| |
|
|
|
 |
Posted 2006-12-03, 02:31 PM
in reply to Demosthenes's post "My Objection to Religion"
|
|
|
|
I e-mailed this to my father, and thought I'd post his reply here:
Quote:
Now that Ive had time to read and understand it, let me first congratulate you on an excellent paper. It clearly and substantially argues against the supremacy of religion in society. I summarize your arguments below:
N1. Absurdity of religious mythology
N2. Absolutism and consequent suppression of critical thinking
N3. Indoctrination of religious dogma since early part of ones life
N4. Creationism and refutation of scientific facts
N5. Rise of fundamentalism and the inability of moderates to counter them
N6. Violence in the name of religion
N7. Greater risk of catastrophic destruction in this age of WMDs
It seems that N1,N2,N3 are the characteristics of religion whereas N4,N5,N6 are the negative effects of those characteristics and N7 is a potential catastrophic effect. And, I think that the effects N4
N7 are the motivation for your paper.
However, if you look into human capabilities and resulting behavior, youd realize that a vast majority of people have limited ability to think critically and cannot understand nature and its consequences very well. Thus their behavior is driven by their emotions, feeling of what they like or dislike, rather than reason. They think they reason but in most cases it is only rationalization within the contexts of their feelings. In some way, aforesaid characteristics of religion N1,N2,N3 address human limitations and also help result in the following additional positive effects of religion.
P1. Helps deal with events beyond ones control
P2. Gives hope where hopelessness would rule otherwise
P3. Facilitates camaraderie - a social network which is a safety net to people
P4. Helps people channel their emotions
P5. Helps people lead meaningful and satisfying lives
P6. Facilitates order in the society
In my view, if you consider historical negative effects N5,N6 in the context of the positive effects P1
P6, the positive effects would outweigh the negative effects. Therefore, I think that religion improves lives and still has a place in the society today.
So, how can the paper be improved and should it be published thereafter?
A. I think that if published as is, it could infuriate some people, as rejection of their beliefs would be hurtful to most. As you said it, indoctrination from childhood renders them incapable of questioning their beliefs. Since this is a logical paper, most people would not be able to understand it and react to it by their gut feeling. They will see you as a biased atheist rather than as a rational being. So, I think that it would be helpful to include some of the positive characteristics of religion, if you want to publish this article. You want people to think critically when they read this, instead of them reacting to an article that rejects their beliefs outright. You want to appear as an impartial and balanced student. On the contrary, newspapers like to publish controversial articles; if you are balanced they could think that you lack conviction and might choose not to publish it because it is not incendiary enough.
B. Also, I think that the closure, the last paragraph, could be improved. Elaborate on how it is an expression of human emotion (e.g. we are small and fragile in the grand scheme of things). Explain how religion is more harmful today. Also, instead of saying that it does not deserve a place in society, I would say that its role should be diminished and that moderates ought to counter fundamentalists.
C. The title could be improved perhaps to Undesired Characteristics and/or Consequences of Religion or Arguments Against Supremacy of Religion ; make it less personal
D. I would also prefer to cite references wherever you have stated a scientific fact.
|
Had not really thought about publishing it before, but it is an idea.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|