Saying religion is explicity defined as just "A set of beliefs and practices" is, according to the vast majority of definitions, severely oversimplifying the issue. "A set of beliefs and practices" can be something as simple as "I believe when the phone rings there is someone calling me. In practice, I pick up the phone with the hope of finding out who it is"
Sorry Loren, I'm as materialist as they come, but I don't see how your proposal is anything other than, at best, semantic wankery. And I hate semantic wankery.
At worst, I see it as introducing all the worst aspects of religion into secular society. Dogma, rituals, really? You're always the first to rail at Marxism for being an atheist religion in the worst way: what convinced you all of a sudden that was a good idea?
I'm not sure what place the situation of "risking one's life for a stranger" has in this discussion (as you seem to be suggesting that genetics and environment can't account for someone risking his life for a stranger...?)
Yes, I am. Genetically speaking, we're inclined towards self-preservation and group preservation. Risking our life for a stranger on impulse goes against both - it's obviously against self-preservation, and since you don't even know if the stranger is part of the group it's against the second. Environmentally, you can be raised to help others, value life, and so on, but within limits. No one has been raised to commit a possibly suicidal act to save a stranger. If anything, this kind of behaviour is usually discouraged. So it goes against environment as well.
I can see how behaviours like generosity, helping out, selflessness, and so on can be the result of a "good" environment and of a "survival/strengthening the group" genetic instinct. But when it reaches a self-sacrificing extreme for no personal or group benefits, it seems to me that it goes against the limits dictated by those same factors, and therefore against determinism.
I'm not sure what place the situation of "risking one's life for a stranger" has in this discussion (as you seem to be suggesting that genetics and environment can't account for someone risking his life for a stranger...?)
Yes, I am. Genetically speaking, we're inclined towards self-preservation and group preservation. Risking our life for a stranger on impulse goes against both - it's obviously against self-preservation, and since you don't even know if the stranger is part of the group it's against the second. Environmentally, you can be raised to help others, value life, and so on, but within limits. No one has been raised to commit a possibly suicidal act to save a stranger. If anything, this kind of behaviour is usually discouraged. So it goes against environment as well.
I can see how behaviours like generosity, helping out, selflessness, and so on can be the result of a "good" environment and of a "survival/strengthening the group" genetic instinct. But when it reaches a self-sacrificing extreme for no personal or group benefits, it seems to me that it goes against the limits dictated by those same factors, and therefore against determinism.
Er - from where would the impulse towards extreme self-sacrifice come, if not from nature or nurture? Does it arise completely at random, or...?
Er - from where would the impulse towards extreme self-sacrifice come, if not from nature or nurture? Does it arise completely at random, or...?
I don't know where the impulses come from exactly, but my point is that if the impulse exist and we can rule out environment and genetics as its source, then there must be other factors influencing humans that are not accounted for in determinism.
The greater point was that a determinist (such as Loren) assumes that these other factors do not exist, despite having no proof for it and some unaccountable instances, thus introducing an element of faith ("belief in something without logical proof or physical evidence") into determinism.
@Azio: I'm not arguing that humans are not machines (I'm the one who started the metaphor), I'm arguing that they are not deterministic machines. Or rather that they are not entirely and exclusively deterministic.
Don't get me wrong, deterministic elements dictate a large part of what we do. Just not everything. Which is what I'm trying to demonstrate using a counter-example (the extreme self-sacrifice thing).
"A set of beliefs and practices, codified as ritual":
Many/most/all military organizations.
Many student organizations.
Sports fans. Fans of <anything> in fact.
Organizations based on ideology.
And so on. The reason we don't call them religions is that "religion" is an abstract concept and our brains deal better with abstract concepts than our language does; we have a pretty good idea what a religion is even though the dictionary definition doesn't. See also: "traffic", "person", "art", "freedom". The process of defining an abstract concept in concrete terms always generates some ambiguity, resulting in the kind of semantic loopholes where threads like this breed and hatch.
In short, I agree with MrMr's assessment that the question presented by the OP is nothing more than semantic wankery. You want to participate in rituals without having to believe in the supernatural? Start LARPing, go to a Rocky Horror Picture Show fan gathering, get involved in the rubber and leather fetish scene... All of these fit your definition of "religion".
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Regarding the bolded bit, given my own experience as an emotionally extremely satisfied individual, *I* don't think it's particularly hard. That said, my experience is uniquely my own, and I agree that it's not something that's necessarily easy to reproduce.
Well, a religious experience is largely emotional, but that doesn't mean an 'emotionally-satisfied' person can't get anything from it. Not everyone who attends a church is a gaping maw of unfulfilled need; it's just that they find it hard to get that particular sort of fulfillment elsewhere. What is it, exactly? It's hard to describe, and obviously I've no idea if it's exactly what anyone else feels, but it's a sort of temporary submersion in pure communality - a moment when you feel more alive, more tuned-in.
