A Non-Naive-Empiricist Case Against Religion
Daniil Gorbatenko
29017

I think there are a few (i.e. many) issues with your perspective. For instance, to pick just two at random:

“There can’t be another space separated in principle from the one which we are in. There is no other world.”

Have you ever read the book Flatland? I think you should (its short, amusing, and thought provoking). Not for the Victorian social commentary obviously, but for the notion that there can easily be higher dimensions of which we are currently unaware. In which case, just as there can be two sheets of paper in a stack, there could well be parallel universes separated simply by the principal of being displaced at a right angle to the 3 dimensional space of which we are currently most aware.

“Religions can provide meaning to people but only because many people have been taught since childhood that the only way to find meaning is to accept it from a social authority.”

So where did Religion come from originally? Were people already teaching their children that meaning came from social authority and then they invented religion to provide that social authority? How does that work? That’s clearly ridiculous. Far more likely, religion came about first as an attempt to discover meaning. Ascribing social authority to it, and teaching your children (and each other) to submit to that authority, came later or as part of the package. So Religion is primarily a source of meaning, secondarily a social authority.

Thinking about these issues is good fun, but I don’t think you’ve presented a coherent perspective yet.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.