Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
human nature is still human nature.
Inspiration is still inspiration.
I'm not saying that there haven't been master works throughout our history that have been comissioned by religious institutions, but I'm both athiest and an artist personally, the concepts are not mutually exclusive.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Ah, I see you've used Irrefutable Logic to reach this conclusion.
Yup. For reference see The Eiffel Tower and the works of most artists in the 20th century. Just as good artistically as those which preceded them, and no need for religion.
See, noone has truly provided a positive which religion gives that something else couldn't, and the only true counterpoint seems to be that other excuses can be used for bad things too. I would think it would be obvious that if you are trying to persuade someone to do something which is bad (and thus irrational) the more irrational excuses you have the better.
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
It's obviously not possible to explain that we live in an uncaring universe when you aren't fully comfortable with that notion yourself.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
No, that's not how I define "religious."
My definition here is really an extension of my idea about how to define beliefs in general. I think beliefs ought to be defined based on how they influence actions. Or, in other words, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
For example, if you claimed to believe that there was a dragon in your garage, but in no way modified your behavior—didn't stop parking the car there, for example—I would say "no you don't." If you claimed that you believed there's a dragon in your garage, but that the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, and has no trace of interaction with the physical world, I would say "that's not a dragon, then."
Similarly, if you claim to believe in a god but don't bother to follow any of the laws he or she supposedly handed down, don't acknowledge his existence, don't change your behavior as if he or she exists—I would not call you "religious." If you claimed that the god you believe in is functionally indistinguishable from the physical universe that I believe in as an atheist, I would say "that's not a god, then."
Qingu on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Meh, I don't think the Eiffel Tower looks as nice as say, St. Peter's Cathedral.
Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
Ere, I never said that at all. Religion does not cause bad things, it simply makes it easier to persuade people to do them.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
Ere, I never said that at all. Religion does not cause bad things, it simply makes it easier to persuade people to do them.
So does money. And I don't hear you whining about that.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
If anything, I'd probably try to get them to abstain from ANY knowledge along religious lines, and then present them with a bunch of different religions/viewpoints and let them sort it out.
I'm not prepared for situations where my kid asks what happens when we die and I haven't introduced them to religion.
It's obviously not possible to explain that we live in an uncaring universe when you aren't fully comfortable with that notion yourself.
Thence religion! Wa-hey.
I dunno if I'd go that far, but maybe just, "No one knows for sure"? After all, the only people who would know can't really tell us. Admittedly it's a bit weak; it's something I'll have to polish up a bit before i start getting twinkles in my eye.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
No, that's not how I define "religious."
My definition here is really an extension of my idea about how to define beliefs in general. I think beliefs ought to be defined based on how they influence actions. Or, in other words, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
For example, if you claimed to believe that there was a dragon in your garage, but in no way modified your behavior—didn't stop parking the car there, for example—I would say "no you don't." If you claimed that you believed there's a dragon in your garage, but that the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, and has no trace of interaction with the physical world, I would say "that's not a dragon, then."
Similarly, if you claim to believe in a god but don't bother to follow any of the laws he or she supposedly handed down, don't acknowledge his existence, don't change your behavior as if he or she exists—I would not call you "religious." If you claimed that the god you believe in is functionally indistinguishable from the physical universe that I believe in as an atheist, I would say "that's not a god, then."
Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
Ere, I never said that at all. Religion does not cause bad things, it simply makes it easier to persuade people to do them.
So does money. And I don't hear you whining about that.
Especially science fueled by money. See the pharmaceutical industry.
$50,000 dollars for a pack of cancer pills that caused my professor to go blind. He died within the year.
Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
Carl Sagan would probably disagree with you, then float off into the sky.
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
Ere, I never said that at all. Religion does not cause bad things, it simply makes it easier to persuade people to do them.
So does money. And I don't hear you whining about that.
Money = Useful in a way which no other thing is, and has no viable alternative due to scarcity
Religion = Inferior in every way to rational argument and debate, and a human basis for laws.
Money can't be replaced at this point, religion could have been replaced at any point.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
My religious faith is not unable to be questioned. In fact, the nature of my faith encourages such questioning by people who profess to practice it! It would also be inaccurate to say that my belief system is mandated by a higher power who is infallible or inhuman. This is not the case.
Since your religious faith is apparently idiosyncratic to you, I am puzzled as to how questioning can be encouraged.
How's that?
