@Fyrius “What I object to about religion is the theistic aspect, every other aspect that makes unsubstantiated claims about the universe (no matter how vague), and the notion that it is the source of modern morality.”
What is it about the theistic aspect of religion you object to, the supernatural aspect, the idea of god as a human-like personality writ large, the idea of having to “submit” to any such an entity however conceived, or the lack of reductionist scientific proof? What if god were a hypothesis, a force of nature without a human-like personality, did not require your recognition, devotion or submission, and was not subject to scientific disproof (as most closely investigated claims of the magical, supernatural or miraculous are)?
Would you reject the extra dimensions of string theory, M-theory, or parallel universes as well on the grounds that its claims about the universe are predicted but, as yet, unsubstantiated? Is there, to your knowledge, any scientific theory or hypothesis that explains how consciousness can arise out of matter? So, how can you be sure that there that there are not beings with a different type of consciousness, perhaps pervading all of life and, possibly, even non-life? What about the Gaia hypothesis? Can you really say that it is absolutely not possible that our sentient intelligence not part of a planet-wide adaptive awareness common to all life?
If religion is not the source of morality, where does it come from? Do you think that social norms and mores spring out of nothing? I would recommend few books to you by Thomas Cahill “The Desire of the Everlasting Hills,” “The Gift of the Jews,” and “How the Irish Saved Civilization.” Each of these books marks a turning point in human moral history. The Jews, for example, gave us the idea of “progress” when they got up and left Ur in search of a better life; the Irish were the first people in the world to abolish slavery, which they did at the behest of St. Patrick (who had been a slave) on their conversion to Christianity.
The point is that secular life, when left to itself, tends toward materialism, money-grubbing, and despotism (cf. pagan Rome and China) if not challenged by “spiritual” traditions and their social movements. Those movements don’t necessarily have to be theistic, although the idea of a judging, vengeful god did seem to jump-start some of these early traditions and get them up to a point where they could adopt empathy, compassion and the golden rule as a basis for morality. Even now, the golden rule has to struggle against the materialistic thrust of capitalism and its secular ethos of profits before people.
Now I agree with you that there are fewer things more offensive than certain religions that try to push their formulas for ritual purification (food and sex taboos) on the rest of us, especially at the expense of compassion. But that is not a reason to reject religiously inspired morality. Consider the role of confession as an aid to keeping people from becoming demoralized and socially isolated due to their transgressions against social mores. Consider also the utility of mercy and forgiveness, and how this runs counter to people’s natural inclinations when they feel victimized. Would you chuck these ideas out because they are religiously inspired?
“I also object to taking another human’s word for it regarding what happens to you after you die and the like…”
Why? You are not obligated to believe any of it.
“I object to unwillingness to reconsider…”
Well, consider my points and let’s see if you exhibit the same flexibility that you demand from others.
“I object to having a psychological need to retain a belief.”
Why? The whole edifice of human knowledge is one of warranted belief. What is generally at issue is the warrant one has for a belief, not the psychological need to have a belief.
“For anyone over the age of twenty or so, I also object to still feeling the need for a parent figure to look out for you and tell you everything’s going to be all right, rather than facing a universe that was not custom-made for you to be happy in and seeing how you can make everything all right yourself.”
Actually we do live in a finely-tuned universe and part of that fine-tuning governs what we find pleasurable and painful—it is what guides us along our evolutionary trajectory. You needn’t believe that the universe was specially made for you by God in order to grasp that there is an intimate connection between you, your pleasures, your specie’s evolution, life, and the universe. If you think about it, moral constructs like “human dignity” apart from being pleasurable when respected, have a cultural survival value, which if you respect it in others, puts you in harmony with your fellow man, your species, life, and the universe.
Do you imagine that you are somehow “stronger” because you are alienated from your fellow man, life, and the universe? The fact is, we all lean on one another to a degree we can scarcely imagine until we are deprived of human company. If you don’t believe me, lock yourself in the bathroom and see how long you stay in there. If you don’t come out on your own, somebody will eventually break the door down to make sure you are alright. Whether you realize it or not, you are nestled and snuggled within the warm bosom of humanity, but it is true, even if you style yourself a lone, rugged individualist. If other people comprehend this up in received anthropomorphized mythological dress, is it really all that far from the truth?
And how else would you conceive of your individuality if not as a “child” of the larger “parent” body of Humanity (of which you are a microcosm)? When you are a child your parents are Humanity incarnate. They teach you the permissible limits of your individuality. If they did not abuse or abandon you, you have a strong sense of what it means to be human, and therefore what is morally permissible and what is not. In this respect, you are a child of something greater than your parents; you are a child of your culture and your times.
Composing members:
0
