[akwoo]

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

[Winstonm]

akwoo, on 2014-May-20, 18:01, said:

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

Well, I wouldn't want to point to someone as an example of a critical thinker who: A) accepted without question that a supernatural being that leaves no objective evidence of its being is real, and then decides that this being that has no evidence of actually existing could care enough to reveal anything to a bunch of evolved chimps who walk on two feet and B) who believes that this invisible superbeing "reveals" truths.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2014-May-20, 10:41, said:

I think Winston, you should ask a practising Jew or a Jesuit about that last paragraph. Again, while frequently true, it's by not means the tenet (unless, in Christianity at least, "be like me" means - a whole bunch of things that most Christians, myself included, I'm embarrassed to say, dont actually practise, or even promote). That's the power talking, not the Christ.

There's plenty of hypocrisy in religion. If you belong to a religion with lots of restrictive tenets, living by them is difficult.

In some cases, one can view them as ideals that you aspire to, but simply find yourself unable to achieve. It's like a smoker saying that they know they should quit. Analogously, a Christian can believe that premarital sex and adultery are sins, but might still engage in them because they have a moral lapse.

But it can also be because people are different. You might believe in most of the tenets, but it's unrealistic to expect everyone to believe in all the preachings.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2014-May-20, 19:28, said:

Well, I wouldn't want to point to someone as an example of a critical thinker who: A) accepted without question that a supernatural being that leaves no objective evidence of its being is real, and then decides that this being that has no evidence of actually existing could care enough to reveal anything to a bunch of evolved chimps who walk on two feet and B) who believes that this invisible superbeing "reveals" truths.

Some religious people are critical geniuses but few satisfy Winstonm's criteria

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2014-May-20, 18:01, said:

I go to a church that believes every person has direct access to continuing revelation, and your should interpret scripture, pronouncements from religious figures, and other people's expressions of what is revealed to them based on what is revealed to you personally.

If that's not promotion of independent thinking, I don't know what is.

Baltimore and New England Yearly Meetings (and possibly one or two more) have publicly disagreed with Friends United Meeting's understanding of the relationship of homosexuality and the Bible, and the church policy implications thereof, for more than 15 years now, and they continue to not only remain affiliated with each other but to keep working to understand each other's interpretation of the Bible and of what God has personally revealed to different people on this issue. It would've been easy to split up and denounce each other as heretics, but they're still working on finding that Hegelian synthesis.

I think on these kinds of matters, the Talmudic mode of disputation (which was actually practiced in precursors of Hinduism long before it was practiced in Judaism) works better than the Cartesian one. Instead of thinking and saying "You are wrong", one can more gently say "You are not interpreting your beliefs correctly."

Here is my religious philosophy in a nutshell:

Wittgenstein famously wrote: "If a lion could speak, we would not understand him."

Except for a brief, dimly remembered period somewhere around 2000 years ago, God is even more unlike us than a lion is, so we have even less hope of understanding God, but whatever God has to say seems really important, so it's worth continuing to try.

Hmmm...

I would like to suggest for your consideration the notion that what any individual perceives as 'revealed' to him or her is likely a confirmation of his or her prejudices, beliefs, desires, wishes etc. Thus, attributing these revelations to 'god' is attractive but self-deceiving. Indeed, since it is (I trust) well established by now that humans are prone to confirmation bias and wishful thinking, and self-deception, isn't it somewhat more logical to think of this sort of revelation as our creating our god as we want it to be, rather than actually perceiving immaterial messages from an immaterial entity?

Many children invent invisible friends with whom they have serious conversations, but almost all outgrow them. Pray tell me the difference between such imaginary friends and your idea of god? Please be specific, rather than just asserting: they are different because one is real and the other isn't. Such a response contains no information

As for the final paragraph, I suspect already that I am talking to a blank wall: but what evidence do you have, external to the self-referential contents of the texts, that anything in the bible actually is the word of a god? Please, should you choose to answer this, take pains to explain why you can say that about your holy text but that when adherents to a different set of beliefs point to their holy texts, they have it wrong.

