And yet that delight is clearly motivational to some people; they will go to some lengths to achieve it, indicating that to them this is something of value. Heck, I'd argue that the success of YouTube and Napoleon Dynamite are both directly contingent upon the popularity of schadenfreude.
------
quote:Whether the power of these intangibles is really from within them or from an actual entity somewhere (and as has already been pointed out, some religions don't even have a "god" figure... just a spiritual "way") is irrelevant to the efficacy of that power.
And if that's where religion stopped, that'd be fine; everyone's entitled to whatever method helps them find their own purpose. But most -- perhaps even all -- religions also come with dogmas and theologies; these are ancillary costs that you pay for using religion to answer the philosophical question of "what is my purpose in life" that you do not have to pay if you just use philosophy in the first place. It's like buying one of those enormous Craftsman power-drive socket sets with the bonus Phillips head to tighten up the screws on your chair; it's not only cheaper but easier to just get a screwdriver, unless you anticipate having to "answer questions" that you'll need both a metric and an English socket set to resolve (and even if you did, it'd still be better to buy a high-quality dedicated socket.) And given the role religion plays, imagine if people who'd chosen to pay for the whole socket set went around demanding that all screws in the world should be replaced with hex bolts, because those are clearly superior fasteners.
posted
There are restrictions on your behavior -- and, in theory, your beliefs and conclusions -- that are usually incumbent upon your belief in a given religion. How many Muslims would enjoy a quiet drink? How many Jews would love to be able to cook on Saturday? How many gay couples would really, really like to get tax benefits in Wisconsin?
If the advantage of these behaviors could be demonstrated individually, that'd be one thing. But in almost all cases, they proceed instead from the presumption of granted authority; in other words, by accepting that a given religion is "true," you also typically accept that its assertions about other ethical and behaviorial issues are also true, and are left to reconcile that acceptance with your perception of reality.
This is a very high cost to pay.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And if that's where religion stopped, that'd be fine; everyone's entitled to whatever method helps them find their own purpose. But most -- perhaps even all -- religions also come with dogmas and theologies; these are ancillary costs that you pay for using religion to answer the philosophical question of "what is my purpose in life" that you do not have to pay if you just use philosophy in the first place.
I don't really disagree with that, except that I think I view religion and philosophy as much more similar, or even mingled, than you do (I could be wrong there, though).
Again, I wasn't the one who made utility the acid test of truth. But I think even its detractors... in fact especially its detractors... would have to admit that religion is a powerful tool-- whether as opiate of the masses or the igniter of firebrands...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is a very high cost to pay.
Whether great responsibility comes with great power is a matter of debate, but if TSR has taught me anything it's that great power comes with a greater price tag. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm referring to anything a group of people believe that is not true. I'm not saying, here, what that is, specifically, because I don't know the truth about God anymore than anyone else does. But let's supposed that Jesus was just a man like any other and had no more divinity than you or I. It doesn't matter that a billion or more Christians believe this in terms of whether it is true or not. If it's a delusion and masses of people believe it, it is a shared delusion. There is no "safety in numbers" when it comes to what is really true. A thousand mistaken people are still mistaken even if they are not alone in their mistake.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet that delight is clearly motivational to some people; they will go to some lengths to achieve it, indicating that to them this is something of value. Heck, I'd argue that the success of YouTube and Napoleon Dynamite are both directly contingent upon the popularity of schadenfreude.
You're giving an example of your definition of worth to refute my definition. Yeah, I get that you don't think worth is universal - that's what started this whole portion of the discussion. Citing an opinion of something that is not universal and calling it worth is simply reasserting your definition.
I suppose I could respond by reasserting mine, but there doesn't seem to be much point to that. Suffice it to say that, according to my definition of worth, the mere fact that some people value something does not mean that the something has value.
Just as the mass of a 1-kg ball is still 1 kg whether the mass is measured correctly or not, the worth of delight in the pain of others is still zero, whether others measure it correctly or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, those restrictions (and some religions are more strict than others) are presumably to make our lives better. We (at least I) don't think of it as a price to pay, but rather a way to make choices that will make our lives richer. For your first two examples, anyway. Those Muslims who abstain from drinking and Jews who refrain from cooking on the Sabboth would, I assume, believe that they are better off by following those rules. As for your third example, that is a case of the government imposing religious beliefs which I agree is wrong, but is not quite the same thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*amused* Tom, if you're going to try to make points about the limitations Judaism places on its adherents, Shabbos is probably not the way to go.