I hasten to add that it needn't be tied to any particular belief in the supernatural, and for the record I'm not religious nor do I attend a church - it's an experience I've had at rock concerts, at movie premieres, at political rallies; it's a special rush that comes with being high on an emotion, and realizing that you're surrounded by dozens or hundreds or thousands of other people feeling the exact same thing. It's completely illogical and a bit atavistic, but it strikes me as foolish to deny the very real need people have for this type of thing, and it would be wonderful if it could be reliably turned to the good.
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
I think it's a damn good idea.
Of course it suffers from the defects that every human community suffers from - but really, community is inseparable from human life. We are not a hermetic species. So why not have one that shares his values?
Speaker on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
That's not silly. What's silly is calling it a religion. A community isn't a religion, and wishing that it was seems odd: why should it have to be? Why should it want to be?
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
That's not silly. What's silly is calling it a religion. A community isn't a religion, and wishing that it was seems odd: why should it have to be? Why should it want to be?
If you'll forgive me, you seem to be getting hung up on the semantics.
@Azio: I'm not arguing that humans are not machines (I'm the one who started the metaphor), I'm arguing that they are not deterministic machines. Or rather that they are not entirely and exclusively deterministic.
Is there any other phenomenon in nature that you would consider to be non-deterministic?
on topic: i think mr^2 and i agree. religion or not, who cares? this is just semantics now.
on related topic: i dont understand the relevance of determinism.
loren seems to suggest that if we embrace determinism, instead of responding to events or crimes with anger or hatred, we should respond instead with sadness at the human condition. but what if my genes and environment only allow me to respond with hate and revenge?
i guess the point is, if we always and invariably act in the only way that we can act, then what the hell would be the point of a "determinist community"? it's like "let's get together and make the world into what it will invariably be anyway." what does that mean?
if you really believe in determinism, then no matter what you do and no matter how you act (which will invariably be the only way you can act), the world will do and become what it's is "determined" to do and become. seems both self defeating and self fulfilling.
do determinists really believe that the entire world and everything in it and all our attitudes toward everything ever should just be "c'est la vie"?
Couldn't something like the Hippie movement, or some sort of large social movement be what the OP is talking about?
Freemasons. Less patchouli stench, more getting shit done. Like fighting those bastards in the Illuminati.
Qingu, a community is a common component of religions, so yes, I would like that, but if you examine what I have been saying, you will find that the word "just" is an inappropriate marginalization of what I want.
KrunkMcGrunk, a significant difference between social movements and a church is that a church tends to be a lot more structured and a lot better at articulating a coherent message (though I would argue that frequently the premises of that message are incoherent, and that is in part what I would like to change).
moniker, again, I don't want to be overly concerned with a strict membership and I would rather not be facilitating an air of exclusivity or secrecy.
Saying religion is explicity defined as just "A set of beliefs and practices" is, according to the vast majority of definitions, severely oversimplifying the issue. "A set of beliefs and practices" can be something as simple as "I believe when the phone rings there is someone calling me. In practice, I pick up the phone with the hope of finding out who it is"
Sorry Loren, I'm as materialist as they come, but I don't see how your proposal is anything other than, at best, semantic wankery. And I hate semantic wankery.
At worst, I see it as introducing all the worst aspects of religion into secular society. Dogma, rituals, really? You're always the first to rail at Marxism for being an atheist religion in the worst way: what convinced you all of a sudden that was a good idea?
Obviously semantics are involved, but given that "wankery" implies (to me at least) an antagonistic and/or purposeless exercise, I would hope you would read what I'm saying again, and I also hope what I say in the future can clarify my purposes.
I would suggest the worst aspects of "religion" (as it were) are 1) The adherence, promotion, and adoration of non-rational beliefs (that is, the elevation of faith, the love of truthiness), and 2) Dogmatism. I'm explicitly suggesting the eschewing of the former, and I haven't addressed the second, so I'm not sure why you're attributing the position of advocacy to me (particularly given, as you note, my record). Regarding rituals, I'm not convinced they're the worst of religion. I don't even think the concept is harmful in and of itself. Rather, I think the value of rituals is entirely dependent on content of the actions and the reasons given for practicing them.
...
Going back to "semantic wankery", I have a few reasons for pursuing the word "religion":
First, to harken back to the beginning of the OP, I alluded to Speaker's thread which I thought had a compelling idea. In particular, this bit from his OP struck me:
So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.—all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument—they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. “Science and reason are important,†says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. “But science and reason won’t visit you in the hospital.â€
Many atheist sects are experimenting with building new, human-centered quasi-religious organizations, much like Ethical Culture. They aim to remove God from the church, while leaving the church, at least large parts of it, standing. But this impulse is fueling a growing schism among atheists. Many of them see churches as part of the problem. They want to throw out the baby and the bathwater—or at least they don’t see the need for the bathwater once the baby is gone.
Again, I abhor the use of "atheism" in this context, as I feel it horribly misses the mark for where the problems are and where the solutions should go. For more on my thoughts on that matter, see that thread, or see a brief skirmish on page on of this thread, but again, everyone, please don't bring it in here.
...
I'll finish this this a little later, I need to eat, sorry for the cliffhanger.
