3,682 things lukees likes Explore more popular stuff on Tumblr →
-
-
-
-
-
-
mememolly reblogged theslyestfoxSource: togifs
gpoy getting out of a sports bra
Biscuits nails it again.
-
Clarifying my PositionA few people have been asking me lately what my position really is with regard to mythology and religion, particularly after this post.
“Why are you being so preachy?” “I come here to learn about religion, not to see it belittled.” “Why would you claim to have an interest in religion when you hate it?” This is the general tone of some of the responses I’ve received.
I suppose in some ways these questions are fair, and you deserve an explanation.
No, obviously, I do not hate mythology. I think that religious myth is the most telling form of cultural and social history that endures from the days of our forebears. In myth we get shining beacons of subjective morality stomping around the mires of period-specific dangers and taboos in an effort to reach (and explain) the origin point of the universe. How cool is that!?
Myth is distilled cultural consensus, bold proto-scientific claims, and political history mashed together! It provides such an intimate glimpse of what a group of people might’ve been thinking thousands of years ago, and provides clues for how the tangible decisions we know they made may have been informed. The study of myth is the study of history, and the study of history is the study of humanity. I love mythology.
Does this mean that I believe in a literal sense that the content of these stories is truthful?
Absolutely not. Since the study of myth is the study of humanity, it’s helpful to keep in mind that these stories come from only one source: humans.
I think that spirituality is a very interesting way of placing oneself within the universe. Any action taken to feel more connected with the world around you is a positive one—as long as you’re not hurting someone else, directly or indirectly, to achieve it.
For this reason, yes, I take issue with many of the things that vocal fundamentalist groups (be they christian, buddhist, hindu, muslim, or jewish) do and say. When these ancient, ancient stories—based not on scientific fact but on a now primitive set of didactic beliefs—become the moral compass for large groups of contemporary people, I think that’s an enormous problem.
Fundamentalism holds scripture as fact, flying in the face of modern science, logic, and common sense. A refusal to face scientific truth is a refusal to be a part of a global, peaceful human society and instead embrace fear and hate, both born of ignorance.
So, to answer those questions, I love studying religion. I find it to be just about the most interesting thing on the planet. But just because I think it’s important to understand does not mean I believe it to be a useful tool for humans to use today. Ritual, community, and tradition can still exist without scripture and dogma, the enforcement of which is dependent on ignorance.
Ignorance is the only enemy worth fighting.
-
Why can't religion and science go hand in hand. Is the "theory" of evolution not only a "religion" in itself that multitudes believe. There is evidence of evolution but no major evidence, just as most religions today? No hate just a good debatable question.
There’s a reason that religion and science can’t go hand in hand, and it’s that science is based on observable fact, and religion is based on 1,500-5,000-year-old hearsay.
When you reduce the idea of evolution to ‘a “theory,”’ (in those sarcastic little quotations) you’re suggesting that it’s a placeholder guess, like a junior detective’s theory about who took the last cookie from the jar. A scientific theory is not a shot in the dark, but the exhaustive result of evidence, research, and testing. The theory of evolution is not just something the scientific community threw out there for the time being, but it is in fact the foundation of modern biology.
Also, there is major evidence in favour of evolution: everything we know about hereditary traits, genetics, and DNA is a component of evolutionary biology. Whereas when it comes to evidence of religion, we have no evidence outside of the written word, most of which admits to be recording hearsay.
Also, having ‘multitudes believe’ in something does not make it a religion. There is no religion for gravity: it asks nothing of us, there is no worship involved, we need not alter our lifestyle in any way to “believe in it,” and yet the majority of humans on earth accept that gravity exists. Bonus: believing in gravity doesn’t seem to require me to hate and fear the other in the form of different races, women, or non-believers.
Remember what I said in the last post about ignorance? It is the only enemy worth fighting. There is an intentional move by many on the Christian Right in North America to discredit evolutionary biology in favour of preserving the traditional religious norm, advocating instead creationism/intelligent design. This is the realm of religion that I have serious beef with.
This is reducing science in an effort to secure thoughtless tradition for no reason other than “it’s different and I’m scared,” and maybe a bit of power consolidation, too. This is why religion and science don’t go hand in hand: religion has no place in science—its realm is matters spiritual—but it asserts its place by arguing (often violently) against scientific fact.
These people, the ones who preach faith above all else, seem to have a real problem with critical thought. Frankly, that scares the hell out of me.
(Re-posted to make that previous ask rebloggable upon request. Thanks guys.)
-
Why can't religion and science go hand in hand. Is the "theory" of evolution not only a "religion" in itself that multitudes believe. There is evidence of evolution but no major evidence, just as most religions today? No hate just a good debatable question.
There’s a reason that religion and science can’t go hand in hand, and it’s that science is based on observable fact, and religion is based on 1,500-5,000-year-old hearsay.
When you reduce the idea of evolution to ‘a “theory,”’ (in those sarcastic little quotations) you’re suggesting that it’s a placeholder guess, like a junior detective’s theory about who took the last cookie from the jar. A scientific theory is not a shot in the dark, but the exhaustive result of evidence, research, and testing. The theory of evolution is not just something the scientific community threw out there for the time being, but it is in fact the foundation of modern biology.
Also, there is major evidence in favour of evolution: everything we know about hereditary traits, genetics, and DNA is a component of evolutionary biology. Whereas when it comes to evidence of religion, we have no evidence outside of the written word, most of which admits to be recording hearsay.
Also, having ‘multitudes believe’ in something does not make it a religion. There is no religion for gravity: it asks nothing of us, there is no worship involved, we need not alter our lifestyle in any way to “believe in it,” and yet the majority of humans on earth accept that gravity exists. Bonus: believing in gravity doesn’t seem to require me to hate and fear the other in the form of different races, women, or non-believers.
Remember what I said in the last post about ignorance? It is the only enemy worth fighting. There is an intentional move by many on the Christian Right in North America to discredit evolutionary biology in favour of preserving the traditional religious norm, advocating instead creationism/intelligent design. This is the realm of religion that I have serious beef with.
This is reducing science in an effort to secure thoughtless tradition for no reason other than “it’s different and I’m scared,” and maybe a bit of power consolidation, too. This is why religion and science don’t go hand in hand: religion has no place in science—its realm is matters spiritual—but it asserts its place by arguing (often violently) against scientific fact.
These people, the ones who preach faith above all else, seem to have a real problem with critical thought. Frankly, that scares the hell out of me.
