Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins answers the critics of his book and of his outspoken atheism. Remember the bumpersticker "Blasphemy is a Victimless Crime"
Quicktime Video 24 MB : 00:24:38
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.
Comments
Cool that he talks about the preface. I had a rather good time with it myself. Posted a bit about it here:
http://worstwriter.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/religion-delusion/
-tgs-
Is it a coincidence that all militant atheists are from Britain? Remember the BBC reporter that blew up during a scientology interview.?
You know the reason? One word: Industrialization.
If you read Alvin Toffler's "Third Wave" you understand why industrialization (not enlightment) values must be in conflict with religious values. But the upcoming wave, the third wave, the knowledge economy is happy as a clam with any belief structure because beliefs are not in the way of work anymore.
And since Britain is a country with the longest history with industrialization (hell it started there) we can understand why militant atheism finds its most visible leaders there.
It's really not rocket science. Humans have become smarter over time. Religion is for stupid people.
Industrialization requires godlessness? What about the Netherlands and Sweden, two of the most athiest countries, and I don't really think they are particularly known for their great manufacturing/industrial sector. I could be wrong, but my instinct calls "bullshit".
I think the "militant" athiests come from britain because of the state run religion, and the proximity to the horrors of the middle east.
Also the fact that "intallectules" are not shunned in that country like they are in this country. Ever notice on TV they make smart characters British? Because americans don't like smart americans. Look at Al Gore and his "geek" persona during the 2000 election, "he knows stuff!"
Sigh.
"Religion is for stupid people."
lol. I might recommend a more critical reading of The God Delusion. But it's pointless... do what you will. Blind acceptance, eh?
I find that in conversations with atheists, I have to back-track and spend time teaching them what they believe.
Then again, I'm the uninformed one.
"I find that in conversations with atheists, I have to back-track and spend time teaching them what they believe."
example?
Hartman,
The premise is simple: if one can believe something with zero evidence, then not believing in it has no known consequences (and in the case of religion, serious benefits).
If you honestly think that believing in something with no known advantages and a myriad of disadvantages makes you the winner, then congratulations.
Richard Dawkins in shorts and dinosaur t-shirt. Heh.
He looks like a sixty-six year old version of me when I was seven and making regular trips to the dinosaur exhibits at the Australian Museum of natural history. Though, obviously far more erudite.
Militant Atheists? So expressing your opinion openly is militant, unless it's done by a Christian then it's, "sharing the good news" or "witnessing". If a Christian becomes violent he doesn't become a "militant Christian" he's referred to as a false Christian.
Using the phrase 'militant atheist' is just another means by the scared religious community to respond with emotion rather than anything intellectual. Then again, Christians have been doing that for 2000 years.
Firi,
Why on earth would I believe such a thing? Obviously benefits give no merit to whether or not something is actually true. Even bringing up Pascal's Wager has very little, if any, discussional value.
You're right when you say, "the premise simple". In fact, it's very simple. We agree entirely.
Mitch,
There are literally countless examples. Most know nothing of "multiverses", the anthropic principle, why the "meme" is not a scientifically accepted idea, Dawkins' misuse of the Thomas Aquanis 'proofs', Dawkins' portrayal of those on the fringe of society as the norm, Dawkins' misuse of psychology to disprove God, Dawkins' misunderstanding of theology.
Curiously, there is little scientific analysis presented in The God Delusion. There's a lot of "pseudoscientific" speculation, linked with wider cultural criticisms, but that's about it.
Dawkins pays his readers the highly dubious compliment of assuming that they will share his prejudices and ignorance about religion.
The God Delusion is the atheist equivalent of slick hellfire preaching. Turbocharged rhetoric is substituted for careful scientifically-based arguments, fundamentalism for rationality.
Consider it.
I will say this: I do have converstations with atheists on a regular basis, and they are all positive. Most of my friends are atheists. Perhaps we should re-consider proclaiming rash and batantly stupid remarks, such as, "Religion is for stupid people".
I know stupid Christians. I know stupid atheists. I would prefer to say that I know ignorant people, regardless of their worldview or spirituality.
where was this video shot? aboard a cruise ship? research vessel?
thanks for the post, norm! i really enjoyed hearing him reply to his critcs.
