If anything, this little incident only serves to show how badly the Western world needs to be re-educated about the Bible.
...
As both a Christian and a teacher of the Bible, this needs to be much better understood by anyone living in a nation which grew out of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Whether you like it or not, you are beholden to the influence that the Bible has had upon the shaping of your culture and your worldview: Studying the Bible can only help us to better understand ourselves and our world, because it is virtually and irrevocably ingrained in our world. You don't have to like it. You don't have to embrace the Bible, but you should at least gain a clear idea of what it is, why it matters, and how and why it has maintained currency for over 2000 years.
Hey my first off-topic post. I like this quoted post and particularly like the decent tone of it.
I think what is more important than the west being "reducated" about the Bible, is education of how the west came to care so much about the individual. It is this empowerment of the individual that, to me, is what makes the west the "west".
So where does the Bible fit with regard to western commitment to the individual? I would argue that the dark ages were the result of a weak civil society and a very strong church. The renaisance, the enlightenment, and the subsequent victories for individual liberty all came at the expense of and despite the opposition of the Church. People who fought for democracy and other individual liberties did not have wonderful passages from the Bible to quote from. They went back to the Greeks to find the arguments for democracy. There were no Jesuits or religious writings from which to draw succor. People like Locke, Bentham, Smith, and others had to find their own words and arguments to support the growing idea that a decentralized society that allows each individual room to make their own life and define each own's happiness, was the best and most fair way to organize society. The Bible provided no help to these thinkers.
On this, the most important aspect of western society - liberalism, liberty, the rise of the individual from serf to citizen - the Church had very little to say except, "don't do that!" And this was not a Church that was purposefully misreading the Bible. In truth, there is nothing in the Bible which supports this huge shift from theocracy/monarchy to democracy. Again, the Greeks and the enlightenment philosophers, not the Bible, provide the philosphical foundation for this change.
By my understanding of history, an honest "reeducation" of the role of the Bible in western history will only serve to show people that the Bible has consistantly been used as authority for the most reactionary and least progessive ideas in the west. The great rise of the individual - the west's greatest accomplishment and secret recipe - was accomplished in spite of, not because of, the Bible.
Edit add - There is no doubt that the ideas of individual salvation and other Biblical moral teachings provided a foundation from which the political thinkers jumped in order to restrict political power from the Church and monarchs. The underlying "goodness" in the west that allowed for such respect for individuals to exist, is probably a byproduct of the general morality of Europe, which most definately was informed by the Bible.
Last edited by Chester; 03-17-2012 at 05:53 PM.
Reason: Needed some softener.
If anything, this little incident only serves to show how badly the Western world needs to be re-educated about the Bible.
We fully and completely agree on this issue.
Quote:
In the initial proclamation, the so-called "Year of the Bible" was intended in part "to recognize how the book has shaped the commonwealth." I recognize that the whole concept is undermined by the religiously propagandistic second part of the statement, but in my mind, the Year of the Bible should inspire some sort of enlightened appraisal of this foundational document for all.
Right, but how do you imagine the average non critical thinking Christian views this statement? I think you'll agree they will view it simplistically and likely think immediately about ideas from their particular, simpleton understanding of the bible that this is about whatever they imagined it to be.
I aphor his idea of challenging this concept, but wow he's not wrong, there is soooooo much that people take literally and pick/choose that these ideas of year of the bible is more to them like "year of my ideas validated by an old book, so that my opinion which I think is supported by the bible is expressed..."
Quote:
As both a Christian and a teacher of the Bible, this needs to be much better understood by anyone living in a nation which grew out of the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment. Whether you like it or not, you are beholden to the influence that the Bible has had upon the shaping of your culture and your worldview: Studying the Bible can only help us to better understand ourselves and our world, because it is virtually and irrevocably ingrained in our world. You don't have to like it. You don't have to embrace the Bible, but you should at least gain a clear idea of what it is, why it matters, and how and why it has maintained currency for over 2000 years.