I don't think I've ever said that I am somehow unique. I'm actually part of a community! I mean obviously that's tough to tell, I am just one dude you are talking to on the internet, but I mean if someone says "how does this statement not apply to you?" and I explain why, I'm at a loss as to how further argue the point after that.
Well you haven't really explained how any statement does not apply to you. You've merely asserted that they don't. What does "questioning" mean to you?
Actually, I think I've been very clear how statements don't apply to me. For example, I reject any absolute definition of religion that states that religion must be expressly theistic, or that theistic beliefs have to revolve around an absolute and omnipotent entity (or entities, if that's your deal).
Why do I feel this way? Well, by golly, I'm a religious fellow and myself personally and the doctrine of the religion I endorse is not monotheistic, or even (arguably) theistic at all! That theism in general thing is arguable, I guess, because then you get into messy issues of defining "Gods" and so on. But I mean I can say definitely that monotheism isn't part of my faith and that believing in absolute, inhuman deities isn't part of my faith either. My faith is not idiosyncratic or unique in this regard, and there are many other religions I can give you as examples, substantiating my argument that defining religion as expressly and absolutely theistic to be really quite absurd.
If you need examples, I can give them to you! It's not even saying just that "this statement doesn't apply to me!" but it doesn't apply to millions of people who are religious.
Now, with regards to actually commenting on "questioning one's faith" and what I believe that entails... well, for example, some religions (Catholicism!) have absolute dogma that cannot be changed, altered, or questioned by the laity. In some exceptional circumstances (Vatican councils, for example) that dogma might be altered by the clergy that run the institution, but only in those circumstances is the change considered canonical and orthodox with the religion as a whole.
Individual believers within that faith, of course, draw their own conclusions and might have their own beliefs that run contrary to what their religious institution preaches, but it is the standpoint of those institutions, their beliefs or questioning of the canon is illegitimate and not open to direct debate.
Contrast this viewpoint with say, for example, Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism is based on the idea of Judaism as a living faith, that the world is not defined entirely by the Torah, but also things like Rabbinical study, Talmudic interpretation, and the like. While it is still a situation of those in the position of authority in the institution who espouse the most sweeping interpretations or changes, their decisions are influenced by the beliefs of the common practitioner and moreover, those scholars of Judaism are not considered to be directly invoking the will or intent of God. They are simply trying to understand God and the world and they believe that faith must change over time to accommodate what we come to understand.
Using just Reform Judaism as an example (I'm not a religios Jew myself, although I am one by heritage) I can illustrate how some religions actively encourage questioning, change, and new interpretation. Erego, saying that religion can only be defined as being unable to be questioned or changed is false on an absolute level, unless you are saying Judaism isn't a religion.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
Adrien on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
True, but it's also demonstrably harder for people to relate to.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
I super agree with you 100%. Hubble Ultra Deep Field? MIND BLOWING. I'm just saying early renaissance art would not be as cool as the religious based art. David? Fresco on the Cistine Chapel? Amazing.
Even Reform Judaism searches for the precise will of god in the modern world. They believe that if god were here, he would be able to tell them what is right. As such they simply say that they are a faith without a perfect holy book yet.
Oh, and allowing people to think what they want about religion is very new. Hell, in the middle ages the sermons were in a language noone spoke. The priest then just told you exactly what to do and think, and if you disagree then you can feel free to be burned at the stake.
This new more palatable religion is just like sugaring a turd. It might taste a little sweeter, but you still shouldn't be eating it.
I think we're getting a little off-topic. The debate isn't about the existence of god, it's about how religion is evil and has caused nothing but tragedy and heartache. Let's get back on task.
I hate religion as much as the next guy, but even Douglas Adams (a staunch "hard" atheist) wrote about how in certain societies, the agricultural rules and practices that had developed with the religion of the region worked much better and provided better crops than when they tried alternative science-based methods.
I would like to read this, where would I find it?
I haven't read through the whole thread to see if this got answered already, but I think the passage referred to is in a speech he gave in 1998. The text of it is printed in The Salmon of Doubt (which collects works of his posthumously).
Yup. For reference see The Eiffel Tower and the works of most artists in the 20th century. Just as good artistically as those which preceded them, and no need for religion.
See, noone has truly provided a positive which religion gives that something else couldn't, and the only true counterpoint seems to be that other excuses can be used for bad things too. I would think it would be obvious that if you are trying to persuade someone to do something which is bad (and thus irrational) the more irrational excuses you have the better.
