The inevitable march of secularism? Not so fast

[SeattleUte]

My comment about the existence of God was directed more towards what I understand to be the point of some or many of your posts here over time and a speculation about how you might use this analysis amongst us, your brethren.

What I understand, then, is that he proposes the march of science has not, in the slightest, eradicated religion. Instead, it has led the Dutch and others to replace a belief in a Supreme Being with a general belief in each other and our feelings. OK. This is a point that has been made here in this forum many times in the past. Anyone who carefully considers the human condition would, I think, reach a similar conclusion. Unlike the Age of Anger, which seemed intriguing and which I bought and have almost finished, this book doesn't seem as interesting.

I’ve never taken a position on the existence of god, not since the early eighties.

I’m glad you have liked Age of Anger. I loved it, for much the same reason I like Harari’s books, but also, unlike Harari’s books, there is a lot of information there I didn’t know but found fascinating. As I noted previously, Harari’s works are philosophical works disguised as historyl; we’re aware of most of what he says, especially the big picture; it’s the way he says it that makes it enjoyable. But I found myself disagreeing with Age of Anger a lot more than I disagreed with Harari. Still, it was disagreement that was provoked in a healthy way, making me regain my convictions after the author had made me reconsider them. I speculate that you may like Age of Anger better than my representations of Harari’s works because, unlike me, you are more in agreement with Age of Anger than Harari.

[creekster]

The only point he makes in the passages I posted today is that humans do need “religion” or life has no purpose, they had to come up with a new one after what the Scientific Revolution has done with the old one, and humanism is it, whether you know it or not, and whether or not you call yourself an atheist. .

You are misunderstanding his premise. He’s not saying there is or isn’t a God. He’s saying that the scientific revolution has obliterated the old religion. But he’s quite objective. He explains how one way that old religion has lost is that science has not been able to find soul; the duality of body and soul doesn’t seem to be true. On the other hand, one of the more amusing parts of the book is his analysis of how scientists have struggled and failed to explain stream of consciousness. He’s also quite hard on humanism (which, of course, owes much to the old religions). For example, he blames humanism as well as the old belief that animals don’t have souls for facatory farming and devastation of wildlife (he raises the question as to whether human life is any more precious than those of the animals they eat, in a very thought provoking way).

My comment about the existence of God was directed more towards what I understand to be the point of some or many of your posts here over time and a speculation about how you might use this analysis amongst us, your brethren.

What I understand, then, is that he proposes the march of science has not, in the slightest, eradicated religion. Instead, it has led the Dutch and others to replace a belief in a Supreme Being with a general belief in each other and our feelings. OK. This is a point that has been made here in this forum many times in the past. Anyone who carefully considers the human condition would, I think, reach a similar conclusion. Unlike the Age of Anger, which seemed intriguing and which I bought and have almost finished, this book doesn't seem as interesting.

[SeattleUte]

So I am struggling to understand the importance of the point here. So we replace God with our feelings. Or something like that. But we still have to have something. And choosing the wrong God does nothing to undermine the legitimacy of any other possible/actual God. Rather than speaking to replacing God, it seems to me he is showing how we tend to imagine God in our own image. If we are in a brutish and violent world, then God tends to be that way and approves of such actions or behaviors. Conversely if we are wealthy and tend to use a lot of hash and eat a lot of Gouda, our God has very little judgment of us, but is mellow and really just wants us to go with our feelings. But none of this shows that God doesn't exist, it only shows that if he does exist, we often fail to find him. So what, in the end, is the importance or value of his point? (I am not TRYING to be obtuse, btw, it comes to me naturally.)

The only point he makes in the passages I posted today is that humans do need “religion” or life has no purpose, they had to come up with a new one after what the Scientific Revolution has done with the old one, and humanism is it, whether you know it or not, and whether or not you call yourself an atheist.

