldn't call myself someone who "deludes" himself with an overly high view of our potential for progress. Of course there are the dreamers and the doomsayers and all in between, but humanity more generally speaking? Who can say?
I do know that I am often struck with the feeling I am simply part of a great flow of humanity that has been going on for a long time now. In all different directions. Good and bad, better and worse, and although I do have my opinions about things, mostly I just feel like a spectator. Doing what I can to enjoy the show as much as possible and my roll in it.
To enjoy my "rightful place in the natural order and within our own nature." I am not always dissatisfied, however. Mostly the opposite I'm glad to say. Thanks for reminding me about this book which is on my list of future reading. Though your review has me a little less interested than before.
I used to think getting rid of religion would solve many (if not, most) of humanity's problems. But now I realize most secular people aren't any better than the religious. If anything, secular people don't have the fear of god/hell to keep them in check. For example, it's a heck of a lot easier to rationalize economic exploitation if one doesn't have to worry about a Matthew 25 scenario.
Maybe it's a wash. Religious or not, people are very good at coming up with rationalizations for behaviors that harm others. That's especially true, I believe, if the behaviors achieve money and profit.
Such cynicism about humanity is why I used to be a pro-theist atheist. I'm far too ambivalent about religion to describe myself that way now, but I don't mind some deity-derived deterrence, so to speak
Finished the book. In terms of flow it sort of degenerates into a collection of small essays in the last half, although content-wise I mostly like it and agree with it. It's definitely clarified my thinking on where we are, or plausibly could go, as a species.
I have felt for some time that humanity pretty systematically deludes itself with an overly high view of itself and its potential for progress. In fact I think one of the more profound insights in the book is at the very end, where he terms progress as a form of time idolatry -- the notion that things are not valuable for what they are, but for what they could be improved to be in the future. So rather than enjoying our rightful place in the natural order and within our own nature, we are always dissatisfied, always striving for something and excusing it as an investment in, depending on your ideology, your future, future generations, or the afterlife.
He also has some interesting ideas about the most self-actualized existence for people. He thinks that agricultural societies are the worst, hunter-gatherers or city-dwellers have the most potential. I don't know about that but this is the sort of book that will stretch your thinking and provoke useful thoughts. Highly recommended.
In case the reader has missed the rest of the reply chain, the book is Straw Dogs by John Gray.
Great review; has me texting friends who have Amazon accounts to send a copy to my house so I can give the book a re-read, heh. Got a copy of a Hunter S Thompson book delivered from one such friend the other day (said friend happens to now be living a relatively short distance away from where HST killed himself), but I'm not so interested in his writing as I used to be
It is a mistake to assume that a realistic view of the situation equates to "giving up". More properly it equates to adjusting expectations and assumptions and strategies. Facts aren't pessimistic or optimistic; they just are.
That said, leaving dogma and other aspects of authoritarianism behind is helpful to the individual. It does not change that as a species we will keep returning to them again and again.
I agree. Historically, moving forward has always been an improvement and those who are reactionary (notably the church) eventually get left behind and have to catch up and pretend it was what they were saying all the time.
Of course, there are aspect we have to be rational about. I am concerned with the culture wars which, like racial and gender equality and liberation, has been going on for a long while. Yes, even before the 70's. I have always been in favor and even favour of race and female equality and gender freedom. Though the state that Woke has got itself into and the indication that threat of bad press and cancellation are no longer going to intimidate indicates a desperately-needed pushback. I am not against the basic ideals that are good, even if the leapfrogging virtue-signallers have pretty much turned it into self - destructive lunacy.
That doesn't mean I'm wearing a Maga hat, and even some of those who do are in principle in favor of race and female and even gender equality and rights. So I'm not in despair; I think humans have their moral compass pointed in the right direction and will see the crackpot extremism of either side for what it is. That at least is the hope, and is my hope.
I agree. Historically, moving forward has always been an improvement and those who are reactionary (notably the church) eventually get left behind and have to catch up and pretend it was what they were saying all the time.
Of course, there are aspect we have to be rational about. I am concerned with the culture wars which, like racial and gender equality and liberation, has been going on for a long while. Yes, even before the 70's. I have always been in favor and even favour of race and female equality and gender freedom. Though the state that Woke has got itself into and the indication that threat of bad press and cancellation are no longer going to intimidate indicates a desperately-needed pushback. I am not against the basic ideals that are good, even if the leapfrogging virtue-signallers have pretty much turned it into self - destructive lunacy.
That doesn't mean I'm wearing a Maga hat, and even some of those who do are in principle in favor of race and female and even gender equality and rights. So I'm not in despair; I think humans have their moral compass pointed in the right direction and will see the crackpot extremism of either side for what it is. That at least is the hope, and is my hope.
Here's hoping...
All too often it seems too many people have their head way up their moral compass, but I too have hopes the next generation will do better than the one before. Including better than mine, although that's not asking for too much.
Circling back to the topic of this thread, the title suggests there are religions that shouldn't be ditched. Maybe that's at least part of a problem among many that continues to hold back progress for one generation after another.
All too often it seems too many people have their head way up their moral compass, but I too have hopes the next generation will do better than the one before. Including better than mine, although that's not asking for too much.
Circling back to the topic of this thread, the title suggests there are religions that shouldn't be ditched. Maybe that's at least part of a problem among many that continues to hold back progress for one generation after another.
I think all religions should be ditched...but not all religious principles.
I think all religions should be ditched...but not all religious principles.
Most principles worth retaining don't originate from religion, but that religion happens to use some of those shouldn't inherently taint them in our thinking. I would just tend to step back and take a "more meta" view of a religious principle ... where does it actually originate?
For example the Bible says (at odds with some of its other pronouncements) "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." I think that statement would be far less tribal and therefore far more powerful if "among your people" were removed from it, and "neighbor" were changed to "others"; then it simply becomes a principle not to deploy favoritism, but to love all equally, and that is rooted in empathy, the basis for all moral decisions. It isn't a "religious principle", it is a general human principle that various religions claim to have invented.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