Agreed again, but wow the reality is so far from this, back in Canada I could eventually find a very well read biblical scholar among st my friends and friends of friends... But its a very tiny number... Move to Iceland, this number is utterly minute, the Christians here routinely says Jesus was not resurrected, Noah's ark is obviously fake, adam/eve is obviously not true, etc..
These people in the US would be seen as closet atheists, but here they see themselves as real Christians.. When they hear about the US and all the absurd stuff said out there, they just treat it like they would when they hear of extremist comments made from Islamic nations.
Its the responsibility of the believers to get the modern take on their holy book up to snuff, not those who challenge it.
I WISH 10% of Christians had your brain TC, we'd have a lot less nonsense to argue about.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
If anything, this little incident only serves to show how badly the Western world needs to be re-educated about the Bible.
Please! for every nutjob athiest there's 500 nutjob religious freaks(at least)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Studying the Bible can only help us to better understand ourselves and our world.
As an atheist who believes in the science of the universe, the science of this little planet and life itself help me? how in "hell" could a cult book full of short stories and fairytales written by greedy HUMAN beings help me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
it is virtually and irrevocably ingrained in our world.
So is the Quran and a lot of other cult books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You don't have to like it.
I read it twice,first time because I was told to by my bible school. second time was to count how many stupid things there is in it.I loss count after page 9 or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
You don't have to embrace the Bible
Thankyou.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
you should at least gain a clear idea of what it is
I'm extremely clear on what it is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
why it matters
It doesn't to me...that matters
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
it has maintained currency for over 2000 years.
So what? Hinduism is twice as old,Jainism is much older as is Buddhism, the two religions that dominate the world today are relative newcomers to the spiritual scene.
Lets be truly clear, as a bible teacher you could care less about all these other religions..right? Believe what you want sir, unicorns,pink elephants and your miracles.I don't realy care, just as you don't care that I believe that God is imaginary and Jesus was a fraud.
Please! for every nutjob athiest there's 500 nutjob religious freaks(at least)
As an atheist who believes in the science of the universe, the science of this little planet and life itself help me? how in "hell" could a cult book full of short stories and fairytales written by greedy HUMAN beings help me?
So is the Quran and a lot of other cult books.
I read it twice,first time because I was told to by my bible school. second time was to count how many stupid things there is in it.I loss count after page 9 or so.
Thankyou.
I'm extremely clear on what it is...
It doesn't to me...that matters
So what? Hinduism is twice as old,Jainism is much older as is Buddhism, the two religions that dominate the world today are relative newcomers to the spiritual scene.
Lets be truly clear, as a bible teacher you could care less about all these other religions..right? Believe what you want sir, unicorns,pink elephants and your miracles.I don't realy care, just as you don't care that I believe that God is imaginary and Jesus was a fraud.
I sense a lot of anger there maybe because you were maybe originally fooled by Christianity. I was lucky enough to grow up in an atheist home but still got some religious education, just so I knew a little of what it was about. Because religion is mostly a fraud doesn't mean the teachers of their time such as Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or Mohamed didn't have something to teach or to give.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
I sense a lot of anger there maybe because you were maybe originally fooled by Christianity. I was lucky enough to grow up in an atheist home but still got some religious education, just so I knew a little of what it was about. Because religion is mostly a fraud doesn't mean the teachers of their time such as Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or Mohamed didn't have something to teach or to give.
Nope, I'm pushing 50 now and I can't ever remember believing in it,even when my parents insisted that I get confirmed at 12 I knew then I didn't believe it.It's just my way, I don't like strict rules of any kind let alone rules from fairytales,I live my life with "human" morality,love my kids,give what I can to charities and the needy but I truly feel that religion insults my intelligence.
For all the good that religion has done/teach/give it has also caused a lot of grief in the world and I really believe were better off without it.
Anger:I will give you this,one thing that has always stuck in my mind was two twin sisters that lived closed to me growing up,they were always hungry,dirty/tattered clothes..etc.I use to sneak food out of my house for these kids because their ######ed parents decided to pay the church instead of feeding them, these parents gave it their all for the church, the minister ate steak and lobster while the kids starved..yeah that angered me a little.
