The Atheism UK (Mingle) Forum closed on 16th November 2020. Instead, Atheism UK has a page and two groups on Facebook.

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: 1 2
Author Topic: The End - How?


Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
The End - How?
on: March 31, 2014, 22:30

If there is the wish to see the end of religion, what will be the means and the methods to achieve this?

Some problems and issues -

Such a major change would surely have to be part of major historical change.

It would appear tht all human societies hve supernatural/religious beliefs, from the simplest animism to complex institutions, so is the supernatural/religion something humans just do?

Even if all religious institutions disappear, would some people still hve "religious" experiences and ideas, and if they want to organise wth others ... will there always be the probability of religion kicking off again if the individual retains liberties?

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



AdamZain
Calcium
Posts: 206
Re: The End - How?
on: March 31, 2014, 22:43

Loopy dogmatists, deprived of religious belief, will embrace whatever loopy secular dogma happens to come along and make them feel special. See USA for details (actually, probably best not to).

It's better to concentrate on removing the harmful aspects of religion, rather than trying to dismantle religion itself.



barfly123
Calcium
Posts: 147
Re: The End - How?
on: April 1, 2014, 19:37

If one religion was disbanded or fell apart the adherants would just transfare to another on.



Sempsy
Calcium
Posts: 301
Re: The End - How?
on: April 3, 2014, 20:17

Unless it was disbanded by logical, scientific reasoning and sudden capitulation by their "top brass" - wishful thinking, may have said it before, but how good would it be for old popey francis (or franky baby as he would be dubbed) to come out of the cloistered closet and say "you know what, it's all bollocks..."



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 3, 2014, 21:30

"Logical, scientific reasoning ..."
How far does this actually ever contribute to major change?

This suggests a model of human nature where our true nature is to bje logistical, etc, but various nastiness has made us illogical,.etc. Isn't being illogical, etc, essentially part of humn nature? I'm just suggesting the logical, etc, thinking approach will only work with those who for some reason are susceptible to it or as shine on some kind of major, historical change.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Sempsy
Calcium
Posts: 301
Re: The End - How?
on: April 3, 2014, 22:18

But people are subjected to religiosity from birth in many cases and are "brought up" with religious stigma and dogmatism that they carry throughout their lives. Indeed, society as a whole has to suffer this. Therefore, if they were raised with a proper epistemelogical way of thinking they might see things differently. I don't know what your background was, but you seem to have shrugged off your North American upbringing in some respects and applied logic.... You suggest that being illogical is part of human nurture/nature, but I would disagree as all/most humans seem to need/want to question their/our existence, hence science as we know it today. Cogito ergo sum doesn't just apply to the cognoscenti, I think it applies to humankind in general, therefore I put hope before faith. I know that my hopes probably won't be realised in my lifetime, but that is my hope and also why I finished with a lot of wishful thinking! (why does "wishful" only have one "l" at the end - oh the vagaries English language!)



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 3, 2014, 23:17

@sempsy;
Yr 1st point, I think, shows how cultural we are. We qcarry culture, we are made in culture. In an atheist society we would be " ,yusubjected' to atheism.

As for "epistemological way of thinking', who and what would tht serve? The status quo and change are/will be political and historical not idealistic. Why is there so much evangelical xtianity in the USA, is there no connection wth US capitalsm.

I don't see myself as shrugging off anything (UK). All complex societies hve competing ideologies, I was "subjected " to atheism and it stuck.

Re. being illogical, if u like pls see nee topic in Science.
.i
I don't think modern sccience, historically speaking, arose frm invidual existential concerns but frm, amongst other thingd, the needs of mercantile.capitalism.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 01:07

Make the best u can of above post - I am having real problems at mo. Arghhh!

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



russell20
Calcium
Posts: 1575
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 16:56

Quote from Mrs Cravatte on April 3, 2014, 21:30
"Logical, scientific reasoning ..."
How far does this actually ever contribute to major change?

This suggests a model of human nature where our true nature is to bje logistical, etc, but various nastiness has made us illogical,.etc. Isn't being illogical, etc, essentially part of humn nature? I'm just suggesting the logical, etc, thinking approach will only work with those who for some reason are susceptible to it or as shine on some kind of major, historical change.

Is there an innate and universal human nature ? the philosophers of the enlightenment seemed to think so but provided precious little evidence of it's existence. Even Marx accepted there was until he broke with Feuerbach and eventually rejected the idea, in his "Theses on Feuerbach" when he wrote.....

" Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual.

In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.

Feuerbach, who does not enter upon a criticism of this real essence, is consequently compelled:

To abstract from the historical process and to fix the religious sentiment as something by itself and to presuppose an abstract – isolated – human individual.
Essence, therefore, can be comprehended only as “genus”, as an internal, dumb generality which naturally unites the many individuals.
"

In other words we are social beings and our experiences are determined by our social relations if we accept that, then it is not much of a leap to accept that religion acts in the same way as it relies on collective worship, which further entrenches a social acceptance of religious tradition. Which in and of itself means the acceptance of tradition and thus normalises acceptance of the irrational claims of religion.

It is breaking the hold of this irrational tradition of religion (however it is generated) that is one of the obstacles that needs to be overcome before we can think of ridding ourselves of religion. And we can only do that through the application of science and reason based on critical thinking.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 20:32

@russell20
With respect, u quote Marx and then end up with a liberal solution to religion - application of science and reason.

As I understand, Marx criticises Feuerbach for not seeing that the human essence is the ensemble of social relations and bcos Feuerbach doesn't confront this he fixes the religious sentiment as something by itself.

You hve taken religion without further reference to the "ensemble of social relations" and posited the application of science and reason as onr of its destroyerd.. Wouldn't Marx hve seen revolution in the whole of social relations as leading to the eventual withering of the religious sentiment?

In my last mangled post I asked abt the connection between evangelical xtianity in the US and US capitalism. Can one really do a Feuerbach and attack the religion on it's own with science and reason and leave the rest of social relations, shaped by capitalism, alone?

In short revolution first.then.you can kick over what is left of religion.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



russell20
Calcium
Posts: 1575
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 20:49

@ Mrs Cravatte

You have not addressed the question of an innate and universal human nature and it's supposed existence or it's tenuous links with irrationality.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 21:13

No I haven't bcos I made that point as a summing up of what a previous poster had said and was addressing it critically. Criticism does not necessarily imply agreement or disagreement.

I hve pointed out tht all human societies do the supernatural/religion, but I would accept a la Marx that this is part of the "ensemble of social relations".

My real point is that this bash them over the head with reason and science stance is too simplistic.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 4, 2014, 21:33

Look anyone serious abt getting rid of religion needs to have a theory for understanding and tackling human nature and society aswell - Marxism is one way. Without the whole shebang it is better to stick with reform like plain secularism.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Alcuin
Administrator
Posts: 1007
Re: The End - How?
on: April 6, 2014, 12:04

This may be your experience, Mrs C:

Quote from Mrs Cravatte on April 3, 2014, 23:17
... I was "subjected " to atheism and it stuck...

but we are afairyists too if we don't believe in fairies. That isn't because we were 'subjected to afairyism' and it stuck. It is just that we have rejected the idea or proposition that there are fairies and god(s).

Atheism isn't an alternative religion or an alternative to religion. Unless more narrowly defined, it may simply be taken to mean disbelief in god(s)..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
Nothing more.

I think religion is fading away in the face of education, science and the Internet. Some people are less logical and reasonable than others but ultimately dimmer people are bound to follow brighter folk. Before the end of this (21st) century I expect clerics to be bracketed with witchdoctors and soothsayers by most people in free and developed countries.

The USA is making progress according to pollsters like Gallup and even Pew which talk of 'decreasing religiosity', whatever that means. A Gallup poll of 2012 showed only 54% of USAmericans would vote for an atheist presidential candidate..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx
but that is an advance on previous decades. And neither Bush repeated the idiotic statement of Bush41 in 1987...
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm
The USA overcame prejudice against blacks, women and gays. They'll overcome fear of disbelievers too.

Religious faith may never disappear, but it will be relegated and marginalised to the level of witchcraft and Voodoo. Traditional religion is the last bastion of superstition and we are observing a process of decline, not an event. Humanity will be better undivided by religion.

I agree with the point S made that we should criticise what is wrong with religion (e.g. religiously motivated child mutilation, religious courts where they might undermine 'one law for all', Creationism in schools, segregation of children in education according to their parents' religious delusions, etc, etc). The more precise the criticism, the better.



