I am adding this one to my list of museums, parks, zoos and other interesting places to visit on street view. — Sir2u

being there is person is the only way.

called the Fetish Priest — Sir2u

That explains the behaviour of many priests.

Religion is all but obsolete — SnowyChainsaw

All I am trying to say is that Religion discourages critical thinking. It does this by claiming it already has all the answers — SnowyChainsaw

If I were a faithfully religious person, I would quarrel with you. That seems pointless since I have been pitching overboard as much of the protestant religious baggage I can stand to lose that I have carried around for the last 7 decades. There are religious groups that make my skin crawl, but then there some that are kind of pleasant to hang around with. It depends on the specifics of the people involved.

People seem to need some kind of "religion" on which to organize their experiences, hopes, aspirations, disappointments, failures, dreams, nightmares, tedious or exciting experiences, and so on. I do disagree with you that "religion" is obsolete.

It isn't obsolete because human beings have not changed in fundamental ways in the last couple hundred thousand years and we haven't achieved super-rationality. It doesn't look like super-rationality is just around the corner, either. So... religion of some sort is probably going to last quite a while yet.

What has changed in the last two or three hundred years are industrial, scientific, and cultural revolutions that have granted us the possibility of much more insight into our Situation, which is available to the extent that we are willing to accept it. That has done a great deal to undermine religion and religious satisfaction.

Some people haven't accepted much of the insight at all, and it is among that quite large group that you will find the rigid, doctrinaire, dogmatic, judgmental folk who tend to be hell on roller skates, if they get half the chance.

Religions' replacements will probably first appear as secular systems, like socialism/communism/marxism. "We'll build the city on the hill through revolution, from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", and everything will work out just fine. Right.

Or maybe the replacement for some will be Free Markets in the Global Economy. Or Through Science all problems will be solved and we will all live happily ever after. Or maybe some new hogwash like Scientology will conquer all.

Whatever it is, it will have to provide people a satisfying framework in which to exist, and so far, at least, the old time religions seem to be better than the new-fangled replacements -- for those who want them, at least.

being there is person is the only way. — charleton

Yes I guess it would, if you are rich enough to be able to.

I am not. So I make do. :wink:

That explains the behaviour of many priests. — CuddlyHedgehog

If the truth be known, most.

What difference does it make? Granted it's a question that can be asked - you asked it! But it's not relevant to the meaning. Note that the same question is asked of the The Iliad, The Odyssey, the works of Shakespeare, etc. — tim wood

Yes, I guess you are right. It is no different from other books.

My own guess is that many of the ideas - the significant ones, anyway - in the Bible have roots in pre-Ur history. — tim wood

Goodness gracious, would that not mean that some of the bible might actually be more than 5,000 years old?

No. it's a book that lists all the words and their meanings in English. — tim wood

My apologies, I should have said " a book that helps explain the bible". Obviously by giving meanings to the words.
But that does not answer my question about why they put all of the pieces together in such a way so to make into the bible. What was their motivation? Why did they leave pieces out at the beginning? Why did the add new pieces and remove pieces later on?
I mean if the damn thing is supposed to be holy and god inspired, did the people not understand the instructions about how to put it together? Was it left to them by god to create the perfect word of god? How could god inspire a book for his people that only a few would even be able to read and understand, giving them a monopoly on interpretations about his holy words?

I think your first comment got it right, it is a work of historical fiction.

Goodness gracious, would that not mean that some of the bible might actually be more than 5,000 years old? — Sir2u

Lots of Bible stories are echoes/adaptions of earlier stories, some from Ur. But why should Ur be the origin time and place? I suspect they filtered down and were refined from even earlier stories.

As to why, the why refers to more than one thing. The Old Testament is just that, an "Old Testament." It mainly predates by a lot the New Testament, written down at different times and places by different people, attribution of authorship often suspect.

