Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on February 12, 2019, 09:47:20 AM
-
Hi everyone,
From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be. I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.
The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology were beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.
As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.
Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be. I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.
The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology was beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.
As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.
Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Goodness knows how you can say equate climate change to people not living a religious life beats me. ::)
-
I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.
-
I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.
This seems to be a false dichotomy.
-
I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.
I still don't see what that has to do with climate change?
-
I am talking about self importance, sense of knowledge & control....as opposed to humility, living in harmony and going with the flow.
Oh yes, because religions always encourage us to live in harmony.
Tell me Sririam how are the Christians doing in India currently?
https://tinyurl.com/ycxfct2r
-
First point is that the problem with Christians is being over stated. There is no such problem except where conversions are concerned. The major problem that we have had n recent months with Christians is that catholic priests seem to be raping nuns. Court cases are going on.
Secondly, I am not talking of social problems between different groups. That is a human problem everywhere. I am talking of humility and living in harmony with nature. Most of the pollution, damage to the eco system and climate change are because we have been playing God for more than a century. We have focused largely on material well being and creature comfort which is precisely when the decline seems to have started.
-
Hi everyone,
From the 'Climate change is upon us' thread we can see how fast the world is changing and how horrible the consequences are going to be. I am sure there is almost nothing we can do to stop the continued warming and extinction of species that we are witnessing.
The point of this thread is to highlight the fact that all these changes have started just when Science & technology were beginning to 'rule' the world and just when we started thinking that we can control our lives and the world. We have managed to mess it up royally.
As long as people were religious and followed traditional lifestyles, the planet was fine. Everything was in harmony. Once humans started thinking that we could understand everything and control everything, we made a sorry mess of it all.
Maybe a religious way of life is more conducive to sensible living.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
I think the problem is more profound than a simple apportionment of blame to the growth of science or to the decline in religion would suggest. The roots of our downfall have been there all along, the science and the tech merely came along and magnified our abilities for both creation and destruction. Human nature evolved in a time when the world was for all intents and purpose, unlimited. The palaeolithic hunter needing food to feed his family would not have considered wider ecological issues. When we turned farmers, we cleared forests without any concern for biodiversity loss, there was always more forest elsewhere anyway. And we can trace global warming back to that time, since the beginning of the Holocene we have been gradually reducing the planet's natural carbon storage mechanism through deforestation. When the Victorians discovered coal it was inevitable that we would exploit it and add to the problem. This is at the heart of human nature, accounting for both our meteoric rise and our soon to be crash and burn, two sides of the same coin, we exploit resources with great ingenuity with a view to medium and short term gain, but we have little instinctive regard for wider considerations. Similarly, if I saw a child of mine being brutalised in Syria, I would be on the next plane out there. However, I see someone else's child suffering in Syria, and I don't go. We evolved a nature that prospered in small knit tribal groups with little regard for the wider picture; we didn't evolve to be global citizens and that is what we are now faced with having to try to become.
-
First point is that the problem with Christians is being over stated. There is no such problem except where conversions are concerned. The major problem that we have had n recent months with Christians is that catholic priests seem to be raping nuns. Court cases are going on.
Secondly, I am not talking of social problems between different groups. That is a human problem everywhere. I am talking of humility and living in harmony with nature. Most of the pollution, damage to the eco system and climate change are because we have been playing God for more than a century. We have focused largely on material well being and creature comfort which is precisely when the decline seems to have started.
So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'
The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.
-
So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'
The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.
I agree.
-
So you would be happy not to have cured smallpox? We've always challenged the environment. That is effectively what we do. Previously it kept us in check but with advances in science, not a change in our attitudes, we raised life expectancy which allowed for a massive rise in overall population. There isn't Science vs religion - it's simply what we are. Attempting to boil it down to this dichotomy is simplistic, and ignores that Science and Religion are not separate. One's a process, the other a collection of worldviews, some of which might be classified as 'living in harmony' (Which is a vague idea which contains an element of begging the question), but many not. You can have a religion and be a scientist. You can have no religion and 'live in harmony'. You can be religious and think you can play God, or think you are 'special'
The main change over the last hundred years is that progress became exponential. This is a complex phenomenon due to an array of factors but it's not because we have changed, nor because our attitudes have changed. We are the same mix that we ever were but there are more of us, and we have bigger toys.
I would agree with that.
But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.
Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied. More of everything. As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'. Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global.
-
I would agree with that.
But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.
Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied. More of everything. As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'. Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global.
Then you aren't agreeing - science and technology don't generate life styles, people do. Science has nothing to do with being egocentric.
Is living in a humble harmonious life dying of smallpox?
It isn't technology and it isn't science. And arguably there are few things more egocentric than thinking the universe was created for you which large swathes of religious though covers.
If you are agreeing with me, then you will agree that your OP was a simplistic and incorrect attempt to see things as a dichotomy between two completely different things.
-
Then you aren't agreeing - science and technology don't generate life styles, people do. Science has nothing to do with being egocentric.
Is living in a humble harmonious life dying of smallpox?
It isn't technology and it isn't science. And arguably there are few things more egocentric than thinking the universe was created for you which large swathes of religious though covers.
If you are agreeing with me, then you will agree that your OP was a simplistic and incorrect attempt to see things as a dichotomy between two completely different things.
No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!
Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes. Human ego and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other. 'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology. It did not develop in a vacuum.
-
No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!
Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes. Human ego and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other. 'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology. It did not develop in a vacuum.
You would obviously prefer humans to be still living in caves! ::)
-
No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!
Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes. Human ego and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other. 'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology. It did not develop in a vacuum.
I'm not hyper at all. No one has said anything about things developing in a vacuum. The idea that science somehow represents human ego and religion represents some undefined idea of living in harmony is at the moment something you have simply asserted. Further you haven't addressed the obvious points that science can be done by religous people , and that not being egocentric can be done by non religious people. Nor have you addressed that science and religion are different categories of things. Nor have you addressed whether living in harmony means not developing the smallpox vaccine.
You need to stop personalising posts and deal with the arguments.
-
No..don't get hyper all of a sudden!!!
Science and technology did not develop in a vacuum. They were developed by egocentric attitudes and they further fed the ego centric attitudes. Human ego and the power of science and tech developed side by side. Each feeding on the other. 'Playing God' was largely due to the power that people thought they had, due to science and technology. It did not develop in a vacuum.
As NS has pointed out, you are raising a false dichotomy between science and religion in order to sustain your hypothesis. The matter is much more complex than that. Religion has certainly had its own part to play in causing the imbalance of nature. In the Abrahamic religions this can clearly be traced back to the text in the first chapter of Genesis:
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
(Genesis 1:28) How many environmental ills have arisen from a literalist interpretation of that text! A great deal of the thrust of American attitudes to the natural world can be traced back to the pressure of the Christian fundamentalism on the voting patterns of the public there.
Hinduism is hardly guiltless in another regard. "Going with the flow" may be all very well, but it has been an excuse for the horrors of the caste system and the belief that people's suffering is the result of their personal karma. Who cares that the Untouchables got smallpox? So long as the Brahmins didn't get it....No doubt matters have changed greatly in some respects, and this has been due in many cases to the developments of science.
I believe Hindu holy men still drink the waters of the Ganges in its most polluted areas, and encourage others to do the same. Do that sort of thing often enough, and you certainly will "go with the flow", when dysentery and cholera prompt you to endless visits to the lavatory.
As regards the Ganges, I believe it is in fact becoming devoid of large fish apart from imported species such as the Tilapia, which can endure a high level of pollution. The pollution does indeed result from the uncontrolled emissions of technology in many cases, but the solution does not lie in demonising science - it requires properly monitored use of the polluting industries - and in using science to build effective sewage treatment plants.
In the meantime, it helps the environmental health nor individual human health not one iota for deference to be given to ignorant sadhus who drink filthy polluted water, and expect the rest of the world to say "How holy!"
-
As NS has pointed out, you are raising a false dichotomy between science and religion in order to sustain your hypothesis. The matter is much more complex than that. Religion has certainly had its own part to play in causing the imbalance of nature. In the Abrahamic religions this can clearly be traced back to the text in the first chapter of Genesis:
(Genesis 1:28) How many environmental ills have arisen from a literalist interpretation of that text! A great deal of the thrust of American attitudes to the natural world can be traced back to the pressure of the Christian fundamentalism on the voting patterns of the public there.
