The fundamentalist nuts in this country leave us goggling aghast at the lunacy they propagate, but man, some of the in-betweeners are almost as creepy—and I get to pick on somewhere other than America! This page on the "noble lie" brings up the Straussian hypocrisy that many confused pro-religion people are supporting in the UK — we have to support faith to keep the masses placid.
Many of those who support religious belief agree with Plato. It is not important that religion is a lie - the important point is that the people believe in it and that this belief maintains social order and moral behaviour. This is why English schools are obliged to have religious education in their syllabuses - because the government can see no alternative to religion to maintain some sense of social order and moral behaviour amongst the masses. individual students can opt out of religious education - not for the benefit of atheists, but to allow Moslems to provide an alternative syllabus for their children without the negative influences of other religions.
The article then points to a weird group called Sea of Faith, which sets itself a mission "To explore and promote religious faith as a human creation." These are church leaders who admit that they have rejected most of the tenets of their religion, and are now wallowing in a Sea of Self-rationalization. It's painful to read—it's such earnest vacuity.
We can no longer convince ourselves, let alone others, that our religion story is the "true" one, or that our political ism is the "correct" one - and we marvel that our culture ever had the arrogance to make such plainly nonsensical assumptions. In this sense, Sea of Faith embraces postmodernity and is postmodernist.
SoF neither abandons the many faith traditions nor seeks to create yet another competing sect. Its members are to be found in the parish church and the synagogue, in the Quaker meeting, and at the Catholic mass, as well as in all the varieties of secular life. But they know their religious practices and "truths", like everyone else's, are socially constructed, made by human communities and not laid down by gods or ghosts or denizens of a supernatural realm. So, since faith systems were man-made, created to fill certain needs at particular times in specific places, we know we can remake them for our needs, our times, our place. We can ordain gays - or abolish the priesthood: create "green" rituals - or abandon ritual: make God female - or re-fashion him/her as the symbol or imaged incarnation of wholly human values such as mercy, pity, peace and love. We see that even if the churches are crumbling, religious expression, alongside the arts, remains a valid means of rejoicing and mourning, celebrating and imagining, and firing-up the inspiration required to remake ourselves and our society. In this sense, Sea of Faith is religious.
I tried digging into some of their other literature, and it's awful stuff. Basically, they seem to be arguing that everything is religion — yeah, all those atheists are deeply religious — and have managed to produce a Sea of Mush. I think I can capture the essence of their folly with one example: they have the worst religion quiz ever on their page for first-timers. It's multiple choice, and it's only 11 questions, so I tried to take it — I could only answer three of their questions. The others aren't hard or demanding of esoteric knowledge, it's just that I reject all of their answers. Here are two examples:
Which of the following divine qualities do you think most important?
1. knowing all (omniscience)
2. all-powerful (omnipotence)
3. undying (immortality)
4. being (existence)
5. in all (omnipresence)Which of these statements best expresses the truth of the Doctrine of the Resurrection for you?
1. Jesus rose up and pushed the stone away
2. God raised Jesus from the Cross
3. Jesus is alive today
4. The disciples of Jesus re-evaluated their faith in his life
5. A new and exciting Reality arose Phoenix-like from the dust
Supposedly, if you answer all "5"s on this test, you are ready to join the Sea of Wankers Faith. I'm relieved to say that no, I'm not ready. I'm not anywhere near what they want. It looks like it's really for people who are clever enough to see the absurdity of religion, but too gutless to walk away from it.
- Log in to post comments
I could swear I saw something just as dumb at OkCupid once.
You might be happy to see this book coming from your neck of the woods.
http://www.startribune.com/614/story/1248341.html
"It doesn't take religion to raise a kid with good values, says Minnesota writer, editor and teacher Dale McGowan in his new anthology"
Shorter SoF doctrine:
"Like, whatever, y'know..."
They don't seem to have faith in a lot, so I guess that kinda defeats the point of faith.
It kind of reminds of the philosophical concept of a "soul pellet" combined with an argument from consequences.
If that is all you got what is the point?
I guess the only positive is that none of these are liable to die for their faith and insist I go along with them.
*Hums "Sailing the Seas of Cheese" by Primus.*
They have faith in post-modernism. They have faith in socialization. They have faith in indoctrination, in delusion, in the power that causing people to confuse imagination with reality can grant. They have faith in conditioning, and in control, and in faith itself.
