Is religion good?
Last week, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a recent convert to Catholicism, faced off against writer and agitator Christopher Hitchens, a leading voice in the newly robust atheism movement.
I say newly robust because for a long time modern atheists felt a need to fly under various apologetic flags, describing themselves as “agnostic” and generally acknowledging the broad benevolence of religious faith.
Hitchens, and a few others, have returned to the more aggressive stance that was common once among intellectuals. This from the Guardian newspaper:
“Once you assume a creator and a plan it make us subjects in a cruel experiment,” Hitchens said before causing widespread laughter by comparing God to “a kind of divine North Korea”.
I suppose this reflects the fact that religion has once again become a powerful social force in America, with many conservative lawmakers quite openly basing their policy decisions upon their reading of Christian scripture.
What’s more, many American denominations — from the once-progressive Roman Catholic church to many African American congregations — have become far more traditionalist.
Many churches are political as well as spiritual institutions, lobbying against everything from same-sex marriage to abortion rights. It is increasingly common for religious leaders to condemn candidates outright.
This makes people nervous, with good reason. As Hitchens points out (fairly, I think) societies where religious faiths hold a lot of political power are rarely happy ones.
Early puritan and Roman Catholic America was a wretchedly intolerant place, with Christians of various sects generally murdering one another with a savagery that makes us wince.
As late as the 1800s, honest American Protestants were committing pogroms against Roman Catholics and Mormons.
In modern times, countries where religious leaders dominate policy-making are invariably poor, backward and violent.
Still, as Tony Blair rightly points out, faith also has the power to enrich and illuminate our lives, especially as so many aspects of society become regimented by modern economic forces. Again from the Guardian:
“The proposition that religion is unadulterated poison is unsustainable,” he said. Blair called religion at its best “a benign progressive framework by which to live our lives.”
I agree. My own answer to the question posed at the start of this essay is a confident but qualified Yes.
I think those who view faith as a business of dreamers, charlatans and manipulators are missing something precious and irreplaceable that many people find within a spiritual life.
Hitchens is practicing a kind of smart, engaging and provocative bigotry.
But I also think many religions –and many Christian sects — have gone horribly off the rails.
Rather than battle against “modernity,” as so many spiritual leaders do, it seems (on the contrary) that a new kind of modernist reformation is in order, one that deliberately updates the various scriptures handed down across the millennia.
It seems long overdue, to cite one rather easy example, that people of faith accept that women are equal to men, intellectually, morally and spiritually.
I’m startled (and dismayed) by the number of conservative Christians who still struggle with this question. But this is also a sticking point for many Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims.
In the end, faiths that lack the courage to do the heavy lifting that comes with societal change and moral evolution risk appearing so bigoted and intolerant that they fall into Hitchens’ stereotype.
So what do you think? Is faith a hold-over from a more primitive time, a stick wielded by cynical politicians? Or is it a force for awakening and enriching our lives?
Tags: religion
Religion is a farce and all clear thinking people know it, you included. Count all the hypocrites who run to church every Sunday.
Being an agnostic, I think I am as prepared to die as any Christian. I will just be less disappointed as they after it happens.
wma
The trouble with religion dealing positively with modernity is that it takes the rock solid asurance of permanace away from the faithful. If a religion does face facts and recognize that it must evolve to fit the times then it is effectively moving towards philosophy. Away fly the underpinnings of ritual. Why wear that medal, that cap, remove that bit of skin, call this particular thing holy? What does the deity really want? All valid and good questions that cannot be answered if religion changes. Clearly religion is a relic of an earlier phase in our development. Can it reconcile with today’s reality? Yes, but only at the cost of becoming nothing more (or less) than philosophy. Perhaps that is a good thing. After all, has anyone ever rammed an airplane into a building for the sake of Rene Descartes?
The problem with faiths, all faiths, including all of the world’s religions and often including various forms of secularism to include science, comes when belief becomes a substitute for knowledge.
