I say this as an atheist — I don’t think this is the right way to talk about religion. It’s not a matter of people “blinding” themselves to absolute truth, not a logical fallacy you can argue people out of. Behind the differing mythologies and definitions, religion is a metaphor, a model for the world and its mechanisms. When you conside…
I say this as an atheist — I don’t think this is the right way to talk about religion. It’s not a matter of people “blinding” themselves to absolute truth, not a logical fallacy you can argue people out of. Behind the differing mythologies and definitions, religion is a metaphor, a model for the world and its mechanisms. When you consider that humans are *only* able to interact with reality through models, due to the limits of our senses and comprehension, it makes more sense why you can litigate the small details of individual religions with facts/science/etc, but the overarching principle of divinity remains true for so many.
And I do know many intelligent, genuinely religious people. Being intelligent, they question and interrogate their religious philosophies— but this is not the same as ingenuine faith. I recommend seeking out people like this, especially as an atheist or agnostic, and learning openmindedly about cultural and philosophical religious traditions. It has enriched my own philosophy in more ways than I can name.
I find the author's insistent demand that even the idea of religion be abandoned, presumably because science and religion cannot coexist, more than jarring.
I have no desire to deprive people of the comfort or community they derive from religious beliefs.
I vehemently disagree with weaponized religion, or the efforts to impose religious/cultural beliefs on entire countries, but just as I refuse any authority to impose religious beliefs on me, I don't presume to impose my agnostic/atheist views on others.
History provides no evidence that humanity will "evolve" past a need for an attachment to religion/spirituality.
"I find the author's insistent demand that even the idea of religion be abandoned, presumably because science and religion cannot coexist, more than jarring."
You didn't read the article...or you wouldn't have made this comment.
I say this as an atheist — I don’t think this is the right way to talk about religion. It’s not a matter of people “blinding” themselves to absolute truth, not a logical fallacy you can argue people out of. Behind the differing mythologies and definitions, religion is a metaphor, a model for the world and its mechanisms. When you consider that humans are *only* able to interact with reality through models, due to the limits of our senses and comprehension, it makes more sense why you can litigate the small details of individual religions with facts/science/etc, but the overarching principle of divinity remains true for so many.
And I do know many intelligent, genuinely religious people. Being intelligent, they question and interrogate their religious philosophies— but this is not the same as ingenuine faith. I recommend seeking out people like this, especially as an atheist or agnostic, and learning openmindedly about cultural and philosophical religious traditions. It has enriched my own philosophy in more ways than I can name.
Yes, I agree.
I find the author's insistent demand that even the idea of religion be abandoned, presumably because science and religion cannot coexist, more than jarring.
I have no desire to deprive people of the comfort or community they derive from religious beliefs.
I vehemently disagree with weaponized religion, or the efforts to impose religious/cultural beliefs on entire countries, but just as I refuse any authority to impose religious beliefs on me, I don't presume to impose my agnostic/atheist views on others.
History provides no evidence that humanity will "evolve" past a need for an attachment to religion/spirituality.
"I find the author's insistent demand that even the idea of religion be abandoned, presumably because science and religion cannot coexist, more than jarring."
You didn't read the article...or you wouldn't have made this comment.
I did read the article...I simply disagree with the assumptions and conclusions.