First, this is not a pro-or-anti religion trolling expedition. I hope to create a well considered discussion on the subject. If you are not willing to have your ideas changed by overwhelming arguments, don't expect others to change theirs no matter how overwhelming you think you wit may be.
Is their a Marketplace of Faith and is it a good thing.
By Marketplace of Faith I am referring to the idea that in a society of religious freedom people are able to shop around the various faiths until they find one they can support, or support none at all.
Does the openness of this Marketplace help find true faith since we can easily move to what we find more correct, or does it drown out true faith because the masses flock to what is easy, comforting and self-serving, not what is true.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Is there one? Legally, yes. Socially, it depends entirely on your current faith. And yes, I think it's a good thing. It's one of the benefits brought by mass communication. Knowledge is no longer a rare commodity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The alternative is Not Good, both for personal freedom (I believe in freedom of religion), and for the religions themselves (I dissaprove of faking it for social reasons).
However, I think that there can be a variety of ways to be religious even when everyone is the same nominal faith. Some find spirituality in nature, some in music, some in quiet prayer, some in service, some in doctrine building, some in scriptural study, some in teaching. Everyone could be the same denomination and still find different ways to spiritual fulfillment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Unfortunately, I think there is such a marketplace here in the US. It's one of the reasons why Jews don't belong here.
Look, if you're an advocate of the current cultural insistence that there is no Truth (with a capital T), then such a marketplace is probably a nifty thing. Although in such a case, I wouldn't shop there at all. But if you think that your religion really is The Truth -- that any other religion might possess some truth (either because they got it from us, or because even a broken clock is right twice a day), but that only yours has the real deal -- then the only way such a marketplace could be useful is if you believe in proselytizing. If you don't, then it isn't only of no value -- it's of negative value. In a big way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do believe in Truth with a capital T, and I also believe that people being coerced to follow Truth is wrong. A choice to be good/moral/virtuous/whateveryourword is only meaningful if there was a genuine choice, which means the ability to choose otherwise.
Adults who have been forced are nothing at all, neither faithful nor unfaithful.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I agree with Katie.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: ... Does the openness of this Marketplace help find true faith since we can easily move to what we find more correct, or does it drown out true faith because the masses flock to what is easy, comforting and self-serving, not what is true.
Your analogy hints at an answer. Does the *actual* marketplace optimize for the "best" product? In theory yes, in practice no (depending on your definition of best of course). Monopolies can change the rules to unduly favour them, producers can optimize for lowest price by making flawed products that consumers cannot easily detect, compensation structures can favour short-term profits over long-term success, etc.
Are there analogous problems in the marketplace of faith? I would say yes.
Perhaps just as a regulated system of capitalism appears to be the best (but still flawed) solution for organizing an economy, it may be the case that a regulated system of religion appears to be the best (but still flawed) solution for organizing religious faith.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the Marketplace is great, because it takes the Truth out of the hands of the few, and allows the masses to examine their options. Knowledge is power, and the knowledge that so many conflicting faiths all claim The Truth can be quite enlightening.
Seeing that other religions' supernatural claims are no more or less compelling, supported, or worthwhile than ones own encourages one to look for the man behind the curtain.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Unfortunately, I think there is such a marketplace here in the US. It's one of the reasons why Jews don't belong here.
man, how many american jews could possibly agree with you at all about that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, probably quite a few.
Most of them don't use the (gasp!) Internet, though.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The marketplace for religion isn't a very open market, due to the indoctrination of the young. And I say that recognizing that indoctrination of the young is not inherently moral or immoral, and that it's probably unavoidable.
Posted by August (Member # 12307) on :
Yes, I think that there is such a marketplace of faith, and that it has not only been fostered by America's supposed "free religion", but by the internet. The Constitution has the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. But let's face facts: our society is predominantly Christian. About the internet: I am sure that the Marketplace of Faith wouldn't exist (or at least, exist as it does) if we weren't able to communicate so freely and so quickly. I think that it's a good thing because being able to learn about and explore different faiths allows one to decide what fits best, and thus learn more about themselves.
I feel like the masses who flock to faiths that are self-serving and "easy" won't go looking around in the first place. And, well, if they do, then it's their loss. The people who are persistent and faithful enough will find their "True Faith". I don't yet know if a single "True Faith" exists. I think that if one did, there would be a whole lot less arguing in the world, because I think that people with opposing views feel the same righteousness as I feel when they are protecting their beliefs. I want to always be open-minded, but it's hard to think about what's "wrong" feeling the same as what's "right".
So if there's a single "Truth" out there, the people who can recognize it will pursue it. I believe that a person's faith should be self-selected, because otherwise how will we know that are children are truly good or just going along with what they've always known? I believe in a truth that feels so inherently right to me. I found it through years of searching, and I will probably continue searching as long as I live to try and perfect it. The task is probably futile, but as I change, so does my faith. And once I have found the Truth I believe that I will stop changing.
I speak from personal experience: I've always felt free enough to explore different religions, and when I was thirteen I nearly came up with my own. Maybe it was growing in such a diverse neighborhood, with so many different faiths around me that made me realize that there's a benefit to learning about all of them. If people can be so passionate about a belief, it's worth learning, and understanding. And without a Marketplace of Faith, how could we find the Truth? (if it exists, that is)
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's one of the reasons why Jews don't belong here.
Wait, what?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
August: Because Jews are God's Chosen People, and since we don't recognize that, and God hasn't bothered to convince the rest of us, they aren't afforded the proper respect and status that they deserve. Obviously.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I strongly disagree with Lisa, I think it's pretty clear that's not what she means.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm not so sure. I guess we'll have to see.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Add me to the list of people who disagree with Lisa. Assuming Judaism is the Truth, how would a person not raised as Jewish be expected to figure that out without an "open market?"
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Add me to the list of people who disagree with Lisa. Assuming Judaism is the Truth, how would a person not raised as Jewish be expected to figure that out without an "open market?"
I think that Lisa has said that a person who must be born and raised (not converted) to be a "real" Jew. The person's mother must be Jewish in order for the child to be a real Jew. So if a woman converts in order to marry a Jew, she is not actually a real Jew (in my recollection of a statement by Lisa) nor are her children.
Which is why proselytizing is useless (under this interpretation) - either you are or you aren't.
(Edited to add, while leaving the original comment unchanged: Lisa states later that I am mistaken. I apologize for any misunderstanding. I had an impression of a memory of reading something she said a long time ago. I think her comment explaining that converts have to be really, really sincere probably explains it better than my faulty recollection.)
[ April 25, 2010, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: CaySedai ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I hadn't heard her say that specifically. I know that for Judaism in general proselytizing isn't as big an issue, and I can definitely see that if the point is that the Jews are the chosen people, then "true" Jews are what ultimately matters. But I'd think there'd be at least some value in other people coming to decide that Judaism IS in fact the true religion.
As for proselytizing in general... well I certainly think it's annoying, but I don't have any particular objection to it so long as it isn't excessive. I haven't met someone who bothered me after a "no, I'm not interested." Also, if you are starting by saying "I want to see what religions are available so I can figure out the truth" (a reasonably healthy way to start, albeit difficult given the propensity of people to follow the religion of their parents) then, as noted, proselytizing isn't so necessary given the internet.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't care what Lisa thinks. It doesn't matter.
------------
While I definitely believe in freedom of religion and the "marketplace of faith" is a byproduct of it, that doesn't mean that I think that the "truest" religion will be the one that the most people choose. That's the wrong model.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I do believe in Truth with a capital T, and I also believe that people being coerced to follow Truth is wrong. A choice to be good/moral/virtuous/whateveryourword is only meaningful if there was a genuine choice, which means the ability to choose otherwise.
Adults who have been forced are nothing at all, neither faithful nor unfaithful.
Anybody who disagrees with what kat is expressing here is a fascist.
Even though I'm not a Mormon, nor even religious, I do recognize that as soon as you take away the element of free choice, you have a serious problem, and it will have Unpleasant Unintended Consequences, sooner or later. See what's happening in Iran right now, the youth rebelling against the government? People generally rebel when they feel coerced.
The best you can hope for (if you coerce others) is that you can delay the consequences until after you and your generation die, thus leaving the problem for your descendants to deal with. For instance, look at how the Russians treated their royal family. The royal family got taken out back of the woodshed and shot in their heads. Also, in other news, the Russian royals, historically, were some of the most despotic and brutal rulers in Europe, for centuries.
Take Ceaucescu, in Romania. He was the meanest dictator EVAR, and they killed him, hard.
Yeah, coercion will hurt ya. First it hurts them, then it hurts you. Fun stuff, baby.
IOW, what goes around, comes around.
Check the history books, baby. It's all there.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Anybody who disagrees with what kat is expressing here is a fascist.
Steve that was really unnecessary.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Anybody who disagrees with what kat is expressing here is a fascist.
Steve that was really unnecessary.
Maybe, but my statement was fairly true.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Um, well, yes? Except that your statement screamed "sarcasm," which implied we were supposed to take it as the opposite of true.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I'm not so sure. I guess we'll have to see.
It hurts me to respond to your idiotic misrepresentation of what I said. It's because, unfortunately, not every Jew is educated properly, and because of that, some of them can be drawn off the path into foreign religions. In a worst-case scenario, into a religion which is idolatrous (at least for Jews).
There's absolutely no plus side to a "marketplace of faith" for us. The ideal situation is for all of us to be back in Israel, and for members of other religions to be barred from representing their religion to any Jews there.
Would you want your child to be brought up with racism being viewed as "just another ideology"? If not, then you can understand not wanting your child to be exposed to bad ideologies, and you should be able to understand why those who are in possession of the Truth wouldn't want our children exposed to Non-Truth as though it was just another legitimate way to be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's absolutely no plus side to a "marketplace of faith" for us. The ideal situation is for all of us to be back in Israel, and for members of other religions to be barred from representing their religion to any Jews there.
So, freedom of religious expression is something that you feel that the jews need to be protected from. Never you mind the delicious irony that exists in that your reasoning has more in common with the islamic theocracies that imperil Israel than it has to do with Israel's policies themselves.