The problem with your argument is that you have this binary conception: either something is religious or it's secular.
Religion, as you've defined it, is a hugely complex set of social institutions. It evolved to replace and reform a previous set of social institutions, and in some cases improved the society in question. It is not at all clear that a secular, scientific mentality could have taken on the same cultural niche.
Capitalist democracy works well for us, but we had to evolve up to it. It is doubtful that a stone age, magical-thinking tribal society would all of the sudden evolve capitalist democracy. There are a whole number of intermediary steps—including "monarchy." But your argument is like arguing that "monarchy has never been a positive in any society." Well, no—state-level institutions with a centralized justice and enforcement system actually did improve over chaotic tribal societies whose members constantly murdered each other.
We could also probably mention the literature, art, music, architecture, and so forth that religion has more or less inspired over the past several millennia.
They would have been better if they had been inspired by SCIENCE!
They would have been precisely as good if they had been inspired by science, and then we wouldn't have needed to have had religion. So the net effect is positive.
Except most of them were built to inspire and awe the religious masses. Scientific masses don't need irrational inspiration (right?).
"Yea, look upon this hydrogen atom and be inspired. Know that if this were to scale, this building would be the size of the sun. Also, the distance between the nucleus and electrons has been shrunk to fit on the canvas. Indeed, with a nucleus this big, we would need a canvas the size of a football field to accurately depict it."
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
I think the thing you are missing is that there is no scientific truth to society or the sanctity of other human beings. If you break down the spiritual relations of people, what do you replace it with?
So pantheism by that process is indistinguishable from atheism?
I fail to see any meaningful difference in the content of the two beliefs.
A pantheist is someone who slaps the word "God" on "the Universe." They are as far away from people who believe in the deities of religious traditions as an atheist is.
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
I think the thing you are missing is that there is no scientific truth to society or the sanctity of other human beings. If you break down the spiritual relations of people, what do you replace it with?
I think that's completely irrelevant to what I was saying, but if you like, the same thing goes for the essential nature of human compassion being a much more compelling grounds for society than, again, any kind of fairy story you like.
What I'm not clear on is how your "not expressly theistic" beliefs are religious. What would your definition of religion be?
Alright, now I am going to quote a Dictionary listing at you. Understand that in doing this, I am not attempting to be pedantic, nor am I quoting a Dictionary as if it is a canonical code for all things in the English language.
You ask me for a definition, and I actually think this listing (the first, in Dictionary.reference.com) adequately sums up how I define and use the term. I'm using this definition because it's common and because I agree with it, and I think it's a reasonable way to say it:
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I like that definition, because it uses phrases like "usually" and "often" to allow for differences.
Now, even that definition implies a theistic element, but I do not believe that theism is necessary for religion, unless your definition of theism is extremely loose and dare I say, idiosyncratic.
I think if you follow a codified philosophy that has a clerical or monastic tradition, stems primarily from the teachings and knowledge of others, and most importantly whose central tenets are based on unprovable and faith-based beliefs in things that might exist but are impossible to substantiate... I think it's fair to say you are following a religion.
If such a belief includes belief in the possibility of an afterlife (including a theory on how that operates), has a belief on the origin of say, the universe that is in addition (or in contradiction) to current scientific theories, and has a belief that one's conduct in life (and possible ritualistic practices) have a meaningful impact on oneself or others on some sort of intangible and unseen level... I think it's fair to say you are following a religion.
Those statements apply to my faith, and apply to many (but I hesitate to say all!) religions. I think if you are practicing the above, I think it's fair to say you are following a religion and that if you practice those beliefs in your daily life and your reasoning for practicing them is in part if not primarily hinged upon that religion... I'd also say it's fair to call you religious, to boot!
None of that requires, but does not exempt, theism. Of course, theism is one of those things that if it's there, you're almost indisputably following a religion.
That's how I use those terms. If you think those are unreasonable or absurd, please explain how.
Pony on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Yup. For reference see The Eiffel Tower and the works of most artists in the 20th century. Just as good artistically as those which preceded them, and no need for religion.
See, noone has truly provided a positive which religion gives that something else couldn't, and the only true counterpoint seems to be that other excuses can be used for bad things too. I would think it would be obvious that if you are trying to persuade someone to do something which is bad (and thus irrational) the more irrational excuses you have the better.
The problem with your argument is that you have this binary conception: either something is religious or it's secular.