Hinduism is hardly guiltless in another regard. "Going with the flow" may be all very well, but it has been an excuse for the horrors of the caste system and the belief that people's suffering is the result of their personal karma. Who cares that the Untouchables got smallpox? So long as the Brahmins didn't get it....No doubt matters have changed greatly in some respects, and this has been due in many cases to the developments of science.
I believe Hindu holy men still drink the waters of the Ganges in its most polluted areas, and encourage others to do the same. Do that sort of thing often enough, and you certainly will "go with the flow", when dysentery and cholera prompt you to endless visits to the lavatory.
As regards the Ganges, I believe it is in fact becoming devoid of large fish apart from imported species such as the Tilapia, which can endure a high level of pollution. The pollution does indeed result from the uncontrolled emissions of technology in many cases, but the solution does not lie in demonising science - it requires properly monitored use of the polluting industries - and in using science to build effective sewage treatment plants.
In the meantime, it helps the environmental health nor individual human health not one iota for deference to be given to ignorant sadhus who drink filthy polluted water, and expect the rest of the world to say "How holy!"
By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.
Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.
It was the so called enlightenment.
-
I would agree with that.
But my point is about a humble and harmonious lifestyle that religions usually teach as against a ego centric and comfort oriented life style that science and technology generate.
Technology was not an accident. It was created and developed with the intent of greater comfort, prosperity and ease. So, a materialistic intent cannot be denied. More of everything. As someone said...'there is enough for everyone's need but not for everyone's greed'. Gluttony and waste like every civilization at its peak but this time the consequences are global.
When was this alleged humble and harmonious lifestyle? When religions are in charge, it tends to result in the deaths of anybody who disagrees with the people running things.
Before technology most people died before the age of about five, the leading cause of death in women was child birth and you couldn’t drink the water for fear of cholera. The way to fix the problems we have now is not to turn the clock back but to embrace technology because it is the only thing capable of saving us.
-
By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.
Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.
It was the so called enlightenment.
Vlad supports no smallpox vaccine.
-
By far the greatest imbalance was caused by the enlightenment and the economics that followed on from that.
Your laying the blame at the door of abrahamic religion is laughable.
It was the so called enlightenment.
Of course it was, Vlad - no doubt then you would be enthusiastic to turn the clock back?
-
Vlad supports no smallpox vaccine.
I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit I don't.
And as I'm a sportsman I'll let you keep the bets in your mouth for safekeeping.
-
I'll bet you a pound to a piece of shit I don't.
And as I'm a sportsman I'll let you keep the bets in your mouth for safekeeping.
And the same applies to you stating that Dicky placed the blame on the Abrahamic religions. Maybe if you don't want to be misrepresented, you shouldn't misrepresent others.
-
Hi everyone,
1. Most of the ills of today in terms of climate change, plastics, pollution, species extinction etc. are caused almost directly by science and technology. There is no doubt about that at all. There is a direct link between the growth of technology and depletion of resources and damage to the eco system.
2. Science and technology displaced religion by way of disproving many biblical myths, leading to increase in atheistic beliefs. This lead to materialism, comfort mindedness and 'make merry while you can' attitude.
3. Exploiting natural resources was made easier by science & technology. Depleting resources and the nonsensical hope of colonizing other planets lead to space travel and a feeling that 'we can always move out' if the earth became unlivable.
4. If atheism had not become the bedrock of science in the late 19th and 20th centuries, materialism and comfort seeking would not have been as widespread as they became. The sense of power over our environment would not have been the same.
5. Religion and a belief in God and after-life could have provided a greater sense of responsibility in the way sci & tech were used.
6. Medicines and other conveniences have been developed long before modern science (and materialism) came along. So, development is not the issue. Its the irresponsible attitude accompanying the development that makes the difference.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
1. Most of the ills of today in terms of climate change, plastics, pollution, species extinction etc. are caused almost directly by science and technology. There is no doubt about that at all. There is a direct link between the growth of technology and depletion of resources and damage to the eco system.
2. Science and technology displaced religion by way of disproving many biblical myths, leading to increase in atheistic beliefs. This lead to materialism, comfort mindedness and 'make merry while you can' attitude.
3. Exploiting natural resources was made easier by science & technology. Depleting resources and the nonsensical hope of colonizing other planets lead to space travel and a feeling that 'we can always move out' if the earth became unlivable.
4. If atheism had not become the bedrock of science in the late 19th and 20th centuries, materialism and comfort seeking would not have been as widespread as they became. The sense of power over our environment would not have been the same.
5. Religion and a belief in God and after-life could have provided a greater sense of responsibility in the way sci & tech were used.
6. Medicines and other conveniences have been developed long before modern science (and materialism) came along. So, development is not the issue. Its the irresponsible attitude accompanying the development that makes the difference.
Cheers.
Sriram
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? You require a scientific approach to develop medicines.
-
It is of course not science itself which has led to pollution etc but the application of science. Human nature, regardless of religious beliefs, has led to exploitation of natural resources and the pursuit of profit. In the Industrial Revolution this was being carried out by men who held religious beliefs on the whole not atheists. Early scientists were on the whole religious people. Your idea that religious beliefs bring some sort of harmony with nature seems fanciful to me. Our problems have arisen due to a lack of understanding of the effects of industrialisation. I don't think people had this 'make merry while you can' approach as this suggests people knew of the consequences but ignored them. People saw science and industry as a way of improving people's lives and building a better society, with individuals of course looking to make themselves rich but many, as I say, held religious beliefs. The consequences are only now being understood.
-
Ehhhhhhhhhhhh? You require a scientific approach to develop medicines.
Indeed. Sriram is really, in my view, talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism rather than the scientific method. To suggest these come from the rise of atheism seems wrong to me.
-
Indeed. Sriram is really, in my view, talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism rather than the scientific method. To suggest these come from the rise of atheism seems wrong to me.
He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.
-
He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.
Yes I know. But as I said, in my view, he is really talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism.
-
Yes I know. But as I said, in my view, he is really talking about industrialisation, commercialisation, globalisation and presumably capitalism.
In which case he should explain himself more clearly.
-
In which case he should explain himself more clearly.
He thinks he is talking about science. I don't think he is. Think that's fairly clear.
-
It is of course not science itself which has led to pollution etc but the application of science. Human nature, regardless of religious beliefs, has led to exploitation of natural resources and the pursuit of profit. In the Industrial Revolution this was being carried out by men who held religious beliefs on the whole not atheists. Early scientists were on the whole religious people. Your idea that religious beliefs bring some sort of harmony with nature seems fanciful to me. Our problems have arisen due to a lack of understanding of the effects of industrialisation. I don't think people had this 'make merry while you can' approach as this suggests people knew of the consequences but ignored them. People saw science and industry as a way of improving people's lives and building a better society, with individuals of course looking to make themselves rich but many, as I say, held religious beliefs. The consequences are only now being understood.
Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.
One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change
The UCL researchers found that the European colonization of the Americas indirectly contributed to this colder period by causing the deaths of about 56 million people by 1600. The study attributes the deaths to factors including introduced disease, such as smallpox and measles, as well as warfare and societal collapse.
Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.
-
...
Before technology most people died before the age of about five, the leading cause of death in women was child birth and you couldn’t drink the water for fear of cholera. The way to fix the problems we have now is not to turn the clock back but to embrace technology because it is the only thing capable of saving us.
No, not technology, but more intelligence.
-
Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.
One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change
Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.
That's interesting. There are so many consequences of how we live that we are unaware of until too late.
-
He thinks he is talking about science. I don't think he is. Think that's fairly clear.
If you say so.
-
If you say so.
I do.
-
I do.
You might be correct, but you are making an assumption as to what Sriram is actually thinking.
-
Good points Maeght, however it is not only technology and industrialization, but agriculture too, because of the deforestation.
One recent study suggests that the sudden cooling in the 17th century was at least partially caused by reforestation in the Americas due to deaths caused by European colonization:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/31/european-colonization-of-americas-helped-cause-climate-change
Humans, like all animals, affect the environment just by living, but we can take some of the effects into account and do things in ways that help maintain a good balance.
