Christianity: not stupid
I grew up in a protestant christian congregation. I've been fairly serious about it at various points in my life and it's interesting to me now to think about what christianity meant to me (ie, what about myself did I value that I thought christianity sanctified? and what did these different models posit about nature and other humans) at these different points in my life.
I am in possession of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It takes hebrew and greek words and lists which verses they occur in as well as containing a good dictionary (it lists approximate synonyms as well as what words the entry is derived from). It's a very large book.
It would be a long post if I detailed these different models of Christianity and the evolution of my thought through and out of these models. And anyway that's not what's important. If you care to dip into the Bible(if you can overcome your disgust), what I'd say about it is: The stories of Jacob and Joseph in Genesis are good illustrations of a successful individualistic rebellion and an interesting strategy of dealing with temporal authority, respectively. My political ideal is something like the Book of Judges, which certain people will find to be a hilarious position.
But there's two more general remarks I want to make. First of all, Christianity works. I mean seriously, do you think it would be so popular if it didn't? There are a lot of different varieties of Christianity, and they serve a function for adherents.
"rejecting things from the inside" is, in my opinion, a better method then purely intellectual contemplation. I don't reject Christianity because it's stupid. I reject it because the more I think about it, the more awful it is. And I had to think, what if the christian god exists? what if all this is true? And I decided, that even if I'm going to hell for it, that that God (the Father as distinguished from the Son)is such an incomprehensibly bad motherfucker that I'm not going to lie to him out of fear. Out of respect, I'll be honest and say "I couldn't accept your Son". And that might get me punishment in this world and perhaps for all of eternity, but I'm gonna do it. Christianity is Nihilism.
I'm not an atheist now, and I don't think anybody really is (orgasms and heroin work as gods, eg). But I take a more instrumentalist view. It's still necessary, to me, to learn about "states of the soul" from the inside. If I don't think somebody has lived in the places they talk about, I think they're much less trustworthy. Tourists are not very reliable reporters.
The New Testament is one of the ugliest texts ever written, if you really think about it. But if you're an altruist, read it and ask yourself why you aren't a Christian. If you want a God of Pity, it's there. Egalitarianism is a offspring of Christianity: "All equal in the eyes of God" became Jefferson's supposedly secular formulation. And I look at what happened to the Vikings and basicially, independent farmers and townspeople like craftmen and shopkeepers made common cause to displace the cheiftain elite. Some of the warriors had seen Christendom and brought back the seemingly fantastic tales of gaudy cathedrals and other fruits of political centralization. Rejecting Christianity means rejecting almost everything about the modern world. It's impossible (well, totally impractical) to be a reactionary in matters like this, if only because only the faintest of traces of non-christian culture remain in the West. And that leads to Nietzsche's position: conservatism is impossible, because purely defensive positions are hopeless. You are compelled to create(or you could just laugh at other people and feel smart). But ex nihilo is impossible for us mere humans. You can look at the wreckage of the West as a junkyard swarming with crack addicts and gangsters and figure out what parts you want to build with.
An interesting thing about the Hebrew in Genesis is that "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is not a good translation. Mine would be "the tree of knowledge of what's useful and what isn't"
I am in possession of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It takes hebrew and greek words and lists which verses they occur in as well as containing a good dictionary (it lists approximate synonyms as well as what words the entry is derived from). It's a very large book.
It would be a long post if I detailed these different models of Christianity and the evolution of my thought through and out of these models. And anyway that's not what's important. If you care to dip into the Bible(if you can overcome your disgust), what I'd say about it is: The stories of Jacob and Joseph in Genesis are good illustrations of a successful individualistic rebellion and an interesting strategy of dealing with temporal authority, respectively. My political ideal is something like the Book of Judges, which certain people will find to be a hilarious position.
But there's two more general remarks I want to make. First of all, Christianity works. I mean seriously, do you think it would be so popular if it didn't? There are a lot of different varieties of Christianity, and they serve a function for adherents.
