Religion
Related: About this forumAs a religious person, I don't want patriarchal religion to gain more political power.
That kind of religion degrades the inherent worth and dignity of women by trying to sell them a cramped narrative about what it means to be a woman. If a woman wants to live gender roles from the 1950's, that's their own choice, but women in general should have more options than that, and patriarchal religion denies them that by stuffing all women into one mold.
Moreover, that mold isn't even used in a consistent, principled way. It becomes a vehicle for class warfare (a recent study showed that on a college campus, lower economic class women were more likely to be accused as "sluts" regardless of actual behavior, upper class women could keep getting abortions even after it has been restricted or outlawed), petty vendettas, and other dark impulses.
My religious vision has no room for that. Those of any gender or sex identification should have the freedom to realize their fullest potential.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Bonus for religious men is that it generally subjugates women as well.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I can see how that might be an issue, with a definition of "religion" like that one and your previously expressed opinion that it is inherently suppressive and manipulative.
What do you do with religions and sects like Confucianism, Buddhism, Quakerism, Unitarian Universalism, the United Church of Christ, Episcopalianism, etc. where either there is no belief in anything you'd call an "imaginary being" required, or they have a tradition of valuing reason and/or tolerance? Do you think they aren't religions?
bvf
(6,604 posts)aren't Confucianism and Buddhism more properly seen as philosophies?
As to the others you mention, don't they entail belief in a supernatural power of some sort? Of course, by "supernatural power," I mean "imaginary being."
I don't have a problem taking religious people seriously, as long as the conversation is of a corporeal nature, like "What's for lunch?" or "When do you need this by?" or even "Nice day."
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Platonism or Aristotelianism, both philosophies that involve a supernatural realm or supernatural creator entities? Are they about to be reclassified as religions?
What about when the topic is religion? Do you have trouble taking religious people seriously then?
bvf
(6,604 posts)of Platonic Forms to a belief in imaginary beings? If so, I'll cop to a certain reverence for the concept of a perfect circle and the infinite mystery of pi.
To be blunt wrt your question about engaging in discussion about religion specifically, I can only say I bite my tongue a lot. I generally divulge my atheism early on in such conversations. That usually leads to chat about the weather, or what's for lunch.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I would say that Yahweh has come to resemble their ideas.
bvf
(6,604 posts)a step in the right direction.
Seems a lot of people are having a difficult time shaking off that last straggler though.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you have a preference for a single leader, figurehead, role model, rather than many?
rug
(82,333 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)Thanks for that!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I'm thinking it's more likely that.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Anything else?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)why do you come to a group where religious people come to talk about things other than lunch?
Sorry, if I drew the wrong conclusion on that, but I would be interested in hearing your response.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I thought I made it clear that I was also responsive to "when do you need that by?" as well as "Nice day."
If you didn't get it, my point was that I get along great with most religious people I know as long as the subject of religion itself doesn't come up. I believe I already pointed out that as soon as I describe myself as an atheist in that context, the subject of conversation changes to how much rain we're in for next month.
Can't say I like that sort of situation much, but there you go. I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times my personal revelation has led to a sincere question of "Why?"
I can only take this to mean that, when people sense their religious beliefs are being challenged by the mere encounter with a vocal atheist, they'd rather not try to defend those beliefs. The fact of the matter is that they can't, short of pointing to an invisible and, in some cases, all-powerful, friend.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)If you get along with most religious people as long as religion doesn't come up, what is your motivation for coming into a group that is populated by religious people that are talking about religion?
More importantly, what is you motivation for coming into that room and making broad brush and entirely unsubstantiated negative statements about religion?
Many atheists identify themselves in this group and the conversation doesn't turn to the mundane.
So here you have an opportunity to discuss your atheism with religious people who might actually be curious about you, but you come out swinging, making that most likely impossible.
From your last sentence, I think I can conclude that your previous experiences have led you to believe that all religious people get defensive merely by the presence of a non-believer. That's not true here, though they do get defensive when attacked.
No one here has to defend either their beliefs of non-beliefs. It's possible to have discussions with other who see things differently and just let them be who they are.
Atheism is not a non-belief, but you insist on characterizing it as such.
As to motivations, I'd ask you why you would even feel entitled to an answer. I'd much rather hear from why you feel the need to believe in hoodoo.
You don't need to, despite what they might have told you when you were growing up. You're grown up now. There is no Santa Claus.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have objected to non-believer and lack of beliefs so far.
So I am going to need you to give me words that I can use without offense.