This would not be a problem except when “people of faith” display a complete lack of trust in the god, gods or goddesses they say they believe in. They often act as though their chosen divinity has very little power and needs their help and the help of civil law.
Sadly, faith often seems to lack any true faith or trust in God. Faith seems to recognize faith is not knowledge and fears knowledge has the potential to knock down the house of cards of the carefully constructed faith system, which is its dogma. In other words, you must believe this or that they say you must believe in while knowing full well they don’t know what is true.
Belief is always a substitute for knowledge. It can be a useful tool to gain knowledge.
Science at its best does recognize that what it believes is true today could be proven false tomorrow and is willing to change what it believes is true when what it believed was true is proven false.
On the other hand, religions have a hard time when it comes to changing what they believe even when what they believe is proven to be false. An obvious example comes to mind when the Catholic Church found itself forced to accept the fact that the Earth travels around the Sun and not the other way around.
Looking back at those times, you wonder why it was ever such a big deal. The only answer it seems to me is the basic sin of human pride. How we hate to be proven wrong! But this wouldn’t be a problem if we actually had faith (trusted) in God and were not out to prove how smart we are about things we actually don’t know for certain.
Brian, you end by asking, “Is faith a hold-over from a more primitive time, a stick wielded by cynical politicians? Or is it a force for awakening and enriching our lives?”
I would answer by saying it often is both, one in the same at the same time. At its best, it is a trust in the workings of creation without placing any demands upon the One you believe is the Creator.
I would agree with the above sentiments, I THINK but I would make it more simple. Faith is a feeling not a FACT and not only do “People of faith” lose that notion but even worse, they become intolerant of all others’ opinions, not only regarding them as wrong but despicable and ungodly. It must be nice to always think God is on your side so you can do anything in his name and believe he is honoring it. Scary stuff to say the least !!!!!!!!!!! Can you say, Jerry Falwell??
What are we talking about here? Organized religion? Spirituality? Faith? Denominational identity? Those are seriously different concepts. My view about two of them: Organized religion is a lazy and acquisitional alternative to spirituality. And the word “acquisitional” is carefully chosen since individuals are encouraged to take a pre-assembled set of beliefs, rules, and practices off the shelf. We are prone to choose the brand preferred by our parents, eg. Christian, Buddhist, etc. Within the brand, we can then shop for our preferred enhancements — high church/low church variations in ritual, for example. That done, we can display the thing proudly; we (and, incidentally, only we) now have The Truth, the Way. The alternative to acquiring a boxed religion — the harder, deeper alternative — is to recognize spirituality as an active process for which we, and we alone, are responsible. It isn’t a thing that can be named or displayed; it’s a continuing, endless, and very personal cycle of thinking, feeling, acting, listening, learning, growing, testing, challenging, changing, deepening. The minute you think you “have” it, you absolutely don’t.
Pete and Mayflower, great responses. I especially agree with Mayflower’s “personal” assertion. Faith or spirituality of any kind must first and always be driven by our own moral compass. I’m frustrated by religion these days, in that it seems an easy alternative to personal enlightenment. I fear too many people who practice and claim to be religious are not challenging themselves to look beyond the doctrine of their faith. In my college days I identified myself as an atheist. Lately I’m at a loss to define my personal belief in “a higher power.” For now, I’m content to state I believe there are things, powers, processes and concepts that I do not and will not in my lifetime understand or probably even be aware of. I do know my consciousness, life and the people and world around me are probably the greatest miracle I will ever witness, and I plan to enjoy them whole heartedly.
Measured against an ideal shared by all the major religions, the Golden Rule, it’s hard to give institutional religions a passing grade. In the broadest sense, religion informs culture and culture, in turn, affects behavior, sometimes for the good and sometimes not. Reasonable people can disagree about that balance. What can’t be argued, in my opinion, is that when politicians and political movements co-opt religion for their own purposes, religion is likely to become a divisive and pernicious force.
