Click here to log in
Click here to log in
Home
Popular
Search
Rank
Users
About

Thought



Main Conversations Thoughts Quotes
 
Hidden User Sept. 13, 2017, 2:05 p.m.
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
 
Some things in this article are poorly defined or supported. Overall, I think it's an obvious claim and that people's immense existential insecurity is what keeps religion alive. That and over-generalization and misattribution of observations and patterns.

"Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism" - what is a "secure future"? Yeah, there are some famous people listed in the article, but I think most scientists stay out of this stuff. There are so many scientists that are religious. People compartmentalize.

"If we look at those societies where religion remains vibrant, their key common features are less to do with science, and more to do with feelings of existential security and protection from some of the basic uncertainties of life in the form of public goods". This makes more sense than most arguments in the article. People are existentially insecure.

"Further, when the attempt is made to use science to advance secularism, the results can damage science" - The only case they make for this is about evolution. I feel like much of science doesn't directly contradict religious beliefs this way. Yeah, the whole evolution thing sucks. I get the political aspect, but this association seems absurdly silly: "Islamist parties in Turkey, seeking to counter the secularist ideals of the nation’s founders, have also attacked the teaching of evolution. For them, evolution is associated with secular materialism".
Comments
There are no comments to display.