Going back to "semantic wankery", I have a few reasons for pursuing the word "religion":
First, to harken back to the beginning of the OP, I alluded to Speaker's thread which I thought had a compelling idea. In particular, this bit from his OP struck me:
So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.—all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument—they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. “Science and reason are important,†says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. “But science and reason won’t visit you in the hospital.â€
Many atheist sects are experimenting with building new, human-centered quasi-religious organizations, much like Ethical Culture. They aim to remove God from the church, while leaving the church, at least large parts of it, standing. But this impulse is fueling a growing schism among atheists. Many of them see churches as part of the problem. They want to throw out the baby and the bathwater—or at least they don’t see the need for the bathwater once the baby is gone.
One thing I would like to see happen--hope to see happen--is the eventual supplanting of harmful memes (see (1) and (2) in my previous post) with helpful ones. Competing with, and eventually replacing institutions that promote such memes is, I think, a useful goal, and at least partially sharing their place in society and culture seems like an expedient way to do that. Broadly attacking the institutions, good and bad alike (and to be sure, religions do, in fact, do good) makes the attacker seem incoherent.
Taking up a strategy of conflict, of doomsaying and scolding without offering the possibility of easy transitions or hopeful solutions also creates a bunker mentality. this is a fairly common critique that I have yet to see any compelling answer to.
Orthodox or not, for many traditional atheists, the word church is taboo, even if God is definitely not in residence. When Tim Gorski, a Texas physician, approached Paul Kurtz, an influential atheist who now chairs the Center for Inquiry, an atheist think tank, about his plans to start the North Texas Church of Freethought in the nineties, Kurtz discouraged him, on the grounds that atheists don’t need church.And about ten years ago, American Atheists turned down Gorski’s bid to sign on to an atheist advertisement published in USA Today. “Individuals and organizations could put their names on the ad. Churches could not,†Ellen Johnson wrote me in an e-mail, while insisting that American Atheism’s “eleventh commandment†is to never criticize or rebuke kindred organizations. “Since they were technically a church, we said no.â€
Gorski believes that a church is not necessarily God’s house. It belongs, first, to the people. Many atheists, he says, misunderstand why people go to church in the first place. “It isn’t the specific doctrines,†he says. “[Church] binds people together and relates them to one another and gives them each a personal, private, and, of course, quite subjective understanding of themselves and their world.â€
As such, I think the second issue is that of articulation. When an issue is cast in terms like "religion is bad!", an easy fall back is to point out soup kitchens and community building. I think that the blunt rejection of a broad word like religion simply feeds into this problem. similarly, when a person says that he "isn't religious", there's a sense that, sure, he proudly doesn't believe in winged horses and magic, but he also doesn't participate in or endorse the reasonable, helpful aspects of religion either, and qualifiers have to be added. Situations like those in the article above play into this heavily. I see no reason that words like "church" and "religion" should be shied away from like that. I see it as an inexact, fearful position to take.
It may seem counterintuitive, given my "semantic wankery", but one of my hopes is to enhance the discourse, away from "religion", and towards more specific issues (dogmatism and truthiness) that religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly on. It may be ironic that I would hope to shift away from religion by actually joining one (or creating a new one), but given how badly warped I feel the current frame around "religion" is, drastic and seemingly counterintuitive measures seem less out of place to me.
Regarding the bolded bit, given my own experience as an emotionally extremely satisfied individual, *I* don't think it's particularly hard. That said, my experience is uniquely my own, and I agree that it's not something that's necessarily easy to reproduce.
Well, a religious experience is largely emotional, but that doesn't mean an 'emotionally-satisfied' person can't get anything from it. Not everyone who attends a church is a gaping maw of unfulfilled need; it's just that they find it hard to get that particular sort of fulfillment elsewhere. What is it, exactly? It's hard to describe, and obviously I've no idea if it's exactly what anyone else feels, but it's a sort of temporary submersion in pure communality - a moment when you feel more alive, more tuned-in.
I hasten to add that it needn't be tied to any particular belief in the supernatural, and for the record I'm not religious nor do I attend a church - it's an experience I've had at rock concerts, at movie premieres, at political rallies; it's a special rush that comes with being high on an emotion, and realizing that you're surrounded by dozens or hundreds or thousands of other people feeling the exact same thing. It's completely illogical and a bit atavistic, but it strikes me as foolish to deny the very real need people have for this type of thing, and it would be wonderful if it could be reliably turned to the good.
I agree, and I may have missed the point of the person I was responding to earlier. My current state of mind is extremely emotionally satisfied, but it's certainly not the same as the utter euphoria I experienced when I saw Sigur Ros in concert which I have, in fact, likened to what I think a typical (and I don't mean to diminish them by using that term) religious experience is.
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
I think it's a damn good idea.
Of course it suffers from the defects that every human community suffers from - but really, community is inseparable from human life. We are not a hermetic species. So why not have one that shares his values?
That is indeed a very large part of what I hope for.
