"The motion was: 'We'd be better off without religion.' On his side [Richard Dawkins the author of The God Delusion] were Professor AC Grayling and Christopher Hitchens. Against were Baroness Julia Neuberger, Professor Roger Scruton and Nigel Spivey. The incomparable Joan Bakewell was in the chair. At these debates, styled along the lines of Oxford and Cambridge debates but disappointingly less hecklesome, a vote is taken at the start and another at the end." So who won? Go HERE to see
Of course as I've argued before, no one in any modern complex society can argue against Goddess religion -- 'cause no modern complex society has ever tried it before. And Richard Dawkins poor man is steeped in religion up to his eyeballs. His is called "Science."
________
Thnx to claymor for the foto
6 comments:
More proof of your statement that "no modern complex society has ever tried it (Goddess religion) before".
Just returned from my too-lonely quest to save this planet from Our Madman and nuclear war--possibly coming as soon as tomorrow (Friday, Teheran time). I was vigiling outside the Seattle fed. bldg. with my "No Iran War" sign. Most people were eyes down or walking fast away from me-- not unlike the senatorial staffs inside the bldg. When up comes a very friendly and talkative guy, a christian (I refuse to capitalize) he tells me. But generally supportive of my sign and me. Then he tells me the real problem: 'man' has been at this war thing for 6,000 years, 'since Abraham'.
I could have inveighed about the alternative peaceful and loving religion, now emerging again, called Goddess. But I am used to modifying my pitch to my audience. So, instead, I told him I did not buy that 'WarGod argument'. "You and I", I said, "don't want to harm or kill each other. Why should governments?" His bus came then.
So this man, gentle I think, left for home without knowing he had just had a close encounter of the third kind with a Goddess devotee. Did I err?
Duff
No, you didn't err, imho, Lizz.Duff.
The more that that general opinion-'we've not always been like this' gets out ther, to the man in the street, the more power the idea has.
My own partner was still labouring under the 'it's always been this way' meme, and couldn't tell me how he 'knew' this.
It's a kind of everyone-knows-this mindset that we have to address first.
Let it not be taken foe granted that we've-always-been-warlike, just as it's no longer taken for granted that Jesus rose from the dead.
Love,
Terri in Joburg
I agree with Terri, Duff -- you did the right thing. This man has lots to hear. "Humans aren't naturally violent" may be the thing he's most able to hear at this point. Teachable moments and all that.
Actually, it's not surprising that people think there's always been war. There are still academics who are pushing the idea. The anthropologist Keith Otterbein says that currently "There's a war about war," with one side saying it's inevitable, the other pooh-poohing that notion. Otterbein calls these two sides the hawks and the doves.
Just last night I was reading an excellent book called *Keeping the Peace* (2004, Kemp and Fry). These guys talk about how the "hawks" explain away all the peaceful societies in the world. These peaceful societies punch holes in their theory that humans are born warlike. So the peaceful societies are a "nuisance." One of Kemp and Fry's sections is called "Seven Ways to Make Peaceful Societies Disappear."
The problem is not getting rid of religion but getting rid of religions political power and clout and making religion a personal belief and not a societal mandate.
you did the right thing Duff. Unexpected alliances are a wonderful thing. I get frustrated with this attitude that "we all behave the same, and it's always been the same".
It is very obvious to me is how wonderfully different and adaptable human societies are. Our potential to invent new ways of living and behaving is enormous.
I respect Dawkins but I could never quite agree with his outlook on the world. I've noticed that physicists can follow any religion they like but us biologists are expected to be hard line atheists.
-Pignut
" And Richard Dawkins poor man is steeped in religion up to his eyeballs. His is called "Science.""
Science is *not* a religion. It is a methodology for understanding the natural world.
Flow chart of scientific method: https://blog.dellemc.com/uploads/2017/11/the-scientific-method.png
How it relates to superstitious mysticism: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~edmin/Pamphlets/Pamphlet%2003%20-%20Scientific%20Method%20and%20the%20Burden%20of%20Proof.pdf
Post a Comment