As to the New Testament, that's a different animal. I don't doubt that there was an historical Jesus and he had new ideas he fastened onto, and with which he disrupted, the Judaism of the day. He had disciples who literally spread the word, starting new churches. Saul/Paul got hold of these ideas and both traveled and wrote a bunch of letters to these churches, correcting and refining their errors in understanding and practice. There were also the books - the Gospels and other books - by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and a couple of others - there is some doubt as to the authorship of some of Paul's letters and the other books. At some point these books were assembled, with others, and a selection was made, creating the Bible. The why, I think, was because the creators of the Bible thought the ideas represented worth presenting. It's that simple. It must be. As to the quality of the ideas. in original form they've served for upwards of 5000+ years. With the Christ-ian modifications, 2000 years and counting. A work not so much of historical fiction, but of history and fiction. though the fiction was and by lots of people still is thought purely historical, i.e., true and accurate.

To my way of thinking, the value of the ideas does not depend on the truth of the stories in which they're told.

How long does it take you to type all this crap stuff?

To my way of thinking, the value of the ideas does not depend on the truth of the stories in which they're told. — tim wood

So then, most of the ideas could have been expressed in simple forms? So what was the point of making it so complex that you need a book called Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to be able to read correctly?

This is what has always baffled me about the bible.
God creates a guide book for his people, or at least inspires them to collect the information and put it all together.
People are supposed to use it to live a decent life and know how to serve him.
But no one really agrees about the meaning of the rules that it lays out because it is translated from several different language that one really agrees about the meaning of the words used.
Now I understand that the world has changed a lot since the bible was written, but surely a god would have known that it would happen and try to give something that would last for a while.
If god had really intended to help his people would it not have been easier to stick with the twenty commandments and avoid the confusion?
In short, why the hell would a god want to create something that would cause all sorts of problems for his people?

How long does it take you to type all this crap stuff? — CuddlyHedgehog

That would depend entirely on the quantity and quality of the crap stuff sir.

Could I get you anything else?

"People seem to need some kind of "religion" on which to organize their experiences, hopes, aspirations, disappointments, failures, dreams, nightmares, tedious or exciting experiences, and so on. I do disagree with you that "religion" is obsolete."

Need is an interesting word choice; it suggests people can not have those things without Religion. I strongly disagree with this but I only have anecdotal evidence for the contrary so I admit it is a fair position to hold.

"It isn't obsolete because human beings have not changed in fundamental ways in the last couple hundred thousand years and we haven't achieved super-rationality. It doesn't look like super-rationality is just around the corner, either. So... religion of some sort is probably going to last quite a while yet."

I agree that we have not achieved super-rationality, nor our we close and nor will science alone be enough to get us there. However, since science is an extension of Religion (that is to say in the pursuit of explaining the universe Religion built the foundations on which scientific pursuit is built) it would naturally replace Religion as a means of expanding our understanding by giving us a means to do so with measurable accuracy. This is an objectively superior way of studying the universe.
Also note that Religion has only lasted so long by indoctrinating people into believing it as the ultimate truth despite lacking tangible evidence and threatening eternal punishment to anyone that questions "God's Words". This is an artificial way of extending the lifespan of Religion.

The rest of your post I agree with. I think the process of replacing Religion is underway but, as I pointed out, Religion has an effective way of slowing that process down, to a halt if left unchecked. What will replace it in the end is entirely up for grabs, I guess.

Personally I think by teaching people critical thinking skills early in life, as opposed to just telling them what is "true" to pass an exam, is the best way to inspire the kind of innovation towards problem solving that will lead to living conditions improving the world over. Religious ideology is antithetical to this pursuit. Most cultural and political issues are, in my opinion, at least partially to blame for the rigid thinking that is causing a lot of issues in the political sphere. That doesn't just end with recognized Religions organisations like Christianity. I have seen this thinking in Atheist communities, as Theists love to point out, as well as others. It is a hard habit to crack but in time I think it is inevitable.

Sorry I forgot to conclude my initial point. Please insert this after paragraph 4.

If you agree that people are capable of organizing their hopes and dreams etc. without Religion and since science is an objectively better replacement for explaining the universe, the two primary functions of Religion are replaceable. When combined with the negative political and cultural connotations (the stiffing of critical analysis to name one) it renders Religion obsolete in the modern world.

