But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind.
Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.
And that is a terrible shame because not drawing attention to that fact is a tacit endorsement of extremist beliefs, as Harris, Hitchens, et al. have pointed out many times. You can't have it both ways. You either believe there are invisible, magic beings or you don't. There is no "tolerance" in between. If you think they exist, then you can hardly be surprised when someone takes this ludicrous proposition and bends it to their own political, social, or economic goals -- because you can bend it any way you want, by definition, since it's all made up.
I don't think it is at all obvious that if there were not implicit endorsement of religious beliefs of all kind all over earth, that it wasn't OK for grown-ups to walk around saying they actually believe this nonsense, that this violence would manifest itself in some other way. It's important to at least consider the possibility that religion itself is the problem here.
People should read his books - especially God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
RIP, we miss your tact, witty jabs and awesome accent.
I'm not trying to make a real point for the argument here, just pointing out that things might be deeper and more complicated than obvious on the first layer. It's up to us to decide which ideas we want to use, or it should be, but they're all ideas.
(I might have read idea on lesswrong or similar some time ago and am still digesting. Thus, I'm very open for arguments and ideas here.)
Well, yes and no. A lot of people (most?) kinda-sorta believe, but have doubts about the weirdness of some of the more unlikely and/or extreme beliefs. The vast people don't have enough faith to strap on a suicide vest or behead someone, even in Islam.
For most "believers", religion is a consolation when you think about Grandma in heaven or a way to be socially connected to your community.
Here is a fact: there is no reason -- none -- to think that there exists an invisible, magic being in the sky that concerns itself with things going on here on earth.
Unfortunately, for reasons that are hard for me to understand, it has become pro forma to pretend that it's just fine if adults talk and act as if it is, even if they only "kinda-sorta" believe it.
Well I say that it's time to start saying out loud that it's not fine, and that the judgement of anyone who says they believe it in any sense at all might need to be questioned. Just like you would question the judgement of someone who "kinda-sorta" believed anything that's obviously nonsense, like astrology or numerology or fairy tales.
And the reason that it's important to question the judgement of people who believe things that are obviously false is because they might have guns, and they might decide that it's time for someone to be shot in the head because they have offended their magic deity in the sky. And there are worse possibilities that I don't need to enumerate here.
These absurd, magical points of view won't go away until they are laughed out of the room, so let's start. Comfort and community don't trump safety.
We act like it's just fine to believe in make-belief things because our society is built upon the concept that it is; you're free to believe in anything you like, be it a God, Santa Claus, or pixie-dust unicorns. Our society functions as well as it does because of the presumption that you're free to think and feel whatever you like. Otherwise, trying to prevent people from believing in magical sky fairies quickly transforms into preventing them from believing in forms of government other than democracy, to creation theories other than the big bang, to the political ideologies of any party other than the one in power- and the progress and betterment of society in all areas grinds to a halt.
We've built a society predicated on the notion that you can't prevent people from having stupid ideas without preventing them from having brilliant ones as well- and it's proven an overall good approach so far.
The problem isn't with ideas, it's with the way you apply those ideas to your behavior in the physical world. You're free to believe in unicorns as long as you don't try to stab an aluminium horn into a horse's snout in an attempt to coax them out of hiding, just as you're free to believe in Jesus as long as you don't use it to force me to denounce the teachings of Buddha.
You're free to mock silly ideas people have -- including the concept of an omnipotent deity, if you find that idea silly; but the reason we pretend it's fine for those people to hold those ideas is because it IS.
It would be disingenuous to say that you would be willing to hand over the keys to a nuclear reactor or have brain surgery performed by a person who claims to genuinely believe in fairy tales, without pause. Religion should be no different. It is equally ludicrous, no more, no less.
My point is that religion is held to a very different standard, in a sociological sense.
I'm pretty sure personally that it's built into our biology. In the words of Charlie Brooker:
"Imagine! Nothing to kill or die for! And no religion too! It's amazing, literally no one's ever had that thought before.
Okay, so there's always the possibility that the same part of the brain that handles fuzzy spiritual feelings is the same part that handles love and sorrow and pity and joy; the same part that makes us create songs and jokes and books and art and brightly coloured computer games in which an animated weasel collects starfish in a fountain; so once we wipe it out we might all be left scampering around the planet like thick, bipedal, cultureless mice - rutting, foraging, scratching behind our ears and doing very little else. But look on the bright side. No more religious conflict AND no more novelty ringtones. Two almighty evils erased for the price of one. Bargain."
Also, once you blur out the technical theological details, is Confucius not effectively treated as a prophet? (This is a genuine question.)
In the Far East religions, you have most pieces of the jigsaw present: mysticism, the Sacred, priests, monks, prayers, meditation, afterlife, etc. But I think the central piece of a unique almighty exclusive God is missing, and then the result is completely different.
There is also this theory that the Far East did not have a powerful scientific revolution because of this missing piece: Without a God who created everything, there is less incentive to believe in a unique ordering of things (the Law of physics) and to try to discover it.
And no, Confucius is not a prophet, he made no miracles, he did not announce anything. He was just a failed political advisor who became the teacher of a few disciples. However, he proposed a very rational and revolutionary way of life, under the disguise of restoring the ancient Way. He also happen to be (along with Jesus and maybe Mohammad) the man who influenced the most the lives of most other humans.
Zen and World War 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
Warrior Monks burning down other sects' temples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei
Persecution and martyrdom of Christians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_Japan
As to where these religious tendencies go in modern Japan, there are a number of things to think about (consider their celebrities are literally called "idols").
Confucius might not have said much about the Sky, but he constantly emphasized the importance of the Rites.
The Japanese did some horrific things in the name of their Emperor, so I don't buy your assertion.
You could argue that the Far East are simply religiously backwards, using polytheism instead of monotheism, so your argument actually makes no sense, they simply haven't caught the monotheistic religious bug (yet).
He's also has a wonderful playful style of writing, well worth a read.
“Tallis indulges in refutation by caricature,” says Dennett, a professor of philosophy and co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. “He’s not taking his opponents seriously. He’s sneering instead of arguing. He’s ignoring the complexities of the arguments. So he’s not really doing philosophy. He’s doing propaganda.”
The world has to be very careful with how many governments are going to use this attacks as an opportunity to empower mass surveillance and other policies that will affect general people privacy.
Still, I'm happy about how the French people have handled this horrible situation.
Secularism is now so secular that the only religious people you hear about are the orthodox ones.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. - Matthew 5:38-39 ESV
http://www.amazon.com/Nonviolence-History-Dangerous-Mark-Kur...
Not so much in Europe. In the middle east the extremists have been winning though. The guys doing the Hedbo killings were largely inspired by Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Salman Rushdie was arguing that the goings on are not really about the west but power struggles in the Islamic world, somewhat plausibly I think. I dare say the west may have played a significant role in destabilising the middle east with the various wars we've sponsored there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvgdPAEu8vA&feature=youtu.be...
Humans have an intrinsic capacity for violence. History is littered with examples of groups attacking someone for rape, murder and plunder and then describing it as "gods work". Probably the desire to murder and rape came before the sanctification. Why should we care what the excuse is?
It wouldn't surprise me if the same is true for many extremists. ISIS also apparently gets a surprising number of recruits from Europe. People not fitting in looking for a place where they can be appreciated.
Another example would be the IRA.