Agnostic.com

4 2

Maybe the most common misconception about religion (common among many atheists, that is) is that religion's most important function is to provide explanations for all kinds of phenomena, that it is an obsolete proto- or pseudo-science.

I think religion was a lot more than just the science of another time. It was also the philosophy, the medicine, the politics, the law, the psychology, the sociology, the dietary advice, the interpersonal relationship advice,.etc.. , but it was also, and maybe primarily, a practice that acted as a counterbalance against our evolved animal instincts, which then enabled us to live in large, cooperating groups.

In the course of cultural evolution all those other aspects of early religion have specialized and split off (now disowning their parents, in effect) except for one function: training us to be “human”, which we now need more of, rather than less.

To suggest that the “religion” of the 21st century is identical to the “religion” of two thousand, let alone ten thousand years ago, is just not consistent with historical fact. Religion has been evolving and upgrading to meet the needs of ever “modernizing” Homo sapiens, including the "toxic" aspects of modern religion which are summarized under the term "fundamentalism", which is basically a modern backlash against modernity. But "fundamentalism" certainly is not the epitome of contemporary religiousness, even if Dawkins, Sam Harris and many of their fans sometimes make such claims.

Matias 8 July 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

4 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I think that you give the intent of religion far too much credit that it does not deserve.

0

i find your statement flawed. i don't think it is an important function of religion to provide explanations of the unknown. not only this, i don't rank that in my thoughts on religion. what i will respond is that this IS a function of religion. all of them (myths too.) the christian religion itself, not atheists, ascribes to events in history the will of god even though they are not. a flood? okay there was a flood some time in history. a bad one (at least one.) a volcanic eruption? okay there was a volcanic eruption. will of god? fallacious claims. weather and natural disasters are not caused by god to punish people. are you saying that people no matter their stripes should not be able to point out the fallacies in religion? what percent of religious texts are we to assign as literal when we argue our points? seems to me it depends on the person responding to your argument. it's got nothing to do with my 0% assignment to the book as the literal word of god. what percentage do believers take to be fact versus allegory? i personally don't care. i have no way of policing this. no way of knowing what percentage of the book you or anyone i am arguing with takes as fact. no way of knowing how fundamentalist they are. you cannot pick and choose points from the bible as the literal word of god. it is religion that claims it is the word of god, not me. i point out that it is wrong in many, many, many places. and then i refuse to take what it says as real because it is wrong in so many places.

religion surely has a hand in getting us here. i won't argue that. one of the most important hands in my view. but it is not fact. and we'll never know how society would have developed without it or if it could have because it did so with religions. can you be of moral character and not give a fuck wwjd? who knows maybe we would have surpassed where we are if the people had not the religion to retard their thinking. i can say this. if god exists, she is not the one described in the christian books. at least not literally 🙂

funny too, i keep seeing hitchens and dawkins come up as if they are messianic. i've never read either. i have perversely watched them argue points directly to believers and converse with each other. one thing rings true to me in what you typed. i am a fan. maybe someday i will read them.

0

You tellin me what I think 😉 This isn’t the Religion Apologist Board 😀

...but honesty, I didn’t read past your first paragraph … cuz having done that yesterday apparently got you nowhere..

Varn Level 8 July 19, 2019
1

Excellent post Matias. I am in full agreement.

I’m told over and over that atheism is simply the “withholding of belief” and that atheists have no “burden of proof”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Why then do Dawkins, Sam Harris and fans wage such vigorous verbal warfare against religion in all its forms? One is almost led to believe that they are insecure in their non-belief.

because they state things that are categorically false? repeatedly.

and then their followers argue that the categorically false is true? repeatedly. and use it as justification for bad behavior.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:376165
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.