Shmuel would know better than I, but my impression from other formerly-religious Jews is that kashrus is a far bigger issue.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I view religion and philosophy as much more similar, or even mingled, than you do (I could be wrong there, though).
I'm absolutely certain that you do, since I consider them to be nearly exclusive epistemologies.
quote:if TSR has taught me anything it's that great power comes with a greater price tag.
Well, as I've pointed out, if you ALSO need to turn some sockets, then the combo socket-and-screwdriver set may not be a bad buy. If, for example, you find yourself drinking regularly and feeling lonely, joining the LDS church to support you in kicking the habit and forcing you to keep the company of others is a way to kill multiple birds with one stone. Of course, then you've got a few sockets out there which are for turning weird sized bolts that previously existed and no longer do, and a few sockets which don't really fit modern metric bolts but kind of do, and a few sockets that simply don't work -- but part of your purchasing agreement prevented you from buying sockets from other companies.
-------
quote:Tom, if you're going to try to make points about the limitations Judaism places on its adherents, Shabbos is probably not the way to go.
I was deliberately not trying to identify the restrictions I thought were most onerous, meaningful, etc. for any given faith. I was simply trying to point out obvious behaviorial restrictions that seem to lack secular motivations.
-----
quote:Just as the mass of a 1-kg ball is still 1 kg whether the mass is measured correctly or not, the worth of delight in the pain of others is still zero, whether others measure it correctly or not.
It's fine that you claim that there is an external measure of worth. In fact, I've said on this thread that this is the primary function of religion: it gives people who need to believe that values are externally arbitrated a hypothetical authoritative arbiter. Sadly, that doesn't actually cause the arbiter to exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's fine that you claim that there is an external measure of worth. In fact, I've said on this thread that this is the primary function of religion: it gives people who need to believe that values are externally arbitrated a hypothetical authoritative arbiter.
Or it tells us what the actual authoritative arbiter has decided on a myriad of issues.
quote:Sadly, that doesn't actually cause the arbiter to exist.
Sadly, your stating otherwise doesn't cause him not to exist.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I know many observant Jews who would disagree with you. Surely you would not argue that all Jews who observe the Sabbath always find all of its restrictions a "welcome respite?"
I know it's supposed to be welcomed with that attitude, but that in and of itself is another example of a non-natural behaviorial requirement.
------------
quote:Sadly, your stating otherwise doesn't cause him not to exist.
Very true. But since there's no empirical evidence that such an arbiter does exist, or that his decisions regarding "worth" affect values in our observable reality, such an arbiter actually becomes an irrelevance in any discussion of observable reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Very true. But since there's no empirical evidence that such an arbiter does exist, or that his decisions regarding "worth" affect values in our observable reality, such an arbiter actually becomes an irrelevance in any discussion of observable reality.
This is quite simply and absolutely observably not true. It is of great relevance and has led to trillions and trillions of specific decisions being made in specific ways throughout history.
Beyond that, I refuse to indulge your demand for empirical-only reality.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of jumping in between Tom and Dagonee, I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion and that this is so patently obvious that everyone who doesn't agree is an obscurantist with his or her head in the sand.
I submit that that is an unsupportable position and it's the only one I am here concerned to deny.
I just want to be clear what I am arguing and what I am not arguing... as there are other arguments going on all over the place.
Edit: though I feel obliged to point out that I have the exact same reaction as Dagonee to Tom's last statement.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I disagree that empirical reality is the total of reality and empirical truth the total of truth.
BUT
If, together with KoM, you are going to make efficient impact on history and evolution the standard by which something is judged to be true, Religion is clearly as true, if not more so than Science. Religious truth itself is obviously not empirical, but to deny that its effects are empirical is aboslute hogwash.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm referring to anything a group of people believe that is not true. I'm not saying, here, what that is, specifically, because I don't know the truth about God anymore than anyone else does. But let's supposed that Jesus was just a man like any other and had no more divinity than you or I. It doesn't matter that a billion or more Christians believe this in terms of whether it is true or not. If it's a delusion and masses of people believe it, it is a shared delusion. There is no "safety in numbers" when it comes to what is really true. A thousand mistaken people are still mistaken even if they are not alone in their mistake.