By the way,there is a reason why the catholic church is one of if not the riches institution in the world.
Cult!
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
I have a few posts to which I intend to respond, and plan to do so over the next several days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
...I think what is more important than the west being "reducated" about the Bible, is education of how the west came to care so much about the individual. It is this empowerment of the individual that, to me, is what makes the west the "west"...
I totally agree with the second part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
On this, the most important aspect of western society - liberalism, liberty, the rise of the individual from serf to citizen - the Church had very little to say except, "don't do that!" And this was not a Church that was purposefully misreading the Bible.
This is very true, but I do challenge the assertion that individualism has produced a progressively more noble society. Without question, the emergence of science, technology, and enlightenment values have had tremendously beneficial effects that we all continue to enjoy in the the Western world. But this perspective is unbalanced if we simultaneously fail to realize the enormous cost that we continue to pay for the fundamental shift in our thinking that accompanied these blessings. The assertion of the individual and his autonomous liberties has eroded our sense of community. The mandate for humankind is no longer hinged on the prosperity of the species, but rather on the indulgent pursuit of insular happiness and individual well being. We engage in life as individuals in a network of symbiotic (parasitic?) relationships, but most often are ruled entirely by our own self-interest: This is the inevitability of the Enlightenment vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
By my understanding of history, an honest "reeducation" of the role of the Bible in western history will only serve to show people that the Bible has consistantly been used as authority for the most reactionary and least progessive ideas in the west. The great rise of the individual - the west's greatest accomplishment and secret recipe - was accomplished in spite of, not because of, the Bible.
My concept of a "re-education" would not be limited to the shaping of Western culture from only the past five or six hundred years—the roots of our society are much, much deeper than that. Rather—and as you have happily included in your addendum—the manner in which we have chosen to narrate our past is very closely connected to a variety of popular themes from within the Bible: the very idea that we are "progressive" and that history is directed towards a goal of improvement or achievement is rooted in the Christian narrative of cosmic salvation. I think that we collectively can come to a better understanding of how this works in our own thinking by seeing how this plays out within the Bible itself, and how it has been interpreted and re-written over time. This is all a part of meeting the Bible on its own terms first, before passing arbitrary judgement on its worth.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Religion exacerbates these 'evil' traits because it's core dogma commands obedience-of-authority.
This could be so according to one definition of "religion", but I also think that we need to consider carefully how we use this term. Our understanding of what "religion" is is not universally agreed upon, and it actually appears deeply at odds with how it would be defined in middle and far Eastern cultures, as well as how it functioned in the ancient world.
I think it is fair to say that you and a number of the other posters in this thread find religion to be absurd because you have dismissed the possibility that it satisfies any single component of our anthropological identity. For those of us who reject this sort of anthropological dualism, religion is not only necessary, but actually entirely satisfactory and fruitful. This harks back to my comments above regarding community and individualism: In my own experience, the most clearly beneficial component of religion is in the formation of an altruistic, noble community that promotes solidarity, fulfillment and inclusive well-being. I have been a part of some communities that work and others that do not: it is a delicate and fragile enterprise in the same sense that politics and education are prone to similar fits and starts of goodness and harm.
If you take the time to read my posting history you should see that I not an apologist for modern, organized religion. I am categorically opposed to the misuse and abuse of religious institutions for illicit and inhumane purposes, and I reject the conclusion that for all its flaws it needs to be abandoned, or that it is in any way "absurd" as a result. Analogously speaking, the abandonment of religion in principle for the egregious effects of its misapplication is no different than the abandonment of an evolutionary explanation for biological diversity because of the exceptionally damaging effects of social darwinism or "casino capitalism".
...moe later.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
This could be so according to one definition of "religion", but I also think that we need to consider carefully how we use this term. Our understanding of what "religion" is is not universally agreed upon, and it actually appears deeply at odds with how it would be defined in middle and far Eastern cultures, as well as how it functioned in the ancient world.
Very good point.
