Source: Religion in China – Wikipedia
Science and religion as current have utterly spoiled the beautiful moment in the emerging fulfillment of evolutionary discovery. The Science side has capitulated to both scientism and capitalist ideology as social Darwinism and the social sadism of science thugs, while the religious faction has made even the slightest suggestion of design or telelogy a conservative debating point to preserve/restore the hopelessly dated religious theology and historical mythology of the Old Testament.
We should have been luckier than to get these sordid goofs fighting for control of social beliefs they wish to make their monolithic power source.
The debate could use a Kantian reserve to stand back, wary of the gulch of teleological propagandist science/religion maniacs, to savor the ambiguous breakthroughs immediately claimed by religious fascists and scientific superidiots.
The famous and eloquent passage on religion by Marx tends to disguise its misanalysis of religion. The latter is not a simple entity to ‘analyze’ and while secular humanism rightly attempts liberation from false religion it does notion general find its true understanding.
Here the eonic model can help to see that in the classical era religions emerged in the context of the ‘evolution of civilization, often deviating from their starting points to social ideologies with political aspects of domination. But that does not really justify the reductionist assumptions said to liberated thought from ‘religion’. The result was imply inadequate as an analysis of religion as such, here meant perhaps the case of the very weak and distorted Christianity of the era after Constantine. The evolution of man has always generated vehicles to deal with his unique, and uniquely confusing psychology with its ambiguities of ‘consciousness’.
Karl Marx, in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843), famously said: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.”
The abortion debate and repeal of Roe v. Wade pose a severe threat to Christianity which in any case is falling apart and dissipating, even as it endures ad infinitum. Here the doctrinal obsessions of the Popes and the legacy theology are a destructive force. And the verdict on Christianity is clear: it cannot speak with clarity on the key issue of religion: the self and the soul, the nature of the individual and the fate of man in death. Christianity compared with Buddhism is a pastiche of junk theological notions and exploitative promises of salvation which are bogus. At the key point of relevance it is producing misleading thinking on the abortion issue. To be sure, evangelical Christianity is especially pernicious and some rational thinking has long cautioned Christians who ignore Papal doctrines. To be fair secular humanism can be equally misleading.
We have a long essay on the issue of soul in a link in the previous post. It attempts to consider that soul questions have misled the abortion debate with hopeless confusions. All these issues suffer the Kantian limits of metaphysical discourse but if we look at the legacy of Buddhism we have a far superior approach to the issue of soul and self. The point is that the issue of life at conception has become a misleading fallacy. The real ‘person’ is a latent entity (the term soul has problems) ambiguously at the boundary of space-time and is not affected in any way by abortion. The question of life and the soul is simply botched by Christian thinking. Clearly science will also produce misleading thinking.
The term soul seems to invoke a duality of material and spiritual, but that misses the point completely: there is a unity in reality beyond that misleading distinction.
But we should also consider if conservatives opposing abortion care a brass farthing about life and the unborn. Their general capitalist savagery is poor evidence of concern over life. The control of women in the traditional sense seems a better explanation. It is a useful made-up controversy useful in fueling a rightist politics
In any case, the Buddhist legacy might help to debrief the exploitative and misleading theological myths promoted by Christianity. The confusion created now on the abortion issue is an excusable botch of theological junk religion.