Do most people worship God because they feel it is the “right” kind of social movement for our times with the correct current political views on social issues; or because they believe it is spiritual truth and the source of our salvation from sin death and the devil? If I want a good political group with the right things to believe I will join a political party or a social club.
As a Christian I certainly want those who call themselves Christians who are part of the Body of Christ to lead the life that they are called to lead by Christ. Many do not including myself and often those presenting themselves as leaders do not.
However the point of true faith in Christ has nothing to do with how that faith is perceived by the world, you follow Christ because you believe Him and His Word and the witnesses who have proclaimed His Word; you are willing to give your life for the faith because in your heart of hearts you have the spark of belief that it just might be ultimate truth and that true faith is granted by the Holy Spirit.
So what would be the point if the world decides that religion is bad?
Christian Churches that have turned their back on tradition and scripture have dwindled and this is a lesson.
Staying with Brian’s end of blog questions, I would like to concentrate on the problem of pride. We simply don’t like being or even being called wrong.
Spirituality and morality have been brought into the discussion.
In modern day language, spirituality is a nebulous religion of sorts. Buddhism is one of the oldest, formulized versions of it. The various “New Age” religions are more recent examples. At their core, they seem to want to reject the physical in favor of something more mystical. This is understandable because the physical body does pose the likelihood of some pain and the eventuality of death. But in rejecting the physical, pleasure and the joys of the physical are also being rejected.
Morality seems to be something unique to humans. At its core, it presumes a level of ideal perfection. The problem here is it is a deadly idea. That which is perfect can neither be added to or subtracted from. Growth and change are ruled out by perfection. A perfect world would be a dead world. Nothing would happen. Nothing would change.
So the question becomes: can there be a morality that does allow for growth and change?
I think the answer is yes and the yes comes into play when we learn to forgive others and ourselves. It is this idea of morality that makes it possible for me to remain a Christian. The sum total of Jesus’ teaching was to forgive. He did not try to do much of anything other than to get people to love their common denominator, their humanity, and to forgive one and other for being human.
Being human means we make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are the result of selfishness and fear for the self. Sometimes they are the result of well meaning intentions that have unintended consequences. Either way, we make mistakes.
I don’t know how those that believe we evolved from flotsam and jetsam can even weigh in here.
How can a “blob” ponder its creator? If it evolved, it has no creator, and there are no “higher” beings.
I think this discussion is for those “created” beings, only.
I really enjoy Christopher Hitchens so I should watch the debate. But to me it seems kind of a strange question. It would be like asking “is government good”. The fact is human beings have always had religions it is a part of the human experience, from one end of the globe to another across history and from vastly separate cultures.
I think the case can be made that in cultures which have been overtly hostile toward all faiths towards all religion, the results have not been good.
Those who believe that religion is the “opiate of the people” have shown us what we end up with when we remove religion ; and even with the inquisitions I would take religion over what they offer.
I think a better question might be; when do religions go horribly wrong?
Marvel,
To those who would argue religion is the opiate of people, I would argue so too are governments, political parties, corporations and professors the opiate of people.
As to JDM and the supposition that there is a conflict between evolution and creation, I would only point to to how a car is created. It moves (evolves) from raw material to a finished (created) product.
I view God as an artist, not some cheap magician who snaps the fingers.
Anything based on blind faith and superstitious beliefs strays too far from reason, rationality, critical thinking and other attributes of enlightened intellectuals. Morality is based secular humanism, not mythology. When evidences are surplanted with dogma, the results are not optimal.
Pete says,
“It moves (evolves) from raw material to a finished (created) product.”
Without intelligent design? Or do the parts move themselves into place by chance?
I was thinking about the good and the bad of religion. Even though I honestly believe that religions have been a positive force overall, I also believe that they have gone off the rails and been a force of darkness at different times and places. So when does that happen?