I know: I am wasting my time. I have never, despite many hours of reading works by believers, found anyone who actually addresses these issues with any argument that does not boil down to: I believe, therefore it is true. Which, to a non-believer, appears a tad circular

As for the Talmudic disputation process, I can see why that would be attractive to a believer, since it presupposes the conclusion. It is all about belief, rather than knowledge. It is all about what is revealed rather than about evidence. It is all about superstition (altho to a believer, superstition is a term reserved for the beliefs of others) rather than reason. Since believers can never, as far as I can see, argue past their starting premise, that only a god can explain the universe [aka known to non-believers as the god of the gaps, or the explanation from ignorance], the last thing they can countenance is logically based argument as espoused as long ago as Socrates, wherein one should strain to examine one's fundamental premises.

[hrothgar]

I have some sympathy for Winston's post

Every time there's some new idiocy in the muslim world - and lord knows this happens often enough - we're subjected to a never ending stream of conservative Christians and Jews asking "Why we don't see moderate muslims condemning this action?".

I can point to a fair number of such posts on the watercooler if folks want.

I don't think that its at all unreasonable to tar this group with the same brush.

[mycroft]

I, too, have some sympathy. But you will note that I do *not* call for "moderate Muslims" to condemn those actions; I'm pretty certain it's out there, and if I care, I go looking to find it (and I do). My issue is that several of the comments - most of the ones I responded to, basically - showed implied biases in what Christians (or generally "religious") are like that showed a large dose of presuming the conclusion and/or "feed me, I see no reason to go looking myself" (arguing with an internal image of a "moderate Christian" rather than what's actually out there). And, as I have some sympathy, and as in the past the OP has deminstrated that while of a particular persuasion (which I tend to share), he is also willing to review his biases, I decided to step up this time and do the cooking.

I will admit that some of my examples were Canadian and as such, invisible to the U.S. media net; but I could have replace the United Church of Canada and it's issues with the Canadian Conservative Parties in power with the United Church of Christ and its lawsuits over the state not recognizing *their* religious beliefs (had that hit my radar when this thread started).

[akwoo]

I see no evidence that we are not brains in a vat.

I'm not going to refuse to believe in the reality of everything. The 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is a pointless one because I would behave exactly the same way whether my empirical experiences are really there or merely simulated.

I choose to explain some of my experiences as religious experiences. I could explain them naturalistically as psychological quirks caused by brain biology, but why should I? Don't I have the right to choose which language I use?

I grew up without religion, and I was converted to some form of postmodernism long before I was converted to any form of religion. I think almost all of our ideas are human constructions. Take trees. Sure I can agree that the tree I see outside my window exists independently of me (assuming I'm not a brain in a vat). But the idea that it, and all the other various other things that look like it, should be grouped together into one category and called 'trees' is a human creation.

Most of what we call 'reality' or 'facts' consists of relations between what are actually human constructions. The empirical background says very little.

Given that, systems of human constructions can't really be called 'true' or 'false'. They can be judged to be 'useful' or 'not useful'. Once you are inside a system, then of course the relations between the axioms of our system and their interactions with the empirical background can determine what is 'true' or 'false' within that system. But outside any system, without any axioms to work with, 'true' or 'false' makes no sense.

Note: 'useful' immediately brings to mind the question, 'For what?' Which means the judgement of 'useful' or 'not useful' can depend on purpose.

I find some of the many (different but related) systems of thought labelled as 'Christianity' useful to me. It seems like they are also useful to some others. Some also seem to be harmful to some people. You go figure out what's useful to you. But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

Marilyn vos Savant famously tried to argue that the Wiles-Taylor proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was wrong because it used mathematical ideas that have no physical referent. She was missing the point. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't all like a proof that could be understood without a half dozen years of graduate mathematics.)

[helene_t]

akwoo, on 2014-May-21, 20:25, said:

But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

Why not? You can create your own favorite dish by picking a little bit of this and a little bit of that. You will end up with something idosyncratic, but that doesn't matter as long as it makes you happy. You might also end up with something inconsistent, but then again, you might not.

[Winstonm]

akwoo, on 2014-May-21, 20:25, said:

I see no evidence that we are not brains in a vat.

I'm not going to refuse to believe in the reality of everything. The 'brain in a vat' hypothesis is a pointless one because I would behave exactly the same way whether my empirical experiences are really there or merely simulated.