Alright, I see what you're saying about the definition of "shared delusion," but I wonder how that pertains to religion at large. You can't prove or disprove any of it, so where does the word delusion enter into the fray?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: At the risk of jumping in between Tom and Dagonee, I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion and that this is so patently obvious that everyone who doesn't agree is an obscurantist with his or her head in the sand.
I submit that that is an unsupportable position and it's the only one I am here concerned to deny.
Okay. Let me revisit one of the quotes from the original NYT article:
quote:“Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
Is it your assertion that religious knowedge is "higher than" -- that is, superior to -- scientific knowledge?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is quite simply and absolutely observably not true. It is of great relevance and has led to trillions and trillions of specific decisions being made in specific ways throughout history.
Ah. But the existence of the arbiter is irrelevant to those decisions; the belief in the existence of the arbiter is relevant, and obviously we need to take into account the fact that some people believe there is one.
Whether the arbiter actually exists or not has no observable effect.
---------
quote:I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion...
Science IS inherently more true than religion, for a given value of "true." Perhaps those people who disagree define "true" differently.
quote:If, together with KoM, you are going to make efficient impact on history and evolution the standard by which something is judged to be true, Religion is clearly as true, if not more so than Science.
Except that "religion" is not responsible for those developments. As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't describing religious thought, though; it's describing how religious knowledge is portrayed.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
Religion isn't really about miracles. We have always been able to contact God "efficiently"; God, in contacting us, balances efficiency with free will.
What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel the need to remind everyone that, IMO, the primary conflict here is that some people (notably KoM and the scientists in the original post) seem to think they have proven that Science is somehow inherently more true than Religion...
Science IS inherently more true than religion, for a given value of "true." Perhaps those people who disagree define "true" differently.
True.
(LOL)
I really mistated my position there, in my own definition, which is a pretty inexcusable lapse. Scientific truth is certainly more empirically provable than religious truth.
However, as I said, at some point, you have to start with base assumptions which are every bit as unprovable as religious truths... some assumptions which, in fact, are known to be false-- such as "human observation is a reliable data gathering source." Now we can take steps to minimize error and they are largely successful, but, again, things like "reason is valid" are unprovable... I dare say say "mystical"... assertions.
KoM tried to get around this by saying that science produced practical results and I responded that religion did as well.
quote:Except that "religion" is not responsible for those developments. As I've observed on Ornery: in all the two thousand years of theology we've had since Christ, what advances have we made? Can we contact God more efficiently nowadays? Are there more miracles per capita? What are theologians doing with their time, compared to what scientists are doing with theirs?
When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science? What great art exists, inspired by the periodic table? When have people rallied to the banner of Quantum Mechanics as they have rallied to the banner of justice or freedom? I can only think of one world leader who has stood on the Frankensteinian platform of creating an engineered, empirically better world... and, by Godwin's smile, I am ashamed to be the first to invoke his name.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: It isn't describing religious thought, though; it's describing how religious knowledge is portrayed.
I'm assuming you mean "conveyed" there... and I still stand by my assertion that it's an inaccurate, loathsome, stereotype that doesn't account for a significant portion-- I believe a mojority-- of the religious community.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
In what way do you think our understanding of God has improved? I'm genuinely curious about this, especially since I thought you believed He was completely ineffable.
-------
quote:some assumptions which, in fact, are known to be false-- such as "human observation is a reliable data gathering source."
You know, I'd argue that this isn't actually axiomatic for the scientific method. Even though we normally take it as a given, there are whole branches of predictive science for which human observation is considered to be impossible. Far more axiomatic is "if something happens, it has a physical effect."
quote: When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science? What great art exists, inspired by the periodic table?
You're arguing that it's harder to inspire people with fact. No question about it. I'll refer you back to the "authoritative arbiter" thing as another example of the same phenomenon. But, again, I would be reluctant to use evidence of the effectiveness of belief as proof of religion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And let me be clear in case the point I was driving at with Tom isn't.
The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation... the very concept that men (individually and collectively) should be free... all are based in the religious concept that all men are equal before God (or, if you prefer, the Universe). That is absolutely an assumption and nothing else. It is not unique to Christianity, but it is certainly a stronger concept in Judeo-Christian cultures than in others. There is no scientific or empircial reason for valuing human life at all, much less one as much as the next. Many tyrants and societies haven't valued human life at all. Many more haven't valued human freedoms. Western society has... and that concept has, rightly or wrongly, driven the course of history throughout the world.
Can science match that?
