Take a snapshot of the conflicts around the world: Sunnis vs. Shiites, Israelis vs. Palestinians, Serbs vs. Kosovars, Indians vs. Pakistanis. They seem to be driven by religious hatred. It's enough to make you wonder if the animosity would melt away if all religions were suddenly, somehow, to vanish into the ether. But James Carse doesn't see them as religious conflicts at all. To him, they are battles over rival belief systems, which may or may not have religious overtones.Well, no shit, human conflict will always arise from rival belief systems. What makes religious conflicts so maddening is that, since they have no rational justification, they can not be resolved with rational discourse.
To Carse, religion is all about longevity; it's what unites people over the millennia.
Yes, just as slavery and the flat Earth theory united us over millennia. It was too bad to see those go.
He goes on to make the requisite reference to Nazism.
Based on this strict definition of "belief system" I would agree that all belief systems are bad. But I think it's a definition contrived to make his point. Why does a belief system have to dictate beliefs? Instead of giving answers, why can it not offer guidelines for finding the answers, and changing them when conflicting evidence arises?
A few good ones that come to mind:
But, those who start from a base like this will have a common ground on which to defend their beliefs and resolve conflicts. Not so with faith-based beliefs.
A belief system is meant to be a comprehensive network of ideas about what one thinks is absolutely real and true. Within that system, everything is adequately explained and perfectly reasonable. You know exactly how far to go with your beliefs and when to stop your thinking. A belief system is defined by an absolute authority. The authority can be a text or an institution or a person. So it's very important to understand a belief system as independent of religion. After all, Marxism and Nazism were two of the most powerful belief systems ever.I agree that belief systems are worst when they are dogmatic and doubters are punished. And a system does not have to be theistic to satisfy these criteria. But it does have to flow from an authority who can not be questioned, and God fits that bill for most.
Based on this strict definition of "belief system" I would agree that all belief systems are bad. But I think it's a definition contrived to make his point. Why does a belief system have to dictate beliefs? Instead of giving answers, why can it not offer guidelines for finding the answers, and changing them when conflicting evidence arises?
A few good ones that come to mind:
- The golden rule, and its more complete cousin, Kant's Categorical Imperative.
- Carl Sagan's excellent Baloney Detection Kit (note "argument from authority" is the 2nd item under "common fallacies of logic and rhetoric").
- The scientific method.
But, those who start from a base like this will have a common ground on which to defend their beliefs and resolve conflicts. Not so with faith-based beliefs.
5 comments:
Oh dear...what a goofball this guy is. I went to Sullivan's post first, and this description of atheism was enough to stop me in my tracks:
"To be an atheist is not to be stunned by the mystery of things or to walk around in wonder about the universe."
That's enough to make me stop reading anything this guy says right there. Dawkins especially writes extensively on the scope of the universe as a constant source of awe and wonder.
This guy is lame.
I know, right? I get soooo tired of the perspective that you have to believe in fairy tales to appreciate the splendor of the natural world.
Here is some nice rational discourse
Yes, just as slavery and the flat Earth theory united us over millennia. It was too bad to see those go.
Seriously, Slavery has never united people. the monetary advantages of opressing people do but ultimately lead to strife over a far greater period. By the way slavery in nicer packages occur all over the world. In fact most terrorism has it roots in economic oppression. Science has not made it go away it's just made it more palataple and the ability to oppress more people is also a gift given to us by science. Thanks for that!
Seriously, Slavery has never united people. the monetary advantages of opressing people do but ultimately lead to strife over a far greater period.
Well, sure, that's clear to everyone now. But it wasn't 200 years ago. At that point, we lived in a world in which, as you put it, the monetary advantages of oppression did unite people. And at that point, one could have used the same argument to support slavery that Carse used to support religion. It had longevity, it united people over millenia.
That doesn't mean religion = slavery, but it does mean that particular argument is seriously flawed.
By the way slavery in nicer packages occur all over the world. In fact most terrorism has it roots in economic oppression. Science has not made it go away it's just made it more palataple and the ability to oppress more people is also a gift given to us by science. Thanks for that!
I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. How exactly has science made oppression more palatable? If anything, we're more aware of global atrocities than we've been in the past.
Your "roots of terrorism" argument seems to suggest that science has made Afghanistan worse and religion has made it better. Or am I misunderstanding you?
My point about science is that science neither makes a place better or worse. It makes people more powerful and therefore enables people to do greater good or greater bad. It enables a doctor to save hundreds and a terrorist to kill hundreds. Science just makes more powerful tools. It does not make one wise or good or bad, it just makes them more powerful.
Post a Comment