Speaking as a Christian and looking at when my Church has gone wrong it seems to me it almost always happens when it seeks and gains worldly power and control or continually attempts to gain worldly power. Christ said to give Caesar what was Caesar’s and God what was His, in direct reference to money in that verse but it means much more than that. Caesar is from the world and is representative of government; lands, power and control they are worldly things. Look how Christ told His disciples what it meant to be great He said it had nothing to do with being above someone else and controlling them that was the way of the world. He certainly did not say we should try to be Caesar in His name.
I don’t think it has anything to do with orthodox or liberal interpretations of scripture I don’t think it has anything to do with the roles of men and women within the Church or any of the modern social issues the world struggles with and scripture is pretty clear about. They only become an issue when we in the Church want to use power to become Caesar.
The whole New Testament is written from the perspective of a pilgrim on the earth, an outsider; which is where Christians should be, we should be outsiders from he secular world, from government from power.
At least that is my view. I think it is okay to lobby government to stand for what is good against the evils of society but if you are part of government if you are part of the power structure how do you stand up for truth against it?
Anytime you want a lot of long-winded responses post about religion.
Our cultural ancestors invented the idea of gods to justify attempting to live outside the “laws” of nature. The story of the fall of Adam and Eve, for example, is clearly describing the Agricultural Revolution. Pretty much all of Genesis reinforces this view. Who could possibly give us the authority to take over the world: to go forth and multiply, to have knowledge of who should live and who should die (is that not the knowledge of the gods? of good and evil?) Who could possibly have given us that kind of authority but the gods themselves. And so we invented religion to justify our behaviour. As a result, civilization was born and expanded and fuelled a population explosion. We’re now living in a time of mass extinctions at a rate not seen since the fall of the dinosaurs only this time we know we’re the ones causing it. We can no more live outside the laws of nature than spiders, salmon or sequoias can. In order to work, airplanes do not ignore the laws of gravity. Jump off a cliff and you better expect to hit the ground eventually no matter how hard you flap your arms. Eventually the law of gravity will catch up with you. In the same way, the laws of nature will eventually catch up with civilization and it will crash and crash hard. The only question is how bad is it going to be? Considering the damage we’re doing to biodiversity, there is a real danger of total collapse of the ecosystem. Why else do you think the Abrahamic religions are so eschatological? Neighbouring indigenous tribes have always known how dangerous it is to live as though you were above nature.
Let me be very clear: All the horrors of civilization — famine, drought, overpopulation, genocide, disease, etc — are enabled by religion. “Go forth and multiply” is nothing less than a declaration of war on the environment.
Of course there are other myths and false premises that civilization is based on but the god-concept is one of the big ones.
Nothing religious people do could ever make up for the kind of destruction that religion has enabled. Of course, your help in taking down civilization would certainly go a long way.
Agreed.
Terms are limited. For example, one could be an atheist, yet still believe in an afterlife. The term “naturalistic” is more like what many atheists/agnostics believe.
All opinions are thoughts. Without seeing beyond thought, we do not even know ourselves little lone god.
Noone,
But of course native people are also religious and many also have a creator God. There is no statistical correlation between the destruction you speak of and religious devotion or religion itself.
The sheer pompous ego, fear and vitriol displayed by the “enlightened” intelligentsia in this thread is a clear and powerful example of the hate involved in this discussion. I find posts like the first one from Joe Kennedy or from Frank to be fine examples of the irrational fear religion invokes in some people. Very disturbing too if you consider their language is only slightly different from that used to justify religious wars, the Inquisition, etc. Think about that guys.
I’m not a Biblical literalist, I’m not one that believes in “the one true path” in either religion or science (another form of religion). I think hypocrisy is plainly evident among people of faith and of science. Where I draw the line is when someone says, “None of this matters, there is no right, no wrong.” Whether you believe in a higher power or not, there most certainly is right and wrong, good and evil and what you make of your time here does matter.
