Philosophy Discussion Forums

If all religions stopped immediately the world would immediately be safer and kinder.

That would depend on how they were stopped.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 4:27 am Dark Matter, your opposition to Spectrum on Buddhism is helpful particularly as it demonstrates that some religions are religions of belief not praxis, and vice versa.
Contrary to what you claimed, I think that Christianity is in fact largely a religion of belief that's to say you can be saved only if you believe.However I bet there are Christians including priests who are much more inclined towards the sort of praxis that you quote Buddha as advocating.Christianity is in need of clearing from its basis in belief. There is a middle ground where Spectrum and you can meet.

I agree that personal gods including God are gods that rule through fear and that they are mediated through priests.
Reason, which Spectrum seems to advocate, should be applied to the praxis that Buddha recommends. I imagine that Buddhists don't want to idolise Buddha.

You would win your bet because Christian "mysticism" is as old as Christianity itself. The dominance of theistic personalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, coinciding with the rise of Cartesian/Newtonian dualism. Ever been to a Buddhist temple? It seems a "godless religion" is almost (though not quite) an oxymoron. And it seems Spectrum is completely ignorant of Buddhism's dark side that in some ways rival that of Western religions. Note what was said in a previous post:

The notion of "experience" introduces the false notion of duality between "experiencer" and "experienced," whereas the essence of "religious experience" is the realization of the “non-duality” of observer and observed. “Pure experience” does not exist; all experience is mediated by intellectual and cognitive activity. If the filtering and processing of sensory input are interfered with by injury, drugs or artificial means, the natural barriers between “self” and the totality of Reality would break down and manifest as an overwhelming chaos of sensory input without coherence.

The specific teachings and practices of a specific tradition may determine what “religious experience” someone has, which means that this "experience" is not the proof of the teaching, but a result of the teaching. Western and Eastern religious traditions each have their advantages and disadvantages.

We should at very least be honest with ourselves enough to admit that secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. Without the stabilizing influence of religion, secularism can never coordinate its forces and harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 4:36 pmWe should at very least be honest with ourselves enough to admit that secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. Without the stabilizing influence of religion, secularism can never coordinate its forces and harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

I disagree with this entirely. The most divided and dysfunctional nations are the most religious. This is indisputable.

Any "disintegration" of societies - usually the most religious ones - is entirely the product of overpopulation. That problem is massively exacerbated by religiosity. This leads to resource depletion, and now climate instability and extremities are adding further pressure. The progression of secularism beyond religion (just as religion progressed beyond animism) has nothing to do with the world's problems, and is actually doing tremendous good.

Further, belief should never thought of as a device for societal or political results, but rather the nature of the engagement of an individual with reality.

Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 5:17 pm

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 4:36 pmWe should at very least be honest with ourselves enough to admit that secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. Without the stabilizing influence of religion, secularism can never coordinate its forces and harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

I disagree with this entirely. The most divided and dysfunctional nations are the most religious. This is indisputable.

Any "disintegration" of societies - usually the most religious ones - is entirely the product of overpopulation. That problem is massively exacerbated by religiosity. This leads to resource depletion, and now climate instability and extremities are adding further pressure. The progression of secularism beyond religion (just as religion progressed beyond animism) has nothing to do with the world's problems, and is actually doing tremendous good.

Time will tell! In the meantime, the much-vaunted secular societies of Europe are being overwhelmed by a much more primitive culture energized by religion. But, hey, if you can't see the gathering storm the best I can do is wish you luck.

Further, belief should never thought of as a device for societal or political results, but rather the nature of the engagement of an individual with reality.

I agree, but how well is that idea working out on college campuses? Is the FFRF abiding by that rule? Heck, is any activist group abiding by that rule?

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 6:10 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 5:17 pm
I disagree with this entirely. The most divided and dysfunctional nations are the most religious. This is indisputable.

