As for the first proposed explanation, that would imply that the angels of heaven had a part in the creation of man. But angels are not divine, they are themselves created beings (see Psalms 104:4.) Only God is the Creator: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
As for the second proposed explanation, wouldn't that amount to imposing human customs (the tradition of the "royal we") on the Creator? I would suggest that the royal we derives from the concept of "the divine right of kings," where the king is actually implying, "I and God." For God to use this form would indicate He is saying "I and I."
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, Yes. Angels do not create. They are merely expressions of God's will. Some commentaries explain that God was teaching us modesty by consulting with inferior beings.
Other commentaries explain that God was consulting with all that was created because the world has a specific teleogical purpose - and that is the mission of man. By saying "Let us make man", He pointed all created beings toward man.
Second, perhaps. Perhaps not. The Torah speaks in the language of men. Is a king a concept made up by man? Or is it a projection of a form that exists and is rooted in God? I think the latter.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people have the belief that one of the things that miffed Lucifer was that he was not consulted in the creation of man.
But again, Genesis 1:1 is pretty clear and definite: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Anything else is speculation. The text does not say that He consulted with anyone other than Himself.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say He consulted with anyone about the heavens and the earth. It's man we are talking about, is it not?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:consider please to what degree you consider people who don't subscribe to what you consider the irrational aspects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., to be practicing a "watered-down" form of their religion
Valid point. I would argue that a Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of Christ is not actually a Christian at all, but gets some emotional benefits from claiming to be and going to the meetings.
But I wouldn't say that's a problem with my definition. I would say, in fact, that my definition more easily diagnoses the problematic nature of that person's "membership."
My problem with your definition is that it would seem to make any organized community of philosophers into a religious group.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, I think you've mentioned BlueLetterBible.org before as a place where one can look at the Hebrew texts. Is that right? Would you consider that a reliable source? If not, do you have another source online so that we can all look at the texts together?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
My problem with your definition is that it would seem to make any organized community of philosophers into a religious group.
And this is a problem because . . . ?
This is just a translation of the issue, isn't it? In the earlier discussion, substitute the phrase 'theistic religions' for 'religions'.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:God violates the holy heck out of the model. But God also evaporates the instant you question or attempt to test Him.
Not exactly. As Jesus put it, in essence, "Those who seek for signs shall find them but not unto salvation." I'm not trying to grate you (and I suspect if I knew more about your background Tom as you have hinted that you used to be religious, that I would be more understanding of where you are coming from) but just as to work in a bio lab you have to sterilize the equipment and the person working with the cultures, a person who wants to experiment with God has to be mentally ready to handle it. To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Besides, even when we have discussed how God could verify the supernatural claims of his religion, you steadfastly rejected that God could convincingly convey that truth outside of visibly appearing or causing a miraculous event of your specifications. You rejected outright allowing for him to designate the method of communication, or rather you tried to make it fit into a box of your choosing.
Or if you did not reject it outright you attempted to simply explain it away as self deception, or that the experience was without any value, as it cannot simply be documented, packaged like a chemistry set, and repeated for everyone to simultaneously get their sh*ts and giggles over.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, well, that's rather the point, isn't it? Your 'demonstrations' are only convincing to someone already convinced.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because at this point you lose the distinction between a religion and a philosophy.
I can understand why very liberal religious leaders might want to assert that there is no distinction, mind you. But in the same way that it's useful to know the difference between stew and soup, it's handy to keep the two words -- with two different definitions -- available for when you need to distinguish between them.
----
quote:To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Here's the problem, BB: the steps for "preparation" in this case are almost textbook examples of how to brainwash someone (in this case, yourself). Enough psychological studies have been done on this phenomenon -- on the human ability to convince oneself of the truth of a falsehood through repetition and insistence -- that I am absolutely certain of my ability to convince myself that God exists given the time and the desire. It is for precisely this reason that I am intensely skeptical of any prerequisite for "seeking" that first requires that I convince myself of the end goal. I certainly don't dispute that God might well be reluctant to demonstrate His existence in ways that would convince skeptics. However, I maintain that, if this is true, the continued existence of skeptics is entirely and completely God's fault.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: just as to work in a bio lab you have to sterilize the equipment and the person working with the cultures, a person who wants to experiment with God has to be mentally ready to handle it. To be unprepared is to automatically make any interaction with God unfavorable.
