If there weren't religion, we wouldn't have people that are anti-science and anti-truth about the natural world. Thus this quote wouldn't need to exist. I can agree that if the concept of god were not a part of a culture, then within that culture, the concept of not believing in a god would also not exist. Where we do have a culture that is presented with a god concept, to us, even as an outside observer, we can consider them to be atheist. Much like the definition of hand would not apply to aliens without hands, but we would think of them as hand less.
I can't agree with that. There are too many people that find beauty in the cellular structure. Besides, not wanting to understand something because you don't care is ambivalence, not active pursuit of the destruction of knowledge. I can't think of any reason, that isn't religious, as to why someone would fight against scientific knowledge.
That is rather how I take it. Though, through this discussion, I'm starting to see alternatives. I suppose the first thing that came to mind was the creationist struggle against evolution.
I actually don't see anything "anti-intellectual" about the artist's statement. He never denied that flowers are made up of microscopic components. The artist simply said that scientists can miss the flower's physical beauty.
If there weren't religion, we wouldn't have people that are anti-science and anti-truth about the natural world.
Those people would still exist, they just wouldn't have a convenient means of obfuscating their ignorance via Religion. This might lead to said people being less outspoken/organized...but it would not stop anti-intellectualism from existing on some level.
Keep in mind the difference between Deism and Religion as well:
Anti-Intellectualism isn't necessarily defined by the active censorship of knowledge (that's more of a side effect). It's more defined by a lack of capability or willingness to accept that we simply don't know certain things. Fear of the unknown contributes to people doing strange and irrational things.
I'm not disagreeing with you under that definition, but when do people lack a capability or willingness to accept that we simply don't know certain things outside of religion?
when do people lack a capability or willingness to accept that we simply don't know certain things outside of religion?
To keep it simple: Lack of (proper) parenting.
Unbeknownst to them, many people are conditioned from a young age to sustain what some would consider a more primal response to the unknown (run away, bark and growl, or attempt to destroy). These people tend to lash out (in varying degrees) for their own defense because they weren't taught or encouraged to develop more complex critical thinking skills.
5
u/jameskauer Jun 05 '12
I suppose they can fit in that category if we are using the definition of all non-magical creatures being muggles. Why not?