See, this is what I talk about when I say you make such a great, great fanatical zealot.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Add me to the list of people who disagree with Lisa. Assuming Judaism is the Truth, how would a person not raised as Jewish be expected to figure that out without an "open market?"
I think that Lisa has said that a person who must be born and raised (not converted) to be a "real" Jew. The person's mother must be Jewish in order for the child to be a real Jew. So if a woman converts in order to marry a Jew, she is not actually a real Jew (in my recollection of a statement by Lisa) nor are her children.
Good God, no! A convert is just as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish. So long as it's a kosher conversion. For all I know, I could be the descendant of converts. The greatest Sage in our history, Rabbi Akiva, certainly was.
But to answer Raymond, why should we care? I mean, it's a good thing for non-Jews to learn that Judaism is true, so that they can conform to the Noachide laws, but we don't seek converts.
And I'll tell you why. When a non-Jew eats a ham sandwich, he isn't doing anything even remotely wrong. It isn't, "Well, he's a non-Jew, so you can't expect him to know better," or anything like that. It's completely value-neutral.
When a Jew eats a ham sandwich, he's causing harm. To himself, first of all. To the entire Jewish people, too. And to the entirety of creation, as well.
So there's a question of risk management. A convert might remain religious. Might be a wonderful Jew and a great asset, or one of his descendants might be an amazing person like Rabbi Akiva. But at the same time, he might not. What's the upside to adding that risk? We have enough Jews who are violating God's laws already. Why risk adding to that?
Now... when someone comes to convert, and is really, really sincere, we sometimes take that chance. It's up to the rabbis involved in the conversion process and their personal impression of whether the person will be and remain a faithful Jew. The first reaction to anyone seeking to convert to Judaism is always "No." And only those who are persistant ever make it through.
There are those who feel that converts should not be accepted at all today. The law is that we don't accept converts when יד ישראל תקיפה, which means "when the Jews are triumphant", basically. The idea being that when we're living in a shtetl getting attacked by Cossacks every second Tuesday, anyone who wants to become a Jew is either nuts or really, really sincere. But when we have our own homeland, and when you can have Jews (however rotten) as Chief of Staff of the POTUS or as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, then such assurances aren't there.
Now... I have friends who are converts. Some of them, I'm glad they converted. Some, not. I don't know how I feel about it being possible to convert to Judaism today, but I certainly can see why some would oppose it.
And no, Rivka, it isn't only cloistered Haredim who see a problem with the corrosive nature -- in many ways -- of American society.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I hadn't heard her say that specifically. I know that for Judaism in general proselytizing isn't as big an issue, and I can definitely see that if the point is that the Jews are the chosen people, then "true" Jews are what ultimately matters. But I'd think there'd be at least some value in other people coming to decide that Judaism IS in fact the true religion.
Oh, certainly there is. The end goal is a world where everyone, Jew and non-Jew, serves God as they're supposed to.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm beginning to believe that if Lisa said the world was round, you'd all tell her that the world is flat, and that she's evil.
As a Modern Orthodox Jew, I was taught that we can gain a lot of value from the marketplace of faith.
However, ideally, I agree with Lisa, that if you believe Judaism, or your religion, is the absolute truth, you don't want exposure to anything other than the truth.
With respect to Kat's point - I believe freedom of choice still exists when there is no "marketplace of faith." My understanding of the early generations of Judaism, an age of prophets and miracles where God stared at them in the face - free will was about living your life with the purity that clarity and truth demands. The tests of our generation is more about seeing a God who chooses to hide Himself in this world, about about being open-minded enough to see beyond the self and into the source.
With respect to Sam's point - Just because factions of Islam are at war with Judaism doesn't mean we disrespect them or their faith. A lot of their processes and values are meaningful to us. Indeed, Jewish law demands that if one cannot find a synagogue to pray in, he should pray in a mosque because it is a recognized place for prayer.
Note that I do not think that Jews should not be exposed to the outside world, to literature, history, etc. Modern Orthodox Judaism is all about operating in the outside world and maintaining a traditional Jewish lifestyle. However, when it comes to the ultimate truth, I see no value of there being a "marketplace of faith", and only negatives. Because others faiths exist, Jews have an obligation to learn about other faiths so that Jews can prove to themselves the validity of their own faith over others.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's absolutely no plus side to a "marketplace of faith" for us. The ideal situation is for all of us to be back in Israel, and for members of other religions to be barred from representing their religion to any Jews there.
So, freedom of religious expression is something that you feel that the jews need to be protected from. Never you mind the delicious irony that exists in that your reasoning has more in common with the islamic theocracies that imperil Israel than it has to do with Israel's policies themselves.
See, this is what I talk about when I say you make such a great, great fanatical zealot.
You know how dumb the comparison is, right? It's like pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and using that to bash vegetarians. The fact that commonalities exist between a good ideology and a bad one doesn't say anything about the ideologies themselves.
And as far as non-Jews preaching their religions in Israel, if the religion happens to be an idolatrous one, we are absolutely obligated to prevent them -- at any cost. And on the subject of irony, consider the irony that the Muslims, who are our greatest enemy, are one of the few religions which can absolutely never be considered idolatrous. If we were making up the rules to suit ourselves, I can guarantee you that wouldn't be the case.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Lisa: Again, you just said the same thing I did, but with a lot more words, and trying to make it sound more like you're right and everyone else is a fool for not agreeing with you.
P.S. You're the awesomest person I know and I totally love you.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:When a Jew eats a ham sandwich, he's causing harm. To himself, first of all. To the entire Jewish people, too. And to the entirety of creation, as well.
Jewish God makes some pretty silly ways to damage all of creation, doesn't he.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Lisa: Again, you just said the same thing I did, but with a lot more words, and trying to make it sound more like you're right and everyone else is a fool for not agreeing with you.
P.S. You're the awesomest person I know and I totally love you.
No. She didn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You know how dumb the comparison is, right? It's like pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and using that to bash vegetarians. The fact that commonalities exist between a good ideology and a bad one doesn't say anything about the ideologies themselves.
Sure, because Hitler was surrounded by enemy vegetarians everywhere, and you represent hitler in the analogy, I guess. Nope. The irony comes from how YOUR ideology is one that your own religious nation thankfully manages to avoid much more than its sworn enemies do. And to its benefit, too.
You very frequently have ideas for what is 'good for Israel' and what they should have, which would actually be pretty terrible for it were they to ever really fall in with their ideas.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:When a Jew eats a ham sandwich, he's causing harm. To himself, first of all. To the entire Jewish people, too. And to the entirety of creation, as well.
Jewish God makes some pretty silly ways to damage all of creation, doesn't he.
While I appreciate the respect you afford my religion, you can pick up R' Samson Raphael Hirsch's philosophical work, "Horeb" for a more thoughtful explanation of the prohibition.
Though, roughly, there is a category of commandments that are called chukkim - they are laws where the reason is hidden from mankind, though they usually inculcate an unconscious level of sensitivity.
Either way, whenever you do something against God's will, you are destructive. The world was created for mankind to do good, and when you violate God's will, you are destructive in the sense that you move opposite His will.
In this context, it doesn't matter what the reason is for the prohibition, what matters is that the Creator, the Source, your truest love asked you not to do something, and you did it anyways - that's destructive to your relationship with Him, and ultimately, to your purpose in the world.
In fact, I would suggest that "rational" commandments and prohibitions are more deceptive in that there is greater opportunity to divorce the commandment from it's ideal purpose - your relationship with God, and to convince yourself that it's there to uphold some (false) sense of objective morality.
Plugged back into our example - Judaism is a way of life for the world, not just for Jews. Non-Jews are given 7 commandments. It isn't destructive for them to eat pig because God has a relationship with non-Jews and didn't ask them, as a part of it, not to eat pig.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:When a Jew eats a ham sandwich, he's causing harm. To himself, first of all. To the entire Jewish people, too. And to the entirety of creation, as well.
Jewish God makes some pretty silly ways to damage all of creation, doesn't he.
Maybe if you understood more, you wouldn't see it as silly.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You know how dumb the comparison is, right? It's like pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and using that to bash vegetarians. The fact that commonalities exist between a good ideology and a bad one doesn't say anything about the ideologies themselves.
Sure, because Hitler was surrounded by enemy vegetarians everywhere, and you represent hitler in the analogy, I guess. Nope. The irony comes from how YOUR ideology is one that your own religious nation thankfully manages to avoid much more than its sworn enemies do. And to its benefit, too.
You very frequently have ideas for what is 'good for Israel' and what they should have, which would actually be pretty terrible for it were they to ever really fall in with their ideas.
While that may be true about Lisa, it wasn't in this example. Besides, you were asking Lisa about the ideal world - there are little to no places left on earth where you can escape the marketplace of faith without giving up other freedoms that Lisa would likely agree are necessary to protecting a religious way of life.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You know how dumb the comparison is, right? It's like pointing out that Hitler was a vegetarian and using that to bash vegetarians. The fact that commonalities exist between a good ideology and a bad one doesn't say anything about the ideologies themselves.
Sure, because Hitler was surrounded by enemy vegetarians everywhere, and you represent hitler in the analogy, I guess. Nope. The irony comes from how YOUR ideology is one that your own religious nation thankfully manages to avoid much more than its sworn enemies do. And to its benefit, too.
You very frequently have ideas for what is 'good for Israel' and what they should have, which would actually be pretty terrible for it were they to ever really fall in with their ideas.
While that may be true about Lisa, it wasn't in this example. Besides, you were asking Lisa about the ideal world - there are little to no places left on earth where you can escape the marketplace of faith without giving up other freedoms that Lisa would likely agree are necessary to protecting a religious way of life.
Right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: While that may be true about Lisa, it wasn't in this example.
Not particularly. israel would not benefit. i'm sure the 'ideal' will completely ignore the unintended consequences of trying to protect the poor fragile views from freedom of religion and making sure they only get the proper education slash indoctrination, but IRL, that would draw Israel ever closer to its own little dark age, and Judaism even further away from relevance in an increasingly open world.
quote:there are little to no places left on earth where you can escape the marketplace of faith without giving up other freedoms that Lisa would likely agree are necessary to protecting a religious way of life.
those FREEDOMS being
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: While that may be true about Lisa, it wasn't in this example.