I'll admit that I may find it charming to hear a prayer to Poseidon or Zeus but would find the same sentiments offered to Jesus or Allah less palatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
I think it is fair to say that you and a number of the other posters in this thread find religion to be absurd because you have dismissed the possibility that it satisfies any single component of our anthropological identity. For those of us who reject this sort of anthropological dualism, religion is not only necessary, but actually entirely satisfactory and fruitful.
I would not agree with that completely, or perhaps I don't fully understand what you're conveying. I couldn't help but think of Dawkin's suggestions that the tendency to be religious is evolutionarily advantageous.
You can take these words to be (part of) what I believe; does this address the 'single component of our anthropology' ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
This harks back to my comments above regarding community and individualism: In my own experience, the most clearly beneficial component of religion is in the formation of an altruistic, noble community that promotes solidarity, fulfillment and inclusive well-being.
I agree that religion often represents the best in humanity, however it is my contention that it borrows from humanity and is attributed to religion.
I would interested to hear your thoughts on Botton's "religion for atheists":
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
Analogously speaking, the abandonment of religion in principle for the egregious effects of its misapplication is no different than the abandonment of an evolutionary explanation for biological diversity because of the exceptionally damaging effects of social darwinism or "casino capitalism"
As a self-proclaimed anti-theist, my personal opposition is not to the concept of religion or the belief in god. My opposition is equally applicable to both of your analogies:
The enemy is zealous dedication to an irrational conclusion.
Last edited by Gozer; 03-20-2012 at 06:57 PM.
Reason: added a semicolon; bitchs love semicolons
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
...how do you imagine the average non critical thinking Christian views this statement? I think you'll agree they will view it simplistically and likely think immediately about ideas from their particular, simpleton understanding of the bible that this is about whatever they imagined it to be.
Therein is the challenge: Perhaps this stands as an appeal to popularity, but I would counter that because we know full well how seriously so many Evangelical Christians pretend to take the Bible, the need for significant attention paid to ensuring quality biblical literacy is all that much more important. My suggestion is proactive: it is an attempt to shift the thinking of those who need it most, and in my estimation this is a MUCH better approach than to react, and declare the "Year of the Bible" to be unconstitutional or irrelevant. One thing we know for certain is that such a reaction will not soften the Christian resolve to defend their preexisting assumptions; it is most likely to reinforce them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
...Its the responsibility of the believers to get the modern take on their holy book up to snuff, not those who challenge it...
I completely agree, but the vitriolic rhetoric and straw-man arguments levelled arbitrarily by the skeptics camp indiscriminately on the whole Bible do not help to diffuse what is already a volatile situation. It is not productive to vocally oppose the celebration of biblical literature on the grounds that it is primitive and barbaric, because so much of it is absolutely neither. I can agree with what Perce is attempting to do in principle, in that he is raising awareness; people on both sides of this debate need to raise awareness, but not so ham-fistedly and offensively as Perce and his ilk.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
...I'll admit that I may find it charming to hear a prayer to Poseidon or Zeus but would find the same sentiments offered to Jesus or Allah less palatable.
How very interesting, and why is that, do you think? Do you doubt that worshipers of Poseidon or Zeus were any less sincere than worshipers of Jesus or Allah? I'm curious about this.
I will unpack this idea in greater depth in this post and others, but I fear that most Western perceptions of what religion is and what it does has badly miscoloured their impression of its value. This is in no small part because of the fairly dramatic shift in religious practice that accompanied the emergence of the Christian movement, and I view this as a regrettable turn of events that has further clouded the issue. Assessing "religion" from its roots is quite difficult because of how deeply and widely it permeated virtually every other sphere of life. Nevertheless, I think that the best way to understand "religion" in its most natural, functional sense is the pursuit of well-being by currying divine favour. This is not precisely the same as "obeying the gods": This is rather ingratiating ones self and his / her community to the deity in the bestowal of gifts and favours. In virtually every ancient culture the gods wanted sacrifices: they were not as a rule interested in morality or virtue—these largely came to be construed as part of "religion" because of the Jewish and Christian insistence that one's "sacrifices" took the form of goodness and noble conduct. In my own definition of religion, this is the goal: the betterment of the individual and the community, and the promotion of natural harmony. Religious behaviour should be weighed according to how well it satisfies these goals. Methods and component "beliefs" change, but the purpose tends to remain the same. Admittedly, religious commitment has produced—and will likely continue to produce—destructive and disastrous responses to this basic goal. Religion can be dangerous, which is why proponents bear an added responsibility to ensure that their devotion is operating in accordance with the mandate for common well-being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gozer
...You can take these words to be (part of) what I believe; does this address the 'single component of our anthropology' ?