Sigh.
In a bio lab, you set up negative controls. That's how you know if you sterilized properly. And you set up positive contols too. If your positive controls work, and your sample fails, you know that you did everything right, it's the sample at fault.
What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
What is the evidence that you can collect which would cause you to say "I'm doing everything right, but this just doesn't work as it's supposed to"?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's the problem, BB: the steps for "preparation" in this case are almost textbook examples of how to brainwash someone (in this case, yourself)
You've made this assertion many times in the past, it wasn't true then, it isn't true now. Look I can grant that this can be the case, just as it can be with raising a child to play football, or be a television star. Making a kid learn to play the piano can often be quite close to brain washing. You force them to spend time everyday practicing even when they hate the instrument and the songs. You tell yourself they will thank you later, and in rare cases that happens.
There's still a fine line between brain washing and entraining. Good religion does not tell you you are a bad person if you don't find it's teachings to be correct. It does not ridicule you for your lack of faith if you just can't get it. But it also doesn't just tell you that whatever you think is true. Or that everyone's morality is whatever they choose it to be.
You don't have to convince yourself that God exists. You just need to discard the notion that God needs to conform to your specifications. I blame God for skepticism as well, clearly if he created us and that capacity exists he has to account for it. But it, like every other attribute must be tempered with moderation. There's a point where skepticism turns into base pride. A refusal to take a necessary step because it's hard. Better to simply abrogate your responsibility by intellectual speculation so that you can assuage your conscience and say, "I did all you could reasonably expect me to do."
I don't believe in not thinking, ask anybody who has known me for about 1 hour and they will tell you that perhaps my problem is that I don't stop talking about things like this. The opposite vice from healthy skepticism is blind obedience. I see little akin to brainwashing with the philosophy, "Try all things, hold fast to that which is good." If a virtue espoused by religion makes you a better person then keep doing it.
Tom, I would say in a general sense there is much about you that I find admirable. To me you are a living example of why agnosticism or atheism can still produce a moral person. Of course I only know the person you project in this forum, but I am sufficiently convinced that the idea you present exists in this universe. Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Do you at least conceive that it's possible I might know something you don't? From my perspective even if I am wrong and I have brainwashed myself into believing a falsehood by sheer fortune I just happen to have locked myself into a system of ethics where I try to love my neighbor as myself, increase in knowledge of all that is worth knowing, and be a source for good in the universe.
Are you really so worried that by making an enthusiastic search for God you will suddenly fall into a trap and shackle your intellect? I have faith in the integrity of your mind, I am fairly certain that in searching for God you will encounter one of two outcomes. You won't find him, or you will and find that in knowing he exists your life is measurably more difficult.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I can see this conversation is going to be a great deal more profitable than our last one out of the gate.
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists. It's really not that hard.
With an approach like that you don't have to find misery in God being silent, you remain stoic about it until God changes the stakes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it also doesn't just tell you that whatever you think is true.
Of course not; it tells you that specific things X, Y and Z are true. Then it invites you to think about this, and continues doing so until you come up with the right answer.
quote: Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Not answering for Tom, obviously, but : Yes, yes, no, yes.
quote:"Try all things, hold fast to that which is good."
And have you really done so? Have you attempted, for example, to convert to Islam on a trial basis? As I recall, you were born into Mormonism.
quote:If a virtue espoused by religion makes you a better person then keep doing it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not the religion is true.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists. It's really not that hard.
With an approach like that you don't have to find misery in God being silent, you remain stoic about it until God changes the stakes.
But see, right there you are making assumptions about what you're going to find. Who said anything about misery? You have this mindset of "I'll do X until it's proven correct"; this is not science, it's deliberate self-deception. When this is your attitude going in, of course you will convince yourself that X is correct! All the more so when you speak in terms of patience and stoicism and avoiding misery when you haven't got your proof yet. Never mind waiting until you're proven right; what would it take to convince you that you're wrong?