What's happened since the Industrial Revolution is simply a matter of scale. Further given the sheer scale and speed of technological advance, combined with the increase in population in many ways supported by that, it's hard to know what the idea of balance is. Given that the tragedy of the commons seems a default setting, managing that balance across 7 billion people and counting is not something that we are necessarily good at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
-
What's happened since the Industrial Revolution is simply a matter of scale. Further given the sheer scale and speed of technological advance, combined with the increase in population in many ways supported by that, it's hard to know what the idea of balance is. Given that the tragedy of the commons seems a default setting, managing that balance across 7 billion people and counting is not something that we are necessarily good at.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Yes, clearly we are rubbish at it - despite having a wiki page on the problem!
All things pass, it's just a question of how much misery is involved.
-
Yes, clearly we are rubbish at it - despite having a wiki page on the problem!
All things pass, it's just a question of how much misery is involved.
If climate change is as bad as they say it is, and nothing is done to mitigate it, the problem isn't going to pass, but will wreck the planet and destroy much of the life on it.
-
If climate change is as bad as they say it is, and nothing is done to mitigate it, the problem isn't going to pass, but will wreck the planet and destroy much of the life on it.
So, all will have been resolved with noone left to worry about it.
-
So, all will have been resolved with noone left to worry about it.
and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/)
-
and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/)
Well, when interstellar astronauts finally get here and look into what happened, there is a good chance the chickens will get the blame :)
-
and if the projections for the decline in insects bear out, there's not so much point in worrying about climate change as we'll all be dead from starvation anyway by EOC. All that will be left will be the chicken bones
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2187838-when-humans-are-wiped-from-earth-the-chicken-bones-will-remain/)
As an aside this trigger's the memory for me of the Light's Out story by Arch Oboler - The Chicken Heart That Ate the World, which is about the perils of unintended consequences of scientific experiment. Details are in the link below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_Out_(radio_show)
-
Hi everyone,
I am not for a moment suggesting that everything is wrong with Sci & Tech. Of course not! There are lots of benefits that we have derived from them. Sci & Tech are not anything by themselves. It is obviously about how humans use them. But there is clearly something wrong not just in the way we are going about it but also in our basic assumptions and vision.
The 'wonder material' that we invented...plastic...is today the bane of our existence. Pesticides...are destroying insects....and by extension....the whole planet. Antibiotics...the wonder drugs... are creating super bugs. Radiation from cell phones, satellite TV and other communication networks are probably destroying our health......and much more.
Many of the things that we touted as 'wonder' stuff...are now proving to be disastrous. The life style that many people have adopted is wasteful and almost hedonistic. The problem is with our vision and intent. We are too microscopic and myopic in our thinking.
-
Hi everyone,
I am not for a moment suggesting that everything is wrong with Sci & Tech. Of course not! There are lots of benefits that we have derived from them. Sci & Tech are not anything by themselves. It is obviously about how humans use them. But there is clearly something wrong not just in the way we are going about it but also in our basic assumptions and vision.
The 'wonder material' that we invented...plastic...is today the bane of our existence. Pesticides...are destroying insects....and by extension....the whole planet. Antibiotics...the wonder drugs... are creating super bugs. Radiation from cell phones, satellite TV and other communication networks are probably destroying our health......and much more.
Many of the things that we touted as 'wonder' stuff...are now proving to be disastrous. The life style that many people have adopted is wasteful and almost hedonistic. The problem is with our vision and intent. We are too microscopic and myopic in our thinking.
Which has nothing to do with science, or indeed religion. We don't have perfect knowledge of outcomes - that's all the above shows. That's a truism.
-
You might be correct, but you are making an assumption as to what Sriram is actually thinking.
LR, I'm not sure what your problem with what I posted is, or why you felt the need to post what you did. If you look back I think it is quite clear. I'm sure you'll want to have the last word in this conversation so feel free but this will be my last comment relating to my initial post.
-
He keeps banging on about science and technology being responsible.
So?
He's been wrong before. He's wrong now. He'll be wrong again.
-
No, not technology, but more intelligence.
Nope. Intelligence is not going to save us unless it results in new technology. For example, intelligence by itself is not going to save the problem of disposing of plastics. How do you propose to solve that issue without new technology?
-
I think the problem is more profound than a simple apportionment of blame to the growth of science or to the decline in religion would suggest. The roots of our downfall have been there all along, the science and the tech merely came along and magnified our abilities for both creation and destruction. Human nature evolved in a time when the world was for all intents and purpose, unlimited. The palaeolithic hunter needing food to feed his family would not have considered wider ecological issues. When we turned farmers, we cleared forests without any concern for biodiversity loss, there was always more forest elsewhere anyway. And we can trace global warming back to that time, since the beginning of the Holocene we have been gradually reducing the planet's natural carbon storage mechanism through deforestation. When the Victorians discovered coal it was inevitable that we would exploit it and add to the problem. This is at the heart of human nature, accounting for both our meteoric rise and our soon to be crash and burn, two sides of the same coin, we exploit resources with great ingenuity with a view to medium and short term gain, but we have little instinctive regard for wider considerations. Similarly, if I saw a child of mine being brutalised in Syria, I would be on the next plane out there. However, I see someone else's child suffering in Syria, and I don't go. We evolved a nature that prospered in small knit tribal groups with little regard for the wider picture; we didn't evolve to be global citizens and that is what we are now faced with having to try to become.
1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things.
2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.
3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.
4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!!
5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility. These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.
-
1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things.
2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.
3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.
4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!!
5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility. These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.
Whilst scientific discoveries have not always been beneficial to the planet and humankind, many have. As for religion, that has caused many problems over the centuries and still does.
-
Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility
No it doesn't, at least not fully across the spectrum of religion.
Don't tell me that you haven't noticed the ostentatious wealth of the new American churches which practice the very things you decry " a mindset of power and greed".
Or indeed have you looked closely at the self control and responsibility ::) practiced by the RC church.
There are so many examples of charlatans in religion that your claim of religion teaching such things as self control etc is laughable.
-
1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things.
2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.
3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.
4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!!
5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility. These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.
I don't think your views that religion leads to self control and responsibility whereas science imposes a mind set of power and greed stand up to scrutiny at all. This seems to me to be a simplistic idealised view which takes no account of human nature nor of the actual history of those involved in the early days of industrialisation and scientific endeavour.
-
2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.
Your evidence for this assertion? I'd say there is nothing more mind-expanding that tacking the fundamentals of physics and cosmology. Also, science has shown us the Earth from space and emphasised how small and fragile our environment is.
4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed...
How on earth do you think this gets imposed?
3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.
...
5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility. These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.
Neatly glossing over the persecution, prejudice, brutality, cruelty, conflict, wars, and deaths perpetrated in the name of various gods (cue a no true Scotsman fallacy). ::)
Science is a neutral tool that we can use or misuse. Religion, on the other hand, encourages irrational, baseless beliefs and a disregard for objective facts and evidence. Notice that climate change denial is prevalent amongst the religious right in the USA, for example.
-
1. Science and technology are directly implicated in much of the earth's and human problems. I have already highlighted things like plastics, pesticides, radiation, even certain medicines....and many other things.
2. Besides these products, there is the mindset that science & tech impose on people. A microscopic and zoom-in mindset that by its very nature is shortsighted and incapable of seeing the big picture.
3. On the other hand religion & philosophy impose a wider zoom-out perspective which by its very nature takes a holistic view of things. This broader view generates wisdom and foresight.
4. Science & tech also impose a mindset of power and greed. The impression that we can do anything we want and find a way out of any tricky situation. As I have mentioned earlier, colonizing other planets and getting away from a ruined earth, was one such dream. Hawking actually wrote that we should try to colonize other planets within the next 100 years!!
5. Religion on the other hand teaches self control and responsibility. These mindsets do matter enormously on the way we think and live.
Full of lazy generalisations and false equivalences. Not one of your best posts.
-
No it doesn't, at least not fully across the spectrum of religion.
Don't tell me that you haven't noticed the ostentatious wealth of the new American churches which practice the very things you decry " a mindset of power and greed".
Or indeed have you looked closely at the self control and responsibility ::) practiced by the RC church.
There are so many examples of charlatans in religion that your claim of religion teaching such things as self control etc is laughable.
Like many of those TV evangelists who take the gullible for a ride. >:(
-
Whilst scientific discoveries have not always been beneficial to the planet and humankind, many have. As for religion, that has caused many problems over the centuries and still does.
You are talking about few wars and some fanatics flying planes into buildings. Yes. There are some negatives of religions.
