Science cannot determine absolutely that there is no god, but it can show beyond a reasonable doubt that there probably isn't a Judeo-Christian one.
The absurdity of religious choice
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
It might move you to get off of that high horse.
Did you have compulsory classes on the subject "world religions" at school?
Esp. in classes on history, literature and sociology, did you ever discuss issues of religion, or otherwise acknowledge a bias for or against a particular religion?
1. Being preached to.
By street and door-to-door preachers, televangelists.
2. Being faced with relatives and acquaintances who desire that one would convert.
3. Being faced with pressure from coworkers or boss at work.
4. Having an inner urge to make life more meaningful, and being dissatisfied with the solutions offered by secularism.
What would be the first one?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I guess that there are some fideistic varieties of Christianity and Islam that talk that way. But most Christians that I know would probably perceive your second sentence as extreme and excessive.
So my thinking is that the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we encounter in real life represents a minimum condition for the kind of 'truth' and 'goodness' that we should expect religions to offer. A religious doctrine has to be at least as true as everyday propositions about the tables and the chairs. Transcendental principles and personalities have to be at least as good as our neighbors next door.
To the best of my knowledge, they all would. Which ones do you think would reject it, and why?
Christians, for example, don't seem to have typically insisted that divine "good" is something totally different and incommensurable from human good. (If so, why call it 'good' at all? God's incomprehensible attribute would be more like some alien 'xrbyc'.) The more common idea seems to be that divine good is the perfect good, the highest good, that all other goods are the palest images of. Suggesting that our human good might be the first step towards understanding what divine good might be.
If purported religious truths and goodness are supposed to be suitable goals of our religious quest, then they need to be a lot better than that [human truth and good]. But our own here-and-now human concepts and word-usages represent our starting point, the zero-point 'origin' in our religious quests.
What religious reality was that?
We begin wherever we are at.
Maybe, but it's often going to have to be a gradual process. Any religion that demands a total transformation of all aspects of one's life and consciousness, as an initial condition of membership, is a religion that I'd have to scratch off the list of viable religious choices.
I don't think that all religious individuals are opposed to people applying normal epistemological and ethical standards to their tradition's doctrines and claims. They aren't. Religious individuals often insist that we do precisely that. They are confident that their own tradition will pass every test, far better than any other tradition possibly could.
I think that most religious people are like that. That's what apologetics and theistic "evidences" and "proofs" and all that stuff are all about. It's just that less thoughtful people might be more naive about what passes the test.
The Kierkegaardian ideal of a "knight of faith" leaping bravely/insanely with no rational reason into faith/madness is kind of a theological aberration in my opinion. It's a reductio-ad-absurdem of a certain kind of fideism.
Then following a religious path is probably going to be a matter of an individual deepening their incipient religiosity so that it touches more and more of their existence. People begin by learning some of the basic doctrines of whatever religion that they are interested in and attracted to. Then they publicly identify with it and start to 'talk the talk'. That gradually grows into 'walking the walk', behaving in appropriate ways in more and more of life's situations. And as time goes on, that outward behavior becomes habitual and internalized, as the ethical aspect starts to be come an inner-transformative aspect. It changes basic motivation. And yes, eventually it does (at least ideally) grow into deep transformation in all areas of a person's outer and inner life.
It was intended as kind of a paraphrase of the Buddhist eight-fold path.
I'm not suggesting that. I was just suggesting that it's possible to embark on a religious path in a way that's possible for human beings, taking small, doable baby-steps.
Ok, but those are realizations that have to be attained and accomplished. It's enlightenment. Enlightenment has never been the precondition to initially embarking on a path.
Maybe so. But most people who are already fully-embedded in their own religions wouldn't be worrying about religious choice in the first place, except as a theoretical possibility. Individuals making religious choices in their own lives will almost certainly see things differently than people who are already unproblematically religious.
If God exists and wants to get involved in somebody's religious choice, why can't he? It would certainly make religious choice a whole lot easier if God would just reveal himself and make his preferences known.
What a spectacular failure at a rebuttal. He takes your post seriously, gives a thoughtful response, and you give him this?
You are a troll in the fullest sense of the word.
Yes, I maintain the following bias:
(a) primitive people invented gods to explain the phenomena for which they had no science;
(b) following Aristotle, a division between the physics and metaphysics of phenomena took root;
(c) once the sciences began to explain phenomena, the presumed "Prime Mover" became irrelevant;
(d) despite the explanations of science, superstition persists and disturbs the health of individuals and society.
I am also biased toward the plain reading of the scriptures contained in the body of scientific literature.