Any "disintegration" of societies - usually the most religious ones - is entirely the product of overpopulation. That problem is massively exacerbated by religiosity. This leads to resource depletion, and now climate instability and extremities are adding further pressure. The progression of secularism beyond religion (just as religion progressed beyond animism) has nothing to do with the world's problems, and is actually doing tremendous good.

Time will tell! 8) In the meantime, the much-vaunted secular societies of Europe are being overwhelmed by a much more primitive culture energized by religion. But, hey, if you can't see the gathering storm the best I can do is wish you luck.

Sure, sometimes the primitive get the better of the advanced; the Barbarians defeated the Romans, crocodiles sometimes eat people. However, the fact remains that since the Barbarians defeated the Romans, civilisation continued to prosper and people still eat far more crocodile than vice versa.

Also note that if you think Europe won't increasingly close up access then you are underestimating human adaptability.

Dark Matter wrote:

Further, belief should never thought of as a device for societal or political results, but rather the nature of the engagement of an individual with reality.

I agree, but how well is that idea working out on college campuses? Is the FFRF abiding by that rule? Heck, is any activist group abiding by that rule?

Theists have forced their beliefs on others for millennia, now some atheists are returning the favour. Social froth and bubble, quite unrelated to questions about what is real or not. I want the real stuff - considerations about the nature of reality and long term movements and resonances; petty politics leaves me cold, especially obscure lobby groups with a trivial amount of exposure, influence and relative power as compared with religions. The FFRF compared to theism in influence is akin to a mouse in one room of one building of a multinational company.

I just read the FFRF's brief. What's your beef with them, aside from the name? They want separation of church and state, secular education and healthcare. It seems they don't much care what people's private thoughts are, which is what matters. Do you disagree with separation of church and state, and nonreligious education and healthcare? Should the nonreligious continue to pay for government-funded theism and huge tax breaks for religions, rather than funding their charitable activities by grant like any other NGO?

I say no, and it would be helpful to society at large if religions backed off from petty politicking, aside from on climate change, which is a serious and legitimate existential concern. I doubt they will in my lifetime, though, as our tax dollars would be difficult to let go in terms of comfort and power. So I reluctantly accept what is effectively religious parasitism because the alternative is to faff about with politicking when I'd rather spend my remaining years focused on deep human, animal (and more) commonalities that will persist long after today's ephemeral politicking, gaming and rhetoric is ancient history. Others are no doubt better at, and more interested in, fighting the fights than I am.

Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 8:12 pm
Sure, sometimes the primitive get the better of the advanced; the Barbarians defeated the Romans, crocodiles sometimes eat people. However, the fact remains that since the Barbarians defeated the Romans, civilisation continued to prosper and people still eat far more crocodile than vice versa.

Also note that if you think Europe won't increasingly close up access then you are underestimating human adaptability.

I certainly hope so.

Theists have forced their beliefs on others for millennia, now some atheists are returning the favour.

I hope you realize how juvenile that sounds.

Social froth and bubble, quite unrelated to questions about what is real or not. I want the real stuff - considerations about the nature of reality and long term movements and resonances; petty politics leaves me cold, especially obscure lobby groups with a trivial amount of exposure, influence and relative power as compared with religions. The FFRF compared to theism in influence is akin to a mouse in one room of one building of a multinational company.

I just read the FFRF's brief. What's your beef with them, aside from the name? They want separation of church and state, secular education and healthcare. It seems they don't much care what people's private thoughts are, which is what matters. Do you disagree with separation of church and state, and nonreligious education and healthcare? Should the nonreligious continue to pay for government-funded theism and huge tax breaks for religions, rather than funding their charitable activities by grant like any other NGO?

I say no, and it's high time religions backed off from politicking, aside from on climate change, which is a legitimate existential concern. I doubt they ever will though, addicted to our tax dollars. So I accept religious parasitism, knowing there is a deeper human, animal (and more) commonality that will remain when today's ephemeral politicking, gaming and rhetoric is ancient history.

