Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Denigrating religion and promoting atheism can be fun and meritorious, but I see such activities as treating a symptom rather than the disease. And I wonder, is treating the disease even possible? Maybe all one can do is produce more pharmaceuticals. I tend to lean toward this pessimistic view, and so I pose the question in the subject.
It would be nice if one could say, “He’s a physicist [or neuroscientist]; of course he doesn’t believe in God or ghosts.” But you cannot. Unfortunately irrationality, rather than the converse, is, it seems, fundamental to human nature. Education in sciences seems to positively correlate with atheism, but science also correlates with close-mindedness*. That said, I’m a science fanatic myself, and a broad spectrum push for science funding and education would probably make the world a much better place regardless of the state of average human reasoning prowess.
i think it’s time to admit that very little of what we are hoping for is oging to happen in our lifetimes. Gradual change is the only way. Leading by example. Teaching our children etc…
I have a very devout friend, a very close friend, with whom i’ve had all manner of discussions with concerning this issue of faith vs reason. It’s clear that there is debate. He agrees with all my reasoning but still believes. But i’m gonna wager that at least one of his children with be a non believer simply because he’s so reasonable. (knowing him he’ll have 4 or more kids, 1 in 4 is not bad, right?). And it’s the best i can do for him and for us… intellectually force him into a place where he must choose moderation over extremism.
The problem of religious moderates is profound. however, i feel moderates are still our best shot at reason in the long run. My parents were moderates and beause of their moderation i was able to see more of the available information and drew my own conclusions. My dad as it turns out, kinda came down the rabbit hole of reason as well.
so while moderation does allow for fundamentalism, it can also be an ally, a tipping point, a gateway drug to the thrilling drug of reason.
I believe very strongly in both these view points. Education will eventually play a key role in moving religion to the margins where it can finally die BUT we most likely won’t witness this death, the marginalization of religion or even this change in our education system within our lifetime. The obstacles in our way today are massive. Despite this fact, I feel overwhelmingly compelled to try just the same in hopes that this crucial change will come.
I see our first step as having two, distinct parts:
1) Encourage and assist those of like mind (who not only don’t believe in what religion offers, but see it as a clear and present danger) to step forward, “out” themselves and be open about their concerns despite the forcefield of taboo that protects religion from criticism.
2) All of us (including the “new recruits” from part 1) must start working on any moderates we come across, as elscarpo talks about attempting above.
Preaching to the choir can certainly be motivating, but we are going to get nowhere until we increase our number and I think what I described above is, at least, a good place to start. Any thoughts, criticism, etc. is welcome as I am a newbie to this forum and, in fact, to this movement. I was one of those in part 1) who needed and received encouragement to come “out” and do something.
It is unfortunate and true that we will not see religion eradicated from our society within any of our lifetimes (in America for sure). From a purely pragmatic point of view I think it all starts with our judicial system (the Supreme Court in particular). When people reap the benefits of science they are forced to face the irreconcilable dogmas that define their (our electorate’s at large) personal identification with holy scripture. Religion has evolved as science has evolved and that doesn’t appear to be threatened now. I can’t imagine changing the minds of folks who refuse to watch anything other than Fox News. I can imagine, however, legislation that affords science the ability to produce means that lead to ends which further evolves religion further into a deep and dark hole of obvious archaic human artifice. Long story short, we may change the minds of those reasonable friends on the precipice of reason, but only subconscious force will alter our masses’ disposition—even if they don’t know it’s happening. I hate to admit it out loud but the majority of our citizens who vote are insanely unaware…
I guess my main point is that the way to change is likely not a grassroots movement to change the hearts and minds our the reds, but to do enough to facilitate the right legislation to allow reason to do its job (because if we are right about anything, it’s because the ends are justified ‘in themselves’ and people will not be able to deny it—-
I can imagine, however, legislation that affords science the ability to produce means that lead to ends which further evolves religion further into a deep and dark hole of obvious archaic human artifice.
I like this idea. Do you have an example of a mean produced by science and afforded by legislation that has, or could in the future, move religion in such a direction?
So far as the past is concerned I was thinking about how science (not so much legislation per se) has forced religion into corners regarding absurd notions such as earth’s place at the center of the universe, pleading to weather gods, slavery based on genetic inferiority, the age of the earth and the like, an ark that can hold 2 of every creature on earth, etc..
