|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Dawkins on "God" and the Flying Spagetti Monster (1/4/2007 5:13:42 AM)
|
Here's what I think about this after reading this thread, thinking about it, and discussing it with my co-worker.
It doesn't appear that the problem is really with "God" but rather with large organizations and the premise those organizations hold to and thus direct their actions. If every individual worshipped their own god it would have little power to influence others. However, seeing that the power of religion is solely derived from the power of organization. Then it stands to reason that those opposed to religion would be opposed to to any large power bearing organization that don't hold the same objectives. Which just from my memory on the threads, it would appear to be the case.
In the corporations discussion, one isn't opposed to small businesses(those lacking real power), but rather against large businesses which can extert influence.
Religion thread, it seems that people aren't opposed to "god" itself (the concept on individual basis doesn't exert iteself), but rather against the organization of like minded religious people.
If that assertion is true, It doesn't hold up under scrutiny, that a world that replaced religion with a belief in science would be any better. The only thing science is good for as I've seen it is in the hard sciences, such as chemistry, physics, engineering, that don't deal with the human psychology. The soft sciences, which personally I don't view as "real" science at all would be sociology, psychology, etc.... These "sciences" would have to replace that position religion had held for many people, becuase the hard sciences don't apply to psychological/emotional issues. So, a world completely controlled by science wouldn't look very little different. As the unprovable theories of a psychologist would be deemed truth in such an environment. Much the same as religion is deemed truth now.
And one doesn't have to go back far to see that psychology, and the claims of what is or is not mentally "well", has changed quite often, yet each time the practioneers of the practice apply their preferred method as fact. And spread the good news.
In my view, it would replace one unprovable with another unprovable. It would transfer power from one organization to another organization that is mostly based on ever changing theory, but has little in terms of hard "facts".
God didn't make global warming, god didn't make capitalism, god didn't create fascism, god didn't create the military, god didn't create terrorists, god didn't create racism, god has been used as a tool to manipulate for those causes, but so has science. The nazi's used science to rationalize that the races where different species. They used measurement of the skull, as proof, that the races where materially different. It may not be good science but it was science.
The problem with all of these finger pointing exercises is that they tend to forget the one constant involved, since before science, religion, or what we'd recognize as government existed. And that is human behaviour. It is human, to push ones views on others. It is human to dislike others that think you are wrong.
Eliminating religion or even marginalizing it would seem to have little effect on the world in terms of eliminating the power of an organization to make rules and treat theory as fact. Becuase there are little real "facts" when it comes to individual human behaviour, government and laws. You can not prove that one system is "better" than the other, becuase the assumption of what is better will vary from person to person.
Example: Currently the generic "religious" are against gays becuase god says it's a sin.
Until recently psychologists have said that being gay was a mental disorder.
One is an unprovable religion teaching, the other is a supposed science, and both to one degree or another have changed/changing their position.
If one were to examine gay behaviour from a purely hard science position. Then it would undoubtedly be shown that heterosexual behaviour is healthier than gay behavious. Since all the hard sciences can deal with is it's affect on the physical measurable world. It's a Fact, that disease transmission is much greater in unprotected anal sex, as opposed to vaginal. Scientific conclusion: Anal bad. It's a fact that one can not breed in a gay relationship. I saw dawkin's profess in a video that passing on our genetic material was a basic human purpose. Dawkin's conclusion: One of the key points of human existance is to pass on genetics to offspring you can't do that in a purely gay relationship. Science says: Gay Bad.
Law based on pure rational scientific reasoning. Anal sex is against the law. Gay relationships against the law.
There are tons of example where the soft sciences were completely wrong for long periods of time, and my assertion is that these very soft sciences are the ones that would fill the void of religion, because they address the emotions, and group behaviour.
Now someone will say, science changes but religion doesn't and that is the problem. Not true what we call christian today has very little in relation to christians 100-200 years ago. Look at the behaviour of the populace in general, and there is little difference in the behaviour of one group compared to the other. The religious or non-religous, both are experiencing higher divorce rates, higher unwed pregnancies, for the most part listen to the same music. Barring the most extreme radicals, there is almost no differnce, between the change of behaviour of the religious and the non-religous, and the changes that took part in the general society to one degree or another have also become manifest in the church. There is no way in hell there would have been a openly gay priest 100 years ago. Now there are. So, it's not stagnant, the constant part of religion that doesn't affect the general populace for the most part is. A: Belief in God. B: I'm going to heaven for this belief. Everything else is as changeable and mutable as society itself, for the vast huge expanse of people, when one is talking of ideas and views on concepts that affect our day to day lives. Evolution for example, is a useless topic, it really doesn't matter if it exists or not. Either way you view it, there will be no net impact on anything of consequence. A belief or fact without consequence, is irrelevant.
I guess my central question is what are people that want to replace religion going to replace it with. Psychologists, sociologists. Okay, there is more different than the same in the understanding in that field compared to a 100 years ago, and flip flops are still occurring regularly. So, there is little basis for treating it as fact thus far.
If one says I just want the hard sciences to be the objective deciding factor when the issue relates to a hard science. Then that will lead to less freedom in choice, becuase there is only one best way. Like the gay example. It could be applied to food, housing, etc... A society ruled by science is not one with alot of choices, you see...
I don't think that is what people really want. Rationally smoking is bad. Rationally drinking is bad. Rationally drugs are bad. Rationally alot of sexual partners are bad. Rationally inflicting pain and physical damage is bad. Rationally personal choice is bad. Rationally anal sex is bad. Rationally controlled birth rates are good. Rationally Monopolies are good. On and on of what a hard science would conclude based on physically observable measurable observations.
We are not rational. We have the ability to think rationally with applied effort, but it is not a natural state for humans. It seems to me some like "rational" thought when it supports their own wants, but ignore what forcing pure scientific thought on other things would lead to.
But that's human.
IMO
Please forgive typos, or slight leaps of thought, I wrote this one long spill and have to go do some work now.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
