|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2007 : 00:42:17 [Permalink]
|
Religion is a word with an identity crisis. It used to be that "religion" was whatever religion you grew up with, and all other religions were heresies, corruptions of the one true faith. Now that we don't burn witches anymore (so to speak) and we've been made thoroughly aware of other faiths, religion is a word in search of a common meaning. Be it metaphysical or institutional it is running up against its own irrelevance as its influence is gradually co-opted by secular institutions. The word may well suvive as a synonym for "worldview" or "fellowship" or some such as language is mutable, but the underlying concept has long been eroding in most western countries.
edit: fix grammar |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 11/07/2007 17:01:50 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 04:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. Religion.... 
Now that I'm getting back into a little competitive shooting, I have restarted my "Brass Bin." The Brass Bin is no more than a bucket wherein I dump spent cartridge cases that I'm not planing to reload right away. This is often due to not having anything that fires them. There might be anything in there from, currently, .32 S&W to a single, lonesome .270 rifle case. If it's a centerfire case that hasn't been stepped on and flattened, and sometimes even if it has, I'll scavenge it. The odd-balls are often given to someone that can use them, or, I might, one day, get something that fires them. I also dump fired brass from shooting sessions into it to sort through later.
Thus it is, as I see it, with the world's religions. They are a hodge-podge of bits and pieces, much of it useful, much of it not; a sort of Celestial Brass Bin. And like my own Brass Bin, they are constantly picked through, looking for whatever might reload into whatever calibre is necessary to get through a match or to harangue a congregation. And so it is that over time, as cases split and get replaced from the Bin, or even newly purchased, the brass in the Bin will change to suit me. That .270 case, for example, can be annealed, resized, trimmed & reamed & fire-formed into 7mm. Bench Rest, or even .221 Fireball, and the religious can be comforted by stories & sacred parabels from their Bin that too, have been annealed, resized, trimmed & reamed & fire-formed a bit since their first telling.
Yikes! Looking back over this, I see that it's getting convoluted, even for me.
But no matter, pistol brass and sacred text have much in common in that one can fire either and reload it to fire again at a target or a congregation, and keep on doing it until the case fractures or the story get's told too often. Then, they and I return to our respective Brass Bins for fresher, if still a little tarnished, material. There's always plenty in there.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 04:59:01 [Permalink]
|
Half said:
For instance, Dawkins says in The God Delusion that technically he's an agnostic atheist, as today's science cannot disprove any god's existence. But he also mention that he thinks this may not always be the case. Though he knows of no way to disprove god through science, he accepts that some unknown science of the future might be able to do so.
|
My point exactly.
There are only unknowns-->(edited to add:-->in this context. There is a plausible argument for unknowable in the realm of quantum mechanics, but that may only be the result of our measurement techniques.)
The very idea of "unknowable" is self contradictory. Because, how would you know?
Its one of those absurd concepts that theists like to bandy about and pretend to hold some special insight into.
I'll take it a step further and suggest that it is, like the idea of omnipotence, a fallacy.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 11/07/2007 05:03:19 |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 05:44:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The very idea of "unknowable" is self contradictory. Because, how would you know?
Its one of those absurd concepts that theists like to bandy about and pretend to hold some special insight into.
I'll take it a step further and suggest that it is, like the idea of omnipotence, a fallacy.
|
Theists and Secrataries of Defense.
Of course |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 06:00:14 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | So you have redefined the word to the point that science and skepticism are religions. Good job. |
What!? I have a whole section where I explain why skepticism is NOT a religion. I also started this conversation with the assertion that for something to quality as a religion it would have to have an inside and outside authoritative source labeling it as such, which obviously skepticism and science both fail to have. My whole point here is that religion doesn't have a simple and concise definition. As Matt put it: | The word may well suvive as a synonym for "worldview" or "fellowship" or some such as language is mutable, but the underlying concept has long been eroding in most western countries. |
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/07/2007 06:00:32 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 15:01:40 [Permalink]
|
Inside and outside "authorities" don't get to make such determinations.
What things are is determined by traits they exhibit.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 17:15:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The very idea of "unknowable" is self contradictory. Because, how would you know?
Its one of those absurd concepts that theists like to bandy about and pretend to hold some special insight into.
I'll take it a step further and suggest that it is, like the idea of omnipotence, a fallacy. |
We know some things are unknowable we just don't know what those things are. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 19:28:24 [Permalink]
|
We know some things are unknowable we just don't know what those things are.
|
How would we know that? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 19:35:27 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt said:
| We know some things are unknowable we just don't know what those things are. |
To repeat Gorgo's question. How do we know that?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 20:29:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
dv82matt said:
| We know some things are unknowable we just don't know what those things are. |
To repeat Gorgo's question. How do we know that? |
Because no perfectly accurate and complete formulation of physics with a finite number of principles is possible. Given that it follows that some things (even if we don't specifically know what they are) are unknowable to us.