-- oskar
I think it was a "Free Inquiry" sponsored cruise to the Galapagos.
"Dawkins' portrayal of those on the fringe of society as the norm, Dawkins' misuse of psychology to disprove God, Dawkins' misunderstanding of theology. Curiously, there is little scientific analysis presented in The God Delusion. "
Let me pose a few questions to you:
Have you been to the southern half of the United States? Do you know how much influence Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard had? The 45,000 churches under their unfluence are not fringe groups. Evangelical christians are the ones who gave Bush his victory, and make up the base of the republican party.
Dawkins misuses psychology to disprove god? I believe Dawkins clearly states that you cannot disprove god's existance, but there is no evidence for one.
Dawkins misunderstands theology? Can you give some examples? What is there to misunderstand? The holy books have been and still are used to legitimize segregation, violence, murder, etc.
There is little scientific evidence presented in the God Delusion? Again, there is no evidence that god himself doesn't or does exist, and I don't expect Dawkins to present me with evidence directly disproving god, nobody can. It is the scientific evidence that Dawkins presents that makes it very difficult to believe in god when we can explain so much naturalistically. Have you read chapter four in his book? He uses natural selection, darwinism, biology, etc, to show how creationism by design is flawed, and he uses a great deal of scientific evidence.
“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”-Richard Dawkins
Ben,
I will address your final point, because it is the one which I most disagree.
The God Delusion criticizes "the worship of the gaps." This is a reference to an approach to Christian apologetics that came into prominence during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. It was a foolish idea and was increasingly abandoned in the twentieth century. Dawkins' criticism of those who "worship the gaps", despite its overstatements, is clearly appropriate and valid. So we must thank him for helping us kill of this outdated false turn in the history of Christian apologetics. It is a good example of how a dialogue between science and Christian theology can lead to some useful outcomes.
The Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation - and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a Creator God.
Swinburn's argument asserts that the intelligibility of the universe itself needs explanation. It is therefore not the gaps in our understanding of the world which point to God but rather the very comprehensibility of scientific and other forms of understanding that requires an explanation. The more scientific advance is achieved, the greater will be our understanding of the universe - and hence the greater need to explain this very success. It is an approach which commends and encourages scientific investigation, not seeks to inhibit it.
Jonathan, don't try to pull the Courtier's Reply here. It doesn't wear well on you.
Hartman,
I stated, "The premise is simple: if one can believe something with zero evidence, then not believing in it has no known consequences (and in the case of religion, serious benefits)."
You replied, "Why on earth would I believe such a thing? Obviously benefits give no merit to whether or not something is actually true."
You obviously believe it. I'm saying that having to not bother with religion and its failed usefulness is much easier than siphoning through all of the atrocities of the Bible and/or Koran trying to find the "right way" to live. Since there is no reason to be religious whatsoever, why complicate things? So, if you are religious whatsoever, then you have needlessly complicated your life and, indeed, believe in "such things." Of course benefits give no merit to whether something is true just like not believing in something that does nothing whatsoever gives no merit to believing in it at all.
Just for fun, what do you think of this argument that I made up? (I think I made it up, anyway. I haven't seen this particular version anywhere.)
Of course, premise five could be rewritten to something like:
Ha ha...
Eh, the auto-formatting ruined things. The "C" stands for "Conclusion" or what have you and should really be "6."
Firi,
"I'm saying that having to not bother with religion and its failed usefulness is much easier than siphoning through all of the atrocities of the Bible and/or Koran trying to find the "right way" to live."
There is great utility evident in religion and it's ramifactions. To say it has a "failed usefulness" is simply mistaken. There is much good done throughout the world in the name of religion. You may wish to point out the atrocities done on its behalf, as well you might. (jihad, etc). However, this is not exclusive to religion. Dawkins points out that he would not fly a plane into a building. Well, good for him. Neither would I. What we are dealing with is human nature. The human tendency to justify conflicts by some "transcendant good". If you were to remove religion, the problem would not go away, just as human nature would not go away. In religion's vacancy would rise the defense of such transubstantial ideals as 'liberty' or 'equality'.
"Since there is no reason to be religious whatsoever, why complicate things? So, if you are religious whatsoever, then you have needlessly complicated your life and, indeed, believe in "such things."
