Religion in its Death Throes?

The well spoken and superbly cordial AC Grayling tells it like it is.

Part 1



Part 2

Comments

  1. UnknownMarch 2, 2010 at 12:03 PM

    Considering the fact that monotheism did not successfully erase all other faiths, I find it unlikely that atheism will have any particuarly unique impact. Considering what the monotheists had to do to attain their supremacy, I don't know if I even want atheism to succeed where monotheism failed. At best, I think atheism can hope for a more secular society, one which will always have religions to contend with.

    I'm curious how one imagines religion waning when more overtly ignorant concepts such as racism and sexism are still rampant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tristan VickMarch 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM

    I think Grayling's treatment of religion as a cultural invention is on the money. As he says, faith isn't going away, people will always have faith in things. But religious cultures, ideologies, and practices come and go. They change and often disappear forever, sometimes they reconstitute themselves, and gain longevity by their adaptability.

    But still, secularization continues even in the most religious cultures.

    Religious people would be wise to ask, what are these atheists seeing that I'm not? It's an important question, but it won't impact their faith. As Grayling mentions a few times, secularization only guarantees less fundamentalism and a more humble practices of personal faith-based beliefs. And I don't see how that's a bad thing.

    So religion as a dominant entity of supreme status has seen its day, and I agree that masse-culture religion is fading, and that the vigor at which apologists aggressively lash out at atheism and other discordant beliefs to their own, as Grayling observes, a sort of death throe in which religion is having a knee jerk reaction to the impact of secularization while not wanting to admit its 'supreme' status has been revoked.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more