They're what most of you already are, taken to a greater extreme.
Oh, bugger!
Looking for a lowest common denominator here is a pretty weird strategy-- once you've dispensed with the doctrinal nonsense, you've got nothing but vague, meaningless drivel left. Even if you buy the rationale that a false religion can still be a public good, there's no reason to suppose this kind of 'anything (and nothing) goes' approach could provide that good.
Think of it as homeopathic religion stage 1.
You take blood, thunder, the absolutes and the prophecies and dilute them till there is really nothing left but a faintly bitter aftertaste.
All I can say is keep diluting guys, you will soon have the perfect solution at about stage 10.
I would like my god to have a sense of humor, and to be a fun person who I could take out on the town but who would also be content to just curl up in front of a movie now and then. Omnipresence? Like, no thank you, I need some me time now and then, you know?
To borrow a phrase from Dawkins, the suggestion that none of this is true but people still need it, is extremely arrogant.
By the way I missed it when the sky fell in Sweden and the Netherlands when people stopped going to church.
*yuck*. I do have some appeaser tendencies myself, but stuff like this just makes me want to throw up. I think I need some Sam Harris...
"...the important point is that the people believe in it and that this belief maintains social order and moral behaviour."
Like they have in the Middle East?
This has always been my big argument against "we need religion to maintain morality and social order." If the function of religion is to maintain morality and social order, it's doing a piss-poor job.
And as mndarwinist pointed out, the increasingly secular Europe seems to be doing okay so far.
Besides, how well can a placebo work once you know it's a placebo?
Here in the UK we don't have Church/State separation, but the Church of England (the established church) is wishy-washy in the extreme. Just listen to anything that Archbishop Rowan Williams says. I've often wondered if he actually believes in any kind of personal God at all.
Perhaps this indefinable aspect of Anglicanism is what has kept the UK safe (so far) from the American flavour of fundamentalism.
Breathtakingly inane.
But I suspect that many "moderate" religionists are coming from a similar place, and possibly a number of the extremists as well. They know full well that the Christian (indeed all) god-stuff is nonsense, but it's the "Noble Lie" that holds together the church community from which they feel they derive sundry and significant benefits. A questionable notion to be sure, but having always been an out there and pretty much on his own atheist, I do have to say that I sometimes somewhat envy the religionists for their sense of community. But I can not tolerate the lie, no matter how (ig)noble.
As for "morality," a completely atheist morality is easy to build (all we have is this life, this world, and this universe . . .), but that is a discussion for another time.
BTW, one has to hand it to those old Greeks. They did a lot of serious thinking, and much of what has come since is just commentary. Today's writing assignment: Plato's "Noble Lie" and "Pascale's Wager." Compare and contrast . . .
The weird thing is, Britain is a majority secular country. In a survey last December, 64% of people asked "Are you religious?" answered No. I'm British, and I sometimes go for weeks without hearing an expression of Christian belief. Yes, I am a lucky bastard, aren't I? And now we've offloaded the Beckhams on you as well.
So it's not as if there's any pressure on people to retain the trappings of the Anglican church. Why then are they doing this? My theory is that they're just being deliberately bloody awkward for the sake of it.
Doublethink doubleplusgood!
But really, I think all this claimed postmodernism is just a front. I think they're really more similar to Plato than they'd like people to realise. They believe there IS a truth, but that people shouldn't know it. They don't honestly want everyone to recognise the human origin of religion - they want the faithful to remain faithful in the religions that they patronisingly mould for them. There's a quote in that article from a clergyman who was asked how he could prepare his flock for Christmas when he doesn't believe in the Virgin Birth - "I wouldn't tell people that Father Christmas didn't exist - it's the same as that."
It is true that schools in the UK are required to have some sort of religious assembly on a daily basis. Note that this is NOT religious education which is part of the National Curriculum up to the age 14 but is a comparative religion class. In CofE schools, and non-denominational schools this will basically be CofE stuff. In practice most schools ignore this requirement, and the authorities do not enforce it. When any such assembly doeas take place ny member of staff or pupil who does not wish to attend is free to do something else. I know I did for four years and nothing ever happened to me.
The only reason the requirement is kept is because various governments cannot be bothered to do battle with the religious zealots over it. They have had enough problems pushing through same sex marriages of late, or fighting off attempts to restrict the rights to an abortion.
