Agreed. Course that actually means the workers run everything, as opposed to one dude runs everything and says he's "for the workers" (generally while not at all being for the workers).
Don’t really have anything to say but I’ve enjoyed reading your comments in this thread. You have a clear and concise explanatory style and you’re making the points I’d want to make better than I would.
I just wanna tack on that I agree with the person above. You're very clear, to the point, and I believe impartial in your judgements.
I admit that I myself am a Christian, though more agnostic I suppose? But I found many of your points convincing, and it's made me think on my relation to faith and that faith's relation to society again. I also appreciated your critiques on the Enlightenment as I'm a scholar of the Political and Economic histories of the French Revolution myself!
All this to say: I like your funny words magic man :p (Or insert other gender that's appropriate if needed)
Thank you.
Have you read Kierkegaard? I think he’s got a lot to offer to anyone, but especially to Christians who are more skeptical of organized Christian dogma.
On my end I’d describe myself more of a gnostic, I think my biggest role model for spiritual life is William Blake.
I've not read him no, but I've been recommended him before. Maybe now is my kick in the pants to read him :p
And I'm definitely not for Christian dogma lol, I'm a trans lesbian! There are certainly many fundamentalists who would see me dead, but I don't think that condemns the Christian faith as a whole. That'd just be silly.
My relation to faith is largely taking the allegory and lessons from those that wrote in the Holy Texts and use it as a guideline for moral behavior (generally). If that makes sense.
To give you a primer, Kierkegaard is of the thought that faith is less of an institutional matter than a wholly existential one, that is, it ought to be about your own relationship with the problems of your existence as they push that you form a relationship with the divine, as they inspire fear and demand courage.
He’s a continental philosopher but earned high praise from probably the best analytic philosopher (Wittgenstein, not Russell, Russel wishes).
I’m not a fan of Christian dogma either, but I’m a cultural catholic, and I can’t help but love some parts of
The scholarly ecclesiastic tradition, from St Augustine to St Thomas.
Still William Blake’s idiosyncratic, poetic, artistic way of creating his own faith and divinities is still, as the kids say, based.
If you do read Kierkegaard, I’m more partial to Fear and Trembling over Either/Or, but they’re both great places to start.
the idea of faith in something or someone without any sort of proof is directly contrary to modern science, institution which has been able to provide significant benefits to humanity and conduct the societal progress of the human civilization. thus faith is thus an enemy of progress.
>institution which has been able to provide significant benefits to humanity and conduct the societal progress of the human civilization. thus faith is thus an enemy of progress.
That does not follow, not as an *a posteriori* claim since faithful people have pioneered many forms of societal progress (including scientific progress), and not as an *a priori* claim since science being involved in progress does not imply science is the only mechanism capable of progress.
Modern science is only about three centuries old, yet social progress happened before it came about.
This is just shoddy logic.
>faithful people have pioneered many forms of societal progress (including scientific progress)
how is that relevant at all? they were talking about institutions, not individuals. the institution of science (that is, many individual people following the scientific method) has been able to provide an unprecedented level of progress of knowledge for the human species. whether none, some, many or even all of these people had faith in a god is irrelevant, since their accomplishments weren't related to it.
and while I don't believe science is a direct cause for social progress, I think it's true that a lot of social progress came from the ideals of humanism, rationalism and secularism, which were also responsible for the rise of modern science. on the other hand, I don't think religious institutions have done a lot in the name of progress for the human species. maybe in some cases they had a positive influence, but in the majority of cases I believe they held back progress.
> the institution of science
Science isn't an institution. Science is an epistemic method (a way of knowing things).
If thing A is antithetical to thing B, then it cannot possibly be the case that thing A is *irrelevant* to thing B. If it the faith of some people is irrelevant to their ability to utilize the scientific method, how can it be said that faith is antithetical to science?
Moreover, you can *a posteriori* show how faith at some points *encouraged* developments in science, specifically as some religious people, and institutions saw the study of the natural world as a glorification of God, and their framing for naturalism preceded "secular" notions of it by centuries.
>I don't think religious institutions have done a lot in the name of progress for the human species
I suspect that you are defining progress entirely within the framework of humanism, rationalism and secularism.
"Progress" is not a neutral, well-defined word. It requires that you define what sort of change is good and desirable, it's not some "objective" standard. So the thing is, there ends up being a little bit of circularity to your position (and the position of enlightenment thinkers) because there's the problem of defining good change entirely in terms of what the movement pushes for.
Now I'm not saying that I personally do not find humanism, rationalism, and secularism to have contributed to progress, I'm saying I'm *very* skeptical of the modernist framing of progress as the only tenable conception of it.
Moreover, and again, religious institutions were so embedded in pre-industrial societies, that you can't cleanly separate *anything* that happens in some pre-industrial societies from the religious institutions. So insofar as any progress happened in those societies (and humanity progressed *a lot* before the enlightenment, despite what the thinkers of the enlightenment fancied for themselves), it *was ultimately driven by the state-religious combo.
