It is not god who bothers me, whether he, she, it or they may really exist. I'm more disturbed by the human invention of religion. Considering its very sorry history, it is practice of religion where true evil resides.

Well yes I think that, as many people have commented down the ages, "people are a problem".

Richard Dawkins says that for a good person to do evil takes religion and I think that this is spot on.

Message edited by its author, Oct 12, 2006, 11:34am.

psiloiordinary, Steven Weinberg is where that quote originates. He famously said, "With or without (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Thanks for that bclark , I saw Richard Dawkins' tv series "the root of all evil" and remembered it from that - happy to give credit where it is due.

Just been listening to a close friend of the head of the briritsh armed forces on national radio talking about the situation in Iraq and stating that the chief of staff has said that Britain and its army are built on a the "judeo-christian" inheritance and that its now time to "take a stand" against Islam.

Feeling a bit depressed. I think I just might have a go at that web site I've been threatening for ages. I suppose it will at least allow me to get my thoughts out there.

...

Listened to James Randi on the "skeptical guide to the universe" podcast and feel a bit better now ;-)

Message edited by its author, Oct 13, 2006, 3:54am.

Its devilishly hard (no pun) to say exactly what religion is, i.e. to give a definition of religion or to say whether this or that belief amounts to a "religion". (If you've ever met a fervent Stalinist, you'll see what I mean)

Rather than get into a pissing contest about whether say secularism, or atheism is itself "a religion" (There are annoying folks who propose that, and though in the end I disagree with them, I can see that they dont have to be completely mental to get where they are on that question) I think its better to dissect those aspects of religion (all of 'em, in the end) that are mistaken and/or harmful.

Willfully ignoring contrary evidence is high on my list of sins as is a expressing a degree of certainty out of all proportion to the strength of one's case.

Message edited by its author, Dec 25, 2007, 1:51pm.

Oh. I've read "How to Read the Bible" by James L Kugel.

The first 35 chapters are a wonderful introduction to Wellhausen, the higher criticism, contradictions and er "Problems" in reading the text and very interesting material about how, traditionally, those problems were met.

Kugel is very emphatic about having to face mount reality about what we now know about the origins of scripture and the history of its interpretation.

The kick in the head, is chapter 36 (I do not think its an accident that the chapters number 36, because our author is not only thoroughly well acquainted with modernism; he's also a practicing orthodox Jew. )

I think I may have to read chapter 36 a few more times before I quite understand what he's saying there; but I gather he's a sort of Baker Street Irregular. You know, those devotees of Sherlock Holmes who like to pretend that Sherlock Holmes is NOT a fictional character, that the "cannon" as they call it "really happened" and records the true stories of historical characters, recorded, not invented by Conan Doyle.

I think there are "religious" people who know full well in some parts of their brains, that the whole thing is a "crock", but love to pray, love the rituals, (Love the Apple, Love the Snake, Love the Concept Shoot the Works) and manage to pretend for a while that
its all real, and manage to pretend that they're not pretending. Head hurts now.