Ganked from "The God Delusion"
Sep. 2nd, 2010 11:03 pm![[personal profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
choccoweeble"The philosopher Bertram Russell had an analogy: Imagine there is a china teapot in orbit around the sun. You cannot disprove the existence of the teapot because it would be too small to be spotted by our telescopes. Nobody but a lunatic would say 'Well I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I can't disprove it'. Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic, but in practice we are all 'teapot atheists'. But now suppose that everybody in society - the teachers, the tribal elders - all had faith in the teapot. Stories of the teapot have been handed down for generations, it's part of the tradition of the society, there are holy books about the teapot. Then, somebody who did not believe in the teapot might be regarded as eccentric or even mad.
There's an infinte number of things like celestial teapots that we can't disprove; there are fairies; there are unicorns; hobgoblins - we can't disprove any of those, but we don't believe in them any more than nowadays we believe in Thor, Amun-Ra or Aphrodite. We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.
There's an infinte number of things like celestial teapots that we can't disprove; there are fairies; there are unicorns; hobgoblins - we can't disprove any of those, but we don't believe in them any more than nowadays we believe in Thor, Amun-Ra or Aphrodite. We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins.
![[identity profile]](http://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-03 08:04 am (UTC)Ganked from
Date: 2010-09-03 09:02 am (UTC)1/ When people try to tell me I should believe in the teapot.
2/ The indoctrination of children in the belief system from such a young age they become incapable of making up their own mind about the existence of the teapot.
3/ Expectation that belief automatically gives them authority to dictate to non-believers how they should behave.
4/ Use of their belief in the message of the teapot to persecute others
5/ Blind dismissal of scientific fact because it contradicts the belief system.
6/ The fear of those in authority to 'offend' the religious - according believers additional priviledge.
I hope this doesn't make me come across as intolerent, but there really are some aspects of religious behaviour that scare me. Although the teapot analogy is somewhat contrived I think it makes some important points.
Religion attacks science and the beliefs of atheists almost every day. But woe betide those who do the reverse...
Re: Ganked from
Date: 2010-09-03 10:17 am (UTC)Re: Ganked from
Date: 2010-09-03 12:30 pm (UTC)Re: Ganked from
Date: 2010-09-04 12:06 pm (UTC)1/ When people try to tell me I shouldn't believe in the teapot.
2/ The indoctrination of children in the belief system (that there is no teapot) from such a young age they become incapable of making up their own mind about the existence of the teapot.
3/ Expectation that belief in science automatically gives them authority to believers in other faiths as to how they should behave.
4/ Use of their belief in the lack of the teapot to persecute others
5/ Blind dismissal of other doctrines because it contradicts the scientific system.
I hope that this doesn't make me come across as intolerant, but there are some aspects of anti-(non-scientific)-religious behaviour that scare me.
Science is a religion. It has the same doses of fanatics and the moderates. Like most religions its doctrines are not actualy incompatible with many of those of others.
The tenents of religions vary. The main tenent of science is "all truth is based on evidence". This is very good for modeling the world, and it's very useful as a result in dealing with the physical. Various attempts are being made using scientific methods to also understand the emotional and other non-physical states - but these end up using the same basis of understanding as the physical truths; for example if you're depressed you should alter your brain chemistry with drugs, where other religions might encourage you to talk to a pastor or other person whose job is effectively to care for other people. Which is more helpful? Sometimes it's one, sometimes the other, probably sometimes it's secret option number three, whatever that is.
Now, if I follow any religion I actually follow Science. But there are those who belief in science causes them to attack other relgions and the beliefs of thier followers almost every day. But I am as tired and annoyed from people saying religion is wrong as I am from people saying their brand of it is right. I dislike religion in general, though I have great tollerance for faith.
I believe that no one should be persecuted for their faith (or belief that all faiths are wrong). I don't think that someone's standpoint is anything to hide, but equally I think it's wrong for people to push theirs down anyone else's throats, or for them to belittle other people's.
Re: Ganked from
Date: 2010-09-04 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 10:35 pm (UTC)Faith isn't rational, also, Faith isn't religion.
I put it better here:
http://ed-fortune.livejournal.com/
no subject
Date: 2010-09-04 12:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-02 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-04 12:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-03 07:10 am (UTC)*cries*