There's a good analogy by Douglas Adams where he talks about throwing out the baby with the bathwaterThere were some islands (I forget the name) where they had planted their crops according to the regligious calendar for centuries, then westerners came and laughed at such superstition. They supplied the islanders with new seeds and fertilisers and promised that they would have four or five times the yield if they switched to western methods. And for a couple of years they did have massively high yields, but then they dropped, because the fields were overworked. Eventually they went back to the old 'religious' methods because they worked.
Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.
(Essentially, religions were a good way of codifying things that people needed to know to survive, but they were also a good way of codifying a whole load of bullshit. The trick is to extract the good bits and abandon the rest.
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:08,
archived)
I can agree with that. I'm not anti-religion per se just the dogmatism aspect of it.whether you could actually separate the two is another issue.
(
maiden is filmed before a live studio audience,
Fri 18 May 2012, 12:13,
archived)
If an encyclopedia was wrong 90% of the time, no-one would bother using it.I think it's quicker to just assume it's all bullshit and start again from scratch. All the stuff about being good to each other is pretty much hard-wired in anyway and I'm not going to be planting any crops in the holy land any time soon
(,
Fri 18 May 2012, 13:03,
archived)