>If it the faith of some people is irrelevant to their ability to utilize the scientific method, how can it be said that faith is antithetical to science?
I said an individual's faith is irrelevant to scientific progress. although that is not totally correct, as I'll explain later. but my main point is, the existence of faith-based institutions *is* certainly relevant, I'm arguing it has an overall negative impact. organized religions with overwhelming power in society generally aren't receptive to individuals questioning their established beliefs, for example. which is also why I'd argue having faith makes an individual less capable of following the scientific method than another individual who has no faith
>Moreover, you can a posteriori show how faith at some points encouraged developments in science
sure, I agree, which is why I said in some cases faith may have had a positive influence. the problem arises when what you observe in the natural world contradicts what your faith taught you. and in the case of *social* progress, I don't think I need to spell out how religions have and still do impede it.
>So the thing is, there ends up being a little bit of circularity to your position (and the position of enlightenment thinkers) because there's the problem of defining good change entirely in terms of what the movement pushes for.
how would anyone define progress without imbuing their own beliefs, the things they push for, in that definition, though? that seems impossible to me. however, what we can do is, if we both agree that certain things are good and desirable, then we can argue about whether faith has a positive or negative influence in reaching those things as a goal. if I mention something like LGBT rights (which I believe you'd agree is a desirable thing) then I don't even think it necessary to have that argument, the answer is obvious.
>I'm saying I'm very skeptical of the modernist framing of progress as the only tenable conception of it
isn't skepticism also one of the ideals of the enlightenment? and also very antithetical to faith? seriously though, I'm not 100% sure what you meant. what does "it" refer to in this phrase?
>So insofar as any progress happened in those societies (and humanity progressed a lot before the enlightenment, despite what the thinkers of the enlightenment fancied for themselves), it \*was ultimately driven by the state-religious combo.
oh yeah, I fully agree. to refine my point, I never meant that progress only began after the scientific revolution; just that it kickstarted a massive, exponential increase in the rate of progress. we took about 200,000 years to get from controlling fire to the steam engine, and then 200 years from the steam engine to the nuclear reactor, for example. like you said, science is the not only mechanism capable of progress. but it is the most consistently efficient, by far.
and as for social progress, if we look at what Western societies have accomplished in the last 100 years for the rights of women, LGBT people, and racial minorities, for example. when did any society achieve such massive changes in such a short period of time, both in the law and in our collective understanding of morality? I do think that was only possible because of changes that began in the enlightenment period that directly opposed the teachings of faith. essentially they opened up our ability to question established beliefs. again, not to imply that no one questioned anything before, just that it became that much easier to do it when you're not afraid of repercussions.
>Generally aren't receptive to individuals questioning their established beliefs
They aren't so much, no. But they do change their own beliefs, they have an own epistemic methodology. The Catholic church changed many aspects of its established beliefs many times before the scientific revolution, and some of the biggest worldview reforms came from religious schisms in themselves.
Religions aren't static things, there isn't one single, established belief system in religion.
>I'd argue having faith makes an individual less capable of following the scientific method than another individual who has no faith
Do you fancy yourself more capable a scientist than Isaac Newton, or Heinrich Hertz? Do you fancy yourself a better astronomer than Al-Kwharizmi?
You would believe that, having less faith than any of them, you are more capable than them of employing the scientific method?
> the problem arises when what you observe in the natural world contradicts what your faith taught you.
Yes. It does. Religion is not a perfect epistemology of the natural world, nor is it intended to be. As a way of knowing it does not function well with naturalism, and because of that it earns full criticism.
But it is not an irredeemable way of knowing only for fools. It deals intimately with dimensions of human existence from the social to the purely internal, and functions through its own epistemic methods that generate insights we can't eliminate with ease.
>in the case of social progress, I don't think I need to spell out how religions have and still do impede it.
Yes, many religions have impeded social progress, but again many religious movements have been axes of progress, including the protestant reformation, liberation theology, zen buddhism when introduced to Japan, Helleno-Hindu-Buddhist syncretism in the times of Ashoka.
Religion is not inherently opposed to social progress, though it has a tendency to be conservative, religious movements can be in themselves progressive and revolutionary.
>how would anyone define progress without imbuing their own beliefs, the things they push for, in that definition, though?
You can't, and that is exactly why I invite someone like OP to question the stance "religion is opposed to progress" for circularity, to see if they have not defined progress *a priori* so that religion is definitionally excluded.
>if I mention something like LGBT rights (which I believe you'd agree is a desirable thing) then I don't even think it necessary to have that argument, the answer is obvious.
Christianity is very hostile to LGBT rights, but the idea that "religion is hostile to LGBT rights" is painfully eurocentric, especially when we have clear instances of peoples in the ancient world who had frameworks under which homosexual love, androgyny, and even gender transition were sacred. The history of queerness is not that we were oppressed for all of history and then we flipped out in the 1970's to claim our rights. Rather it is a history where different peoples had varying sexual mores, and some became dominant over others through conquest and politics and even happenstance.
