Saturday, December 04, 2004
Holy shit
Hello ignorant rant. This one's about "The Irresponsibilities of Religion," from Thomas Ulatowski, and reminds me why I don't read the Daily Planet anymore.
The thesis of the piece is that it people need to engage in "responsible reasoning" or else Bad Things happen. And religious folk don't engage in responsible reasoning. But you would think a promoter of "reasoning" would apply it himself. No such luck. Indeed, I can hardly imagine that this fellow has even talked to a religious person in a non-confrontational manner.
Since there is no worldwide religious consensus, the belief in divine revelation produces this devastating dichotomy: Either God is not almighty because He was incapable of making Himself clear regarding the existence of one true religion, or the Almighty created mostly defective people who can’t recognize His clear message. Consequently, faiths based on a revelation by a god who claims to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent must either inculcate a prejudice against nonbelievers or an aversion to impartial consideration.
Let's put aside what exactly "impartial consideration" entails and head right for his dichotomy. The claim makes the assumption that had God done His job correctly, everyone would believe in Him and follow His will exactly. Now, I'm an atheist, yet even I can see what's so pathetic about that assumption. Would we really be perfect without free will? Would it even mean anything for us to act morally if it wasn't possible for us to act immorally? No modern religion I know of casts God as some kind of selfish person trying to create perfect worlds for fun or whatever. Our lives are given to us as gifts, not because God is looking for results.
For instance, if you ask Catholics why their Church was once a terrorist organization that started religious wars, tortured infidels, and brutally murdered heretics, some of the true believers might quietly assume that you are in league with the devil and hope that God strikes you dead “to show that you are wrong.”
If you ask Catholics something like that, you are an asshole. "Hey, you, why did some dead guys who used to be in the organization you're in do something bad? Oh, wait, I can read your mind, and now you want me to be striken dead, and I'll use that creative mind-reading to draw broad conclusions about people similar to you."
Moreover, in order to maintain their status as moral authorities, religious professionals encourage their followers to endorse unjustified beliefs on faith.
Give me one example, just one, of a moral belief justified on rationality.
Responsible reasoning is so important that a halfway decent god would not have failed to emphasize it. Responsible behavior shows love; therefore, it is the key to morality.
Love's a pretty irresponsible thing, actually. And saying that love is the key to morality is not an example of responsible reasoning, or any reasoning, for that matter.
The religious disregard for responsible reasoning explains crusades, jihads, and inquisitions. In addition, it explains how the Christian-conditioned Nazis assumed their supremacist and aggressive beliefs without concern for objective justification. And, it even explains how the Christian-conditioned Bolsheviks embraced communism, atheism, and totalitarianism without sound reason or evidence.
Uhh... let me make sure I'm on the right page. Religion encourages disregard for responsible reasoning so much that atheists act immorally. Did Tom never stop to responsibly reason that maybe, since even the atheists screw this up, it's an aspect of humanity, and not of religion?
If we truly take control of our lives and demand responsive, effective, efficient, and honest political representation, then responsible governments will adopt sensible policies, and an era of peace will result.
Bwahahaha! Oh, that's rich. Well, here you go. Dictatorships can result in sensible governments. Democracies (or other products of 'honest political representation') cannot, as long as people are not all identical. This is the strength of democracy, not its flaw.
Mr. Ulatowski, you are an embarrassment to rationality. Under no circumstances can a logic-worshipper invoke morality.
. . .
|
. . .
|
