Oh, Orn. How very coy and uninteresting. You know exactly what I'm asking, but that's okay. If you want to reject the hypothetical to avoid the conclusion, what can I do? I agree with Sam Harris that not all religions and superstitions have the same affects on society. I personally would rather live in a society dominated by modern Christianity than by the Christianity of 500 years ago - or by even modern Islam.
Is modern Christianity preferable to the kinds of superstitions that would likely dominate society without it? I think it's an interesting question despite the ambiguity. Surely others agree. I hope to hear from them soon. Aaron On Oct 5, 11:14 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Suppose there is a kind of "baseline" irrationality to humans - a > "superstition" index that doesn't change much. An individual may not > need it, but a well-organized society must provide an outlet for this > deep-seated impulse. Are strong Churches (especially the moderate > ones) better for society than the widespread acceptance of New Age woo- > woo, dangerous pseudoscience and all the other superstitions and > belief systems that rush in to fill the void left by traditional > religion? > Does it affect the strategy of organizations like MFA?” – Aaron > > First, I seriously doubt that any sort of ‘baseline’ or ‘superstition > index’ could be agreed upon. > Secondly, clearly ‘we’ (“a well-organized society”) not only must > provide but DO provide avenues of expression around these issues. > Since it IS, clearly it is ‘needed’. > The attempt to compare and or separate churches, strong or otherwise > with/to new age views, many of which are not new, let alone whatever > ‘dangerous pseudoscience’ means will always be subjective and not > agreed upon. If you doubt that, try it even here in such a limited in > number and narrow channeled view of people. > Yet again, when one (you Aaron in this case) use the term ‘better’, a > value judgment for which I don’t know what sort of foundation you have > for any sort of ethos like this yet, the result will be subjective. > As for ‘strategy’, I would suggest a clear and full agreement by > members on exactly these topics before any change in strategy is > attempted. > > On Oct 5, 7:59 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it. > > Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals > > and you know it... > > -Men in Black > > > I think Taylor and Orn's criticisms are on the money. The study does > > not support Hemingway's conclusions. The column does highlight an > > interesting quirk among people of faith. They don't see religion as a > > form of superstition. I recall my High School English teacher saying > > something about "religion and other superstitions" once. I > > immediately objected, "Religion isn't a superstition!" "Yes, it is." > > That rocked my world. Of course it is. > > > But think of it this way. Suppose there is a kind of "baseline" > > irrationality to humans - a "superstition" index that doesn't change > > much. An individual may not need it, but a well-organized society > > must provide an outlet for this deep-seated impulse. Are strong > > Churches (especially the moderate ones) better for society than the > > widespread acceptance of New Age woo-woo, dangerous pseudoscience and > > all the other superstitions and belief systems that rush in to fill > > the void left by traditional religion? > > > Does it affect the strategy of organizations like MFA? > > > Aaron --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