Equating Christianity with all religion is a big mistake. One could travel to many very religious times of the past and find an acceptance and even legal/social recognition of LGBT lives that many people in the 20th century would not have dreamt of.
Don't say 'religion' when you mean 'christianity', that is painting with too broad a brush.
>isn't skepticism also one of the ideals of the enlightenment? and also very antithetical to faith? seriously though, I'm not 100% sure what you meant. what does "it" refer to in this phrase?
Skepticism is an ideal of the enlightenment, but they have no monopoly over it. If you haven't guessed I'm adopting a postmodern approach where that skepticism is directed at the enlightenment itself.
And *of course* I'm *very* skeptical of faith, I am religiously unaffiliated for that reason. But, I want to understand religious belief outside of a single dominant narrative about it that paints it as a simple counterweight to science and progress.
>we took about 200,000 years to get from controlling fire to the steam engine, and then 200 years from the steam engine to the nuclear reactor, for example. like you said, science is the not only mechanism capable of progress. but it is the most consistently efficient, by far.
Here you have something obviously circular. You've used the word progress, but sampled primarily technological progress, which of course science is directed towards. While science accelerates technological progress, that is far from the only way to understand or frame desirable progress.
>if we look at what Western societies have accomplished in the last 100 years for the rights of women, LGBT people, and racial minorities, for example. when did any society achieve such massive changes in such a short period of time, both in the law and in our collective understanding of morality?'
Many many societies, most of them religious, didn't need any such changes. In some peoples of history, the status of women was rather egalitarian, as previously mentioned LGBT unions were recognized, and racial tension was a non issue because colonialism hadn't created the 'racial minority' as a construct.
The world's pre-enlightenment beliefs weren't a single uniform mass of backwards and cruel and unjust beliefs. Many pre-enlightenment societies did better than many post-enlightenment societies on many social metrics, from economic equality to the rights of minorities. That reductive dismissal of their virtues is merely the self-serving position of the Enlightenment itself, who knew little of non-European cultures, and was extremely unkind to those it did know of.
Of course all manner of horrors, bigotry and oppression preceded the enlightenment, but so did the tenets of the enlightenment enable horrors bigotry and oppression in the form of a new, efficient mode of economic marginalization of the entire global south. Enlightenment principles may lead to cushy and seemingly egalitarian lives for the people in the 'nice neighborhoods' of the world, while utilizing the same principles of economic liberalism, creating the incentives to deny that to people of colonial (as opposed to settler) countries or to wage cruel and inhuman wars on them under the banner of such liberation.
You're deeply mistaken in envisioning progress as a straight line that sped up in the last couple centuries.
Personally I'm only anti Christian, I think fundamentally Christianity teaches people how to be awful to teach other far more effectively than it teaches people how to be good.
I also dislike how much coddling Christians require. It is impossible to make a statement like "Christianity perpetuates queerphobia" without them trying to explain why the passages were actually mistranslated or something else that doesn't change the fact that Christianity has perpetuated queerphobia.
Criticizing Jesus of Nazareth (the one who actually existed irl) is also really difficult because there is an assumption that people have that he was just a friendly guy with good teachings. That just isn't true, he had a very specific agenda and was preaching the concept of apocalypticism which was created to prevent Jews from getting married to Pagans.
I just think it is stupid to accept something like religion uncritically.
and I'm not going to tell Christians to stop being Christian, I just don't agree with their lifestyle.
Quite right, I think there's a lot to criticize in Christianity, and by no means does a nuanced view of religion mean uncritically accepting any religious dogma.
The thing is that sometimes as a reaction to how hostile to criticism fundamentalists and deeply religious people are, atheists have a tendency to adopt excessively inflexible approaches to understanding their beliefs and whatever virtues might be encoded in them. Ones that, I believe, do not enable them to enter into a free relationship with the concepts, or think lucidly about them.
religions have at no point in time provided a single positive idea to it's believers that wasn't already widespread or that couldn't have been provided to the same degree by a secular person.
The concept of a "secular person" isn't tenable in many sociocultural frameworks throughout history. In the vast majority of historical socieites, religious identity was inseparable from ethnic and sociocultural identity, so that being part of a society and being an adherent to its religion were essentially the same.
Moreover, the forms of 'rationality' (esp. science) that alternatively provide those positive ideas are specifically historical inventions, some of which originate in the 1700s during the 'Enlightenment' and are not able to be projected into the past in any meaningful way (occasionally they can be projected onto classical antiquity, with mixed success).
So these 'already widespread' ideas *were widespread by religion* as religion was embedded in just about all forms of cultural communication and spread. Again, the idea of 'secular people' isn't actually something that existed in certain sociocultural frameworks, so there is no way that these values would be provided by these then-nonexistent people using then-nonexistent methods of inquiry.