Here, I disagree with you, as well. (I'm being as fair as possible.) Many people would claim that their spirituality did not "complicate" their lives, but rather had the exact opposite affect. For me, Christianity has been a powerful pyschological upbuilding and awakening. Soren Kierkegaard was instrumental in my understanding of the intellectual resilience and spirtiual power of Christianity.
To quote C.S. Lewis: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."
You might well respond this does not make it any more true. I would agree, but I would also take it one step further: it makes it no less true. For a start, wanting something is no demonstration that it does not exist. Human thirst points to the need for water. It also suggests that all worldviews are a response to human needs and desires - including, of course, atheism, which can be seen as a response to the human desire for moral autonomy.
Your argument seems to be an expansion of the "why did God allow for evil, then?" question.
This is addressed by countless religious and non-religious scholars, for I faintly recall seeing it here and there.
I would suggest researching it yourself. It shouldn't take long to find numerous views on the topic.
jonathan, you write as an example: "Dawkins' misuse of the Thomas Aquanis 'proofs'" and i would like a clarification of what you mean.
the rest of your examples, i could see through and dismiss out of first hand knowledge, but i am unfamiliar with what you might consider proper use of thomas aqunis' proofs.
the theoretical constructs of multiverses as a descriptive tool (by that i mean it is certainly not predictive) and other bizarre features of quantum theory have been fertile ground for nonsenical spiritual babble for a while now, and none of it is convincing. not to me and not to quantum physicist. i am also familiar with the anthropic principle in the context of cosmology and am satisfied that there is no room for god hiding in there. and having read dawkin's book, i confidently reject your claim that dawkins presents fringe characters as mainstream.
i am not sure what you mean by dawkins' misuse of psychology, i can't remember a section of the book where dawkins uses claim from psychology to disprove god's existence. nevertheless, i must say i am detecting a pattern with your examples.
on your other message though i find myself in total agreement that the sentence "religion is for stupid people" is just an inflammatory and worthless contribution to the debate. like yourself, i know very intelligent people on both sides of the debate. not that i count myself among them but i have also been on both sides of this issue. i grew up being more religious than my family while today i feel strongly that religions are worse than useless.
--
oskar
"There is great utility evident in religion and it's ramifactions. To say it has a "failed usefulness" is simply mistaken. There is much good done throughout the world in the name of religion."
Perhaps, but this "good" is not exclusive to religion. As an atheist, I could do every bit as good as, for example, a Christian, only without the preaching and holier-than-thou consciousness and/or subconsciousness. Is this not a good thing? Even if the notion that religious have a higher capacity for good than atheists were true, it still does not show whatsoever that a god exists.
"If you were to remove religion, the problem would not go away, just as human nature would not go away. In religion's vacancy would rise the defense of such transubstantial ideals as 'liberty' or 'equality'."
What you are basically stating here is that people are always going to fight, so why not over religion? Well, as many have probably explained to you, fighting over religion is a waste of time as none of it has any credence at all. Liberty and equality, on the other hand, are great things to fight about. Removing religion would eliminate one more useless thing to fight over. That's the idea.
"For me, Christianity has been a powerful pyschological upbuilding and awakening."
How? Accepting specious claims has somehow made you a better person? Twisting reality to make it more pleasurable (paradise after death) has made you happier? You find solace in what might as well be lies? Why not focus on what is tangible rather than wishfully thinking about what could be?
"You might well respond this does not make it any more true. I would agree, but I would also take it one step further: it makes it no less true. For a start, wanting something is no demonstration that it does not exist."
True, but the idea that atheists hold against theists is the fact that theists put serious life decisions and the like in the hands of what is no more than fairy tales. This is where the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument comes into play. Believing in a god is absolutely no different than believing in the FSM. Take the Bible and replace the words "God," "Jesus," and so forth with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and ask yourself, "Does this make sense?" Since a god and a FSM are in the same category of "untenable," they are both equally interchangeable and equally ridiculous.
As far as my argument goes, yes, it is a modified version of the argument from evil, but somehow seems more potent. Some would refute the basic argument from evil with something along the lines of, "We need evil in order to have good." I suppose, but do we need pure evil (Satan)? Why do we need this? Why would an infinitely good being create such an infinitely evil being? Is it so the infinitely good being can be contrasted to something? Numerous questions arise. Also keep in mind that, according to the Bible, Satan used to be an angel known as Lucifer, so an infinitely evil being did not always "balance" with the infinitely good being. The whole thing just gets stupid fast.