You are misunderstanding his premise. He’s not saying there is or isn’t a God. He’s saying that the scientific revolution has obliterated the old religion. But he’s quite objective. He explains how one way that old religion has lost is that science has not been able to find soul; the duality of body and soul doesn’t seem to be true. On the other hand, one of the more amusing parts of the book is his analysis of how scientists have struggled and failed to explain stream of consciousness. He’s also quite hard on humanism (which, of course, owes much to the old religions). For example, he blames humanism as well as the old belief that animals don’t have souls for facatory farming and devastation of wildlife (he raises the question as to whether human life is any more precious than those of the animals they eat, in a very thought provoking way).

[Walter Sobchak]

A modern woman (not traditionally religious) has sex outside marriage. She’s troubled because what she’s doing feels good and right, but she’s liable to hurt others, including her children. Who does she consult? Her analyst, a friend over coffee, etc. Now the focus is not God, but reconciling the woman’s own personal good feelings and satisfaction with the hurt these will cause others. This value system, albeit devoid of God, is still religion, according to Harari.

Cougarstadium is SU's religion!

[creekster]

He talks a lot about how most of monotheism itself has been transmogrified into humanist creeds.

So I am struggling to understand the importance of the point here. So we replace God with our feelings. Or something like that. But we still have to have something. And choosing the wrong God does nothing to undermine the legitimacy of any other possible/actual God. Rather than speaking to replacing God, it seems to me he is showing how we tend to imagine God in our own image. If we are in a brutish and violent world, then God tends to be that way and approves of such actions or behaviors. Conversely if we are wealthy and tend to use a lot of hash and eat a lot of Gouda, our God has very little judgment of us, but is mellow and really just wants us to go with our feelings. But none of this shows that God doesn't exist, it only shows that if he does exist, we often fail to find him. So what, in the end, is the importance or value of his point? (I am not TRYING to be obtuse, btw, it comes to me naturally.)

[SeattleUte]

If that is the case, why bother trotting out the same old tired stereotypes illustrating the worst of religious history? If humanism is a religion that provides meaning to the universe, why is it necessary to trash a belief in God to make that point? Can't humanists and traditional believers coexist? Most of us believers don't want to cut your head off.

He talks a lot about how most of monotheism itself has been transmogrified into humanist creeds.

Interestingly enough, today even religious zealots adopt this humanistic discourse when they want to influence public opinion. For example, every year for the past decade the Israeli LGBT community has held a gay pride parade in the streets of Jerusalem. It’s a unique day of harmony in this conflict-riven city, because it is the one occasion when religious Jews, Muslims and Christians suddenly find a common cause –they all fume in accord against the gay parade. What’s really interesting, though, is the argument they use. They don’t say, ‘These sinners shouldn’t hold a gay parade because God forbids homosexuality.’ Rather, they explain to every available microphone and TV camera that ‘seeing a gay parade passing through the holy city of Jerusalem hurts our feelings. Just as gay people want us to respect their feelings, they should respect ours.’

On 7 January 2015 Muslim fanatics massacred several staff members of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, because the magazine published caricatures of the prophet Muhammad. In the following days, many Muslim organisations condemned the attack, yet some could not resist adding a ‘but’ clause. For example, the Egyptian Journalists Syndicate denounced the terrorists for their use of violence, but in the same breath denounced the magazine for ‘hurting the feelings of millions of Muslims across the world’. 2 Note that the Syndicate did not blame the magazine for disobeying God’s will. That’s what we call progress.

[Pelado]

Most of us believers don't want to cut your head off.

Emphasis on "most". He is a Ute, after all.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

I expect more discernment and nuance from you.

Communism is a religion, as I’ve said, and so does he! Communism puts more store in a cosmic purpose, inevitable tide of history, ummutable laws, etc. than humanism. You should read the book. Liberal democracy is humanism’s umbrella (he has a very broad definition of religion, and regards these as religions too), certainly not Communism.

If that is the case, why bother trotting out the same old tired stereotypes illustrating the worst of religious history? If humanism is a religion that provides meaning to the universe, why is it necessary to trash a belief in God to make that point? Can't humanists and traditional believers coexist? Most of us believers don't want to cut your head off.

