Guest are encouraged to leave comments here; you do not have to register an account. All that I ask is that you be respectful of the other readers of this site and its host. Stick to the ideas being expressed and you should be okay. Get personal and you might not like the results. Thanks for reading.
You know, I keeping hearing people make this point and I just don't get it. I've never felt that there was anything "missing" because I don't believe in God, or that this belief I don't have needed to have something else put in its place. When children get old enough that we tell them there isn't really a Tooth Fairy, we don't usually feel we need to give them something in place of the belief they no longer have.
About 8% of Americans are atheists or agnostics. Most people in Japan and China, and at least half the people in Europe and Russia, are atheists (if you get down to the level of what they actually believe, as opposed to the labels they give themselves). That's a lot of people. Being an atheist is not some kind of bizarre novel rarity.
Dawkins can be undiplomatic at times, and he might be more effective if he were better at feigning respect for the bronze age myths he campaigns against, but the fact still remains that he's right.
I do agree with you that science cannot replace religion. They're two completely different things. Science is a system for deducing facts about reality based on evidence; it's specifically designed to filter out the effects of any emotional bias of the observer. Religion is a set of unsupported assertions which people cling to so fiercely, in my opinion, because it comforts them in the face of the inevitability of physical death. Science cannot "replace" this. It can only give us the truth, comforting or otherwise.
Of course, if I and a lot of other people are right about the future course of technology, within the next twenty years aging will be largely eradicated in rich countries, and death will no longer be inevitable. After this, I expect that what is left of religion really will wither away -- because the basis for the psychological need for it will be gone. I do hope Dawkins is still around to see that.
Infidel, you have raised a fascinating point--if there were no death, would there be a need for religion in the first place. It's a conundrum of Christianity that should be self-eradicating in that the central tenet of Christ's teaching is that there is no such thing as death of the spirit, therefore there should be no fear of the death of the soul, yet the Church has emphasized the preposterously misquoted statement (in my opinion) of Jesus's that "No one shall get to heaven but through me."
I need to cogitate a little more. Thanks for joining in the discussion, my friend.
It's an untestable (and therefore unscientific) hypothesis, but one I increasingly find plausible: the explanation for why people cling so hard to religion, and lash out so viciously at unbelievers, is simply that religion developed as a psychological defense mechanism which enables humans to cope with their awareness of inevitable death by believing in some sort of existence after death. It may seem incredible that such a powerful force as religion could have its origin in something so simple, but my personal opinion is that that is exactly what happened.
And a person who challenges the carefully-nurtured mental construct is threatening the believer in a very profound way -- by forcing him to face the possibility that it might all not be true, that maybe there is no afterlife and he, the believer, is doomed to plain non-existence after death. It's a terrifying thought. So the believer lashes out, hurls insults, even tortures and kills -- to punish the source of the terror and ensure that no one else will ever dare threaten his threadbare security blanket again.
Strange thinking. It was logic and reason that convinced me that God does exist, and it is science that keeps confirming that fact over and over again.
Infidel, I can assure you that nothing you could say would threaten my beliefs nor would the thought that there is no life after death bother me in the least. (And yes, I am a Christian, although not the kind you read about or hear about. Call me a Jeffersonian Christian.) I do think your beliefs about believers are based upon false assumptions rather than direct knowledge.
As far as your question of whether eternal life would/will eliminate the need for religion, I think you completely miss the point. Most people seek out religion because their lives have no meaning, not because they fear death. It is the feeling of internal emptiness that drives people into the pews, not the fear of damnation or even simple physical death.
The BWP Comment Policy
Guest are encouraged to leave comments here; you do not have to register an account. All that I ask is that you be respectful of the other readers of this site and its host. Stick to the ideas being expressed and you should be okay. Get personal and you might not like the results. Thanks for reading.About 8% of Americans are atheists or agnostics. Most people in Japan and China, and at least half the people in Europe and Russia, are atheists (if you get down to the level of what they actually believe, as opposed to the labels they give themselves). That's a lot of people. Being an atheist is not some kind of bizarre novel rarity.
Dawkins can be undiplomatic at times, and he might be more effective if he were better at feigning respect for the bronze age myths he campaigns against, but the fact still remains that he's right.
I do agree with you that science cannot replace religion. They're two completely different things. Science is a system for deducing facts about reality based on evidence; it's specifically designed to filter out the effects of any emotional bias of the observer. Religion is a set of unsupported assertions which people cling to so fiercely, in my opinion, because it comforts them in the face of the inevitability of physical death. Science cannot "replace" this. It can only give us the truth, comforting or otherwise.
Of course, if I and a lot of other people are right about the future course of technology, within the next twenty years aging will be largely eradicated in rich countries, and death will no longer be inevitable. After this, I expect that what is left of religion really will wither away -- because the basis for the psychological need for it will be gone. I do hope Dawkins is still around to see that.
I need to cogitate a little more. Thanks for joining in the discussion, my friend.
And a person who challenges the carefully-nurtured mental construct is threatening the believer in a very profound way -- by forcing him to face the possibility that it might all not be true, that maybe there is no afterlife and he, the believer, is doomed to plain non-existence after death. It's a terrifying thought. So the believer lashes out, hurls insults, even tortures and kills -- to punish the source of the terror and ensure that no one else will ever dare threaten his threadbare security blanket again.
Infidel, I can assure you that nothing you could say would threaten my beliefs nor would the thought that there is no life after death bother me in the least. (And yes, I am a Christian, although not the kind you read about or hear about. Call me a Jeffersonian Christian.) I do think your beliefs about believers are based upon false assumptions rather than direct knowledge.
As far as your question of whether eternal life would/will eliminate the need for religion, I think you completely miss the point. Most people seek out religion because their lives have no meaning, not because they fear death. It is the feeling of internal emptiness that drives people into the pews, not the fear of damnation or even simple physical death.