An interesting comment... (edit)

[F4lconF16]

Last edited Sun May 17, 2015, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)

A tweet which appeared on a debate between Dawkins and Pell:

"Religion shouldn't be taken literally. It's guidance... This is what creates conflict."

I found this to be a very interesting idea. I actually like it. I would have no problem with religion were it to be made explicitly clear that it is used as guidance. There is much to learn from the myths that have arisen throughout history, including the major faiths still practiced today.

On edit...

I've thought about this and reconsidered. This should be clarified.

Religion in itself is not a useful tool. The practice of religion has some positive effects--all of which can be gained by secular methods, and arguably to greater extent--with not just considerable harmful effects, but often highly dangerous ones (ranging from extreme and militant fundamentalists to widespread phenomena like what is happening to our school districts). I do not agree with the practice of religion.

Anyways, as to what I said:

"Religion shouldn't be taken literally. It's guidance... This is what creates conflict."

I found this to be a very interesting idea. I actually like it. I would have no problem with religion were it to be made explicitly clear that it is used as guidance.

This is really a case of something sounding nice, and me not thinking about it. I would still have a problem with religion for all the reasons I am currently an atheist. All of the absolutely terrible moral guidance of religion doesn't just disappear because the practice is not literal. As if that would ever be possible.

I do, however believe that a close study of the various religions throughout the world and and history as well as strong education in the physical sciences can be helpful for our communities to better understand their own religions and others. And yes, I do believe that this will result in more people becoming atheists. If balanced, honest education about the different cultures and people around the world causes it, I'm all for it. This is not forcing an "atheistic" viewpoint on anyone any more than teaching evolution in public schools is.

Anyways, yeah. I was wrong, and that was stupid.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Problem is, most religions purport to be revealed truth.

Make part of it ( the truth claim) irrelevant and what is left? What's worth anything as guidance if it's fundamentally wrong in its claim to reveal truth about the universe or our place in it?

There are two reasons I don't find anything 'guiding' or useful in the bible (oNe source documentation example). For starters, it makes obviously untrue claims about the nature of reality and us. Then for second, it contains self destructive, and destructive to your neighbors commandments.

You'd have to do a whole lot of very precise cherry picking to glean anything useful or positive from that train wreck. And none of it impossible to derive or develop on your own, using reason.

[TM99]

2. Until the rise of political Christian Fundamentalism

starting in the late 1960's, that was always true. Religion or any philosophy of life offers guidance on how to live, act, be, and relate to others.

The literalism of Christian Fundamentalism has led to the literalism of New Atheism. They exist in a Hegelian dialectic. One is the thesis; the other is the antithesis.

The irony to me is that the synthesis already exists - our American secular government with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from a state religion. That we are once more locked into a growing battle that already existed in history during the Enlightenment period should not surprise me even though it saddens me.

[skepticscott]

4. Utter balderdash

If you knew anything about the brutal religious wars of the 16 and 17th centuries, you'd see a far different historical picture than the one you're lamely trying to paint. If you knew anything about the religions of the ancient Greeks and Romans, you'd know that their religions were NOT about "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots".

And there is no "literalism" in so-called (but undefinable) "New Atheism", only the lame attempts by some apologists here to gin up a false equivalency between whackadoodle Biblical literalists and those who point out how intellectually bankrupt literalism is. Apparently you've bought into that silly little meme.

[edhopper]

6. literal atheism?

Does that mean God literally doesn't exist?
Do some atheist think God only figuratively doesn't exist?

I a;so guess you never heard of the Revival movement. Or the Scopes Monkey Trial.

[Yorktown]

3. Pell had egg on his face in that debate

One passage of that debate was stunning. Pell is one of the hundred or so cardinals of voting age.

That's 100/1.2Bn Catholics +/- equal to one in every ten million catholics.

That member of the very apex of the RCC could not even define what a 'soul' is.

Pell mumbled, fumbled, and ended up saying the 'soul' was the 'essence of life'.

Deeply meaningless. Thanks, Pell.

[Cartoonist]

5. Then go all the way

God shouldn't be taken literally. If you stop short of that, then the point is worthless. It's trying to have it both ways.

[rug]

7. Here's the transcript and video.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm

[Humanist_Activist]

8. Guidance towards what? And what would be the results?

I see no one today saying we should follow the examples of Zeus or Hera in how to resolve marital conflicts. As a cautionary tale in excess and both extreme avarice, rape, infidelity and jealously, sure, but not as a good example of marital bliss.

There's a lot of current religions that have plenty of stories that are no better, but do treat the awfulness as if it were good.