Too much religion?

Too much for what? Folks post about their concerns, and no one is obliged to read or participate in topics that don't concern them. There might be an issue of quality, or of duplication, and to deal with that, a moderator or two with a particular interest would be required.

Wayfarer?

Sometimes I get frustrated that the board seems dominated by:

(1) Religious believers or people who want to bring up religion in any event
(2) Idealists, representationalists and the like
(3) People who seem to mostly (or often exclusively) be a fan of continental philosophy

But that's just because I'm the opposite of all three.

On a more charitable view, it gets me thinking about and reading stuff I normally wouldn't bother with.

From a modding perspective, one possible consideration is whether a thread is 'intra-religious' or has wider bearing on topics outside that one particular system of belief. I have this thread in mind as an example of an 'intra-religious' one:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4669/christian-exclusivist-universalism

- in which what's at stake are basically arguments internal to Christianity, without having much bearing on wider, philosophical considerations. I would suggest that, would any threads be subject to brutal culling, this kind of thread ought to qualify - sheerly because we're a philosophy forum, and not a religious one - if there is a intra-religious debate, it can be taken to one of the multiple religious forums that exist out there. But that's just a proposal, pending others, for consideration.

Quoting unenlightened

and no one is obliged to read or participate in topics that don't concern them.

Voting for this.

Quoting Jake

and no one is obliged to read or participate in topics that don't concern them. — unenlightened


Voting for this.

Yeah, same here.

I, personally, really hate religion. It limits the mind and wastes time. However, I am not going to strip the ability to talk about religion from people, especially if they bring up good points about it.

Quoting RosettaStoned

I, personally, really hate religion. It limits the mind and wastes time. However, I am not going to strip the ability to talk about religion from people, especially if they bring up good points about it.

Well, speaking of good points :smile: it doesn't seem that rational to really hate something as large as religion. Religion is the largest cultural event in human history and contains within it's walls the best and worst of what humanity can offer and everything in between.

My general feeling is that, for whatever reason, a lot of religious folks are being woke to philosophical thoughts and feelings then find this website in order to express themselves and discuss these thoughts. Yet they're filtering this philosophical itch through religion so the result is a weird mix of hyper-religious yet philosophically naive posts. They tend to make new topics - rather than discussing in existing topics - because they have no sense of how to enter into conversations they don't understand.

My fear with turning these sorts of people away or making them feel unwelcome is that they might fail to discover philosophy, which is a distinct sort of good (in my humble opinion). But then the site also has no obligation to cater to the weird and usually naive ramblings of a bunch of ultra-religious folks who manifestly know next to nothing about philosophy proper.

So I think it's reasonable to suggest it's within the purview of moderator control to exercise naked power and make a judgment call on this.

Reply to StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX

if there is a intra-religious debate, it can be taken to one of the multiple religious forums that exist out there.

Leaving to the side the question of how to regulate the site, your observation was what first struck me about the number of posts of that sort.

Maybe the attraction of this place over others is the openness to logical arguments that makes it easier to isolate the issue that interest the posters without going through a lot of other qualifications and arguments typical of theology discussions where the topics are intertwined with centuries of other discussions of them.

Perhaps there could be a "theological" version of the Lounge where discussions go for those who want to pursue them on that basis.

Reply to John Doe

I think this is spot on the dial. I agree that we should be more welcoming to various folk of all traditions. Since this site is composed of the majority of Westerners, then I don't think anything could be done in regards to the issue. It's unfortunate, that the categories cannot be implemented in practice due to the workings of the forum. Otherwise, we could have sticky and guidelines for each sub-forum, where the inhabitants of this forum might flourish.

Quoting Wallows

It's unfortunate, that the categories cannot be implemented in practice due to the workings of the forum. Otherwise, we could have sticky and guidelines for each sub-forum, where the inhabitants of this forum might flourish.

What do you mean? Specifically, what is "implementing the categories in practice"? And what is "sticky and guidelines"?

Quoting jamalrob

What do you mean?

Well, based on what has already been said and voted on, we reached a consensus that the forums shouldn't be categorized, although that feature is available.

Reply to Wallows Still don't know what you mean. There are many categories and every discussion is in one of them. All discussions are categorised.

Quoting jamalrob

Still don't know what you mean. There are many categories and every discussion is in one of them. All discussions are categorised.

I meant the default layout of the site, was voted on to remain as the way things are. When we voted on the issue it was about making the site categorized into each sub-division of philosophy.

Reply to Wallows I just told you: the site is categorized. It always has been.

Reply to jamalrob

Oh, okay. Sorry for the confusion.