"rejecting things from the inside" is, in my opinion, a better method then purely intellectual contemplation. I don't reject Christianity because it's stupid. I reject it because the more I think about it, the more awful it is. And I had to think, what if the christian god exists? what if all this is true? And I decided, that even if I'm going to hell for it, that that God (the Father as distinguished from the Son)is such an incomprehensibly bad motherfucker that I'm not going to lie to him out of fear. Out of respect, I'll be honest and say "I couldn't accept your Son". And that might get me punishment in this world and perhaps for all of eternity, but I'm gonna do it. Christianity is Nihilism.
I'm not an atheist now, and I don't think anybody really is (orgasms and heroin work as gods, eg). But I take a more instrumentalist view. It's still necessary, to me, to learn about "states of the soul" from the inside. If I don't think somebody has lived in the places they talk about, I think they're much less trustworthy. Tourists are not very reliable reporters.
The New Testament is one of the ugliest texts ever written, if you really think about it. But if you're an altruist, read it and ask yourself why you aren't a Christian. If you want a God of Pity, it's there. Egalitarianism is a offspring of Christianity: "All equal in the eyes of God" became Jefferson's supposedly secular formulation. And I look at what happened to the Vikings and basicially, independent farmers and townspeople like craftmen and shopkeepers made common cause to displace the cheiftain elite. Some of the warriors had seen Christendom and brought back the seemingly fantastic tales of gaudy cathedrals and other fruits of political centralization. Rejecting Christianity means rejecting almost everything about the modern world. It's impossible (well, totally impractical) to be a reactionary in matters like this, if only because only the faintest of traces of non-christian culture remain in the West. And that leads to Nietzsche's position: conservatism is impossible, because purely defensive positions are hopeless. You are compelled to create(or you could just laugh at other people and feel smart). But ex nihilo is impossible for us mere humans. You can look at the wreckage of the West as a junkyard swarming with crack addicts and gangsters and figure out what parts you want to build with.
An interesting thing about the Hebrew in Genesis is that "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" is not a good translation. Mine would be "the tree of knowledge of what's useful and what isn't"
Comments (63)
I agree: all authority is subjugation. Nevertheless indoctrinating a population into never questioning authority is quite different from laying out a set of agreed upon laws to protect the population's rights. Not everyone can be at the top, so we have to look out for those at the bottom.
"Ok, but here's the question: critical thinking is the name of an attitude taken toward a subject matter. In application it consists in asking questions."
Exactly, questioning the concepts a person is exposed to is important. Not just The Bible, but everything. Your favorite political candidate, the price of a loaf of bread, whether or not milk is good for you. My point is only that Religion is both very good at discouraging critical thinking and has an inherent interest in doing so. The specific questions are not relevant, only that questions are allowed, better yet encouraged, to be asked.
The problem with that is that you have no idea what the original books purpose were. It is fine and dandy to get a good translation of them, but what the actually mean we will probably never know. Ten thousand years from now, after the destruction and rebuilding of civilization a couple of times, they might dig up a collection of Harry Potter books and decipher the unreadable scrawling on the page. They might then conjecture that the people of our times had magical powers, simply because they have no idea why it was written.
Quoting yupamiralda
Works for whom?
The rich ranks of the church maybe. Even the pope has a bitch of a time swallowing the "good life" those bastards live.
All of the poor people expected to donate their few spare coins to the church, just to keep those mentioned above.
The only way I agree that it works is as a control mechanism, to keep the riffraff in their places.
Quoting yupamiralda
At least they will not be biased.
What I wanted to point out, in my post, is a certain tension in your thought.
On the one hand, you say that you value respect and honesty to the extent that you would be willing to suffer for eternity to uphold those values (not a small price to pay!). On the other, you say that you're more interested in what's useful, what's pragmatic. That people, maybe, miss the point, because christianity, qua social force, works.
There are a couple different ways to think about tensions like this.
One, the psychoanalytic approach, is to consider that a contradiction ususally covers over an unspeakable desire. In simpler terms: What you want to say, you don't feel comfortable saying - not in public, or to yourself.