Oskar,
In The God Delusion, Dawkins turns his attention to such other "arguments" based on the philosophy of religion. I am not sure that this was entirely wise. He is clearly out of his depth, and achieves little by his brief and superficial engagement with these great perennial debates, which often simply cannot be resolved empirically. His attitude seems to be "here's how a scientist would sort out this philosophical nonsense."
For example, Dawkins takes the issue with the approach developed by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, traditionally known as the "Five Ways." The general consensus is that while such arguments cast interesting light on questions, they settle nothing. All they do is show the inner consistency of belief in God - in much the same way as the classic arguments for atheism (such as Ludwig Feuerbach's famous idea of the "projection" of God; see below) demonstrate its inner consistency, but not its evidential foundations.
The basic line of thought guiding Thomas is that the world mirrors God, as its Creator. It is an assumption derived from faith, which Thomas argues to resonate with what we observe in the world. For example, its signs of ordering can be explained on the basis of the existence of God as its creator. This approach is still widely encountered in Christian writings which argue that an existing faith in God offers a better “empirical fit” with the world that its alternatives. As Dawkins himself uses this same approach to commend atheism elsewhere, I cannot really see that he has much to complain about here.
At no point does Thomas speak of these as being “proofs” for God’s existence; rather they are sent as a demonstration of the inner coherence of belief in God. Thomas is interested in exploring the rational implications of faith in terms of our experience of beauty, causality and so forth. The appearance of design can offer persuasion, not proof, concerning the role of divine creativity in the universe. Dawkins misunderstands an a posteriori demonstration of faith and observation to be an a priori proof of faith – an entirely understandable mistake for those new to this field, but a serious error nonetheless.
In 1841, Feuerbach argued that God was basically an invention, dreamed up by human beings to provide metaphysical and spiritual consolation. His argument runs like this.
There is no God. Buts lots of people believe in God. Why? Because they want consolation. So they “project” or “objectify” their longings and call this “God”. So this nonexistent God is simply the projection of human longings.
(My above reply to Firi briefly deals with human longings.)
The overarching question is how do we, as observers, makes sense of this highly complex, multifaceted, multilayered reality.
I wish all of you well.
wow, sounds like we could all benefit here. skorsky can write a book about how the brits invented atheism, i'll write a book about how the jews invented atheism,, they'll jostle for bestseller status, creating a storm of controversy on the web, then norm can post some kind of "clusterfuck" critique. everybody's happy. :)
thats exactly what i was thinking, therealchristopher. i was also wondering how his new status as a member of the jet set was influencing his clothing choices for public appearances. my guess is that rich people (with brains, a minority imo) wear whatever the fuck they want at all times (kind of like, uh, poor people), as opposed to when they're still struggling and needing to impress people.
Hartman didn't respond to my last post. Oh, well. I guess I'll end by responding to:
"The overarching question is how do we, as observers, makes sense of this highly complex, multifaceted, multilayered reality."
With:
I suppose, but there is certainly no sense in religion. If the religious used sense, they'd all turn atheist almost overnight until some kind of good evidence emerged.
jonathan (hartman)
thank you for your response, i benefitted from reading it. i have to comment on one issue there though. in your words:
"At no point does Thomas speak of these as being “proofs” for God’s existence; "
this is false. not having been exposed to medieval philosophy texts before, i used google to look up thomas aquinas. 2 minutes later i found the text of summa theologica in english -yeah, the internet amazes me, too- and here is what i found, immediately precediong the "5 ways":
"I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists."