And yes, I went to school, and quickly learned that religions are acquired by osmosis, not by menu selection. This is why I am questioning your reasoning for suggesting it. I also am questioning your approach with the following in mind:
citing Gyorgy Gereby.
I am only trying to address you at eye level.
I'm trying to figure out what kind of game this is. wynn persistently refutes core ideas, like axioms, but shrinks from direct dialogue and evidence. There are some variances wynn exhibits that stand apart from typical trolling. It's one of the reasons I speculated wynn was a pattern recognizer, not an actual person. I have this gut impression that wynn means "Wye Neural Network". If I had invented such a technology, and had no scruples about pestering the fine folks at Sci, I suppose I might consider testing it here.
"Get off of your high horse" is one of these formulaic responses, involving feedback or learned response from the many insults wynn receives. There have been several formulaic answers from wynn that correlate with my idea. Prior to arriving at this idea, I imagined that wynn was conducting a kind of survey, operating at the margins of trolling, in order to stimulate responses, from which statistics could be taken.
My basis for even entertaining these ideas is that I am unable to fathom the motives for wynn's tactics from a human perspective. Normally, trolling is more overt and the mods are usually responsive. In this case, the "irritant" is strategically planted in subtle nuances, almost always as subtext. It's hard for me to understand the euphoria anyone might gain from this, unless they are in dire straights, confined to an iron lung, and unable to enjoy the satisfaction that we derive naturally from simple repartee, and the free schooling available here. With appropriate interaction, anyone can come here and pose a question of almost any level of difficulty, and receive prompts and links to steer them in the right directions, like having a professor as a librarian. Who would feel contempt for that? Hell, this is a candy store.
Thanks for your positive feedback, I see you're a seasoned member. I'm taking notice of your posts, which I find clear, reasonable, and consistent with best evidence.
I'm trying to figure out what kind of game this is. wynn persistently refutes core ideas, like axioms, but shrinks from direct dialogue and evidence. There are some variances wynn exhibits that stand apart from typical trolling. It's one of the reasons I speculated wynn was a pattern recognizer, not an actual person. I have this gut impression that wynn means "Wye Neural Network". If I had invented such a technology, and had no scruples about pestering the fine folks at Sci, I suppose I might consider testing it here.
"Get off of your high horse" is one of these formulaic responses, involving feedback or learned response from the many insults wynn receives. There have been several formulaic answers from wynn that correlate with my idea. Prior to arriving at this idea, I imagined that wynn was conducting a kind of survey, operating at the margins of trolling, in order to stimulate responses, from which statistics could be taken.
My basis for even entertaining these ideas is that I am unable to fathom the motives for wynn's tactics from a human perspective. Normally, trolling is more overt and the mods are usually responsive. In this case, the "irritant" is strategically planted in subtle nuances, almost always as subtext. It's hard for me to understand the euphoria anyone might gain from this, unless they are in dire straights, confined to an iron lung, and unable to enjoy the satisfaction that we derive naturally from simple repartee, and the free schooling available here. With appropriate interaction, anyone can come here and pose a question of almost any level of difficulty, and receive prompts and links to steer them in the right directions, like having a professor as a librarian. Who would feel contempt for that? Hell, this is a candy store.
Thanks for your positive feedback, I see you're a seasoned member. I'm taking notice of your posts, which I find clear, reasonable, and consistent with best evidence.
Thank you, good sir.
I honestly don't know what to make of her. I think it's probably nothing more than not wanting to be bested in an argument. She'll converse with you as long as she thinks she has the upper hand (which she rarely does), but as soon as she's put in a position to say "Hey, good point," or (gods forbid) "Maybe I was wrong about that," she completely shuts down. She'll either ignore you completely, or offer some sarcastic quip. Usually, it's a variant of "Being enlightened is hard work."
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I guess you know that I like the 'multi-cultural, multi-religious' situation. I'd better like it, since I live in California, one of the world epicenters of the phenomenon. The proliferation of modern communications, travel and the internet probably make it an inevitable historical force and trying to oppose it is like Canute ordering the tide to stop rising.
You do have a point though, that the "availability of religion" as you call it, sometimes leads to kind of "consumer mentality" among religious seekers. That's evident at times here in California too. Sometimes the many churches, temples, teachers and retreats remind me of supermarket aisles, with seekers filling their shopping carts with a box of meditation here, a bag of scripture there, and maybe some ritual from the freezer. Then they take everything home and cook it on the stove into a sugary gloppy feel-good mess.