Anyway, I objectionable as I find religious assemblies in school I cannot help but feel it is character building to have to either work out ways to avoid such things, or to accept that doing things you do not care for is part of being an adult.
And to support what PaulJ has said, there is part of the CofE that does argue that that idea of god as a divine being is foolish and that in fact religion should about trying to find a way to live a good life. That is not a majority view to be sure, but it does influence the CofE, and is a major part of why Dawkins does not have such an issue with the CofE as with other religious groups.
I think Caledonian has the right of it. They have faith in delusion.
It makes me think of some larpers I know. (Live Action Role Players) They satisfy most of their urges for social contact by going out and pretending with others. Perhaps theses people grew up with 'faith' in their lives and now that they've essentially lost all faith, are just trying to fill the empty spot in their routine. They really just need to find a productive hobby. (I'm not sure if I'd recommend sex, the results might be awkward. "Don't worry Billy, just pretend Mittens is in a better place!")
As for the first question you disagree with, I thought 5 was the appropriate answer. I can imagine a person with all the other attributes and would feel no compulsion to call them God, while the last is esoteric enough to push it out of the realm of mattering, which is probably what everyone *really* wants in their own God. :)
The contact address is in Newcastle Upon Tyne, which is about twenty miles from where I live. I feel shame. I thought us geordies were such a sensible lot.
for the assemblies it is key to note that
a)most schools just ignore it, i went to C of E primary and a roman catholic secondary and neither had bothered.
b)a kid can be opted out by agreement of parents.
I think no one has bothered arguing about it for reason a mostly. More of a threat is the encouraged growth in faith schools, in particular the city academies scheme and the Emmanuel college in particular in gateshead (what was that about geordies again?)
The wisdom of the noble lie will become quite clear when modern neuroscience proves incapable of finding anything close to a religious/spiritual conception of the soul. We rationalists will win, but I fear at a very heavy price.
Finally, why use the term "Staussian hypocrisy"? Strauss didn't hide his atheism from students or colleagues. I think he had pity for the religous whereas PZ has contempt. Strauss was a conservative and rightly feared the effect of paradigm shifts of belief within a society (the French Revolution comes to mind). For the foreseeable future, it is much safer to have atheists in the minority than religious fanatics. Could you imagine what those lunatic "Left Behind" authors would do to get the attention of a free-thinking nation? Besides, you guys would have less to complain about if you lived in a secularized country like Sweden.
Kurt Vonnegut did the 'religion as useful lie' stuff, with far more style, in Cat's Cradle. There is a serious thought in the background here, though, as explored by people like Don Cupitt. Not one I have much sympathy for, but not that easily dismissed.
"So, since faith systems were man-made, created to fill certain needs at particular times in specific places, we know we can remake them for our needs, our times, our place."
While partly true, we can also recognize that religion is outmoded and no longer useful, and discard it.
Rey Fox:"Omnipresence? Like, no thank you, I need some me time now and then, you know?"
Well, he is omnipotent, so he should be able to help you out there, too.
GTMoogle:"It makes me think of some larpers I know. (Live Action Role Players) They satisfy most of their urges for social contact by going out and pretending with others."
Honestly, most social interaction I've seen is based on pretend. Maybe they're just being more honest about it.(the larpers that is.)
The danger to "social order" consists of the pious peasants waking up to self interest. Democracy means that we consider "enlightened self-interest" for a social contract.
The Duke of Hessen-Nassau hired mercenaries to fight against those revolutionary colonists (>USA) because he considered that their success would mean the death of the Church. The "Hessians" amongst us are still tryin' to work their counter-revolution here and wherever the Enlightenment blooms.
hey WillG, I know some "modern neuroscientists." I'll tell them
to get right the fuck on it.
Perhaps we can set up a biweekly progress report with you wherein
they present their findings on something close to a religious/spiritual
conception of the soul (along with a mountain of dead mice!) and you can tell them whether or not they're saving humanity.
Myself, I've worked out the religio-spiritual structure of the soul but
only up to quasi-isomorphism in the derived category. I'll send you a pdf of my work so far if you're interested.
For those that read PZ's column about David Colquhoun's quack science site being kicked off and then bought back on the UCL server. There is now a festival of Anne Walker (the woman who had him kicked off) going - pointing out here quakery and ties to herbal sales:
http://www.badscience.net/?p=437
The organization is named after a phrase in 'Dover Beach,' a Matthew Arnold poem. One wonders why they don't just print the poem. It is considerably more interesting than their pseudo-theological b.s.:
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar...
Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude...
This kind of thing exists because it maintains all the important parts of religion. There's still an in-group and an out-group and you still have to believe a set of worthless absurdities and practice time-wasting rituals to prove your allegiance to the in-group. It's just belief in God is replaced with "postmodernist" belief in belief in God.
This is like Mathew Fox's version of Cosmic Mass. I'm not sure which is worse.
I appreciate the removal of malignant aspects from antiquated sectarianism, but why bother polishing up a wrecked auto?
Why cling to euphemisms like "Straussian hypocrisy" and "noble lie" yet shy away from the equally apt "opiate of the masses"?
Who are these idiots and what are they doing in my country?
I dunno -- I kind of like the idea. I know people who really do need religion, and are happier having one, even when they know it's untrue. Indeed, I suspect that they are not a small minority. I would hope those people would have the option of a religion that explicitly encourages its proponents to turn to science for truth.
Fence-sitting? Nope. Those guys are on the atheist side of the fence, but are looking back longingly at the other side.
Do you see how arrogant the SoF position is? Religion is a lie, but we need it to keep the marching morons in line. Of course, we are too smart to fall for the noble lie, and we don't commit crime because we have a superior, innate moral compass, but the great unwashed majority need to be conned into behaving correctly.
What utter, arrogant, unmitigated tosh.
Keep in mind, though, that 1) religion is a private affair, so people won't give you an expression of their beliefs unless you ask (and probably get an awkward look at first); 2) I don't know about the UK, but in German the word religiös doesn't merely mean "adhering to a religion", it means "thinking of religion all the time, praying often, long, and hard, going to church at least once per week, and so on". Many people who believe in a personal god would answer "no".
Because nothing drives them away.
On the subject matter, I'm with comments 30, 32, and 36.
The 'noble lie' part of this is reminiscent of the original meaning of Obscurantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscurantist#Obscurantism_.28capitalized.29) It was these 'I don't believe, but it's good that the masses do' elists motivated WK CLifford to write his brilliant essay 'The Ethics of Belief': http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belie…
"The wisdom of the noble lie will become quite clear when modern neuroscience proves incapable of finding anything close to a religious/spiritual conception of the soul. We rationalists will win, but I fear at a very heavy price. "
To some extent, Buddhists "believe" in soul-lessness (ma-atman). Of course, they also believe in reincarnation, which requires a soul (no?). In any case, it doesn't seem like the elites need to be reinforcing/emphasizing belief in a soul in order to keep people in line, or to create a rich culture.
It makes me think of some football fans I know. They satisfy most of their urges for social contact by going out and cheering with others. Perhaps theses people grew up with 'faith' in their lives and now that they've essentially lost all faith, are just trying to fill the empty spot in their routine.
There, fixed.
Why can't these people just go the route of a secular community organization where you can go to talk about the meaning of life and stuff?
There's a perfectly good example here in the States: Ethical Culture, as embodied by the various Ethical Societies around the country (but mostly in New York City). I attended one for years back in the 90s. We had lectures about altruism and generosity and stoicism and such. "Sunday School" consisted of presentations about gun control and ecology and even one about Libertarianism. We even had some ethical hymns -- lovely classical pieces with not a mention of deities or an afterlife.
Sure, it felt a bit like a church -- we met on Sunday, people got dressed up a bit for it, and there was punch and cookies afterward. Nothing bad really, except the bit about getting up early on Sunday.
Let's face it, people need community. It's the one good thing the churchy folks have that we don't.
WillG #22 says, "The wisdom of the noble lie will become quite clear when modern neuroscience proves incapable of finding anything close to a religious/spiritual conception of the soul. We rationalists will win, but I fear at a very heavy price."
Modern neuroscience has already been amply incapable of finding a physical basis for "soul". Even more critically, modern PHYSICS hasn't shown anything of the kind either. But neuroscience (and sociology) in fact HAS begun to reveal the basis for the belief behind the baloney.
As for your fear that a "heavy price" will be extracted on us as a society for realizing that superstition is nothing less than wishful nonsense that can (and manifestly DOES NOW) cause harm in ways that most of us NOW cannot even begin to grasp: you must be kidding.
WillG #22 continues, "why use the term "Staussian hypocrisy"? Strauss didn't hide his atheism from students or colleagues. [Does PZ???] I think he had pity for the religous whereas PZ has contempt. Strauss was a conservative and rightly feared the effect of paradigm shifts of belief within a society (the French Revolution comes to mind)."
How easy it is for you to parse out a distinction. First, identifying anyone as a "conservative" doesn't absolve them of being a flaming hypocrite. What makes you equate conservatism with honorable intentions? That's like saying because someone believes in the "Resurrection" they can always be relied on to think rationally.
I would not presume to speak for PZ and others, but all the anti-superstitious folks I know rightly express contempt for the belief paradigm, NOT the people themselves, unlike their opponents, who seem to freely exercise their non-existent god-given right to denounce ANYBODY who doesn't agree with them. PERSONALLY.
Pity is correctly reserved for the innocent. It is, however, perfectly convenient and entirely proper to hold anyone in contempt who flagrantly presumes an aire of divinely-received wisdom and knowledge while exhibiting some of the greatest feats of hypocrisy the world has ever known.
WillG #22 continues, "For the foreseeable future, it is much safer to have atheists in the minority than religious fanatics. Could you imagine what those lunatic "Left Behind" authors would do to get the attention of a free-thinking nation? Besides, you guys would have less to complain about if you lived in a secularized country like Sweden."
There it is again. You can't help it, can you? "YOU guys". YOU and your like-witted compatriots. How free of contempt YOU are. Mercy, mercy, have PITY on us.
You realize, of course, where that kind of abiding hatred comes from, yes? It comes from a social mileiu that cultivates an "us vs. them" mindset called "prejudice". The very social environment you fear we might pay a heavy price for losing: religion.
Incredibly, you brag that RELIGIOUS FANATICS (curiously, of the type YOU admire in THIS country, as opposed to those OTHER lunatics) are in a majority. Even most of your like-witted compatriots would disgaree with that howler. But then, its easy to understand how you have lost many of the normal human goodies such as rational sensibility. That it is "safer TO HAVE atheists in the minority"? Careful. You tread on thin Nazi ice in your revelation there, bub.
WHY should it exercise you so to contemplate the horrible spectre of ANY group of "getting the attention of a free-thinking nation"? HMMM? Can you possibly think a nation of free-thinkers would by default be as dumb or dumber than what we've got now?
Besides? BESIDES??? What have you got against Sweden? That they might attack you at any moment? You know (and here's a puke-word we all adore) SECULARIZED thinking all over the world may have one beneficial effect that you cannot comprehend: they go much farther than you can possibly imagine in keeping away the ghosts that might have haunted the minds of untold millions of innocent kids, who would otherwise have grown into ten, nay a hundred times as many of those nasty violent blokes whose supernatural opinions differ from yours.
But right now the world looks at this country with suspicion, outrage and contempt, and we haven't earned that scorn for being SECULAR.
These "things" are not to be pittied. These "things" (because that's PRECISELY what they have allowed themselves to turn into, away from their humanity) are to be treated with scorn, outrage and contempt.
As I treat you, sir, with scorn and contempt. Gotta hand it to you, though: acheiving that level of stupidity really takes some doing. Especially for someone who claims to be a "rationalist". Oh, yes, forgot the hypocrite part. That does take some measure of, um, intelligence.
So, how is Sea of Faith any better than Fundamentalism? After all, we can make religion what we want of it.
If you take the Sea of Faith quiz and don't answer a question with one of their multiple choice answers because you disagree with them all, you score zero on that question. According to their criteria, the lower the score, the more traditionally religious you are.
Nearly 45 years of atheism nets me a score of 10, with two high numbers on B (4) & E (5) and a 1 on C. That supposedly makes me:
"1-10 Yours is an objective faith firmly grounded in a sound tradition. Your heroes are Plato and St. Thomas Aquinas."
Utterly offensive nonsense.
"This is why English schools are obliged to have religious education in their syllabuses - because the government can see no alternative to religion to maintain some sense of social order and moral behaviour amongst the masses. "
Huh. And I always thought it was because we have an established church. The things you learn.