Compare this to the million of tons of plastics in the oceans, insects getting eradicated, species becoming extinct, radiation everywhere, humans facing large scale catastrophes......... And after all this, the moronic suggestion of running away to another planet (made even by eminent scientists)! As arrogant and irresponsible as it can get.
The problems with religions seem tame by comparison.
-
You are talking about few wars and some fanatics flying planes into buildings. Yes. There are some negatives of religions.
Compare this to the million of tons of plastics in the oceans, insects getting eradicated, species becoming extinct, radiation everywhere, humans facing large scale catastrophes......... And after all this, the moronic suggestion of running away to another planet (made even by eminent scientists)! As arrogant and irresponsible as it can get.
The problems with religions seem tame by comparison.
Really? Ever heard of ISIS, who are a major problem in this day and age?
-
You are talking about few wars and some fanatics flying planes into buildings. Yes. There are some negatives of religions.
Compare this to the million of tons of plastics in the oceans, insects getting eradicated, species becoming extinct, radiation everywhere, humans facing large scale catastrophes......... And after all this, the moronic suggestion of running away to another planet (made even by eminent scientists)! As arrogant and irresponsible as it can get.
The problems with religions seem tame by comparison.
Questions:
Do you think being religious encourages people to use less plastic?
Do you think listening to emknent scientists, ecologists encourages people to use less plastic?
To me you seem to be making category errors in your analysis.
-
How are problems with plastics caused by science? That doesn't make sense. It's human beings that decided to produce tons of it, and discard it carelessly. But that carelessness isn't driven by science. As somebody said, science is neutral. Lazy thinking.
-
How are problems with plastics caused by science? That doesn't make sense. It's human beings that decided to produce tons of it, and discard it carelessly. But that carelessness isn't driven by science. As somebody said, science is neutral. Lazy thinking.
Everything is done by humans. Even religious matters.
-
Everything is done by humans. Even religious matters.
Which undermines your idea that science and religion cause different approaches. They are just things we do.
-
Nope. Intelligence is not going to save us unless it results in new technology. For example, intelligence by itself is not going to save the problem of disposing of plastics. How do you propose to solve that issue without new technology?
We already know how to stop producing non-degradable or non-recyclable plastics, and have technolgy that allows for the collection, safe disposal and or recycling of the plastics already used or in use. So what is causing the problem?
-
We already know how to stop producing non-degradable or non-recyclable plastics, and have technolgy that allows for the collection, safe disposal and or recycling of the plastics already used or in use. So what is causing the problem?
Surely, if we take that to be the case, it's the lack of will to do so?
-
Surely, if we take that to be the case, it's the lack of will to do so?
It's certainly causing a problem here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46518747
-
And the same applies to you stating that Dicky placed the blame on the Abrahamic religions. Maybe if you don't want to be misrepresented, you shouldn't misrepresent others.
Thanks for pointing that out.
-
It's certainly causing a problem here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-46518747
oh never mind .. we must embrace technology and hold on - they will all be fine once science finds a cure for cancer...
-
oh never mind .. we must embrace technology and hold on - they will all be fine once science finds a cure for cancer...
If only we knew somewhere to start from that might make an immediate impact in stopping humanity's rush towards disaster. I sometimes think that worthily recycling rubbish and using one's own shopping bags multiple times is hardly causing any significant improvement at all.
Ah well - it's better to light one small candle than curse the dark - as they say....
-
Hi everyone,
There is no doubt that religions have done lots of good over the centuries. It is because of religions that we humans have become civilized, compassionate, disciplined and have developed a feeling of universal kinship.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
Of course there are some who go the other way. That is true of every group. But as far as the general population is concerned, religions have only helped in integration within their groups, kinship, control, love and compassion.
As far as sci & tech are concerned while there are many good things that have come out of them, the enormous damage to the planet is almost entirely due to their development and the false hope they give of repair and of alternative habitat.
It no use saying that humans do all this. Of course it is humans who do all this! No one denied that. Things don't happen by themselves in religion either.
But religions teach patience, compassion, sacrifice, respect, responsible living and contentment. The general religious population world over, follow that.
Sci & tech (and the atheism that they have spawned) on the other hand encourage ego centricism, materialism, even hedonism and a sense of power and control over the planet that has lead to such catastrophic consequences.
It cannot be denied that as Sci & tech grew in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the damage to the planet started.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
I think you've got a very rosy view of religions in general. How do you reconcile universal kinship with the clash of civilisations manifested by Islam and Christianity? This shows that religions tend to follow tribal impulses, they create strong bonds within group but divisions between groups. Religious beliefs are a barrier to universal kinship, something we now need to overcome as we need to see ourselves as global citizens, human beings, rather than just christians or muslims or Indians or Chelsea supporters.
-
It cannot be denied that as Sci & tech grew in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the damage to the planet started.
Yes, it can be denied. The 'damage', disruption might be a better word, started way back. We could make a case for the agricultural revolution and the subsequent deforestation as the start point; but then you could go even further back, to the palaeolithic, when we learned to make sharp stone tools such as the Clovis point, which enabled early humans to completely wipe out some of the Stone Age megafauna.
-
There is no doubt that religions have done lots of good over the centuries. It is because of religions that we humans have become civilized, compassionate, disciplined and have developed a feeling of universal kinship.
Would you say that has worked well in places like, say, Belfast?
But religions teach patience, compassion, sacrifice, respect, responsible living and contentment. The general religious population world over, follow that.
Yet history is littered with religious conflicts, often between subsets of the same religion.
-
Hi everyone,
There is no doubt that religions have done lots of good over the centuries. It is because of religions that we humans have become civilized, compassionate, disciplined and have developed a feeling of universal kinship.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
Of course there are some who go the other way. That is true of every group. But as far as the general population is concerned, religions have only helped in integration within their groups, kinship, control, love and compassion.
As far as sci & tech are concerned while there are many good things that have come out of them, the enormous damage to the planet is almost entirely due to their development and the false hope they give of repair and of alternative habitat.
It no use saying that humans do all this. Of course it is humans who do all this! No one denied that. Things don't happen by themselves in religion either.
But religions teach patience, compassion, sacrifice, respect, responsible living and contentment. The general religious population world over, follow that.
Sci & tech (and the atheism that they have spawned) on the other hand encourage ego centricism, materialism, even hedonism and a sense of power and control over the planet that has lead to such catastrophic consequences.
It cannot be denied that as Sci & tech grew in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the damage to the planet started.
Cheers.
Sriram
That's just repeating your thesis without addressing any of the counter comments. As has been said, you have a rosy view of religions and seem to be ignoring the history of industrialisation and early science which involved people with religious beliefs. All around the world religious people are acting in a way which is damaging the planet. Scientists are looking to deal with the problems, some of whom have no religion. Your thesis doesn't stack up to me.
Re the link, I asked once before if doing this is just a way of saving you from retyping your views, or whether you think it somehow gives your views more authority. You didn't answer. Could you now?
-
Hi everyone,
There is no doubt that religions have done lots of good over the centuries. It is because of religions that we humans have become civilized, compassionate, disciplined and have developed a feeling of universal kinship.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/religions-have-suceeded/
Of course there are some who go the other way. That is true of every group. But as far as the general population is concerned, religions have only helped in integration within their groups, kinship, control, love and compassion.
As far as sci & tech are concerned while there are many good things that have come out of them, the enormous damage to the planet is almost entirely due to their development and the false hope they give of repair and of alternative habitat.
It no use saying that humans do all this. Of course it is humans who do all this! No one denied that. Things don't happen by themselves in religion either.
But religions teach patience, compassion, sacrifice, respect, responsible living and contentment. The general religious population world over, follow that.
Sci & tech (and the atheism that they have spawned) on the other hand encourage ego centricism, materialism, even hedonism and a sense of power and control over the planet that has lead to such catastrophic consequences.
It cannot be denied that as Sci & tech grew in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the damage to the planet started.
Cheers.
Sriram
You live in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that to be true.
-
I think somebody pointed out that deforesting started a long time ago, and of course, carries on. According to the OP, this is down to the invention of axes, and not human rapacity. Upside down thinking.
-
I think you've got a very rosy view of religions in general. How do you reconcile universal kinship with the clash of civilisations manifested by Islam and Christianity? This shows that religions tend to follow tribal impulses, they create strong bonds within group but divisions between groups. Religious beliefs are a barrier to universal kinship, something we now need to overcome as we need to see ourselves as global citizens, human beings, rather than just christians or muslims or Indians or Chelsea supporters.