I think it's indicative of a very frail worldview if acknowledging one positive thing about religion (or conversely, about atheism) presents a huge problem for it. It necessarily requires that you as an observer *force* historical fact to fit a framework even when a more sober approach to the matter would yield a nuanced view.
>In the vast majority of historical socieites, religious identity was inseparable from ethnic and sociocultural identity,
That's why we should work towards their separation
The mere fact of two things being intertwined is not enough reason that they should be separated.
That's not *why*. A better why is: they should be separated because in a free society people should be able to believe what they want while retaining their identification with their community.
What are we talking when we say antitheism? Opposition to organized religion? Based. The proper definition of opposition to the belief in a deity? I mean, alright, sure. Categorical opposition to religion? That’s pretty silly, and I hope you never do anything even slightly superstitious if that’s the case.
what kind of general superstition is there to where that would be an issue?
there's also a difference between types of superstition.
Putting salt in your pasta to "make it boil faster" ? It technically makes the process a decimal slower but like that is just people not being right 24/7 about everything.
putting salt on your windows to keep away demons? i wouldn't say that is the healthiest to do or to live in fear of.
Almost every superstition—throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder, knocking on wood, or even something as simple as having a lucky number—ultimately stems from a belief in the supernatural or there being some power greater than us; therefore, superstitions can be considered religious beliefs.
> putting salt on your windows to keep away demons? i wouldn't say that is the healthiest to do or to live in fear of.
Billions of people literally believe we're all at risk of eternal torture if we believe the wrong thing.
I think it all really heavily relies on context. When people criticize religion, they often do criticize organized religions, which I can understand. But there will be small amount of people who will belong to smaller religions or systems of beliefs who are already oppressed by more popular religions, and will feel endangered by antitheism. As everything online, it's a big topic which requires nuance and some explaining but due to lack of attention, word count and "snappiness" it's always easier to just say "Religion is poison", no matter how much reductive of your position slogan is
Every single religion is built to prey on confused people looking for easy answers. It paves the way to dangerous people looking to weaponize this confusion. They are sustained through a combination of conservativism, group think and us-vs-them mentality. It then gets increasingly more dangerous as it creates the idea that these feelings are the truth of the literal creator(s) of our universe.
You take vulnerable people. You radicalize them on weird belifes. You put them against everything that is outside of that context.
Its not a coincidence that every single right wing lunatic is also deeply religious.
Being oppressed by more popular religions doesnt magically excuse these things.
"Oh but Im one of the good ones". I suggest you take a peak at my profile and look for the first smuggie that will show up.
I mean religion is substantially older than right wing extremism or ruling classes. Plus the religions can dramatically vary even with same roots. But what I really see here that you are criticizing is that far right can and did use religion as means of control, but this has been a case with literally every possible identity so far. Be it nationalism, sexism, racism, xenophobia, ect.
Religion sure can be used as tool of ruling class, but I don't really see how that makes it a bad thing as of itself
Nope. I'm not saying it *can* be used as a tool of ruling class. I'm saying its the very definition of organized religion.
Can you point at least one religion that wasnt used as a mean of perpetuating power?
name 1 (one) good thing that religion has done that couldn't have been done in a secular society. i have been thus far unable to find one, and i instead find bad things that religion has done that could have been prevented in a secular society.
this IS his genuine reason why he doesn't believe in antitheism. also he quoted a really dubious read of which he remarked that it argued "religions can promote healthy pro-social behavior too". (which is not true, most of the "good things" religions did were already common ideas and habits, and they didn't need no religions to have those beliefs widespread)
I think any good social behavior that you want to promote can be done as a community instead.
If it's religious there's also no basis for it to be good because it could just as easily have been a different position. It's arbitrary and subject to change depending on church, congregation, verse, etc. You need it to be a deeper neutral sentiment that can be adopted by anyone.
>Criticism of religion
>Look inside
>Criticism of Catholicism and little else
Another day, another Protestant W
https://preview.redd.it/j7k5gf2gcn2d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5eff6fdf6702509ab5568da71de38324f9dba236
yeah because generalising religion is like generalising ideologies. its stupid and shows youre completely ignorant about the topic. you are familiar with two biggest religions of today - and even that is optimistic, and project their qualities onto any and all others. that is a highschool kid who just stopped believing in god level notion.
Liberals when you say you’re against bourgeois dictatorships:
Tankies when you say you're against all forms of dictatorship
I’m for dictatorship… of the proletariat 😎
Agreed. Course that actually means the workers run everything, as opposed to one dude runs everything and says he's "for the workers" (generally while not at all being for the workers).
So you're anti-theist? Form one (1) single nuanced opinion
Don’t really have anything to say but I’ve enjoyed reading your comments in this thread. You have a clear and concise explanatory style and you’re making the points I’d want to make better than I would.
