In the
evolutionary theory thread, Tom B. pointed out that people can
think
religiously even if they don't see themselves as believers (in
god). I'm pasting in Tom's entire post here because I think it warrants
a thread of its own:
I think there are a number of reasons why people choose to believe in
god. Some of these reasons have been explained above but I would like
to focus on another reason. Many people have found it convenient for
someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong and what to
do. They can then blame others for their problems etc. They can even
work the religious dogma to suit whatever it is they want to do. They
know what they are doing is morally wrong but can justify it if it is
for the greater glory (of god).
These people would almost always have been believers in a god. We still
have many people hanging on to this fuedal notion. We also have a
hangover from this dogma. While many people might have given up on god,
they haven't given up on religion. They try to substitue god with
leaders. They want people to tell them what to do. They don't want to
take responsibility for themselves and they don't want to have to think
about political philosophical oe economic questions. They demand that
someone leads them.
One might think that there are a number of dodgy "Leaders" going
around, but how do they survive? Some of these people make very little
sense at all but have followers. It is the fault of the followers not
the leaders for the resultant actions that occur. Everyone must know
the difference between good and bad and it has nothing to do with god.
If there was a god then we could decide if it were a good or bad one
and if we needed to overthrow it. We don't need anyone, particularly
from primitive society to tell us what is right and what is
wrong.
The green movement is just as religious as the catholic church!
(although the debates on doctrine within the church are more
interesting and at a higher level than in the green movement).
The
general direction of development within Capitalism would appear to be away from the individual and
towards teamwork. (teamwork is becoming a necessity). This is also true in science. But it's hard to develop
effective teamwork with a band of followers! I am confident that as
teamwork develops so will the ability fo people to think for
themselves.
Harry's Place as an example strikes me as a very religious site. A
recent debate with a certain Arthur Dent degenerated into name calling
and refusing to discuss ideas because of that persons political beliefs.
These people have a religious belief in history and politics.
They demand their own type of political correctness.
These types of people are also demanding answers be given to them! They feel there must
be an answer and someone should supply it. They obviously would have
had a god previously and while that is not an option available to them
now they are simply looking for a substitute. They won't take the
resposibilty to look for the answers themselves and they don't accept the fact
that we may never have the answer other than in specific and
particular instances.
We can debate whether there is a god or not, but for me what we are
really debating is whether humanity is ready to take responsibility for
itself and work together to move forward. In this sense god is
irrelevant.
Tom B.
Capitalist society does pay lip service to the idea that people should
think for themselves, that it's no excuse to say "I was just following
orders" etc. This marks capitalism out from all previous
societies. For the first time in history it's part of the popular
ethos that it's good to "think outside the box" etc etc.
However in general people still don't accept that there is no ultimate
authority
but only a struggle to understand (in order to change) the world -
and
that that understanding will never be complete. As Tom
says, although traditional religion is losing its grip, it has
tended to be replaced by a religious adherence to other belief
systems (and to people espousing those veiws).
By 'religious adherence' I mean adopting a set of principles or
ideas and then just applying these in a formulaic way to every
situation that arises. very little thinking or analysis needs to
be involved - events, experiences, "facts" can just be squeezed
willy nilly into the framework provided.
I think that those of us who have belonged to left- wing organisations
have all seen (and done) this. But of course it isn't restricted
to people who see themselves as on the left, I just mentioned the
'left' because that's where I've come from.
There's nothing wrong with (thoughtfully) adopting a viewpoint /world
view if it's a good one (its a cop out not to have a viewpoint at all).
The problems arise when people cling to a world view which is no longer
good (because the world has changed).
The fact that capitalist ideology
does pay lip service to
people "breaking out of the mould", "resisting peer pressure" etc etc
is a very good thing because despite its shallowness it reflects
something that is partly real and that will become more real as time
goes on. Marx was spot-on when he stressed that capitalism
has
to resist stagnation by undergoing constant change - and in doing
so it creates the people who will destroy it. No other
system has faced this contradiction.
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social relations, everlasting uncertainty and
agitation distinguish the bourgeoisie from all earlier times. All
fixed and fast frozen relationships, with their train of venerable
ideas and opinions are swept away, all new formed ones become obsolete.
All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and men
at last are forced to face with sober senses the real conditions of
their lives and their relations with their fellow men. (Marx: Communist Manifesto)
This is the first time in history that it's even been on the agenda for
humanity to take responsibility for itself rather than look to gods or
leaders with answers.
Forums
Main Forum