Unfortunately that has become true. What often has started as a simple teaching, has attracted those who have seen it as a way to exercise power over others and collective self centeredness has developed as a result. This invites conflict with those of a different persuasion. There have been attempts in the past to try to establish what is common to all established religions and focus on what might unify them rather than divide them but with little apparent success. I think 'Perennial Philosophy' was one such attempt, which might appeal to some individuals but is no match for an established emotional mass mind. The Chelsea and Millwall supporters of the religious status quo are unlikely to transform. It is probably the same driving force which allows a human being to use scientific method to develop Novichok, mustard gas, nuclear weapons etc. It is human nature which needs to transform on a mass scale but I don't see this happening with the world population expanding as rapidly as it is. Even when the world population was smaller in the days of Lao Tse, his verse in the Tao Te Ching probably fell on deaf ears.....
In a small country with few people
Even though mechanisation abounds,
The people do not need it.
Let them live as if death is imminent.
Though transportation be available they would not travel;
Though weaponry existed, it would not be used;
Simple communication would replace writing;
Food would be satisfying;
Clothing and accommodation would be comfortable.
They would be happy with their way of living.
Though they live within view and earshot of neighbouring countries,
They would not be tempted to travel there throughout their lives.
-
I think you've got a very rosy view of religions in general. How do you reconcile universal kinship with the clash of civilisations manifested by Islam and Christianity? This shows that religions tend to follow tribal impulses, they create strong bonds within group but divisions between groups. Religious beliefs are a barrier to universal kinship, something we now need to overcome as we need to see ourselves as global citizens, human beings, rather than just christians or muslims or Indians or Chelsea supporters.
Compared to the number of religions and segregated communities in the past, there are now just four major religions for 5 billion people across continents! If that is not integration...what is it?
In India itself there were probably dozens of religions in the past. Today they all are under one common Hinduism.
-
Compared to the number of religions and segregated communities in the past, there are now just four major religions for 5 billion people across continents! If that is not integration...what is it?
In India itself there were probably dozens of religions in the past. Today they all are under one common Hinduism.
That seems like over-simplification: for instance, both Islam and Christianity has been riven with factionalism for centuries, and from this much conflict has occurred and remains an issue.
-
Compared to the number of religions and segregated communities in the past, there are now just four major religions for 5 billion people across continents! If that is not integration...what is it?
In India itself there were probably dozens of religions in the past. Today they all are under one common Hinduism.
To a degree that might be true of Hinduism, being naturally polytheistic. Not so true of many other religions though, where whatever interfaith progress has been made has been largely due to people's basic humanity shining through despite their religion, not because of it.
-
Part of the problem here is that the whole idea is based on the reification of science and religion. They aren't separate things, they don't lead behaviour. To be fair it's a fairly widespread on the board to treat religion as a thing, and give it credit or blame dependent on your viewpoint. It's as ever to me just a manifestation of what we are, and were you given a magic wand to remove it, you would be removing so much of what we are that you would have no idea of the consequences.
-
Very odd to use India as an example. It is amongst the topmost, if not the worst, country for pollution, has had regular outbreaks of communal violence, let alone the million people killed over religious identity during partition, and most people are religiously obsessed.
Rather than the content utopia suggested by Lao Tse (thanks ekim) in many ways India is the most capitalist of all countries and the least community minded. The well off have grand houses and care nothing for anyone outside their walls or living in the streets.
-
To a degree that might be true of Hinduism, being naturally polytheistic. Not so true of many other religions though, where whatever interfaith progress has been made has been largely due to people's basic humanity shining through despite their religion, not because of it.
Two billion people identify as Christians. This is across continents, race, language, economic status, gender, age and all other differences. Similarly Islam has 1.5 billion. Hindus 1 billion and Buddhists 400 million. No nationality or other political or economic grouping can claim a similar kinship or integration.
Maybe there are minor differences within these groups but that is what humans are like. Even a small country like UK has its divisions and differences within themselves. Even a tiny island like Ireland has its division.
Just imagine millennia ago how many different tribal groups with geographic, racial, linguistic and economic differences would have existed in Asia, Africa, Europe etc. It is religion that has brought most of them together under just a few groupings.
Such a phenomenon is unthinkable without religion.
Also, most of the values of humanism, compassion, universal brotherhood, equality, sharing that we today believe in has been possible only because of religious teachings over the centuries.
This is besides the hundreds of charitable institutions, hospitals, education institutions and so on, that have been run by religious groups.
Religion has been the single most civilizing and integrating force on this planet all these centuries. There is no doubt about that at all.
-
Well, there's nothing like an unsubstantiated assertion to get the morning off with a bang!
-
Maybe there are minor differences within these groups...
You call killing each other "minor differences", do you?
Such a phenomenon is unthinkable without religion.
Also, most of the values of humanism, compassion, universal brotherhood, equality, sharing that we today believe in has been possible only because of religious teachings over the centuries.
...
Religion has been the single most civilizing and integrating force on this planet all these centuries. There is no doubt about that at all.
And your evidence for these sweeping assertions is.... missing.
-
Religion isn't a force. Stop reifying.
-
Minor differences! Centuries of religious wars in Europe, oh well, nothing too bad. The 30 Years War killed about a third of German population, still look on the bright side, err, well, err.
-
Two billion people identify as Christians. This is across continents, race, language, economic status, gender, age and all other differences. Similarly Islam has 1.5 billion. Hindus 1 billion and Buddhists 400 million. No nationality or other political or economic grouping can claim a similar kinship or integration.
Maybe there are minor differences within these groups but that is what humans are like. Even a small country like UK has its divisions and differences within themselves. Even a tiny island like Ireland has its division.
Just imagine millennia ago how many different tribal groups with geographic, racial, linguistic and economic differences would have existed in Asia, Africa, Europe etc. It is religion that has brought most of them together under just a few groupings.
Such a phenomenon is unthinkable without religion.
Also, most of the values of humanism, compassion, universal brotherhood, equality, sharing that we today believe in has been possible only because of religious teachings over the centuries.
This is besides the hundreds of charitable institutions, hospitals, education institutions and so on, that have been run by religious groups.
[b]Religion has been the single most civilizing and integrating force on this planet all these centuries. There is no doubt about that at all.
[/b][/u]
There is plenty of doubt about that statement of yours. ::)
-
Two recent examples of disintegration relating to religious persuasion and its opposition:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47249133
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps
-
Two recent examples of disintegration relating to religious persuasion and its opposition:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-47249133
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps
Some incidents of Islamic terrorism are hardly representative of religions everywhere. I don't know what your second link is meant to say.
Secondly, the long term effects of religions have been very positive as I have pointed out above. Without religions we would not be the civilized and integrated society that we are today.
As I have said in my article, hopefully there will be further integration and unification so that in course of time, there are just two or maybe just one religion for almost all of humanity.
-
Some incidents of Islamic terrorism are hardly representative of religions everywhere. I don't know what your second link is meant to say.
Secondly, the long term effects of religions have been very positive as I have pointed out above. Without religions we would not be the civilized and integrated society that we are today.
As I have said in my article, hopefully there will be further integration and unification so that in course of time, there are just two or maybe just one religion for almost all of humanity.
Stop reifying.
-
Some incidents of Islamic terrorism are hardly representative of religions everywhere. I don't know what your second link is meant to say.
Secondly, the long term effects of religions have been very positive as I have pointed out above. Without religions we would not be the civilized and integrated society that we are today.
As I have said in my article, hopefully there will be further integration and unification so that in course of time, there are just two or maybe just one religion for almost all of humanity.
Anything against your 'thesis' can be ignored because it's against your thesis.
-
Secondly, the long term effects of religions have been very positive as I have pointed out above. Without religions we would not be the civilized and integrated society that we are today.
How do you know? How have you measured this "very positive"? How much positivity balances out all the wars, death and persecution? How do you know we wouldn't be just as, or more, civilized and integrated without religion?
You seem to be making increasingly absurd claims and being increasingly closed-minded and dogmatic about them.
-
How do you know? How have you measured this "very positive"? How much positivity balances out all the wars, death and persecution? How do you know we wouldn't be just as, or more, civilized and integrated without religion?
