Antireligion: Difference between revisions
From Cibernética Americana
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Since having a false fundamental belief system is bad in a way virtually nothing else can be, a moral/ethical individual will be anti-religious to the extent that they will seek the earliest possible resolution of any religion still posing as a system of objective belief into a vessel of cultural heritage. | Since having a false fundamental belief system is bad in a way virtually nothing else can be, a moral/ethical individual will be anti-religious to the extent that they will seek the earliest possible resolution of any religion still posing as a system of objective belief into a vessel of cultural heritage. | ||
=<div align=right><span style="text-align: right; color: navy;">As a Positive Substantive</span></div>= | |||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
"Antireligion" as noted before, could refer to a reconstruction, if you will, of the thing which is generally regarded as a fundamental human impulse in a manner that doesn't suffer from the defects above observed in all the current religions known to me. While the better ones don't assert belief about counterfactual states of affairs in the physical world, they still fail the not even wrong test. In this § I sketch some expectations of such an Antireligion. | "Antireligion" as noted before, could refer to a reconstruction, if you will, of the thing which is generally regarded as a fundamental human impulse in a manner that doesn't suffer from the defects above observed in all the current religions known to me. While the better ones don't assert belief about counterfactual states of affairs in the physical world, they still fail the not even wrong test. In this § I sketch some expectations of such an Antireligion. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
= <span style="color: navy;">Historical Perspectives</span> = | |||
A redact I made of the version of this § I found divided it into Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion, since iirc, it was mostly about excesses of state atheism. Restoring that division. | A redact I made of the version of this § I found divided it into Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion, since iirc, it was mostly about excesses of state atheism. Restoring that division. | ||
== <span style="color: navy;">Freedom of Religion</span> == | |||
Freedom is surely an illusion if it is an opportunity to do something grossly not in your own best interests. Nonetheless if people are truly free then they are free to do themselves ( but not others ) harm. Religions are not observed to be personal, private systems of belief, but rather ones whose adherents seek to expand or maintain a group of co-believers. | Freedom is surely an illusion if it is an opportunity to do something grossly not in your own best interests. Nonetheless if people are truly free then they are free to do themselves ( but not others ) harm. Religions are not observed to be personal, private systems of belief, but rather ones whose adherents seek to expand or maintain a group of co-believers. | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
If they were private, personal, then there would be no need to protect them by various laws. It is in this sense that the religious generally understand Freedom of Religion, i.e. as a protected right to pursue their beliefs, often including imposing them on others such as their minor children. | If they were private, personal, then there would be no need to protect them by various laws. It is in this sense that the religious generally understand Freedom of Religion, i.e. as a protected right to pursue their beliefs, often including imposing them on others such as their minor children. | ||
== <span style="color: navy;">Freedom from Religion</span> == | |||
An early form of mass antireligion was expressed during the [[:en:Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], as early as the 17th century. [[:en:Baron d'Holbach]]'s book ''Christianity Unveiled'' published in 1761, attacked not only Christianity but religion in general as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. According to historian [[:en:Michael Burleigh]], antireligion found its first mass expression of barbarity in [[:en:French Revolution|revolutionary France]] as "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state" responded violently to religious influence over society.<ref>[[:en:Michael Burleigh]] ''Earthly Powers'' p 96-97 {{ISBN|0-00-719572-9}}</ref> [[:en:Criticism of religion|Critic of religion]] [[:en:Christopher Hitchens]] was a well-known antireligionist of the 20th century who maintained opposition to religion, arguing that [[:en:Freedom of speech|free expression]] and scientific discovery should replace religion as the method of teaching [[:en:ethics]] and defining human civilization. | An early form of mass antireligion was expressed during the [[:en:Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], as early as the 17th century. [[:en:Baron d'Holbach]]'s book ''Christianity Unveiled'' published in 1761, attacked not only Christianity but religion in general as an impediment to the moral advancement of humanity. According to historian [[:en:Michael Burleigh]], antireligion found its first mass expression of barbarity in [[:en:French Revolution|revolutionary France]] as "organised ... irreligion...an 'anti-clerical' and self-styled 'non-religious' state" responded violently to religious influence over society.<ref>[[:en:Michael Burleigh]] ''Earthly Powers'' p 96-97 {{ISBN|0-00-719572-9}}</ref> [[:en:Criticism of religion|Critic of religion]] [[:en:Christopher Hitchens]] was a well-known antireligionist of the 20th century who maintained opposition to religion, arguing that [[:en:Freedom of speech|free expression]] and scientific discovery should replace religion as the method of teaching [[:en:ethics]] and defining human civilization. | ||