How do you account for the fact that religious liberal arts colleges do an excellent job of teaching critical thinking? Some schools -- secular and religious -- fail to do a good job with critical thinking because they are just not very good schools.

How do you account for the fact that religious liberal arts colleges do an excellent job of teaching critical thinking? — Bitter Crank

But they don't because when all is said and done the answer from religious colleges is always and predictably the same.
It's pointless taking different roads if the destination is always the same place.

Wonderful, its great that Religious Schools teach critical theory. I haven't been to a Religious Liberal Arts Colleges so I don't know what their teaching methods are like but I can speculate and you can say whether or not my hypothesis is plausible.

As I said before a lot of Religious Organisations are in the process of being replaced by more modern notions of what is an agreeable set of morals. For example: The Pope reversing it's stance on Homosexuality. I'm sure we can assume anyone who has had even a brief interaction with Religion knows that the Catholic stance on being gay has not always been so tolerant, and changing that is without a doubt for the better. However, this is not a "traditional" tenant of Religious ideology and has been adopted from another, rising philosophy: Liberalism.
Therefore I feel it is not unreasonable to suggest the word "Liberal" in the title Religious Liberal Arts College is the contributing factor that has enabled these institutions to adopt a more critical teaching method. Critical analysis is inherently encouraged by Liberal principles (Secularism, Individual Rights, Democracy, Economic Freedom, Blind Justice and, most importantly, Freedom of Speech) and is primarily anti-authoritarian. The "traditional" principles Religious ideology seem to have been conservative and traditionalist throughout history. Only recently have they began adopting Liberal principles in order to remain relevant in a world that is quickly moving towards a more Liberal Society.
These two points suggest that Religious Ideology is capable of adopting principles from more socially agreeable ideologies as well as a motivation for doing so, however, I need to add that this is not an evolution of Religion, but rather a replacement of it.

Schools throughout the ages have been controlled and managed by Religious Organisations and whereas western schools are moving away from the more archaic practices (beating a child with a ruler if he is naughty) you can still find plenty of examples of strict, authoritarian ideology being enforced in societies that are less Liberal. This further leads one to the idea that these principles are derived from Liberal Ideology and not from evolving Religious Principles.

Schools that are not very good are not very good for a reason. Recently a large number of Secular Schools and Universities are becoming more and more Progressive (for better of for worse) at the expense of teaching Critical Analysis. What is interesting about this is that they are using same Indoctrination Tactics that Religions use to suppress critique and the freedom of speech of their students and faculty. Whereas these institutions claim to be Liberal, they do not follow the principles of Liberal Ideology and therefore are Authoritarian in nature and therefore not Liberal in nature. As I mention before, I have seen this sort of behavior in places outside of Recognized Religious Organisations. This further supports my previous claim as it demonstrates that even traditionally Liberal Ideologies are capable of adopting another ideologies principles to further its goals and in turn contradicting its traditional foundations. In this case: Authoritarian practices from Religion and become anti-liberal as a result.

Of course, this is me mostly thinking out loud. I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.

These two points suggest that Religious Ideology is capable of adopting principles from more socially agreeable ideologies as well as a motivation for doing so, however, I need to add that this is not an evolution of Religion, but rather a replacement of it. — SnowyChainsaw

Adopting principles or taking them over. Christianity is well know for taking over other ideologies and presenting as if they are their own. How many pagan holidays are still celebrated?
As B.C. says, it is doubtful that we will see the end of religion soon it is too adaptive to just shrivel and die.
Brain scanning has revealed a lot the brains activity and workings and it appears that studies were being done to see the effects of religion on the brain. Apparently there are difference between religious and non-religious brains.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-effect-brain-drugs-mormon-utah-reward-centre-nucleus-accumbens-a7446301.html

There is also apparently some research being done into the God gene hypothesis. Basically that the human carries a gene that makes it need to believe in something. Sounds like BS to me but who knows.

Either way as the saying goes, if it makes people happy they will go for it. Religion makes people happy.
They have someone to blame for the bad that happens, apart from the politicians.
They have someone to thank for the good things because they are not going to thank the politicians.
And they think they are going to end up winners in the end because they are going to heaven.

That is a good point. Although I feel this is the first time Religion has adopted a philosophy that is directly antithetical to its previous practices showing a form of "desperation" in its need to be attractive to the population.
I haven't read or heard of that study. Thanks it will be an interesting one to keep an eye on. I predict there will be a correlation between religious and non-religious brain activity, how they tackle problems and their susceptibility to outside influence.

Ok so after reading the article its not as interesting as I'd hoped. Yes, the brain rewards certain behavior with dopamine, this is nothing new. It rewards the Religiously minded when they do spiritual stuff because it has been conditioned to think that behavior is good, which is fine and is the same process for any other addictive behavior or substance. I hope they go into more detail some day.

This is what has always baffled me about the bible.
God creates a guide book.... — Sir2u

And this is just the tar-baby aspect of religion. Lots of smart people have found the courage to simply cast loose from religion, but at the same time they just can't let it go. I imagine because deep down, they want someone to "make it all right" and compel them to faith.

I can understand this. To turn from religion is to look in the face of mortality, the ultimate mystery of just about everything, and to stand apart from most other human beings and outside the protection of the common accepted wisdom. Serious business. Joking and an air of bravado simply marks that man as one who has not grasped the seriousness of it.

Yet, to my way of thinking, modern thinking, knowledge, education, and technology force a re-expression, a re-understanding, of just what a Christian is. I think at first surrender and submission were how one became a Christian. And why not. The Christian God was represented as being both more powerful and active in the life of the world and people than any Pagan Gods; He was a jealous God, and he seemed to promise much, including eternal life, all of which argument much bolstered by a general belief in magic, miracles, and the supernatural.

The test for a modern Christian, I argue, lies instead in a kind of reason. What makes sense? And that which is fantastical can be dismissed. Under ancient light, Christianity stands out in a certain kind of relief. The incomparably brighter light of modernity reveals an entirely different landscape, sculpted in part by critical questioning and a refusal to accept the ancient answers. Part of that new clarity was always already there - part of the genius of the core idea. Strip away the miracles and everything else that simply can't be (with some care; the flood, for example, happened), and what endures is the Christian message of love. To be a Christian is to love like a Christian - neither as easy or simple as it sounds. But too simple for people who don't really understand it, and who need the dressing of myth.

That is a good point. Although I feel this is the first time Religion has adopted a philosophy that is directly antithetical to its previous practices showing a form of "desperation" in its need to be attractive to the population. — SnowyChainsaw

I am not sure just how opposing this philosophy really is to the present one. I suspect they will actually be going back in time to become what they once were, a major part of the political ruling class. Sucking up more to the rich and powerful to maintain their own powers. The vatican bank has actually been doing this for many years, investing in all sorts of companies that whilst being frowned upon for the evil, sinful products they make bring huge sums of capital into the bank.

Christianity is a business, they cannot go on losing paying customers and closing up shops.

Ok so after reading the article its not as interesting as I'd hoped. — SnowyChainsaw

Oh, my first thought after reading it was will the addiction pass on to off springs like some drugs do? The second question was If so, for how long has it been passed down now?

Strip away the miracles and everything else that simply can't be (with some care; the flood, for example, happened), and what endures is the Christian message of love. To be a Christian is to love like a Christian - neither as easy or simple as it sounds. But too simple for people who don't really understand it, and who need the dressing of myth. — tim wood

The message is good though little practiced, but that applies to all religions. Love thy neighbor, as long as he goes to the same church.
Unfortunately to remove the myths, miracles and magic trim from religions there would be few followers. Most of them are there for the blessing to cover their sins or ease their pains, to take away their troubles or just to have someone take the blame for a screwed up life.
Do you understand the urge to live for eternity? I shudder at the thought of it.

Although I feel this is the first time Religion has adopted a philosophy that is directly antithetical to its previous practices showing a form of "desperation" in its need to be attractive to the populati — SnowyChainsaw

I don't think its the first time. Aquianas synthesized the ancient Greek Platonic and Aristotelean metaphysics with Christianity and his views became the official doctrine of the Catholic church. In Aquinas' time, almost everything that was distinctively Christian was in tension with the old Greek ways of thinking. Aquinas absorbed those old philosophies creating something more attractive because more inclusive.

