Monday, January 1, 2007

Religion = BAD? (part 1)

It was a simple sentence, as posted by macht on Telic Thoughts, that inspired me.

What I'm more interested in is the idea that religion is bad.

Here is the first part of my reply:

Well, then we'll have to first start off by examining what is "bad." If we are looking at the concept of "bad" from the vantage point of a purposeless universe which created the concept in question through a random process filtered by reproductive success and surviveability, then I'm sure we can judge "badness" as that which would hinder reproductive success and suriveability. But of course, this does not deal with "bad" in the sense of being that which we objectively "ought not" do (as C.S. Lewis put it).

If the above is truly the case, the "good" and "bad" would be merely subjective constraints agreed upon by those who wish for evolution to continue. Obviously, though, this wish itself — that of evolution continuing — must be ASSUMED to be "good" or something that "ought" to happen, since I see no reasonable way to judge this wish as "good" or "bad" itslelf — as in something that objectively "ought" to or "ought not" to happen. If the process of evolution occured non-purposefully, then it just occured. Evolution itself would be neither good nor bad, and reducing everything to its essential core, would then compel us to realize that anything resulting from evolution is neither good nor bad.

However, this gets us nowhere in our discussion except to show how materialist thought has "bounced its reality cheque." So, let us concede for the sake of argument that evolution is a "good" thing and anything that opposes it is indeed bad. Thus everything that helps evolution is indeed good.

Now, we can apply this to our original question: "is religion bad?" Well, does religion impede or does it facilitate evolution?

No comments: