by zagor 50 Replies latest jw friends
but for the most part this is only because the demonstrably unscientific parts of various religions have become metaphorical or allegorical as science disproves their literal truth.
Not that I want to cherry pick your comment, but at least in Judeo-Christian scripture there has been a school of allegorical, metaphoric interpretation since before Christ.
Burn
IP_SEC:
I disagree. So what if some people think the universe is less than 10k years old? Some people believe in fairies and witch doctors too. So what?
On a rather obvious level, people who believe in witch doctors (or indeed homeopaths, practitioners of reiki etc.) are likely to act on those beliefs and visit such a person when sick rather then someone with real medical knowledge. Doing so is likely to be bad for their health and, more importantly, for the health of their children, on whom they are likely to impose their beliefs.
On subjects like the age of the earth, or the origin of species, I suppose it doesn't matter that many people believe complete nonsense. In most people's day-to-day lives it doesn't even matter if they think the earth is flat. But these are such inaccurate and impoverished views of the world that, if nothing else, they form a mental prison denying people access to the awesome wonders of the universe we really live in. Further, knowledge about the world is actually useful. You can still fly by aeroplane if you believe the world is flat, but you can't design air traffic systems. Similarly, you can benefit from modern medicine without knowing a thing about evolution, but you can't help develop them.
Evolution is almost univerally taught in school now.
True, and that's certainly a good thing. I'm concerned that it's often not taught very well, due in part to religious influence.
There are more athiest now than 50 years ago.
More Christians too! But yes, things are certainly moving in the right direction. It is the intolerance and prejudice that atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers still face that is the issue Dawkins is addressing here.
Do you really think most of those with considerable political power are believers? I dont,
No, but it's a concern that so few unbelievers in positions of power have, as it were, come out of the closet. And unfortunately, some of them genuinely seem to believe what they claim to believe, recent presidential hopefuls Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for example.
I dont even believe a man with the education of the pope is a believer. Thats right! I dont think the pope even believes the crap he endorses.
I think there's a sort of meta-belief common to leaders of most religions where they simply must believe the tenets of the religion on some level, but they believe more in the continued existence of the religion itself.
So a lot of progress has been made. No its not perfect, but we are better off now than we were 100 years ago. A whole lot less people believe the universe is less than 10k years old now than say 200 years ago.
And it's important that we keep moving in the right direction. Raising awareness of the issues can only help.
Religion is in the middle of dying a natural death. It might be 50 or 100 or 200 years before it is no more. We probably wont see its death in our life time. Im ok with that.
And yet recent decades have seen a resurgence of religiosity. It looks like those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on others are going to keep trying to do that. It's important that rational people make it difficult for them.
BurnTheShips:
Not that I want to cherry pick your comment, but at least in Judeo-Christian scripture there has been a school of allegorical, metaphoric interpretation since before Christ.
Cherry-pick away! I hope you'll come back to the rest of the issues though.Can you give some examples of such interpretation. Was the creation story considered allegorical before science showed that it couldn't literally be true? What about the flood, or the Exodus, or the very existence of characters such as Abraham and Moses?
Is there a sure-fire way to know which events in the bible should be considered allegorical and which should be considered literally true? More importantly, is there a way of knowing which commands therein should be obeyed and which rejected as so much ancient superstition?
Dereck thank you for the reply
On a rather obvious level, people who believe in witch doctors (or indeed homeopaths, practitioners of reiki etc.) are likely to act on those beliefs and visit such a person when sick rather then someone with real medical knowledge. Doing so is likely to be bad for their health and, more importantly, for the health of their children, on whom they are likely to impose their beliefs.
An example of survival of fittest then?
It is the intolerance and prejudice that atheists, agnostics and other unbelievers still face that is the issue Dawkins is addressing here.
I find it odd that in over 2 years time since letting it be widely known that I do not believe in god, I have never experienced any intolerance or prejudice because of it. I've had heated debates but no prejudice. I live in the bible belt for gods... er... sake. Perhaps this is why I dont let the fact that there is still a religious world out there bother me? I dunno.
but they believe more in the continued existence of the religion itself.