I choose to explain some of my experiences as religious experiences. I could explain them naturalistically as psychological quirks caused by brain biology, but why should I? Don't I have the right to choose which language I use?

I grew up without religion, and I was converted to some form of postmodernism long before I was converted to any form of religion. I think almost all of our ideas are human constructions. Take trees. Sure I can agree that the tree I see outside my window exists independently of me (assuming I'm not a brain in a vat). But the idea that it, and all the other various other things that look like it, should be grouped together into one category and called 'trees' is a human creation.

Most of what we call 'reality' or 'facts' consists of relations between what are actually human constructions. The empirical background says very little.

Given that, systems of human constructions can't really be called 'true' or 'false'. They can be judged to be 'useful' or 'not useful'. Once you are inside a system, then of course the relations between the axioms of our system and their interactions with the empirical background can determine what is 'true' or 'false' within that system. But outside any system, without any axioms to work with, 'true' or 'false' makes no sense.

Note: 'useful' immediately brings to mind the question, 'For what?' Which means the judgement of 'useful' or 'not useful' can depend on purpose.

I find some of the many (different but related) systems of thought labelled as 'Christianity' useful to me. It seems like they are also useful to some others. Some also seem to be harmful to some people. You go figure out what's useful to you. But keep in mind you're not allowed to cherry pick parts of a system out of their context.

Marilyn vos Savant famously tried to argue that the Wiles-Taylor proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was wrong because it used mathematical ideas that have no physical referent. She was missing the point. (That doesn't mean we wouldn't all like a proof that could be understood without a half dozen years of graduate mathematics.)

You are quite right - the best we as humans can do is to make assumptions about reality - it is the basis for those assumptions that is the crux of the matter. Whether we believe it exists or not, there is evidence that shows that when a thousand pounds of rocks, seen or unseen, falls on an unsuspecting hiker, that fragile human body is crushed. From this we can assume that the rocks' existence are independent of an observer. Likewise, we can extrapolate that idea to the moon, known to contain rock formations, that it, too, exists regardless of observation.

Ideas about immaterial beings are not made up of this type evidence. The best we, as humans, can do is to try to explain how things might occur within the confines of known or understood physical properties, or laws.

[barmar]

A century ago, when Einstein figured out Special and General Relativity, some people might (and probably did) wonder "That's interesting, but what is it useful for?". At the time, they probably couldn't have come up with a good answer -- it was just knowledge for knowledge's sake. But it turns out that we have to take the effects of Relativity into account in GPS systems -- they depend on timing between the satellites and the receivers, and the different speeds of clocks, as predicted by Einstein, must be adjusted for.

Whether the discoveries of science are the "true reality" of the universe is a difficult philosophical problem. But the practical nature of them is clear: we can make accurate predictions from them, which allows us to do things. Statements about nature that come from religion generally can't solve similar problems. In some cases, religious tenets have directly contradicted actual facts (e.g. when the Church continued to preach that Earth was the center of the universe), and it's practically impossible to get useful results when your premises are false.

There is a way in which religion can solve problems, though. People have psychological needs, and many people find that religion and/or spirituality fills those needs. Science is mostly good for fulfilling material needs. Many people do find that pharmaceuticals, developed by science, can solve their psychological needs, but this is often frowned upon except in extreme cases.

Most things that are good in moderation become wrong when taken to extremes.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-May-22, 10:15, said:

A century ago, when Einstein figured out Special and General Relativity, some people might (and probably did) wonder "That's interesting, but what is it useful for?". At the time, they probably couldn't have come up with a good answer -- it was just knowledge for knowledge's sake. But it turns out that we have to take the effects of Relativity into account in GPS systems -- they depend on timing between the satellites and the receivers, and the different speeds of clocks, as predicted by Einstein, must be adjusted for.

Whether the discoveries of science are the "true reality" of the universe is a difficult philosophical problem. But the practical nature of them is clear: we can make accurate predictions from them, which allows us to do things. Statements about nature that come from religion generally can't solve similar problems. In some cases, religious tenets have directly contradicted actual facts (e.g. when the Church continued to preach that Earth was the center of the universe), and it's practically impossible to get useful results when your premises are false.