Not particularly. israel would not benefit. i'm sure the 'ideal' will completely ignore the unintended consequences of trying to protect the poor fragile views from freedom of religion and making sure they only get the proper education slash indoctrination, but IRL, that would draw Israel ever closer to its own little dark age, and Judaism even further away from relevance in an increasingly open world.
First of all, I'm talking about Judaism; not the modern State of Israel, necessarily. Which is a tool, but not necessarily the only one. The land of Israel belongs to the nation of Israel (the Jews), and not to the government of the State of Israel.
Second of all, who gives half a damn whether you consider Judaism relevant or not? Honestly. I'm okay if God thinks we're doing the right thing. Your uninformed opinion really isn't worth a whole lot, you know?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:there are little to no places left on earth where you can escape the marketplace of faith without giving up other freedoms that Lisa would likely agree are necessary to protecting a religious way of life.
those FREEDOMS being
Among others, the freedom to keep God's laws. We've lived in times when non-Jews wouldn't allow us to do so. When they would kill us for the "crime" of circumcising our sons. There are plenty of nutjobs out there today who would like to have that viewed as child mutilation. There are countries where kosher slaughter of animals has been banned.
Look, I don't have any issues with the US being dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's probably one of the most civilized nations non-Jews have ever built, and I applaud them for it. That doesn't mean it applies universally. For example, if you were to learn through a scientific study that smoking was fatal in 100% of cases to anyone exposed to it, you'd certainly make it illegal. Not to violate their liberty, but because it's going to hurt others.
So right now, you aren't aware that idolatry (for example) is harmful 100% of the time. So you think that banning it is a bad thing. But that's your lack of knowledge talking. I'm still on board with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Though, roughly, there is a category of commandments that are called chukkim - they are laws where the reason is hidden from mankind, though they usually inculcate an unconscious level of sensitivity.
If the pork prohibition is one of these, then that means that humankind is specifically not told why jews are not allowed to eat pork?
quote:Maybe if you understood more, you wouldn't see it as silly.
I doubt it. I bet I would discover that it is an outdated prohibition related more to issues facing people living thousands of years ago that is lucky to still be followed by anyone because it got coded more strongly into today's dogma even after it becomes fine to do other things like wear 60/40 cotton/polyester blends.
But I am just interested in the dramatic nature of it all even if I am fine with you putting that prohibition on yourselves.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Though, roughly, there is a category of commandments that are called chukkim - they are laws where the reason is hidden from mankind, though they usually inculcate an unconscious level of sensitivity.
If the pork prohibition is one of these, then that means that humankind is specifically not told why jews are not allowed to eat pork?
That's correct. We have no idea why sheep are okay and pigs aren't. Why cows are okay and horses aren't. Why salmon is okay and sturgeon isn't.
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Maybe if you understood more, you wouldn't see it as silly.
I doubt it. I bet I would discover that it is an outdated prohibition related more to issues facing people living thousands of years ago that is lucky to still be followed by anyone because it got coded more strongly into today's dogma even after it becomes fine to do other things like wear 60/40 cotton/polyester blends.
What's wrong with wearing cotton poly blends?
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: But I am just interested in the dramatic nature of it all even if I am fine with you putting that prohibition on yourselves.
We aren't. But it's okay. When primitive tribesmen run into civilized people who know that diseases are caused by germs, they probably think it's just a superstition, too. You're kind of like that. You don't understand it, so you think it's silly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: For example, if you were to learn through a scientific study that smoking was fatal in 100% of cases to anyone exposed to it, you'd certainly make it illegal. Not to violate their liberty, but because it's going to hurt others.
How inapplicable could this possibly be? You would make it illegal because of scientific knowledge, not because of a religious faith saying 'god says so,' minus the proof.
quote:So right now, you aren't aware that idolatry (for example) is harmful 100% of the time. So you think that banning it is a bad thing. But that's your lack of knowledge talking.
Not agreeing with your religious beliefs or that your statement that idolatry (as defined by Lisa) is harmful 100% of the time (according to Lisa) is not a 'lack of knowledge.' If someone disagrees with something that you assert religiously, that doesn't make it a 'lack of knowledge' talking. it means you disagree on a matter of religious faith.
you'll knowingly continue that tact, of course, but it's just inapplicable axiom. The word 'knowledge,' as you wield it, becomes useless, as become your declarations of what knowledge others possess or lack.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually think Lisa's point makes sense in context now. I think she's wrong, but at a point that is pretty far removed from the conversation we're actually having right now so I'm not going to worry about it at the present juncture.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We aren't. But it's okay. When primitive tribesmen run into civilized people who know that diseases are caused by germs, they probably think it's just a superstition, too. You're kind of like that. You don't understand it, so you think it's silly.
How does this relate to the reasoning you use? Germ theory is science. Yours is insistent faith. This poor comparison and insult aside, it is not about what I do not understand no matter how many times you try to frame it that way, it is about a matter of faith that we do not share.
But do I get to use the same comparison against you, and whip out the comparisons to ignorant tribesmen that think that evolution or the earth being older than 6000 years is 'silly'?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We aren't. But it's okay. When primitive tribesmen run into civilized people who know that diseases are caused by germs, they probably think it's just a superstition, too. You're kind of like that. You don't understand it, so you think it's silly.
How does this relate to the reasoning you use? Germ theory is science. Yours is insistent faith. This poor comparison and insult aside, it is not about what I do not understand no matter how many times you try to frame it that way, it is about a matter of faith that we do not share.
But do I get to use the same comparison against you, and whip out the comparisons to ignorant tribesmen that think that evolution or the earth being older than 6000 years is 'silly'?
Mine and Lisa's religion is based on knowledge, not faith.
A question was asked. Lisa answered it honestly based on her ideal view of the world.
I don't see how this point is that hard to understand. If you believe in an objective truth, why would you want to corrupt the world with non-truths?
Your response can't be - "But I don't believe it's true!" - Lisa wasn't legislating, she is saying what the ideal was.
I'm Jewish. I believe everyone should believe in the Jewish God. You gonna be mad at me because you disagree with me?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Look, if you're an advocate of the current cultural insistence that there is no Truth (with a capital T), then such a marketplace is probably a nifty thing. Although in such a case, I wouldn't shop there at all. But if you think that your religion really is The Truth -- that any other religion might possess some truth (either because they got it from us, or because even a broken clock is right twice a day), but that only yours has the real deal -- then the only way such a marketplace could be useful is if you believe in proselytizing. If you don't, then it isn't only of no value -- it's of negative value. In a big way.
I have a huge problem with this idea that one's religion (or point of view, even) is The Truth and that everyone elses' religion (or point of view) is either wrong, ignorant, or broken. This seems to lead (and in your case, Lisa, often leads) to a "there is nothing to discuss, your viewpoint is irrelevant, and there is no possible compromise" conclusion. I see this as a cause of a lot of the problems in the world today.
ETA a case in point:
quote:Second of all, who gives half a damn whether you consider Judaism relevant or not? Honestly. I'm okay if God thinks we're doing the right thing. Your uninformed opinion really isn't worth a whole lot, you know?
Maybe it's my upbringing, or career, or atheism. Everything I do, see, and hear is open to questioning. By myself and others. I see value in differing opinions and in different viewpoints. Diversity is important because it creates resilience. A diverse system is less likely to collapse in on itself, be it an ecosystem, a political system, or religious system.
So I do think a Marketplace of Faith is a good thing. Even if you're not shopping, I feel that exposure to this marketplace is educational and a way to expand one's understanding. I'm an atheist, and cannot imagine that ever changing. But I've taken a class in a Buddhist monastery. I discuss Christianity with anyone who is willing to open up. I regularly read books on others' experiences with their religions. I read criticisms of religions (including atheism) as long as they remain calm, rational, and at least a little respectful.
I think everyone should be allowed to choose their religions freely, and I get upset when I see children being raised in a close-minded manner, where they are taught that there is The Truth and a Right Way to Think. I feel like these children grow up to either remain completely or partly closed-minded, or need years to recover before they can figure out how to actually think and reason for themselves.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Mine and Lisa's religion is based on knowledge, not faith.
I am sure that you think so.
quote:Your response can't be - "But I don't believe it's true!" - Lisa wasn't legislating, she is saying what the ideal was.
Not just that (I would be fine if it stopped there). She is also insists ignorance and lack of knowledge, reflexively, when there is disagreement over her Truth. I have a complaint to that.
quote:You gonna be mad at me because you disagree with me?
Where am I getting mad at anyone for disagreeing with me? I am not even getting mad at Lisa's claims of my thinking her views are silly due to being an ignorant tribesman.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Marketplace of faith is different than questioning. Questioning is allowed - actually encouraged.
I teach Jewish high-school kids. One of them came up to me and told me they were having issues with their faith, but they were just gonna take a leap of faith and believe. I explained that that was a Christian concept, and worthless in Judaism. Who cares if you leap to believe something - and I insisted that the student be intellectually honest - if honesty led the person to atheism, I would respect them more than if they remained Jewish because it was merely convenient.
My point above was that questions will arise even if there is no marketplace of faith. A major reason to be against a marketplace of faith isn't so much that it is threatening, but also that it is upsetting - if you think something is true, you don't want falsity to be out there.
But a marektplace of faith is also a problem because it is threatening. Look at how Judaism is reacted to on this forum. We do a lot of crazy things. We shake palm branches, we wait till the weather gets cold to sit outside in booths, we don't eat pig or shrimp for no reason (and are proud that we don't know the reason). We're crazy. It took a lot of study and the context of our religions communities to understand the laws, precepts and commandments, and to understand that they are actually not so crazy. An environment that shoots down such study before it even gets off the ground is threatening to a true, intellectually honest pursuit.