I believe fear is a large part of both sides of this argument- fear of damnation in an afterlife for the religious and fear of judgment in this life for the non-believers. It’s the same in the end, we don’t know, can’t know, the best we can do is try and do the right thing.
JDM,
My only point is that intelligent design does not rule out evolution. You can have both.
Morality is a tricky subject. Generally speaking, the foundation of morality is doing unto others as you would have others do unto you. This presumes you care about yourself and don’t wish to be murdered, raped or robbed.
Where morality becomes very tricky is in the differences between secular laws and religious laws. One could in theory behave in a way in which they never broke a secular law but be considered a sinner in one or more religions.
Example – not going to church on Sunday.
On the other hand, one could be a good person in this or that religion but find they are breaking one of the millions of secular laws.
Example – driving 5 mph above the speed limit.
What will we do without Hitchens?? Didn’t see this debate, but I’ve watched video of other “God debates.” He lays out his personal understanding of morality in crystal clear concepts, while detailing the moral failings endemic throughout the history of the Christian Church (and other religions.)
I disagree with many of his positions – especially on the Iraq war – and he sometimes carries on with “Fighting Words” long after his argument has been gutted, but I can’t think of very many others out there saying EXACTLY what they think and supporting it with logic and evidence. I will surely be wishing for his take on currents events long after he is gone.
If all you people want to put aside what your take is and what the catholic church thinks and look into what God thinks you should find and ask one of Jehovahs Witnesses to really explain what the bible says to you. It stands to reason if there was a God he wouldn’t leave us hanging out there. He would tell us how he feels about everything and what he plans to do to return the world to a condition he originally purposed for it. Dont be afraid to ask some hard questions. The answers you find might just suprise you ,
Mervel,
Actually the gods of the indigenous peoples of the world (past and present) are very different from the gods of civilization. By and large their deities (where they have them, some tribes don’t/didn’t have any at all) are personifications of natural processes as they knew them, not some omnipotent and omniscient father figure. Consider Atira of the Pawnee who was represented earth and was considered the “Sacred Mother” of all things:
“The Pawnee were hunters. When told to abandon hunting and settle down to farming, their priest replied: “You ask me to plow the ground!
Shall I take a knife and tear my mother’s bosom? Then when I die she
will not take me to her bosom to rest. You ask me to dig for stone!
Shall I dig under her skin for her bones? Then when I die I cannot
enter her body to be born again. You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it, and be rich like white men! But how dare I cut off my
mother’s hair? It is a bad law and my people cannot obey it.””
Even more anthropomorphic figures like Nanabozho have nothing in common with an Abrahamic god, for example. Nanabozho’s story is a living story which has been adapted to include him killing Paul Bunyan to protect the forests. That’s a far cry from some invisible, omnipotent law giver.
No, their gods are definitely not the same as our gods.
If you have any understanding of the origins of the various religions of civilization, compare that to the model for the expansion of agriculture/civilization found in Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel.” There is clearly a parallel. And you’d expect the Bible, for example, to have some sort of reference to the Agricultural Revolution since it happened at around the same time in about the same area as some of the other stories. Not surprisingly, it does… the story of the Fall of Adam and Eve. The story obviously doesn’t refer to the actual first humans and it would be absurd to believe so. But the development of agriculture would have been a momentous event for these people, definitely important enough to them to call it “creation.”
Even consider the symbolism of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The birth-death-rebirth cycle is a very common theme and, again, is symbolic of natural processes. The story of the Green Man has a lot of parallels with the story of Jesus. The biggest difference is that the Green Man dies and is reborn every single year. When coopting this meme, Jesus only did it once symbolizing a permanent fracture with natural processes. Of course, the story is that Jesus did it for our sins so that we could have eternal life in heaven. Who wants to die — even if your death means life for other creatures — when you can live forever with the most powerful entity imaginable when he happens to love you? Well, me, and virtually all indigenous peoples.