Having said that though, I still like the new eclecticism. It's often shallow and superficial, but so are many expressions of conventional religiosity on the popular street level. But when the new eclecticism isn't superficial, it can sometimes become very creative indeed. The close juxtiposition of different beliefs and ideas almost forces people to be more thoughtful and spiritually discerning than they might otherwise be, as they face issues like religious choice, that wouldn't have arisen in a more homogeneous context. There's exciting cross-fertilization happening as people find themselves looking at familiar religious issues from brand new perspectives.
For example, I think that we are seeing the creation of a whole new kind of Buddhism here in California. It's probably too early to be certain what its outlines are, but it seems to be notable for its lay orientation (as opposed to monastic), for its elevation of the role of women above what's traditional in much of Asian Buddhism, and for its modernist accomodation with scientific rationalism. It won't be the first time something like this has happened to Buddhism. Acclimating to China changed it as well, as it syncretized with Daoism to form Ch'an. Only time will tell what, if anything, comes of these changes here in the States.
I guess that's true in some cases. But to the extent that a religious traditions demand the newbies already have unquestioning faith in the truth of unknowable matters as a condition of entry, I scratch them off the list of religious possibilities that have anything more than academic interest to me.
That's what religious choice is all about.
Maybe. Of course many of the people who were born into those traditions don't really have all that much interest in them as religions and in some cases attend pretty much for social reasons. That's especially true for immigrant congregations, where the temple might serve as kind of a cultural center, where immigrants go to speak that old language, read newpapers from home, eat the old foods and so on.
That assumes first that divine inspiration is real and that it happens. And second, it's kind of dismissive of convert religiosity. I'm more skeptical than you are of the divine inspiration (I'm not a theist, after all) and more accepting than you are of convert religiosity.
I think that it's a matter of using one's head (one's intellect and common sense) and one's heart (one's conscience and spiritual intuitions) to settle on a religious tradition, denomination of grouping that's seemingly congenial. Then all that a new convert can do is step out into it.
Again, if a tradition demands as conditions of entry that I already have unshakeable confidence in the truth of things that I have no way of knowing, if it demands in effect that I already be enlightened, or if it demands that I be chosen by God himself through some kind of visitation by his holy spirit, then those can't be viable alternatives for somebody like me, and I don't see how I can possibly choose those paths.
Actually reading my posts might help.
If you ignore half or more of what a person says, of course you get a very strange picture of them, also one that makes it easy to dismiss the person.
:shrug:
Last edited:
Yes, excellent point!
Although religious traditionalists/monoists do not look favorably on this.
Which matters, because a human cannot live alone and desires to join a like-minded society. But ecclectics tend not to form groups, or there aren't many such groups around, so one is often forced to try to align oneself with a tradition/monoism, which of course requires that one forgo one's ecclecticism.
I think modern Buddhism in the West is essentially heading in two very different directions:
1. The modernists, who reject much of what is traditionally typical for Buddhism, esp. belief in karma and rebirth.
2. The traditionalists, who focus on the traditional teachings and practices with new strength.
Which is another reason why those "imported" religions can be so difficult to join or at least approach for newcomers.
I assume that ideally, people convert because they have received divine inspiration.
To me, conversion (other than when done for political, economical etc. reasons) necessarily requires divine inspiration.
What you say -
seems impossible to me.
I cannot imagine converting on the grounds of "using my head and my heart."
I don't think it would count.
I don't take for granted that divine inspiration exists. I am mentioning it to illustrate how impossible conversion by one's own efforts seems to me.
the one I gave - namely that your argument works out of the premise that there is no way to discriminate on the nature of attachment
How could an ordinary person who does not have divine inspiration possibly be able to discriminate between the material and the spiritual??
Religion for the most part is an environmental upbringing and the level that the god gene plays in your neurological behavior and tendencies to be involved with similar groups of people who believe in deities. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/books/review/Shulevitz-t.html?pagewanted=all this link shows ( according to the author and his research that the concept of whether not you believe or follow a religion is encoded within your DNA) this however would give more evidence to the idea that humans created gods and religions as a survival mechanism in a crazy world that couldn't be explained.
If material and spiritual weren't qualitatively distinct (even if only at a very general level) you wouldn't even be able to ask that question
what to speak of evidence for teh idea that humans created gods, there isn't even evidence of genetics being held scientifically accountable to the phenomena of religion (or even within the link you provide)
.... The problem, to my mind, is not that Wade has overambitiously linked genetics and religion. It is that he has underambitiously portrayed religion as less encompassing and consequential than it is. ...
:shrug:
Unfortunately, linguistic ability doesn't really prove anything.
We can ask all kinds of questions, but that doesn't mean that the premises underlying those questions make sense.
So, again:
How could an ordinary person who does not have divine inspiration possibly be able to discriminate between the material and the spiritual??