Incidentially, as I think about this thread, is there not a problem of definition going on here? Beyond the whole organised vs. disorganised or unorganised thing, is religion what you believe, what you do, where you're from or where you belong?
Some modern religions compare favorably with their political contemporaries; others do not, which adds hypocrisy to their "sins" since they usually claim to be answering to some higher standard. Saying that the catholic church of medieval and renaissance times was no worse than the civil establishments of its day similarly is no accolade. It was the political correctness of its day, and only pardoned the likes of Galileo in the 1980s, and acknowledged the excesses of the inquisition even more recently. As we say now about politicians, it's not just the original crime, but also the lying/coverup.An honest assessment of religion would find that it fares reasonably well in comparison to modern political ideologies, where religion had healing, hospitality and beginnings of medicine modern political ideologies had the atrocities of Mengala (spelling) or his soviet equivalents, even in the US and Sweden after the war there were widespread experimentation upon ethnic minorities.
No thanks to organized religion for the highlighted. If christians (and jews and muslims) are becoming more tolerant of diversity and respectful of human rights, it is because they are finally learning to see beyond the literal teachings of their books to the broader "truths" contained.The same can be said for any of the other instances you mention, if you want to talk about clerical abuse and child abuse, that did happen, often with the collusion of so called "respectable society" and the secular/public authorities, thankfully the status of women and children has been gradually changing and so have social attitudes condoning that sort of thing but those are not simple religious attitudes among religions people and truly religious people would be just as conscientious as any other hater of that kind of thing.
Dont hate while you're creating these morals from scratch. Good luck.
"Do not allow a religious to foist his faith on others, or to mistreat others for theirs" makes most sense.And yet to many modern mindsets "Do not allow a religious to live" makes more sense.
Some people don't like hamburgers because they are vegetarians. They simply get their nourishment elsewhere. Same with faith.I understand why people aren't religious, and I get it, but a lot of these answers are near the same as saying, "I don't like hamburgers because they have ketchup on them, and I'm allergic to the seasame seeds all stuck on top of the bun."
Dictionary definitions mention a system of beliefs, often coupled with an established organization and set of practices. To me, the key difference between religion and spirituality is that the first is communal and preexisting, while the second is personal and unique to the believer. The first enables us to share faith experiences with others, while the second guides our individual journey. Often, perhaps ideally, both work hand in hand, as when an individual finds a religious group that resonates with his/her personal spirituality. Neither requires the presence of the other, though. Magic P's comment below is also relevant.Incidentially, as I think about this thread, is there not a problem of definition going on here? Beyond the whole organised vs. disorganised or unorganised thing, is religion what you believe, what you do, where you're from or where you belong?
Now, strictly from the social perspective, I don't get involved in religion because there's nothing a religious based community can do that a non-religious community can't, and I'd rather find a community not based on stuff I don't believe in and fond of weird rules like not allowing gay marriage.
Some people don't like hamburgers because they are vegetarians. They simply get their nourishment elsewhere. Same with faith.
If that were how things really worked, we would be much more civilized than we are. Too many people won't even try to understand different perspectives, religious or otherwise, and too many people claim to follow a religion but do not really understand it.There has never been a civilization not based on a religion. So to understand our own civilization, it is necessary to understand our own religion.
And to understand another civilization, it is also necessary to understand their religion.
So a civilized person understands their own religion, and the religions of other civilizations.
I agree with much of what you have written, but do not see unfalsifiable premises as a weakness of religion. The problem is the unconditionality that you mention. One can revise religious or moral ideas on the basis of new information that is subjective and cannot be falsified. Often this information is simply the belief or practices of others, and the "good" results that come from it, "good" being a very subjective judgment. If one follows a religion (or moral code) unconditionally, however, it is not open to question or scrutiny of any sort. This is the problem.I find it problematic to have a system of thought that is based on unfalsifiable premises because this makes it impossible to revise one's thinking based on new information. I see unconditional faith as more of a danger than a moral because it cannot correct itself when applied wrongly. Human beings are flawed in their reasoning and much of our "objectivism" today is not even close to what it claims. Our society embraces a great deal of fractured reasoning that gets from point A to B, but lacks a holistic approach necessary to understanding a system impacted by many layered and complex factors.