The other is the (quasi) hegelian one. Contradictions suggest that the way you've organized all this intellectually is off-kilter, and you need to rework it, re-set the parameters, in a way that reshapes the cognitive landscape so that these ideas can better nestle.
I'm not sure which applies to you, or if there's a third or fourth option that my be better-suited. You're your own guy, or girl ( but probably guy) and I just don't know.
BUT
I'll give you my hunch, take it or leave it.
The value of respect and honesty over and against god might be a kind of self-valuation. (Stick with me, I'm not just doing a dumb virtue-reversal thing) The supposedly pragmatic take, the one which you think is valid for society as a whole, yet not for yourself, shows that you hold worldly folk to a different standard than the one to which you hold yourself. Take the two together: You hold yourself to a brutally difficult standard, one with infinitely painful repercussions, while casting judgment on the world for casting judgment on christian thought. This is weird because you yourself cast judgment, so why oughn't they? Well because, even by their own standards, pragmatic ones, christianity does the job better. They've cut any higher values out from under them, left only what's pragmatic, yet still they inveigh against christianity even when, pragmatically, it would help.
So where does this leave us? It leaves us in a very weird place. You have gone above and outside christianity and are willing to subject yourself to a horrible fate, in the name of respect and honesty, while suggesting that the others, who think they have gone above and outside christianity, are actually all the more in need of it, because that alone ( by their own standards no less!) can relieve their ills.
We all know how rationalization works. It lets us live out the myths and stories of childhood while recasting them in a sensible, worldly light which is more palatable to our adult selves
With that in mind, consider: You are willing to suffer the most miserable of all fates in service of a higher virtue, while thinking of others as people blinded by confused values, people who ought to follow christianity for their own sake. But - but! - not to the point that you have, which exceeds it, and which entails deep suffering. You may suffer terribly, but they shouldn't.
Well, what's the myth that comes to mind?
Here's the other thing about rationalization (and, in another vein, poetic inspiration). We tend to reflexively devalue the things we most desire. Now, that's not to say we oughtn't criticize the stuff we don't like. Rounded and reasonable criticism isn't always, or even usually, misplaced adoration; It's generally clear-eyed recognition of a problem. But when criticism grows hyperbolic and insistent, well now here's something worth attending to, and closely.
The thing about the Bible (and other writings from the ancient world) is that they are not 10,000 years old, and civilization hasn't been destroyed and rebuilt a couple of times. There is quite a bit of continuity in the culture of the last 2500 years which makes these texts (not just the Bible) accessible and meaningful.
The Jews never stopped reading and using their sacred writings.
I agree that Christianity is THE primary contributor to western civilization, not in a straight line from Jesus to Thomas Jefferson, of course. Not even in a very crooked line between the two. Too much happened over those 2000 years.
But did the Jews actually write it directly from the source they claim or copy it from somewhere else?
There are plenty of creation myths about and some contain elements similar to the one in the bible.
https://graecomuse.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/in-the-beginning-biblical-creation-myths-vs-others-around-the-mediterranean/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm
A lot of the old testament could quite easily be a historical narrative of actually events that have had god smeared over them for someone's convenience. As Tim points out in his post,
Quoting tim wood
But my question has always been "why?"
Can anyone prove that they compiled the bible according to god's commands or that it is exactly as he said it should be? Surely if god had order the compiling of the bible he would not have let it be revised and edited along the years, it would have been perfect as it was in the beginning.
And why would any god that wants his creation to believe in him make things so complicated that only certain people could understand him?
As I stated above we do not know the real purpose of the writings in the bible, we are only guessing that they mean what the churches tell us it means. And a lot of them do not even agree on that.
Maybe you need to get out and see something of the world.
Go here!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@13.4123884,103.866747,67m/data=!3m1!1e3
Sit in the centre of the temple and a man in an orange cloth will come to talk to you. You will not know his language but he will know yours.
In that moment your petty Protestant world will be as dust on a flea.
And who decides what is right and wrong interpretation of the bible and based on what do they decide?
