Religions : Legitimate vs otherwise

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Wow.

I wish there was a converse to the "thanks" feature.

I mean, dude, I've read a lot of your posts, and we've had our fair share of debates, but this little beauty has to take the cake. I expect this kind of thing from CalgaryBornAgain.

I'd like you to attempt to back up what you just said.

You are certainly one of the more closed-minded reductionists that I have ever encountered, so whatever I say will be ineffective.

Mysticism/transcendentalism does not equal literal theism or even deism. It's a way of telling stories and passing along information that is difficult or impossible to explain from a materialist perspective. For example, the historical story of humanity and the experiences within can only be understood from a mythical perspective. Before modern times, it was these human experiences that made up the basis of a lot of human religion.

Spirituality, of a sort, can be communicated rationally. The term, religious, is vacuous. Something doesn't require a literal god or an irrational belief in the literal reading of ancient scriptures to have a religious purpose. Indeed, many atheists from an Enlightenment perspective show signs of millennarianismm which is far more irrational than many moderate theistic faiths.

It ultimately comes down to how you understand history.

Sam Harris has gotten some flak for holding this perspective. Indeed, he even advocates Eastern mysticism and meditation, but this article sums up the argument pretty well. Click here.

[evman150]

Your point is interesting. Your language is terrible.

Even our scientists are turning into mystics.

Really? You had to use that word? That's a loaded word.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

Your point is interesting. Your language is terrible.

Even our scientists are turning into mystics.

Really? You had to use that word? That's a loaded word.

Language as in... that particular word or content in general?

I would grossly over-summarize the history of humanity as searching for meaning through an understanding of our universe. There is no more obvious or apt a tool for this job as the scientific method. It has added a vast new array of diversity and depth to our experience.

I don't think it's the wrong word to use at all. Mysticism in any context is merely an attempt to bring your own experience closer to an ultimate reality of some kind. I think that with new discoveries about our past come new questions about our future. The process by which science attempts to answer these questions is certainly mystical, in a sense.

Like Harris says in the article, don't get too worked up over the word.

[HotHotHeat]

Ultimate thread.

My contribution: Rationality

[flamey_mcflame]

It was extremely disappointing to see President Obama utter the words "non-believers" rather than Atheists. Very disappointing indeed. Apparently, in America, you can have a biracial president, but Atheism is still a four lettered word. I don't blame Obama though, the fundies would have probably blown a redneck gasket if they heard that word.

So, stay in the closet, you filthy doctors,scientists,professors,engineers and captains of industry. The United States isn't ready to give up their fairy tales and openly admit critical thinkers who lead ethical,intelligent and successful lives into the fabric of their society.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

You are certainly one of the more closed-minded reductionists that I have ever encountered, so whatever I say will be ineffective.

Mysticism/transcendentalism does not equal literal theism or even deism. It's a way of telling stories and passing along information that is difficult or impossible to explain from a materialist perspective. For example, the historical story of humanity and the experiences within can only be understood from a mythical perspective. Before modern times, it was these human experiences that made up the basis of a lot of human religion.

Spirituality, of a sort, can be communicated rationally. The term, religious, is vacuous. Something doesn't require a literal god or an irrational belief in the literal reading of ancient scriptures to have a religious purpose. Indeed, many atheists from an Enlightenment perspective show signs of millennarianismm which is far more irrational than many moderate theistic faiths.

It ultimately comes down to how you understand history.

Sam Harris has gotten some flak for holding this perspective. Indeed, he even advocates Eastern mysticism and meditation, but this article sums up the argument pretty well. Click here.

This is what Joseph Campbell was talking about:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Campbell.htm

Joseph: . . .that's the whole problem with Western religion. All of the symbols are interpreted as if they were historical references. They're not. And if they are, then so what?

Tom: Let's go carefully here. What are you calling a symbol?

Joseph: I'm calling a symbol a sign that points past itself to a ground of meaning and being that is one with the consciousness of the beholder. What you're learning in myth is about yourself as part of the being of the world. If it talks not about you, finally, but about something out there, then it's short. There's that wonderful phase I got from Karlfried Graf Durkheim, "transparency to the transcendent." If a deity blocks off transcendency, cuts you short of it by stopping at himself, he turns you into a worshipper and a devotee, and he hasn't opened the mystery of your own being.

Tom: What do you do, then, if the experience is not to be found in religion?

Joseph: You find it in mysticism and get in touch with mystics who read these symbolic forms symbolically. Mystics are people who are not theologians; theologians are people who interpret the vocabulary of scripture as if it were referring to supernatural facts.


Too many of our best scholars, themselves indoctrinated from infancy in a religion of one kind or another based upon the Bible, are so locked into the idea of their own god as a supernatural fact -- something final, not symbolic of transcendence, but a personage with a character and will of his own - that they are unable to grasp the idea of a worship that is not of the symbol but of its reference, which is of a mystery of much greater age and of more immediate inward reality than the name-and-form of any historical ethinic idea of a deity, whatsoever ... and is of a sophistication that makes the sentimentalism of our popular Bible-story theology seem undeveloped.
-- Joseph Campbell, quoted from Famous Dead Non-theists

[guzzy]

I see lot of people bashing scientology. I have done much research on this "religion" and I understand where the negative comments come from.