Religion, as you've defined it, is a hugely complex set of social institutions. It evolved to replace and reform a previous set of social institutions, and in some cases improved the society in question. It is not at all clear that a secular, scientific mentality could have taken on the same cultural niche.
Capitalist democracy works well for us, but we had to evolve up to it. It is doubtful that a stone age, magical-thinking tribal society would all of the sudden evolve capitalist democracy. There are a whole number of intermediary steps—including "monarchy." But your argument is like arguing that "monarchy has never been a positive in any society." Well, no—state-level institutions with a centralized justice and enforcement system actually did improve over chaotic tribal societies whose members constantly murdered each other.
I could be wrong, but didn't a lot of the kosher rules develop because following them saved a lot of lives back in the day? And spreading those rules as widely as possible within their society helped save more lives. They probably didn't know the scientific reasoning behind it, but back then it's more effective to say "These foods are unclean in the eyes of God" than "Statistically, more diseases and deaths have arisen from eating these certain foods than other ones. We don't know why, but just don't eat them. Yes, sometimes people have eaten them and not gotten sick. It's not a 1:1 thing, we're not sure exactly what the cause is..."
I think the thing you are missing is that there is no scientific truth to society or the sanctity of other human beings. If you break down the spiritual relations of people, what do you replace it with?
Common sense and empathy?
Morality and Religiosity are two completely different concepts.
One can be a highly moral person with empathy and have not a lick of religious inclination.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Yup. For reference see The Eiffel Tower and the works of most artists in the 20th century. Just as good artistically as those which preceded them, and no need for religion.
See, noone has truly provided a positive which religion gives that something else couldn't, and the only true counterpoint seems to be that other excuses can be used for bad things too. I would think it would be obvious that if you are trying to persuade someone to do something which is bad (and thus irrational) the more irrational excuses you have the better.
The problem with your argument is that you have this binary conception: either something is religious or it's secular.
Religion, as you've defined it, is a hugely complex set of social institutions. It evolved to replace and reform a previous set of social institutions, and in some cases improved the society in question. It is not at all clear that a secular, scientific mentality could have taken on the same cultural niche.
Capitalist democracy works well for us, but we had to evolve up to it. It is doubtful that a stone age, magical-thinking tribal society would all of the sudden evolve capitalist democracy. There are a whole number of intermediary steps—including "monarchy." But your argument is like arguing that "monarchy has never been a positive in any society." Well, no—state-level institutions with a centralized justice and enforcement system actually did improve over chaotic tribal societies whose members constantly murdered each other.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. I guess when you think about religion (IE, do what you say or the imaginary big man in the sky whose thoughts are created by someone who is at least vaguely educated) compared to simple brutal rule without morality at the whim of whomever is strongest then it is better. And I can indeed accept that perhaps we can't go right from the rule by the strongest to secular humanism.
OK, I was wrong, religion is not always a net negative effect, and does have a unique positive purpose. Nowadays however we have no need for it, and the sooner we can be rid of it the better.
I think this thread is so absurdly hypothetical that we have no solid ground to stand on. There is no possible way to quantitatively argue that the whole of religion has had a net positive or negative effect on society. How do you argue this point other than stating "I believe or think this" which is asking me to have as much faith as a Christian or Muslim to accept your point?
Religion has bad things: sexism, homophobia, wars.
There's good: providing community, mental security (ie: a large chunk of the populace doesn't fall into a depression about nothing after death), some prophets preaching morality such as love and compassion (others death and destruction), and providing a faith based reason for behavior that saved lives (kosher example).
Good luck dissecting each of these and measuring them. The truth is you fucking can't, so for someone of science to try and claim that religion has caused more harm than good is laughable when they can't even use science to back up their claim.
I agree with whoever said that religion had its place in the same way monarchy had its place in the evolution of governments.
I'm really curious as to how you define religion 'functionally', and whether it comes down to 'religious people are those people that act dumb'. The impression I've been getting from you is 'Pony is too rational to be religious', which I really hope is not your actual thought process.
No, that's not how I define "religious."
My definition here is really an extension of my idea about how to define beliefs in general. I think beliefs ought to be defined based on how they influence actions. Or, in other words, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
For example, if you claimed to believe that there was a dragon in your garage, but in no way modified your behavior—didn't stop parking the car there, for example—I would say "no you don't." If you claimed that you believed there's a dragon in your garage, but that the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, and has no trace of interaction with the physical world, I would say "that's not a dragon, then."
