Posted by:
Raptor Jesus
(
)
Date: January 28, 2012 10:53PM
I thought that the talk was very interesting. I thought he made some really good points.
I think that his thesis about replacing religion with culture is a good starting point, but needs to be clarified. And I thought that he did an ok job about the clarifying.
What I think though, he missed but probably thought of is that one of the biggest downfalls to religion has been the utter lack of dialogue/criticism.
So, when he talks about the power of institutions and of the sermon, what troubled me is that the goal of institutions is to survive. And throughout human history survival of many institutions has been about crushing dissenters. Maybe we have gotten past that, and institutions can handle internal dissent and institutions must adapt or be destroyed/replaced.
The sermon thing is more about a lack of dialogue. So while sermons are good, possibly debates are better.
Possibly.
The last thing he talked about at the very end was "politeness." The one thing that bugs me about this is that there is a difference between politeness, rudeness, and GOOD comedic ridicule.
We ALWAYS need good comedic ridicule. This is where criticism of ourselves/others is often more easily accepted. Being able to joke and laugh at our own foibles as humans has definitely progressed civilization because the POINT is to show where our institutions', cultures', and human frailties' harm us. And through jokes it's often easier to accept change.
So anyone who says, "Let's stop the ridicule." I'll just disagree with right then and there. Sure, there's a difference between just being outright rude to someone and making a joke. But to authoritarian institutions/ideas they'll ALWAYS play the "you're ridiculing our beliefs" card even when you make extremely funny and effective jokes. Because it is true that you do need at least a little rudeness or ridicule to make an effective joke.
Example:
http://youtu.be/Tapt3XHJO8E