[SeattleUte]

That being true I am a bit underwhelmed by the idea that you presented in the quotation a few posts back. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Maybe so. That’s the question. We need “religion,” but are all religions the same? Clearly their outlook and treatment of real concrete problems is not the same. He uses an example. In medieval times, a woman has sex outside marriage. She’s troubled by how much happier she is in the arms of another man, her obligations to spouse and children, etc. She seeks advice from, who else, the priest. He tells her what she has done is condemned by God. A modern woman (not traditionally religious) has sex outside marriage. She’s troubled because what she’s doing feels good and right, but she’s liable to hurt others, including her children. Who does she consult? Her analyst, a friend over coffee, etc. Now the focus is not God, but reconciling the woman’s own personal good feelings and satisfaction with the hurt these will cause others. This value system, albeit devoid of God, is still religion, according to Harari.

[creekster]

Yes, he most emphatically regards humanism as religion. Religion includes any “fiction” that is abstraction and requires buy-in, essentially faith. Human rights are a fiction; all humans are created equal is a religion. Capitalism is religion, so are legal codes, and money (money mostly is just pieces of paper and columns of data in computers). According to Harari, we need religion for civilization to occur. Religion is what enables millions of people who are strangers to work together to accomplish amazing things, and it’s intimately related to language. Otherwise, if limited by personal familiarity, humans can only work in groups of a few dozen, like apes. He acknowledges that some people may feel uneasy calling any belief system that omits God religion. So call it what you will, ideology for instance.

That being true I am a bit underwhelmed by the idea that you presented in the quotation a few posts back. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[SeattleUte]

Then why isnt humanism a religion too? It seems like the more broadly he defines religion the less important his point becomes.

Yes, he most emphatically regards humanism as religion. Religion includes any “fiction” that is abstraction and requires buy-in, essentially faith. Human rights are a fiction; all humans are created equal is a religion. Capitalism is religion, so are legal codes, and money (money mostly is just pieces of paper and columns of data in computers). According to Harari, we need religion for civilization to occur. Religion is what enables millions of people who are strangers to work together to accomplish amazing things, and it’s intimately related to language. Otherwise, if limited by personal familiarity, humans can only work in groups of a few dozen, like apes. He acknowledges that some people may feel uneasy calling any belief system that omits God religion. So call it what you will, ideology for instance.

[creekster]

I expect more discernment and nuance from you.

Communism is a religion, as I’ve said, and so does he! Communism puts more store in a cosmic purpose, inevitable tide of history, ummutable laws, etc. than humanism. You should read the book. Liberal democracy is humanism’s umbrella (he has a very broad definition of religion, and regards these as religions too), certainly not Communism.

Then why isnt humanism a religion too? It seems like the more broadly he defines religion the less important his point becomes.

[SeattleUte]

Ha. Gotta love those cherry-picked comparisons:



I wonder why the author didn't pick Stalinist Russia vs. the U.S.

It is exactly this kind of hubris I was referencing in the OP.

I expect more discernment and nuance from you.

Communism is a religion, as I’ve said, and so does he! Communism puts more store in a cosmic purpose, inevitable tide of history, ummutable laws, etc. than humanism. You should read the book. Liberal democracy is humanism’s umbrella (he has a very broad definition of religion, and regards these as religions too), certainly not Communism.

[SeattleUte]

This must be why everyone in the West is so happy and optimistic, especially millenials!

He doesn’t say it’s good or it makes us more happy. He’s just saying what is.

I don’t see much of any belief in a cosmic plan here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is terrific; From Homo Deus:

Ha. Gotta love those cherry-picked comparisons:

Throughout history prophets and philosophers have argued that if humans stopped believing in a great cosmic plan, all law and order would vanish. Yet today, those who pose the greatest threat to global law and order are precisely those people who continue to believe in God and His all-encompassing plans. God-fearing Syria is a far more violent place than the secular Netherlands.

I wonder why the author didn't pick Stalinist Russia vs. the U.S.

It is exactly this kind of hubris I was referencing in the OP.