Is the 21stC "clash of civilisations" between religion and rationalism?

Question

Beliefs from long gone societies persist. But might more modern and scientific insights into creation, evolution, the nature of matter, human interdependence with Earth's natural systems etc replace them, and lead to more rational behaviour. It only requires a "critical mass" to change anything, in nature or society.

Answer 1

It is stated that most religions last a few thousand years then die off. This is a fact for a few religions and ways of life. Egypt, Roman, Greek, etc… Some have been around more than just a few. Personally I feel that when people gather in a group even across an expanse and think alike and hold meetings etc… I would call it a religion. The scientific community is now creating a religion of it’s own. There are supposed moral values within this community that is suppose to be policed by nations and laws. (Example: Human Cloning, It’s probably been done already. I really doubt they stopped at sheep etc…) As I have stated in many posts that It is always a downfall of religions and cultures when outside forces drive the beliefs of a people into accepting NEW ideas and CHANGE that religion or culture. Egypt, Rome 2 examples.

What is FORTUNATE about having religions AND rationalism is that it is a CHECKS and BALANCES system within its own right.

Rationalism by itself would then create the atmosphere that what is “right” is only dictated to us by laws and human thinking of that moment in time. It forgets about history. Example: Christians believe that same sexes should be banned. History dictates to use that Caligula almost single handedly started a FALL in the Roman Empire by living A life of Orgies and homosexuality. Which spread throughout Rome and the people followed the “decadent” way of life and the population of Rome fell. Starting a chain of events that lead to even more confusion of the people. Income, Taxes, Productivity fell… Lucky it only lasted 17 years and Rome was restored by Claudius and Homosexual acts were made illegal. So basically, man has no more morals than what the laws dictates set by man. IF Rationalism was the only power.

In Philosophy terms rationalism is the power of REASON over.. Caligula in his time used his power to influence others into thinking he was a RATIONAL and REASONABLE man. So did Hitler, For it WAS reasonable that the Jewish community did create wealth for their own people. BUT other Rational and REASONABLE men outside could see that what was happening was wrong.

Religion by itself without a culture of people believing in rationalism. Rationalism creates movement. Where many of the MAJORITY of religions are STAGNATE and do not adjust to change in the way life progresses and dictates to its people how to think and live every generation is bad. I’m not saying the MAJORITY religions here. Out of thousands of religions many do not change their beliefs to accept that people do and CAN have lives outside of their religion. Their religious beliefs should be intact and motivate the way they live their lives. Their moral values should be practiced and used as a standard to provide ethics to their communities in a broad sense.

Rationalism ALSO places checks on people of radical religious practices. Polygamy is a prime example how rationalism keeps religion at bay. This is just ONE example of how religion can be balanced by rationalism.

I’d HATE to live in a world where man creates laws by REASONABLE thinking. If that is the case then HUGO CHAVEZ has all the right answers. He is trying to save the poor ya know.

I’d hate to live in a world where the laws are ONLY created by religious leaders. Burka’s would be a fashion statement.

Philosophy definition of Rationalism- The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

Answer 2

Historian/philosopher Arnold Toynbee thought the 21st century would see a clash between Western religion (Christianity) and Eastern religion (Buddhism). It's started out somewhat differently. The axis of the clash seems to be between those who say "you do your thing and I'll do mine" and those who say "my way or die." Your dream of more rational behavior is a nice one, but like Mark Twain, while I hope it, I doubt it.

I agree about critical mass. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi claimed the necessary critical mass of meditators had been reached several years ago. I doubt it. More likely we've already passed the "critical mass" point for people disaffected with this civilization and willing to destroy it. Competition for resources will become increasingly critical. In 2005 my estimate was 15 years, and that was BEFORE I'd visited dieoff.org.

I've never read "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," but I think I should. Too many similarities already.

Answer 3

I certainly think they will make inroads, but their effect will be gradual. People are not about to drop their long-held religious beliefs, cultural traditions, or occupations in the name of science, efficiency, or "truth."

Being someone who tends to over analyze and investigate everything, it took me a while to understand that not everyone thinks about these things. If I am exposed to a religion when I am young, a system that purports to answer all of these questions, it is extremely difficult for me to break out of this mode of thought. Accepting naturalistic explanations often involves the rejection of beliefs that not only was I raised with, but that are still held by those around me. And if I were to reject those beliefs, I would be alienated from many of those around me.

So the degree to which these beliefs are entrenched is a barrier to the acceptance of rationalism. Yet beliefs can change incrementally. Though many traditions view science as trying to upend their way of life (which is true), we can hope that after taking some time to actually understand what is being said, they might realize they have less to fear from science than they originally thought.

Answer 4

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8). This
rational mind is also called the faculty of logic and
reason. Emotional mind is connected with religion.
However, logic has its limitation:

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel proved a
theorem which became the "Godel theorem" in cognition
theory. It states that any formalized 'logical' system
in principle cannot be complete in itself. It means
that a statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means of that
particular system. To discuss about such a statement,
one must go beyond that very logic system; otherwise
nothing but a vicious circle will result. Psychologist
say that any experience is contingent - it's opposite
is logically possible and hence should not be treated
as contradictory.

Scientist are frightening people with opposite views on
many things. Global warming and the coming of ice
age are an example:

http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacemaker.htm
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/viewArticle.do?id=10046
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/IceAgeTheories.html
http://www.iceagenow.com/QandA.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
http://www.longbets.org/218
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/iceage.htm
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/ice-ages/Ice_age_theories.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/08/1038950270355.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm

During 1800s, Anthropologists had a problem as to how
to classify human beings. One researcher proposed the
expression "intelligent animal". After advanced studies
on monkeys, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"tool using animal". After observing some animals
making wooden tools and sharpening them with knife like
stones, it was dropped. Another researcher proposed
"weapon using animal". A decade ago, a rare film was
shot in African forests. One short monkey was hit very
badly by a big monkey. The short monkey prepared a
wooden knife using stones and hid it on the top of a
tree. After some days, when the big monkey came to
attack the short monkey, it ran up to the tree for the
weapon it has hid and killed the big monkey. The one
thing that the anthropologists found with any group of
human beings, even if they did not have contacts with
the out side world for thousands of years, is
spirituality with some form of religion. So, man is a
"spiritual animal" if you want to call him that way.

The Upanishads say that "Manush" (human) was so named
because he has "Manas" a mind higher than that of the
animals which realises the divinity in creation. It was
present since the creation of human beings. Religion is
the characteristic feature of most of the human beings.
It is as eternal and and as unchanging as the Almighty.
No critical mass can ever affect it.

Answer 5

There is no conflict between religion and rationalism, historically most scientists have been religious. It is the desire to 'think God's thoughts after him' that led to the establishment of the scientific method. The one major experiment we have had with replacing religion with a belief in evolution, the former Soviet Union, was no bastion of reason.

Answer 6

Not really, we still have instincts that have to be overcome. I don't think we'll change until we are all genetically modified.