I see religion on a spectrum that begins at something akin to mutilating children in hopes for a good harvest, to individual believers having no problem cherry picking the scriptures because they recognize illegitimacy (where I see us now), to individuals cherry picking so much that they realize that they can no longer indentify with specific, established religious institutions (where I think we could possibly be heading). I don’t think fundamentalists will fall in line in this respect but my hope is that a large enough impact (financial esp.) will come from the moderate/progressives leaving the ‘church’ because at some point the system they believed in is no longer looking like a coherent system.
So far as the future is concerned, and the legislative role that I brought up, I would give stem cell reasearch as a specific example. If we are able to stabilize the research environment so that this research can take place, I think the implications of the research will be profound in extending and bettering individual human life (I won’t get into how scary overpopulation and resource scarcity is, however). I don’t think that this in itself will drive religious folks out of churches but I think that the further science goes in proving its ability to manipulate life, the more likely (and quicker) religion continues evolving on the ‘silliness spectrum’. I would also point to Sam’s work trying to really understand our behavior, values, and moral thoughts on the level of the brain. There is bound to be legislative barriers as we continue to delve into far-reaching areas of science and I think that our efforts are best served in the political arena. I would love to talk about campaign finance laws at some point because it is so important.
Anyhow, sorry for the delay in reply. I don’t know if I’ve been as specific as you were hoping. I am sure others on this site have better input on the matter than I. Perhaps what I’m saying is too abstract to make sense—-
I think you hit the nail perfectly on the head. A complete revamping of the education system geared to establishing critical thinkng skills seems to be the only way to save future generations of human society. The big question is are there enough people of reason with power and influence to implement policies to achieve such goals. It seems with every generation idiocracy spreads more than rational thought. The rational do no reproduce in mass numbers like the irrational, therefore we are becoming outnumbered. Living in a democratic society where most of the populace is irrational does not bode well for implementing policies geared to critical thought. Memes seem to be the best solution to manipulate the irrational. I think ratIonal thought has to be given almost as a mother feeds a child medicine by hiding it within the childs food.
We need to take careful thought in how we implement memes and the only way to do this is media control. Whoever controls the media, controls the irrational. We need to create a Trojan horse to infiltrate the media and establish rational influence via subtle tactics. How we can get this done is open for discussion…
You say “the only way to do this is by media control” . I so much agree on that,and have been saying it ..,or trying to say it. for a long time.
I, and many others, at least those I have any contact with, and from what I have read in the past 8 yrs. or so , believe that because the media is the way it is today, our society is about to do away with itself. That’s because the media is radically one-sided today and that takes away the rationality of it’s message. People are being fed the most perverted logic , or maybe I should say non-logic,so when it comes to the way things really are the truth is gone, baby, gone. So how can we expect the public to be rational ? The media is controlled completely nowadays by the ultra-left, and anything extreme like that , whether left or right, is going to screw the people bad. My local newspaper for instance,has nothing but stuff with a liberal slant- even in it’s political cartoons. Obama is the Messiah. The paper is run by a family of rich democrats . They had one Republican news columnist,and they discontinued him . But my paper is just ONE example..the rest of the media including news commentators etc. are sickeningly biased. It is very hard to think it is not a conspiracy .
And speaking of Trojan Horses _ YES—you are right. We sure do need that; the best reason being we have a real-life Trojan Horse already in operation and it contains our actual enemies. I’ll recommend a book by that title I think , but I can’t remember the author. There are other articles that support your idea also—I read a lot of that stuff…I’d detail some of it for you but I don’t want to get certain repercussions .
Some people want to argue this , but irrationality is an induced epidemic and it sweeps over whole societies of people as if it’s a fad. And before you know it- wrong has become right and right has become wrong . The rise and reign of HITLER was an example of that—-he was all wrong , but between propaganda and talent for captivating masses of people—the result was that his irrationality was taken as sensible. I, myself, see that same thing happening today.
We need good leaders to help bring and preserve the strength of moderation and common sense to the people. And we don’t have any such thing today .
I don’t think we’ll see any meaningful change until there’s fundamental revolution in the way we perceive life and reality. A lot of the solutions offered here are focused on symptoms rather than the problem itself, and I’m not sure we’ll make any kind of progress that isn’t just cosmetic until we re-examine our priorities entirely.
The truth is, truth sucks—at least in relation to our current perception of reality. If we centered our attention only on that which can be objectively derived from our surroundings (which is what I would call “truth”), the picture’s pretty bleak. Morality doesn’t exist, there’s no such thing as a “purpose” in life, etc. In terms of reality, nothing really matters, because there is no such thing as intrinsic value. And I don’t think that’s a world most people would want to live in.