This is not a religious problem then, and cannot be fixed simply by a lack of religion in the world. This is a problem of abuse of power, a problem that is not exclusive to religion.
And yet recent decades have seen a resurgence of religiosity. It looks like those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on others are going to keep trying to do that. It's important that rational people make it difficult for them.
This resurgence seems to be only a kneejerk to the great loss of power that religion has experienced. A kind of deaththow.
Look, I have no problem telling religious ppl how the cow ate the cabbage. Thats not my beef with Dawkins. I dont want atheism to turn into another religion. A fundimentalist religion of unbelief. Dawkins seems like a fundimentalist unbeliever to me.
Cherry-pick away! I hope you'll come back to the rest of the issues though.Can you give some examples of such interpretation. Was the creation story considered allegorical before science showed that it couldn't literally be true? What about the flood, or the Exodus, or the very existence of characters such as Abraham and Moses?
Are you being extra nice to me just because it is my birthday tommorrow? :-)
Google Philo of Alexandria, that is a good start, IMHO. Wikipedia has a good write up on him. I believe there was a Witchtower article on him within the last ten years or so. I remember reading it during a particularly mind numbing meeting. Not that I recommend that as a source!
Is there a sure-fire way to know which events in the bible should be considered allegorical and which should be considered literally true? More importantly, is there a way of knowing which commands therein should be obeyed and which rejected as so much ancient superstition?
I do not follow the Bible directly, I follow Christ. And Christ left a body, the Church, which explains the meaning of Scripture. So, as I see it, to understand the Bible properly, it is necessary to listen to the Bride of Christ, the Church, for the orthodox interpretation of Scripture. What is orthodox? I like the way C.S. Lewis described orthodoxy, as that which nearly all Christians have believed in every time and place.
Burn
EDIT: Let me add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Augustine came to mind but I did not have a concrete reference. There are plenty of others there.
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
Burn
I do not follow the Bible directly, I follow Christ. And Christ left a body, the Church, which explains the meaning of Scripture. So, as I see it, to understand the Bible properly, it is necessary to listen to the Bride of Christ, the Church, for the orthodox interpretation of Scripture.
Which Church?
Which Church?
Those Churches that can trace Apostolic succession. That is how I have come to see it.
Its a good point he makes about the most learned, honest and sincere being kept from power by those willing to use any means at their disposal to utilise religion or any system of belief to take control of the masses and elevate their own status!
Can such a system of hierarchy ever change?
Do deceivers always have more artillery to win every power struggle purely because they have no boundaries on what they allow themselves to do to maintain their position?
Is compassion, altruism and honesty a losers game?
wow it is interesting to see how far this thread has evolved. I think some people here are really missing the point and Dawkins has stressed it indirectly rather than directly. It is not only about evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory is just a part of bigger canvas we call education.
He focused on evolutionary theory because that is his field of expertise but if you listen to his talk carefully again you will see that the main issue is really 'tremendous power in hands of dogmatics who can manipulate illiterate masses to fulfill their own agenda' More to the point such leaders have no interest in seeing level of education increasing be they religious or political leaders. It is far easier to manipulate and maneuver people who fear god, bogeyman, shadows or Armageddon
Considering global crisis we are trying to avoid both in terms of global warming and plunging into chaos we see in middle east it is really important that people are educated, now more than ever. It is really a BIG problem when Christian Armageddonites eager to see the end of the world can have political power far beyond abstract world in their heads a power that can have far reaching adverse consequences and repercussions on rest of the humanity.
Dawkins makes good points on certain aspects of religion - but, he is in danger of making atheism a religion in itself.
What is religion?
The definiton below doesn't have to include a God or Gods.
I've often found atheists are so determined to prove God/Gods don't exists that it becomes a religion to them.
On the other hand, agnostics are candid that they don't know precisely what created the universe, only that something or someone did.
| 1 | a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. |
| 2. | a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. |
| 3. | the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. |
| 4. | the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. |
| 5. | the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. |
| 6. | something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. |
| 7. | religions, Archaic . religious rites. |
| 8. | Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. |
| 9. | get religion, Informal .
|