To riff on community for a second though, a fairly common criticism of religion that I have seen is to disparage "organized religion" while holding that religion without organization is essentially harmless. I may be misinterpreting this, and sentiments such as these have been voiced by a large number of people who may mean vastly different things, but this attitude seems to completely ignore the value of community, a kind of Rousseauian noble savage argument. Newsflash: life before community was nasty, brutish, and short.
on related topic: i dont understand the relevance of determinism.
loren seems to suggest that if we embrace determinism, instead of responding to events or crimes with anger or hatred, we should respond instead with sadness at the human condition. but what if my genes and environment only allow me to respond with hate and revenge?
i guess the point is, if we always and invariably act in the only way that we can act, then what the hell would be the point of a "determinist community"? it's like "let's get together and make the world into what it will invariably be anyway." what does that mean?
if you really believe in determinism, then no matter what you do and no matter how you act (which will invariably be the only way you can act), the world will do and become what it's is "determined" to do and become. seems both self defeating and self fulfilling.
Well, consider for a moment that the individuals around you are also a part of your environment. Yes, for many people, their environment only allows them to react to certain events with hate and revenge. I would advocate an acknowledgment of these conditions and people, and work to change them accordingly.
My point for bringing up determinism is that it's a fairly solid bedrock for a religion with a utilitarian bent, given my earlier argument.
Yes, "no matter what you do and no matter how you act which will invariably be the only way you can act, the world will do and become what it's is determined to do and become", but what that will be depends entirely on how we act today. We can, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should, work to make our environment, our fellow man, more conducive to a future of harmony and happiness.
do determinists really believe that the entire world and everything in it and all our attitudes toward everything ever should just be "c'est la vie"?
Speaking for myself, absolutely not.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
We can, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should, work to make our environment, our fellow man, more conducive to a future of harmony and happiness.
I think Keth's point is that you're being incoherent, because once you embrace hard determinism it doesn't make sense to say that we can and should make the environment more conducive to happiness. After all, you said that the mass murderer couldn't have done anything other than he did--his actions were determined. So why do you use the language of choice when making your entreaties to us, as if we could all choose to be nicer people? If we can choose to be nicer, why couldn't the killer choose that too?
Anyhow, determinism is pretty much it's own debate. I don't think it's clear that it does the work for you that you think it does, though.
As such, I think the second issue is that of articulation. When an issue is cast in terms like "religion is bad!", an easy fall back is to point out soup kitchens and community building. I think that the blunt rejection of a broad word like religion simply feeds into this problem. similarly, when a person says that he "isn't religious", there's a sense that, sure, he proudly doesn't believe in winged horses and magic, but he also doesn't participate in or endorse the reasonable, helpful aspects of religion either, and qualifiers have to be added. Situations like those in the article above play into this heavily. I see no reason that words like "church" and "religion" should be shied away from like that. I see it as an inexact, fearful position to take.
I see your position as inexact and fearful: you're trying to buy social cache by using a word where it doesn't apply, instead of being honest. No one should need to call themselves religious to be respected, and you're kowtowing to the idea that they should, which is exactly the wrong direction to go. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on charity: if people abstain from charity because god hasn't commanded it of them, then they are failing morally. Similarly, if people judge atheists as amoral because they assume that they don't do any charity work, then they are bigots for ignoring the charity work of many secular organizations and for ignoring the failure to do charity of many Christians. Neither of these problems needs to be cured by an atheist religion.
If anything, calling atheism a religion makes its' opponents case against it seem that much better: after all, isn't that the old creationist line? That atheism is just another religion?
As such, I think the second issue is that of articulation. When an issue is cast in terms like "religion is bad!", an easy fall back is to point out soup kitchens and community building. I think that the blunt rejection of a broad word like religion simply feeds into this problem. similarly, when a person says that he "isn't religious", there's a sense that, sure, he proudly doesn't believe in winged horses and magic, but he also doesn't participate in or endorse the reasonable, helpful aspects of religion either, and qualifiers have to be added. Situations like those in the article above play into this heavily. I see no reason that words like "church" and "religion" should be shied away from like that. I see it as an inexact, fearful position to take.
I see your position as inexact and fearful: you're trying to buy social cache by using a word where it doesn't apply, instead of being honest. No one should need to call themselves religious to be respected, and you're kowtowing to the idea that they should, which is exactly the wrong direction to go. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on charity: if people abstain from charity because god hasn't commanded it of them, then they are failing morally. Similarly, if people judge atheists as amoral because they assume that they don't do any charity work, then they are bigots for ignoring the charity work of many secular organizations and for ignoring the failure to do charity of many Christians.
My argument is that the word does apply, particularly given the term's extremely bloated and diffuse meaning.
My argument is also that such bloated and diverse words aren't terms that should be used in critical discourse or shied away from as above, as the content is far too diverse for any statement about "religion" to be accurate.
I agree that no one should need to call themselves religious to be respected, but I'm not sure how you seem me as kowtowing to that. What I said about people's perceptions of the phrase "I'm not religious", it was a descriptive statement. The rest of that paragraph was about how certain attitudes regarding words and concepts that are not inherently bad can lead people to assume the worst (or at least, impose a less positive light on someone).
Neither of these problems needs to be cured by an atheist religion.
If anything, calling atheism a religion makes its' opponents case against it seem that much better: after all, isn't that the old creationist line? That atheism is just another religion?