I’ve noticed through my activism that people tend to get just as mad when you say that we are animals as they do when you say there are no gods. Religion has everything to do with our perceived break and separation from nature.
So don’t tell me there’s no connection. It wasn’t the Pawnee or Ojibwe (or the Yanomami, Piraha, or Bushmen, etc, etc, etc) who brought us to this point. It was the sons of Adam. Agriculturalists. Civilized. Us.
You could just as easily insert “government” or technology for your idea of what religion is doing or has caused and get the same statistical result. The fact is that many North American Tribes not all certainly but some indeed have God’s that created existence that are not part of existence. Some certainly are more animist. But Native people most certainly cultivated and planted and practiced agriculture, not all but some.
What has brought us to this point is the rejection of God not the embracing of God. The most religious people on the globe today are not the western and eastern industrial polluters who are largely becoming more secular as they become more carbon based, but most religious today live in the developing world.
You can’t just be against “some” religions that you have an issue with, if religion caused all of this mess then you have to be consistent and you are not.
Anyway I wish you well in your activism and I say that honestly, I too share your concern for our disconnect from this earth.
Just on the face of it societies which have totally rejected God such as the old Soviet Union were the worst environmental polluters the world has ever known.
What has gotten us to this point is the rejection of god? That’s just nonsense. The Piraha haven’t done squat to the environment and they “reject” Jesus far more humorously than I do. (If the story is to be believed, they laughed at the Jesuit missionaries thinking them foolish for believing something so silly without any evidence. The Piraha, by the way, don’t have any gods.)
Name one deity of indigenous peoples that is symbolic of hierarchy, patriarchy and disconnect with nature?
Let me say again, their gods are not your gods. Not by a long shot. Their gods are nothing like the Abrahamic God who is definitely a god of civilization, of agriculturalists.
I remember talking to an elder of a Native American tribe who worked as a park warden in a park that held some petraglyphs. I was fascinated and asked if there were any books on these glyphs in particular. He scoffed and told me there was one book. I asked him if I could buy the book there. He said no and that I shouldn’t bother anyway. He was obviously annoyed so I asked him why. He said the researcher and author of that book had completely disrespected them while doing her research and paid no heed at all to what the tribe was telling her the glyphs meant. Instead she wrote a book that was so patently false the community was outraged. She got the stories completely wrong, and showed images upside down. The worst part was that it was very clear the information she presented had been distilled by a white European Christian woman. Guess what book is still to this day the one considered the authority on this particular site? Take off the cultural blinders, they don’t mean gods the way you mean gods. There’s a big difference between Christianity and the relationship between the Pawnee and Atira. Their gods are not your gods. I’m very consistent on that fact.
“You can substitute technology”… except chimpanzees also use technology, but chimpanzees haven’t brought us to the brink of ecological collapse.
“You can substitute government”… except government is just organization. Tribes with elders or “big men” had a system of self-organization. There were many different forms around the world.. matriarchies, strict caste systems where families would rotate through the caste level generation to generation where you might be at the bottom shovelling dung but be assured your child will be the future leader.
Of course, if you mean our hierarchical and mostly (and until recently almost exclusively) patriarchal system of governance and economics, I completely agree with you. You can’t have an upper class, professional politicians, professional soldiers and professional divine intercessors without the surplus of food from agriculture.
Farming itself isn’t really the problem and there were (and are) indigenous tribes everywhere who practice sustenance farming. Not all, but some, as you say. But this kind of farming is very different from what came out of the Fertile Crescent. The latter way of farming — agriculture — was about surplus not sustenance and ownership rather than community. That kind of behaviour had to have been enabled by religion and a disconnect with the environment (again, justified by religion.) Food surplus causes a population increase. It’s quite clear (even religious scholars agree) that most of the Old Testament is about the spread of Pastoralism and agricultural civilization. How can you try to tell me there is no connection?
