In Appiah's talk, he gives us the claim that the debates about whether or not religion is good or bad are preposterous because "there is no such thing as religion." He continues with, "There isn't a thing called religion, so it can't be good or bad. It can't even be indifferent."
He starts us off with a "natural" definition of what religion means; "involves belief in gods or spiritual beings." It's a pretty common definition, you'll find it dictionaries, and almost everyone you ask will probably say something along the lines of that. Religion to me is such a controversial topic, but there are so many different views on it. I myself am agnostic, so I don't have much input on it. But with this talk, Appiah offered such an interesting view. He begins with a story from the novel by Paul Beatty called "Tuff." It has a man who speaks to rabbi, but that rabbi says he doesn't believe in God. And you, like many others are probably wondering how can a man be a rabbi if he doesn't believe in God. When the rabbi is asked that question, he says, "It's what's so great about being Jewish. You don't have to believe in a God per se, just in being Jewish." Appiah then starts with another story about one of his friends who happens to be Hindu. His friend as a child wanted to talk to his grandfather about religion. But he was told he was too young and to come back when he’s older. Now a teenager, he asks again, but this time he says he doesn't believe in the gods. So his grandfather says, “Oh, so you belong to the atheist branch of the Hindu tradition.” And finally, he talks about Dalai Lama, who says that he’s one of the world’s leading atheists. Which is true by Appiah’s words because Lama’s religion doesn't involve belief in God.
With those stories he told us, you can see that they go against the definition Appiah originally gave us, and you'd think that he should give us a new definition that fits in with atheistic Buddhism, atheistic Judaism, etc. But he disagrees with that because he doesn't think that's how our concept of religion works. He goes on and says he thinks our concept of religion works like this: we have a list of paradigm religions and their sub-parts. But then we start to question why we have this list and he answers with European travelers. European travels come from Christian culture. Christianity is an extremely "creedal religion" and the internal history of it is "largely the history of people killing each other because they believed the wrong thing." Now there were other things such as the Crusades (when Christians tried to reclaim Jerusalem, it didn't really work out). But then there were also wars against people who didn't believe in the same religion as they (Christians) did.
Appiah then spends a portion of his Talk speaking about the distinction between science and religion and whether it has happened or not. He says, "This great separation, in other words, between religion and science hasn't happened." I for one, believed it has happened because you can have let's say a scientist who's a creationist and a scientist who's an atheist, but they're working together. There's no difference between them other than the fact that the creationist will interpret information differently than the scientist who's an atheist.
And so finally, Appiah ends his talk with this: the next time someone makes a generalization about religion, consider the fact there maybe isn't such a thing as religion and because there's no such thing as religion, what they say cannot possibly be true.
This talk was by far one of the most confusing and least favorite Talk I've watched. It was complex because of all the things I had to think about and I thought the title was quite misleading because Appiah didn't seem to focus on the question at hand at all (in my opinion, anyway), it just made it more confusing for me. It was certainly "interesting" after I finally understood it, but that doesn't mean I necessarily agreed with Appiah. Me being agnostic, I just don't believe in God or a god. Agnostics in simpler terms claim that the existence of a divinity or a god is unknowable. That doesn't mean though that I will go as far as saying that your religious deity doesn't exist and therefore, erasing religion completely. Honestly, I didn't like how Appiah said that a religion doesn't exist just because there exists an atheist part of a religion. To me, it doesn't seem right to make a claim such as that based on the accounts of three people and disregarding everyone else who is religious. This isn't one of my favorite Talks and I wouldn't recommend it.
He starts us off with a "natural" definition of what religion means; "involves belief in gods or spiritual beings." It's a pretty common definition, you'll find it dictionaries, and almost everyone you ask will probably say something along the lines of that. Religion to me is such a controversial topic, but there are so many different views on it. I myself am agnostic, so I don't have much input on it. But with this talk, Appiah offered such an interesting view. He begins with a story from the novel by Paul Beatty called "Tuff." It has a man who speaks to rabbi, but that rabbi says he doesn't believe in God. And you, like many others are probably wondering how can a man be a rabbi if he doesn't believe in God. When the rabbi is asked that question, he says, "It's what's so great about being Jewish. You don't have to believe in a God per se, just in being Jewish." Appiah then starts with another story about one of his friends who happens to be Hindu. His friend as a child wanted to talk to his grandfather about religion. But he was told he was too young and to come back when he’s older. Now a teenager, he asks again, but this time he says he doesn't believe in the gods. So his grandfather says, “Oh, so you belong to the atheist branch of the Hindu tradition.” And finally, he talks about Dalai Lama, who says that he’s one of the world’s leading atheists. Which is true by Appiah’s words because Lama’s religion doesn't involve belief in God.
With those stories he told us, you can see that they go against the definition Appiah originally gave us, and you'd think that he should give us a new definition that fits in with atheistic Buddhism, atheistic Judaism, etc. But he disagrees with that because he doesn't think that's how our concept of religion works. He goes on and says he thinks our concept of religion works like this: we have a list of paradigm religions and their sub-parts. But then we start to question why we have this list and he answers with European travelers. European travels come from Christian culture. Christianity is an extremely "creedal religion" and the internal history of it is "largely the history of people killing each other because they believed the wrong thing." Now there were other things such as the Crusades (when Christians tried to reclaim Jerusalem, it didn't really work out). But then there were also wars against people who didn't believe in the same religion as they (Christians) did.
Appiah then spends a portion of his Talk speaking about the distinction between science and religion and whether it has happened or not. He says, "This great separation, in other words, between religion and science hasn't happened." I for one, believed it has happened because you can have let's say a scientist who's a creationist and a scientist who's an atheist, but they're working together. There's no difference between them other than the fact that the creationist will interpret information differently than the scientist who's an atheist.
And so finally, Appiah ends his talk with this: the next time someone makes a generalization about religion, consider the fact there maybe isn't such a thing as religion and because there's no such thing as religion, what they say cannot possibly be true.
This talk was by far one of the most confusing and least favorite Talk I've watched. It was complex because of all the things I had to think about and I thought the title was quite misleading because Appiah didn't seem to focus on the question at hand at all (in my opinion, anyway), it just made it more confusing for me. It was certainly "interesting" after I finally understood it, but that doesn't mean I necessarily agreed with Appiah. Me being agnostic, I just don't believe in God or a god. Agnostics in simpler terms claim that the existence of a divinity or a god is unknowable. That doesn't mean though that I will go as far as saying that your religious deity doesn't exist and therefore, erasing religion completely. Honestly, I didn't like how Appiah said that a religion doesn't exist just because there exists an atheist part of a religion. To me, it doesn't seem right to make a claim such as that based on the accounts of three people and disregarding everyone else who is religious. This isn't one of my favorite Talks and I wouldn't recommend it.