Alcuin
Administrator
Posts: 1007
Re: The End - How?
on: April 6, 2014, 12:16

I feel I have a better way of looking at it than this:

Quote from Mrs Cravatte on April 4, 2014, 21:33
Look anyone serious abt getting rid of religion needs to have a theory for understanding and tackling human nature and society aswell - Marxism is one way. Without the whole shebang it is better to stick with reform like plain secularism.

Religion, ideology and nationalism are the three main causes of human conflict. At least, try having a war without them. Religion is the easiest to dispose of and we don't want an atheistic ideology to replace it.
JMHO



russell20
Calcium
Posts: 1575
Re: The End - How?
on: April 6, 2014, 13:02

@ Mrs Cravatte

Ok lets clear this up I was'nt advocating on behalf of Marxism (I am a former Marxist) I was merely drawing attention to the fact that there is an argument that does not recognise the existence of an innate and universal "human nature" that's all. It is ill defined and yet people still reference it as though it's existence is widely accepted, it is'nt, further if you are going to use it as part of your argument then define it and explain where it is located and how it emerges.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 6, 2014, 21:26

@ Alcuin
"Subjected to atheism". If people are brought up in atheist households then it might just "stick" like religion can. I know activist atheist rhetoric may well like to present atheism as ground out between the stones of reason but it may well come frm a number of ways.

The "dimmer" folk and the "brighter". Who r which? Are u the "brighter"? I'm sorry but I abhor this kind of talk. Perhaps we should speed things up and deny the vote to the dimmer folk, after all u tell us that following in the wake of the brighter is much the better way.

"Some people are less logical and reasonable". Couldn't that hve some use - some good old diversity, the grist for evolution by natural selection. Also logic and reason are tools of thinking, u hve to start off wth some premises first, and those premises can be defined by socio-political context.

"The USA overcame prejudice against blacks"-. 1st of all, has it, has it really? And 2ndly, there was no "overcoming", just a lot of bloody (often literally) history and socio-political change. Your presentation sounds like simplstic, liberal onwards and upwards rhetoric.

Sorry to be so blunt.

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Mrs-
Cravatte
Calcium
Posts: 119
Re: The End - How?
on: April 6, 2014, 22:17

@russell
.I' ve read thru the topic and the closest I come to proposing an universal human nature is -
1) pointing out that all human societies hve done the supernatural/religious
2) countering the implication in someone else's post tht humans r essentially logical
3) pointing tht humans r just as capable of being illogical.
What is my universal human nature? I think I've been going on a lot abt history and society and politics. Where is a response to my point abt US capitalism?

The only thing as irrational as faith in God, is faith in Man.



Alcuin
Administrator
Posts: 1007
Re: The End - How?
on: April 7, 2014, 18:05

Quote from Mrs Cravatte on April 6, 2014, 21:26
....Sorry to be so blunt.

That's ok Mrs C. I'm sorry I tried to address what you wrote.



AdamZain
Calcium
Posts: 206
Re: The End - How?
on: April 8, 2014, 03:59

From your account, Marx and Feuerbach sound like a couple of thickos. It's fairly obvious, even to small feral children wandering the streets in Ilford, that the 'human essence' is a mixture of the individual and the social - at various levels - cellular, biological, family, social and societal etc. Science and technology operate on both the social and the individual level - in terms of human thought and behaviour, that's enough to snooker religious nonsense, given the right conditions.

And it's not true to say that humans are as illogical as they are logical. They wouldn't be able to function if they were. Humans use logic almost all the time, for all sorts of basic things. But the logic so used is prone to a multitude of problems - biases, flawed assumptions etc., which means that although logic is a primary tool for achievement, it does not always work as advertised, nor do people (individually or in groups) necessarily realize that it hasn't worked.

Not many people seriously consider themselves to have no commonsense - which is just another word for everyday logic. Those that do, do not consider it to be a plus point in their psychological makeup, except in a "look at me! Aren't I Kooky!" kind of way.

Major change coming from logical, scientific reasoning? - the industrial revolution, modern medicine and the reduction in infant mortality, the disastrous population explosion, the use of social media, mutually assured destruction, the principles underlying the UN declaration of human rights, anti-pollution legislation, and a couple of million other things.

Pages: 1 2
Mingle Forum by cartpauj | ElegantPress by Theme4Press and SOFTthemes | Sponsored by Sasina Therapy
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.122 seconds.