Muddled though it may be, that was my attempted point, as well--that science is a tool. In immoral hands, immoral acts. In moral hands, moral acts. This was a response to E.O Wilson's claim that religion should "die out," to the argument that I had with my brother about if I put my "faith in science." To discussions I have had with fellow nonbelievers, even T-Shirts I have seen, that claim "I put faith in science." It is not me that introduced the non-sequitur. It is prevalent in this discussion, and I wanted to point out that it can be as immoral, in the wrong hands, as religion can be immoral. The conclusion, I hope, is that we need morality. If you get there through religion, fine, but being religious doesn't make you moral by association. If you get there through non-belief, fine, but being devoted to truth, doesn't necessarily lead to morality, either. Morality is in actions, not belief structures. Morality is how we treat each other, if we have integrity, if we use compassion and empathy, believe no one is beyond becoming a moral person, no matter when it comes to them in life, using the courage and strength it takes to forgive an enemy, etc.
I agree. I would say the religion that isolates us from our fellow man, is not something I wish to carry forward from my childhood religious experience. I was having homosexual feelings, and at the age of 12, went to a Priest, about them. That Priest told me that it was "wrong" to engage in any "homosexual acts." Maybe that needed to be in the original piece. What I learned from that, is that my morality doesn't exclude any particular race or creed or sexuality or belief structure, based on just being that race or creed or sexuality, or belief structure. It is how we treat each other. It reinforced a fundamental belief that I need to show understanding, even to people I do not understand, fully. It reinforced my belief that morality is not akin to any particular group. That includes religion and non-belief.
My piece is slanted, only in this regard: It is a critique on nonbelievers' thoughts, and not on believers. It is written from the perspective "You do not believe in religion, want it ended? It is divisive and destructive tribalism? True, it can be, but what about its contributions to morality?" And the implied question is: "What can we do to establish morality, without religion?" That implied question, is important before we discard religion, if that is a worthwhile goal. I am not saying that on an individual level, we aren't already answering that question, and have for generations. But I want a check, a balance, on society--a stated belief structure--that carries forward our values and morals, something we can put up in a book, if we do not live with moral people, to become moral, outside of our environment--like the Declaration of Independence or the parts of the Bible that talk about moral behavior or even Shel Silverstein's "The Giving Tree." I want it written down, somewhere. If that is asking nonbelievers to act like a religion, so be it. I don't think it is. I think people who do, need to take a Sociology class and learn about social mores and social reinforcement. I do not want a lineage of monsters because of one person's immorality. Our ability to shape ourselves, is important. And media is a psychological influence. Not everyone is going to have a good environment. Right now, government can be lectured when it abandons its values, in the United States. Right now, religion can debate what is moral behavior. Authority is still important, and I point to your Carl Sagan quote as an appeal to authority. I point to Frans De Waal, for myself. But if we ever debate what is truly our conviction, and Sagan and De Waal do not agree, we are left without an authority that trumps the other, for good and bad. Societal structures on morality is not acting like a religion. And asking questions, as I have in this piece, is not wrong or an attack. It is simply bringing up an issue because this has to be thought about. It cannot be a simple conclusion with no planning. It needs to be debated.
That said, I am a walking example of how we can live morally, not to toot my own horn, without religion. I lead in the post with some of the values that I hold in my life, the search for meaning and morality, that led me to some of the same conclusions as my up-bringing. I did not mean to imply that religion, everywhere, has those beliefs, but I will not discard them because my up-bringing taught me them through religion.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
As for music, I am delighted that we can have a philosophical debate surrounding something in our culture--music. So, I will put up something that gave me hope, in my lowest days and hours, of course, contemporary, and its last verse is religious. I don't relate to the last verse, at all. But the highest note is a whisper in the ear. It is conviction, that we will see a better day.