There is an experiment whose name I do not recall, showing how humans can convince themselves of anything they like; it goes as follows. You put five people in a room; only one is an experimental subject, but he thinks the other four are, too. You ask them, "which of these lines is longer", with two lines where one is a lot longer than the other; and the four confederates answer first, and give the wrong answer. A surprisingly small fraction of humans will go against the apparent consensus of the group and answer that line B is longer, even though this is really true. And what's more, a considerable fraction of them, asked about this later, will argue that line A really was shorter; they will literally edit their own memories against the evidence of their own eyes, and convince themselves of falsehood, to go along with a group of random strangers on an unimportant question!
And then you come here and tell us that you have 'tested' the religion of your youth, which your parents and friends and entire social circle told you was true, and you expect to be taken seriously? Go along with you, now.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM: You'll forgive me if I don't let you decide whether I can talk with Tom about religion. You think I'm a lost cause because I am too stupid to understand what you are saying, I don't feel inclined to dissuade you.
I can learn about Islam without actually surrendering my own religion just fine. I don't need to check with you as to whether I have indeed sufficiently tried my own religion, I've already made that decision, and I think it's pretty obvious I am not a wide eyed follower with narry a question.
I'd rather not run along, how about you retreat back to the lonely cave you came from.
edit: This text has been up long enough that editing it would probably be improper. I was a bit more visceral in my response KOM, though you find little of interest in my ideas, that does not mean I necessarily feel the same way about you. Perhaps some of what you say rings true at least to you. If you feel inclined could you give me an instance where I backed out of a conversation because I did not have any answers?
quote:You'll forgive me if I don't let you decide whether I can talk with Tom about religion.
I didn't say you should.
quote: You think I'm a lost cause because I am too stupid to understand what you are saying,
No, I don't. I do think you are wilfully stupid on the question of religion; but that is not the same thing as "so stupid as to be a lost cause". You at least admit, in principle, the role of evidence; you are just being stubborn on what is good evidence.
quote: I don't feel inclined to dissuade you.
Clearly.
quote:I can learn about Islam without actually surrendering my own religion just fine.
Yes; but that's not the question. The question is, is Islam really true? And by your own procedure for finding the 'truth' of Mormonism, you have not really investigated this question.
quote:I don't need to check with you as to whether I have indeed sufficiently tried my own religion, I've already made that decision,
Yes, I know you have. That is exactly the problem. Why do you apply different standards to the religion you happened to be born into, and the scary foreign one?
quote: I think it's pretty obvious I am not a wide eyed follower with narry a question.
Wrong.
quote:I'd rather not run along
Splendid; then why don't you answer the charge that you have convinced yourself as outlined in my post? Speaking of "running away when you don't have an argument".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What controls do you set up when trying to talk to God?
How about, until He talks back all He can expect is that I will live according to what I believe to be true. If I am genuinely open to instruction and yet he remains silent then I can't conclude He exists.
Why couldn't you just say "I don't have a control, positive or negative?" Because you don't.
quote:It's really not that hard.
You might have explained that to Mother Teresa, while she was alive. My understanding was that she knew she did not feel the presense of God, yet she didn't seem to be as stoic as you feel she should have been, she did not stop believing that God was real. Instead, she kept on believing what she came in believing, that God existed, exactly what her repeated experiments failed to demonstrate was true.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
swbarnes2: From what I read about Mother Teresa she often did believe that perhaps God was not there. I'm not her nor am I God. I cannot accurately judge either her or God based on her case, I can only do that with my own.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread right here! What is your answer for the demonstration that humans can and will convince themselves of patently untrue things, things in direct contradiction of their own eyes, to conform with a group of strangers? How can you reconcile this with your belief that you have 'tested' your religion, when you have 'tested' no other one in the same 'rigorous' manner?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can this thread be an example of me leaving a conversation because I don't want to face the fact that I don't have answers? You should be able to link a discussion from the past, this thread cannot serve as an example for the simple reason that I am currently talking to you. The future of this thread has yet to be written.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why don't you answer the question?
Why don't you answer mine, it precedes yours?
edit: And this is another reason why this thread cannot serve to answer the charge, you've put me at the disadvantageous position where if you are disingenuous in the discussion you can cite my discontinued participation as proof that your original assertion was correct.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good religion does not tell you you are a bad person if you don't find it's teachings to be correct. It does not ridicule you for your lack of faith if you just can't get it.