No one alive today or even 19 centuries ago had a lot of first hand knowledge of the people that wrote the different books of the bible. So how would they know the actual purpose of the writing? It is easy to say that it is explained in the bible, but for all of my reading it I have never found a place in it that says "I am writing this to explain a certain situation". That is why it has to be interpreted by other people, because it is not clear what it means.
Quoting tim wood
Why should a simple book that purports to be a guide for good living need specialized help to understand it? Did god not want his people to understand him? That sounds like a bad idea for a god.
Quoting tim wood
I do not dismiss the bible just for that, it is actually quite a good book. I have read it several times but as with many of the thousands of books I have read, I do not try to hard to retain content.
I dismiss the bible for the purpose it is serving. It is a collection of writings from ancient times that can only be "proven" by cross referencing it with other selected document while ignoring other documents that fail to agree with it. It is used to control the people that serve it and most of the time to make rich a few that promote it. Billy Graham being a good example of that, but there are many more on the list.
I read books, I ponder their meanings or validity, I might discuss them sometimes.
I read almost any kind of writing, my wife has even complained that I sometimes pay more attention to the cornflakes box than to her, which is not true of course.
Yes, of course. We can assume that parts of the Jewish scripture were 'accumulated' from tribal sources, some of it was borrowed, and some of it was composed, and some of it developed from liturgical practice. The same thing is true of the New Testament.
But that isn't the question I was addressing. I said "the Jews never stopped reading their sacred work". Whenever, however, wherever it was composed, accumulated, borrowed, or developed, the Jews used the texts in Judea and took the texts with them into the diasporas. The synagogues preceded and survived the destruction of the Temple and, and it was in the synagogue that scripture usage was maintained.
There was no major break in the tradition and use of scripture -- it isn't like the scripture was lost in 100 BCE and then rediscovered in 500 CE or 1500 CE.
Christian Gnostic writings, or the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' met a fate of loss and rediscovery, but the Jewish and Christian Bible didn't meet such a fate.
Your right, I am talking in general terms. All I am trying to say is that Religion discourages critical thinking. It does this by claiming it already has all the answers.
But, to be more specific: personally I'd ask Religion whether or not they feel people are capable of creating an agreeable moral code without the need for a omnipotent, celestial deity laying one out for them and, if not, whether or not they think that contradicts the claim that people are created by said omnipotent deity in His image?
Of course you can be intelligent and Religious. In fact I'd credit Religion with crating the foundations of scientific inquiry. However; whereas science began to accept that we do not have all the answers and that we should begin questioning everything we thought we knew, Religion forbid any inquiries that suggested they might be wrong. Science is the natural evolution of Religious principles and now that Religion is all but obsolete, they must double down on indoctrinating people into rigid thought processes in order to maintain their influence.
Yeah, I guess my question could be a trick but only in that it highlights a fundamental contradiction I feel Religious ideology has always had by trapping anyone answering into contradicting themselves. I understand that not all Religious people ascribe to that particular principle (that God exists and created everything), nevertheless it is an almost universal foundation upon which Religion is based.
I wouldn't call that a straw man, but I could be wrong.
"It cannot be the text, because you don't know the text."
A rather bold assumption, and a mostly incorrect one. I have read The Bible, but not for many years. I was brought up a Christian and turned away from Religion when it refused or avoided answering the questions I had.
My issue is with the applied principles of Religious doctrine in politics and the daily lives of its subscribers. That includes Organised Religion but is not necessarily limited to it.
Does the continuity of fake news make it real?
While I agree that I exaggerated a bit with the 10 thousand years, the idea is still valid. No one today knows where any of the bible really came from. I am not talking about the books themselves, that is well documented in many cases. But the ideas contained in them, where do they really come from?
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible is a book that explains the bible, but what purpose did the people that wrote it have, can we ever be sure that it was not to try and convince everyone that the bible is true?
I am adding this one to my list of museums, parks, zoos and other interesting places to visit on street view.
Why, God -- of course!
Joking, of course.