Your connection between non-religious people and pollution is demonstrably false. Secularization is a relatively new phenomenon. Environmental disconnect is not. Pollution isn’t either. Human population growth rates haven’t really increased in the past 50 years or so, the rate has been rather steady for thousands of years. In fact where the population growth rate is highest today is in the developing world which you suggest is the most religious. (Also where the Catholic church has the most influence and is telling people condoms cause AIDS…) So you’re wrong by your own argument.
Of course the Soviet Union polluted a great deal (though by what metric were they worse than what the US does now, I have no idea…) but to use a Communist country’s behaviour as an example of non-religious behaviour is, and always will be, a canard. Marxist philosophy talks a lot about the means of production. The concept of land ownership is incomprehensible to me whether the owners are the workers or the rich. It makes no difference to me whether any particular environmental (or any other) abuse is the kind fuelled by religion or the kind fuelled by ideology. That doesn’t change the fact that religion enables abuse.
I think Hitchens atheist bias blinds him to the destructive nature of any fanatical belief system. Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge are just three examples of so called non religious not so happy societies. I would write it as:
It seems to me the “religious” distinction is artificial and self serving for an atheist. I would argue that humans are predisposed to have a belief system. I would argue that non “religious” belief systems can and have been historically as destructive and murderous as any “religious” belief system. In other words, I would argue that the “religious” label blinds us to the fact that all belief systems are structurally the same thing irrespective of whether we call them religious or not. I would also argue that fanatical beliefs are in fact the real culprit. That fanatics view their beliefs as absolute truth which is justification for forcing those beliefs on everybody else through force if necessary.
Let me also say that if you’re serious that you’re as concerned about the disconnect with nature and environmental issues as I am then all the power to you whatever drives you there. This is obviously a very important issue to me (as it should be to all of us) so I apologize if my tone appears undeservedly harsh. If you’re helping to affect real change, that’s great.
Surely you can appreciate my scorn for idiots like John Shimkus and the people who elected him (and the people who haven’t had him committed to an insane asylum.) However, as over the top as he is, I see a lot of the same types of ideas from people who believe themselves to be moderates. Your assertion that what has gotten us to this point is a rejection of god is a good example of that.
If you’re serious, here are some books I highly recommend.
“Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn (won Turner Tomorrow Fellowship Award)
“Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond (won Pulitzer)
And maybe something like “The Culture of Make Believe” by Derrick Jensen.
Simply wrong. Population has been growing exponentialy for centuries.
“It makes no difference to me whether any particular environmental (or any other) abuse is the kind fuelled by religion or the kind fuelled by ideology. That doesn’t change the fact that religion enables abuse.”
But that does not really make any sense noone. There is nothing special then about religion one way or the other, it just serves as an outward veneer no different from any other excuse that is used. Consider the native cultures they would by secular standards be theocracies. They consulted the God’s and those such as Shamans and medicine men for most of their major decisions. I just don’t think you can lay all of the problems of the world at the feet of religion as tempting as it is to find one thing to blame for the condition of humanity.
Totalitarians will use any excuse to exert power and control, including religion, political ideology and yes even the environmental movement. The bottom line is that you have someone who wants to control the actions, desires and life of other people.
Mervel,
You are wasting your time with NoOneSpecialCa. He/she appears to have bought into the native American ecologist myth. The belief that we need to return to this mythological state of pre European paradise that never existed. NoOneSpecialCa seems oblivious to the ancestral Indians probable contribution to the mass extinctions of large mammals in North America 11,000 years ago. The claim that the indigenous peoples were not as environmentally destructive due to their beliefs ignores the fact that their main limitation was their technology which was stone age. In spite of their stone age technology it did not prevent them from using fire to significantly alter large areas of the environment to their advantage. NoOneSpecialCa seems equally oblivious of the warfare, scalping, torture, and massacres of women and children that were going on well before the Europeans arrival and that the Skidi Pawnee practiced child sacrifice as late as the 1800’s.