Er, spectacular drop in religion at a time of increased racism, nationalism, economic suicidalism........perhaps.
One wonders what non religion could bring to the party apart from generating idle hands, minds and souls ready for the devil to make work for.
-
As I have said in my article, hopefully there will be further integration and unification so that in course of time, there are just two or maybe just one religion for almost all of humanity.
I doubt that would ever happen. People are diverse, groups split and regroup. In the early Christian church, there was (more or less) just, The Church. Now there are thousands of denominations with varying beliefs and practices
-
Some incidents of Islamic terrorism are hardly representative of religions everywhere. I don't know what your second link is meant to say.
Secondly, the long term effects of religions have been very positive as I have pointed out above. Without religions we would not be the civilized and integrated society that we are today.
As I have said in my article, hopefully there will be further integration and unification so that in course of time, there are just two or maybe just one religion for almost all of humanity.
The links were intended to illustrate persuasion/indoctrination at work. Those who hope to wield power will use methods, usually repetitive, sometimes punitive, to subdue populations and create a subliminal integration, what is sometimes called mass mind. The disintegrating effect arises when it is in conflict with a mass mind of a different persuasion as in the link relating to India and Pakistan and causes separative action rather than unitive and comments like this: "Federal Minister Arun Jaitley said India would take "all possible diplomatic steps" to cut Pakistan off from the international community." In the case of the second link, the conflict is between the Chinese communistic political indoctrination and that of the Muslim Uighurs living in China. According to the article, it seems that the Chinese way to resolve the problem, so that there is no disintegration, is to 're-educate' them in special internment camps. The Chinese version of what you say might be 'Without communism we would not be the civilised and integrated society that we are today.' I'm not as optimistic as you. Once groups of people emotionally identify with -isms and -anities then conflict is not far away, in my opinion. However, I could be wrong.
-
I doubt that would ever happen. People are diverse, groups split and regroup. In the early Christian church, there was (more or less) just, The Church. Now there are thousands of denominations with varying beliefs and practices
You see only the differences...typical of the Zoom-In mind. Try to see the similarities...and you will see it! It is a perception (programming) problem.
Hundreds of religions across the world are today just four. That is a very good indication of integration. Not that differences will never exist.
There is a good chance that these religions will further unify to form just two (Faith and Dharmic religions). Maybe in course of time even just one religion with one common philosophy of life. I am convinced that it will happen sometime.
But for that to happen, the microscopic mental make up and influence of science has to ease.
-
Hi everyone,
Looking at only the wars and terrorism is too myopic. Only a few hundred or thousand people are involved in these. There are billions of people who are pious, compassionate and devout because of whom the world is today civilized and stable.
Most of you are having a meme problem. Your fondly held beliefs are being challenged and you just don't want to let go.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
You see only the differences...typical of the Zoom-In mind. Try to see the similarities...and you will see it! It is a perception (programming) problem.
Hundreds of religions across the world are today just four. That is a very good indication of integration. Not that differences will never exist.
There is a good chance that these religions will further unify to form just two (Faith and Dharmic religions). Maybe in course of time even just one religion with one common philosophy of life. I am convinced that it will happen sometime.
But for that to happen, the microscopic mental make up and influence of science has to ease.
Firstly, I think you are just choosing to ignore the point about diversity, perhaps because it doesn't fit with your preferred narrative. There'll never be a one-size-fits-all religion because humans will always differ to a degree; what suits me will not suit my neighbour.
Secondly, I don't think we can simply ascribe the extent to which we are more civilised and kind and thoughtful now than in previous generations to the influence of religions either; as Sane points out, religion is not an influence that operates on us, it is something we choose to do and furthermore I don't see how we could disentangle multiple other factors such as increasing prosperity, health, longevity, education from the calculation. I don't think fundamental human nature will have changed over the course of ten thousand years; what has changed is the cultures that humans find themselves living in. Culture accumulates, knowledge accumulates, and as a result, humans in the modern era can afford to be more generous and kind and we benefit from better understanding.
Thirdly, I don't see how the 'influence of science can ease'. Science brings us better knowledge, and I can see no point in blindfolding ourselves so that we cannot see what science reveals. That's a nonsense attitude to life.
Fourthly, your vision of a humanity united in a common religion will never come to pass, quite frankly, because human civilisation looks set to be on a disaster course and I see few signs that we can avert it. What survives into future centuries is hard to predict but it's unlikely to be consistent with some simplistic notion of an arc of improving human civilisedness over time.
-
Firstly, I think you are just choosing to ignore the point about diversity, perhaps because it doesn't fit with your preferred narrative. There'll never be a one-size-fits-all religion because humans will always differ to a degree; what suits me will not suit my neighbour.
Secondly, I don't think we can simply ascribe the extent to which we are more civilised and kind and thoughtful now than in previous generations to the influence of religions either; as Sane points out, religion is not an influence that operates on us, it is something we choose to do and furthermore I don't see how we could disentangle multiple other factors such as increasing prosperity, health, longevity, education from the calculation. I don't think fundamental human nature will have changed over the course of ten thousand years; what has changed is the cultures that humans find themselves living in. Culture accumulates, knowledge accumulates, and as a result, humans in the modern era can afford to be more generous and kind and we benefit from better understanding.
Thirdly, I don't see how the 'influence of science can ease'. Science brings us better knowledge, and I can see no point in blindfolding ourselves so that we cannot see what science reveals. That's a nonsense attitude to life.
Fourthly, your vision of a humanity united in a common religion will never come to pass, quite frankly, because human civilisation looks set to be on a disaster course and I see few signs that we can avert it. What survives into future centuries is hard to predict.
1. Diversity is only how we look at something. We can see our body as a collection of different organs or we can choose to see the human in it. Similarly differences will exist even within one family, between husband and wife. That does not mean they are not one unit. Christians for all their differences are still Christians. Hindus for all their differences are still Hindus. This religious bond is far stronger emotionally than even a political/national bond.
2. There is no other civilizing factor than religion. It has taught all humans around the world similar lessons on cooperation, compassion, brotherhood and so on. It is the notion of one familial bond under a universal Father that builds kinship. Not that brothers never fight.....but nonetheless. You tell me which other civilizing factor is common to all people around the world.
3. The influence of science can ease once we stop taking it so seriously that our world view gets corrupted by it. Science is fine in its place but not as a philosophy of life.
4. Whoever survives the climate change, they will unite under one common philosophy/religion. I have no doubts on that. By then wisdom would have dawned, I hope.
-
3. The influence of science can ease once we stop taking it so seriously that our world view gets corrupted by it. Science is fine in its place but not as a philosophy of life.
Noone that I know takes science as a philosophy of life; it is a tool that we use to gain better knowledge and what point would there be in ignoring knowledge ? Rather than taking the science too seriously I think the opposite is true, we don't take the findings of science seriously enough and that is why we are facing an ecological apocalypse in the near to medium future. Since the days of the Kyoto agreement, science has been warning that our trajectory is unsustainable and needs to change, and yet year after year our atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise remorselessly. We ignore the science, because it disturbs our comfortable world view, because at the end of the day, we want to carry on, business as usual. A head in the sand approach will reap its terrible rewards in the end.
-
4. Whoever survives the climate change, they will unite under one common philosophy/religion. I have no doubts on that. By then wisdom would have dawned, I hope.
Why no doubt ? I would have considerable doubt about that, the predictions are so uncertain. History teaches us that civilisations rise and fall, and then new civilisations rise from the ashes. Our civilisation has risen to a far higher degree than any previous one, and as they say, the higher you climb, the harder you will fall. Our downfall will be more thorough and final than all previous collapses. The goths sacking Rome did not have nuclear weapons; we do. The ancient Assyrians carved their knowledge into stone; ours resides in Californian server farms and suchlike, our knowledge will be lost and any future humanity will be starting effectively from scratch all over again.
-
Most of you are having a meme problem. Your fondly held beliefs are being challenged and you just don't want to let go.
Take a look in the mirror Sriram.
Your thesis doesn't stand up.
-
4. Whoever survives the climate change, they will unite under one common philosophy/religion. I have no doubts on that. By then wisdom would have dawned, I hope.
I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.