In The Ruin of the Roman Empire, A New History by James J. O'Donnell, the author observes that after the Babylonian Captivity, when the Persians sent the Judeans back to Jerusalem, the holy scriptures were "rediscovered". O'Donnell asks, just how were the scriptures suddenly re-discovered, and what, exactly, did they (Ezra et al) rediscover??? O'Donnell doesn't know, and of course nobody else knows what they rediscovered either. The Babylonian captivity was a major disruption in Jewish religious continuity.
I suppose a remnant of the Judean population remained, and over the course of a couple of generations they kept a copy under a rock somewhere. Or maybe the Samaritans who weren't taken away, kept a copy for them, under a different rock.
My honest answer is that over time various creative people made the scripture up -- everything from "In the beginning..." down to the Apocryphal books. They sat there, composed in their heads, and then delivered well-honed texts at the appropriate time. People used to be able to do that; then writing came along and pffft: Ability gone. After that they had to use lambskin or papyrus to compose. Or clay tablets. All very clunky compared to a Mac desktop.
Just like people used to be able to find their way around the block before GPS devices were put in cars.
And then the churches got hold of them and saw the opportunity to become the bosses in the name of the lord, Amen.
Quoting Bitter Crank
On a side and rather irrelevant note, I have been using google maps and street view to visit my childhood homes and schools. I have amazed myself by being able to actually find my way around by memory to some of the places I used to go to. And not by remembering all of the names and addresses but by remembering locations.
My mistake and fair enough. Take it easy.
being there is person is the only way.
That explains the behaviour of many priests.
Quoting SnowyChainsaw
If I were a faithfully religious person, I would quarrel with you. That seems pointless since I have been pitching overboard as much of the protestant religious baggage I can stand to lose that I have carried around for the last 7 decades. There are religious groups that make my skin crawl, but then there some that are kind of pleasant to hang around with. It depends on the specifics of the people involved.
People seem to need some kind of "religion" on which to organize their experiences, hopes, aspirations, disappointments, failures, dreams, nightmares, tedious or exciting experiences, and so on. I do disagree with you that "religion" is obsolete.
It isn't obsolete because human beings have not changed in fundamental ways in the last couple hundred thousand years and we haven't achieved super-rationality. It doesn't look like super-rationality is just around the corner, either. So... religion of some sort is probably going to last quite a while yet.
What has changed in the last two or three hundred years are industrial, scientific, and cultural revolutions that have granted us the possibility of much more insight into our Situation, which is available to the extent that we are willing to accept it. That has done a great deal to undermine religion and religious satisfaction.
Some people haven't accepted much of the insight at all, and it is among that quite large group that you will find the rigid, doctrinaire, dogmatic, judgmental folk who tend to be hell on roller skates, if they get half the chance.
Religions' replacements will probably first appear as secular systems, like socialism/communism/marxism. "We'll build the city on the hill through revolution, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and everything will work out just fine. Right.
Or maybe the replacement for some will be Free Markets in the Global Economy. Or Through Science all problems will be solved and we will all live happily ever after. Or maybe some new hogwash like Scientology will conquer all.
Whatever it is, it will have to provide people a satisfying framework in which to exist, and so far, at least, the old time religions seem to be better than the new-fangled replacements -- for those who want them, at least.
Yes I guess it would, if you are rich enough to be able to.
I am not. So I make do. :wink:
If the truth be known, most.
Yes, I guess you are right. It is no different from other books.
Quoting tim wood
Goodness gracious, would that not mean that some of the bible might actually be more than 5,000 years old?
Quoting tim wood
My apologies, I should have said " a book that helps explain the bible". Obviously by giving meanings to the words.
But that does not answer my question about why they put all of the pieces together in such a way so to make into the bible. What was their motivation? Why did they leave pieces out at the beginning? Why did the add new pieces and remove pieces later on?
I mean if the damn thing is supposed to be holy and god inspired, did the people not understand the instructions about how to put it together? Was it left to them by god to create the perfect word of god? How could god inspire a book for his people that only a few would even be able to read and understand, giving them a monopoly on interpretations about his holy words?
