I'm setting this here to generate a degree of discussion, and ultimately, here from some their thoughts on the defense of the church. I see this as mainly a cultural conversation, but I included some political talk as politics reflect (and enact) beliefs to a degree.
I sat down last night and flipped on the tv for an unwind. Google Chromecast is my "cable" source, so I have feeds from youtube, USA Today, TEDD Talks, and a variety of other random snapshots that, I suppose, some filter believes I'm interested to see.
2 of the first 4 tabs that I had to choose from were an article with the title of this thread
http://bigthink.com/videos/michael-shermer-on-the-negative-impacts-of-religion
and another from youtube called "Bill Nye, How do I escape religion?"
The latter is something that doesn't bother me too much, there will always be those that feel "oppressed" simply at the existence of religion (or some other personal item they may find offensive), and express the level to which they feel put-upon.
The former, however, is something I consider a head-scratcher...meaning, I don't know what to think about it, yet.
An excerpt from the video/article:
"I don’t worry about the Jains or Jews or most Christians causing societal problems anymore because they’ve gone through the reformation enlightenment, age of reason, the scientific revolution. They came out the other side mostly nonviolent. And Islam hasn’t — so I think if we reform Islam and then start to wean people off belief in the supernatural altogether. You can’t do it by fiat, but we can inculcate it into people’s thinking critical thinking about everything including God. Throw God into the mix. That’s just another supernatural belief. And that’s what those of us who work in this area are trying to do. You know there are different strategies. You can be aggressive about it like Richard Dawkins and Hitch [Christopher Hitchens]. You know they’re pretty anti-theist. That works in some cases, but not other cases. Other areas people need to be reeled in slowly, gently. But that’s just a sales and marketing problem, you know. How should we sell our product best? Should we call it this or we use the red logo or the blue logo? You sort of product test those things and see what works. But we all share this overall goal. In a century or two, I think it’s possible no one will believe in God anymore or almost no one. And that will be good for society."
One thing I think is that it is disingenuous for some on the left side of the political spectrum to claim that they (their political team) just wants to be left alone by religion, with no motive to change a belief. This clearly isn't the case.
Second, the hubris of the author struck me. I believe the bolded line above is a character flaw and a hole in the foundation of those that believe they know better or are somehow exposed to a clearer view of truth. On the flip side, I'm aware that some people may encounter know-it-all religious types willing to damn them for not being a believer. However, I'm not exposed to those types (the know-it-all believers), so I'm inclined to think that the oppression cited by non-believers by religious zealots is overblown, and likely, at a personal level, a mental crutch belying an inner insecurity, and on a more aggregate level, the perpetuation of the perception of a victim class.
Another is a more genuine understanding that, similar to other religions, atheism, agnosticism, etc, are beliefs of themselves, with adherents, promoters, even "preachers," this guy. In as much as one cultural or political team is able to exert itself on coercive (by nature) governance - live by this set of rules, not that, believe this, not that - where, with an ever expanding aggressiveness by the executive branch (not limited to current President), are timely checks and balances?
My last initial thought....I believe it is within much of human nature to "rally around a victim." Everybody can believe they are a victim of something in some way, it's all a relative construct of the personal view of an experienced reality. So, a persuasive victim can attract other sympathies, eventually (possibly) forming a critical mass. I wonder if there will ever be a time where believers or "the church," is, by the true definition of the word "victim," will fit that description. And I wonder if anyone will care, because in the eyes of some (many?), there are so many victims of a God that asserts to live a certain way else you commit a sin against Him, that the critical mass of the oppressed (by God) simply allows the (futuristic) real victim, go without aid or even a listen.
Hastily written. Open to all viewpoints.
I sat down last night and flipped on the tv for an unwind. Google Chromecast is my "cable" source, so I have feeds from youtube, USA Today, TEDD Talks, and a variety of other random snapshots that, I suppose, some filter believes I'm interested to see.
2 of the first 4 tabs that I had to choose from were an article with the title of this thread
http://bigthink.com/videos/michael-shermer-on-the-negative-impacts-of-religion
and another from youtube called "Bill Nye, How do I escape religion?"
The latter is something that doesn't bother me too much, there will always be those that feel "oppressed" simply at the existence of religion (or some other personal item they may find offensive), and express the level to which they feel put-upon.
The former, however, is something I consider a head-scratcher...meaning, I don't know what to think about it, yet.
An excerpt from the video/article:
"I don’t worry about the Jains or Jews or most Christians causing societal problems anymore because they’ve gone through the reformation enlightenment, age of reason, the scientific revolution. They came out the other side mostly nonviolent. And Islam hasn’t — so I think if we reform Islam and then start to wean people off belief in the supernatural altogether. You can’t do it by fiat, but we can inculcate it into people’s thinking critical thinking about everything including God. Throw God into the mix. That’s just another supernatural belief. And that’s what those of us who work in this area are trying to do. You know there are different strategies. You can be aggressive about it like Richard Dawkins and Hitch [Christopher Hitchens]. You know they’re pretty anti-theist. That works in some cases, but not other cases. Other areas people need to be reeled in slowly, gently. But that’s just a sales and marketing problem, you know. How should we sell our product best? Should we call it this or we use the red logo or the blue logo? You sort of product test those things and see what works. But we all share this overall goal. In a century or two, I think it’s possible no one will believe in God anymore or almost no one. And that will be good for society."
One thing I think is that it is disingenuous for some on the left side of the political spectrum to claim that they (their political team) just wants to be left alone by religion, with no motive to change a belief. This clearly isn't the case.
Second, the hubris of the author struck me. I believe the bolded line above is a character flaw and a hole in the foundation of those that believe they know better or are somehow exposed to a clearer view of truth. On the flip side, I'm aware that some people may encounter know-it-all religious types willing to damn them for not being a believer. However, I'm not exposed to those types (the know-it-all believers), so I'm inclined to think that the oppression cited by non-believers by religious zealots is overblown, and likely, at a personal level, a mental crutch belying an inner insecurity, and on a more aggregate level, the perpetuation of the perception of a victim class.
Another is a more genuine understanding that, similar to other religions, atheism, agnosticism, etc, are beliefs of themselves, with adherents, promoters, even "preachers," this guy. In as much as one cultural or political team is able to exert itself on coercive (by nature) governance - live by this set of rules, not that, believe this, not that - where, with an ever expanding aggressiveness by the executive branch (not limited to current President), are timely checks and balances?
My last initial thought....I believe it is within much of human nature to "rally around a victim." Everybody can believe they are a victim of something in some way, it's all a relative construct of the personal view of an experienced reality. So, a persuasive victim can attract other sympathies, eventually (possibly) forming a critical mass. I wonder if there will ever be a time where believers or "the church," is, by the true definition of the word "victim," will fit that description. And I wonder if anyone will care, because in the eyes of some (many?), there are so many victims of a God that asserts to live a certain way else you commit a sin against Him, that the critical mass of the oppressed (by God) simply allows the (futuristic) real victim, go without aid or even a listen.
Hastily written. Open to all viewpoints.