I’m interested in, and often participate in, topics with religious aspects. (I often say, and believe, that there’s a tacitly religious dimension to much secular philosophy, because of the sense in which it has become defined in terms of what it excludes. )

On the other hand, I think questions about Biblical theology and Christian doctrines of salvation (like the one mentioned above) don’t really belong here (although that is not at all to suggest that they ought not to be allowed.) But the issue with committed Christians (especially evangelical Protestants) is that they really can’t accomodate pluralism. There’s an undercurrent of wanting-to-convert that you can never quite shake when discussing with them.

But I think the reason why so many quasi-religious topics are posted here is because people really are wondering about them. They address, as Paul Tillich put it, ‘matters of ultimate concern’, questions which every generation, and every culture, seems to want to ask. Although I do note that the consensus on this particular forum (as distinct from the previous one) seems to be more open to spiritual perspectives.

(In regard to modding - I’m currently a mod at DharmaWheel and will probably leave it at that for now, I’m working a busy contract which requires acquisition of a lot of new skills so am pre-occupied.)

Does atheistic evangelism count as religion?

Reply to Noah Te Stroete Quoting Noah Te Stroete

Does atheistic evangelism count as religion?

No.
Whatever complaints you may have for the atheist point of view, it does not help the discussion to subsume those points of views as another creed.
If you have a "creed", putting these other people into a group is just a result of whatever you were thinking in the first place. And that kind of classification is why atheists got started wondering if there was another way to look at things.

Reply to Valentinus I don’t have a complaint about atheists. A lot of atheists complain about religion, though.

Reply to Valentinus Furthermore, I was talking about evangelical atheism. Shouldn’t they just not participate in “theological” threads instead of trying to convert people? Isn’t that their main complaint about religions?

Reply to Noah Te Stroete
I don't think the important stuff is about saving religion or condemning it.
We are here now. There are different ways to look at it.
We are the important thing, in the time given to us to do something.
Some ways of thinking draw closer to that and others do not.
I am only interested in the former.

Reply to Valentinus That’s a fine point. I didn’t have you in mind, by the way.

Reply to Noah Te Stroete
Understood.

As one of the kind of 'spiritual if not religious' types who posts here, there is one observation I would like to make.

I have often in the past referred to and quoted from Thomas Nagel's 2012 book Mind and Cosmos which drew a hostile reaction from the mainstream of academics in the US and Britain, and was (somewhat tongue in cheek) designated the 'most despised science book' of that year by The Guardian. Despite Nagel claiming throughout (and in many other places) that he is atheist and lacks any 'sense of the divine', the fact that he wrote a book meticulously challenging what he called 'neo-Darwinian materialism' meant that to many of his critics, he simply must be, if not actually creationist, at least an apologist for creationism, or something of the kind, of which he was accused by more than one of those critics [sup] 1[/sup].

The reason I mention this, is because I think it shows that the adamantly 'naturalist' attitude which animates the secular West, is a de facto religion, in the sense that it circumscribes the kinds of ideas in terms of which sensible people - scientifically-informed people! - are supposed to think. Nagel's criticism of the consensus view - which is, roughly, that the Universe can be understood in largely physical terms, as the consequence of non-directed forces and the interactions of atoms, out of which life has evolved more or less 'by chance' in the sense of it having not been the result of an act of intentional creation, and within which the human mind is fundamentally a consequence of, if not a purely physical, then at least a purely natural process, however understood. There are many commonly-accepted tropes and axioms which fall out of this shared understanding, particularly in terms of the sense that human nature is a product of the essentially Darwinian process so memorably described in his oft-quoted metaphor of the 'tangled bank' (which as has often been noted dovetails rather nicely with laissez faire economic rationalism.)

The point I am making is that, to question this consensus, is to be categorised or labelled as 'religious', even for those who claim they are not. And that's why I say that this consensus view is itself religious - not at all in the sense of being a set of beliefs about supernatural deities, or anything of the kind, as it certainly is not that, but as a normative set of values and principles which guide, or should guide, what we think of ourselves and the world around us[sup] 2[/sup]. This will sometimes slip out as an (often angry) rejection of the suggestion that we can think of ourselves as anything other than apes, or at least a species.

And I think that is the cultural dynamic that is often what is behind many of the religious or religious-sounding threads that appear on this board.

--------
2. One of the most succinct statements of which was a Steven Pinker essay Science is not the Enemy of the Humanities, partially inspired, one suspects, as a criticism of Nagel, and also a source of considerable controversy in its own right.

Need a safe space.

Quoting All sight

Need a safe space.

Faith, does require that.

Especially at schools.


No, hang on......

Just accept faith

Reply to Wayfarer Great points, and well said.

Personally, to me the apparent great divide between theism and atheism is mostly a form of mythology. I see a bigger divide between the adamant people on both sides, and the calm reasonable people on both sides.

Quoting ?????????????

I don't mind too much religion or theology on the site, I mind too much crappy religion or theology.