Not so long ago Christianity was a highly (and perhaps the most) influential part of society here in the UK (keeping Catholics off the throne etc) but is now in decline in that, in my view and experience, its relevance and ability to intrude into current daily living and to influence social attitudes, since compliance is no longer mandatory or can be imposed, has receded to the extent that if you don't want Christianity then you don't have to engage with it, and nor do you have to treat its core beliefs with any special status. As the result of generational change many now are 'unchurched', where Christianity is something that other people do and churches are no more than interesting and impressive historical and cultural curiosities that are nice to visit now and then - but that is all!
In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.
-
Most of you are having a meme problem. Your fondly held beliefs are being challenged and you just don't want to let go.
Thanks for the laugh.
- Contrary to the misinformation on your blog, memes are not generally a problem.
- Your rather silly assertions are not challenging.
-
I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.
Not so long ago Christianity was a highly (and perhaps the most) influential part of society here in the UK (keeping Catholics off the throne etc) but is now in decline in that, in my view and experience, its relevance and ability to intrude into current daily living and to influence social attitudes, since compliance is no longer mandatory or can be imposed, has receded to the extent that if you don't want Christianity then you don't have to engage with it, and nor do you have to treat its core beliefs with any special status. As the result of generational change many now are 'unchurched', where Christianity is something that other people do and churches are no more than interesting and impressive historical and cultural curiosities that are nice to visit now and then - but that is all!
In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.
Gordon
As long as you are prepared to accept that non engagement with Christianity has been the case for several decades and is the result of apatheism and not some intellectual masterstroke by Dawkins or Hitchens then I tend to agree.
Ìf what you say then is the case then the state of the secular society you peddle as the new world order is the result of that lack of engagement and then you are into the territory of say comparing the triumph of equal marraige with the brexit result as the greatest typifier of the secular state. If you back track and blame brexit as christian then you undo your thesis of the lack of christian influence.
As for the rest I find ithe symphonic intellectual flatus of your post warms the mood if not the mind.
-
I think you over-estimate the survival of religion in the centuries to come.
In the short term it seems to me unlikely that the likes of Islam or Judaism will go down the same route any time soon, since currently these religions are in a sense more influential and, dare I say, intrusive to those born into families and cultures that practise these traditions - but Christianity was in the same position here in the UK not so long since so perhaps, maybe centuries in the future, there may be a tipping point for these religions too.
One wonders why you havent included a possible future decline of atheism here.
What for you guarantees the triumph of atheism?
And would it be a triumph since its success has been down to apathy so far?
-
One wonders why you havent included a possible future decline of atheism here.
What for you guarantees the triumph of atheism?
And would it be a triumph since its success has been down to apathy so far?
You should try thinking a little more, Vlad: it has been pointed out to you, very often at that, that atheism isn't comparable with organised religion since there is nothing much to organise around such as holy books, dogma and rituals or the various religions.
Whether or not there are more or fewer atheists in, say, 150 years time is probably unknowable since the number of atheists currently isn't known as far as I'm aware - you can count attendances at mosques, chapels, churches and synagogues but where would you count the atheists?. Nor am I looking to 'guarantee the triumph of atheism', so you need to be careful with all that straw even at this time of year in the northern hemisphere.
-
Gordon
As long as you are prepared to accept that non engagement with Christianity has been the case for several decades and is the result of apatheism and not some intellectual masterstroke by Dawkins or Hitchens then I tend to agree.
I simply observed the decline in Christian affiliation in the UK and didn't mention either of those two gentlemen: you really do need to start reading for comprehension, Vlad.
Ìf what you say then is the case then the state of the secular society you peddle as the new world order is the result of that lack of engagement and then you are into the territory of say comparing the triumph of equal marraige with the brexit result as the greatest typifier of the secular state. If you back track and blame brexit as christian then you undo your thesis of the lack of christian influence.
I'm not comparing anything nor attempting to conflate 'equal marriage' (or as I call it 'marriage'), Brexit and Christianity: I can only assume you've had your random sentence generator repaired and have inadvertently left it on the gibberish setting.
As for the rest I find ithe symphonic intellectual flatus of your post warms the mood if not the mind.
Smashing.
-
The question that needs to be answered is:
How can the behaviour of sufficient numbers of humans be changed over the next 12 years to avoid global catastrophe due to climate change and pollution in the 22nd century.
-
I simply observed the decline in Christian affiliation in the UK and didn't mention either of those two gentlemen: you really do need to start reading for comprehension, Vlad.
I'm not comparing anything nor attempting to conflate 'equal marriage' (or as I call it 'marriage'), Brexit and Christianity: I can only assume you've had your random sentence generator repaired and have inadvertently left it on the gibberish setting.
Smashing.
Funny then that equal marriage is suggested as a triumph of declining religion but any negative in society has nothing to do with secularism and the forces which drive it.
Actually the attitude of secularists and atheists on this forum is fucking laughable.
-
Noone that I know takes science as a philosophy of life; it is a tool that we use to gain better knowledge and what point would there be in ignoring knowledge ? Rather than taking the science too seriously I think the opposite is true, we don't take the findings of science seriously enough and that is why we are facing an ecological apocalypse in the near to medium future. Since the days of the Kyoto agreement, science has been warning that our trajectory is unsustainable and needs to change, and yet year after year our atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise remorselessly. We ignore the science, because it disturbs our comfortable world view, because at the end of the day, we want to carry on, business as usual. A head in the sand approach will reap its terrible rewards in the end.
That is not true.
Many people, especially in the west, do not use science as just a tool. They take its inherent materialism very seriously. Science teaches that we are just accidental products of evolution. Life is just an emergent property of organic molecules. Life has no purpose or meaning. There is no guiding principle or direction to life. Morality is just a matter of social agreement.
The entire world view becomes ego centric and 'we can do anything we want'. No one to question except the courts.
All these are very serious philosophical views of life. They can influence and modify our thinking, priorities and values dramatically.
-
Why no doubt ? I would have considerable doubt about that, the predictions are so uncertain. History teaches us that civilisations rise and fall, and then new civilisations rise from the ashes. Our civilisation has risen to a far higher degree than any previous one, and as they say, the higher you climb, the harder you will fall. Our downfall will be more thorough and final than all previous collapses. The goths sacking Rome did not have nuclear weapons; we do. The ancient Assyrians carved their knowledge into stone; ours resides in Californian server farms and suchlike, our knowledge will be lost and any future humanity will be starting effectively from scratch all over again.
Civilizations have risen and fallen. But right through history we can see a slow move towards integration. There have been many empires that have united different geographical areas. But the only emotional link built across geographical boundaries, national barriers and all other forms of division, is religion.
Religion will certainly survive regardless of how many people die out. It may not be Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. But a common form of viewing life as more than the material life, will continue. In this, certain forms of secular spirituality that we see today will probably continue to yield some influence among the surviving folks. This is what I mean by one common religion and philosophy.
-
Funny then that equal marriage is suggested as a triumph of declining religion but any negative in society has nothing to do with secularism and the forces which drive it.
I'd say marriage reform is more accurately described as the triumph of equality over discrimination.
Actually the attitude of secularists and atheists on this forum is fucking laughable.
Only to the easily amused.
-
Sriram,
Why not get rid of the chip on your shoulder appertaining to the evils of science, and actually put your considerable talents to sensible and practical use, instead of bolstering your myopic vision by shallow assertion, utter distortion and a liberal sprinkling of assorted unjustified prejudicial statements? You would achieve so much more.
Perhaps, for instance, instead for decrying the modern period of enlightenment/science as your simplistic start of the world's ills, you might just start to look in your own backyard and have some humility first. See, for instance, the Ruddiman Hypothesis
https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis
Certainly in your case such humility might well lead to much more positive thoughts on your part and much less feeling of a 'them and us' approach. If you really wish to play your small part in unifying the world, then may I suggest that you cease with your selective bias in favour of religions/faiths and your selective negative bias/resentment towards science. I am not averse, as I have said before, to some sort of secular spirituality. But, please, for goodness sake, stop with the arrogance that so often drags your ideas into some sort of facile simplistic haze.
-
Sriram,
Why not get rid of the chip on your shoulder appertaining to the evils of science, and actually put your considerable talents to sensible and practical use, instead of bolstering your myopic vision by shallow assertion, utter distortion and a liberal sprinkling of assorted unjustified prejudicial statements? You would achieve so much more.