I am not entitled to an answer, just curious. I don't believe in hoodoo, so I can't answer your question.
I don't believe in Santa Claus either. In fact, you have no idea what I may or may not believe, do you?
So, I take it you are not going to answer my question about what motivates you to participate here, despite having said that my assumption about it was wrong. That's ok. You are certainly well within your rights to do so.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I believe there are no supernatural beings whose job it is to watch out for us, hear our prayers, keep an eye on our friends and relatives, etc., etc.
That's up to us, and it seems to me that people who tell you differently are looking for peer-validation, balm for a guilty conscience, or financial enrichment.
No offense intended, but that"s as plain as I can put it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But I still have to use some kind of language to distinguish you from people that do believe that. Believer, non believer. Theist, atheist. Having belief, lacking belief. They are just descriptors and there is not pejorative intent.
Well, it could be that people that see things differently than you and believe that there is a god simply believe that and there is no negative connotation to it at all.
It is, of course, offensive to say that those that believe have some kind of weakness or defect , despite whether you intend that or not.
bvf
(6,604 posts)And why is it offensive to term belief in imaginary beings a shortcoming? Because it is shared by so many people, no shortage of whom are willing to kill each other over their particular interpretations?
Or perhaps because most people have the concept drilled into their heads years before they can think for themselves?
People still need myth, seems to me. But why?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you really believe that all of those who hold religious beliefs are somehow faulty?
Do you really believe that you hold the superior position? That you are right and they are wrong?
Sounds like the position a fundamentalist would take. One way, baby.
If you want to know why people believe, you could start by asking them and drop some of your prejudices.
But you have to be willing to listen and not make assumptions.
If you are able to do that, I think you might have an enjoyable experience here.
If not, then you will receive some slaps on the back and high fives from others that share your POV, but you will learn nothing.
So, I will go back to my original question. What motivates you to participate here?
bvf
(6,604 posts)Your inability to accept my self-description is no reason for me to abandon it.
"Faulty"? No. Misguided? Certainly.
"Superior"? No. Correct? Yes.
Forgive me if I'm not familiar with the concept of "fundamentalist atheist," but that's a new one on me.
Would you accuse a mathematician who said "Seven is a prime number, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong" of being a fundamentalist (whatever that means to you)?
As far as your comment about my willingness to listen is concerned, I've been listening and learning for over 50 years now. Justify belief in a deity--I'm listening.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That is going to create all kinds of mayhem around here, but I will call you a believer from now on.
I am a proponent of people generally being called what they want.
As a believer then, I guess you are in the group that is misguided, even though you think most of them are wrong and you are right.
Since I didn't say fundamentalist atheist, it is odd that you did even though you have never heard the term.
I can't justify a belief in a deity.
What I can defend is the right of people to believe or not to believe. What I can fight against is prejudice, contempt and downright bigotry against people because of what they do or don't believe.
You've been listening all right and you've got some of the talking points down just fine.
But if you still think all religious people are misguided and wrong and that you have the answer and the truth, then you haven't been learning. But then you are a believer, and you know how they are.
bvf
(6,604 posts)I'd say you're the one who"s nailed down the talking points. I've been writing pretty extemporaneously.
Either you believe in a supernatural being or you don't. Surely you must concede that these views are mutually exclusive, so one must be correct. What say you?
Oh, I'm learning all right--your condescension notwithstanding.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Those that hold prejudice, contempt or bigotry towards those that do or don't, or towards those that believe differently than they do are the problem, imo. Belief is not the problem.
When you think you are right and everyone who thinks differently is wrong, you have taken an untenable position and the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that your belief is the correct one?
I hope you are learning.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Still waiting for an answer--see, I'm trying to learn something here, but you're not helping in the least.
So to your way of thinking, is saying 2+2=4 an untenable position? Your latest seems to imply your answer would be "yes."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)A- means without. I am surprised that you would think that saying you are without belief is a put down. I don't think belief in and of itself is anything one should or shouldn't have. It just is.
At any rate, I have no negative feelings whatsoever about your atheism. However, I do have negative feelings about what appears to be your anti-theism.
What answer are you waiting for?
I'm not sure what the question is, but here is the answer. Judge people on their acts, not their beliefs. Understand that believing or not believing in a god is not a big deal, it's how you view others that see it differently that is the big deal.
2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical fact.
Saying there is no god is not a fact at all.
One of the following is true:
God exists.
God doesn't exist.
"Understand that believing or not believing in a god is not a big deal"
Oh really?? People kill each other over this all the time. That's a pretty big friggin' deal if you ask me.