And I don't believe that eliminating exposure to such a marketplace undermines intellectual honesty. It merely focuses a person on his religion. Again, as a Modern Orthodox Jew, I believe in exposure to literature, science, etc. It's not like I don't believe in education.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I teach Jewish high-school kids. One of them came up to me and told me they were having issues with their faith, but they were just gonna take a leap of faith and believe. I explained that that was a Christian concept, and worthless in Judaism. Who cares if you leap to believe something - and I insisted that the student be intellectually honest - if honesty led the person to atheism, I would respect them more than if they remained Jewish because it was merely convenient.
My point above was that questions will arise even if there is no marketplace of faith. A major reason to be against a marketplace of faith isn't so much that it is threatening, but also that it is upsetting - if you think something is true, you don't want falsity to be out there.
Isn't there a contradiction here? You would respect someone who decided to leave the Jewish faith (which you believe to be The Truth) and become an atheist, but you don't want falsity out there? Would you also respect them if they turned away from Judaism and became a Christian? Muslim?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I teach Jewish high-school kids. One of them came up to me and told me they were having issues with their faith, but they were just gonna take a leap of faith and believe. I explained that that was a Christian concept, and worthless in Judaism. Who cares if you leap to believe something - and I insisted that the student be intellectually honest - if honesty led the person to atheism, I would respect them more than if they remained Jewish because it was merely convenient.
My point above was that questions will arise even if there is no marketplace of faith. A major reason to be against a marketplace of faith isn't so much that it is threatening, but also that it is upsetting - if you think something is true, you don't want falsity to be out there.
Isn't there a contradiction here? You would respect someone who decided to leave the Jewish faith (which you believe to be The Truth) and become an atheist, but you don't want falsity out there? Would you also respect them if they turned away from Judaism and became a Christian? Muslim?
No. Because Marketplace of faith or not, I think that atheism is an intellectually honest option and isn't considered because it is broadcast in the marketplace, but because it is a rational conclusion to reach when asking one's self the God question.
And yes. I would respect them, because in this day and age we DO have a marketplace of faith, we are exposed to it and are forced to contend with it whether we like it or not. It is for those reasons that many Jews study other religions, so that they should be able to respond to the arguments of others faiths.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Armoth, alright. I can understand that. And I am glad you are a teacher.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: if honesty led the person to atheism, I would respect them more than if they remained Jewish because it was merely convenient.
Respect them, maybe. Approve, not. I know you didn't mean approve, but you were misunderstood by others.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Armoth, alright. I can understand that. And I am glad you are a teacher.
Thanks Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It is these kind of threads that help me understand KoM's assertion that religion is dangerous to society, period.
There's some seriously insane-sounding stuff being said here.
Posted by August (Member # 12307) on :
Armoth, I absolutely agree.
Do you religious folks out there believe that you have found The Truth in your religions? Or, like me, do you believe that The Truth is out there and that your faiths are simply much closer to it than other doctrines? Is it even possible for somebody to be wholly satisfied with what their religion preaches in this day and age?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: ... However, ideally, I agree with Lisa, that if you believe Judaism, or your religion, is the absolute truth, you don't want exposure to anything other than the truth.
The conversation may have moved on quickly, but I'd like to address this point. While atheism is not a religion, I do believe that it is the absolute truth (capital T or otherwise).
However, I also think exposure to other beliefs, far from something to be avoided, is something to be sought out.
In the marketplace analogy, the Truth might be analogous to the best product available. However, even if we all agree that there is one best product, we generally do not think that it would be a good idea to make everyone use that product or limit exposure to competition. Why? Because competition is necessary for improvement and to avoid stagnation and/or abuse.
I'm reminded of this passage in Trudeau's memoirs, it talks about languages but it is just as applicable here:
quote:But when you begin to coerce people and take away free choice, that is using the law in an abusive way. I believe in promoting a language by promoting the excellence of the people who speak it. There is no question that French -here and abroad -is threatened because of the dynamism of English, especially in popular culture on television. But the question is, do you want to defend yourself by closing doors and coercing people, or do you want to defend your language by making it a source of excellence?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by August: Armoth, I absolutely agree.
Do you religious folks out there believe that you have found The Truth in your religions? Or, like me, do you believe that The Truth is out there and that your faiths are simply much closer to it than other doctrines? Is it even possible for somebody to be wholly satisfied with what their religion preaches in this day and age?
I believe that I have found the Truth in my religion.
As for whole satisfaction? I'm still struggling with a few things. But they are ancillary and are not questions that are strong enough to uproot the pretty firm logical foundations for the reasons for my belief.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mucus - the analogy is flawed. The marketplace is all about products that improve and continue to improve.
Religion is about the truth. The idea of the marketplace is that you have everything open to you, thereby increasing your chances of finding the truth.
I believe I've already found the truth. Someone asks my opinion of the marketplace? I don't need it - I have truth. And since I think it is true, I don't think other people should be afforded the opportunity to expose themselves to other religions which I've already deemed to be untrue. (again this is all in the ideal world, and the context of answering the OP's question - I'm not actually lobbying for this).
And as I've stated before, I don't think doing away with the marketplace undermines intellectual honesty because I think Judaism has to deal with natural questions that arise from its isolated study, and naturally logical atheist doubts.
There is no competition in religion - It's not about marketing a product and attracting the most people. It's about adhering to a truth, to a philosophy. It's not about what people want for themselves, it's about a relationship with God. Competition for betterment and avoiding "stagnation" has no place here.
And as I said above, I don't believe doing away with the marketplace would undermine free choice. No matter what, Judaism and all religion will have to contend with atheism, because atheism arises from natural logic and affirming your religions convictions in the face of atheism is the very process of establishing yourself as a believer.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The marketplace is all about products that improve and continue to improve.
A marketplace doesn't contain only products though, it also contains companies.
Just as I said before, even if a product is the best it can be (i.e. the truth), it still has to be produced by a company. A company with no competition is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And no, Rivka, it isn't only cloistered Haredim who see a problem with the corrosive nature -- in many ways -- of American society.
Actually, there we agree.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
In the Marketplace of Truth, nobody ever starts out thinking that 2+2=4, and eventually, because there are so many other possibilities to learn about, decides that maybe they like the idea better that 2+2=9.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I believe I've already found the truth. Someone asks my opinion of the marketplace? I don't need it - I have truth. And since I think it is true, I don't think other people should be afforded the opportunity to expose themselves to other religions which I've already deemed to be untrue. (again this is all in the ideal world, and the context of answering the OP's question - I'm not actually lobbying for this).
So in the real world, not the ideal, would you say that the marketplace should exist?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We're crazy. It took a lot of study and the context of our religions communities to understand the laws, precepts and commandments, and to understand that they are actually not so crazy.
Another way to word this is: "it took a lot of indoctrination before I didn't think they were actually so crazy."
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mucus - You are saying that if there is no alternative to your religion and it is championed as the only truth, it is a recipe for disaster. Agreed. In that example, people are mindless drones, following the only possibility available to them, controlled by a "company" with a monopoly on truth.
However, I don't think that's possible. A religion will always have to contend with atheism, which I allege is natural. It also has to contend with our natural desires, which very often do not align with what God wants from us. Trust me. The reason I studied my own faith is because the things I want to do that don't align with God's will forced me to make EXTRA sure that my religion is true...
Parkour - In the real world, I try to do what will be the most compelling to others. To remove the marketplace of faith and tell everyone that they can only learn Judaism? To say that people would be resentful would probably be an understatement.
The world is the way the world is. We have all been affected by the events of history, by the religions of history, and since we are exposed to them, we are forced to contend with them in a search for truth.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We're crazy. It took a lot of study and the context of our religions communities to understand the laws, precepts and commandments, and to understand that they are actually not so crazy.
Another way to word this is: "it took a lot of indoctrination before I didn't think they were actually so crazy."
Definitely. Also, cognitive dissonance is a huge factor - the more time you spend studying your own religion, the more effort you pour into it, the more badly you want it to be true.
On the other hand, Modern Orthodox Judaism does not insulate it's members from society. The existence of a secular space gives every Modern Orthodox Jew the unconscious choice to make in the other direction.
And as I said in my last post, there are other factors, desires and such, which tip the scales of dishonesty in the atheist's direction.
In the end, everyone needs to be intellectually honest. Cognitive dissonance also works to say that if you are not studying any religions, you'll convince yourself that atheism is the Truth.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We're crazy. It took a lot of study and the context of our religions communities to understand the laws, precepts and commandments, and to understand that they are actually not so crazy.
Another way to word this is: "it took a lot of indoctrination before I didn't think they were actually so crazy."
You misunderstand. To someone who hasn't learned quantum physics, the idea that it's impossible, by definition, to determine the exact position and exact velocity of a particle makes no sense. The uncertainty principle sounds like an appeal to ignorance.
When it comes to certain areas of knowledge, you really have to learn more than what's on the surface to understand it. Anyone can do arithmetic. But it takes learning to do differential equations. With the proper education, you can see that e^(i*pi) = -1. Without that education, it sounds absurd. Learning the requisite information is not "indoctrination".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Learning the requisite information is not "indoctrination".
Would anyone without the training be able to reconstruct the same theories from observation of the world?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That God exists? I think so.
That the Jewish God exists? Less likely.
But why should that matter? Something can't be true if it relies on God interaction with some people over others? With one generation and not with later generations? At one point in your life and not later points?
If God revealed Himself to one prophet, and that prophet now has to convince me that He did - I'd be hard pressed to find that compelling. I can imagine plenty of other more compelling scenarios that explain that this person was lying or delusional.
Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet who hast o spread, and has a Torah full of miracles witnessed by masses. It becomes a lot more compelling to me when that is the case than the other possibilities that someone made it up and spread it.
That is a valid source of determining truth, irrespective of the fact that it relies on your assessing the value of the knowledge you get from other people or from texts.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet who hast to spread [it], and has a Torah full of miracles witnessed by masses.
So do other religions. Christianity is full of claims of miracles witnessed by thousands of people. (Starting with 5000 people fed on two loaves and five fishes.) The pagan Norse had Odin doing magic visible to entire migrating tribes; to include, in the case of Gefjon, the creation of Lake Malaren and the island of Zeeland. Such a coincidence: You disclaim these miracles you have not 'studied', and accept the ones you were told of as a child.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
KoM - "God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet..."