And again, I have only glancingly brought "love" into the equation.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Magna Carta, The Declaration of Independence, The Emancipation Proclamation... the very concept that men (individually and collectively) should be free... all are based in the religious concept that all men are equal before God (or, if you prefer, the Universe).
That's fine, although they could just as easily and far more reliably be based on the philosophical concept that all men are entitled to equal freedoms, which is derived from a stronger set of hypotheticals.
Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that if we could disprove the existence of God, there'd be no reason not to have slavery.
In other words, I think appealing to a universal arbiter like that is at best a sort of lazy shorthand, and is at worst an attempt to claim universality for a statement which is in no way universal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I do mean "portrayed."
Then I've lost you. Can you rephrase that, because I dont understand what you are saying?
quote:Not the periodic table, but as an example, there's tons of fractal art.
there's also "guitar hero". I'll take Michelangelo and Bach for now
Less flippantly, that's a pretty good response, but the fact that it is combined with the gulf it leaves shows, I think, what I am getting at. I'll let it sit.
quote:
quote:When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science?
When was the last time someone waged a just war in the name of any religion?
What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, again, I would be reluctant to use evidence of the effectiveness of belief as proof of religion.
As would I. It is, however, proof that religion passes the test that KoM has set in trying to say that science is self-evidently true because of it's empirically useful.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But religion didn't do those things, Jim. A belief in religion did those things. Unless you're going to give God the credit for the Sistine Chapel, and not Michelangelo.
What you're arguing is that religion is an effective motivational device. What KoM's arguing is that religion is a terrible epistemology. You're talking past each other.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you might consider some of the moral victories that religion helped bring into existance.
The extinction of slavery
The Renaissance. (progressive religion triumphing over oppressive religion)
Classical Music
To name a few, not only that how can you gauge efficiency? Are people more able to try myriad ways to contact God? I would say so, whereas in days passed you had to do so within the confines society laid out. Are you omnipresent? Can you observe all that can be observed? If you could I think you could begin to address the sheer numbers of miracles that occur, as well as decide on whether there are more or fewer taking place today.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:you might consider some of the moral victories that religion helped bring into existance
My argument is that religion has, at its most effective, actually supplemented philosophy in these situations. When we haven't been able to find a compelling enough philosophical justification for something, we've allowed religion to fill the gap. I find that rather lazy -- and dangerous, since it can (and has) cut both ways.
quote:If you could I think you could begin to address the sheer numbers of miracles that occur, as well as decide on whether there are more or fewer taking place today.
That wasn't my question. My question was, to put it another way, "what have theologians done for you lately?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Otherwise, what you're suggesting is that if we could disprove the existence of God, there'd be no reason not to have slavery.
No. What I'm saying is that the idea that men shouldn't be slaves is not empirically provable.
I understand you can make ethical arguments for freedom and morality without bringing in God. that's not what I'm getting at. It should be noted that I am here treating science as separate from philosophy. Philosphy is not empirical, though it is rational.
What I'm saying is that religion, not science, has historically been the strongest force in defence of freedom and justice... Science does *not* suggest that men should be free-- that is an assumption or a philosophical conclusion-- but it is not a scientific fact. I'd be surprised if science had, or even could, reach that conclusion.
That religion can and has been used to oppress freedom or remove justice is conceded.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
I seem to have missed a lot of debate, so I'm going to jump in again here, since this is the perfect setup for the question I was driving at with Lyrhawn. What does justice matter if empirical truth isn'y the only truth?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry to double post but Tom are you suggesting that the principles encompassed in folks respective religions have no influence on the product?
By that logic Michaelangelo would have been able to paint something as equally monumental as the Sistine Chapel had he believed in something else entirely, say he was a scientific purist.
I think Handel's Messiah is a good example of what emotions are invoked through the music medium. The words that inspired the music are right there with the music. Buddhist music is certainly influenced by the principle of meditation, I doubt they developed simply because people believed in something.
Just as different elements when they burn can yield a different colored flame, I think religion when it comes to art and music influences different kinds of notes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's not what I'm getting at. It should be noted that I am here treating science as separate from philosophy. Philosphy is not empirical, though it is rational.
This, then, is the heart of the problem: it's definitional. As some of the people have been using the word "science" in this thread, it's not as closely synonymous with "empiricism" as it is with "rationality." Religion, in this usage, is fundamentally arational, if not outright irrational.
quote:Tom are you suggesting that the principles encompassed in folks respective religions have no influence on the product?