I don't know what to make of your last statement just now. If saying there is no god is not a fact at all, you must mean that there is in fact a god. You can think that all you like, but by no means do you have the right to demand I respect your position.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)So it makes absolutely no sense to argue about it.
People kill each other over all kinds of things. People also save each other over all kinds of things, including religion.
It's only a big deal if it's important to you to be right. But taking a definitive position on god is a no win proposition.
I have no idea whether there is a god or not,
. and neither do you.
Demand that you respect my position? I've done nothing of the kind. I have only challenged yours.
bvf
(6,604 posts)That's what makes me an atheist.
You're saying "Everyone should be an agnostic."
Sorry, but deciding whether or not one has a giant invisible friend only involves a little common sense.
Flip a coin to find out if your next prayer is answered. Better yet, pray to Joe Pesci. He gets things done.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But if you take a definitive stance that there is no god, the burden of proof is on you. And you have none.
Yes, I think the only rational position is to be agnostic, but I do believe that one can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist or just agnostic.
You will often see atheists around here state very vociferously that atheism means nothing more than without belief. I know that you object to that, but they will object if you give it any further meaning at all, including certainty that there is no god. That makes you a gnostic, a most foolish position to take.
Sorry, but describing people's belief in god as having a giant invisible friend and equivalent to Joe Pesci involves no thought and is juvenile. It's a "neener, neener" approach to things that says much more about your confidence in your position that it does theirs.
So don't talk to me about being condescending. You are typifying it.
bvf
(6,604 posts)Something about atheism must really bother you.
I'd hoped the Pesci reference would lighten the tone. I guess not. You're as humorless as you are shrill.
You'll make your mind up one of these days, I hope for your sake.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The only thing I see is people saying they believe there is one, but they do not take a definitive stance. And they don't mock those that do not believe.
Nothing about atheism bothers me at all. People who are anti-theists bother me a great deal, which is why I have spent so much time talking to you.
Humorless, shrill? Ad homs, the sure sign of having lost the debate.
You have a nice day, now.
Response to cbayer (Reply #73)
Post removed
carolinayellowdog
(3,247 posts)or at least truth-functional; if a statement cannot be confirmed or disconfirmed then to me it is meaningless
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)None of those things happen to be a god or creating entity. But I believe in lots of other things, just like you do. So, you're right, it isn't insulting to use that word, unless you mean it to be insulting. Did you?
Seems like maybe you did, because you say things like
People still need myth, seems to me. But why?
Sounds like a bit of a put down, doesn't it. Is that why you are here? To put people down because they're not as "smart" as you?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Making blanket statements about religion or lack of religion is never correct. When you have individuals and organizations that are completely different from each other and you make broad brush negative statements about them, what might you call that?
bvf
(6,604 posts)What's for lunch?
And here we go with the whole lacking thing again.
Tell me: Do you have a reason for viewing atheism as some sort of deficiency?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you have a reason for viewing all religion as some sort of deficiency?
If you want to talk about what is for lunch, I would be glad to meet you in the C & B group.
bvf
(6,604 posts)But we made different statements. You yourself called your own statement stupid. I merely agreed with you.
C&B group sounds good so long as the tuna salad's fresh.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I've been influenced and inspired by a variety of "religious" and "secular" sources. I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and that's what we do.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Food for thought.
bvf
(6,604 posts)You probably have to do a lot of cherry-picking, no?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I don't see any problem with that.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Do you ignore, mentally excise, or excuse those passages which contradict your own religious views?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)(I hope my questions aren't aggravating you. That truly isn't my intent.)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)How do I decide which texts to privilege (cherry pick)? Is that your question?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)There was nothing beyond God to force an act of creation. Furthermore, God being everything, there was nothing God could possibly want for personal gain. So why did God create, for whose benefit? The creation. Creation was an act of selfless love, and the substance that became all things came from God's own being. A gift. Finally, existence as we know it features a certain amount of consistency, which I regard as rooted in the timeless consistency of God and sustained by an act of divine will. That's a commitment I also associate with love.
So if that's the character of God, then passages in the Bible that fail to adequately reflect a God of love are to be disagreed with.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Would that all believers believed like you. We would all be socially progressive Democrats. When I challenge your view of a loving God by asking, "Whence cometh evil," what say you?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)When an author writes a book with a murder, they are not then arrested for murder because no one has been killed. The dead character has no distinct existence from the author. So if the universe, (and us by extension) is to be a real place and not just God's novel, it needs a certain amount of freedom from God's loving will, which can in turn be used to produce more separation, like how a tiny tear in a piece of paper or a crack in a windshield can grow larger over time. God's will is still love, and we are still being called to love, but we cannot be forced to love and remain real.