I think it's worth noting that not all instances of religion are good religion; some religious people will tell you you're a bad person if you don't find their teachings to be correct, or will ridicule you for your lack of faith. More importantly, though, I think it's important to realize that the sense of belonging to a given culture is a very compelling and attractive trait about religion. Certainly my wife and I have noted, even in our small suburb of Madison, that we would have a larger social circle and closer relationships with our Baptist neighbors if we joined the local evangelical church; there is a bond there to which we are denied access by virtue of our absence from their faith. I would imagine that someone born into a Mormon family in Utah or a Catholic family in Boston might feel enormous pressure to believe the local consensus religion, even if none of the people around them are consciously pressuring them to do so. A lonely person can join a church and, even in the initial recruitment, suddenly acquire a dozen new acquaintances. There are, in a nutshell, some serious incentives for joining a religious culture.
quote:Do I strike you as somebody who has been brainwashed? Do I retreat from discussion when I don't have an answer? Do I become emotional or resort to personal attacks? Do I appear stupid to you?
Absolutely not! I've always held you in respect, and always appreciate your willingness to discuss this sort of thing. To be frank, though, I think it is far more likely that you have been culturally exposed to a narrative that has led you to interpret certain experiences through a specific religious lens, and you haven't looked critically at that lens without being sure to do so through the filters specifically recommended by your religion (which, incidentally, make critical review of that lens almost impossible). There is of course the possibility that your interpretation of your experiences is correct; this must be weighed against the fact that your interpretation is an exclusive one, and invalidates the experiences of thousands if not millions of other people, some of whom are just as intelligent and upstanding.
quote:From my perspective even if I am wrong and I have brainwashed myself into believing a falsehood by sheer fortune I just happen to have locked myself into a system of ethics where I try to love my neighbor as myself...
This is actually why I'm a bit more moderate on this subject than, say, KoM, who believes that every religious person is a battle lost. I was actually even more moderate until very recently, when I noticed that authorities had for years been whipping casually religious people up into kneejerk frenzies and doing harm to political and scientific discourse. If religion makes somebody happy and gives them a workable justification for ethics, great. The downside, of course, is that a religious epistemology opens you up to more irrational appeals; if that process is hijacked (as it occasionally has been), even the most decent and ethical person may find themselves unknowingly dragged into something profoundly unethical. Religion is, after all, ultimately about trust in unverifiable authorities; if those authorities misuse your misplaced trust, how can you know without questioning your religion itself?
quote:Are you really so worried that by making an enthusiastic search for God you will suddenly fall into a trap and shackle your intellect?
I am absolutely certain that if I engaged in a search for God in the way described by converts as the most successful sort, I would have no difficulty convincing myself that God exists within a year or so. To be honest, though, I don't believe I'm capable of engaging in such a search; at no point do I think that the man I am today would refuse to take silence as an answer. The sort of "open heart" people say is required is not the sort of heart I have. I feel love, and the first thing my brain asks -- after "what is this that I'm feeling?" -- is "why am I feeling this?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Because at this point you lose the distinction between a religion and a philosophy.
I can understand why very liberal religious leaders might want to assert that there is no distinction, mind you. But in the same way that it's useful to know the difference between stew and soup, it's handy to keep the two words -- with two different definitions -- available for when you need to distinguish between them.
I think there is a very clear distinction between them. But it has nothing to do with one having extraordinary assumptions and the other not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, BlackBlade, you're a real mensch to put up with this much unprovoked crap from KOM.
Tom's perspective, on the other hand, seems eminently sensible. When Pascal first wrote about the "wager argument," he said the following (in the Pensees:
quote:Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: When Pascal first wrote about the "wager argument," he said the following (in the Pensees:
quote:[...]Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc.[...]
That's a big problem right there: the advice is to follow the paths of others in your society/culture. In doing so you'd probably put more religious* effort into understanding the religion of the people around you than atheists and agnostics. But can you say you have tried to understand all religions? Nope.
*as opposed to effort about understanding religions, which can come through a process different from the one used to accept a religion
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What distinction do you draw?
My point two above. The organized community for the purpose of living in response to point one.
And before you accuse me again of changing definitions to suit my purpose, if you read philosophy of religion, cultural anthropology, theology, or religious studies and look at the attempts to define "religion" going all the way back to the ancient greeks you'll find that my definition is more supported than yours.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So any group attempting to live by a shared creed that answers the "big questions" should be considered a religion?
Hrm. I don't find that to be a particularly useful definition. Why do you prefer it to the more obvious one?
Obviously, I'm not familiar with the attempts of the ancient Greeks to define the word "religion." If you've got a recommended source that's available in English, I'd be especially interested in the attempts of self-identified areligious Greeks to define "religion" -- not least because I suspect that it is mainly the areligious who would care about the relative uselessness of the broader definition. Letting the religious define religion for themselves seems like a recipe for wobbly logic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That a religion is the organized participation in an ethical framework which relies on an appeal to an absolute authority; this appeal relies in whole or in part on non-axiomatic assertions about the consequences of behavior which are unfalsifiable by observational evidence.
I think that covers pretty much every religion in the world while simultaneously excluding the areligious philosophical groups.
Edit: admittedly, a strict reading of the above would still permit someone who considers herself a Lutheran to also belong to the "religion" of Richard Simmons' diet philosophy, which also relies on unfalsifiable assertions about various things. And yet the Lutheran would never consider her faithful adherence to Simmons' advice to be another form of religious faith, and likely would not perceive that as a rival of her "real" religion. So I'd imagine that there's probably an even narrower definition out there to address that sort of case.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tribal animistic and spiritualist religions (for example, the Hmong) often don't have an apeal to an absolute authority.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a given value of "absolute," though, don't they? I mean -- and I'm speaking here as somebody whose understanding of Hmong religion comes solely from a Hmong coworker who, while apparently a believer, is a grudging one -- you do what your ancestors tell you because you don't want to make them angry, or (in some cases) because you want to receive their blessings. You obey your grandmother when she tells you to get a certain kind of job because her dead grandmother will curse you, and because she herself will haunt your steps after she dies.
In either case, you are motivated by a desire to do what your recognized authority wants, whether or not that authority is "absolute" in the omnipotent sense.
I'd be okay with the removal of "absolute;" compared to some alternatives, the word may have been ill-chosen.
At the most primitive, I think you can argue that there isn't actually an ethical framework involved, and the "religion" is really a collection of magic recipes: "bury this person in this way to protect their soul from being eaten by demons" and the like. I wonder what would differentiate this from, well, very bad science.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I agree that the ethical component is not a defining factor of religion, although most "big question" philosophies can/will spin off an ethical system. I still disagree with the "authority" unless you broaden the definition of authority to include "the way the world is/works," which makes it a non-distinctive marker, since every world-veiw includes it.
I think you're trying to hold on to appeals to something "supernatural" as part of the definition of religion, and I disagree.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you're trying to hold on to appeals to something "supernatural" as part of the definition of religion...
Once you remove the presumption of an ethical framework and appeals to the supernatural, you're left with Club Thinky. As I said earlier, I can absolutely understand why some people would want this to be the definition of "religion," but I don't think it's particularly recognizable. I think appeals to the supernatural, in particular, are essential to religion; I can't think of a single religion -- and this includes primitive and animist ones that are on the very border of any definition one might come up with -- for which this isn't true.
How, for example, would you distinguish a self-help group from a religion under your approach?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... At the most primitive, I think you can argue that there isn't actually an ethical framework involved, and the "religion" is really a collection of magic recipes: "bury this person in this way to protect their soul from being eaten by demons" and the like. I wonder what would differentiate this from, well, very bad science.
Or superstition for that matter.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are, in a nutshell, some serious incentives for joining a religious culture.
Far be it from me to deny that those things are true. But it is also true that an enormous chunk of even those who profess to be religious fall into a category my church calls, "inactive." Within Mormonism I would peg that number at around 40%. They attend church at the most once a month, do not pray, do not read scriptures, do not attend to other religious duties, etc. It is absolutely clear that there are certain conditions attendant to that development. I myself went essentially inactive for a period of about two years. Did my parents get frustrated with me, yes they did. Are they the reason I came back? I don't think so, both my parents have siblings that left the church long ago and while religious topics come up, they treat them just as they do their active family.
quote:To be frank, though, I think it is far more likely that you have been culturally exposed to a narrative that has led you to interpret certain experiences through a specific religious lens, and you haven't looked critically at that lens without being sure to do so through the filters specifically recommended by your religion (which, incidentally, make critical review of that lens almost impossible).
