FireGarden
27th July 2003, 04:22 AM
Maggie once said that there is no such thing as society, only individuals.
I disagree with that, I would say that any collection of people automatically organises itself into a group some of whose actions will be predictable even if the actions of individuals are not. Such a group would be my understanding of society.
But something I do agree with, which is kind of implied by Maggie's statement, is that the best way to change a society is to start by addressing the individual. Different individuals would obviously form different societies.
I bring this up in response to the threads we have here about "bad religion", "is religion worth it" and the like. The point of these threads seems to be to attack religion as an institution, rather than as a group of individuals. I have seen no evidence that this sort of thing will ever work. How many instances are there of mass conversions due to argument.
If you want to take on a group and change it, the only ways I can think of are war or some other kind of oppression. (And religion has proved itself to be resistant to many kinds of oppression). Don't we always hate religious societies when they employ that kind of method?
Talking to people one by one may seem slower, but how else will you bring about honest conversion rather that coerced conversion?
I suppose I ought to add that I've never converted anyone. But I don't think resorting to attacking religion as a whole is an alternative that will get me anywhere.
I disagree with that, I would say that any collection of people automatically organises itself into a group some of whose actions will be predictable even if the actions of individuals are not. Such a group would be my understanding of society.
But something I do agree with, which is kind of implied by Maggie's statement, is that the best way to change a society is to start by addressing the individual. Different individuals would obviously form different societies.
I bring this up in response to the threads we have here about "bad religion", "is religion worth it" and the like. The point of these threads seems to be to attack religion as an institution, rather than as a group of individuals. I have seen no evidence that this sort of thing will ever work. How many instances are there of mass conversions due to argument.
If you want to take on a group and change it, the only ways I can think of are war or some other kind of oppression. (And religion has proved itself to be resistant to many kinds of oppression). Don't we always hate religious societies when they employ that kind of method?
Talking to people one by one may seem slower, but how else will you bring about honest conversion rather that coerced conversion?
I suppose I ought to add that I've never converted anyone. But I don't think resorting to attacking religion as a whole is an alternative that will get me anywhere.