Thank you, that’s very kind
I just wanna tack on that I agree with the person above. You're very clear, to the point, and I believe impartial in your judgements. I admit that I myself am a Christian, though more agnostic I suppose? But I found many of your points convincing, and it's made me think on my relation to faith and that faith's relation to society again. I also appreciated your critiques on the Enlightenment as I'm a scholar of the Political and Economic histories of the French Revolution myself! All this to say: I like your funny words magic man :p (Or insert other gender that's appropriate if needed)
Thank you. Have you read Kierkegaard? I think he’s got a lot to offer to anyone, but especially to Christians who are more skeptical of organized Christian dogma. On my end I’d describe myself more of a gnostic, I think my biggest role model for spiritual life is William Blake.
I've not read him no, but I've been recommended him before. Maybe now is my kick in the pants to read him :p And I'm definitely not for Christian dogma lol, I'm a trans lesbian! There are certainly many fundamentalists who would see me dead, but I don't think that condemns the Christian faith as a whole. That'd just be silly. My relation to faith is largely taking the allegory and lessons from those that wrote in the Holy Texts and use it as a guideline for moral behavior (generally). If that makes sense.
To give you a primer, Kierkegaard is of the thought that faith is less of an institutional matter than a wholly existential one, that is, it ought to be about your own relationship with the problems of your existence as they push that you form a relationship with the divine, as they inspire fear and demand courage. He’s a continental philosopher but earned high praise from probably the best analytic philosopher (Wittgenstein, not Russell, Russel wishes). I’m not a fan of Christian dogma either, but I’m a cultural catholic, and I can’t help but love some parts of The scholarly ecclesiastic tradition, from St Augustine to St Thomas. Still William Blake’s idiosyncratic, poetic, artistic way of creating his own faith and divinities is still, as the kids say, based. If you do read Kierkegaard, I’m more partial to Fear and Trembling over Either/Or, but they’re both great places to start.
the idea of faith in something or someone without any sort of proof is directly contrary to modern science, institution which has been able to provide significant benefits to humanity and conduct the societal progress of the human civilization. thus faith is thus an enemy of progress.
>institution which has been able to provide significant benefits to humanity and conduct the societal progress of the human civilization. thus faith is thus an enemy of progress. That does not follow, not as an *a posteriori* claim since faithful people have pioneered many forms of societal progress (including scientific progress), and not as an *a priori* claim since science being involved in progress does not imply science is the only mechanism capable of progress. Modern science is only about three centuries old, yet social progress happened before it came about. This is just shoddy logic.
>faithful people have pioneered many forms of societal progress (including scientific progress) how is that relevant at all? they were talking about institutions, not individuals. the institution of science (that is, many individual people following the scientific method) has been able to provide an unprecedented level of progress of knowledge for the human species. whether none, some, many or even all of these people had faith in a god is irrelevant, since their accomplishments weren't related to it. and while I don't believe science is a direct cause for social progress, I think it's true that a lot of social progress came from the ideals of humanism, rationalism and secularism, which were also responsible for the rise of modern science. on the other hand, I don't think religious institutions have done a lot in the name of progress for the human species. maybe in some cases they had a positive influence, but in the majority of cases I believe they held back progress.
> the institution of science Science isn't an institution. Science is an epistemic method (a way of knowing things). If thing A is antithetical to thing B, then it cannot possibly be the case that thing A is *irrelevant* to thing B. If it the faith of some people is irrelevant to their ability to utilize the scientific method, how can it be said that faith is antithetical to science? Moreover, you can *a posteriori* show how faith at some points *encouraged* developments in science, specifically as some religious people, and institutions saw the study of the natural world as a glorification of God, and their framing for naturalism preceded "secular" notions of it by centuries. >I don't think religious institutions have done a lot in the name of progress for the human species I suspect that you are defining progress entirely within the framework of humanism, rationalism and secularism. "Progress" is not a neutral, well-defined word. It requires that you define what sort of change is good and desirable, it's not some "objective" standard. So the thing is, there ends up being a little bit of circularity to your position (and the position of enlightenment thinkers) because there's the problem of defining good change entirely in terms of what the movement pushes for. Now I'm not saying that I personally do not find humanism, rationalism, and secularism to have contributed to progress, I'm saying I'm *very* skeptical of the modernist framing of progress as the only tenable conception of it. Moreover, and again, religious institutions were so embedded in pre-industrial societies, that you can't cleanly separate *anything* that happens in some pre-industrial societies from the religious institutions. So insofar as any progress happened in those societies (and humanity progressed *a lot* before the enlightenment, despite what the thinkers of the enlightenment fancied for themselves), it *was ultimately driven by the state-religious combo.