God often gets compared to Santa Claus (hands out miracles like gifts!) or Zeus (petty and authoritarian and living in the sky!) but I've found that the best mythical comparison is Gepetto, from Pinocchio. God is the maker who is already fully real, the universe is the wooden boy, and God longs for it to become truly real also by being fully reconciled with love by choice, not by compulsion. But God, like the Italian puppet-maker, cannot just make the universe fully real. Rather the universe becomes real through growing in trials. Out of evil, out of pain and suffering, come more love and other virtues such as courage, compassion, loyalty, wisdom, generosity...would we even understand such goods in a world where they had no meaning because there was no evil to contend with?
God does not will evil, but out of evil can come more love, and that love God does will.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I have been accused of rejecting ambiguity by rejecting belief. Perhaps that is so. It is easier for me to understand a natural universe without ascribing a loving intelligence to it. If not for the authoritarian, often malignant belief systems that have arisen from religious thought, I would have no argument with it.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I join you in deploring the corruption of religion in the name of the idols of tribalism, exploitation, wealth, etc.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)A great many people very sincerely believe that this is God's way, even if it sucks. It isn't a matter for them of idols or tribalism or exploitation, wealth, or even health.
At least some women read the religious texts and try to apply the principles they find there at great personal cost. We recently had a thread on Vyckie Garrison, for example. She has much to say on this topic. She is not alone. The first question I asked was which religious texts do you rely on to arrive at your religious view regarding patriarchy. It didn't escape my attention that you did not cite chapter and verse, but rather an overreaching feeling about what a loving god should be about.
If that still, small voice is indeed the voice of god, I wish he'd quit whispering different notions about himself to different people.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)It's important to me to listen to and try to understand religious people I disagree with. They are people of inherent worth and dignity also, who as you say are often sincere.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)road trip through the south.
I agree with pretty much everything you are saying here. I am glad to see the nuns and some mormon women standing up and challenging the hierarchy, but I suspect that that is not an option for the majority of women who are parts of small communities where patriarchy rules.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Hail Eris!
Seriously, it is difficult for faiths not to fall into the parent/child mentality regarding their supreme being(s)
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Which is no better than a patriarchial one.
Arguing with liberal defenders of religion like Ms. cbayer can be, for a long time, a frustrating experience. Since it's extremely hard to know exactly what her religion IS. Ms. cbayer does not seem to know or quote the Bible; so her faith, whatever it is, doesn't seem firmly rooted in that source. Yet at the same time, she is often very, very adamant about defending her religion. So what exactly is ms. cbayer defending? What IS her religion?
What is religion to, especially, modern women? Ms. cbayer doesn't really seem to know much about religion or the Bible technically; or like many modern religious people, she doesn't quote the Bible much in her many statements. So it's important to ask this: what finally is the real source and nature of the faith that she and modern liberal religion are defending so strongly? If it isn't the Bible? Since she offers few particulars (so as to avoid being a fixed target?) we might deduce what she believes is religion, by the character of her interactions with others.
What does her behavior evidence? Ms. cbayer seems to at times express an affection for husband and grandkids. And seems to like to go head-to-head with other ladies to express some time of woman-to-woman philosophical/emotional support; expressing some kind of vague confidence in hopefully some kind of God or good out there somewhere. But vague as it is, and as centered as it is on emotional support, I suspect that what we are dealing with, what ms. cbayer and perhaps many women are defending as religion, is probably really say, a vague desire to try to love and help people. Which seems OK. But is that really Religion, as such? I'd suggest it is really, ultimately, something like say ... maternal instinct. Which would be expected in a female medical professional. But if so, then we should note some problems with this kind of vague caring sentiment. And calling it "religion."
One problem with whatever it is that ms. cbayer is defending, is that first it is vague. Then too, to the extent we can identify it, it probably isn't really Religion at all. What ms. cbayer is defending is probably a bare, vague sense of helping and caring for others; a sentiment somewhere between an idealistic MD and a grandmother. But finally? This is not quite Religion per se. Finally whatever it is that she seems to be feeling and defending so adamantly in her 130,000 posts - seems to be mostly something from traditional conservative women's culture; the culture of sharing and caring. The culture of say, femininity. A culture which however is opposed in part, by say, Feminism.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you realize that the post to which you are responding was not written by me?