I think your first comment got it right, it is a work of historical fiction.
So then, most of the ideas could have been expressed in simple forms? So what was the point of making it so complex that you need a book called Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to be able to read correctly?
This is what has always baffled me about the bible.
God creates a guide book for his people, or at least inspires them to collect the information and put it all together.
People are supposed to use it to live a decent life and know how to serve him.
But no one really agrees about the meaning of the rules that it lays out because it is translated from several different language that one really agrees about the meaning of the words used.
Now I understand that the world has changed a lot since the bible was written, but surely a god would have known that it would happen and try to give something that would last for a while.
If god had really intended to help his people would it not have been easier to stick with the twenty commandments and avoid the confusion?
In short, why the hell would a god want to create something that would cause all sorts of problems for his people?
That would depend entirely on the quantity and quality of the [s]crap[/s] stuff sir.
Could I get you anything else?
"People seem to need some kind of "religion" on which to organize their experiences, hopes, aspirations, disappointments, failures, dreams, nightmares, tedious or exciting experiences, and so on. I do disagree with you that "religion" is obsolete."
Need is an interesting word choice; it suggests people can not have those things without Religion. I strongly disagree with this but I only have anecdotal evidence for the contrary so I admit it is a fair position to hold.
"It isn't obsolete because human beings have not changed in fundamental ways in the last couple hundred thousand years and we haven't achieved super-rationality. It doesn't look like super-rationality is just around the corner, either. So... religion of some sort is probably going to last quite a while yet."
I agree that we have not achieved super-rationality, nor our we close and nor will science alone be enough to get us there. However, since science is an extension of Religion (that is to say in the pursuit of explaining the universe Religion built the foundations on which scientific pursuit is built) it would naturally replace Religion as a means of expanding our understanding by giving us a means to do so with measurable accuracy. This is an objectively superior way of studying the universe.
Also note that Religion has only lasted so long by indoctrinating people into believing it as the ultimate truth despite lacking tangible evidence and threatening eternal punishment to anyone that questions "God's Words". This is an artificial way of extending the lifespan of Religion.
The rest of your post I agree with. I think the process of replacing Religion is underway but, as I pointed out, Religion has an effective way of slowing that process down, to a halt if left unchecked. What will replace it in the end is entirely up for grabs, I guess.
Personally I think by teaching people critical thinking skills early in life, as opposed to just telling them what is "true" to pass an exam, is the best way to inspire the kind of innovation towards problem solving that will lead to living conditions improving the world over. Religious ideology is antithetical to this pursuit. Most cultural and political issues are, in my opinion, at least partially to blame for the rigid thinking that is causing a lot of issues in the political sphere. That doesn't just end with recognized Religions organisations like Christianity. I have seen this thinking in Atheist communities, as Theists love to point out, as well as others. It is a hard habit to crack but in time I think it is inevitable.
Sorry I forgot to conclude my initial point. Please insert this after paragraph 4.
If you agree that people are capable of organizing their hopes and dreams etc. without Religion and since science is an objectively better replacement for explaining the universe, the two primary functions of Religion are replaceable. When combined with the negative political and cultural connotations (the stiffing of critical analysis to name one) it renders Religion obsolete in the modern world.
But they don't because when all is said and done the answer from religious colleges is always and predictably the same.
It's pointless taking different roads if the destination is always the same place.
Wonderful, its great that Religious Schools teach critical theory. I haven't been to a Religious Liberal Arts Colleges so I don't know what their teaching methods are like but I can speculate and you can say whether or not my hypothesis is plausible.
As I said before a lot of Religious Organisations are in the process of being replaced by more modern notions of what is an agreeable set of morals. For example: The Pope reversing it's stance on Homosexuality. I'm sure we can assume anyone who has had even a brief interaction with Religion knows that the Catholic stance on being gay has not always been so tolerant, and changing that is without a doubt for the better. However, this is not a "traditional" tenant of Religious ideology and has been adopted from another, rising philosophy: Liberalism.
