Results 1 to 30 of 90

Thread: The misunderstanding of religion

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    TexMec Senior Member Louis VI the Fat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Saint Antoine
    Posts
    9,935

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink View Post
    And you were doing so well until here...
    The quote is apocryphical.

    I have here an elder scroll that ends with:
    Swap 'em at the age of five and their 'divine revelations' would echo precisely what has been taught to them. I call this child abuse. Teaching children, with all the best intentions of the parents of course, a moral system based on an ancient books and its derived theology, can lead to trouble. For the system to function, the book will have to be held sacred, above criticism. This leads to uncritical thinking, or even worse, stiltifying dogma. Either one accepts the truth, or one doesn't. Both are problematic.

    (If George Lucas can tinker with his creative output, so can I)


    Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.

    The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

    Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.

    If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
    He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.
    Anything unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
    Texan by birth, woodpecker by the grace of God
    I would be the voice of your conscience if you had one - Brenus
    Bt why woulf we uy lsn'y Staraft - Fragony
    Not everything
    blue and underlined is a link


  2. #2

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.

    If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
    He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.
    Louis, I feel the author would agree with you completely. His statement about religious people being happier etc was not meant to say we should consider becoming religious but rather we should consider what leads to that happiness.

    My conclusion is not that secular liberal societies should be made more religious and conservative in a utilitarian bid to increase happiness, charity, longevity, and social capital. Too many valuable rights would be at risk, too many people would be excluded, and societies are so complex that it's impossible to do such social engineering and get only what you bargained for. My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.

  3. #3
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat View Post
    Most of religious morality and tradition is not derived from the Bible, but from society at large. Contemporary morality creates the Bible, much more than the other way round. A 21st century American doesn't have all that much morality in common with a fourth century Syrian. He does have a lot in common however with a 21st century American atheist.
    This is somewhat fallacious, because contemporary morality is based on the course our society has taken and until relatively recently Christianity was very much the beating heart of our culture and accepted norm. This also has nothing to do with Syrians, but with Romans, Hellenists, and Hellenised Jews.

    They shared quite a bit with a 21st Century American.

    The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.
    It is not the belief system, but the manner of belief. I present Richard Darkins as exibit A.

    Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality? Morality not grounded on divine truths, but on uncritical acceptation of contemporary morality? One could, as Husar does, and many others do to, leave the faith while still partaking in the community. But this is obviously not a long-term option at large. No emperor can parade around naked indefinately.
    People who are religious hold their beliefs to be true, so they aren't morally bankrupt.

    If one desperately longs for the benefits of religion as discussed in this thread - communal values, happier people, shared belief system - then the same could be achieved with teaching the Force in all seriousness. Which ought to make the believer in God uncomfortable. Hence, the arguments of the author are not in the least bit supportive of Christianity. (God is dead, long live religion?)
    He may be right that religious monolithism creates a happier society, but it will be build on an unsolid foundation.
    This I agree with, the author advocates nothing.

    However, neither do you. Like every arguement against belief in God your has zero traction. Your whole arguement assumes that none of us who believe are actually write, if one of us is you are in big trouble.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  4. #4
    Devout worshipper of Bilious Member miotas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,035

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    Now you fellas are just gonna think I'm taking the piss, but I am quite serious. Sport is the solution. Here in Australia only about 10% of the population is actually religious, ie going to church, and that includes all religions, not just christianity. Yet we still have activities that bind the population together, and these are sporting events, you could quite truthfully say that most sports fans follow their teams religiously.

    Most children are indoctrinated, from when they are only a few years old, into believing that they should always follow their team regardless of how well they may happen to be performing. Something that mirrors religious people blindly following their faith. And while sport may produce friendly rivalries, it never inspires outright hatred. Sport produces very accepting groups, 2 people can sit down together and have a beer together while their teams beat the out of each other. Basically sport gives all the grouping benefits that one gets from religion without the negative exclusion side effects.