Similarly, if you claim to believe in a god but don't bother to follow any of the laws he or she supposedly handed down, don't acknowledge his existence, don't change your behavior as if he or she exists—I would not call you "religious." If you claimed that the god you believe in is functionally indistinguishable from the physical universe that I believe in as an atheist, I would say "that's not a god, then."
You're assuming a lot about the basic behavior of a person which can be called 'religious', which I don't think you can really encapsulate like that. And also assuming a lot about how those behaviors would differ from atheists, which also have easily encapsulated behavior. And also assuming some form of baseline, which I can't tell whether you think is the atheistic mode of behavior or not.
Basically, I think this is just the religious form of calling a black person an oreo, and I don't think it's any less bigoted in this form.
Even Reform Judaism searches for the precise will of god in the modern world. They believe that if god were here, he would be able to tell them what is right. As such they simply say that they are a faith without a perfect holy book yet.
Oh, and allowing people to think what they want about religion is very new. Hell, in the middle ages the sermons were in a language noone spoke. The priest then just told you exactly what to do and think, and if you disagree then you can feel free to be burned at the stake.
This new more palatable religion is just like sugaring a turd. It might taste a little sweeter, but you still shouldn't be eating it.
Demonstrably false, that bolded bit is.
Good lord, you're so very Western-centric and ignorant it's mind-blowing!
Let me introduce you to the idea of Upaya. Upaya, a sanskrit word loosely translated as "skillful or expedient means" is a concept in some schools of Buddhism, most notably Mahayana Buddhism (the variety of Buddhism that believes in Bodhissatva and other ideas that are expressly religious if not theistic, so don't feed me that "Buddhism isn't a religion!" chicanery).
Upaya, which is a methodology expressly designed to question religions and beliefs, is something posited by Nagarjuna, a Buddhist scholar, over two thousand years ago.
New idea, my ass, McBain.
Pony on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Even Reform Judaism searches for the precise will of god in the modern world. They believe that if god were here, he would be able to tell them what is right. As such they simply say that they are a faith without a perfect holy book yet.
Oh, and allowing people to think what they want about religion is very new. Hell, in the middle ages the sermons were in a language noone spoke. The priest then just told you exactly what to do and think, and if you disagree then you can feel free to be burned at the stake.
This new more palatable religion is just like sugaring a turd. It might taste a little sweeter, but you still shouldn't be eating it.
Demonstrably false, that bolded bit is.
Good lord, you're so very Western-centric and ignorant it's mind-blowing!
Let me introduce you to the idea of Upaya. Upaya, a sanskrit word loosely translated as "skillful or expedient means" is a concept in some schools of Buddhism, most notably Mahayana Buddhism (the variety of Buddhism that believes in Bodhissatva and other ideas that are expressly religious if not theistic, so don't feed me that "Buddhism isn't a religion!" chicanery).
Upaya, which is a methodology expressly designed to question religions and beliefs, is something posited by Nagarjuna, a Buddhist scholar, over two thousand years ago.
New idea, my ass, McBain.
Pretty much every time he's used the word "religion" in this thread it's actually meant "institutionalized fundamental western religion."
If you had kids, would you make them go to church?
I know this was directed at Pony, but I'd like to take a shot at it:
For a while, yes. Only up to the point where my kids started questioning it, and not because it's a boring thing for a kid to have to do (I was there once, church as a youngster is boring as fuck). The day my kids (should I have them) are able to start questioning things about the Bible or the religion, I'll leave it up to them to decide if they want to go to church, or if they think it isn't necessary to still hold some amount of religious belief (that is, is church necessary to still hold those values true to one's life).
I'd rather my kids have the ability to make choices and have free will than that shit. And honestly, I'd be more concerned about whether or not they're good people. People don't need religion to be as such.
Being brought up to be afraid of hellfire impairs peoples' ability to make choices on religion though.
If you had kids, would you make them go to church?
I know this was directed at Pony, but I'd like to take a shot at it:
For a while, yes. Only up to the point where my kids started questioning it, and not because it's a boring thing for a kid to have to do (I was there once, church as a youngster is boring as fuck). The day my kids (should I have them) are able to start questioning things about the Bible or the religion, I'll leave it up to them to decide if they want to go to church, or if they think it isn't necessary to still hold some amount of religious belief (that is, is church necessary to still hold those values true to one's life).
