posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mmoa_writes at 08:52am on 02/02/2009
mmoa_writes at 08:52am on 02/02/2009According to a Theos thinktank, over half of the UK population 'believes in creationism' ...
...And it's those damn militant atheists who are to blame!
Whilst I think there is some truth in the fact that, so long as people still hold to traditional ethnic labels and identify with the religious mores that come with them, if held to a choice between religion and science, most will pick religion. We know why, so there's no need to get all huffy about it - people like community. People like feeling they have a common link to their predecessors, like being reassured that they do in fact exist and religion is one of the few phenomenons that provides this service, in an increasingly 'flat' world.
This is why one shouldn't point the finger of blame at people like Messers Dawkins or Hitchens or Dennett, or those like Prof Blackmore and Grayling. The finger of blame goes directly to those Bishops, Imans and Gurus. They thrive on this culture of conflict, which creates so many unnecessary casualties, this false dilemma of 'God' vs 'Science' and it is pathetic. Then, when people get annoyed about this, they shift the blame elsewhere.
It's handy to blame people like Richard Dawkins, because they are so prolific. But come on people, he's an atheist. You've spent most of your history resorting to emotional blackmail (however unsuccessful that was is not the point) to get people into your places of worship, just deal with the fact that now other people are onto your tactics (and I could home the irony in by adding that these people were brought up under your roofs and have been well versed, it seems, in your technique). You can't keep on blaming people who are without the congregation for the behaviour within the congregation.
The fact is that science matters least of all to religion today. Oh we can all go about saying how pre-Englightenment, the Bible was taken more as metaphor, scientific investigtion was seen as part of the theological discourse, yadda yadda yadda, or how early Muslims were even more pro-science that medieval Christians etc etc etc, but what does that mean today? How many vicars or priests-in-training are taught about evolutionary theory as part of their theology course? How many madrassas offer a parallel reading of the Koran's account with the modern theory of evolution? For some reason, you are all content to thrive on the usual excuses of 'you can't prove negatives' and 'well, how could something come from nothing?', (quite possibly the most bankrupt defenses of theism ever), essentially parrotting a more sophisticated version of the famous 'God of the gaps', as if blind to the fact that someday, people won't need these anymore and then will happily dump whatever 'good' it is that a religious understanding can offer.
Because that's the thing with belief. When it comes to matters of religion (as with politics and philosophy) people can be very pragmatic. Empires have switched official religions, atheists have become Popes and people have converted left right and centre to dodge the tax man. When people no longer need to stick to a certain belief system, they won't. It's quite simple.
Knowing this - as I'm sure most of you do - you've decided to take the easy option. You are complicit in this false dilemma and you are taking advantage of people's emotional needs to ensure their ignorance. I'm sure you don't actually want the side effects of this - side effects such as those results of the poll... - but that is what you are contributing to if you do not keep up your side of the dialogue.
So an atheist is reducing the debate to one of 'God vs Science'. So he's a 'simplistic thinker', former Archbishop of Canterbury. And you, with your remarkable complexity can see through right through this?
Until you start taking scientific theories seriously, start actively re-interpreting your worldview to make sense with alongside the objective portrait of Nature, I'd advise to desist from making empty apologies, or statements reassuring the more educated amongst us that you do not approve of creationism. You've just been very lucky that for the past 200 or so years, you've never had any real responsibility to change. I suggest you start to grow up now.
...And it's those damn militant atheists who are to blame!
Whilst I think there is some truth in the fact that, so long as people still hold to traditional ethnic labels and identify with the religious mores that come with them, if held to a choice between religion and science, most will pick religion. We know why, so there's no need to get all huffy about it - people like community. People like feeling they have a common link to their predecessors, like being reassured that they do in fact exist and religion is one of the few phenomenons that provides this service, in an increasingly 'flat' world.
This is why one shouldn't point the finger of blame at people like Messers Dawkins or Hitchens or Dennett, or those like Prof Blackmore and Grayling. The finger of blame goes directly to those Bishops, Imans and Gurus. They thrive on this culture of conflict, which creates so many unnecessary casualties, this false dilemma of 'God' vs 'Science' and it is pathetic. Then, when people get annoyed about this, they shift the blame elsewhere.
It's handy to blame people like Richard Dawkins, because they are so prolific. But come on people, he's an atheist. You've spent most of your history resorting to emotional blackmail (however unsuccessful that was is not the point) to get people into your places of worship, just deal with the fact that now other people are onto your tactics (and I could home the irony in by adding that these people were brought up under your roofs and have been well versed, it seems, in your technique). You can't keep on blaming people who are without the congregation for the behaviour within the congregation.