People say they want truth, but the truth they want takes for granted an enormous amount of stuff that really isn’t “truth” in the strict sense of the word. Personally, I think more people need to be made aware of this, and once we’ve gotten used to that idea and are ok with it, only then will we be truly free to really explore possibilities and solve our problems.
I know that what I just said sounds like completely vague, pseudo-intellectual nonsense, but it’s hard to narrow down the focus without making seemingly huge and random leaps in logic.
The truth is, truth sucks—at least in relation to our current perception of reality. If we centered our attention only on that which can be objectively derived from our surroundings (which is what I would call “truth”), the picture’s pretty bleak. Morality doesn’t exist, there’s no such thing as a “purpose” in life, etc. In terms of reality, nothing really matters, because there is no such thing as intrinsic value. And I don’t think that’s a world most people would want to live in.
Having discussed the ideas surrounding athiesm, the existence of god with friends and family I see one of the main concerns with what I espouse is just what you have said. My own father, who admits my arguments and logic are sound, says he simply cannot accept my world view because it just isn’t warm and fuzzy. It is difficult to debate with this type of faith (as that is purely what this is). Individuals can be shown the falacy of religion and with their belief systems, and yet simply choose to follow because it make them feel better about themselves.
In my father’s case he has stopped going to church (once a devote Catholic) because I have convinced him of the fallacy of organized religion, but he cannot take the one last step and let go of his faith because he simply can’t deal with the “stress” of it.
Ultimately I believe that if we want to move society into a more secular relm it has to begin in childhood. The indoctrination of children from a young age is, in my opinion, wrong. I do not think anyone should be forced to go to church when they are so young and can easily be made to believe in fairy tales. You cannot legislate this, but I having discussed this with my friends and family when asked “What if your son asks about church and god” I have said I will explain the belief system to him, but I will not let any of them take my son to church (as they have offered to do). When I feel my children are old enough to know that they should question the world around them and not just trust what people tell them they can then make the decision to go to church or to study religion.
Good points. It is the association with organized religion that leads to social authoritarian political efforts; a personal sense of some god absent that association is less likely to do so.
The truth is, truth sucks—at least in relation to our current perception of reality. If we centered our attention only on that which can be objectively derived from our surroundings (which is what I would call “truth”), the picture’s pretty bleak. Morality doesn’t exist, there’s no such thing as a “purpose” in life, etc. In terms of reality, nothing really matters, because there is no such thing as intrinsic value. And I don’t think that’s a world most people would want to live in.
Having discussed the ideas surrounding athiesm, the existence of god with friends and family I see one of the main concerns with what I espouse is just what you have said. My own father, who admits my arguments and logic are sound, says he simply cannot accept my world view because it just isn’t warm and fuzzy. It is difficult to debate with this type of faith (as that is purely what this is). Individuals can be shown the falacy of religion and with their belief systems, and yet simply choose to follow because it make them feel better about themselves.
In my father’s case he has stopped going to church (once a devote Catholic) because I have convinced him of the fallacy of organized religion, but he cannot take the one last step and let go of his faith because he simply can’t deal with the “stress” of it.
Ultimately I believe that if we want to move society into a more secular relm it has to begin in childhood. The indoctrination of children from a young age is, in my opinion, wrong. I do not think anyone should be forced to go to church when they are so young and can easily be made to believe in fairy tales. You cannot legislate this, but I having discussed this with my friends and family when asked “What if your son asks about church and god” I have said I will explain the belief system to him, but I will not let any of them take my son to church (as they have offered to do). When I feel my children are old enough to know that they should question the world around them and not just trust what people tell them they can then make the decision to go to church or to study religion.
I wouldn’t be against legislation in this regard, but there’s no easy way to go about it without pissing a lot of people off. We genuinely don’t think kids are able to make informed decisions about the consumption of mind-altering drugs until they’re, by our standards, “mature,” and even then we’re only allowed a handful of choices from what’s out there. Yet, when it comes to religious beliefs, which are not only extremely mind-altering but life-changing altogether, we don’t seem to care. I find it sickening that so many people have no problems with this level of hypocrisy.
Hell, we don’t even let parents choose for their kids if they should drink and smoke, but when it comes to religion, they have carte blanche to do as they please.