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
I think it's a damn good idea.
Of course it suffers from the defects that every human community suffers from - but really, community is inseparable from human life. We are not a hermetic species. So why not have one that shares his values?
Right... so the community of like-minded ethics forms. Then what? They meet regularly and talk about how right they are and pat each other on the back? Pass judgment on people and events as to how they meet the ethic? Launch missions to convince others of their righteousness of their ethics and recruit them into the community? Get involved in politics and try to sway public policy towards what they think will coincide with their ethics? Do they accomodate reason, data, science, and challenging discourse when it presents significant changes to the ethic? Maybe they even make up fanciful fables in an attempt to teach their children from an early age about their ethics?
Or maybe none of those things; but then what?
I don't place much importance on the belief in a deity, whether you have that belief or not. Stupid is as stupid does. I think many of those on both side of the theism fence place way too much importance on the specifics of a fanciful belief and not on behavior regardless of belief. The answers to my questions in the first paragraph will give me a lot more to go on as to what your community acutally is, rather than will their belief in a deity, or their lack of a belief in a deity.
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
That's not silly. What's silly is calling it a religion. A community isn't a religion, and wishing that it was seems odd: why should it have to be? Why should it want to be?
If you'll forgive me, you seem to be getting hung up on the semantics.
The problem is that in this case, the particular semantics are very important.
"Religion" is not "Tomayto-Tomahto blah blah community ethics etc." it's (according to the vast majority of definitions) adherence to something you can't prove. It is very different from "A bunch of people who all agree on how to lead their lives" sitting around in a boardroom or some shit, and when people in this thread just do some handwaving and say "Oh it's all the same anyways" it is damaging to the discussion.
We can, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should, work to make our environment, our fellow man, more conducive to a future of harmony and happiness.
I think Keth's point is that you're being incoherent, because once you embrace hard determinism it doesn't make sense to say that we can and should make the environment more conducive to happiness. After all, you said that the mass murderer couldn't have done anything other than he did--his actions were determined. So why do you use the language of choice when making your entreaties to us, as if we could all choose to be nicer people? If we can choose to be nicer, why couldn't the killer choose that too?
Anyhow, determinism is pretty much it's own debate. I don't think it's clear that it does the work for you that you think it does, though.
this is exactly my point.
i just have no idea what the word "should" means in a determinist paradigm.
so is this thread like officially dead? if so, we can ditch the semantics and just talk about determinism instead.
I think Loren is looking for a community of like minded ethics.
I think it's a damn good idea.
Of course it suffers from the defects that every human community suffers from - but really, community is inseparable from human life. We are not a hermetic species. So why not have one that shares his values?
Right... so the community of like-minded ethics forms. Then what? They meet regularly and talk about how right they are and pat each other on the back? Pass judgment on people and events as to how they meet the ethic? Launch missions to convince others of their righteousness of their ethics and recruit them into the community? Get involved in politics and try to sway public policy towards what they think will coincide with their ethics? Do they accommodate reason, data, science, and challenging discourse when it presents significant changes to the ethic? Maybe they even make up fanciful fables in an attempt to teach their children from an early age about their ethics?
Or maybe none of those things; but then what?
I don't think people tend to get together and backslap each other about rightness. People in groups with common interests tend to assume they're correct and go from there. I think the nose-peering that you may be thinking of is a phenomenon that typically comes about when people challenge an idea from a (seemingly) obvious position of wrongness. See: people's reactions to West Virginia racists.
Given what I have said already in this thread, there's a few connotations about passing judgment that would be obviously inappropriate for what I had in mind, but critical analysis of actions and phenomena would be present. Some amount of outreach and recruitment (evangelism?) would be promoted as well, as the idea is to form an expanding community with a better way of life. Political involvement and aggressive accommodation of science would, as I have indicated earlier, be a must.
Regarding children, fanciful fables would be nice, I guess. Some nice parables to teach about life, the universe, and everything would be good, but also, have you seen the quality of some of the children's lit out there these days? I wish I had some of the awesome shit that kids today have. I'd be primarily concerned with teaching critical thinking at an early age, and not indoctrinating too much (except maybe the necessary simple interpersonal ethics to keep them from being sadistic little vandals).
I'd probably try to work LEGO stuff into Sunday school. :P
Not if I have anything to say about it. I'm busy defending my title of patriotic, freedom-loving Setters champ against evil Chinese communists at the moment though, so input from me is going to be sparse today.
I would be happy for a second thread about determinism though.
I don't think people tend to get together and backslap each other about rightness. People in groups with common interests tend to assume they're correct and go from there. I think the nose-peering that you may be thinking of is a phenomenon that typically comes about when people challenge an idea from a (seemingly) obvious position of wrongness. See: people's reactions to West Virginia racists.
Given what I have said already in this thread, there's a few connotations about passing judgment that would be obviously inappropriate for what I had in mind, but critical analysis of actions and phenomena would be present. Some amount of outreach and recruitment (evangelism?) would be promoted as well, as the idea is to form an expanding community with a better way of life. Political involvement and aggressive accommodation of science would, as I have indicated earlier, be a must.