I'd rather my kids have the ability to make choices and have free will than that shit. And honestly, I'd be more concerned about whether or not they're good people. People don't need religion to be as such.
Being brought up to be afraid of hellfire impairs peoples' ability to make choices on religion though.
Up to a certain point, sure. I posit that it has more to do with parental reinforcement of said hellfire-fear. The first time your kid asks "will I go to hell for saying Jimmy is dumb", your answer is going to probably lock them into whatever you say for a good long while.
You're assuming a lot about the basic behavior of a person which can be called 'religious', which I don't think you can really encapsulate like that.
What am I assuming?
And also assuming a lot about how those behaviors would differ from atheists, which also have easily encapsulated behavior.
Like what?
And also assuming some form of baseline, which I can't tell whether you think is the atheistic mode of behavior or not.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Basically, I think this is just the religious form of calling a black person an oreo, and I don't think it's any less bigoted in this form.
That's quite a statement. Why don't you explain what you mean and what you think I'm assuming, and then I'll try to respond to your assertion that I'm a bigot.
Posts
I dunno, blox is apparently the arbiter of his own science-based alternative-history utopia, in which everything is the same except there were no bad things ever. I'd defer to his judgment.
human nature is still human nature.
Inspiration is still inspiration.
I'm not saying that there haven't been master works throughout our history that have been comissioned by religious institutions, but I'm both athiest and an artist personally, the concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Yup. For reference see The Eiffel Tower and the works of most artists in the 20th century. Just as good artistically as those which preceded them, and no need for religion.
See, noone has truly provided a positive which religion gives that something else couldn't, and the only true counterpoint seems to be that other excuses can be used for bad things too. I would think it would be obvious that if you are trying to persuade someone to do something which is bad (and thus irrational) the more irrational excuses you have the better.
It's obviously not possible to explain that we live in an uncaring universe when you aren't fully comfortable with that notion yourself.
Thence religion! Wa-hey.
My definition here is really an extension of my idea about how to define beliefs in general. I think beliefs ought to be defined based on how they influence actions. Or, in other words, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
For example, if you claimed to believe that there was a dragon in your garage, but in no way modified your behavior—didn't stop parking the car there, for example—I would say "no you don't." If you claimed that you believed there's a dragon in your garage, but that the dragon is invisible, incorporeal, and has no trace of interaction with the physical world, I would say "that's not a dragon, then."
Similarly, if you claim to believe in a god but don't bother to follow any of the laws he or she supposedly handed down, don't acknowledge his existence, don't change your behavior as if he or she exists—I would not call you "religious." If you claimed that the god you believe in is functionally indistinguishable from the physical universe that I believe in as an atheist, I would say "that's not a god, then."
Ere, I never said that at all. Religion does not cause bad things, it simply makes it easier to persuade people to do them.
So does money. And I don't hear you whining about that.
I dunno if I'd go that far, but maybe just, "No one knows for sure"? After all, the only people who would know can't really tell us. Admittedly it's a bit weak; it's something I'll have to polish up a bit before i start getting twinkles in my eye.
Precisely.
Especially science fueled by money. See the pharmaceutical industry.
$50,000 dollars for a pack of cancer pills that caused my professor to go blind. He died within the year.
I'm sure it cost that much to produce.
Money = Useful in a way which no other thing is, and has no viable alternative due to scarcity
Religion = Inferior in every way to rational argument and debate, and a human basis for laws.
Money can't be replaced at this point, religion could have been replaced at any point.
It really is. Pantheism just redefines god to mean "the universe."
Actually, I think I've been very clear how statements don't apply to me. For example, I reject any absolute definition of religion that states that religion must be expressly theistic, or that theistic beliefs have to revolve around an absolute and omnipotent entity (or entities, if that's your deal).
Why do I feel this way? Well, by golly, I'm a religious fellow and myself personally and the doctrine of the religion I endorse is not monotheistic, or even (arguably) theistic at all! That theism in general thing is arguable, I guess, because then you get into messy issues of defining "Gods" and so on. But I mean I can say definitely that monotheism isn't part of my faith and that believing in absolute, inhuman deities isn't part of my faith either. My faith is not idiosyncratic or unique in this regard, and there are many other religions I can give you as examples, substantiating my argument that defining religion as expressly and absolutely theistic to be really quite absurd.
If you need examples, I can give them to you! It's not even saying just that "this statement doesn't apply to me!" but it doesn't apply to millions of people who are religious.