I don't think Dawkins understands religion at all.
As for what I meant by the rejection of anthropological dualism, this will require a bit of explaining, so please bear with me. I will approach this in a very brief history of ideas:
· The ancient Semitic mindset had a holistic view of man: "visible" and "invisible" components that were indivisible and inseparable from what made us truly human. The universe was considered to be benign and ordered by God: harmony in nature was proof of God's dominion.
· Plato introduced—or at least popularized—the notion of "forms": that the tangible world was a poor representation of the ideal world that was non-physical. Everything that was universally "good" was immaterial or "spiritual", and everything universally "harmful" or "wicked" was physical. For Plato, "salvation", or idealism was a matter of ridding oneself of physical restraints: in his view, human beings were merely mechanized vessels that were animated by pure spirits. This is decidedly different from the above view of "holistic", indivisible man that forms the core of the Old and New Testament.
· The early Church was greatly influenced by Plato's philosophy; some of this is already apparent in portions of the New Testament, and especially in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. This resulted in a perception of the world in Medieval Christianity that basically affirmed Plato's philosophy, but in the context of the traditional Christian narrative: "Salvation" was not about cultural and cosmological renewal, but rather came to mean post-mortem spiritual escape from the physical prison of life.
· In the advent of science, the "natural world" came to be the object of study in place of the more transcendent "spiritual world". "Religion" consequently was relegated as a private matter of "spiritual" discovery, and disconnected from the tangible, scientifically appropriated natural realm. Zealous religious and social reformers eventually came to reject the "spiritual realm" altogether, as they become increasingly convinced that nature was all there is.
* This leaves us beholden to our Western philosophical roots: I expect that your rejection of "religion" as "absurd" emerges from your philosophical and methodological naturalism, that in turn was a product of the elimination of Plato's forms. The thing is, genuine "biblical" religion and Christianity does not hold to the same philosophical dualism that dissects "spiritual" from the "physical". Because it is rooted in the conception of humankind more holistically as consisting of visible and invisible components, it is much more difficult to carve "religion" or "spirituality" out of the matrix. It is engrained.
I hope that helps to explain my supposition that religion is more natural and essential as an anthropological phenomenon.
I will add more later.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Please! for every nutjob athiest there's 500 nutjob religious freaks(at least)
This is probably true, but is this a product of the absurdity of "religion", or is it more likely because "religious" people outnumber "non-religious" people by a factor of 8 or 10 : 1?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
In my own definition of religion, this is the goal: the betterment of the individual and the community, and the promotion of natural harmony. Religious behaviour should be weighed according to how well it satisfies these goals. Methods and component "beliefs" change, but the purpose tends to remain the same.
You seem to presume, though I could be wrong, that "the betterment of the individual and the community" can only effectively be executed through religion. If so, why? If not, and you believe that this can be acheived outside of religion, the result is that religion is not required from an individual or community perspective and it is therefore stripped down to nothing more than 'belief'. If theism and aetheism are able to accomplish the same goals then the only difference between the two world views is faith in a higher power. While religion requires faith, faith does not require religion.
Regarding your assertion that religion must be understood, if nothing else, in order to understand our anthropoligical and sociological roots I agree. But don't you think the effect of religious anthropological study in all of it's forms (including the formal religious institutions) are disproportionate to the study of other, equally significant factors? Those 'others' might include a great deal of Pagan belief that bled into the Judeo-Christian view of the world. It would also include the Greek Philosophers which you have rightly aluded to. But for every mention of Hermes Trismagistus or Plato there are a thousand references to Jesus. I don't discount the historical impact that modern religion has had on our world view and I don't discount the need to understand it. I would argue that it is studied, dissected, referenced and, dare I say, forced upon us in much greater frequency (even relativel speaking) than all of the other anthropological forces combined.