However, as I admire the traits of good idealistic physicians and good grandmothers, I will take that comparison as a complement.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)What exactly is it that you have been defending for 130,000 posts?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I do not support some actions that may be based on those beliefs. I do support some other actions that are based on those beliefs. I am a religionist in the same way a man can be a feminist or a straight person can support GLBT rights. I see the good and the bad in religion, and I support the good while trying to counter the bad.
Just to be clear about my post number - I was a moderator on this site for many years. As a moderator, I made many, many posts in the moderator forum. That is why my post count is so high. While I am a very active poster, I could not have come anywhere near this number had I not been a moderator.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)But that approves a rather disemboweled and denatured and self-contradictory "belief."
Here's my point: how strong and real is a belief that you are not allowed to act on?
In effect, you are not really, actually, approving even beliefs. Your concept is clearly oxymoronic: to "believe" in something you never believe in enough, to actually act on. If you don't act on it, you don't REALLY believe it, deep down.
To be sure, this idea of "belief" and "faith" is a very common kind of self-contradiction in liberal theology. But common as it is, it's still not good.
What you are describing is really a kind of false belief or false faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Please reread my post and consider trying again.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)But if so? 1) Then part of your overall belief was not really believed.
Logically, since some part of your belief was not really adhered to, then your belief as a whole, was not real, unadulterated belief.
2) Do you want to suggest that some actions are permissible and others not? Then you are saying that one construction of a belief is wrong; since it leads to actions that you don't agree to. Therefore, you don't support THAT belief
cbayer
(146,218 posts)impinge on the rights of others or discriminate against others, I will object to that. That says nothing about what the individual believes, only about what they can do based upon that belief.
Yes, some actions are permissible and others are not. I can shoot daggers with my eyes at someone I am angry with, but I can't put an actual dagger in their chest.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)"When people use their beliefs to take actions that impinge on the rights of others or discriminate against others, I will object to that."
The words you use here - "actions," "impinge," "rights," "discriminate" - all of them depend on the same beliefs of the person making the judgment. The classic simple example is the rabid anti-choicer, who believes that abortion kills a fully formed human being. That's their religious belief. And you can't prove them wrong. So therefore, by your logic, they are perfectly justified in fighting abortion because others are "tak(ing) actions that impinge on the rights of others." Congratulations - you've empowered them.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)The nature of your belief, is what decides what action you take.
In contrast, a "belief" that is divorced from action, is not a fully real belief.
Furthermore, the precise kind of action you take, reflects back on exactly what kind of belief you had.
"BY their fruits you shall know them."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Others can't see, smell, taste, hear or touch it. No one will ever know you even have it unless you speak of it.
And action is something that can be observed in some way by others. Of course your actions are a reflections of your beliefs, but beliefs do not require action to exist.
A belief that is divorced from any action is as real as one that is connected with an action. It is only you that feels that they must be connected. That may, in fact, be one of your beliefs.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)In this case, your belief mandates action.
If you said in this case, "I believe in the compassionate God," but then did nothing to help the poor, then you don't really believe in that God at all. Your assertion that you "believe" is hypocritical and false.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)you are right.
But I think you could believe in a compassionate god without feeling that you were ordered to do anything.
There is no hypocrisy there. They are two separate things.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)This is a connection we see in Islam for example; in which the phrase "Allah is merciful" is commonly used to encourage human beings to be merciful too.
In actual practice, the nature of we ascribe to God does not remain an isolated concept of belief; inevitably that belief would influence our actions. Otherwise, it is a belief with no practical effects or reality. A belief entirely truncated from the major part of our material life.
Such a "belief" would just be an irresponsibly, even pathologically disconnected thought - or in religious language "spirit." One floating in our minds, but schizophrenically disconnected from the rest of our material lives. A thought with no practical effects. Pretending to be all important. But actually having no effect on the bulk of our lives.
Such a spirit would likely be a false spirit; a delusion or illusion. One in pathological denial of the entire "world."
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you know anyone who does? Jesus, yes. But god?
At any rate, I've lost you at this point. You seem to have a point, but I'm not seeing it. If I had to summarize it, it would be basically that all religious believers are psychotic, hypocritical liars who have absolutely no concept of reality.
Am I getting that right?
BTW, using the term "schizophrenic" in this context makes no sense at all. It is probably best if you avoid using clinical terms that you don't really understand.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Ms. cbayer may know something about medicine. But her sense of "religion" and "belief" seems typically uninformed. She seems to know almost nothing about say the Bible; and seems to know very little about Religion. Probably should not presume to use terms that she has not formally studied.