-thomas aquinas
source (e.g):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html
i checked and confirmed this at three other sites (all .edu) before giving up on the point. so there. those are meant to be proofs and not mere 'consistency checks'.
incidentally, for those of you who, like i, never before read thomas aquinas' 5 proofs do yourself a favour look them up or hit the link above. they really are as silly as dawkins makes them sound in 'the god delusion', if not even more so! straight from the horse's (thomas aquinas') mouth:
"... thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God." - thomas aquinas
silly or not by modern standards, dawkins is completely right to address the arguments this highly intelligent philosopher (thomas aquinas) presents against his (dawkins') thesis. of course, dawkins benefits from centuries of thinking, progress and enhanced understanding of the world. once the summa theologica represented some of the deepest thinking on the topic. today, we can quickly see through them. this explains why thomas aquinas only enjoys 3 pages of discussion in dawkins' 32 page chapter on proofs of god's existance.
all the best
--
oskar
jonathan (hartman)
thank you for your response, i benefitted from reading it. i have to comment on one issue there though. in your words:
"At no point does Thomas speak of these as being “proofs” for God’s existence; "
this is false. not having been exposed to medieval philosophy texts before, i used google to look up thomas aquinas. 2 minutes later i found the text of summa theologica in english -yeah, the internet amazes me, too- and here is what i found, immediately precediong the "5 ways":
"I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists."
-thomas aquinas
source (e.g):
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html
i checked and confirmed this at three other sites (all .edu) before giving up on the point. so there. those are meant to be proofs and not mere 'consistency checks'.
incidentally, for those of you who, like i, never before read thomas aquinas' 5 proofs do yourself a favour look them up or hit the link above. they really are as silly as dawkins makes them sound in 'the god delusion', if not even more so! straight from the horse's (thomas aquinas') mouth:
"... thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God." - thomas aquinas
silly or not by modern standards, dawkins is completely right to address the arguments this highly intelligent philosopher (thomas aquinas) presents against his (dawkins') thesis. of course, dawkins benefits from centuries of thinking, progress and enhanced understanding of the world. once the summa theologica represented some of the deepest thinking on the topic. today, we can quickly see through them. this explains why thomas aquinas only enjoys 3 pages of discussion in dawkins' 32 page chapter on proofs of god's existance.
all the best
--
oskar
my apologies for the double post. (oh now, it is a triple post!)
Some excellent comments here.
Oskar, thanks for the Aquinas quotation. We actually read him, and some other philosphers in university, and I was often amazed at how bad the quality of thought was. Argument by analogy was the main way of proving things, and potential flaws or gaps were never addressed (think of Plato's yes-man, who only runs around saying things like "Why yes, now I can see you must be correct")
In a way it's not really fair -- obviously we have the benefit of hundreds of years of thinking about the topic, and thinking about thinking, and building on what others have done. It's like asking Euclid to do an integral (okay, he probably could have done any specific one.. :D)
I remember being very disappointed by Descartes, regarding religion particularly. He begins by basically questioning everything, realizing he could just be being deluded by an evil sprite (the brain in a jar scenario), and then, somehow, says something like, well I have this concept of God as complete, so he must be complete, so he exists...
Uhhh, what?
Jonathan H., thanks for your input. It's always good to hear a well-reasoned response from a believer.
I feel you conflate and/or mis-represent a number of things though. One classic one is moving from the idea of a Prime Mover (i.e. something starting the universe) to a Judao-Christian God who cares about me.
I also would argue that religion does indeed have a cost for the believer, whether it's economic (tithing), social (I have to hate my son the homosexual), career (no molecular bio for me, because evolution doesn't exist), or my life (I am a suicide bomber).
I'll admit religion does good things for individuals (peace of mind, framework for understanding the world, belonging) and for society (help the unfortunate). But I think overall the price is too high, in terms of lost critical thought, things like "no birth control", being another category for violent us-vs-them, etc.
There was recently a story in the news where someone was hit by lightning and survived without too much damage. He lamented; "Well I guess god decided it was not my time" rather than, "that stupid bastard god was being reckless AGAIN!" LOL
tim, i got no beef with your other points. but i felt called upon :) to contest this one. i think anyone who honestly compares your list of good results of religion to your list of bad results would have to admit (tho i'm not saying your equivilancy here is accurate by any means) that the good outweighs the bad. i mean, lost critical thought? come on."no birth control"? no one, at least no one you know, is being denied birth control. its like dope- the more "illegal" it is, the easier it is to get. its like, buying heroin in afghanistan. only you can't be prosecuted for it. so, no. and "violent us vs them"? i don't think religion even makes the top ten there, not with things like politics, money, power, honor, race, fear, sexuality, class, gender... well, maybe it MIGHT make the top ten, but at the bottom. ok, maybe it might be near the top. but do you know what peace of mind is going for these days?
in the interests of clear thinking.
sorry, meant ben, not tim.