Let's look back and discuss why sientology is any different from Christianity or any other religion. Christianity and many other religions are just different interpretations of the bible. Some idealist came up with an idea on how to control people and promoted it(the bible).

IMO, scientology has as much credibility as christianity or any other religion. Some crazy, broke, power hungry individual created it to control the minds of masses. Organized religion is only a form of mind control.

I am not a fan of organized religion but I do believe that some people absolutely need it. I have seen religion pick people up when they have no where to turn and have turned their lives around. For these people it is an amazing thing. I just have trouble supporting anything that promotes it's own beliefs in the name of a larger figure when really it is a cash grab and mind control

[Thor]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

It was extremely disappointing to see President Obama utter the words "non-believers" rather than Atheists. Very disappointing indeed. Apparently, in America, you can have a biracial president, but Atheism is still a four lettered word. I don't blame Obama though, the fundies would have probably blown a redneck gasket if they heard that word.

So, stay in the closet, you filthy doctors,scientists,professors,engineers and captains of industry. The United States isn't ready to give up their fairy tales and openly admit critical thinkers who lead ethical,intelligent and successful lives into the fabric of their society.

The fact he actually uttered even that was a giant leap forward from past presidents. Just being acknowledged as non believers in the discussion to me shows just how the last 5-10 years of atheism growing and becoming more vocal in this world has had an affect in even US politics. Just look at how for once, Palin was slammed for her church's zealotry, even 5 years ago I don't know if the media would have had the guts to mock her religious zeal.

Also, from a Science point of view Obama's speech thrilled the Scientific community: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us...=1&ref=science

Also a youtube on his view on religion and politics: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=x7y8iapfYbQ

[octothorp]

My perspective as an agnostic is that you generally can't judge the legitimacy of a religion based on its beliefs; some religions are more believable than others, and it's more likely that a believable religion would turn out to be true. But in religion, 'more likely' isn't good enough. In some churches, it seems like the theology is being shifted to make it more believable, less faith-based (the United Church for example, where it's no longer a requirement to believe in the divinity of Christ), and I wonder what's the point? In what way is the religion stronger because the burden of faith has been decreased.

The second analysis is looking at the logic of a religion. Does it hold together within its own little bubble, or is it full of contradictions and impossible tasks. I think most religions suffer from some faults here, some more than others. If a religion espouses the sacredness of life, for example, but also advocates war against non-believers, then it has problems. If the religious texts are structured in such a way that almost any action can be justified or condemned depending on interpretation, then the religion is fairly useless. The legitimate religions are those that actually offer a path for its followers. What that path is and where it leads is less important (in terms of legitimacy) than how well that path is constructed.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

It was extremely disappointing to see President Obama utter the words "non-believers" rather than Atheists. Very disappointing indeed. Apparently, in America, you can have a biracial president, but Atheism is still a four lettered word. I don't blame Obama though, the fundies would have probably blown a redneck gasket if they heard that word.

So, stay in the closet, you filthy doctors,scientists,professors,engineers and captains of industry. The United States isn't ready to give up their fairy tales and openly admit critical thinkers who lead ethical,intelligent and successful lives into the fabric of their society.

+1

Using the term 'non-believers' in that way almost makes it derogatory. Like the correct state of mind is to 'believe' or be a 'believer'. Al the rest are just non-believers.

I also agree Obama probably had to word it like that on purpose though. Would have lost a lot of voters and possibly funding to be more open or direct about it.

[photon]

Or he just used non-believers because it encompasses more people than atheist would, at least to the people hearing the speech. Most people put agnostic between theist and atheist, even though that's wrong.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Or he just used non-believers because it encompasses more people than atheist would, at least to the people hearing the speech. Most people put agnostic between theist and atheist, even though that's wrong.

I've always put it in a different category, more in the role of private spirituality or searching. I think that's different than an atheist, but they still share the same skepticism, I suppose.

[Daradon]

Like many posters here, I also judge a religion based on how it treats it followers and how it treats those who aren't it's followers.

Some ideas and beliefs seem (key word: SEEM) sillier than others and we all judge them based on what makes sense to us, but at the end of the day, people might be judging our beliefs, or lack of beliefs, the same way. So it all becomes a wash really.

The only thing you can qualitatively judge is how the religion (and perhaps the organization behind it) treats it's followers and treats others.

As well, as far as beliefs go, in every religion you find a gamut of believers. Believers who believe the old stories and teachings to the letter, and others who look for modern inspiration in the teachings, taking them more as stories to live by. It's hard to judge a whole religion, when within it, people have many different beliefs.

So I guess, legitimacy to me, is based on the actions of a group, and not it's beliefs. Because none of us have the full story yet, none of us are really SIGNIFICANTLY any closer to the answer than anyone else. So while some ideas make more logical sense, or make more spiritual sense, or make more scientific sense, no one idea is so far in front of the others that one can say with pride or conviction (at least without being an absolute jerk in my opinion) that 'this' is was it legitimate, and 'this' is what's silly.

