"God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we — we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."
---Rev. Nietzsche
______________________________
GAI wrote:So I do not want to kill all religions but just encourage them to be more moral, tolerant and give equality to women and gays.
A thousand years is a long time. A dying creature is anything but 'dead' from a biological perspective: rather that corpse lights up from within and instead of one light there are a thousand lights as each cell decomposes.
What Dennett is proposing - largely - is it not nearly exactly what the Protestant Reformation initiated? Is that not largely what has been created by Teutonic Greco-Roman Europe? The revolutions in thought of the last 500 years - are they not an intimate aspect of a spiritual revolution?
I would ask some questions, though, about the terms 'moral', 'tolerant', and 'equal'. It is pretty difficult to decide what moral values shall be ascendent. 'Tolerance' is a loaded, politicised word that also has a debilitating, effeminate aspect. And there is no doubt that the notion of equality is often a corrupt
concept.
Additionally, to propose that homosexuality -
its closeted variety - be accepted is a sane position. But the issue is far more complex than just that. In the 80s and 90s there was a concerted effort to mainstream what has been called 'a gay agenda' and - some might say - to faggify the Western world. I deliberately choose the provocative word, both for fun and to forward
thoughtcrime. I have no reason at all to desire, condone or abet a cultural process of homosexualisation, and I regard it as an extremely negative thing.
So, sure, the best manoeuvre for the religious mind, especially the Occidental mind, is to bring it all to a very conscious level and certainly to work to define morals, jurisprudence, good administration, and much else.
Additionally, the mention of 'equality' for women is problematic. Women are not equal to men. There are structural difference that are not negatable. True, in our advanced cultures we have
artificially equalised the status of women, and some large part of that has been through offering to women the capability of choice in reproduction. But it is absurd on the face to propose that women are 'equal', and thus the premise is flawed from the start. It is possible, and perhaps also wise, to
choose to artificially maintain a largely equal status and to intervene to see that that happens.
I am always reminded of a pithy statement by Camille Paglia:
"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts."
To investigate why this statement is true requires turning against a tide of false assumption.