I just read an article at Damn Interesting that may relate to this thread
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=864#more-864
The main point was that by some study it was found that people who had a less than realistic view themselves and the way things are were not depressed are indeed happy and may have advantages to survival
"claim that positive self-deception is a normal and beneficial part ofmost people's everyday outlook. They suggested that average people hold cognitive biases in three key areas: a) viewing themselves in unrealistically positive terms; b) believing they have more control over their environment than they actually do; and c) holding views about the future that are more positive than the evidence can justify.The typical person, it seems, depends on these happy delusions for theself-esteem needed to function through a normal day. It's when the fantasies start to unravel that problems arise."
I do not have any idea if that is as writen true or not but I would ask some more questions. It does sound like what this same bunch of B.S. artists is advocating. I like with the older name of "opiate of the masses" but that does have a harsh sound it would not market so well. It is like the tobacco companies down playing one of the other uses of nicotine as an insecticide. Kind of hard to sell products for mass market consumption if it is also sold as an insecticide.
The big problem seems to be a belief in a "personal god" that for the most part is rooted in the systems of belief from the middle east and the fairy tails connected with them The fear is the "purges" that we humans seem to enjoy. Trying to eliminate all who disagree with what ever it is that "WE" believe, to make some kind of distinction between "us" and "them."
I am not very optimistic that we will ever be rid of that dark urge.
another thing
"To some extent, Buddhists "believe" in soul-lessness (ma-atman). Of course, they also believe in reincarnation, which requires a soul (no?)"
Well, it is very much kind of a flim-flam this eastern stuff.
The teachings are mostly not about belief it is about realization and liberation, actually kind of subversive.
The soul is an illusion, the ego is an illusion. So what is reincarnated?
There is life after death but not the ego. Am I not living after all of my forbears? Will not my matter still be here. will not life continue after I die? It is the same thing that I am that is and is not an illusion that continues not my ego. the total universe that was once a singularity and still is singularity but separated by time and space that continues. not the ego-soul which dissolves into many pieces so much smoke if we try to find it. Hell we really cannot even sever the physical connection we have with the other animals on this rock.
What these sea of faith Bozos are really saying is that "people" cannot take the truth, they can't live with it so we need to treat them like retarded children cause we know best. I think they are projecting on others that which lives inside of them seems to be common in the faith community.
makes me sick and angry
Re: #40
That's really funny. The family of a former girlfriend were card-carrying atheists and devout followers of the church of the Packers. Of course, all Wisconsinites are, even the Lutheran ones.
Ummm . . . Why are we supposed to care about Sea of Faith, exactly? Merely for purposes of self-congratulation?
I mean, if there si one thing we can all take on faith, it is that there are bozos out there; that there have always been bozos out there; and that there ever shall be bozos out there.
Perhaps a good correlary might be "Having identified an obvious bozo reflects no great sagacity on the part of the 'discoverer' who may himself be a tiresome bozo of a competing ilk."
You don't have to care. I promise, I won't show up at your door with a club and force you to care.
You may also freely congratulate yourself on widening the circle of bozos even further to include those who rebuke bozos. You may also include those who rebuke those who rebuke bozos, and now those who rebuke those who rebuke those who rebuke bozos. Keep going, and before you know it, you'll have dismissed everyone on the planet except for the deeply apathetic.
And a few practitioners of the Tao.
Well, if I'm going to be patting myself on the back, I'd like a better occasion for it that feeling superior to Sea of Faith.
How about a *real* discussion of Plato's idea--I'm no huge fan of Plato (Bertrand Russell had him right, I think)--but the idea of the noble lie can get us to more interesting places than having a chuckle at the expense of some saps.
The Dawkins point, btw, is bankrupt. He writes a book telling us that the vast majority of humanity has been stupidly wrong about the supernatural since forever, and then tells us it is disrespectful to suggest that the error might have a purpose.
Can this blog entertain a serious discussion on religion? As a leftist it's pretty sad for me to observe that gnxp can maintain a fairly high level of intellectual discussion on a topic like this, but here all we generally get is atheistic Kumbaya.
Hear! Hear! (Since we're on the British today . . . )
Among the stereotypical 'leftist' positions are the idea that human beings are what they are because of how they're taught/socialized, and all people have equal potential.
It's because of those doctrines that people are rejecting the idea of the noble lie: it implies that people cannot be taught a way to accept the truth and deal with it, and that there needs to be a special class of people who know the truth and spread a lie in order to manipulate the others.
People from other idelogical backgrounds reject the idea for entirely different reasons.