Are you a member of the Spectrum fan club? You're proselytizing the same kind of propaganda he does.

DM, as you responded - very quickly! - I was editing my post. If you re-read, you'll note that I tempered the language while you were replying.

I note that you did not answer the questions or address the points raised. It is easier to make personal attacks, eg. "Spectrum fan club". What points made were unreasonable, and why?

What age band are you in? Early 20s? Are you capable of maintaining a sustained adult disagreement without resorting to rudeness? I am yet to see it in you after all this time. I could have banned you half a dozen times over but patiently and dutifully delete your daily stream of ad hominem one-liners - because you occasionally get your act together and speak like a grownup.

Why is it that theists so often melt down with frustration when someone disagrees, and then quickly resort to personal attacks? DM, I would love to see you post a dozen sensible, well thought out posts in a row, without the patronising, ad homs and snide comments. I think you are theoretically capable of doing this, but you seem to lack the patience and calm, or the desire to be peaceable. In that sense, you lack the "chops" to engage properly. I'd be pleased if you proved me wrong.

Besides, if your beliefs leave you so fragile and easily agitated, it would seem that what was probably once based on experience must have faded into abstraction and politics and is losing the power it probably once had. Anyone in touch with their spiritual aspects will feel comfortable in their Weltanschauung, including the possibility of it correcting logical missteps, and will feel little need to fire up when others disagree - as they logically must!

The option is always there to calmly state your case. If a person is inflexible then there can be agreement to disagree. It's not easy to let go when someone is on a soapbox and relentless in unbalanced focus, but it's good for one's sanity since not much can be achieved if there is no meaningful exchange.

Note that if threads are full of proselyting by a driven "one beat drummer" with almost no engagement from others, then a report can be made to lock threads to prevent them being one person's platform, loaded with search terms for Google.

Belindi wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 8:51 am I did at one time agree with you, Spectrum, that religion is necessary at the present time. I don't think so any more .
If all religions stopped immediately the world would immediately be safer and kinder. There is no way that religious institutions can be free from authority, genuine cooperatives. The Society of Friends is probably the closest you can get to authority-free.

I totally agree with you, but only theoretically, "If all religions stopped immediately the world would immediately be safer and kinder."

But we have to be realistic and empathic we cannot rewire the brains of theists [especially Abrahamic] immediately. How religions came to be at present is built through a complex set of neural connections starting from 4.5 billions years ago.

To stop religion immediately without fool proof replacements [effective brain rewirings] will only create terrible mental torture for the present theists.
As such we have no choice but to tolerate religions [even the worst ones] at present but we must start to critique religions [especially evil laden theistic religions] at present and strive to find effective non-religious replacements which theists can accept voluntarily.

Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 8:46 pm DM, as you responded - very quickly! - I was editing my post. If you re-read, you'll note that I tempered the language while you were replying.

I note that you did not answer the questions or address the points raised. It is easier to make personal attacks, eg. "Spectrum fan club". What points made were unreasonable, and why?

Oh, com'on. You're smarter than that. Pulling the ole' separation of church and state ruse? If religions bother you that much, join Atheists United or the Council for Secular Humanism and have all the benefits and goals of any other religion.

The option is always there to calmly state your case. If a person is inflexible then there can be agreement to disagree. It's not easy to let go when someone is on a soapbox and relentless in unbalanced focus, but it's good for one's sanity since not much can be achieved if there is no meaningful exchange.

If I was interested in sanity, I wouldn't be here.

Note that if threads are full of proselyting by a driven "one beat drummer" with almost no engagement from others, then a report can be made to lock threads to prevent them being one person's platform, loaded with search terms for Google.

Nice try.

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 11:57 pm

Greta wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 8:46 pmDM, as you responded - very quickly! - I was editing my post. If you re-read, you'll note that I tempered the language while you were replying.

I note that you did not answer the questions or address the points raised. It is easier to make personal attacks, eg. "Spectrum fan club". What points made were unreasonable, and why?