Edit: It's also much more compelling that Judaism claims the revelation happened to the ENTIRE generation, and not to a small mass of the people. This way - if Judaism were false, - you'd have to say - oh, remember when your forefather's spoke to God? As opposed to - "There was a great mass of people who witnessed the miracle - your parents weren't there, but mine were"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: KoM - "God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet..."
Edit: It's also much more compelling that Judaism claims the revelation happened to the ENTIRE generation, and not to a small mass of the people. This way - if Judaism were false, - you'd have to say - oh, remember when your forefather's spoke to God? As opposed to - "There was a great mass of people who witnessed the miracle - your parents weren't there, but mine were"
I think I must have expressed myself unclearly. The entire mass of the people (Norse, in this case) is supposed to have witnessed Odin's magic, and Odin is the god, not a prophet. As for creating Lake Malaren, it's not something you can very well hide, it's visible from orbit! If these things happened as described, then it would be exactly the same: "There was a great mass of people who witnessed this".
Then in addition, you are trying to analyse people who live in mythical time by the standards of historical time. When the Torah stories were made up, it wasn't a question of "Your grandfather saw this", but "Your ancestors of long ago saw this". You can claim anything you like about people who are no longer alive, especially when it's understood as a religious matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly...
Bear in mind that the Jews saw nothing wrong with killing heretics, and weren't very good in the early going at writing stuff down. I submit that this dramatically reduces the checksum value of the population. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:We're crazy. It took a lot of study and the context of our religions communities to understand the laws, precepts and commandments, and to understand that they are actually not so crazy.
Another way to word this is: "it took a lot of indoctrination before I didn't think they were actually so crazy."
You misunderstand. To someone who hasn't learned quantum physics, the idea that it's impossible, by definition, to determine the exact position and exact velocity of a particle makes no sense. The uncertainty principle sounds like an appeal to ignorance.
When it comes to certain areas of knowledge, you really have to learn more than what's on the surface to understand it. Anyone can do arithmetic. But it takes learning to do differential equations. With the proper education, you can see that e^(i*pi) = -1. Without that education, it sounds absurd. Learning the requisite information is not "indoctrination".
This comparison is not a good one. Euler's formula can be found by anyone who works with math. It may take a while (generations, even), but it does not require anecdotes, interpretations, or doctrine.
The same cannot be said for religious doctrine. It is irrevocably mired in context, history, and interpretation. And therefore requires tweaking and "proper" thinking to understand it.
In other words, I can expect someone who has never seen Euler's Formula to find it on their own. I cannot expect someone who has never read the Hebrew Bible to discover the Ten Commandments on their own.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
To continue the analogy, anyone who examines any mathematical concept will come to exactly the same numerical or formulaic truth. The mathematical marketplace of truth leads to inescapable conclusions.
Conversely, the history of religion shows that what begins as a single religion, invariably splits into multiple interpretations of that same religion which conflict with each other.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:You misunderstand. To someone who hasn't learned quantum physics, the idea that it's impossible, by definition, to determine the exact position and exact velocity of a particle makes no sense. The uncertainty principle sounds like an appeal to ignorance.
You are using a poor comparison to science *again*. You can easily get children who know nothing of quantum physics to accept uncertainty principles through authority. You can say it is true, and the book says so. These people will largely go into life and not need to learn any quantum physics to question the physical or mathematical truths.
However should they seek to question these indoctrinations once they grow up, a major difference arises between the scientific concepts and the religious one. The scientific principles can be demonstrated through tests, proofs, empirical data, and verifiable evidence. The religious truths can only be "backed up" in the same way.
So even though you have tried to defend your position with oblique comparisons to science multiple times, they still only weaken it because the comparisons do not serve you and only show how you overestimate the validity of your own "knowledge" based reasoning.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Mucus - the analogy is flawed. The marketplace is all about products that improve and continue to improve.
Religion is about the truth. The idea of the marketplace is that you have everything open to you, thereby increasing your chances of finding the truth.
I believe I've already found the truth. Someone asks my opinion of the marketplace? I don't need it - I have truth. And since I think it is true, I don't think other people should be afforded the opportunity to expose themselves to other religions which I've already deemed to be untrue. (again this is all in the ideal world, and the context of answering the OP's question - I'm not actually lobbying for this).
And as I've stated before, I don't think doing away with the marketplace undermines intellectual honesty because I think Judaism has to deal with natural questions that arise from its isolated study, and naturally logical atheist doubts.
There is no competition in religion - It's not about marketing a product and attracting the most people. It's about adhering to a truth, to a philosophy. It's not about what people want for themselves, it's about a relationship with God. Competition for betterment and avoiding "stagnation" has no place here.
And as I said above, I don't believe doing away with the marketplace would undermine free choice. No matter what, Judaism and all religion will have to contend with atheism, because atheism arises from natural logic and affirming your religions convictions in the face of atheism is the very process of establishing yourself as a believer.
Assuming the premise that there exist valid logical reasons for the existence of a god and the validity of religious doctrine, I could definitely get behind this and pretty much everything else you've said here. It's one of the main reasons I have so much respect for Orthodox Judaism over other religions. As a closed system it really is damn near perfect, or at least much more internally consistent than the competition.
But alas, the foundation upon which this brilliantly constructed house of cards is supported is, well, not visible to my eyes - or at least (and perhaps more accurately) - appears to defy reality.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: However, I don't think that's possible. A religion will always have to contend with atheism, which I allege is natural ...
Perhaps, but history shows us that that natural opposition isn't quite "enough." We can easily see that when Anglicanism, Catholicism, or even belief in Mao as a god were made state religions, the resulting abuses and scandal only helped to make the alternatives look that much more attractive in generations afterwards.
It seems to me that if you want a religion or a system of beliefs to thrive, the last thing you want to do is actually become a state religion and hamper the marketplace of faith.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Parkour - In the real world, I try to do what will be the most compelling to others. To remove the marketplace of faith and tell everyone that they can only learn Judaism? To say that people would be resentful would probably be an understatement.
The world is the way the world is. We have all been affected by the events of history, by the religions of history, and since we are exposed to them, we are forced to contend with them in a search for truth.
So then the answer is that yes, the marketplace should exist. At what point in hypothetical 'ideals' should the marketplace not exist? If judaism gets so powerful that it can impose law that asserts that you cannot teach anything but the jewish faith?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It tickles my funny bone that conspiracy theories so closely match the Truth value of some religious claims. If you don't agree, it's just because you've been brainwashed, or you haven't been exposed to the "Truth" that the small minority is so invested in.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: The marketplace for religion isn't a very open market, due to the indoctrination of the young. And I say that recognizing that indoctrination of the young is not inherently moral or immoral, and that it's probably unavoidable.
Well, that's why I'm in favor of a Marketplace, as it allows those who are indoctrinated into unhealthy systems to get out, as not open as it may be. One of my co-workers describes her old religion as a "cult", and is very grateful for the internet as a source of information for people who have left like she did.
Of course, I have the bias of someone who has also rejected religion, but I think belief in spite of full access to other views is something that is equally important.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: We can easily see that when Anglicanism, Catholicism, or even belief in Mao as a god were made state religions, the resulting abuses and scandal only helped to make the alternatives look that much more attractive in generations afterwards.
It seems to me that if you want a religion or a system of beliefs to thrive, the last thing you want to do is actually become a state religion and hamper the marketplace of faith.
Going in for the complete agreement. Welcome to a postmodern info-driven society where any attempt to enforce your monoculture Truth is sure to result in the instability and limitation of your new Republic of Gilead. Unforeseen consequences for the lose, marketplace for the win, gg
CUT THREAD HERE
8<-----------------------------------------
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Learning the requisite information is not "indoctrination".
Would anyone without the training be able to reconstruct the same theories from observation of the world?
If they had access to all the observed incidents, yes. But they don't. Honestly, Tom, "I ain't never seen any sech varmint" is not a disproof of anything. God spoke to us. He isn't speaking now. You can't say "Well, unless He speaks up right now [stamp your feet like a two year old here], I don't believe he ever did. So there!"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet who hast to spread [it], and has a Torah full of miracles witnessed by masses.
So do other religions. Christianity is full of claims of miracles witnessed by thousands of people. (Starting with 5000 people fed on two loaves and five fishes.) The pagan Norse had Odin doing magic visible to entire migrating tribes; to include, in the case of Gefjon, the creation of Lake Malaren and the island of Zeeland. Such a coincidence: You disclaim these miracles you have not 'studied', and accept the ones you were told of as a child.
Oh, please. The founding myth of Christianity consists of 12 or 13 people claiming to have seen a resurrection. Islam's founding revelation has one illiterate guy in a cave.
Founding experiences are very different. Once you have thousands of people shouting their believe in Thor, seeing him in a thunder storm isn't that big a deal. But the revelation at Sinai wasn't to people who really knew God all that much before.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly...
Bear in mind that the Jews saw nothing wrong with killing heretics, and weren't very good in the early going at writing stuff down. I submit that this dramatically reduces the checksum value of the population.
How were we "not very good in the early going at writing stuff down"?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Judaism claims a mass revelation, where God speaks to the entire nation directly, not just to one prophet who hast to spread [it], and has a Torah full of miracles witnessed by masses.
So do other religions. Christianity is full of claims of miracles witnessed by thousands of people. (Starting with 5000 people fed on two loaves and five fishes.) The pagan Norse had Odin doing magic visible to entire migrating tribes; to include, in the case of Gefjon, the creation of Lake Malaren and the island of Zeeland. Such a coincidence: You disclaim these miracles you have not 'studied', and accept the ones you were told of as a child.
Oh, please. The founding myth of Christianity consists of 12 or 13 people claiming to have seen a resurrection. Islam's founding revelation has one illiterate guy in a cave.
Founding experiences are very different. Once you have thousands of people shouting their believe in Thor, seeing him in a thunder storm isn't that big a deal. But the revelation at Sinai wasn't to people who really knew God all that much before.
And the miracles worked by Odin were seen by hard-headed warriors who knew the difference between victory and defeat, and had no prior reason to believe him a god; he was born of woman like the rest of us. You dismiss what you know little of. As for Gefyon, she is supposed to have come out of the wilderness with her team of oxen, spoken to a king who had no particular reason to think her a goddess, and then done her bit with the lake in front of all the people of that kingdom. (Which does incline one to think it wasn't a very large kingdom, but then again the idea that Israel had 2 million adult males is also a fantasy.)
quote:How were we "not very good in the early going at writing stuff down"?
Just what it says. The idea that the Torah was written down by the same generation that saw the events at Sinai is another creation of the people who wrote the Torah, who are no more to be trusted on that subject than on the subject of what happened at Sinai.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Um, well, yes? Except that your statement screamed "sarcasm," which implied we were supposed to take it as the opposite of true.
No, actually, I was being quite non-sarcastic. That's understandable that you misread me. You may not have had the...opportunity...to observe me in religious discussions much, prior to now.
In other news, the fascism is thick on the ground in this thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, please. The founding myth of Christianity consists of 12 or 13 people claiming to have seen a resurrection. Islam's founding revelation has one illiterate guy in a cave.
Grey UFO theory > Odin > Scientology > Christianity > Islam
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:God spoke to us. He isn't speaking now. You can't say "Well, unless He speaks up right now [stamp your feet like a two year old here], I don't believe he ever did. So there!"
Can I say I don't believe the scripture that you use to claim that God spoke to you? Can you extend even the tiniest hand to someone like me, who does not believe in your Truth but is willing to let you believe in your Truth?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:"I ain't never seen any sech varmint" is not a disproof of anything. God spoke to us. He isn't speaking now. You can't say "Well, unless He speaks up right now [stamp your feet like a two year old here], I don't believe he ever did.
That's not what the magical fairy who lives in my freezer says, according to my grandmother. If you wait a little bit, I can produce a book that says my great-great-grandmother was in a crowd of thousands that got to pet the fairy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Is their a Marketplace of Faith and is it a good thing.
No, there is no Marketplace of Faith, because a marketplace entails having a choice of what to "buy". You do not have a choice of what to have faith in. You can only have faith in what your knowledge and experience of the world tells you that you should have faith in.
It is more akin to setting a bunch of different colored objects on a table and then asking "Which one looks the most blue to you?" Sure, you could lie and answer whatever object you wanted. If you tried really really hard you might even convince yourself that lie is true. But the honest truth is, there is only one object that looks the most blue to you and you can't simply choose it to be otherwise. It also is possible, depending on how accurate your eyes are, that the object that appears most blue to you really isn't. It is possible that other people might observe something else as the most blue. Nevertheless, whatever your eyes percieve as blue is what is the most blue to you. It isn't a matter of choice; it's a matter of what you percieve to be true.
Faith in a religion is a good bit more complicated than that example, of course.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:"I ain't never seen any sech varmint" is not a disproof of anything. God spoke to us. He isn't speaking now. You can't say "Well, unless He speaks up right now [stamp your feet like a two year old here], I don't believe he ever did.
That's not what the magical fairy who lives in my freezer says, according to my grandmother. If you wait a little bit, I can produce a book that says my great-great-grandmother was in a crowd of thousands that got to pet the fairy.
Running now - but I kinda wanted to respond. It's not as simple as that.
In addition to the fact that there is a story, there is also an unbroken tradition where we know who was who in each link in the chain. Because of that it is difficult to say at any point in the chain that someone introduced the "myth" and it caught on.
The fairy example is absurd - you could not get anyone to believe it.
The fact that people believe in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is very interesting. Islam and Christianity rest their weight on the mass revelation and claim that Jesus and Mohammed were just other prophets who do not need mass revelations, but they could not have gotten off the ground had Judaism not been established.
Now, the issue with the Mass revelation in the Torah is that it is difficult to make an alternate story where Moses made up a religion and sought to spread it. The tradition is solid. We know that after Moses came Joshua, and after Joshua came a list of Judges, and after the Judges came the Prophets. We know the names of the leaders of each generation, and their stories. There is no dark spot. Because of that, it is very difficult to propose that the whole story was made up, because there is no historical period that would allow for it.
It's one thing to approach a people and say that your forefathers were all at Sinai when your story doesn't only exist in the past but is directly connected to your present. You know who your dad was, and who your grandfather was - it's insanely difficult for someone to re-write the complete history of your nation.
Because of that, it's difficult for me to come up with a compelling story for how Judaism began and how it spread if I assume that Judaism isn't true.
Read the Bible with this point in mind - that's what many modern Biblical scholars try and do - they try to figure out how Judaism developed, assuming the Bible is not true, and how a people could possibly have accepted what was written.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's one thing to approach a people and say that your forefathers were all at Sinai when your story doesn't only exist in the past but is directly connected to your present. You know who your dad was, and who your grandfather was - it's insanely difficult for someone to re-write the complete history of your nation.
No, it isn't. Do you think Israelite kids were taught patriotic pablum in schools, like modern Americans? These were nomadic sheepherders. They didn't know source-criticism from their left hands.
Or let's put it another way. In the story of the founding of Rome, we 'know exactly who was who'. There was Romulus who founded the city, then Numa Pompilius, then Tullus Hostilius, and so on down to Tarquinius; then the founding of the Republic, and then there's a long list of consuls. Clearly, by the argument you are making, nobody could have invented this list, since it connects directly to the consuls, no dark spots, everybody knew who their grandfathers were, etc. Does it follow that we are obliged to believe the story about Romulus and Remus being suckled by a wolf? Or, for that matter, that these seven kings (suspiciously magic number, that) ruled for 244 years altogether? Yet these Romans are much better attested than Moses!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:God spoke to us. He isn't speaking now. You can't say "Well, unless He speaks up right now [stamp your feet like a two year old here], I don't believe he ever did. So there!"
Can I say I don't believe the scripture that you use to claim that God spoke to you? Can you extend even the tiniest hand to someone like me, who does not believe in your Truth but is willing to let you believe in your Truth?
That scripture isn't my source.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Armoth: I believe in TomDavidson's fairy, as does he, as did his Mother before him, an his Grandmother before her. That unbroken chain of History, combined with the thousands of eye witnesses and the Holy Book mean it's the Truth!
Praise The Great Fairy!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
Praise The Great Fairy!
God is gay?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:No, there is no Marketplace of Faith, because a marketplace entails having a choice of what to "buy". You do not have a choice of what to have faith in. You can only have faith in what your knowledge and experience of the world tells you that you should have faith in.
It is more akin to setting a bunch of different colored objects on a table and then asking "Which one looks the most blue to you?" Sure, you could lie and answer whatever object you wanted.
I disagree. Most kindergartners can distinguish colors. If they could all distinguish the truth regarding the origin of the cosmos, our place in it, and how we ought to go about treating each other, we wouldn't be having this conversation to begin with. The dis-analogy is severe.
People can indeed choose what they want to believe in. Here's one way: every one of us trains ourselves in how to direct our attention. In other words, we make choices about our priorities. Those choices, necessarily, form a filter that helps determine what information we get. The sources of information we choose influence what we believe in. This isn't choice in the sense of choosing the blue block on the table, true. But I don't think anyone is suggesting it is. I also don't think that kind of immediacy of choice is necessary for a marketplace to function.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The fairy example is absurd - you could not get anyone to believe it.
That's charitable for you to say on behalf of humanity, but it's not true. If you can get people to believe in scientology, you can get people to believe in fridgefairy.
quote:Because of that, it's difficult for me to come up with a compelling story for how Judaism began and how it spread if I assume that Judaism isn't true.
That it is difficult for you to propose a compelling story for Judaism's history that does not rely upon the truth of the religion does not mean that it is actually difficult to do. The secular historical proposals are actually easier than the accounts that propose the literal truth of the bible's history, especially given details like the great flood and the apparent age of the earth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The secular historical proposals are actually easier than the accounts that propose the literal truth of the bible's history, especially given details like the great flood and the apparent age of the earth.
Of course, those are not the only two options.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
Praise The Great Fairy!
God is gay?
The Wise and Benevolent FridgeFairy is OmniSexual. Himer will have relations with any of shis worthy followers.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The secular historical proposals are actually easier than the accounts that propose the literal truth of the bible's history, especially given details like the great flood and the apparent age of the earth.
Of course, those are not the only two options.
Strictly speaking, there are as many options as there are alternate universes to house those options. Perhaps in one Universe the Jews have it 100% right. In another universe, the FridgeFairy is actually the One True Faith (that's this universe, sadly for all other religions). In some universe the Old Testament is an elaborate joke on mankind played by Loki, the great trickster. There is undoubtedly a universe in which all religious belief is caused by a fungal infection.
When given so many conflicting options, the only sane thing to do is pick the one with the greatest likelihood of being correct in our own universe.
My money's on the mushrooms.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
If the vast majority of us seem to believe that the marketplace of faith exists and is a good thing, and the biggest complaints to be had about it being not relevant to their faith in this thread are Jewish, why do we have this "Christian America" fight going on. As someone who has not bought into the Evangelical Christian based faiths, they appear to be trying to set up a monopoly in this marketplace, or give themselves powers and advantages that are outside the norm--basically adding irrelevant incentives to purchase their Truth via political power.
It reminds me of the "Buy American" pleas of failing car companies. They don't or can't compete with competitors outside the US, so they try to force or even legally prescribe the need to buy American. While this is patriotic, it is hardly capitalist. So, "Christian America" is the "Buy America" plan of the faith marketplace?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, not really. I think the metaphor breaks down pretty quickly, in fact, Dan, once you start poking at it and trying to use it to draw any actual conclusions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You know who your dad was, and who your grandfather was - it's insanely difficult for someone to re-write the complete history of your nation.
I don't see how these two things are remotely connected, to be honest with you. Knowing who my grandfather is has no bearing whatsoever on knowing whether he did in fact have a parent who heard God.
Again, seriously, all it would have taken is a group of people dedicated to lying for what they thought was a higher cause, and a slightly larger group of people willing to kill the skeptics.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If you can get people to believe in scientology, you can get people to believe in fridgefairy.
It really does amaze me, what people will believe.
I guarantee I could talk some rural 3rd-world villagers, or some not-so-bright people, into believing in Tom's fridgefairy. Or my fridgefairy, etc.. People will believe all kinds of crazy stuff, particularly if the source of the information is a trusted authority figure, like a parent, or is very persuasive.
If I had been raised in a non-YEC, non-fundamentalist religion, I maybe would have stuck with it. I found it impossible, though, given the ridiculous claims that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that only people at this 1 tiny church are going to Heaven, all else straight to Hell...going to Hell, in fact, for tiny doctrinal differences.
The stuff just doesn't stand up to an honest look at probability, IMHO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I guarantee I could talk some rural 3rd-world villagers, or some not-so-bright people, into believing in Tom's fridgefairy. Or my fridgefairy, etc..
I guarantee the likelihood of your being lynched by such people for attempting to do so is greater than the likelihood of your succeeding to convince them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It really does amaze me, what people will believe.
I guarantee I could talk some rural 3rd-world villagers, or some not-so-bright people, into believing in Tom's fridgefairy. Or my fridgefairy, etc.. People will believe all kinds of crazy stuff, particularly if the source of the information is a trusted authority figure, like a parent, or is very persuasive.
The interesting side question is: How difficult would it be to get you to believe in something similarly absurd, if told to you by an authority you trust in a way that's very persuasive, in terms that would make it sound plausible given the way you see the world?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I guarantee the likelihood of your being lynched by such people for attempting to do so is greater than the likelihood of your succeeding to convince them.
However, should you avoid the lynching, your willingness to martyr yourself will be held up as evidence for the truth of the religion. This argument is used frequently in LDS and Evangelical apologetics.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Alternatively, if you do get lynched, rest easy with the knowledge that your martyr's death may well prove a good starting point for a subsequent attempt Think of it as a win-win.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that exposure to many ideas is essential - at least it was/is for me. I believe that there is Truth but that no one religion holds all of or only Truth and that people have different ways of accessing Truth.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The interesting side question is: How difficult would it be to get you to believe in something similarly absurd, if told to you by an authority you trust in a way that's very persuasive, in terms that would make it sound plausible given the way you see the world? [/QB]
What is so frightening is that it isn't difficult at all. If you make up a complex enough story and keep repeating it with enough conviction, you can actually start to convince yourself, even though you know it's false, because you made it up yourself.
Our minds love simple, pat answers to complex questions. Real knowledge requires work. Just making up happy answers and believing them is easy. We see examples of it everywhere.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:It really does amaze me, what people will believe.
I guarantee I could talk some rural 3rd-world villagers, or some not-so-bright people, into believing in Tom's fridgefairy. Or my fridgefairy, etc.. People will believe all kinds of crazy stuff, particularly if the source of the information is a trusted authority figure, like a parent, or is very persuasive.
The interesting side question is: How difficult would it be to get you to believe in something similarly absurd, if told to you by an authority you trust in a way that's very persuasive, in terms that would make it sound plausible given the way you see the world?
That depends.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think, for a lot of atheists or agnostics, the answer to that question would be "easy to do initially, but difficult to maintain." That's the way it worked out for me.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I think, for a lot of atheists or agnostics, the answer to that question would be "easy to do initially, but difficult to maintain." That's the way it worked out for me.
Perhaps. I'm likely to believe lies that people tell me about their lives, or lies about subjects that are very hard to verify, or lies that don't seem to create obvious benefit for the liar.
However, lies about things that affect all living things, everywhere, like statements about an all-knowing/all-powerful God, trip my BS meter like you wouldn't believe.
The thing that people miss is that it is incumbent upon believers to prove God's existence, not unbelievers to disprove.
Why?
1. There's no easily-observable phenomenon in the world that obviously requires a God. I'm not saying there's NO phenomenon, just not one that's easy to scientifically verify. (actually, I think there's no phenomenon, I'm just trying to be nice)
2. Believing in a God often has deadly consequences (see the Crusades, 9/11, etc.--belief has caused a lot of deaths, directly or indirectly).
3. There's no clear, observable benefit to believers--atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived.
None of this means that something might not be occurring on the supernatural level...but when you start talking about the supernatural like it has more power than humans, that's when you start to trip the ol' BS meter. Prove it. That's what I'm asking, and I'm asking it for the reasons that I just stated.
Believing in God is gilding the lily, in my humble opinion. The simplest explanation for the observable, consensus-reality world is that, whether the supernatural exists, or whether everything is scientifically study-able and therefore predictable, the supernatural is not that much more powerful than humans. Again, in my humble opinion.
Shoot, I nailed that. That was some beauty. BAM! Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's no clear, observable benefit to believers--atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived.
This is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested and general found to be false. Numerous studies have found that religious people are happier, live longer, have more social capital and give more time, money and blood to secular charities.
Since you are touting the superiority of science, its rather hypocritical to simply reject this work out of hand. You have proposed a testable hypothesis that doesn't stand up to critical analysis.
[ April 27, 2010, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I have to agree with the bunny on this one. Your first two points are fine. The third doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, and you don't even need any polls or studies to see this - just a little observation. Many to most religious people I know are very happy and satisfied with their lives - and their religion is a significant source of that. I can even recognize that I personally would likely be much happier if I could believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god had my back through the hard times in my life. Stress kills, and I'm willing to bet most religious folks would be a lot more stressed without the comfort of their god to get them through the day.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm a bit late to the game here and I admit that I've skimmed heavily, but it looks like no one is even arguing with the idea that the marketplace of faith exists.
I don't really think it does.
Oh sure, *legally*, we can pick and choose whatever religion we like. But socially? There is a lot of pressure within religious groups to not even listen to other ideas lest you be tempted away. (Hence the things Lisa said about her ideal Jewish state.)
Not only that, but in certain areas of the country, things are so heavily mired in a single religious ideology that even if someone tried to buck social pressure, they'd have absolutely no where to go.
Humans, being social creatures by nature, aren't likely to buck the system. Ostracizing is a highly effective tool to keep people in line and to keep them from exploring.
Even people I meet on the Internet who have access to various ideologies put up walls between themselves and those points of view. They're not shopping to buy, they're selling. (And often getting angry when no one else is buying. )
People who buy into new religions are few and far between and usually they do so not because another religion is more appealing, but instead because something about the religion into which they were originally indoctrinated ticked them off. At this point, instead of shopping for a new religion, most of the people I've ever known turn to no religion -- some form of atheism or agnosticism, with or without spirituality. (This probably describes me as well -- a spiritual agnostic.)
Speaking from my own experience, I've looked for a marketplace, but everyone's selling some variety of apple and I'm really looking for strawberries. In other words, ten million varieties of Christianity don't make for a very useful marketplace.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's no clear, observable benefit to believers--atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived.
This is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested and general found to be false. Numerous studies have found that religious people are happier, live longer, have more social capital and give more time, money and bloody to secular charities.
I gotta say that I've seen plenty of dispute on all of the above points, due to the great variety in what is being measured. Well, except for the blood donation bit, I don't think I've seen that before.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a "marketplace"; it just isn't easy to get to. And some, even most, people aren't very good shoppers.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's no clear, observable benefit to believers--atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived.
This is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested and general found to be false. Numerous studies have found that religious people are happier, live longer, have more social capital and give more time, money and blood to secular charities.
Since you are touting the superiority of science, its rather hypocritical to simply reject this work out of hand. You have proposed a testable hypothesis that doesn't stand up to critical analysis.
I think you will find that the evidence is not so clear-cut as all that. 'Numerous studies' have shown atheists to be more educated and to have higher IQs than theists, qualities which are strongly correlated with social capital and long life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:There's no clear, observable benefit to believers--atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived.
This is a testable hypothesis. It has been tested and general found to be false. Numerous studies have found that religious people are happier, live longer, have more social capital and give more time, money and blood to secular charities.
Since you are touting the superiority of science, its rather hypocritical to simply reject this work out of hand. You have proposed a testable hypothesis that doesn't stand up to critical analysis.
I think you will find that the evidence is not so clear-cut as all that. 'Numerous studies' have shown atheists to be more educated and to have higher IQs than theists, qualities which are strongly correlated with social capital and long life.
Yes, that's a factor that is easy to control for in a study. My point is that is a testable hypothesis. If its true, you should be able to design a study and produce data to demonstrate that its true. Making the claim without having done that is decidedly unscientific. Making the claim in the presence of data that contradicts that claim, without acknowledging and refuting that body of data is not just unscientific, its scientifically unethical.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You state, then, that given two twins, both with college degrees and similar IQs, the religious one will live longer than the atheist? If so that's interesting, but does not demonstrate that the benefit comes from the religion; I would think it more likely to come from the churchgoing, which is not the same thing. Have your studies looked at religious people who do not go to church, or who live in predominantly atheist communities, or both? Being an unpopular minority is never easy; it does not follow that the majority would retain the benefits of being in the majority, if the numbers were reversed. (In any case, of course, "Going to church is good for you" is a poor argument for the truth of the doctrines preached there, but that's not what we're discussing at the moment.)
I also note that the initial post to which you responded had a list somewhat at cross-purposes with what you said studies could show; the quote was "atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived". In fact, theists are, as we apparently agree, measurably dumber and poorer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
KOM, Here are the references to several studies that support the theory that religiosity promotes human well being. Can you provide any such studies that support your theory that it does not? After all, you are the one that has claimed that making such judgements without evidence is evil.
If you want more, I'm sure I can find them but not until you produce so scientific counter examples.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You state, then, that given two twins, both with college degrees and similar IQs, the religious one will live longer than the atheist? If so that's interesting, but does not demonstrate that the benefit comes from the religion; I would think it more likely to come from the churchgoing, which is not the same thing. Have your studies looked at religious people who do not go to church, or who live in predominantly atheist communities, or both? Being an unpopular minority is never easy; it does not follow that the majority would retain the benefits of being in the majority, if the numbers were reversed. (In any case, of course, "Going to church is good for you" is a poor argument for the truth of the doctrines preached there, but that's not what we're discussing at the moment.)
I also note that the initial post to which you responded had a list somewhat at cross-purposes with what you said studies could show; the quote was "atheists/agnostics aren't measurably poorer, less healthy, dumber, or shorter-lived". In fact, theists are, as we apparently agree, measurably dumber and poorer.
KOM, You are the one who has said that making such judgements without evidence is evil. Produce the evidence.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:A sample of 711 15-16-year-olds completed the Francis Scale of Attitude toward Christianity and the Standard Progressive Matrices index of intelligence, together with information about paternal occupation. The data provide no evidence for a relationship, either positive or negative, between intelligence and religiosity.
KOM, but arguing with you about religion is just like arguing with Ron Lambert about religion. You are both oblivious to the unsubstantiatable assumptions that underly your beliefs and impervious to rational arguments.
It's amusing but not sufficiently amusing to hold my attention any longer.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well. Three posts in a row, expressing very different things; hard to respond to. I'll try to deal with them in sequence. First, you give evidence that religiosity correlates positively with measures of well-being, and challenge me to provide counter-evidence for "[my] theory that it does not". I have not put forth such a theory; rather I took yours at face value, and speculated on what the causal mechanism - which is, as you well know, not the same as correlation - might be. Do your studies give any information on the causality? (They might do so if well designed.)
I have, however, put forth one claim of fact, which I thought from your previous posts you agreed with and therefore I needn't substantiate it; this is the claim that atheism is correlated with intelligence. Here is one study showing this.
Next you object to my making judgements in the absence of evidence, accusing me of hypocrisy; fair enough, had I done so. I put forth speculations on causality, testable but, to my knowledge, not yet tested; nothing in my ethics forbids this. I also made a claim of fact backed up by evidence, although I did not give the evidence as I thought it un-controversial. Since I was mistaken on that point, I have now given the evidence, or at any rate some of the evidence - just what I could dig up in two minutes of Googling.
Finally you seem to abandon the dispute, apparently in response to some post I have made only in your own mind. Very well, if you do not wish to post, I cannot force you.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would think it more likely to come from the churchgoing, which is not the same thing. Have your studies looked at religious people who do not go to church, or who live in predominantly atheist communities, or both? Being an unpopular minority is never easy
This was my first thought. Even if the studies are accurate, I would be inclined to believe that this is the reason. Social networking is hugely advantageous and many doors are closed if you aren't in with the right people. I've often thought that non-theists should organize in some way to help one another out. Not believing in God, not being religious, or just not belonging to a mainstream religion doesn't mitigate the human need for belonging.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure how (or why) one would separate religion from being part of a community. At least for Catholics being "in communion" is an integral part of religion and I think that this is true for many varieties of Christian as well as other religions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I can easily imagine an atheist who goes to church for the social aspects (indeed I came across such a one in a different discussion board the other day, so I have no need for imagination); conversely I can easily imagine a theist who does not go to church because he finds it boring - this is practically the norm in Europe. 'Religion', in this view, is the actual belief in a god, which is strongly correlated with church-going but is not the same thing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ... Not believing in God, not being religious, or just not belonging to a mainstream religion doesn't mitigate the human need for belonging.
Sorta.
quote:Gallup's 2008 surveys in 32 countries with average annual incomes of $2,000 or less (the countries are listed in the "Survey Methods" section) document the extent to which religiosity appears to affect residents' emotional health. Specifically, they are more likely than those in the less religious group to say they experienced enjoyment the previous day, and they are less likely to have experienced a range of negative emotions. ... Now compare these results with those from the world's richest countries -- i.e., the 31 countries surveyed in 2008 where residents have average annual incomes of $25,000 or more. Note that the differences here are smaller -- in fact, in the two cases in which they are more than a couple of percentage points, they are in the opposite direction from those we saw among the poorest countries.
quote:For example, those in the more religious group are more likely to say they were treated with respect all day and that they smiled and laughed a lot that day. Again, these differences are smaller or nonexistent among rich-world populations.
In a nutshell, I suggest that this is usually how this plays out.
The theist, in this case represented by The Rabbit suggests that controlling for wealth, income, health-care, etc. the more religious tend to be healthier and happier, which may very well be true.
The non-religious usually suggest that the more religious are usually poorer, less healthy, and less educated. This is true as well on a much broader scale.
Effectively, these are two different arguments that while related to each other, are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are you equating church attendance with being part of a community?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Although I do not disagree with the general thrust of your post, I'm making a slightly stronger claim than what you give as the atheist position, namely that (controlling for other factors), atheists are more intelligent (not merely more educated, although that is also true), and also the more intelligent are more likely to be atheists.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Are you equating church attendance with being part of a community?
I am using it as shorthand. I understand that showing your face in the church does not give you the sociality any more than showing up at a party does if you sit in the corner and read. But I do think one can get the community, which is basically a primate instinct, without the belief. You may well object that this is hypocritical, and that if done deliberately it is a deceit of the Christians whose community is thus bing infiltrated; but that is beside the point I'm making.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. The point I am making is that, at least for Catholicism*, being "in communion" - being part of the Body of Christ in theological language - is entwined with knowing people and showing up but is not the same thing. A cloistered hermit is still part of the "community" as are people who live in parishes on opposite ends of the earth. This is an important distinction and I want to make sure that I understand what you are talking about and that you understand the difference.
*This, I think, is sufficiently central to the core of Catholicism that I am comfortable stating it as such.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is understood; this is not the sense of 'community' that I was speaking of.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Although I do not disagree with the general thrust of your post, I'm making a slightly stronger claim than what you give as the atheist position, namely that (controlling for other factors), atheists are more intelligent (not merely more educated, although that is also true), and also the more intelligent are more likely to be atheists.
Presuming this is true, so what? There are all sorts of things that could lead to this state of affairs and many different things one can conclude from it. The correlation is not nearly strong enough to suggest that religiosity is a sign of low intelligence or that atheism is a sign of high intelligence. The correlation between IQ and near sightedness (for example) is much stronger. In fact, I know personally a few rather stupid atheists and more than a few religious people of extraordinary intelligence (and as a Professor and active scientist my standard for what I consider extraordinary intelligence is very high.) These people are exceptions to the general rule, but such exception are strong evidence that there is no causal link between them.
Certainly, one can't become more intelligent by rejecting religion so I'm not sure what action it could motivate. Certainly as a scientist you aren't claiming that the correlation between intelligence and atheisim is evidence that there is no God. So what is your point in repeating this claim?
I find the fact that atheists embrace this claim (despite the relatively week evidence supporting it), rather disturbing because it so closely parallels religious claims of that membership accords one a chosen status as an "ubermensch". That kind of thinking is really dangerous and has lead to atrocities through out history.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So now you're talking to me again? Quick work. To answer your question, I wasn't in fact trying to draw any particular conclusion, I was just pointing out where I thought others' posts were getting facts wrong, or not mentioning closely-related facts. Idle chatter, as it were. Perhaps you won't believe this, coming from me in a moderately religious discussion, but it's so.
quote:In fact, I know personally a few rather stupid atheists and more than a few religious people of extraordinary intelligence
As you well know, this is meaningless in the context of a discussion of population-scale correlations.
quote:The correlation is not nearly strong enough to suggest that religiosity is a sign of low intelligence or that atheism is a sign of high intelligence.
Nu; moving the average by a point or two has little effect on the large mass of the population, but considerable effect on the tails. A drop of 2 points of IQ is practically meaningless around the average, but as you go out to, say, 130 or 140, a few standard deviations from the mean, it can becomes quite a large drop in the probability of encountering such a person. So if you hear that someone is a world-class, Nobel-winning scientist, you should be rather more surprised at hearing he is a Christian than you would when hearing the same of an average Joe. Not necessarily very surprised, because the base rate of Christianity is quite high. But it would not be quite the expected thing among the most intelligent people in the world. Similarly, a very dull atheist, IQ around 60 or 70, is a bit unusual; but here we run into the difficulty that such IQs are the border of mental retardation and having difficulty making one's way in daily life, and it's not clear that it's meaningful to speak of the theological beliefs of such a person. I would generally expect them to parrot whatever they heard from their parents or other authority figures, and to be unable to defend their view, whichever it was, in a reasoned debate.
quote:Certainly, one can't become more intelligent by rejecting religion so I'm not sure what action it could motivate.
In general one cannot become more intelligent by adopting any belief; but it's not unreasonable to expect to become better informed by adopting the beliefs of those smarter than oneself. This is perhaps especially so when the correlation is driven, as I suspect it is, by education; smart people are more likely to have a college education, more likely to evaluate the evidence for themselves, and less likely to be theists. In extreme cases of religion, such a Creationism, the mental blinders required are so powerful that just abandoning them can effectively increase your brainpower quite a bit; I know of several ex-Creationists who speak of the immense relief of not having to fight their own rational instincts anymore and being able to unleash their full potential.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I myself found, that in theological discussions when I was still a Christian, I spent so much time trying to figure out ways around cognitive dissonance, it was as much a debate with my own theology as with my interlocutor.
Not having to try to figure out ways to reason through a basket full of irrational beliefs opens up your time for thinking about things that actually make sense, and might lead to meaningful conclusions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What was that religion specifically, if you don't mind satisfying my curiosity.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'd like to point out that the problems that come with religions all start with believing that the supernatural world has clearly more power than humans.
It's not a belief in the supernatural that does the dirty work...it's spending time and energy on appealing to God/gods/etc. instead of using your own common sense and brainpower.
An excellent example of that would be the parents whose children die because they refuse to get prompt medical attention for those children, for religious reasons.
I win.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What was that religion specifically, if you don't mind satisfying my curiosity.
If you're asking me, I was raised Methodist, but I'd say I just had a pretty generic protestant view of Christianity, due to involvement in a couple different churches and youth groups.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Interesting. What part of that mix caused cognitive dissonance?
Edit: The reason I ask is that for some religions the cognitive dissonance would be fairly obvious (YEC for example), IMO, but that isn't so clear to me for Methodists.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Just the general cognative dissonance in Christianity: problem of evil, why intercessory prayer produces no results, how a just, loving God would allow some people to go to hell for minor infractins while rewarding Christian murderers, etc.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)