I'm not sure that I'm getting my point across clearly, but here's an interesting lecture on the topic. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 21:13:29 [Permalink]
|
Sorry for coming late into this discussion, but here are the points I would like to make first.
Inclusiveness is a noble goal, except when it comes to vocabulary. For a word to mean anything at all, it has to designate something. I understand that Marf tires of arguing whether something qualifies as art or not and simply prefers to jump into the discussion of what qualifies as good art—but this approach is particularly disastrous when applied to the topic of religion.
For starters, the word religion is inherently tainted with such concepts as worship of unseen personalities or forces, belief in immaterial life essences which often survive death, and the belief that purely material processes cannot account for the Universe as it is today. To pretend that the word religion can be divorced from such baggage is ideological blindness. Marf does us the courtesy of mentioning a few fringe groups with extremely limited followings who have attempted just such folly. Where she errs is in assuming these groups have been successful.
She mentions the Quakers as an example of a "religious practice that disregards faith in anything supernatural," but she reveals later that isn't quite true. Far from disregarding faith in anything supernatural, the Quakers use terms nebulous enough to be interpreted by individuals to mean anything they choose. "Inner Light" can be interpreted as a symbolic concept or as a legitimate phenomenon--a description of a force beyond material detection but no less real because of it. These two concepts are so radically opposed--as fundamentally opposite as truth and fiction, history and myth, concrete and abstract, or real and unreal--that I cannot allow that these two points of view represent a single religion, or that one even qualifies as religion at all. Two people, each holding views at the opposite end of the spectrum, might each call themselves Quakers and attend Quaker services, but it is beyond clear that their common terminology is the only similarity between otherwise mutually exclusive positions. The traditional, literal position is clearly religion, and the other is clearly a secular echo of it—mere lip service to concepts not believed to exist in reality. One is religion, and the other has more in common with ceremonial deism.
Now, I can also see why it's in the interest of Reform Jews or Quaker leadership to ignore such intractable discrepancies in place of harmony—because they need members! Far from indicating that these groups demonstrate a stable balance of diverse viewpoints, social pressures stemming from their minority status compels them to paper over glaring internal differences which would never be tolerated in a more established organization. These groups foster ambiguity because they wish to be as inclusive as possible, up to and including members with mutually contradictory positions. This isn't religion liberated of dogma, it is cultivated schizophrenia. Thus, as skeptics, we should recognize their intentional vagueness as the self-serving rhetoric that it is, and seek to clarify and differentiate the various positions that these groups are defensively unwilling to examine themselves.
Because while blurring the distinction between rational questioning and celebrating baseless assertions is beneficial for religious cults only interested in self-perpetuation, such an approach is self-destructive for skeptics or any other group intent on promoting a wholly rational worldview. Marf is correct in stating that skepticism is a method for resolving claims of fact, but that is precisely why we must not conflate claims. If some people believe in a thing literally, and others believe in it only figuratively, then obscuring those two very different positions under the same label does a grievous disservice to those wishing to promote skepticism. The key difference being that the be |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/07/2007 22:36:39 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 21:48:18 [Permalink]
|
| Good post H. That pretty well sums up my views on this topic as well. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2007 : 23:00:31 [Permalink]
|
Well said H.H.
dv82matt said:
Because no perfectly accurate and complete formulation of physics with a finite number of principles is possible. Given that it follows that some things (even if we don't specifically know what they are) are unknowable to us.
I'm not sure that I'm getting my point across clearly, but here's an interesting lecture on the topic. |
Nice reading, thanks.
What is says is that there may be an infinite number of things to know, and what follows is that we won't ever know everything. It doesn't follow that some things have an inherently unknowable nature.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 11/08/2007 : 09:11:42 [Permalink]
|
Well jeez Humbert. Your post has caused me to at least think about and perhaps reevaluate some of my own views about religion.
Great post you bastard!
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2007 : 09:37:24 [Permalink]
|
Yes, nice post Humbert, and nice thread everyone.
It's fine to understand that words can have different meanings depending on how they're used, but people use these vague definitions of these terms like Mark Twain said a drunk uses a lamppost. For support rather than illumination. They create a cloud of vagueness and act as though the cloud is some force of nature that they had no part in.
I recently saw Marcus Borg speak. Very brilliant, entertaining gentleman. However, what I got out of the speech is that everything in his religion is metaphor except for god. The Virgin Birth is metaphor. Adam and Eve are metaphor. If you're going to make 99% of your religion metaphor, why not leap the extra inch and say that god is metaphor? Why do we need that idea to hang on to remnants of the Middle Ages? Why live in a world of vagueness in an attempt to deal with reality? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is religion?