No. At the very least, the cultural influence on an artist will help determine his production.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But religion didn't do those things, Jim. A belief in religion did those things. Unless you're going to give God the credit for the Sistine Chapel, and not Michelangelo.
What you're arguing is that religion is an effective motivational device. What KoM's arguing is that religion is a terrible epistemology. You're talking past each other.
Well, science, or scientific principles, didn't develop technology either... engineers did that. Anthony Fokker developed the synchronized forward firing machine gun... not Newtonian Physics.
All I'm trying to say is that KoM says that the assumption that Reason is Reasonable is not an assumption because reason has a quantifiable impact on history. The same can be said of religion-- it has had a quantifiable impact on history.
What I'm aruging is that efficient impact on history isn't a valid method for determining if something is true or not. If that leaves me talking past him, I apologize. I am addressing several of you guys and I have, perhaps, gotten derailed despite my efforts to the contrary.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What theologians are doing with their time is improving our understanding of God, our relationship to God and what this means for us. I think they have made significant (if fluctuating) forward progress on that.
In what way do you think our understanding of God has improved? I'm genuinely curious about this, especially since I thought you believed He was completely ineffable.
Because we can't understand a thing completely doesn't mean we can't understand anything about it.
Honey, do you really want me to summarize thousands of years of theology for you? Can it wait till Monday?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
So abolitionists were not motivated by the new lights of the Reformation? BTW thanks for in depth response.
quote: think you are thinking of the Reformation, there; and it is not a good thing. Or perhaps you think Galileo enjoyed house arrest?
No thats a separate event, also influenced by religion. Or did you think the Renaissance was in no way influenced by religious devotion. Galileo? He was arrested by the Catholic Church the very oppressive religion I mentioned earlier. No offense to modern day Catholics intended. It was Christian principles that eventually won out against non Christian principles. But I am sure you will have a field day with that last sentance. Real ChristiansTM?
quote: Brought about by very secular princes, thank'ee.
Oh please, this is almost intentionally inaccurate.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, science, or scientific principles, didn't develop technology either... engineers did that.
Except you're comparing scientific epistemology here to non-epistemological "religion." What would you say constitutes the religious "process?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This, then, is the heart of the problem: it's definitional. As some of the people have been using the word "science" in this thread, it's not as closely synonymous with "empiricism" as it is with "rationality." Religion, in this usage, is fundamentally arational, if not outright irrational.
That's probably it then... we've already ascertained that you and I have a disocnnect here. As has been already mentioned, many religions (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism) don't really have a "god" figure... they are "ways". I think Philosophy has much more in common with Buddhism than with Particle Physics... maybe more than with abstract mathematics, as well but those are getting pretty close together interms of the continuum I'm envisioning....
quote:I think Philosophy has much more in common with Buddhism than with Particle Physics...
Most philosophers I know would agree that the useful bits of Buddhism are more of a philosophy than a religion. Heck, I suspect Buddha would agree with that.
A religion that's been rigorously derived from one or two axioms and doesn't rely on authoritative statements is, as far as I'm concerned, a philosophy with a fan club. In fact, in my experience, the ways in which such religions differ from philosophy are precisely the ways in which they're least interesting.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What would you say constitutes the religious "process?"
It certainly varies, but common elements seem to involve meditation, sacrifice, humility before aged wisdom, and a lot of navel contemplation Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, they weren't, actually. The successful ones were influenced by humanist thinkers.
Could you clarify what you mean by humanist? Do you have evidence that all the successful ones were non Christian humanists? I think the burden of evidence is against you but you are welcome to correct me.
quote: Influenced, obviously; but you were making the much stronger claim of caused.
By influenced I mean it would not have happened without religion.
Could you state what you think caused the renaissance to occur?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A religion that's been rigorously derived from one or two axioms and doesn't rely on authoritative statements is, as far as I'm concerned, a philosophy with a fan club. In fact, in my experience, the ways in which such religions differ from philosophy are precisely the ways in which they're least interesting.
Consider me a member of the Catholic Fan Club then. Maybe I'm not as rigorous as you would like me to be, but that's really how I view my religion... excepting that I obviously take a more generous view of authority than you. I believe greatly in questioning authority-- unlike a lot of people who encourage that (and this is *NOT* directed at anyone in this discussion), however, I question authorities to learn from their answer, not to challenge their authority.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