Caledonian...
well what exactly IS your point?
We should keep the secret that God doesn't exist to ourselves so we can have the fun of laughing at everybody else? Or that the noble lie is not appropriate because it can't be subject to copywrite? Or some other nonsense?
I just happen to believe in dumb things like democracy and universal suffrage and so forth, and for the that to work we need give everybody the respect of keeping them well and honestly informed.
I'm confused, as I would think that the Noble Lie would only work if people didn't know it was a lie. If belief in God is somehow necessary for morality, surely that would only work if people believe that it is true that there is a God.
There are plenty of ways for people to have community and rituals in their lives -- if there isn't a God, why bother with religion?
The asumption is that some people will believe, some people won't but will go along for the sake of the believers. Idea being that (choose one or more) a) in any society some people will only be moral under threat, and God's vengence is an excellent threat; b) there is a built-in cognitive bias toward religious belief that we can never expect everyone to overcome; c) there is a high degree of social cohesion and sacrifice called for in complex cultures, and religion is a good way of attaining it (though there may be drawbacks in multicultural scoieties); d) you can probably imagine more.
General idea being that there are psychological or social needs that religion addresses that both explain its existence and mitigate against completely secular societies (not necessarily absolutely).
So religion would, in some quarters, be a tacitly acknoweldged fiction, but one with great uses.
Humanism can be thought of in the same way: there is no good logical reason to believe that human life is more important than, say, the momentary whim of a dictator or a king. But yet I believe it very strongly, and I strongly desire that others believe similarly, and I condemn those who do not.
But is the value I place on human life "true?" About as true as the wisdom and mercy of Jesus, I should think.
They are both operative fictions.
Of course religion tends to make material claims that are plainly contrafactual, but I'd argue that a lot of these are essentially inconsequential and needn't be worried about very much.
Some of the others--say claims about gays--tend to be "bottom-up": they are socio-cultural prejudices given the authority of God, rather than religious teachings with great social consequences (inasmuch as we can tease out the doctrinal from the socio-cultural).
Your joking right? For what is the difference between a 'social cultural prejudice given the authority of god' and a 'religious teaching with no great social consequence' when that god authorised prejudice has very real social consequences for gays. Especially when the religious in both the UK and the US try to influence laws affecting gays in negative ways as well as making homophobia respectable.
Among the stereotypical 'leftist' positions are the idea that human beings are what they are because of how they're taught/socialized, and all people have equal potential.
stereotype being the operative word there.
surely you don't think scientists or even most educators hold that position, given what we know of genetics, right?
it hasn't been nature vs. nuture since the 70's, "dude".
What I'm saying is that you can't blame the prejudice against homosexuals on handed-down-from-ages-past religious doctrine. Doctrine has been shaped to reflect social prejudice, not the other way round.
You can't just say "religious people do x" and assume that x then is a direct result of religious doctrine as such. There is a great deal more at play than religion.
There really isn't much religious justification for the current Christian obsession with gays--compare Christ on topic of homosexuality with Christ on topic of economic and social justice. It's a social pathology that's been built into religion.
PZ, of course it isn't for you - you're a sensible (well, most of the time) hard nosed scientist, and recognize postmodern crap for what it is.
BenWT: There might be some like that (JA Campbell?) but there are definitely some who are sincere about their vapid self-defeating wishywashiness. Many years ago I picked up a book, The Sciences and the Humanities. It tried to defend religion by claiming it was all poetry. How dreadfully insulting to most believers and intellectually cowardly on the part of the author!
WillG: The term "hypocrit" is appropriate - after all, the whole point is that Strauss (like his teacher the Nazi Heidegger before him, Plato, and many others) thought one had to lie to maintain order. That's what's hypocritical.
joel: I use both. I must say I like the Marx-derived one better, because it explains the goal of the noble lie in this case.
I think you're vastly overestimating both the scientific knowledge and ethical development of educators.
Keep in mind, though, that 1) religion is a private affair, so people won't give you an expression of their beliefs unless you ask (and probably get an awkward look at first); 2) I don't know about the UK, but in German the word religiös doesn't merely mean "adhering to a religion", it means "thinking of religion all the time, praying often, long, and hard, going to church at least once per week, and so on". Many people who believe in a personal god would answer "no".
Because nothing drives them away.
On the subject matter, I'm with comments 30, 32, and 36.