Regarding children, fanciful fables would be nice, I guess. Some nice parables to teach about life, the universe, and everything would be good, but also, have you seen the quality of some of the children's lit out there these days? I wish I had some of the awesome shit that kids today have. I'd be primarily concerned with teaching critical thinking at an early age, and not indoctrinating too much (except maybe the necessary simple interpersonal ethics to keep them from being sadistic little vandals).
I'd probably try to work LEGO stuff into Sunday school. :P
Cool, so, over time, you've basically created a new theistic religion. Give it a name.
i just have no idea what the word "should" means in a determinist paradigm.
Exactly the same as the regular definition. It's talking about a duty (or an analogous burden) that is imposed on people. In a determinist paradigm, this can be considered an environmental factor that compels people to act a certain way.
I can't help but thinking that a religion without the divine aspects would be like a calculator in base-13. Technically possible, but without much use for most people.
This is beautiful! Thank you for posting it.
The Unitarian Church might be worth investigating for what the OP is writing about. I attend church regularly - sometimes three times a week - but my theological beliefs are vague enough to approach agnosticism. One can be religious and still have religious doubts. Mother Teresa had them.
I have read the Bible from cover to cover in seven English translations. I have read the Koran in three translations. I study and respect each of the world's great religions.
I don't think people tend to get together and backslap each other about rightness.
Oh, they most certainly do. It's not as overt as "We're so righteous," but I do often notice a tone of extreme smugness in groups of people agreeing vigorously with each other. It's understandable but pretty obnoxious. Most obvious in political discussions.
Posts
Sorry Loren, I'm as materialist as they come, but I don't see how your proposal is anything other than, at best, semantic wankery. And I hate semantic wankery.
At worst, I see it as introducing all the worst aspects of religion into secular society. Dogma, rituals, really? You're always the first to rail at Marxism for being an atheist religion in the worst way: what convinced you all of a sudden that was a good idea?
I can see how behaviours like generosity, helping out, selflessness, and so on can be the result of a "good" environment and of a "survival/strengthening the group" genetic instinct. But when it reaches a self-sacrificing extreme for no personal or group benefits, it seems to me that it goes against the limits dictated by those same factors, and therefore against determinism.
Er - from where would the impulse towards extreme self-sacrifice come, if not from nature or nurture? Does it arise completely at random, or...?
The greater point was that a determinist (such as Loren) assumes that these other factors do not exist, despite having no proof for it and some unaccountable instances, thus introducing an element of faith ("belief in something without logical proof or physical evidence") into determinism.
@Azio: I'm not arguing that humans are not machines (I'm the one who started the metaphor), I'm arguing that they are not deterministic machines. Or rather that they are not entirely and exclusively deterministic.
Don't get me wrong, deterministic elements dictate a large part of what we do. Just not everything. Which is what I'm trying to demonstrate using a counter-example (the extreme self-sacrifice thing).
Many/most/all military organizations.
Many student organizations.
Sports fans. Fans of <anything> in fact.
Organizations based on ideology.
And so on. The reason we don't call them religions is that "religion" is an abstract concept and our brains deal better with abstract concepts than our language does; we have a pretty good idea what a religion is even though the dictionary definition doesn't. See also: "traffic", "person", "art", "freedom". The process of defining an abstract concept in concrete terms always generates some ambiguity, resulting in the kind of semantic loopholes where threads like this breed and hatch.
In short, I agree with MrMr's assessment that the question presented by the OP is nothing more than semantic wankery. You want to participate in rituals without having to believe in the supernatural? Start LARPing, go to a Rocky Horror Picture Show fan gathering, get involved in the rubber and leather fetish scene... All of these fit your definition of "religion".
Well, a religious experience is largely emotional, but that doesn't mean an 'emotionally-satisfied' person can't get anything from it. Not everyone who attends a church is a gaping maw of unfulfilled need; it's just that they find it hard to get that particular sort of fulfillment elsewhere. What is it, exactly? It's hard to describe, and obviously I've no idea if it's exactly what anyone else feels, but it's a sort of temporary submersion in pure communality - a moment when you feel more alive, more tuned-in.
I hasten to add that it needn't be tied to any particular belief in the supernatural, and for the record I'm not religious nor do I attend a church - it's an experience I've had at rock concerts, at movie premieres, at political rallies; it's a special rush that comes with being high on an emotion, and realizing that you're surrounded by dozens or hundreds or thousands of other people feeling the exact same thing. It's completely illogical and a bit atavistic, but it strikes me as foolish to deny the very real need people have for this type of thing, and it would be wonderful if it could be reliably turned to the good.
I think it's a damn good idea.
Of course it suffers from the defects that every human community suffers from - but really, community is inseparable from human life. We are not a hermetic species. So why not have one that shares his values?
That's not silly. What's silly is calling it a religion. A community isn't a religion, and wishing that it was seems odd: why should it have to be? Why should it want to be?