Certain media figures have an advantage that I can imagine must be pretty sweet. I'm thinking of editorial writers, commentators, radio talk show hosts, and in this case, anyone who can publicly have the last word after enumerating a series of criticisms as Dawkins does here. There's such yummy banquet-sized opportunities for put-downs. I guess Dawkins is tired of what he sees as stock questions so he can now canonize his retort in serial as a preface to the new editions.
There's a constant anal striving here to whack every last mole. Maybe the ultimate environment for the perfect intellect is under a glass jar, unfettered by outside noise and nonsense, just to whir along as the cleanest machine.
Curiously, something of the old half-evolved brain is left intact and not under question, which is the human ego. Are there really NO DECEITS in Atheism? Amazing.
After watching a guitarist on YouTube singing in church, I realized that there is a sociological difference between people with talent or without.
There probably are. But I can assure you there are no gods in Atheism.
Richard Dawkins doesn't tolerate bullshit. Some will translate this as being militant 'n shit.
I wouldn't confine myself to his list however...
right erick, which is another way of saying what i said in parenthesis in that statement. but you took them OUT. doooooood....
i hope we can rely on you more than that in the other quotations you use here. parenthetical stuff is important. i realize it can be grammatically cumbersome, especially the way i use it sometimes, but a qoute with the parenthetical material removed remains...not a quote. if i'm removing something i find superfluous in a quote, i use the ... to indicate the surgery. i think that's still generally accepted. he said primly.
i hope we can rely on you more than that in the other quotations you use here. parenthetical stuff is important. i realize it can be grammatically cumbersome, especially the way i use it sometimes, but a qoute with the parenthetical material removed remains...not a quote. if i'm removing something i find superfluous in a quote, i use the ... to indicate the surgery. i think that's still generally accepted. he said primly.
People do not do good things because they are religious or that they do it in the name of religion but because they are people capable of doing what we define as "good," or a relative good, both with weighted positive and negative results.
People do not do bad things which bear both positive and negative results.
To say "religion" is the cause of growth or strife in this world is to dignify a mere concept we ourselves have created as some sort of dominating force in our lives--when people can just as easily drop religion, as many of us have done, at any moment.
People may say they're doing their work in the name of "god," but keep in mind they have no true concept of what this being or thing is. It is a relatively true idea which is only the maximum capacity for their minds to conceive of something seemingly objectively good. But one person's own subjective notion of an ill-defined being is not in itself religion nor the idea itself. It is the person creating justification and reason to continue doing what they would do since they have been inclined to be good by societal shifts in morality. Religion is a social system, like any other--the YMCA, the boy scouts, etc--albeit it is much larger, but taking away religion would not take away "good people."
In any case, however, it is pointless to discuss hypothetical situations even remotely similar to religion ending tomorrow or something equally absurd and fruitless. The point is religion WILL end. It's quite simple.
People do bad things, rather.
"There are no atheists in foxholes"
Really? There aren't any Xtians in heaven either.
"There are no atheists in foxholes"
Probably because we have less excuses to start wars.
Industrialization and religion are very much in opposition because in old school industry the assembly line is GOD. It cannot stop, must be tended to, and all perception of TIME, SPACE are enslaved TO IT. Industrial age, with its linear outlook on life, will destroy all beliefs in its way, you cannot take a break outside of the menial work you are doing and contemplate something else because you are already worshipping the all powerful assembly GOD.
I further claim that only "lite" religions such as Christianity and Buddhism could survive this onslaught whereas a hardcore religion like Islam could not coexist, therefore missed out on industrialization all together.
I further add that America wasn't built to save state from religion but built to save religion from the state. Everywhere else in Europe, religion, that personal, subjective, sometimes superstitious thing was pounded on, but a handful of people escaped this and formed what is United States today. Hence, as much people expend energy to battle religion in US, it will never succeed beyond a certain point. Because right now, civil society, decentralized spirit of America, etc. are all intertwined with that first act of breaking free from industrial autocracy that took control everything else in its original land with its nation-states bureaucrats and mind dead automotans. America's exceptionalism is right - and it has much to do with religion. Lots in US social life is work in progress, but the new synthesis when its complete, will be the start of a new civilization.
Post a comment