Therefore I feel it is not unreasonable to suggest the word "Liberal" in the title Religious Liberal Arts College is the contributing factor that has enabled these institutions to adopt a more critical teaching method. Critical analysis is inherently encouraged by Liberal principles (Secularism, Individual Rights, Democracy, Economic Freedom, Blind Justice and, most importantly, Freedom of Speech) and is primarily anti-authoritarian. The "traditional" principles Religious ideology seem to have been conservative and traditionalist throughout history. Only recently have they began adopting Liberal principles in order to remain relevant in a world that is quickly moving towards a more Liberal Society.
These two points suggest that Religious Ideology is capable of adopting principles from more socially agreeable ideologies as well as a motivation for doing so, however, I need to add that this is not an evolution of Religion, but rather a replacement of it.
Schools throughout the ages have been controlled and managed by Religious Organisations and whereas western schools are moving away from the more archaic practices (beating a child with a ruler if he is naughty) you can still find plenty of examples of strict, authoritarian ideology being enforced in societies that are less Liberal. This further leads one to the idea that these principles are derived from Liberal Ideology and not from evolving Religious Principles.
Schools that are not very good are not very good for a reason. Recently a large number of Secular Schools and Universities are becoming more and more Progressive (for better of for worse) at the expense of teaching Critical Analysis. What is interesting about this is that they are using same Indoctrination Tactics that Religions use to suppress critique and the freedom of speech of their students and faculty. Whereas these institutions claim to be Liberal, they do not follow the principles of Liberal Ideology and therefore are Authoritarian in nature and therefore not Liberal in nature. As I mention before, I have seen this sort of behavior in places outside of Recognized Religious Organisations. This further supports my previous claim as it demonstrates that even traditionally Liberal Ideologies are capable of adopting another ideologies principles to further its goals and in turn contradicting its traditional foundations. In this case: Authoritarian practices from Religion and become anti-liberal as a result.
Of course, this is me mostly thinking out loud. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.
Adopting principles or taking them over. Christianity is well know for taking over other ideologies and presenting as if they are their own. How many pagan holidays are still celebrated?
As B.C. says, it is doubtful that we will see the end of religion soon it is too adaptive to just shrivel and die.
Brain scanning has revealed a lot the brains activity and workings and it appears that studies were being done to see the effects of religion on the brain. Apparently there are difference between religious and non-religious brains.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-effect-brain-drugs-mormon-utah-reward-centre-nucleus-accumbens-a7446301.html
There is also apparently some research being done into the God gene hypothesis. Basically that the human carries a gene that makes it need to believe in something. Sounds like BS to me but who knows.
Either way as the saying goes, if it makes people happy they will go for it. Religion makes people happy.
They have someone to blame for the bad that happens, apart from the politicians.
They have someone to thank for the good things because they are not going to thank the politicians.
And they think they are going to end up winners in the end because they are going to heaven.
That is a good point. Although I feel this is the first time Religion has adopted a philosophy that is directly antithetical to its previous practices showing a form of "desperation" in its need to be attractive to the population.
I haven't read or heard of that study. Thanks it will be an interesting one to keep an eye on. I predict there will be a correlation between religious and non-religious brain activity, how they tackle problems and their susceptibility to outside influence.
Ok so after reading the article its not as interesting as I'd hoped. Yes, the brain rewards certain behavior with dopamine, this is nothing new. It rewards the Religiously minded when they do spiritual stuff because it has been conditioned to think that behavior is good, which is fine and is the same process for any other addictive behavior or substance. I hope they go into more detail some day.
I am not sure just how opposing this philosophy really is to the present one. I suspect they will actually be going back in time to become what they once were, a major part of the political ruling class. Sucking up more to the rich and powerful to maintain their own powers. The vatican bank has actually been doing this for many years, investing in all sorts of companies that whilst being frowned upon for the evil, sinful products they make bring huge sums of capital into the bank.
Christianity is a business, they cannot go on losing paying customers and closing up shops.
Quoting SnowyChainsaw
Oh, my first thought after reading it was will the addiction pass on to off springs like some drugs do? The second question was If so, for how long has it been passed down now?