If you'll forgive me, you seem to be getting hung up on the semantics.
on related topic: i dont understand the relevance of determinism.
loren seems to suggest that if we embrace determinism, instead of responding to events or crimes with anger or hatred, we should respond instead with sadness at the human condition. but what if my genes and environment only allow me to respond with hate and revenge?
i guess the point is, if we always and invariably act in the only way that we can act, then what the hell would be the point of a "determinist community"? it's like "let's get together and make the world into what it will invariably be anyway." what does that mean?
if you really believe in determinism, then no matter what you do and no matter how you act (which will invariably be the only way you can act), the world will do and become what it's is "determined" to do and become. seems both self defeating and self fulfilling.
do determinists really believe that the entire world and everything in it and all our attitudes toward everything ever should just be "c'est la vie"?
Qingu, a community is a common component of religions, so yes, I would like that, but if you examine what I have been saying, you will find that the word "just" is an inappropriate marginalization of what I want.
KrunkMcGrunk, a significant difference between social movements and a church is that a church tends to be a lot more structured and a lot better at articulating a coherent message (though I would argue that frequently the premises of that message are incoherent, and that is in part what I would like to change).
moniker, again, I don't want to be overly concerned with a strict membership and I would rather not be facilitating an air of exclusivity or secrecy.
Obviously semantics are involved, but given that "wankery" implies (to me at least) an antagonistic and/or purposeless exercise, I would hope you would read what I'm saying again, and I also hope what I say in the future can clarify my purposes.
I would suggest the worst aspects of "religion" (as it were) are 1) The adherence, promotion, and adoration of non-rational beliefs (that is, the elevation of faith, the love of truthiness), and 2) Dogmatism. I'm explicitly suggesting the eschewing of the former, and I haven't addressed the second, so I'm not sure why you're attributing the position of advocacy to me (particularly given, as you note, my record). Regarding rituals, I'm not convinced they're the worst of religion. I don't even think the concept is harmful in and of itself. Rather, I think the value of rituals is entirely dependent on content of the actions and the reasons given for practicing them.
...
Going back to "semantic wankery", I have a few reasons for pursuing the word "religion":
First, to harken back to the beginning of the OP, I alluded to Speaker's thread which I thought had a compelling idea. In particular, this bit from his OP struck me:
Many atheist sects are experimenting with building new, human-centered quasi-religious organizations, much like Ethical Culture. They aim to remove God from the church, while leaving the church, at least large parts of it, standing. But this impulse is fueling a growing schism among atheists. Many of them see churches as part of the problem. They want to throw out the baby and the bathwater—or at least they don’t see the need for the bathwater once the baby is gone.
...
I'll finish this this a little later, I need to eat, sorry for the cliffhanger.
Going back to "semantic wankery", I have a few reasons for pursuing the word "religion":
First, to harken back to the beginning of the OP, I alluded to Speaker's thread which I thought had a compelling idea. In particular, this bit from his OP struck me:
Many atheist sects are experimenting with building new, human-centered quasi-religious organizations, much like Ethical Culture. They aim to remove God from the church, while leaving the church, at least large parts of it, standing. But this impulse is fueling a growing schism among atheists. Many of them see churches as part of the problem. They want to throw out the baby and the bathwater—or at least they don’t see the need for the bathwater once the baby is gone.
Taking up a strategy of conflict, of doomsaying and scolding without offering the possibility of easy transitions or hopeful solutions also creates a bunker mentality. this is a fairly common critique that I have yet to see any compelling answer to.
Gorski believes that a church is not necessarily God’s house. It belongs, first, to the people. Many atheists, he says, misunderstand why people go to church in the first place. “It isn’t the specific doctrines,†he says. “[Church] binds people together and relates them to one another and gives them each a personal, private, and, of course, quite subjective understanding of themselves and their world.â€
It may seem counterintuitive, given my "semantic wankery", but one of my hopes is to enhance the discourse, away from "religion", and towards more specific issues (dogmatism and truthiness) that religion certainly doesn't have a monopoly on. It may be ironic that I would hope to shift away from religion by actually joining one (or creating a new one), but given how badly warped I feel the current frame around "religion" is, drastic and seemingly counterintuitive measures seem less out of place to me.
I agree, and I may have missed the point of the person I was responding to earlier. My current state of mind is extremely emotionally satisfied, but it's certainly not the same as the utter euphoria I experienced when I saw Sigur Ros in concert which I have, in fact, likened to what I think a typical (and I don't mean to diminish them by using that term) religious experience is.
That is indeed a very large part of what I hope for.
To riff on community for a second though, a fairly common criticism of religion that I have seen is to disparage "organized religion" while holding that religion without organization is essentially harmless. I may be misinterpreting this, and sentiments such as these have been voiced by a large number of people who may mean vastly different things, but this attitude seems to completely ignore the value of community, a kind of Rousseauian noble savage argument. Newsflash: life before community was nasty, brutish, and short.
Well, consider for a moment that the individuals around you are also a part of your environment. Yes, for many people, their environment only allows them to react to certain events with hate and revenge. I would advocate an acknowledgment of these conditions and people, and work to change them accordingly.
My point for bringing up determinism is that it's a fairly solid bedrock for a religion with a utilitarian bent, given my earlier argument.