Now, with regards to actually commenting on "questioning one's faith" and what I believe that entails... well, for example, some religions (Catholicism!) have absolute dogma that cannot be changed, altered, or questioned by the laity. In some exceptional circumstances (Vatican councils, for example) that dogma might be altered by the clergy that run the institution, but only in those circumstances is the change considered canonical and orthodox with the religion as a whole.
Individual believers within that faith, of course, draw their own conclusions and might have their own beliefs that run contrary to what their religious institution preaches, but it is the standpoint of those institutions, their beliefs or questioning of the canon is illegitimate and not open to direct debate.
Contrast this viewpoint with say, for example, Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism is based on the idea of Judaism as a living faith, that the world is not defined entirely by the Torah, but also things like Rabbinical study, Talmudic interpretation, and the like. While it is still a situation of those in the position of authority in the institution who espouse the most sweeping interpretations or changes, their decisions are influenced by the beliefs of the common practitioner and moreover, those scholars of Judaism are not considered to be directly invoking the will or intent of God. They are simply trying to understand God and the world and they believe that faith must change over time to accommodate what we come to understand.
Using just Reform Judaism as an example (I'm not a religios Jew myself, although I am one by heritage) I can illustrate how some religions actively encourage questioning, change, and new interpretation. Erego, saying that religion can only be defined as being unable to be questioned or changed is false on an absolute level, unless you are saying Judaism isn't a religion.
But that would be silly!
You mock, but the true nature of the workings of the universe is invariably more awe-inspiring than any fairy story in the world.
What I'm not clear on is how your "not expressly theistic" beliefs are religious. What would your definition of religion be?
True, but it's also demonstrably harder for people to relate to.
I super agree with you 100%. Hubble Ultra Deep Field? MIND BLOWING. I'm just saying early renaissance art would not be as cool as the religious based art. David? Fresco on the Cistine Chapel? Amazing.
Oh, and allowing people to think what they want about religion is very new. Hell, in the middle ages the sermons were in a language noone spoke. The priest then just told you exactly what to do and think, and if you disagree then you can feel free to be burned at the stake.
This new more palatable religion is just like sugaring a turd. It might taste a little sweeter, but you still shouldn't be eating it.
I haven't read through the whole thread to see if this got answered already, but I think the passage referred to is in a speech he gave in 1998. The text of it is printed in The Salmon of Doubt (which collects works of his posthumously).
I've found an online transcript of it here:
http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
The bits about religion and agricultural society comes up around 3/4 of the way into the speech. He's talking about a book called "Man on Earth".
Religion, as you've defined it, is a hugely complex set of social institutions. It evolved to replace and reform a previous set of social institutions, and in some cases improved the society in question. It is not at all clear that a secular, scientific mentality could have taken on the same cultural niche.
Capitalist democracy works well for us, but we had to evolve up to it. It is doubtful that a stone age, magical-thinking tribal society would all of the sudden evolve capitalist democracy. There are a whole number of intermediary steps—including "monarchy." But your argument is like arguing that "monarchy has never been a positive in any society." Well, no—state-level institutions with a centralized justice and enforcement system actually did improve over chaotic tribal societies whose members constantly murdered each other.
I think the thing you are missing is that there is no scientific truth to society or the sanctity of other human beings. If you break down the spiritual relations of people, what do you replace it with?
A pantheist is someone who slaps the word "God" on "the Universe." They are as far away from people who believe in the deities of religious traditions as an atheist is.
I think that's completely irrelevant to what I was saying, but if you like, the same thing goes for the essential nature of human compassion being a much more compelling grounds for society than, again, any kind of fairy story you like.
Alright, now I am going to quote a Dictionary listing at you. Understand that in doing this, I am not attempting to be pedantic, nor am I quoting a Dictionary as if it is a canonical code for all things in the English language.
You ask me for a definition, and I actually think this listing (the first, in Dictionary.reference.com) adequately sums up how I define and use the term. I'm using this definition because it's common and because I agree with it, and I think it's a reasonable way to say it:
Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
I like that definition, because it uses phrases like "usually" and "often" to allow for differences.
Now, even that definition implies a theistic element, but I do not believe that theism is necessary for religion, unless your definition of theism is extremely loose and dare I say, idiosyncratic.