There is a way in which religion can solve problems, though. People have psychological needs, and many people find that religion and/or spirituality fills those needs. Science is mostly good for fulfilling material needs. Many people do find that pharmaceuticals, developed by science, can solve their psychological needs, but this is often frowned upon except in extreme cases.

Most things that are good in moderation become wrong when taken to extremes.

I see it much your way, or at least so it sounds. How should I live my life? Science and reason might help me in carrying out a plan, but really they are pretty much useless for the fundamental choices. It's a bit of a pickle. I simply do not believe that there is any God, any supernatural being, with authority to supply me with even a hint of an answer about how to live. Still, all in all, many religions suggest answers, though I do not accept their authority, that would benefit mankind as a whole if they were followed (and very definitely some religions have some suggestions that are not so great). How to choose? Existence precedes essence, Sartre tells us (the 1950s were my formative years). Or Man defines himself, is the way I might put it. Not that such a formulation helps all that much. Frogs never (so I assume) reflect on how their actions impact other frogs either now or in the future. But I am not a frog.

Religion goes most wrong, I think, when it is most certain it is right. People without religion can also make that error, I know some of them, but they are usually blessedly disorganized. Except when they aren't.

We choose, no way around that.

[mikeh]

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between philosophy and religion. A philosophy can and should attempt to set out a basis upon which we can proceed to live our lives. A philosophy can allow us to decide that a 'good' life requires kindness to others, selflessness, compassion and indeed every idea that we see as morally correct. Of course religion can as well.

However, a philosophy will at least attempt to explain and justify its tenets based on reason, logic and, dare I say, observed evidence.

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

I suspect that the Mycrofts of the world practice a far gentler, less coercive form of religion that the ones I usually address in my criticisms, and I suspect that if all religions were mycroftian ones (to coin a phrase), I'd be less concerned that we ought to differentiate between philosophies, as guides to living, and religions. I'd still far prefer a reality based guide to morality than any system of belief that is founded on irrationality, but the differences in practice would likely be minimal.

One does not need a god or god figure to work out that treating others as one would want to be treated is a smart approach to life (other than, arguably, for masochists). Equally, one could readily, and without recourse to superstition, determine that an eye for an eye is no longer a valid moral approach to life, regardless of the antiquity of the proposition, and so on.

I am not saying that the worst philosophy is better than the best religion...far from it. I am saying that we need not seek inspiration in superstition or revealed wisdom to find a guide to a morally good life. I also think it is far too easy a cop-out to argue that anybody 'needs' religion. People think they need it because they have been indoctrinated in it. Does any poster here, other than perhaps Fluffy, think, for example, that if Fluffy substituted any of a number of philosophies of life for his religious beliefs he would become a mass murderer?

When one chooses a philosophy of life, the odds are, it seems to me, that one has actually thought about it to some degree and arrived at conscious moral choices. When one gets one's morals from a hierarchical religion, then there is a real danger that one will unthinkingly follow the powerful, within the religion, even when they direct conduct that is contrary to the professed values of the church. Thus members of a religion which numbers as a commandment that thou shalt not kill happily slaughter thousands of people. Adherents to a religion that espouses the turning of the cheek routinely endorse capital punishment. Adherents to a religion that says the meek shall inherit the earth routinely enrich tele-evangelists who scam them out of their money. Adherents to a religion that says one should love one's neighbour send missionaries to Africa to preach hatred and persecution of people born homosexual.

Why? Because the leaders of the sects in question have the power over their followers that flows from training people from early childhood to not think for themselves, to not form their own value system, but to accept the values of those in power. I don't think that such is likely to arise within a society in which people are invited to form their own value judgements based on a discussion of morality devoid of the concept of revealed truth.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2014-May-22, 11:05, said:

Existence precedes essence, Sartre tells us (the 1950s were my formative years). Or Man defines himself, is the way I might put it. Not that such a formulation helps all that much. Frogs never (so I assume) reflect on how their actions impact other frogs either now or in the future. But I am not a frog.

But Sartre was.