Yes, "no matter what you do and no matter how you act which will invariably be the only way you can act, the world will do and become what it's is determined to do and become", but what that will be depends entirely on how we act today. We can, and I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should, work to make our environment, our fellow man, more conducive to a future of harmony and happiness.
Speaking for myself, absolutely not.
I think Keth's point is that you're being incoherent, because once you embrace hard determinism it doesn't make sense to say that we can and should make the environment more conducive to happiness. After all, you said that the mass murderer couldn't have done anything other than he did--his actions were determined. So why do you use the language of choice when making your entreaties to us, as if we could all choose to be nicer people? If we can choose to be nicer, why couldn't the killer choose that too?
Anyhow, determinism is pretty much it's own debate. I don't think it's clear that it does the work for you that you think it does, though.
I see your position as inexact and fearful: you're trying to buy social cache by using a word where it doesn't apply, instead of being honest. No one should need to call themselves religious to be respected, and you're kowtowing to the idea that they should, which is exactly the wrong direction to go. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on charity: if people abstain from charity because god hasn't commanded it of them, then they are failing morally. Similarly, if people judge atheists as amoral because they assume that they don't do any charity work, then they are bigots for ignoring the charity work of many secular organizations and for ignoring the failure to do charity of many Christians. Neither of these problems needs to be cured by an atheist religion.
If anything, calling atheism a religion makes its' opponents case against it seem that much better: after all, isn't that the old creationist line? That atheism is just another religion?
My argument is that the word does apply, particularly given the term's extremely bloated and diffuse meaning.
My argument is also that such bloated and diverse words aren't terms that should be used in critical discourse or shied away from as above, as the content is far too diverse for any statement about "religion" to be accurate.
I agree that no one should need to call themselves religious to be respected, but I'm not sure how you seem me as kowtowing to that. What I said about people's perceptions of the phrase "I'm not religious", it was a descriptive statement. The rest of that paragraph was about how certain attitudes regarding words and concepts that are not inherently bad can lead people to assume the worst (or at least, impose a less positive light on someone).
This is off topic.
Or maybe none of those things; but then what?
I don't place much importance on the belief in a deity, whether you have that belief or not. Stupid is as stupid does. I think many of those on both side of the theism fence place way too much importance on the specifics of a fanciful belief and not on behavior regardless of belief. The answers to my questions in the first paragraph will give me a lot more to go on as to what your community acutally is, rather than will their belief in a deity, or their lack of a belief in a deity.
The problem is that in this case, the particular semantics are very important.
"Religion" is not "Tomayto-Tomahto blah blah community ethics etc." it's (according to the vast majority of definitions) adherence to something you can't prove. It is very different from "A bunch of people who all agree on how to lead their lives" sitting around in a boardroom or some shit, and when people in this thread just do some handwaving and say "Oh it's all the same anyways" it is damaging to the discussion.
this is exactly my point.
i just have no idea what the word "should" means in a determinist paradigm.
so is this thread like officially dead? if so, we can ditch the semantics and just talk about determinism instead.
I don't think people tend to get together and backslap each other about rightness. People in groups with common interests tend to assume they're correct and go from there. I think the nose-peering that you may be thinking of is a phenomenon that typically comes about when people challenge an idea from a (seemingly) obvious position of wrongness. See: people's reactions to West Virginia racists.
Given what I have said already in this thread, there's a few connotations about passing judgment that would be obviously inappropriate for what I had in mind, but critical analysis of actions and phenomena would be present. Some amount of outreach and recruitment (evangelism?) would be promoted as well, as the idea is to form an expanding community with a better way of life. Political involvement and aggressive accommodation of science would, as I have indicated earlier, be a must.
Regarding children, fanciful fables would be nice, I guess. Some nice parables to teach about life, the universe, and everything would be good, but also, have you seen the quality of some of the children's lit out there these days? I wish I had some of the awesome shit that kids today have. I'd be primarily concerned with teaching critical thinking at an early age, and not indoctrinating too much (except maybe the necessary simple interpersonal ethics to keep them from being sadistic little vandals).
I'd probably try to work LEGO stuff into Sunday school. :P
Not if I have anything to say about it. I'm busy defending my title of patriotic, freedom-loving Setters champ against evil Chinese communists at the moment though, so input from me is going to be sparse today.
I would be happy for a second thread about determinism though.
Cool, so, over time, you've basically created a new theistic religion. Give it a name.
You'll have to flesh that argument out a little, as it doesn't seem to be related to anything I've said so far.
Exactly the same as the regular definition. It's talking about a duty (or an analogous burden) that is imposed on people. In a determinist paradigm, this can be considered an environmental factor that compels people to act a certain way.
This is beautiful! Thank you for posting it.
The Unitarian Church might be worth investigating for what the OP is writing about. I attend church regularly - sometimes three times a week - but my theological beliefs are vague enough to approach agnosticism. One can be religious and still have religious doubts. Mother Teresa had them.
I have read the Bible from cover to cover in seven English translations. I have read the Koran in three translations. I study and respect each of the world's great religions.