I think if you follow a codified philosophy that has a clerical or monastic tradition, stems primarily from the teachings and knowledge of others, and most importantly whose central tenets are based on unprovable and faith-based beliefs in things that might exist but are impossible to substantiate... I think it's fair to say you are following a religion.
If such a belief includes belief in the possibility of an afterlife (including a theory on how that operates), has a belief on the origin of say, the universe that is in addition (or in contradiction) to current scientific theories, and has a belief that one's conduct in life (and possible ritualistic practices) have a meaningful impact on oneself or others on some sort of intangible and unseen level... I think it's fair to say you are following a religion.
Those statements apply to my faith, and apply to many (but I hesitate to say all!) religions. I think if you are practicing the above, I think it's fair to say you are following a religion and that if you practice those beliefs in your daily life and your reasoning for practicing them is in part if not primarily hinged upon that religion... I'd also say it's fair to call you religious, to boot!
None of that requires, but does not exempt, theism. Of course, theism is one of those things that if it's there, you're almost indisputably following a religion.
That's how I use those terms. If you think those are unreasonable or absurd, please explain how.
I could be wrong, but didn't a lot of the kosher rules develop because following them saved a lot of lives back in the day? And spreading those rules as widely as possible within their society helped save more lives. They probably didn't know the scientific reasoning behind it, but back then it's more effective to say "These foods are unclean in the eyes of God" than "Statistically, more diseases and deaths have arisen from eating these certain foods than other ones. We don't know why, but just don't eat them. Yes, sometimes people have eaten them and not gotten sick. It's not a 1:1 thing, we're not sure exactly what the cause is..."
Morality and Religiosity are two completely different concepts.
One can be a highly moral person with empathy and have not a lick of religious inclination.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. I guess when you think about religion (IE, do what you say or the imaginary big man in the sky whose thoughts are created by someone who is at least vaguely educated) compared to simple brutal rule without morality at the whim of whomever is strongest then it is better. And I can indeed accept that perhaps we can't go right from the rule by the strongest to secular humanism.
OK, I was wrong, religion is not always a net negative effect, and does have a unique positive purpose. Nowadays however we have no need for it, and the sooner we can be rid of it the better.
Religion has bad things: sexism, homophobia, wars.
There's good: providing community, mental security (ie: a large chunk of the populace doesn't fall into a depression about nothing after death), some prophets preaching morality such as love and compassion (others death and destruction), and providing a faith based reason for behavior that saved lives (kosher example).
Good luck dissecting each of these and measuring them. The truth is you fucking can't, so for someone of science to try and claim that religion has caused more harm than good is laughable when they can't even use science to back up their claim.
I agree with whoever said that religion had its place in the same way monarchy had its place in the evolution of governments.
This is why religion threads are locked at 10 pages.
You're assuming a lot about the basic behavior of a person which can be called 'religious', which I don't think you can really encapsulate like that. And also assuming a lot about how those behaviors would differ from atheists, which also have easily encapsulated behavior. And also assuming some form of baseline, which I can't tell whether you think is the atheistic mode of behavior or not.
Basically, I think this is just the religious form of calling a black person an oreo, and I don't think it's any less bigoted in this form.
Demonstrably false, that bolded bit is.
Good lord, you're so very Western-centric and ignorant it's mind-blowing!
Let me introduce you to the idea of Upaya. Upaya, a sanskrit word loosely translated as "skillful or expedient means" is a concept in some schools of Buddhism, most notably Mahayana Buddhism (the variety of Buddhism that believes in Bodhissatva and other ideas that are expressly religious if not theistic, so don't feed me that "Buddhism isn't a religion!" chicanery).
Upaya, which is a methodology expressly designed to question religions and beliefs, is something posited by Nagarjuna, a Buddhist scholar, over two thousand years ago.
New idea, my ass, McBain.
Pretty much every time he's used the word "religion" in this thread it's actually meant "institutionalized fundamental western religion."
Being brought up to be afraid of hellfire impairs peoples' ability to make choices on religion though.
Up to a certain point, sure. I posit that it has more to do with parental reinforcement of said hellfire-fear. The first time your kid asks "will I go to hell for saying Jimmy is dumb", your answer is going to probably lock them into whatever you say for a good long while.
Like what?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
That's quite a statement. Why don't you explain what you mean and what you think I'm assuming, and then I'll try to respond to your assertion that I'm a bigot.
Though I agree with you and get pretty annoyed when people equate "calling irrational things irrational" with "bigotry."