The message is good though little practiced, but that applies to all religions. Love thy neighbor, as long as he goes to the same church.
Unfortunately to remove the myths, miracles and magic trim from religions there would be few followers. Most of them are there for the blessing to cover their sins or ease their pains, to take away their troubles or just to have someone take the blame for a screwed up life.
Do you understand the urge to live for eternity? I shudder at the thought of it.
I don't think its the first time. Aquianas synthesized the ancient Greek Platonic and Aristotelean metaphysics with Christianity and his views became the official doctrine of the Catholic church. In Aquinas' time, almost everything that was distinctively Christian was in tension with the old Greek ways of thinking. Aquinas absorbed those old philosophies creating something more attractive because more inclusive.
Two ways to look at that. One way is to think that Christianity desperately tries to stay relevant by adopting whatever it can to keep people interested as things change. You could put a sunny face on it however, and say that the most influential Christian thinkers have been prepared to make changes to established principles if other schools of philosophy contain valuable insights. That's how I see Aquinas. Many contemporary Christian philosophers do a lot of work synthesizing Christianity with scientific findings and contemporary philosophical issues. I'm not a Christian, but I think the work they do is valuable.
Its funny that religious folk are damned if they do and damned if they don't! If they don't synthesize their religious ideas with contemporary science and philosophy, they are called dogmatic, stupid, anti-science fanatics. If they do synthesize, many like yourself say its a form of desperation to remain attractive to the population. All of the most interesting philosophical schools are resiliant and do synthesize with new ideas as times change, but its only the schools under the label "religion" that get told off for doing it.
If morals are a matter of whatever a particular society finds 'agreeable', then there is no reason to assume that the new set are an improvement on the old. There is also no reason why just because some people find them agreeable that everyone has to feel the same way. In other words, it reduces the meaning of 'moral' to 'what I happen to feel like today'.
If that isn't the intention, if we are saying that modern attitudes to slavery or homosexuality or whatever are an improvement on what has gone before, then we must believe that morality has a stronger meaning. That if a group feels it is OK to persecute homosexuals that their finding it 'agreeable' is not enough. That they are wrong. That morality is a fact, not a feeling.
But morality isn't 'modern', it isn't scientific, it isn't a fact. To treat it as if it was a fact is to believe in the existence of something that is not an object to science. How is that different from a religious belief?
To put it another way, you follow something you call 'liberal ideology' and others follow something they call 'religious ideology'. Neither is any more rational than the other - but at least the religious ideology is a bit more thought-through in that they realise the problem, they see the need to posit a metaphysical reason behind morality.
Quoting Count Radetzky von Radetz
Quoting Count Radetzky von Radetz
I have read the gospels, and yes I talk about philosophers and their thoughts. I'm on a Philosophy forum.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article207342744.html
Not a Catholic, so won't matter.
Your not a catholic so it does not matter to you?
or
This discussion is about Catholics so it does not matter?
Ah, no. Munoz and Protestant Evangelicals in Latin-America are not going to matter in the long run, becausethey are not Catholics. It'll just take a bit of time for a Catholic candidate to muster a reactionary mouvement that will bury Munoz. The same has happened in the Fillippines, where something like only 3% of the population is Protestant (of the Evangelical ilk, too), but they had a disproportionate amount of influence in the 90s.
And they believe really weird stuff. I had an ex who had gone to Evangelical Bible camp to learn about the Black Pope and the Papist-jewish conspiracy against God. Not actually kidding. :smirk:
I live in Central America, the Catholics are losing ground every day to the Evangelicals. But most of the candidates are catholic, they just don't use it as a political statement.
This being Easter Sunday, I would like to take issue with this. The whole point of the story of Christ’s resurrection is the disclosure of a reality beyond death.
Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death [which was incidentally not at all a Christian apologetic but a psycho-historical analysis of religious motivation.]
This is not a conversion pitch. By all means, don’t believe it - but it’s worth being clear about what is that is not being believed.