Magic (Poriferan)...that is a view I could have entertained when I was younger and less concerned or compelled by that side of life. What I would say is that there's more strange and unbelieveable or beyond belief stuff in quantum physics or the outer reaches of science, to me, than there appears in religion.
I can appreciate such thoughts and they're very fair to say. Very few people understand or even have any hint of what wonders are contained in quantum physics and higher echelons of scientific learning. It's fair to say that science could be completely wrong--it very well may be, for now. However, I don't (and I'm sure many don't) view science as a religion, but as a best-fit description of the world.
When I compare science and religion in best-fit descriptions of the world, I personally choose science since it is grounded in empirical evidence I could potentially falsify through my five senses. With religion, I feel no opportunity to do the same and when I meet something that seems to contradict religion's description, I have no way to cope with the discrepancy other than to deny it. With science, the description can change to better-fit the world, and it fits better with me.
It is entirely possible for me to be ignorant of one or more larger aspects of the world if they are not physical in nature, but since I haven't experienced them, I can't make a value statement to confirm or deny them either way...but they don't best-fit the world as I experience it. Thus I stick with science.
I don't have a religion because it seems worldview-limiting. I'd like to choose my beliefs without an external dissonance-creating-mechanism biasing me towards certain ones.
I have never seen any evidence that the world (including our thoughts and feelings) cannot be explained in physical, deterministic terms.
Also, I was raised Jewish, and I was always really weirded out by everyone saying some prayer in Hebrew -- 95% of them obviously didn't have any idea what they were saying, so how could I have seen it as anything other than a brainwashing mechanism? I don't think there's an evil motive behind it, but I do think it's so far removed from our current issues that it's a huge waste of time. And it's kinda scary that people just follow the pack so easily.
I was always that annoying atheist that questioned everything in Hebrew school.
And you no doubt revelled in the final point, I sometimes think that once atheism becomes less of the rebellious, roguish position it is today people will be lost, when you've torn down everything what then?
Anyway, I dont see religion as creating or causing cognitive dissonance, the reality is that if you've got an entirely open mind its the same as having an entirely open front yard or car, people can, often will, dump their junk and rubbish there.
I'd be more persuaded by someone suggesting that you keep an open heart and a closed mind than vice versa.
Forgive me for being rebellious from age 8-15! I didn't take the position to be an asshole; I took the position because everything else seemed completely wrong-headed.
It's true that I was pretty angry when I was younger -- I felt like this absurd stuff was being forced down my throat, so yes, I was sarcastic in religious school. But my belief system wasn't wrong. I've spent my whole life working on it.
I have no vested interest in tearing things down; it seems like you think atheism was a function of my anger instead of anger being a function of my atheism.
Religious people may think I'm overly pessimistic, but I'm really not. I think lots of stuff is beautiful. But I acknowledge that it's all some particles following some physical laws, including my perception of beauty. I think freeing ourselves from the prison of an external moral system is the first step towards embracing the self.
Unfortunately, every time I have this debate, I always get strawmanned into the position of some hateful cynic. But maybe I always strawman my opponent into a position of a lazy thinker who has to subscribe to someone else's understanding of reality. Hmm.
I don't get what you mean here.
Perhaps I misjudge you but I know a lot of people who where atheists because it was easy and they liked to think of themselves as trouble makers, a lot of my time at school was spent arguing with the same mindset, I found it lazy, much as you've said you've found the position of believers lazy. Belief asks a lot of people, I dont mean ignorance or any of the other things which are used as strawmen of belief either, I mean real belief, which requires thinking, judging and responding to new evidence which doesnt always vindicate, reinforce or support past opinion. Atheism and disbelief doesnt ask anything. Neither in the mind, nor in actions or deeds either.
You could be entirely right about the self but I'm not convinced that embracing the self is sufficient or the be all and end all of life, I dont think that religious precepts which I do believe are somehow non-physical or unreal or anything of that kind.
Religion has seriously impeded my understanding of how the world is/ what God could be. Things are easier to internalize for me without the religion.