We don't need religion nor do we need God. I agree that we need to understand the impact of both on our lives currently but not to the exclusion of everything else. I'm not suggesting that's what you are doing but rather what is being done on a societal level.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
Nevertheless, I think that the best way to understand "religion" in its most natural, functional sense is the pursuit of well-being by currying divine favour. This is not precisely the same as "obeying the gods": This is rather ingratiating ones self and his / her community to the deity in the bestowal of gifts and favours.
This is exactly what I don't get. The idea that doing whatever it is we do (or don't do) will actually curry divine favour. That if we ingratiate ourselves to some deity, we will be bestowed with goods and favours.
I don't have the vocabulary or education to express exactly why I don't get it, other than to say I just don't think it works. The most devout people aren't exactly being bestowed with goods and favours (unless it comes in the afterlife, and we can't see it, but that doesn't make sense to me either, and may or may not be another argument entirely).
But that's all well and good. It's a free country. Do what you want. But then we have stuff like this video -- a guy "introducing" Rick Santorum two days ago. Say what you will about him, but Santorum will be taking the bronze medal in the biggest popularity contest in the world.
And of course I screwed up the youtube embedding, so he says...
"I'm telling you my friends, I believe that Christians in America are the key to revival. I believe that Christians in America is the key to the economy turning around. I believe that Christians in America is the key to the jobless rate to continue going down. I believe it's a spiritual thing. If we put god back in America, put God back in our pulpits, put God back in our homes and in our statehouses, back in Washington bla bla bla and great and mighty things will happen in this country".
In other words, currying favour with the deity. Ingratiating certain members only with the deity. T curry this favour, we need Christians to call the shots, and everyone else can be (literally, I assume) damned.
I know I know, it's easy and probably somewhat insincere to take some pulpit-pounding halfwit and say "this is Christianity", but really, this is what we are being told by the "faithful". At least the loudest and most powerful among them, anyway. It is absurd. I don't see any reason to be polite about it. This man is talking nonsense.
I know you said earlier that all the vitriol and divisiveness makes things worse, but you can't reason with people like this. What else are you going to do? They don't want to be reasoned with. You can't say to them "you need to understand the Bible better than you do".
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 03-20-2012 at 10:52 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
How very interesting, and why is that, do you think? Do you doubt that worshipers of Poseidon or Zeus were any less sincere than worshipers of Jesus or Allah? I'm curious about this.
Yes, though not contemporaneously. I mean that if I heard it from a stranger tomorrow I would consider a prayer to Poseidon to be much less sincere (and I consider the sincerity to be undesirable).
Surely this is because there is not a devout segment of the population that currently exhorts their dogma. If their's was the dominant social religion then I expect I would be more uncomfortable with an appeal to Loki or Ra - whatever arbitrary symbol was being wielded by demagogues.
It may also be a byproduct of familiarity, but I prefer polytheism to monotheism. A worldview based on a clash of legitimate ideals would mould society better than a single/ultimate source of righteousness.
I also think the teachings of a polytheistic religion are more easily embraced because I can identify with an archetype before I understand the parable - the Qur'an has many teachings of warfare but I expect I would more readily absorb a lesson learned by Ares.
I haven't fully reflected on this. That post was the first time I had considered it.
Zealous religious and social reformers eventually came to reject the "spiritual realm" altogether, as they become increasingly convinced that nature was all there is
...
I hope that helps to explain my supposition that religion is more natural and essential as an anthropological phenomenon.
I always appreciate your posts Tex, and hope you can continue to expand on the topic.
I accept that our current society's obsession with the tangible has limited us, but I do not accept that a previous ideals borne of ignorance and fear (such as hierarchies and "invisible components") have an inherent value (beyond anthropology and sociology) over other theories that are similarly (un)supported - such as veganarchism - due to previous popularity.
