Educate men without religion and you make of them but clever devils. – Arthur Wellesley
As for me this quote is interesting because this Arthur Wellesley, a historically famous English/Irish officer (serving in Waterloo etc.) grew up and studied at a Catholic school. The problem for religious people is that they think they have is monopoly on ethic issues, and the ”right” ethics (morals IOW). Such ideas like the one in the quote is just an example where they try to allege this right. What they really do is enslave scientific thought within historical conventions. Within religion, man and science can never truly be free. Everything else is seen as ”evil”.. Just take a look on the Old testament. Eating the apple of knowledge was an evil act giving man free will, which resulted in that man was thrown out of ”paradise”. What religion and such institutional structures of belief i. e. want you to do is not think for yourself, reaching for wonders that can not fit into the binder of the Tora, Bible and the Koran. I would argue that science without religion is freedom, but that science without belief is not science at all. The confusion of belief and religion is a result of the power structure that religion is and have always been. Therefore by my account, what truly is “evil” is Religion, as any other kind of dictatorship.
When you enter the realm of belief, you leave the realm of science. And just because something stands opposed to your convictions, doesn’t mean it is evil. People are just trying to do the best they can with what they believe. Not everyone in religion is a dictator.
Of course religious practitioners in themselves aren’t dictators, such a description isn’t very theoretically fruitful. But as belief is organized in a societal systems that make claims on the “truth”, practitioners are part of a social structure that enforce what I call the historical convention. In this context I utilize the concept of belief as a part of cognitive apparatus a.k.a the brain. Without belief man can’t aspire for better understanding and means of exploring the social and physical universe. Belief doesn’t have to be conjugated with belief in higher powers constructions of monotheistic gods or in the spiritual soul, it could be belief in your own abilities, and for me most importantly the belief in “something more” and pushing the limits of human activity (as to survive and prosper which is genetically coded into our bodies since the time of amino-acids connecting into carbon-based life.).
What I tried to show by calling Religion “evil” was just to make a point, by creating an antagonistic discourse using their by prerogative used word. And as my conviction is a result of my own belief, I am on a normative basis criticizing religions negative effect on the relative freedom and welfare of human development. I am not saying that religion should be banned, that if something is dictatorship, and also because it isn’t biologically possible. We humans are a collective kind and therefore organize our societies together. But what I want to point out that there other alternatives for belief, that are relatively more constructive for the development and freedom of human society and interaction. Education and science should therefore be free of religion for societies to prosper. Perhaps is it a very utilitarian thing to say.
My advice is to eat as much apples as possible!
I do not think that is evil really. Problematic yes, but not evil. Religion for me (as an atheist) is one of many narratives by which you can construct the world and make facts into knowledge. Because knowledge is power these narratives can be used as instruments of power and of course many of the religious narratives are made for controlling people. Maybe not always intentionally but when the religion is mixed with politics (i.e. power struggles) the religion turns into an instrument of power and the practices of the religion is turned into controlling dogmas etc.
If you read my earlier comment, you might notice why I used the word evil (under quotation mark) to make a point. I recognize your explication on religion as a natural part of power-struggles. But what I also tried to emphasize was the costly narrative of religion. I will let you borrow my copy of http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807. In line with Hitchens I would say that Religion poisons, and that absolute “Religion poisons everything”. Which arguments go further than the separation of Science from belief.
Otherwise as some say:
“Thank God for atheism!!”
I like what you said about belief and how it aspires you to greater understanding. Excellent point.
Why thank you Daniel! I have to say that I really appreciated the beautiful pictures on your latest post, that is some of the awe inspiring discoveries that makes a whole life exploring worth living. To reach out… whether it is in space or in a deliberative conversation, the adventure is worth it.
A friend on Facebook that wrote (among other good points that science also can be misused):
‘Religion as an answer to God can only be valuable if the answer is one that elevates the human spirit.’ – David Wolpe.
My reply:
Science as means of power struggle.
Scientific “proofs” and “methods” have been and is both misused and misguided, it has been this way ever sense the renaissance. The difference is that science can be wrong, religion (at least thought of by its believers) can’t. Who can say that God was wrong? The Pope? I think it is also very good to view science as in its more modern forms, that are more about to make theoretical assessments and explorations of the realms connected to human awareness, with aspirations beyond. Science has gone far and will always progress, its old paradigms as positivism has changed. And a premise of my post was that science can’t be compared to religion. Its purpose and modes of thinking are of two different worlds. Thats why religion can only poison it, as another power structure, actor, or narrative can. Its probably the same way around.
I see that your main point is that some one is always holding and crafting the tool.. Would you like to hand over your tools to the catholic church or future Neonazis? I am neither saying that I as a political scientist, hold prerogative over what is the truth (I don’t even believe in the truth, I will certainly post about that on a later occasion) or right modes of science. What I do mean is that science with religion, as any other dictatorship, can’t be free. That is my very point.
David Wolpe is probably one of those that put hope in religion, that there is a possibility for it to elevate the human spirit. I wouldn’t for myself go that far. The very use of his words show that he is caught in the religious discourse, words as spirit is heavily connoted with God. He was probably right at some points in history, however the dark ages speak against it. But I thank my friend for his insights in that a generalization that purports “science without religion as free” perhaps is a bit of a far stretch, even though the opposite is a credible account on the matter.
Thank you and good night!
[…] tror det är detta som får Lucubrare att betrakta religionen som ondska. Ondska är då det totalitära som inte tillåter människan friheten att gå utanför systemet. […]