Jordan Peterson, Nicholas Nassim Taleb and other popular thinkers contend that even if gods don’t exist, we still need religion, because it evolved to protect us from harms we don’t understand. I wrote about why they are wrong.
@Rabbit_Hole_Maghttps://rabbitholemag.com/debunking-the-secular-case-for-religion/ …
-
-
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Rabbit_Hole_Mag
I think Christianity as a philosophy was revolutionary at the time and ushered in the idea of human dignity and value of individuals as moral agents. But it evolved more as a political system and became oppressive
5 replies 1 retweet 32 likes -
Replying to @Monellarama @Rabbit_Hole_Mag
I'm inclined to agree, and think this applies to all major religions. For instance, Islam was actually incredibly progressive for its time - the "four wives to 1 man" rule, widely regarded as barbaric, was actually an improvement on the pre-Islamic "infinite wives to 1 man" rule.
4 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @G_S_Bhogal @Rabbit_Hole_Mag
Yes, I’m less familiar with the other religions but I can see that. Do you think that’s particular more to monotheistic religions? They brought in a greater degree of conscience/morality made stronger through ritual and idea of the sacred
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Monellarama @Rabbit_Hole_Mag
Yes. Monotheism tends to be more morally absolute, because if laws originate from a single divine source (rather than from individuals in a pantheon) they are more likely to be considered axiomatic.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
I completely disagree but like the text a lot. I would argue you are cherry picking points of each religion when you should see it as a meta history (that is actually the point of maps of meaning). Don't argue for a specific line of some religion see them all as one thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
The problem with this reasoning is that many religious edicts are mutually exclusive (like the pork example). And the commonalities of religions are too vague to amount to anything. So, such a meta-history cannot comprise a coherent system by which to organize a society.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I understand your point but I disagree. You can read Neuhmamn or even Campbell's work to a complete description of how religion describes a meta narrative with enough informational power to arrange societies. I don't know if you read all of maps of meaning but it describes this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I've read Maps of Meaning and watched Peterson's talks. If by Campbell you mean Joseph Campbell, I've read his work too. Both Campbell and Peterson have some good insights, but I feel they mix too much mysticism & obscurantism into their arguments for me to find them convincing.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.