I'll grant you your explanation is more likely. But going back to my approximately (could have been longer tbh) period of inactivity, I had more than enough time to examine my life without church attendance, without scriptural study, without praying. I wasn't a recluse during that period, I still had plenty of purpose in my life, school, dating, work, etc. What else does one have to do to get a soft reset on their life? I think that period of time gave me sufficient data on what the rest of my life would have been like had I continued down that road.
quote:I was actually even more moderate until very recently, when I noticed that authorities had for years been whipping casually religious people up into kneejerk frenzies and doing harm to political and scientific discourse. If religion makes somebody happy and gives them a workable justification for ethics, great. The downside, of course, is that a religious epistemology opens you up to more irrational appeals; if that process is hijacked (as it occasionally has been), even the most decent and ethical person may find themselves unknowingly dragged into something profoundly unethical. Religion is, after all, ultimately about trust in unverifiable authorities; if those authorities misuse your misplaced trust, how can you know without questioning your religion itself?
I entertain the idea that my religion might be wrong all the time. The latest bout with proposition 8 is a perfect example. I am fairly convinced that there is something to the same sex issue that my church has not grasped yet. But this is also why Mormonism works, because God and you need no middle man, yet the authorities over the church have absolute control over that sphere. Opening up the sciences has dangers as well. Our most powerful weapons could not exist without scientists being encouraged to probe and manipulate. But we can't exactly turn off the science valve for fear of one day doing ourselves in. Likewise religion will continue to be misused every day it remains on the earth, but it will also be utilized for good.
quote:I am absolutely certain that if I engaged in a search for God in the way described by converts as the most successful sort, I would have no difficulty convincing myself that God exists within a year or so. To be honest, though, I don't believe I'm capable of engaging in such a search; at no point do I think that the man I am today would refuse to take silence as an answer. The sort of "open heart" people say is required is not the sort of heart I have. I feel love, and the first thing my brain asks -- after "what is this that I'm feeling?" -- is "why am I feeling this?"
There's nothing about asking why that indicates a closed heart. But you should also be following that sequence with, "What should I do."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deals with existential questions of purpose, meaning, etc.
But self-help groups often DO deal with just such questions. I suppose you could argue that, in those cases, they've crossed the line and have become stealthy religions.
Can you give me an example of a religion that does not (or historically did not) make appeals to the supernatural?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically none of them did. The distinction between natural and supernatural is meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's like saying the distinction between quarks and electrons was meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking. It's true, but it doesn't mean the distinction itself didn't exist; people simply weren't aware of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Even there, you've got animal spirits, the Great Wheel, etc.
I'm not aware of the animal spirits. Also the great wheel does not seem supernatural to me. It simply explains what happens when people die and are born, a decidedly natural occurrence. There's no supernatural force controlling it, that's just what the clockwork of the universe does.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But that's like saying the distinction between quarks and electrons was meaningless prior to modern scientific thinking. It's true, but it doesn't mean the distinction itself didn't exist; people simply weren't aware of it.
Not quite. It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking. And I would argue that it follows that it can't now be a defining characteristic of religions that date prior to the distinction. (eta: or of the definition of religion in general.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking.
Why not? As another example: someone who has only met green people might not realize that green skin is a defining characteristic of his people. That doesn't mean that it isn't; it just means they don't realize that it's part of what makes them unique.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It means that you can't argue that "belief in the supernatural" is a defining characteristic of religion prior to modern thinking.
While I in many ways prefer your definition, this isn't true. That someone does not know they are believing in the supernatural does not mean they are not doing so. That many people prior to the supernatural/natural distinction had belief systems (unknowingly) relating to the supernatural that they did not classify as religious is also not a sufficient critique (assuming Tom's position includes them as minor religions, or at least sets of religious beliefs), though it could weaken his assertions about his definition lining up with typical labels.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Replace 'supernatural' with 'intangible', then. You can't argue that the ancient religions were able to point to their spirits and touch them, whether or not they believed them natural. 'Supernatural' is a silly word in any case; if it exists, it's natural.
BB, I don't have time to do an archive binge. If you check the edit timestamp, you will observe that my question was asked five minutes before yours, although in a later post. What's more, I have here given you an excellent opportunity to prove me wrong; all you have to do is answer the question, which you claim always to be willing to do.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
