Hi, TE-
This helped me better understand what your beliefs and goals are; thank you.
First and foremost my belief is that we are now very much a Global Community. As such we are in need of a set of values on which we can all agree. My opposition to religions stems primarily from the recognition of that idea.
Yes, we are a global community. But in no community are values on which everyone agrees.
Conflict exists, even in small, seeming homogenous communities. Such is humanity. We can choose to enculturate people into seeing diversity as a survival strategy, a gift, and a means for learning from one another... or as something to be rid of. To be honest, I cringe whenever any person wants to have values on which everyone agrees (depending on how specific those values are), because it implies that someone's view should be privileged above all others. Just as you state above that we need values on which we can all agree, conservative evangelical Christian missionaries would say the exact same thing. It is intolerance of other values and perspectives that is, I think, one of the biggest divisive factors humanity faces, both within local communities and in larger systems such as nation and world.
For a future where Global harmony is a fact, where all nations are at peace, I believe it is an absolute requirement that religions hold no political stage. This is the opposite of the current situation where religion is for the common man a culturally imposed artificial separation from his fellow man.
But, TE, you must admit that we have many MANY more culturally imposed artifical separations. Getting rid of religion doesn't get rid of the human tendency toward ethnocentrism and an us vs. them attitude. Why religion singled out?
Otherwise, I suppose I'm just too practical. I don't think there is any way to push people into a world where religion holds no political stage. It has always been that all aspects of culture are integrated, and in the individual, it is the case that worldviews, beliefs, and practices in non-political areas of life will necessarily bleed into politics. In fact, in conflict theory (one to which I ascribe), one could reasonably say that
all of life is political. Putting up artificial separations between stuff that never has been and likely never will be separate is impractical and pointless. Better to change how the interactions between aspects of culture take place... or to push cultural changes in some areas to affect others.
I believe few "leaders" have a religious bone in their bodies but most are all to quick to harness this most effective and well proven method of controlling populations. Currently religion and politics are inseparable on the world stage and the argument is that because so many people "believe" religion has every right to political representation. And that is a difficult point to argue against.
Of course leaders harness it. They also harness human tendencies toward racism, classism, and every other type of prejudice we can come up with.
But we, the people, let them... particularly in states with relative freedom. In short, humans are quite lazy and seem to choose to be controlled when given the option to take responsibility. So what's the answer?
As for religion having a "right" to political representation... it's inevitable. I would argue that religion should not have "rights" in the sense of lobbying or campaign contributions, but their real strength- the voters themselves- is entirely impossible to avoid unless you propose a totalitarian regime headed by the person of your own choice (which of course, does not get rid of the issue, as your own beliefs would influence that choice). I'm pretty pragmatic about all this. It's a pipe dream to think people will stop having their religious beliefs influence their political actions. Like I said earlier, all of life is political.
If we want a peaceful and progressive future for our children there has to be some hard truths faced. Do you want to live in a world where the Mullahs or evangelical pastors dictate to you what you can or cannot wear, paint, read or write? Of course not and such a world will never come about. The drives of the people toward such a dystopia will always breed opposition such as mine and so we would have no peace.
To be honest, I think religious conflict is mostly a response generated by economic (class) conflict. I think class is the single biggest obstacle to peace in the world. The more stuff we've accumulated... the more violence and conflict we've seen. Religion mirrors society. It isn't the prime driver (that is not to say that religion is not the prime driver in
individuals, but rather that religious structures are collective representations of the society).
You get rid of religion- all you do is get rid of a symbol of a deeper problem. When I have time, I'll get back to the "Anthro in Religion" series and try to lay out the historical context for this.
But suffice it to say, the evidence is pretty clear that religion, as a social structure and node of identity (and thus conflict) is a reflection of the society. I firmly am in the theoretical camp that thinks the prime driver of society is the infrastructure (the means and forces of production- economics) and not the superstructure (religion, institutions, government). While the superstructure can slightly influence the infrastructure, the prime driver is the infrastructure and it is more common that changes to that yield changes in the collective symbolic representations of the society, which come out in worldview, religion, philosophy, educational systems, political organizations, and so forth.
The only way to lasting global peace, quite frankly, is to have more economic equality and more opportunity for the 50% or so of people worldwide that live in poverty. People become religious fanatics mostly out of fear responses and feeling a loss of control over their lives. People who feel safe and in control are pretty peaceable as a whole.
But then, that would mean most of the developed first world giving up a whole lot of stuff so there is more to go around. It means sharing a small pie with a whole lot of people. It means economic regulation. And likely, it'd be near impossible without a serious population decline.
In a world free from institutionalised religion we would not see less diversity but more. People freed from towing the dogmatic line of the political religions would create and describe a richer and far more honest expression of their existential and spiritual experience. So I refute that I am against diversity, quite the opposite is true.
I can understand your logic on this. But I wouldn't be so sure that people are towing the dogmatic line to begin with. It is a relative minority that do so. They just get more air-time in the media because moderates are boring. The recent PEW foundation report indicated that around 70% of Americans (of predominantly Christian faiths) believed that their religion was not the only way to salvation and that there was more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion. That ain't a bunch of dogmatic people. That means there is only a minority that believe their way is the only way. The report also indicated quite a bit of diversity
within each faith. Even in individual denominations in Christianity, there are huge differences if you corner individual church members about the details of their belief and practice.
It is a big myth, mostly perpetuated by the media (and I think, for a very nasty reason- social control by perpetuating fear and conflict between secular and religious folks), that religious people are dogmatic. On the contrary, most religious people are NOT dogmatic, just as most secular/atheist people are not immoral or unethical. Painting people with that false broad brush is just prejudice and stereotyping, the same way that the media perpetuates myths about black people being criminals.
But also I feel there is this tendency amongst some to interpret what is a dialogue against the institutions of religion as a personal attack.
I can't speak for others, but I don't feel you're attacking me personally. I do think some of your posts hit pretty close to attacks on some of the members, however. These might just be posted in some of your more contentious moments.
I do not think that is your intent.
I am not an atheist because I do not understand spirituality. I feel I am an atheist because I do understand spirituality. I have yet to see anyone here of a spiritual leaning actually accept that. The psychology of that is revealing.
I always thought you were a pretty spiritual person, and I think I've said so before. In fact, I think a lot of the differences between my beliefs and yours are not due to differing experience, but very differing interpretation of that experience. Most atheists I've known are spiritual people, oftentimes, more so than religious people I've known. This is, I think, probably because they wrestle with their beliefs more in the absence of belonging to a religion.
Hope that helps illuminate my views. I don't debate your points because I feel you to be unspiritual or attacking me. I debate them because I don't think the social and psychological evidence indicates what you do. Like you separate your atheism from your conclusions about religion, so do I. I'm deeply spiritual and more than a little religious (though eclectic about it), but my conclusions about the benefits and costs of religion, and the way religion is connected to society and culture, are not analyses based on mysticism, but on science.
Peace,
Kim/Path/POO
