by Joshua Minton
I thought I'd write you quick note after learning that the exchange of information is going to destroy organized religion and large-scale warfare.
I don't know, Richie boy--I think you've gone off the deep end a bit. I've watched a few of your You Tube offerings and read a snippet or two there (still haven't gotten to your books yet because Song of Myself is just too beautiful to put down and let's face it, anybody with a brain in their head and a heart in their chest should be reading Walt Whitman every waking moment of the day.
I don't know man--this whole science replacing God thing that you kooky Bioethicists have drudged up again is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth. Not that I'm against offending organized religion because, shit--me and Nietzsche invented that shit; but I find the whole premise of religion and war becoming marginalized by the greater exchange of information to be a bit laughable.
Speaking of Nietzsche, he said it best in Thus Spake Zarathustra: "You have made your way from worm to man and much in you is still worm." Much in you is still worm, Richie boy--don't forget your roots.
I agree with you that it's a bit preposterous that so many millions of people out there worship words and the books that bind them and the ideas they project to the point of continuing to murder over them. It is a bit childish to worship and facilitate a long outdated ritual (no matter what the religion). But wouldn't you concur that religion is ultimately a positive organizing force in society?
No?
George Washington did. He said:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.Now I know you British bastages don't respect Washington as much as we do here in the land of fluoride and white teeth but I think he made a valid point.
See, science has a point where it ends, where it can go no further and at that point it shuts down as a support system because logic can only go so far (I know that truth may hurt but sit with it and let it kill your ego and you'll feel much better about this whole thing).
I guess what I'm saying is that you'll never convince someone to turn away from their conception of divinity by appealing to their logic and reason. You have to speak to their heart and to do that, Richie boy, you need to understand metaphors. One well-placed metaphor can murder millions or lift them up to the heights of ecstasy.
People need a reason to live and science is the scenery of life, it isn't the driving principle that makes our boners raise the sheets at dawn every day.
God is not in the details because God is just a word. But that word is trying to point us past itself to a universal truth beyond names and forms, an underlying factotum of existence so basic that it supports and subverts the very logic which seeks to ascertain its circumference and depth.
Anyway, keep up the good work tearing the churches down brick by brick but just remember that the human heart abhors a vacuum--something has to be rebuilt in place of the church and the world already has enough Wal-Marts and universities.
Cheers Mate,
Josh
Other Posts in the Category: Religion/Spirituality, Science and Technology
This blog was originally posted on January 5, 2007


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.