Two ways to look at that. One way is to think that Christianity desperately tries to stay relevant by adopting whatever it can to keep people interested as things change. You could put a sunny face on it however, and say that the most influential Christian thinkers have been prepared to make changes to established principles if other schools of philosophy contain valuable insights. That's how I see Aquinas. Many contemporary Christian philosophers do a lot of work synthesizing Christianity with scientific findings and contemporary philosophical issues. I'm not a Christian, but I think the work they do is valuable.

Its funny that religious folk are damned if they do and damned if they don't! If they don't synthesize their religious ideas with contemporary science and philosophy, they are called dogmatic, stupid, anti-science fanatics. If they do synthesize, many like yourself say its a form of desperation to remain attractive to the population. All of the most interesting philosophical schools are resiliant and do synthesize with new ideas as times change, but its only the schools under the label "religion" that get told off for doing it.

“Religious folk” “dogmatic”. I think you need to look at the log in your own eye before talking about the specks in others. Atheists have a blatant refusal to believe anything about religion, even with obvious historical evidence it is still denied. You simply talk about philosophers and their thoughts but I doubt you have read any of the gospels.

As I said before a lot of Religious Organisations are in the process of being replaced by more modern notions of what is an agreeable set of morals. — SnowyChainsaw

If morals are a matter of whatever a particular society finds 'agreeable', then there is no reason to assume that the new set are an improvement on the old. There is also no reason why just because some people find them agreeable that everyone has to feel the same way. In other words, it reduces the meaning of 'moral' to 'what I happen to feel like today'.

If that isn't the intention, if we are saying that modern attitudes to slavery or homosexuality or whatever are an improvement on what has gone before, then we must believe that morality has a stronger meaning. That if a group feels it is OK to persecute homosexuals that their finding it 'agreeable' is not enough. That they are wrong. That morality is a fact, not a feeling.

But morality isn't 'modern', it isn't scientific, it isn't a fact. To treat it as if it was a fact is to believe in the existence of something that is not an object to science. How is that different from a religious belief?

To put it another way, you follow something you call 'liberal ideology' and others follow something they call 'religious ideology'. Neither is any more rational than the other - but at least the religious ideology is a bit more thought-through in that they realise the problem, they see the need to posit a metaphysical reason behind morality.

I think you misread my post. I wasn't attacking religious believers at all. I didn't call them dogmatic. I said others call them dogmatic. I used the phrase 'religious folk' not intending anything negative. I just meant religious believers. So there's no log in my eye.

You simply talk about philosophers and their thoughts — Count Radetzky von Radetz

I doubt you have read any of the gospels — Count Radetzky von Radetz

I have read the gospels, and yes I talk about philosophers and their thoughts. I'm on a Philosophy forum.

They are taking over.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article207342744.html

Not a Catholic, so won't matter.

Not a Catholic, so won't matter. — Akanthinos

Your not a catholic so it does not matter to you?
or
This discussion is about Catholics so it does not matter?

Your not a catholic so it does not matter to you?
or
This discussion is about Catholics so it does not matter? — Sir2u

Ah, no. Munoz and Protestant Evangelicals in Latin-America are not going to matter in the long run, becausethey are not Catholics. It'll just take a bit of time for a Catholic candidate to muster a reactionary mouvement that will bury Munoz. The same has happened in the Fillippines, where something like only 3% of the population is Protestant (of the Evangelical ilk, too), but they had a disproportionate amount of influence in the 90s.

And they believe really weird stuff. I had an ex who had gone to Evangelical Bible camp to learn about the Black Pope and the Papist-jewish conspiracy against God. Not actually kidding. :smirk:

It'll just take a bit of time for a Catholic candidate to muster a reactionary mouvement that will bury Munoz. — Akanthinos

I live in Central America, the Catholics are losing ground every day to the Evangelicals. But most of the candidates are catholic, they just don't use it as a political statement.