Rik

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2014-May-22, 22:44, said:

I think there is a useful distinction to be made between philosophy and religion. A philosophy can and should attempt to set out a basis upon which we can proceed to live our lives. A philosophy can allow us to decide that a 'good' life requires kindness to others, selflessness, compassion and indeed every idea that we see as morally correct. Of course religion can as well.

However, a philosophy will at least attempt to explain and justify its tenets based on reason, logic and, dare I say, observed evidence.

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

I suspect that the Mycrofts of the world practice a far gentler, less coercive form of religion that the ones I usually address in my criticisms, and I suspect that if all religions were mycroftian ones (to coin a phrase), I'd be less concerned that we ought to differentiate between philosophies, as guides to living, and religions. I'd still far prefer a reality based guide to morality than any system of belief that is founded on irrationality, but the differences in practice would likely be minimal.

One does not need a god or god figure to work out that treating others as one would want to be treated is a smart approach to life (other than, arguably, for masochists). Equally, one could readily, and without recourse to superstition, determine that an eye for an eye is no longer a valid moral approach to life, regardless of the antiquity of the proposition, and so on.

I am not saying that the worst philosophy is better than the best religion...far from it. I am saying that we need not seek inspiration in superstition or revealed wisdom to find a guide to a morally good life. I also think it is far too easy a cop-out to argue that anybody 'needs' religion. People think they need it because they have been indoctrinated in it. Does any poster here, other than perhaps Fluffy, think, for example, that if Fluffy substituted any of a number of philosophies of life for his religious beliefs he would become a mass murderer?

When one chooses a philosophy of life, the odds are, it seems to me, that one has actually thought about it to some degree and arrived at conscious moral choices. When one gets one's morals from a hierarchical religion, then there is a real danger that one will unthinkingly follow the powerful, within the religion, even when they direct conduct that is contrary to the professed values of the church. Thus members of a religion which numbers as a commandment that thou shalt not kill happily slaughter thousands of people. Adherents to a religion that espouses the turning of the cheek routinely endorse capital punishment. Adherents to a religion that says the meek shall inherit the earth routinely enrich tele-evangelists who scam them out of their money. Adherents to a religion that says one should love one's neighbour send missionaries to Africa to preach hatred and persecution of people born homosexual.

Why? Because the leaders of the sects in question have the power over their followers that flows from training people from early childhood to not think for themselves, to not form their own value system, but to accept the values of those in power. I don't think that such is likely to arise within a society in which people are invited to form their own value judgements based on a discussion of morality devoid of the concept of revealed truth.

If you don't believe The God or any God exists fair enough.

See Pascal

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2014-May-23, 00:25, said:

If you don't believe The God or any God exists fair enough.

See Pascal

you've referred to pascal before. As many have noted, his ideas were somewhat flawed

[helene_t]

kenberg, on 2014-May-22, 11:05, said:

. But I am not a frog.

Trinidad, on 2014-May-22, 23:07, said:

But Sartre was.

Possibly, but actually the British nickname for the French is a bit ironic:
http://www.theguardi...h-before-french

[kenberg]

If the French and the English wish to dispute which culture first discovered the joy of eating frogs, I am most happy to sit on the sidelines and hold their toppers and berets while they fight it out.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2014-May-22, 22:44, said:

Religion can espouse similar moral values (whether we see them, in any particular case, as 'good' or 'bad') but does so by imposition of them, usually accompanied by threats and the inducement of fear. Thus when I was a young catholic-in-training, going to Sunday School, the notion of sin, and punishment for sin was a stick intended to scare us into compliance with the commands of those in power within the church.

Part of the problem with statements like this is that "religion" has a wide variety of meanings. There are strict, organized religions that impose many requirements and pronouncements on the members, like Roman Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, and Fundamental Islam. But there's also the opposite extreme of personal spirituality. In the middle there are moderate forms, like Buddhism, Conservative Judaism, and Unitarianism. (I may be wrong in some of my characterizations, I'm not a comparative religion expert, but I hope you get the gist.)

So when you paint all religion with one brush, you're going to miss the mark with many people who consider themselves religious.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2014-May-23, 08:01, said:

Possibly, but actually the British nickname for the French is a bit ironic:
http://www.theguardi...h-before-french

Two comments: Toads are not frogs, and maybe those folks at Stonehenge were French tourists.