Agreed, I personally find religion topics pretty interesting generally speaking, but weary of the endlessly repeated notion so common on philosophy forums that religion equals ideological assertions. The constant comparisons between religion and science also tend to wear out their welcome. The mistaken idea that religion = faith and atheism ? faith gets repeated too often for my taste. And so on...

But, such whiny complaints stated, we are who we are and are generally speaking doing the best that we can do. Rome wasn't built in a day, nobody is born knowing everything etc, so let the conversations roll on.

Quoting Wayfarer

But the issue with committed Christians (especially evangelical Protestants) is that they really can’t accomodate pluralism. There’s an undercurrent of wanting-to-convert that you can never quite shake when discussing with them.

Isn't pretty much every other post on the forum a "wanting-to-convert" type of post?

I hold faith and religion in high regard, and using them like a tu qouque -- because they won't like that(!) -- I dislike, as quite the contrary, it is presumed to lower them to our level, and equal things, they won't like that! But it would actually raise them up and elevate them, but neither is the case. It is a blatant attempt to reduce their currency, and that is all. They are faithless, cold, unwilling to really believe anything too much, to be always doubtful, confused, uncertain, and knowers of nothing... that people can actually sell you those ideas, and not make them sound preposterous... but I bought them too... look how being worse actually makes me better!

Reply to Jake Take your point, but wanting to prevail in a debate is not quite all there is at stake in those conversation.

I voted Yes there are too many, not because I think there are too many religious topics, but rather that the ones being thrown up are vacuous, repetitive and uninteresting.

There are plenty of interesting topics to be discussed in the context of religion, covering things such as practice vs belief, the importance of myth, the compatibility or otherwise of mysticism and logic, similarities between different religions.

But nearly all of the posts about religion are just flogging the old dead horse of either trying to prove or disprove the 'existence of God' (whatever that means) or the correctness of any particular religion. Such topics just endlessly rehash tired old failed arguments, whether arguing for or against, without enlightening anybody.

Personally, I'd be in favour of a complete ban on any threads that purport to

• prove or disprove the 'existence of God', including all variants of that such as proving the existence of a 'first mover' or 'ultimate cause' or 'reason there is something rather than nothing'
• argue about whether morality is possible without a religious foundation
• argue that science <-> atheism
• argue that any particular religion is wrong or right

Doing that would clear the air for people that find religion philosophically interesting to discuss things that aren't just about trying to establish the superiority of one's own deeply held dogmas.

Reply to andrewk I would agree to this.

Reply to andrewk :up:

Thanks for the comments. As I'm in a minority, I don't feel justified in making any substantial changes. I agree with the several comments about the specific problem of "intra-religious" discussions, and I'm inclined to be stricter with that stuff, but otherwise I'm going to leave things as they are, and leave it to the mods to use their own judgement.

Haven't taken the time to do the research - but my perception is that there is at least an equal number of religious topics started by the atheists as well as theists. Speaking for myself - i try not to respond too many of them. However when theist beliefs are dismissed or degraded as a reasonable belief - i will generally challenge those - simple to make the point.

In my opinion - the problem in not the topic, but the often lack of a reasoned philosophic discussion on the topic - from both sides.

If there is a problem, it is an overall quality of discussion across topics. There are some specialized topics that have a certain knowledge barrier for entry, e.g. discussions focused on specific philosophical works; those discussions tend to be of a higher quality. And then there are topics that are both widely engaging and without any apparent prerequisites for participation - and that is where the overall quality is lower, for understandable reasons. Religion is just one example. Free will would be another.

Reply to SophistiCat Your humility never ceases to impress me. Thank you for all of your high quality discussions.

Quoting Jake

Personally, to me the apparent great divide between theism and atheism is mostly a form of mythology. I see a bigger divide between the adamant people on both sides, and the calm reasonable people on both sides.

Good observation. There are greater differences between conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics than there are between the average Catholic and the average Lutheran. Conservative Baptists are vigourously opposed to ritual, liturgical seasons, and "catholic" in any form, and most other churches aren't much better than heathens.

From what I have seen, atheists are as likely to be as quarrelsome as religious partisans. Bertrand Russell noted that the kind of atheism people espouse is similar in warmth to the kind of religion they rejected. So, your average ex-Baptist atheist or liturgically particular ex-Anglican will be different kinds of atheists. Ex-wishy-washy religious probably make easy-to-live-with wishy-washy atheists.

I find religious behavior a useful area of study, and Marx was correct in his assessment: The whole quote is: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". Religion has its source in an oppressive, heartless, soulless world -- one in which a dose of opium every now and then is pretty welcome.

THEREFORE religion is an appropriate topic in The Philosophy Forum. Sectarian bickering is not -- for example, heated discussions of how often one should make the sign of the cross, for instance, or whether the world is 6,022 or 5,157 years old, and how old Noah was when he died (assuming he was ever born) are NOT appropriate topics. They belong in church.