What is most telling about NoOneSpecialCa is an excerpt from NoOneSpecialCa’s blog entry “War, violence and resistance” where he/she writes:
Not in the village,
“Simply wrong. Population has been growing exponentialy for centuries.”
Population, yes. Not population GROWTH RATE. Big difference between the two.
Mervel,
Again, you have to understand the words being used here. I’m not laying all the problems of the world on religion. I’m saying religion enables the problems of the world by encouraging disconnect with nature.
Your last post shows your complete lack of understanding. I believe none of the things you attribute to me. On the other hand, you seem to believe things happen in a vacuum. I don’t have much time right now to get into specifics as I’m on my way out, not that you’d consider what I’d write anyway.
What is the problem with that quote?
Oops, my apologies. I goofed. I thought both those last two messages were from Mervel but one was from Notinthevillage. Sorry for the confusion, that one is totally on me. So the last two paragraphs in my last message should have been directed at Notinthevillage and not, as I erroneously indicated, Mervel.
Now that I have a little more time on my hands I can expand on that point. I don’t have any illusions as to the moral superiority of any particular group of people. Some tribes did (and do) things I find deplorable… like child sacrifice. I have no doubt that some of these things were (and are) done in the name of their spirituality, like the Morning Star ritual. (But note how it is symbolic of the cyclical interconnectedness of nature and contrast that to Jesus’ sacrifice.)
But here’s the thing. I am as atheistic toward Atira and the Morning Star as I am to Yahweh and Jesus. The Pawnee weren’t the ones who took over the world and caused all this destruction. If they had, maybe child sacrifice would be more common today and there would be people like me who campaign against it. (Though the US easing restrictions on child soldiers has been in the news lately) The people who did take over the world were cultural descendants of the people of the Old Testament. So it’s hardly surprising that the views of that tribe have been largely institutionalized in our culture (the same way child sacrifice would have been had the Skidi Pawnee taken over the world)… that tribe of early Hebrews (or Anatolians, or Sumerians or whoever it was) was hierarchical, patriarchal and homophobic. The Bible itself makes this clear. (Some of it makes sense: these were people for whom a high population growth rate was the difference between life and death so homosexuality (and masturbation, and contraception) was frowned upon, if you were horny, you should be making a baby. I can see how that attitude would have worked for them. I can also see how that attitude doesn’t work for us.)
You mentioned the lack of technology as the reason why a Native American tribe didn’t take over the world. Sorry, but this is very absurd. Technology had to be developed and as Merven pointed out, some indigenous tribes figured out agriculture. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas were all technologically advanced in their own ways.
If you read “Guns, Germs and Steel” it is very obvious there were some complex (but very understandable) reasons why it was those folks from the Fertile Crescent who took over the world and not anyone else. It certainly helped having a god like this:
“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Genesis 1: 28 – 30)
Seriously.. how can anyone say there is no connection?
What destruction? Please be specific and prepare to back up your assertions with science.
It is a simple fact that the indigenous populations were still in the stone age. It is also a simple fact that stone age technology was at a competitive disadvantage to even the early metal age technologies. There is nothing absurd about it. Learn some history.
Agriculture emerged in what is called the New Stone Age around 8000 BC. The development of agriculture by the indigenous tribes of North America is not the exception for stone age cultures, it is the rule.
Wow.
Well Notinthevillage, I’m going to take some of your advice and not bother to deal with you. I wouldn’t even know where to begin since your conception of history is so completely skewed. I guess history is more “facts” than cause and effect? You don’t even realize that you’re not even arguing with me, you’re just dabbling in the periphery, making one irrelevant and obtuse point after another and saying, “Aha!” Why don’t you tell me again that human population has been growing exponentially for centuries. Don’t forget to act haughty while you do it as that surely accents your contribution to the thread. Seriously.
If you happen to have grandchildren lucky enough to see their own kids grow up, you can look down from heaven and thank the gods for environmentalists like me who took some responsibility for civilization’s actions and did something about it.