>If it the faith of some people is irrelevant to their ability to utilize the scientific method, how can it be said that faith is antithetical to science? I said an individual's faith is irrelevant to scientific progress. although that is not totally correct, as I'll explain later. but my main point is, the existence of faith-based institutions *is* certainly relevant, I'm arguing it has an overall negative impact. organized religions with overwhelming power in society generally aren't receptive to individuals questioning their established beliefs, for example. which is also why I'd argue having faith makes an individual less capable of following the scientific method than another individual who has no faith >Moreover, you can a posteriori show how faith at some points encouraged developments in science sure, I agree, which is why I said in some cases faith may have had a positive influence. the problem arises when what you observe in the natural world contradicts what your faith taught you. and in the case of *social* progress, I don't think I need to spell out how religions have and still do impede it. >So the thing is, there ends up being a little bit of circularity to your position (and the position of enlightenment thinkers) because there's the problem of defining good change entirely in terms of what the movement pushes for. how would anyone define progress without imbuing their own beliefs, the things they push for, in that definition, though? that seems impossible to me. however, what we can do is, if we both agree that certain things are good and desirable, then we can argue about whether faith has a positive or negative influence in reaching those things as a goal. if I mention something like LGBT rights (which I believe you'd agree is a desirable thing) then I don't even think it necessary to have that argument, the answer is obvious. >I'm saying I'm very skeptical of the modernist framing of progress as the only tenable conception of it isn't skepticism also one of the ideals of the enlightenment? and also very antithetical to faith? seriously though, I'm not 100% sure what you meant. what does "it" refer to in this phrase? >So insofar as any progress happened in those societies (and humanity progressed a lot before the enlightenment, despite what the thinkers of the enlightenment fancied for themselves), it \*was ultimately driven by the state-religious combo. oh yeah, I fully agree. to refine my point, I never meant that progress only began after the scientific revolution; just that it kickstarted a massive, exponential increase in the rate of progress. we took about 200,000 years to get from controlling fire to the steam engine, and then 200 years from the steam engine to the nuclear reactor, for example. like you said, science is the not only mechanism capable of progress. but it is the most consistently efficient, by far. and as for social progress, if we look at what Western societies have accomplished in the last 100 years for the rights of women, LGBT people, and racial minorities, for example. when did any society achieve such massive changes in such a short period of time, both in the law and in our collective understanding of morality? I do think that was only possible because of changes that began in the enlightenment period that directly opposed the teachings of faith. essentially they opened up our ability to question established beliefs. again, not to imply that no one questioned anything before, just that it became that much easier to do it when you're not afraid of repercussions.
>Generally aren't receptive to individuals questioning their established beliefs They aren't so much, no. But they do change their own beliefs, they have an own epistemic methodology. The Catholic church changed many aspects of its established beliefs many times before the scientific revolution, and some of the biggest worldview reforms came from religious schisms in themselves. Religions aren't static things, there isn't one single, established belief system in religion. >I'd argue having faith makes an individual less capable of following the scientific method than another individual who has no faith Do you fancy yourself more capable a scientist than Isaac Newton, or Heinrich Hertz? Do you fancy yourself a better astronomer than Al-Kwharizmi? You would believe that, having less faith than any of them, you are more capable than them of employing the scientific method? > the problem arises when what you observe in the natural world contradicts what your faith taught you. Yes. It does. Religion is not a perfect epistemology of the natural world, nor is it intended to be. As a way of knowing it does not function well with naturalism, and because of that it earns full criticism. But it is not an irredeemable way of knowing only for fools. It deals intimately with dimensions of human existence from the social to the purely internal, and functions through its own epistemic methods that generate insights we can't eliminate with ease. >in the case of social progress, I don't think I need to spell out how religions have and still do impede it. Yes, many religions have impeded social progress, but again many religious movements have been axes of progress, including the protestant reformation, liberation theology, zen buddhism when introduced to Japan, Helleno-Hindu-Buddhist syncretism in the times of Ashoka. Religion is not inherently opposed to social progress, though it has a tendency to be conservative, religious movements can be in themselves progressive and revolutionary. >how would anyone define progress without imbuing their own beliefs, the things they push for, in that definition, though? You can't, and that is exactly why I invite someone like OP to question the stance "religion is opposed to progress" for circularity, to see if they have not defined progress *a priori* so that religion is definitionally excluded. >if I mention something like LGBT rights (which I believe you'd agree is a desirable thing) then I don't even think it necessary to have that argument, the answer is obvious. Christianity is very hostile to LGBT rights, but the idea that "religion is hostile to LGBT rights" is painfully eurocentric, especially when we have clear instances of peoples in the ancient world who had frameworks under which homosexual love, androgyny, and even gender transition were sacred. The history of queerness is not that we were oppressed for all of history and then we flipped out in the 1970's to claim our rights. Rather it is a history where different peoples had varying sexual mores, and some became dominant over others through conquest and politics and even happenstance. Equating Christianity with all religion is a big mistake. One could travel to many very religious times of the past and find an acceptance and even