Ok, do I really need to list all of the bigoted, phobic, and discriminatory 'morals' which theistic religions propagate?
As secularism and atheism tbecomes more prevalent, the question is morality and who is to teach those principles. Marriage is supported and fed with many religions. Children who are brought up in a community that they see on a regular basis interacting with adults and learning ways of conduct. That i feel is missing outside of religion, and is very timely.
Really? I could have sworn that it was scientists who actually study the human condition and provide factual evidence, not fairy tale creatures to explain our world. My mistake.
Most scientists subscribe to the non overlapping magisteria position, simply expressed science deals with 'how', religion deals with 'why'. And please do find me a study that deals with the human condition in this particular context. I cannot think of a single one.
I think you mean 'any art which (insert theistic faith here) approves of' because there was a great block of time where any art that wasn't approved of was not allowed, and many artists were murdered and works destroyed, simply for their art.
Religious institutions have long been patrons of art and science, without whom some of the greatest works of sculpture, painting, architecture and invention would not exist today. (See da vinci, michael angelo, carravagio etc).
As far as 'timeless institutions' I'm a bit lost as to what you meant there.
Institutions such as the nuclear family, community and everything derivative. I think secular liberals and proto socialists underestimate how difficult it is to construct these things, and as such pay them little heed in terms of their usefulness within a society. Religions advantage is that it has had years of practice plucking at the heartstrings and fostering the loyalty of its devotees. This conservative burkean insight warns that replacements for religion will have to evolve and not emerge pret a porter.
And this is really a key point. Hitchens, dennett, harris, all agree that to create an institution you must build on an old one. Ideally current churhces would evolve into 'churches of humanity' in all but name. Sadly the churches dont seem to be going that way, and the secularist jihad is approaching the issue of religion from the complete wrong angle. If secularists want to replace religion, they must first understand its importance and significance to society and how it functions.
To some extent, yes. Although there are many lessons which are decidedly discriminatory and bigoted which I doubt could be considered moral.
I like larkins take on this
in ''water'' less practical perhaps, but beautiful.
It seems to me that these rituals of solidarity and love are the safe points from which we skate out onto the thin ice of modern life. And the thinner the ice gets, the more we need them.
Look at it this way. Take the dualistic debate as an example. Either we have a soul or we dont. If we do, and it enters the body at conception, practices like stem cell research and abortion are crimes against humanity. If as is far more likely we dont, and the soul is a metaphor for all that we value of human consciousness/sentience, then abortion and stem cell research make sense in many circumstances. Theres nothing fruitless about getting to the bottom of these issues, since they go to the heart of the deepest moral debates.
What efforts? And what perspective to they apply?
There is, and always be a place for religion in society. Many fellow atheists (see positivism, humanism) understand this, and see the need to develop an evolved belief system rather than a church founded on and stuck fast to dead dogma. Surely this appeals to atheists? Rejection of supernatural content based on a timeless axiom 'know yourself to improve yourself'.
So many philosophers have held this belief central to their lives, shakespeare:'know thy self' (macbeth i think) to james allen 'as a man thinketh, so he shall be'. But of course these thoughts are the realm of the thinking few and can never be applied to the whole. Nevertheless we are, and by extension, this world, only the sum of our individual and collective thoughts, and in essence the more people that think positively about themselves, other people and nature, then only good can come of it. I think these religiously founded and funded tenets have so much to offer secular man, its beyond words.
Seems like a very noble cause, to be sure. "Join us or die" seems like a very considerate, loving, and moral philosophy to hold.
Here we go again trotting out the same old straw mans based in a pre industrial, pre renaissance even, context. I am talking about the place for religion in modern society, a bit of historical objectivity based on historical context and an open mind. Its nice one liners like these that detract from all the important issues. I mean, who cares what happens to societies in upheavel, when all you have to do is trot out lazy historical imagery of crusader knights?