Perhaps, for instance, instead for decrying the modern period of enlightenment/science as your simplistic start of the world's ills, you might just start to look in your own backyard and have some humility first. See, for instance, the Ruddiman Hypothesis
https://www.humansandnature.org/william-ruddiman-and-the-ruddiman-hypothesis
Certainly in your case such humility might well lead to much more positive thoughts on your part and much less feeling of a 'them and us' approach. If you really wish to play your small part in unifying the world, then may I suggest that you cease with your selective bias in favour of religions/faiths and your selective negative bias/resentment towards science. I am not averse, as I have said before, to some sort of secular spirituality. But, please, for goodness sake, stop with the arrogance that so often drags your ideas into some sort of facile simplistic haze.
Wow! One of those rare posts where someone has said something nice about me! Thanks a lot enki! Very nice of you. :)
You seem to be under the impression that I am a religious fanatic who hates science...or something like that. Not at all!
I am myself a science student and enjoy reading up on science and its discoveries. I am not religious even though I do visit some temples now and then.
I am only against the world view and the philosophy of life that science stands for. I am against the materialism and 'believe it if you see it' philosophy that is so common among science enthusiasts.
It is not the discoveries of science but its complete rejection of all non material aspects of life that I question. Its tendency to treat humans as just accidental outcomes of random genetic variations and... Life as just an emergent property of organic molecules, is what I question.
It is this materialism and mundane view of life that has resulted in irresponsible use of technology. Its the impression that we can get away with or reverse whatever we do, is one of the reasons for the sorry state in which we find ourselves. The arrogance and illusion of control that science promotes is responsible for most of our ills.
I also of course, believe in secular spirituality that I think is common to all humans (and all life) with religion being just one path to spiritual development.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
That is not true.
Many people, especially in the west, do not use science as just a tool. They take its inherent materialism very seriously. Science teaches that we are just accidental products of evolution. Life is just an emergent property of organic molecules. Life has no purpose or meaning. There is no guiding principle or direction to life. Morality is just a matter of social agreement.
The entire world view becomes ego centric and 'we can do anything we want'. No one to question except the courts.
All these are very serious philosophical views of life. They can influence and modify our thinking, priorities and values dramatically.
Oh dear, such lazy, inexact thinking. Your complaint, then, is really against materialism, not science. Science is not a philosophical view of life, it is a tool to help us discern between truth and untruth, or perhaps better, to help us resolve the degrees of uncertainty around empirical claims. To deny science is to deny the innate desire for knowledge. You shouldn't be making the lazy elision of science with materialism. We are in the mess now because many seek to justify their science denial with such trivial arguments - 'we don't like it, so we're not going to believe it' which is all your position boils down to. We all need to wake up and start being real, our delusions will be the death of us all otherwise.
-
Religion will certainly survive regardless of how many people die out. It may not be Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. But a common form of viewing life as more than the material life, will continue. In this, certain forms of secular spirituality that we see today will probably continue to yield some influence among the surviving folks. This is what I mean by one common religion and philosophy.
Again, such lazy thinking. How can such a bizarre claim ever be justified ? It is blindingly obvious that if all humans die out then religion will not survive, neither will philanthropy or stock markets or trips to the seaside. If there are some that survive an extinction event, then the character of the human population going forward will be intimately informed by the particular genomes of the survivors. Having said that, I'd hazard a guess that new religions would emerge in a sufficiently large survivor population over time, to that extent I'd agree with you.
-
Oh dear, such lazy, inexact thinking. Your complaint, then, is really against materialism, not science. Science is not a philosophical view of life, it is a tool to help us discern between truth and untruth, or perhaps better, to help us resolve the degrees of uncertainty around empirical claims. To deny science is to deny the innate desire for knowledge. You shouldn't be making the lazy elision of science with materialism. We are in the mess now because many seek to justify their science denial with such trivial arguments - 'we don't like it, so we're not going to believe it' which is all your position boils down to. We all need to wake up and start being real, our delusions will be the death of us all otherwise.
I think we are in a mess now due to the prevailing economics and economic habits established, as part of the enlightenment.....the same habits as lauded by Pinker......climate change denial is down to recent antiintellectualism.
-
Wow! One of those rare posts where someone has said something nice about me! Thanks a lot enki! Very nice of you. :)
You seem to be under the impression that I am a religious fanatic who hates science...or something like that. Not at all!
I am myself a science student and enjoy reading up on science and its discoveries. I am not religious even though I do visit some temples now and then.
I am only against the world view and the philosophy of life that science stands for. I am against the materialism and 'believe it if you see it' philosophy that is so common among science enthusiasts.
It is not the discoveries of science but its complete rejection of all non material aspects of life that I question. Its tendency to treat humans as just accidental outcomes of random genetic variations and... Life as just an emergent property of organic molecules, is what I question.
It is this materialism and mundane view of life that has resulted in irresponsible use of technology. Its the impression that we can get away with or reverse whatever we do, is one of the reasons for the sorry state in which we find ourselves. The arrogance and illusion of control that science promotes is responsible for most of our ills.
I also of course, believe in secular spirituality that I think is common to all humans (and all life) with religion being just one path to spiritual development.
Cheers.
Sriram
Science doesn't reject tye non material but the scientific method can only be applied to things which can be detected measured and invalidated. I'd have thought a science student and enthusiast like you would have understood that.
-
I think we are in a mess now due to the prevailing economics and economic habits established, as part of the enlightenment.....the same habits as lauded by Pinker......climate change denial is down to recent antiintellectualism.
Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help. On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.
-
Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help. On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.
Pinker suggests that capitalism is a critical component for enlightenment 'progress' unfortunately he doesn't acknowledge the massive pay off in terms of climate change or radical economic control preferring some mystical effect through keeping the enlightenment going.
Can the world sustain Pinkerian progress? Not sure?
-
Ok...guys. Thanks for your views.
-
Agree there is a current wave of antiintellectualism that has come at just the wrong time and doesn't help. On the other hand your comment about the Enlightenment being responsible for capitalism is merely axe grinding in preference to acknowledging deeper roots to our behaviours.
That contradicts then any notion of enlightenment in which there is a real change in human behaviour as evidenced in its latter stage by contraception.
What fundamental behavioural roots are you referring to to explain enlightenment capitalism?
-
That contradicts then any notion of enlightenment in which there is a real change in human behaviour as evidenced in its latter stage by contraception.
What fundamental behavioural roots are you referring to to explain enlightenment capitalism?
I'd see the Enlightenment as a step change in understanding but not a fundamental change in human nature and it's my depressing thesis currently that to grasp the depth of the challenge facing us requires us to acknowledge that the environmental crisis is a predictable and inevitable consequence of human nature. We have been honed by natural selection to seek a better tomorrow rather than be satisfied with today and this translates into an unquestioned impulse that growth is good and so any politician arguing for stasis is not going to get elected. But we live on a finite planet with finite resources and never ending growth is a fantasy belief, and fantasies must crash and burn sooner or later, the underlying maths cares not for our delusions. Another way in which human nature has been honed is that we instinctively prioritise our nearest and dearest over those further away, but here we are now trying to be global citizens telling ourselves that we value all people equally but that is just another self-congratulatory fantasy. In Brexit and Trump and Orban and Bolsonaro we see people shying away from internationalist aspirations in the face of migration pressure, looking inward to protect their own slice of the pie from the desperate poor. I cannot see a way out of this, we are not really compassionate internationalists, we are still tribal people motivated by short term near considerations and do not care enough for those far away to share our comfort zone with them. Democracy locks us into policy making of the lowest common denominator when to face the challenges ahead we all need to be the best people we could possibly be all of the time. It's not going to happen,
-
You should try thinking a little more, Vlad: it has been pointed out to you, very often at that, that atheism isn't comparable with organised religion
Except when Dawkins, The national Secular society and other various atheist groupings want people to put that down on the census rather than C of E.
That aside, like financial things and organised religion, adherence to atheism can presumably go up and down therefore one should attach no special triumphalism to it's apparent rise.
-
I'd see the Enlightenment as a step change in understanding but not a fundamental change in human nature
And yet it is argued to have changed behaviours.
I kind of get what you are saying though. The people who have generated the ideas of the enlightenment it tend to have reputations of recognising their own gifts of understanding and yet little reputation in applying it leaving the dirty work of translation of the enlightenment to others and leaving those others to take the blame.
A case in point being Dawkins and other new atheists who talk of things like ''consciousness-raising'' but aren't noted for actually instigating anything concrete. That is an example of changing understanding without behaviour being changed.