Re: Religion and evidence/ for Kate

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun 29 Jan 2006 - 20:18:09 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "new review of memetics/sociobiology/EP"

    ----- Original Message ----- From: Kate Distin <>
    > I was not brought up as a Christian.
    > I lived as an atheist for a decade.
    > My children know that other people have other faiths, and none.
    > I'm sorry that my Christianity makes you so angry. I think you and I
    > have to agree to differ about this one. I can't see any point in
    > debating it further with you.

    << First, I am not angry, far from it ! He, this is a discussion forum, so when hard words has to fall- on the other hand though, I 'm surprised about your reaction ! As it was I attacked you personaly, it was just my way to show how difficult, how sometimes impossible it will be to learn kids another view about life/ culture/ society than the one they were brought up in.

    You have to realize that each ideology will try to persuade/ convert as much people as possible that its views are the right ones and it will try to squeeze society into its convictions_ so in a way, even how hard you will try to learn your children that indeed other convictions exist and that people live by its rules, your children will take their learned philosophy into society and change it accordingly.

    The problem I got with it all is that you start from the presupposition that the human is a social being and not from the modern conviction that he is from his bias up a pure and simple individual. We ought to say within the context that religion has to become more than ever, a private matter. And that is just what happened_ modern times sees religion, and its annex
    ' weltanschauung ' as a pure private character. But one conception ( will try to) escape(s) from the commend of the private, and that is the belief in the in- dividual and the personal character of religious and ideological ideas. And thus, what else can it be, religion places itself within a privileged position, one that wants to be general and common. She, religion, justifies this exception by declaring that she is the (only) condition by which a society of free individuals will/ can be possible. And that isn 't true !

    We don 't need religion or any other ' belief ' to form ' community ' ! It is not so that when all individuals pursue their own personal interest that they act egoistic, what they do_ being altruistic, helping people, giving to charity_ or not, helps the builiding of society. Humans do NOT act like they were homo homini lupus !! People loose themselves within to help others and endure the pain of their losses. We don 't need the or any co- ordination ( of religion) to act in that way ! We do not longer trust religion, or politics_ any system that brings out ' community ', just because as the individuals we are_ we have even privatized our sense of ( giving) trust_ we keep it for those relationships we see as worthwhile, and no longer for society/ politics, let stand alone religion

    The main difficulty for many as for you and for your kids I presume is that you can 't suppose that we deal here with individuals/ individuality and that then politics/ the social shows itself as a problem wherefor only a quasi- religious solution is the answer. Modernity should correct this and then, I hope the social/ political dimension will be, once again, a natural fact of being human ! Being religious is not ! Where society/ politics or culture for that matter should provide the answers for the todays problems where we all faced with, we search into a dimension which is not part of this world. Transcedention is NOT the answer !!!



    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 31 Jan 2006 - 13:11:41 GMT