Specifically, ms. cbayer's sense of "religion" seems to be rather uninformed and intuitive. Her sense of it orresponding to a typical late agnostic liberal position, c. 1968: many liberals in this era said that religion is "just what you yourself believe." (Cf. a DU OP on this). This regards religion as just a matter of private subjective sentiment only.
The implication here was derived from a sort of earlier gentleman's agreement: that in polite society, one kept one's religion private, or "to yourself." This notion eventually developed into the 60's notion that beliefs are all internal, and subjective. And that they therefore should not be acted on. A "belief" was thought to be a largely private, internal matter, of one's own spirit. Not an objective fact.
This was a very popular 60's idea. But there were problems with this notion of a religion should be an entirely private, internal ("transcendental"; "spiritual" thing. Though this rule minimized conflicts between different and vocal, even physically warring religions, at the same time, the whole rather ascetic/priestly notion of a religion that should remain entirely private, and never attempt much to effect things in the external "world," results in a religion that in effect, is irrelevant. That has no effect in the material world.
In sum, a religion or "belief" system that is seen as a mostly and simply internal feeling, that eschews much involvement with the external world and our physical material life and world, is by virtue of that very retreat from the world, irrelevant to much of our lives. But next, it gets worse.
In what sense is such a "belief" "schizophrenic"? I use the word metaphorically. But basically, I mean that the notion that our mind, spirit, is entirely internal, and separate from our lives in the external world, leads to some problems. In simple language: people who hold this kind of "belief" soon start get too far into their own head. And to shut out the external world. They begin to retreat into subjectivity, and to shut their lives off from everything around them. In effect, their minds split or "schism" from the social and material world around them. As they withdraw into increasingly, the all-too-subjective and often delusory world of the private self; into private and subjective ideas untested by any attempt to enact or cross-check them against material, historical facts in the external world.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)You are clearly not going to make it into this club.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)somewhere there's a fairy that falls down dead.
You must believe, rug. You must.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)In my view cbayer does not "defend" religion just objects to the more offensive attacks on religion and views religion to have been more beneficial than harmful. This is a position that is perfectly understandable - even if I disagree.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Think of this; I object to the actions of the Israeli state but I will immediately castigate someone being anti-Semitic regarding Israel, does this make me a defender of Israel? I don't think so.
What good has religion done? Personally I don't think it is a lot but good has come out of religion along with the harm. Consider the reverence for living creatures espoused by Jainism or the respect for the aged put forward by traditional faiths: In Europe faith provided the buildings and training for those who cared for the sick, starting even before the temples of Asclepius. Islam carried on the traditions of scholarship and philosophy from the world of the Byzantines, Greeks and Romans. In England the school system owed a lot to the various sects of Christianity.
If nothing else the some elements of faiths have provided a rallying point for those opposing oppression.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Like with what you said about islam carrying on the traditions and such of the Greeks/Romans you have to ignore that they took that knowledge by force and thir "benifit" in this case is caused by thier own actions.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Now lets go into your broadbrush assertion about my examples being flawed. How is my example about Asclepius flawed? Go and take some lessons in Classical history and Archaeology before you make that really rather stupid generalisation. Outside of the Temples and later churches no-one else provided care for the poor.
How is my example of the Jainism flawed?
How is the example about education in England flawed when there was no previous history of school education in this country?
The only example you can give comes from your bigoted assertion about Islam where you assume that they stole (how?) traditions of study and ignore the contributions that they made fore themselves. What you display is your utter ignorance of how early Islam encouraged study and research.
Now go away, start learning and discard your preconceptions.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1) Here's what you said about cbayer: she "just objects to the more offensive attacks on religion and views religion to have been more beneficial than harmful. "
The phrase you are topspinning is "more beneficial than harmful." According to the simple rule of logic: if something is "more beneficial than harmful," then logically, it creates some benefits.
2) Then you next go on to describe that benefits that you had just denied that you had stressed. Though there again you have to watch your language; as you note "the" or "some" benefits to Islam.
No doubt you know perfectly well that it would be hard to argue that Islam is wholly beneficial.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I have not tried to argue that Islam or another religion is wholly beneficial or that it even more beneficial than harmful any more than I would argue that military organisations are more beneficial than harmful. I have said that Islam provided some benefits without commenting on the harm just as other faiths have unequally provided both benefit and harm.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)I suggest that whatever apparent benefits there are, are 1) qualified or even 2) entirely delusory. Or 3) can be far better achieved by other, more modern means. Or 4) are outweighed by drawbacks.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)you have spent a vast amount of time ignoring the actual words and seeing only what you wanted to see.