Oh, com'on. You're smarter than that. Pulling the ole' separation of church and state ruse? If religions bother you that much, join Atheists United or the Council for Secular Humanism and have all the benefits and goals of any other religion.

You are overreacting, Dark (may I call you Dark after all this time? lol). Separation of church and state was simply one of their policies and I can't see a problem with that. Of course there should be separation of church and state, and attempts by religions to increase their influence should logically be resisted for the sake of fairness to the general public, many of whom are not religious.

Dark Matter wrote:

The option is always there to calmly state your case. If a person is inflexible then there can be agreement to disagree. It's not easy to let go when someone is on a soapbox and relentless in unbalanced focus, but it's good for one's sanity since not much can be achieved if there is no meaningful exchange.

If I was interested in sanity, I wouldn't be here.

point taken ... but nonetheless, I am a fan of veneers of civility, not because it's ideal, but it is preferable to the alternative - losing that veneer. As I say, people ideally wouldn't need that thin protective layer of civility but it's been key to the functionality of societies thus far. Lose the veneer and you lose cooperation and functionality.

Dark Matter wrote:

We should at very least be honest with ourselves enough to admit that secularistic human society, notwithstanding its unparalleled materialistic achievement, is slowly disintegrating. Without the stabilizing influence of religion, secularism can never coordinate its forces and harmonize its divergent and rivalrous interests, races, and nationalisms.

I gather that while I view man's religious quest historically and sociologically you see it as man's orientation towards pursuit of truth and goodness. You should consider differentiating them.

Elsewhere in phil forums there's a thread that differentiates between religion and spirituality. 'Spirituality' is a word rife with unwanted connotations but I cannot think of a sufficiently concise alternative word. 'Religion' however can be firmly pinned down and defined as a behaviour of humans in societies; and this is because of the fact that religions are all credal at least to some extent. By "creed" I mean a socially- sanctioned set of beliefs.
Spirituality on the other hand, while not necessarily divorced from societal institution, can be private and personal, and some would argue spirituality is all the better if it is private and personal.

The title of this thread presumes that belief is all that applies to one's attitude to a god. I guess that the prominence accorded to empirical belief(as opposed to trust-belief) is quite largely a by-product of the age of reason; that's to say the past three or four centuries. Christianity is particularly bedevilled by conflation of common sense/ pseudo-science/ science on one hand and aspiration towards the good on the other hand. In reality those are embattled and a good thing too!

Islam has come more lately to age of reason and is mixed up with modern politics. Both Christianity and Islam are awakening to new spirituality where beliefs are secondary at most and are sceptically viewed. Religiosity in the USA and unrest in the Middle East are retarding new enlightenment but it's coming for all that when men will permanently be seekers on a common quest after a beautiful mirage.

Greta wrote: ↑January 25th, 2018, 12:26 am

Dark Matter wrote: ↑January 24th, 2018, 11:57 pm Oh, com'on. You're smarter than that. Pulling the ole' separation of church and state ruse? If religions bother you that much, join Atheists United or the Council for Secular Humanism and have all the benefits and goals of any other religion.

You are overreacting, Dark (may I call you Dark after all this time? lol). Separation of church and state was simply one of their policies and I can't see a problem with that. Of course there should be separation of church and state, and attempts by religions to increase their influence should logically be resisted for the sake of fairness to the general public, many of whom are not religious.

Separation of church and state is fine — up to a point. Freedom of religion is one thing; freedom from religion is quite another. Is forcing people to do things that they are religiously opposed to? Like forcing them as taxpayers to pay for abortions or celebrate gay “marriages”?

Dark Matter wrote:If I was interested in sanity, I wouldn't be here.

point taken ... but nonetheless, I am a fan of veneers of civility, not because it's ideal, but it is preferable to the alternative - losing that veneer. As I say, people ideally wouldn't need that thin protective layer of civility but it's been key to the functionality of societies thus far. Lose the veneer and you lose cooperation and functionality.
[/quote]

Did you see any difference between the recent Women’s March (representative of the secular mindset) and the March for Life (representative of the religious mindset)?

