Islam: submit to God's will, not your own.All of those religions cropped up in response to the earlier religions/cults which were entirely ecstatic, entirely passionate. The advanced religions, the modern religions, are all based on the idea of transcending our raw emotional responses in favor of a more rational action.
Christianity: turn the other cheek.
Judaism: love your neighbor as thyself.
Buddhism: do no harm.
Rationality cannot actually say the same for itself. People don't study science because it is the most efficient way to accomplish the development of the species, they study science because they are drawn to it, they are passionate about it. The motivational forces behind humanity have and always will be emotional. Rationality is there to process and direct these forces. Science has made no case that it is better at directing the passions of the populace than religion. Religion had (almost) nothing to do with WWII. Nothing to do with the development of the atomic bomb. With the development of almost all warfare technology.
The only difference between the two, when the dust settles, is whether or not there is a grand master plan on the outside of everything. Within the universe, there's no actual difference. Religion and Science both involve imperfect people (if one can even come up with a meaningful definition of a perfect person) applying reason and logic to their underlying motivational desires.
(i'm still watching the video: The Root of All Evil; these are my reflections thus far.. I also can't help but wondering why Richard Dawkins is soooo anti-religion, it's not rationally based of that I am sure. Not slinging mud, just analyzing a personality.)
Comments