Religion as a defect


"Brights" versus the rest of us

I've been looking at the writings of Daniel C. Dennett and those he inspired. Dennett is the author of Breaking the Spell : Religion as a Natural Phenomenon , a book that seeks to demystify religion.

Now I know religion is one of those touchy words that we can't all agree on what it means. But for our purposes here, I think we can reduce it to how humanity approaches that which is beyond human experience.

Although Dr. Dennett didn't start it, some people have used his writings as a justification to distinguish between those "rational" individuals who approach morality from a human centric angle versus those whose morality is "given" to them by religion. It's really a matter of perspective. They call those unbound by religion "brights."

This got me to thinking. Some of my own earlier studies led me to believe that there was some sort of ur-faith, a common root that all human faith taps into. Some of those inspired by Dr. Dennett would argue that this is biological, a matter of neural pathway connections, perhaps useful in the past but totally irrelevant today.

So would eyes be useless to a someone blind since birth? Would that justify that demand others rip out their eyes in the name of rationality.

Who is more blind?

Those who use their eyes?

Those without eyes?

Those who ignore their eyes?

Those who rip out their eyes as ordered?

It's really a matter of perspective.

Not all of the "bright" crowd sees religion and faith as deformities to be stamped out. But there is definitely a "tone" there, one that colors the good ideas they do have.

Posted: Thu - May 11, 2006 at 06:33 PM
 ◊ 
 ◊  ◊  ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Technopagan Yearnings
© 2005 - 2010   All Rights Reserved