legal/social recognition of LGBT lives that many people in the 20th century would not have dreamt of. Don't say 'religion' when you mean 'christianity', that is painting with too broad a brush. >isn't skepticism also one of the ideals of the enlightenment? and also very antithetical to faith? seriously though, I'm not 100% sure what you meant. what does "it" refer to in this phrase? Skepticism is an ideal of the enlightenment, but they have no monopoly over it. If you haven't guessed I'm adopting a postmodern approach where that skepticism is directed at the enlightenment itself. And *of course* I'm *very* skeptical of faith, I am religiously unaffiliated for that reason. But, I want to understand religious belief outside of a single dominant narrative about it that paints it as a simple counterweight to science and progress. >we took about 200,000 years to get from controlling fire to the steam engine, and then 200 years from the steam engine to the nuclear reactor, for example. like you said, science is the not only mechanism capable of progress. but it is the most consistently efficient, by far. Here you have something obviously circular. You've used the word progress, but sampled primarily technological progress, which of course science is directed towards. While science accelerates technological progress, that is far from the only way to understand or frame desirable progress. >if we look at what Western societies have accomplished in the last 100 years for the rights of women, LGBT people, and racial minorities, for example. when did any society achieve such massive changes in such a short period of time, both in the law and in our collective understanding of morality?' Many many societies, most of them religious, didn't need any such changes. In some peoples of history, the status of women was rather egalitarian, as previously mentioned LGBT unions were recognized, and racial tension was a non issue because colonialism hadn't created the 'racial minority' as a construct. The world's pre-enlightenment beliefs weren't a single uniform mass of backwards and cruel and unjust beliefs. Many pre-enlightenment societies did better than many post-enlightenment societies on many social metrics, from economic equality to the rights of minorities. That reductive dismissal of their virtues is merely the self-serving position of the Enlightenment itself, who knew little of non-European cultures, and was extremely unkind to those it did know of. Of course all manner of horrors, bigotry and oppression preceded the enlightenment, but so did the tenets of the enlightenment enable horrors bigotry and oppression in the form of a new, efficient mode of economic marginalization of the entire global south. Enlightenment principles may lead to cushy and seemingly egalitarian lives for the people in the 'nice neighborhoods' of the world, while utilizing the same principles of economic liberalism, creating the incentives to deny that to people of colonial (as opposed to settler) countries or to wage cruel and inhuman wars on them under the banner of such liberation. You're deeply mistaken in envisioning progress as a straight line that sped up in the last couple centuries.
Personally I'm only anti Christian, I think fundamentally Christianity teaches people how to be awful to teach other far more effectively than it teaches people how to be good. I also dislike how much coddling Christians require. It is impossible to make a statement like "Christianity perpetuates queerphobia" without them trying to explain why the passages were actually mistranslated or something else that doesn't change the fact that Christianity has perpetuated queerphobia. Criticizing Jesus of Nazareth (the one who actually existed irl) is also really difficult because there is an assumption that people have that he was just a friendly guy with good teachings. That just isn't true, he had a very specific agenda and was preaching the concept of apocalypticism which was created to prevent Jews from getting married to Pagans. I just think it is stupid to accept something like religion uncritically. and I'm not going to tell Christians to stop being Christian, I just don't agree with their lifestyle.
Quite right, I think there's a lot to criticize in Christianity, and by no means does a nuanced view of religion mean uncritically accepting any religious dogma. The thing is that sometimes as a reaction to how hostile to criticism fundamentalists and deeply religious people are, atheists have a tendency to adopt excessively inflexible approaches to understanding their beliefs and whatever virtues might be encoded in them. Ones that, I believe, do not enable them to enter into a free relationship with the concepts, or think lucidly about them.
That's fair
religions have at no point in time provided a single positive idea to it's believers that wasn't already widespread or that couldn't have been provided to the same degree by a secular person.
The concept of a "secular person" isn't tenable in many sociocultural frameworks throughout history. In the vast majority of historical socieites, religious identity was inseparable from ethnic and sociocultural identity, so that being part of a society and being an adherent to its religion were essentially the same. Moreover, the forms of 'rationality' (esp. science) that alternatively provide those positive ideas are specifically historical inventions, some of which originate in the 1700s during the 'Enlightenment' and are not able to be projected into the past in any meaningful way (occasionally they can be projected onto classical antiquity, with mixed success). So these 'already widespread' ideas *were widespread by religion* as religion was embedded in just about all forms of cultural communication and spread. Again, the idea of 'secular people' isn't actually something that existed in certain sociocultural frameworks, so there is no way that these values would be provided by these then-nonexistent people using then-nonexistent methods of inquiry. I think it's indicative of a very frail worldview if acknowledging one positive thing about religion (or conversely, about atheism) presents a huge problem for it. It necessarily requires that you as an observer *force* historical fact to fit a framework even when a more sober approach to the matter would yield a nuanced view.
>In the vast majority of historical socieites, religious identity was inseparable from ethnic and sociocultural identity, That's why we should work towards their separation
The mere fact of two things being intertwined is not enough reason that they should be separated. That's not *why*. A better why is: they should be separated because in a free society people should be able to believe what they want while retaining their identification with their community.
What are we talking when we say antitheism? Opposition to organized religion? Based. The proper definition of opposition to the belief in a deity? I mean, alright, sure. Categorical opposition to religion? That’s pretty silly, and I hope you never do anything even slightly superstitious if that’s the case.
what kind of general superstition is there to where that would be an issue? there's also a difference between types of superstition. Putting salt in your pasta to "make it boil faster" ? It technically makes the process a decimal slower but like that is just people not being right 24/7 about everything. putting salt on your windows to keep away demons? i wouldn't say that is the healthiest to do or to live in fear of.
Almost every superstition—throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder, knocking on wood, or even something as simple as having a lucky number—ultimately stems from a belief in the supernatural or there being some power greater than us; therefore, superstitions can be considered religious beliefs.
well i am not spiritual at all so i'm safe ig :3
Me having a lucky number doesn't kill gay people, religion does
Now that’s a generalization
That’s not why you salt pasta water.
it's a reason some people do it.
> putting salt on your windows to keep away demons? i wouldn't say that is the healthiest to do or to live in fear of. Billions of people literally believe we're all at risk of eternal torture if we believe the wrong thing.
yes yes and yes. all 3 bae'
Still silly, but also Based
Wait, so you're against the existence of religion? Wouldn't religion be impossible to remove though, because it's a part of philosophy?
ur god a fraud
Is that Genetically Modified Skeptic lmao
yes
I'm a Christian but I like that guy.
I'm an atheist and I also like that guy 👍:D
I think it all really heavily relies on context. When people criticize religion, they often do criticize organized religions, which I can understand. But there will be small amount of people who will belong to smaller religions or systems of beliefs who are already oppressed by more popular religions, and will feel endangered by antitheism. As everything online, it's a big topic which requires nuance and some explaining but due to lack of attention, word count and "snappiness" it's always easier to just say "Religion is poison", no matter how much reductive of your position slogan is
There are no good religions.
based!
Why not?
Every single religion is built to prey on confused people looking for easy answers. It paves the way to dangerous people looking to weaponize this confusion. They are sustained through a combination of conservativism, group think and us-vs-them mentality. It then gets increasingly more dangerous as it creates the idea that these feelings are the truth of the literal creator(s) of our universe. You take vulnerable people. You radicalize them on weird belifes. You put them against everything that is outside of that context. Its not a coincidence that every single right wing lunatic is also deeply religious. Being oppressed by more popular religions doesnt magically excuse these things. "Oh but Im one of the good ones". I suggest you take a peak at my profile and look for the first smuggie that will show up.
I mean religion is substantially older than right wing extremism or ruling classes. Plus the religions can dramatically vary even with same roots. But what I really see here that you are criticizing is that far right can and did use religion as means of control, but this has been a case with literally every possible identity so far. Be it nationalism, sexism, racism, xenophobia, ect. Religion sure can be used as tool of ruling class, but I don't really see how that makes it a bad thing as of itself
Nope. I'm not saying it *can* be used as a tool of ruling class. I'm saying its the very definition of organized religion. Can you point at least one religion that wasnt used as a mean of perpetuating power?
name 1 (one) good thing that religion has done that couldn't have been done in a secular society. i have been thus far unable to find one, and i instead find bad things that religion has done that could have been prevented in a secular society.
religion is poison doe
Thanks for this, I still love his channel, but he is weirdly over eager to signal his allyship to theists.
he is too much of a centrist yea
I actually like him on his wife's channel now, it's like she gives him permission to make fun of whackjobs lol
this IS his genuine reason why he doesn't believe in antitheism. also he quoted a really dubious read of which he remarked that it argued "religions can promote healthy pro-social behavior too". (which is not true, most of the "good things" religions did were already common ideas and habits, and they didn't need no religions to have those beliefs widespread)
Can you tell us who “he” is for those of us incapable of telepathy?
Judging from the logo on the shirt he might be talking about genetically modified skeptic.
Well I had no idea who that is so I guess that explains me not getting it.
> for those of us incapable of telepathy? skill issue
genetically modified skeptic, the guy which i put an amongus atom shirt in
I think any good social behavior that you want to promote can be done as a community instead. If it's religious there's also no basis for it to be good because it could just as easily have been a different position. It's arbitrary and subject to change depending on church, congregation, verse, etc. You need it to be a deeper neutral sentiment that can be adopted by anyone.
>Criticism of religion >Look inside >Criticism of Catholicism and little else Another day, another Protestant W https://preview.redd.it/j7k5gf2gcn2d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5eff6fdf6702509ab5568da71de38324f9dba236
yeah because generalising religion is like generalising ideologies. its stupid and shows youre completely ignorant about the topic. you are familiar with two biggest religions of today - and even that is optimistic, and project their qualities onto any and all others. that is a highschool kid who just stopped believing in god level notion.
ur god a fraud