The final chapter in the book, chapter 46, is an article excerpted from "Against All Gods" by British moral philosopher Anthony C. Grayling. In today's blog, I'm going to just sample some of his observations.
Re: the infallibility of the Catholic Church's Pope: "...the latest eternal verity to be abandoned is the doctrine of limbo - the place for the souls of unbaptised babies."
Re: sustaining religion in the face of growing Enlightenment: "... it is the business of all religious doctrines to keep their votaries in a scare of intellectual infancy (how else do they keep absurdities seeming credible?)"
" "Intellectual infancy": the phrase reminds one that religions survive mainly because they brainwash the young. ...all the faiths currently jostling for our tax money to run their "faith-based" schools know that if they do not proselytise intellectually defenceless three- and four-year-olds, their grip will eventually loosen. Let us challenge religion to leave children alone until they are adults, whereupon they can be presented with the essentials of religion for mature consideration."
Re: the term 'Atheist': "Is an acceptable (acceptable to the faithful, that is) atheist one who thinks it is reasonable for people to believe that the gods suspend the laws of nature occasionally in answer to personal prayers? ... no atheist should call himself or herself one. The term already sells a pass to theists, because it invites debate on their ground. (Emphasis added by me.) A more appropriate term is "naturalist," denoting one who takes it that the universe is a natural realm, governed by nature's laws. This properly implies that there is nothing supernatural in the universe - no fairies or goblins, angels, demons, gods or goddesses. Such might as well call themselves "a-fairyists" or "a-goblinists" as "a-theists"; it would be every bit as meaningful or meaningless to do so."
((As an aside, by me: pursuing his term "naturalist", I would encourage you to visit the Pantheist page, at: http://www.pantheism.net/index.htm. Interesting to see the people who support the ideas proffered by Pantheism.))
"In conclusion, it is worth pointing out an allied and characteristic bit of jesuitry employed by folk of faith. This is their attempt to describe naturalism (atheism) as itself a "religion." But by definition a religion is something centred upon belief in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe; and not merely in their existence, but in their interest in human beings on this planet; and not merely their interest, but their particularly detailed interest in what humans wear, what they eat, when they eat it, what they read or see, what they treat as clean and unclean, who they have sex with and how and when; and so for a multitude of other things, like making women invisible beneath enveloping clothing, or strapping little boxes to their foreheads, or iterating formulae by rote five times a day, and so endlessly forth; with threats of punishment for getting any of it wrong.
"But naturalism (atheism) by definition does not premise such belief. Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory, or at worst an ideology. If it is either of the two first, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out, or burnings conducted at the stake, over rival theories in biology or astrophysics.
"And one can grant that the word "fundamental" does after all apply to this: in the phrase "fundamentally sensible.""
Read, again and particularly, his sentence above: ".... it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it ...." which leads us, of course, to the idea that 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', which has NOT been the case in any religion to date. Religious claims must be taken 'on faith' due to the simple fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND FOR THEIR CLAIMS!!!
Putting his above referenced sentence into simpler terms: if there is little evidence, there should be little acceptance; and it therefore follows that if there is no evidence, there should be no acceptance.
We have the intellect to discern when there is no evidence for a mystical claim; we need to use our intellect so we don't blindly follow the claims of the religious hucksters and those who sell their godly snake oil.
Remember my motto, emblazoned on many a tee shirt: Reliance on Ancient Mythologies is Degrading to the Rational Mind.
g
No comments:
Post a Comment