The fact is that science matters least of all to religion today. Oh we can all go about saying how pre-Englightenment, the Bible was taken more as metaphor, scientific investigtion was seen as part of the theological discourse, yadda yadda yadda, or how early Muslims were even more pro-science that medieval Christians etc etc etc, but what does that mean today? How many vicars or priests-in-training are taught about evolutionary theory as part of their theology course? How many madrassas offer a parallel reading of the Koran's account with the modern theory of evolution? For some reason, you are all content to thrive on the usual excuses of 'you can't prove negatives' and 'well, how could something come from nothing?', (quite possibly the most bankrupt defenses of theism ever), essentially parrotting a more sophisticated version of the famous 'God of the gaps', as if blind to the fact that someday, people won't need these anymore and then will happily dump whatever 'good' it is that a religious understanding can offer.
Because that's the thing with belief. When it comes to matters of religion (as with politics and philosophy) people can be very pragmatic. Empires have switched official religions, atheists have become Popes and people have converted left right and centre to dodge the tax man. When people no longer need to stick to a certain belief system, they won't. It's quite simple.
Knowing this - as I'm sure most of you do - you've decided to take the easy option. You are complicit in this false dilemma and you are taking advantage of people's emotional needs to ensure their ignorance. I'm sure you don't actually want the side effects of this - side effects such as those results of the poll... - but that is what you are contributing to if you do not keep up your side of the dialogue.
So an atheist is reducing the debate to one of 'God vs Science'. So he's a 'simplistic thinker', former Archbishop of Canterbury. And you, with your remarkable complexity can see through right through this?
Until you start taking scientific theories seriously, start actively re-interpreting your worldview to make sense with alongside the objective portrait of Nature, I'd advise to desist from making empty apologies, or statements reassuring the more educated amongst us that you do not approve of creationism. You've just been very lucky that for the past 200 or so years, you've never had any real responsibility to change. I suggest you start to grow up now.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, and the willfully ignorant Imams, and Bishops and guru's share an equal portion. But just as each side seems to need to blame the other, more militant atheists will have to come up with some other target of blame than the theistic/religion for failing to present a message that meets the needs of the general populace. The rise of atheism (or the decline of religious thought) has precious little to do with these spokes people (though they seem to enjoy grandstanding) and much more to do with increased material standards of living etc. Which means its a shallow atheism. As times get hard, people will boomerang back into the hands of religion, and probably not the more tolerant kind. It's already happening, because the atheism of society (if it can even be called that) is an apathy to religious questions rather than a thought out stance of atheism. That's why you get weird polls of people who claim to not believe in god, but also believe in heaven and all sorts of mish mash.
Atheism has worked in the past. It is not an inherently bleak or unsatisfying worldview. So the fact that in the light of the gross institutional failures, abuses and outright wrongness of many forms of religion, most people still hover in some grey in-between zone means that someone isn't sealing the deal. It didn't take Hitchens to point out Church hypocrisies and corruption. It didn't take Dawkins to drive people out of the churches and mosques. The fact that these men, (unlike many Enlightenment writers) can't get these obviously dissatisfied people the rest of the way IS their failing as self-proclaimed spokesmen. If an idea cannot be sold in the marketplace of ideas under these conditions, then there is a problem... And for certain atheists to continue to moan about how stupid and backwards most people are when they don't come on board is to be guilty of the same sin you outline above. Atheism has been sold successfully in times more desperate and to ancestors more primitive than we are and has provided lives of meaning and great and thoughtful texts for posterity.
That is why you get polls like this. Take those people and also ask how many are traditionally religious, or regularly attend some type of service and I guarantee most would say no. The bulk of these numbers are coming from the no mans land of belief.
(no subject)
What concerns me is that by not encouraging members of the Church to engage with science (they seem to profess a strange sort of 'Grace is enough for us' perspective) and indeed with the religious aspects of faith (the creeds and holy books etc etc) in a progressive (and not neccessarily liberal, as much as I would like that, but with a confidence that may well reference to past interpretation, but does not depend on it) manner, it is allowing people to use their religious affiliations as an excuse to hide in the shadows, so to speak. It is a trend I've seen starting to grow within the CofE/Anglican communion, and certainly - by example? - within the growing nonconformist congregations. For all the rise of New Atheism has changed the nature of the game somewhat, it still doesn't mean that the religious leaders can keep on witholding responsibility.
I do hope this poll is not representative of this trend, however, and is more a sign of, as you say, the growing mire that is the no-man's land of belief.
(no subject)
To me, religion and philosophy about how to live life (ie. morals, ideals, society, codes of conduct, etc.) and science is how the mechanics of the universe works. Either can be used, embraced, or rejected, as desired.
Now, granted you might find a religious book that disagrees with a science textbook, but, for the most part, their completely different subjects.
EX. How does a Jew not eating pork or a Buddhist meditating on dharma disprove Newton's laws of motion? It doesn't! They're separate topics.
Science and religion deal with different parts of life. As for the details, the Aristotle had it best: either their is one prime mover, or two, or 55. It doesn't matter as long as it moves :D
-Hraffy