Don't worry, it's completely thankless, and everyone around me is pretty sure that I'm in league with the devil. I was told as Jesus accused the Pharisees, which of course is the opposite of the truth. He said that they were liars and hypocrites, which they were, but since they hated him for pointing out that fact, they said that he was in league with the devil to justify his murder.

His response to the idea that he was healing through the power of the devil was: " “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters abroad. 31 Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven people. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

33 Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34 Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. 36 But I say to you that for every idle word people may speak, they will give account for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

Yes, I become extremely upset when I'm accused of being in league with the devil rather than the holy spirit, but I hope that those that make that accusation appreciate the consequences of doing so.

Reply to jamalrob

The reason for having freedom of speech is democracy is rule by reason. This is sometimes mistaken as rule by popular vote, and this mistaken idea follows not understanding what science has to do with our liberty and democracy. However, when we understand democracy is rule by reason, we understand we are voting for truth and what will get good results, not exactly a popular person, or our favorite team, and the thought required for good judgment is understood differently.

Therefore, it is important to reason with religious people with the goal of achieving rule by reason and having a consensus on the best reasoning. It is the idea of democracy that this works better than excluding people and eliminating them from the discussion.

Reply to All sight

Ah, I didn't see a lot of science in those religious sentiments. It appears to be a belief system that is not compatible with democracy and all the progress we have made since the revival of pagan explanations based on a more scientific point of view. You know, the notion that it isn't the gods that cause things to happen, but it is the way nature works and we can improve things as we better understand them.

I have no idea what the holy ghost is supposed to be? Can you please explain that? Dumbing it down so maybe a person with a scientific point of view might comprehend what this is and how it works. The words you used seem to indicate it is a god of some kind. A god that is separate from Jesus and therefore giving us two gods, and then we must wonder is the Father in heaven a third god, or are the Father and Son the same and one thing with the holy ghost? Then speaking against Jesus or the holy ghost would be the same thing, right? And then, is the holy ghost is the same as the Father and Son or something different? How does doubting the existence of the holy ghost have an effect on us?

Doubting the power of germs we do not see and ignoring the need to wash our hands has an effect we can understand now that we know something of science. How do things work with the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Reply to Athena

I do like science, and the philosophy of science, I'm fairly familiar with the ideas of Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend. Who do you like? There isn't a lot like scientific details, as there isn't in an account of history, a baking recipe, some directions, literary theories, or pretty much all philosophical theories as well.

Reply to Bitter Crank

"Good observation. There are greater differences between conservative Catholics and liberal Catholics than there are between the average Catholic and the average Lutheran. Conservative Baptists are vigourously opposed to ritual, liturgical seasons, and "catholic" in any form, and most other churches aren't much better than heathens."

I love the paganism I have found in some churches. But my oh my, preachers do not take well to a compliment on the paganess of their services. :lol:

I like a qabala explanation for rituals as something we do to benefit ourselves. God doesn't love us more if we brush our teeth, but brushing our teeth has benefits, and so it is with all rituals. If we create in our minds a benevolent Mother and Father or other spiritual power we will experience the benevolence.

Quoting wikipedia

"The beads of a rosary count the prayers as they are recited out loud or in the mind. Relying on the rosary beads to keep track of how many times you've said a particular prayer allows you to clear your mind and meditate on your prayer more effectively.

Prayer beads are used by members of various religious traditions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and the Bahá'í Faith to mark the repetitions of prayers, chants or devotions, such as the rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Catholicism, and dhikr (remembrance of God) in Islam.
Prayer beads - Wikipedia

Quoting Athena

If we create in our minds a benevolent Mother and Father or other spiritual power we will experience the benevolence.

Oh yeah, is that what you do?

Reply to All sight

Yipes I am not understanding your last sentence

"There isn't a lot like scientific details, as there isn't in an account of history, a baking recipe, some directions, literary theories, or pretty much all philosophical theories as well."

I find history very useful. We can learn where concepts originated, and the circumstances that lead to that awareness and then how that concept traveled and was changed as it passed through the different regions/cultures.

What is really exciting about this moment in time is the flood of information we now have. I have been seeking information for many years and only recently have we had access to information that is not limited by our own culture and is inclusive of all people.

I think we are in the resurrection, with archeologist and geologist bring the past into the present, and that is our duty is to learn as much as possible and adjust our lives with this greater knowledge. If we are God's consciousness it is up to us to manifest it. No other animal is capable of this and only by working together and with all of history can we achieve this marvel.

Reply to All sight

"Oh yeah, is that what you do?"

Of course, I use the power of my mind and I facilitate workshops that include understanding the power of our minds. It is a sad person, and possibly a sickly person, who does not understand the power of his/her mind. It is a mistaken person who believes it is a supernatural power and not one's own mind making a difference.

I guess I must be that slandered person that dare think different.