Is forcing people to do things that they are religiously opposed to? Like forcing them as taxpayers to pay for abortions or celebrate gay “marriages”?

If I was religiously opposed to the fire service would you think it reasonable to disband the fire service? I'm going to go out on a limb (although I'm sure I'm wrong) and say that you would think that an unreasonable religious belief. Therefore what you are really saying is reasonable religious beliefs should be catered for while unreasonable religious beliefs should not. Now all you have to do is define reasonable and everyone can stop complaining.
Also there is no need for quotes around marriage. There were marriages before your religion and there will be marriages after, you don't own the term.
Oh and no one is forced to celebrate gay marriage. And I personally would defend your right not to be compelled to celebrate if indeed you were compelled to celebrate (but just to be clear you aren't compelled to celebrate).

Belindi wrote: ↑January 25th, 2018, 5:19 am
I gather that while I view man's religious quest historically and sociologically you see it as man's orientation towards pursuit of truth and goodness. You should consider differentiating them.

I don't see how they can be separated. Ideally, the ultimate concern of religion is the harmonization of truth, goodness, and beauty; the sociableness of like-minded individuals is the fallout.

Elsewhere in phil forums there's a thread that differentiates between religion and spirituality. 'Spirituality' is a word rife with unwanted connotations but I cannot think of a sufficiently concise alternative word. 'Religion' however can be firmly pinned down and defined as a behaviour of humans in societies; and this is because of the fact that religions are all credal at least to some extent. By "creed" I mean a socially- sanctioned set of beliefs.
Spirituality on the other hand, while not necessarily divorced from societal institution, can be private and personal, and some would argue spirituality is all the better if it is private and personal.

I am not a church-goer myself, but I am sympathetic with those who want to socialize with other like-minded persons. However, it galls me when believers don't know what their group (cult, church or whatever) believes or why they believe as they do; even more when nonbelievers presume they know better than the believer.

The title of this thread presumes that belief is all that applies to one's attitude to a god. I guess that the prominence accorded to empirical belief(as opposed to trust-belief) is quite largely a by-product of the age of reason; that's to say the past three or four centuries. Christianity is particularly bedevilled by conflation of common sense/ pseudo-science/ science on one hand and aspiration towards the good on the other hand. In reality those are embattled and a good thing too!

I agree and have nothing to add.

Islam has come more lately to age of reason and is mixed up with modern politics. Both Christianity and Islam are awakening to new spirituality where beliefs are secondary at most and are sceptically viewed. Religiosity in the USA and unrest in the Middle East are retarding new enlightenment but it's coming for all that when men will permanently be seekers on a common quest after a beautiful mirage.

I think the eventual melding of East and West is inevitable, but I don't see how Islam fits into all this. Granted, Islam is about 500 years behind the rest of the world, but the example set by its founder, Mohammed, is not conducive to eventual assimilation

Eduk wrote: ↑January 26th, 2018, 11:45 am

Is forcing people to do things that they are religiously opposed to? Like forcing them as taxpayers to pay for abortions or celebrate gay “marriages”?

If I was religiously opposed to the fire service would you think it reasonable to disband the fire service?

No, but it would be reasonable to let your house burn down.

Therefore what you are really saying is reasonable religious beliefs should be catered for while unreasonable religious beliefs should not.

I'm already letting your house burn down. What more do you want from me?

Also there is no need for quotes around marriage. There were marriages before your religion and there will be marriages after, you don't own the term.

What you're saying is that I'm just an old fogie and that, nowadays, words can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.

Oh and no one is forced to celebrate gay marriage. And I personally would defend your right not to be compelled to celebrate if indeed you were compelled to celebrate (but just to be clear you aren't compelled to celebrate).

Tell that to business owners forced out of business.