To stop you flying off at a tangent I will first talk about polytheistic religions.
[font size="4"]When, and only when, you have responded to this post will I deal with the monotheisms[/font]
In the Greek colonised world temples and shrines of Asclepius provided care for all those who were sick. It is likely that similar temples and shrines existed elsewhere under the names of other deities. I have even heard there is a little evidence that at some point Stonehenge was used in this way. No other organisations provided such general healthcare.
Jainism: it is a religion of utter non-violence even to the extent of the mouth being covered and brushes sweeping insects out of the path. There are problems, as Hemant Mehta attests, but even so surely non-violence can be praised? Dawkins and Sam Harris certainly did so.
Shinto and other ancestor based religions regard care for elders as being a sacred duty and enforce such care by social and legal means.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)Then 1) it is physically impossible that the shrines of Asclepius proved care for "all" who were "sick." You are mistaking ancient rhetoric for fact. a) Transportation problems, b) a primitive idea of disease, as well as c) unnoticed social exclusions, would make such an ideal impossible as a practical matter. Likely too, d) you are simply unaware of the highly hyperbolical/rhetorical nature of any ancient sources testifying to this. Ancients often claimed "all" of this or that.
This care would be in no sense "general" therefore. We might thank them for the intention to help. But?
Note furthermore as the Greek "god of medicine," related to hygiene, this god was as much a form of early science, as religion. Likely the medical aspects were somewhat effective; the religious elements less so.
2) Jainism is non-violent ... to the point that it does not kill animals; a valuable food source. This results in some hardship, and is impracticable in many climates.
3) Shinto means reverence for ancestors. It was so reverent for Japanese ancestors - and only them - that Shinto became the basis of militaristic Japanese supernationalism. Shinto is commonly thought to be one of the major reasons that the Japanese started the war in the Pacific. Shinto in fact was for a long while after WW II, more or less illegal, because of this.
OK? Next point?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)1) Any ancient healthcare was local except for the rich or those capable of making pilgrimage. Got that? or do you think that they should have concentrated on inventing railways and aircraft? As to rhetoric and fact. The fact is that you just want to discredit sources: fine therefore I could (falsely) claim that all the work of Hippocrates and Galen never existed, Plato was not a real philosopher, Hiero of Alexandria never built a thing; it was all rhetoric and flim-flam.
What you ignore is that no matter how extensive the healthcare offered these religions offered help i.e. they did good things.
2) Jainism - So what is your objection to the precepts of the Jains? They don't eat animals which can be a valuable food source; so what? They do not starve, they do not have to inflict cruelty on self aware creatures and do not give over vast tracts of land to feeding creatures for slaughter. So the Jains cannot live in certain areas of the globe: so what? All that means is that they are geographically limited.
None of this detracts from the benefits to humanity of being non-violent
3) Shinto and other ancestor based religions teach reverence for the old, some limit that reverence to a specific group: so what?
The benefit to the elderly remains
Conclusion: You have not displayed there are no benefits to these faiths. All you have done it to try to shrink them so you can shoehorn them to fit your immutable prejudices. Your attitude is precisely that of a blustering preacher teaching that only his faith is the true faith and all others are condemned.
Now onto the monotheisms. Please note after this next I will not respond to further posts by you in this thread as there is no point in pandering to your blind intolerance.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)1a) the scope of medical help from the Greek God of Medicine was smaller than implied; and 1b) was probably due more to science than religion.
2) Jainism was nonviolent. But in fact, it's limitation on the food supply could often be serious; India and environs often had HUGE famines. Inability to eat meat would have been fatal.
(You might also not welcome the Jain teachings on Hell either, by the way).
3) Shinto - or in general, ANY reverence for our ancestors - tends inherently to favor your own ancestors - and no one else. It therefore tends to encourage regionalism, nationalism. It was long thought that Shinto specifically encouraged the Japanese nationalism, xenophobia, and ethnocentrism, that lead Japan to attack China, and then the US, in WW II. This is the reason that state Shinto was made illegal.
Whatever small gains might have come from these forms of religion, were therefore very mixed at best. It is hard to find a single religious "virtue" that does not also entail some very, very serious drawbacks. Enough that it would be unwise to champion them today.
So my position is that 1) whatever virtues religion has, are mixed at best. Often the very things we champion most, are even often physically fatal. Regarding them as sacred therefore is not good. Then too 2) whatever virtues they may have had is often due to say, whatever elements of science they had in them. While 3) progress will involve learning to see the science in them, and valuing that, only; not the "religion" per se.