However, when you start seeing what a religion or group is doing to it's people and to the world, like Scientology, or the most conservative 'Muslim' groups and yes even a few 'Christian' groups, then you can start to see cult like behavior and safely label it as 'illegitimate' religion.

(I quoted those religions because those groups that I talk about that abuse them, only masquerade as them, they obviously ignore some of the most important teachings and many would be quick to point out that then, they aren't really Muslim or Christian and only give the religion a bad name. However, one has to understand that is what they are rooted in and therefore in the discussion the names are important and accurate.)

[photon]

Originally Posted by guzzy

Let's look back and discuss why sientology is any different from Christianity or any other religion. Christianity and many other religions are just different interpretations of the bible. Some idealist came up with an idea on how to control people and promoted it(the bible).

That's kind of backwards, Christianity created the Bible (well the NT).

Originally Posted by Daradon

Like many posters here, I also judge a religion based on how it treats it followers and how it treats those who aren't it's followers.

I already said it but I'll say it again, this makes me laugh a little because religion is supposed to be the basis of morality, so to judge a religion by its morality..

Originally Posted by peter12

I've always put it in a different category, more in the role of private spirituality or searching. I think that's different than an atheist, but they still share the same skepticism, I suppose.

A/theism is a question of belief. A/gnosticism is a question of knowledge. Two different things, one can be a agnostic theist, agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, and gnostic theist.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

I already said it but I'll say it again, this makes me laugh a little because religion is supposed to be the basis of morality, so to judge a religion by its morality..

Religion likes to define itself as the bar for morality, but morality is something which is within all of us, holy books or no. Societies as well define their own morality, sometimes based on religion, sometimes not. Morality is something we all have to decide on for ourselves, yet come together (at least in general terms) for to improve our world. I think that makes it far more proper to use morality to judge religion, than to use religion to suggest terms of morality.

One can go to university and take courses in morality. In times like this we need to think about scientific morality, and environmental morality.

I know religion likes to say it's the seat of morality, but in truth I think we all know that's not the case. And it's not how thoughts on morality OR religion was started as far as I know. Yes they got confused very early, but they are not the same or even linked, though religious zealots may like to say so.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I know religion likes to say it's the seat of morality, but in truth I think we all know that's not the case.

I agree with what you say, it just makes me smile.

The bolded part though I would disagree with, I think most religious people would way they are and the majority of people are religious one way or another.

EDIT: So I'd really like to hear a religious person chime in with how they would determine a legitimate religion with respect to laws, government policies, etc.

[Daradon]

^^^ True, we all don't know that's the case. Ideally we would I think.

When I meant 'we all' I meant people smart enough and brave enough to debate in this thread, not 'we all' in the world in general.

[Bill Bumface]

I always thought the basis of well established religions was pretty obvious. Their creation came in a time where you had a very poor population with a small, elite, extremely wealthy ruling class. How do you convince your poor population they should toil away their entire lives to sustain your wealth? How do you keep them from overthrowing you and distributing your wealth among the population? Invent a god that they are afraid of, connect yourself with that god (paintings of past monarchs/rulers often involve them hanging out with the saints, Jesus or the Spaghetti Monster). Make people believe in eternal life that they will only get if they slave away for you obediently. A life that involves 30 years of hard labor every day is much more acceptable for someone who thinks they are headed to 'heaven' after than to someone who believes that when they die that's it. When you need people to go to war for you to gain further wealth, tell them god is commanding your people to go to war for him.

Pretty clever, and easy to pull off on an uneducated/poor population. What they are today is obviously nowhere close to that, but if I was a king back then I'm sure I would have thought it was a good idea.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I always thought the basis of well established religions was pretty obvious. Their creation came in a time where you had a very poor population with a small, elite, extremely wealthy ruling class. How do you convince your poor population they should toil away their entire lives to sustain your wealth? How do you keep them from overthrowing you and distributing your wealth among the population? Invent a god that they are afraid of, connect yourself with that god (paintings of past monarchs/rulers often involve them hanging out with the saints, Jesus or the Spaghetti Monster). Make people believe in eternal life that they will only get if they slave away for you obediently. A life that involves 30 years of hard labor every day is much more acceptable for someone who thinks they are headed to 'heaven' after than to someone who believes that when they die that's it. When you need people to go to war for you to gain further wealth, tell them god is commanding your people to go to war for him.

Pretty clever, and easy to pull off on an uneducated/poor population. What they are today is obviously nowhere close to that, but if I was a king back then I'm sure I would have thought it was a good idea.

Pretty much what Bush pulled off and this is with an arguably wealthy and educated society.

So the con still works though I don't think most major religions began this way, just that the cheese sandwich, brought up by another poster, has degenerated into dog poo.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Pretty much what Bush pulled off and this is with an arguably wealthy and educated society.

So the con still works though I don't think most major religions began this way, just that the cheese sandwich, brought up by another poster, has degenerated into dog poo.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if most religions were 'invented' for this purpose, but we'll never know.

Regarding Bush, absolutely. If you take a look at the demographics for those voting for Bush, supporting the war, and fighting for the war, you'll see this trick works best on the uneducated and poor better than the rest of the population.