Comments on: Religion, society and bad science

By: minifig

minifig — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 16:54:11 +0000

no james, i think the addition of the hooligans to your analogy is really apt and made me look at the situation in a different way. thanks

By: tom

tom — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:04:33 +0000

Either way is treason, even if advocated by entirely democratic means.

No it isn’t. The 1848 Act has been superseded by the Human Rights Act. Old laws don’t have to be repealed in order for them to no longer have legal force. And I don’t think supporting disestablishment was ever considered treason, in any case.

By: James

James — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:18:58 +0000

Atheism can’t really be a dogma as such, though, since it only implies a lack of belief in something – not a positive belief in something else. Of course, atheism has been harnessed to secular dogmas (such as Soviet communism), but in itself it is like saying ‘I don’t like football’ as opposed to choosing whether you support Chelsea or Man City. You can’t be a fan of not-football, if you see what I mean… (and to push the analogy – perhaps too far – it is religious ‘hooliganism’ that is the problem)

By: A Reader Writes...

A Reader Writes... — Thu, 29 Sep 2005 04:40:35 +0000

I’m an atheist, and believe very strongly in a secular state that does not promote or favour any religion at all.

Then you’re living in the wrong country then. To advocate the seperation of Church and State, you would have to advocate either a) the removal of the Monarch as head of the Church of England, and the Disestablishment of the CofE or b) the removal of the Monarch as head of State and the Disestablishment of the CofE.

Either way is treason, even if advocated by entirely democratic means.

The United Kingdom is not neutral on the subject of religion and is not a secular state, despite the pretentions of the Ruling Party (of whatever kind that is) to give the impression otherwise (this is except for viewers in Northern Ireland, who are under no illusions on this point)

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:23:07 +0000

In addition to the above comment, you could expand “religion” to include any dogmatic political treatise, many of which base themselves on disproven and out of date philosophies, ignore scientific facts, and refuse to engage in rational debate.

All western societies have done is replace the “third world” dogma with pseudo-political rhetoric, be it communism, environmentalism, Thatcherism or whatever, and probably that includes atheism as well.

By: James

James — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:40:55 +0000

I still think part of the problem here is a misuse of the word ‘religion’ when what is generally being discussed is theocentric monotheism. Theravada Buddhism has more in common with European existentialism than it does with, say, Catholicism or Shia Islam. Confucianism incorporates a supernatural cosmology, but is in other ways closer to secular pragmatism than to, er, Thomism (excuse the random examples…) At the same time, as John Gray (I think) has pointed out, the teleological drive of western rationalism is far closer to the world-view of conventional monotheism than many people would care to admit. The language of science versus religion both simplifies and confuses things. In reality, it is a conflict between pluralism (and the acceptance that truths are always to some degree contingent) and the insistence that – ultimately – truths converge (be that on a singular and knowable God or on a vision of radically secular rationality). While rational and considered debate is needed, satire (which I guess the ‘gerin oil’ essay is a rather lame stab at) certainly has its place. Anyway, if faith begins where reason ends, then there are times when a bit of silliness on the side of the godless is no bad thing.