By the way? Religion itself tells us that "all" have sinned; "no one is good but God." There are sins even in the "host of heaven" (Isa. 34.4, 51.6; 2 Peter 3.7-12). For that reason, even our holy books tell us not to trust our own religious leaders very much.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Let's limit it to Christianity and Islam, I do not have enough background knowledge of Judaism to comment.
Firstly Islam.
Prior to the 15th Century the Caliphates and Islamic teachers encouraged learning and study based on the perception that such study was approved by the Q'ran and hence the Prophet. Thus the faith of Islam taught that learning was good. From this sprung the mathematics of al Khwarizmi, the metal workers of Damascus, the preservation of books that would otherwise have been lost.
Similarly the universities of the Islamic world were faith based but provided a wide education and it was these universities that were copied by the Christian world. Such liberal studies universities have no precursors.
Next, the hospitals of the Islamic world treated all and if you were poor it was free; this is not hyperbole or rhetoric, these institutions survived until historical times.
Christianity
Christianity learned from Islam and founded universities, they were far more limited than those of Islam but they grew. It was these wholly Christian universities which informed the learning of Spinoza and supported Newton. In addition to this in the British Isles (including Ireland) and probably elsewhere in Europe there developed a group of schools where the pupils did not have to enter holy orders after their education. In England they were called Grammar Schools. Strangely these too were supported by the Church.
Hospitals - in their original sense - were way stations for travellers and were run by the Church; the lonely inn, beloved of fantasy literature, did not exist. Hospitals, in their modern sense, were (despite the large input from the lay brothers and sisters) Church run and offered treatment to all even incurables such as lepers.
Now I can guess your response will be on the lines of "Ah but they destroyed ..." x, y and z and "they started wars" but none of this detracts from the benefits of the institutions I have chosen.
Brettongarcia
(2,262 posts)I am not noting problems that are aside from the alleged religious virtues you note: I am noting the very examples you offer, are really more about the value of the scientific non-religious side to them. Which actually supplied the positive result.
1) Nominally Islamic scholars preserved non-Islamic texts; which was rather against their faith. Why and how? Many persons in religion were no doubt, hypocrites: they pretended to be religious, because the alternative was execution for heresy.
In any case, the major point here: such persons also developed Math; vs. Religion. Again, they were good, precisely to the extent that they supported not Religion; but reason, math, and science.
2) Christianity likewise. Who knows how many texts were burned for heresy though, by the pious. Note that when schools did not insist that pupils did not have to enter holy orders, that was progress. It was precisely when science began to break away from religion, that real progress began to be made. When we wrote off Newton's religious side, and concentrated on his physics instead.
The bottom line is that your very best examples of benefits that allegedly come from religion, are rather more directly attributable to whatever elements there were of early science in these nominally religious institutions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think you got it pretty correct
..
and you didn't even need the decoder ring.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)For instance, what if someone is convinced god spoke to them and told them women are to be subservient to men? You can't prove them wrong, so you have to allow for the possibility they may be right, don't you?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)that special revelation is hardly needed to communicate patriarchy, given how it is transmitted through traditional power structures. Special revelations are for things like: even though it looks like the 1%ers are in charge now and ever will be, ultimately the poor and oppressed will triumph. Something that isn't obvious from history. Patriarchy is all too obvious.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Since the focus of your post was on patriarchal religions, perhaps you could address that.
(It doesn't work for pie-in-the-sky promises of the 99% getting their fair share either, but let's focus on patriarchy first.)
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)The point of my OP and my observations concerning special revelation is that someone claiming special revelation for patriarchy should reconsider.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Him: "Hey, god told me women are 2nd class citizens."
You: "Hmm, perhaps you should reconsider that."
Him: "... OK, just did. I asked him again, and he confirmed that's what he told me."
You: ???
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)or in my post on the point of special revelation.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But none of what you wrote counters the power of special revelation.
djean111
(14,255 posts)"special revelation" and PROVE IT WRONG ridiculous and reprehensible. The burden of proof rests solely on the person who claims special revelation. Special revelation is merely a matter of belief, not anything factual in any way, shape, or form. I don't think that "voices in my head told me to do it" is accepted in a court of law, unless someone is claiming insanity.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Problem is, many moderate believers directly or indirectly defend special revelation as a legitimate means of acquiring knowledge. Once you do that, you can't really say what is or isn't valid.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)You disagree with them your way, and I'll disagree with them my way.