    You could almost say that we've done what Louis was saying with his comments about the force and replaced religion with sport.

    - Four Horsemen of the Presence

  5. #5
    Kanto Kanrei Member Marshal Murat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Eye of the Hurricane (FL)
    Posts
    3,372

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    The difference then with atheists is that the atheist is more free-thinking, more critical, more aware that his ideas are not sacred, or true for everybody, anywhere, anytime. This limits the urge to impose them.
    Some religious people are moderate, some aren't. You cannot say that all atheists are "free-thinking" without excluding some of the "fashionable Atheists" and the "Crazy Atheists".

    Yet, what does this leave for the case for religion, other than that religion is more strictly imposed morality?
    Religion (in the beginning at least) was imposed morality. Hinduism teaches everyone that they have a place in society based on their caste, and imposes social order and mores on everyone regardless of age/sex/level of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Author of Article
    My point is just that every longstanding ideology and way of life contains some wisdom, some insights into ways of suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, and ultimately enhancing human flourishing.
    The problem (if you accept the Authors theory) with "suppressing selfishness, enhancing cooperation, enhancing human flourishing" is if the organization is "conceptual" then those who organize the group decide what is "fair" and while no doubt spurring innovation and free-thinking, it cannot hold itself together as a group unless it has some over-arching system of control (how do anarchist hold meetings?). If embracing all groups, then the system and group is held together, probably at the price of change to adapt. So early societies create, through human intelligence, a method of binding the community (religion) while also ensuring that there are freedoms within the community.

    While "atheism" may hold many alluring points (there is no God, it's all fairy tales, think critically), there is no incentive to "behave morally" if there is no reason to do so because of hell/purgatory/karma/etc. One could establish a group-control mechanism (honor code), but that only works if everyone agrees to it and abides by it. Game theory tripe that I don't care to read about or something.
    "Nietzsche is dead" - God

    "I agree, although I support China I support anyone discovering things for Science and humanity." - lenin96

    Re: Pursuit of happiness
    Have you just been dumped?

    I ask because it's usually something like that which causes outbursts like this, needless to say I dissagree completely.

  6. #6
    Clan Clan InsaneApache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Grand Duchy of Yorkshire
    Posts
    8,636

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    So how do we free thinkers help the brainwashed taked off their blinkers? Tis a hard one.
    There are times I wish they’d just ban everything- baccy and beer, burgers and bangers, and all the rest- once and for all. Instead, they creep forward one apparently tiny step at a time. It’s like being executed with a bacon slicer.

    “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.”

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise.

    "The purpose of a university education for Left / Liberals is to attain all the politically correct attitudes towards minorties, and the financial means to live as far away from them as possible."

  7. #7
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: The misunderstanding of religion

    Louis, I basically liked your entire analysis on the article, I certainly agree with your holistic gist that the benefits mentioned in the articles could be achieved by swapping belief systems, though I will squabble that not any "myth" (I use the term in the technical sense and not in the colloquial way that carries the negative connotations including being false) can suffice. It takes quite a myth to carry out the social impact described like ancient polytheistic systems (and Hinduism which survives in the present), Buddhism, and the Abrahamic traditions. The status of the force as being worth of a myth is up to debate.

    Just thought the last part was a bit too extreme as just a cursory examination of some of the religious folk that frequent the Backroom would lead one to conclude it is improbable that they are simply mimicking what they were taught as children. I also don't think some myths are (totally) false as you believe it to be, so I think we can have our cake and eat it in certain cases. But you are entitled to creative liberties.

    I also don't believe the author was at all trying to promote actual metaphysical truth value of any religion in the first place but your arguments would certainly be cogent though if that was being done.

    Lastly the sport angle brought up is quite interesting. I'll point out that there is a course being taught at Université de Montréal on the Montreal Canadiens (hockey team) as a religion (in their theology department).
    Last edited by Reenk Roink; 08-05-2009 at 17:12.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO