Religion dealt with ethics before philosophy ever did. Philosophy borrowed from religion and then separated in some cases. I have a degree in philosophy. You’re talking to me like I don’t value philosophy. I believe in the Golden Rule (from religion) as a guiding principle for our conduct. I am also a neo-deontologist in that I think you can infer moral truths from the categorical imperative (modified for some context).

Religion teaches by parables and mythology. It is another way to gain wisdom. Philosophy is also valuable. It seems you don’t appreciate the meaning of the term “wisdom”. At least it is difficult to discern any in you.

Religion dealt with ethics before philosophy ever did. Philosophy borrowed from religion and then separated in some cases. I have a degree in philosophy. You’re talking to me like I don’t value philosophy. I believe in the Golden Rule (from religion) as a guiding principle for our conduct. I am also a neo-deontologist in that I think you can infer moral truths from the categorical imperative (modified for some context). — Noah Te Stroete

No, I'm not suggesting that you don't value philosophy. My point was that what you're describing is actually covered by the branch of philosophy known as ethics. In a scenario where you were trying sell me religion based on the features and benefits, I'd be like: that's not a unique selling point, why shouldn't I just buy a different product? And likewise with the search for wisdom.

Again, religion is redundant. What can it do that science and philosophy can't?

I’m not trying to sell you religion. It works for some people. It doesn’t work for others. And some people take it so literally that it causes real harm. I don’t think it’s for everyone.

I’m not trying to sell you religion. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, no shit. It was merely hypothetical. Just a way of getting the point across. If you were, you'd have your work cut out for you, as I'm not a gullible consumer.

Philosophy doesn’t work for everyone either. It takes a special kind of nerd to study philosophy. ;)

Religion teaches by parables and mythology. It is another way to gain wisdom. — Noah Te Stroete

The Internet can’t give you a guide on how to live a good life by itself, nor can science for that matter, but a religious text can teach one wisdom. — Noah Te Stroete

After reading this, I am curious in what respect religious texts have more to offer, in terms of wisdom, than the internet or the literature of the social sciences? And would this be true for all religious texts, or only those texts that pertain to a specific religion?

Alrighty then, let's take a step back here and see what we've got. So, religion can't do anything that science or philosophy can't do. So, religion is redundant. It has no unique selling point. Now, how many wars of religion have there been? And how many acts of terrorism have been carried out in the name of religion?

Like I said, it can cause real harm if taken too literally. I find fault in the teachers of religion and their political motives.

Like I said, it can cause real harm if taken too literally. I find fault in the teachers of religion and their political motives. — Noah Te Stroete

Minus religion from the equation. Now, what would be the loss, given that religion can't do anything that science or philosophy can't do? And what would be the gain, given all of the wars and acts of terrorism avoided?

Religion is not for everyone. Philosophy is not for everyone. I was speaking of the Internet as a network of computers. Of course there are specific sites on the Internet that have valuable information. That wasn’t my point. A library full of books would do the same job. It takes a discerning mind with some humility to gain wisdom. I’m not calling myself wise, but I am trying. Science is not the end all and be all. It has its domain.

There would still be wars. They just would have to come up with different propaganda. Religion taken literally with political motives is propaganda.

A person of average or lesser intelligence has trouble understanding philosophy and science. Religion taught with wisdom and compassion has its place.

There is wisdom to be found in various religions.

There would still be wars. They just would have to come up with different propaganda. Religion taken literally with political motives is propaganda. — Noah Te Stroete

Sure, sure. Exactly the same number of wars would have occurred, and they would have lasted just as long, and been just as devastating, and it would be a similar thing with acts of terrorism, except that it would've been some other motive. The European wars of religion would have instead been the European wars of cheese, and the twin towers would still have fallen as a result of a terrorist attack, but it would instead have been in the name of cats or some shit.

The people who are in charge of starting wars are out for profit and power. They could just as easily engender tribalism in the masses based on different philosophies.

The people who are in charge of starting wars are out for profit and power. They could just as easily engender tribalism in the masses based on different philosophies. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh, come off it. I don't believe that you could really be so clueless about the religious zealotry that has been a fundamental cause of wars and acts of terrorism all over the world for hundreds and hundreds of years right up to the present day. You must just be in denial.

I suggest you read “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler. Furthermore, your tribal attitude in defense of your worldview is all that is needed. What about the Soviet bloc?

A person of average or lesser intelligence has trouble understanding philosophy and science. Religion taught with wisdom and compassion has its place. — Noah Te Stroete

Nope, I could just as easily flip that over and say that a person of average or lesser intelligence has trouble understanding religion, whereas philosophy and science taught with wisdom and compassion has its place.

They all have their place! You could just as easily say philosophy is redundant and not religion. It’s a different mode of teaching.

I suggest you read “War is a Racket” by General Smedley Butler. — Noah Te Stroete

It will be added to the bottom of my reading list, and will likely remain there for quite some time.

Furthermore, your tribal attitude in defense of your worldview is all that is needed. — Noah Te Stroete

All that is needed for what? I might come across as a little blunt and forthright in manner, a little combative, a little sarcastic, therefore I'm exactly the kind of person who would start a war or commit an act of terrorism in the name of religion, money, power, or any other cause whatsoever? That's a bit of a stretch.

What about the Soviet bloc? — Noah Te Stroete

What about it? I know the history quite well, but what's your point? The wars of religion, the acts of terror inspired by religion, the religiously motivated oppression and persecution, punishment, torture, and extreme methods of execution, dwarf the examples of similar antireligious acts by perpetrators who were atheist.

Yes, I believe your tribalism could be cultivated given effective propaganda. The Soviet bloc was one of the most abusive regimes in history, especially to their own people.

They all have their place! You could just as easily say philosophy is redundant and not religion. It’s a different mode of teaching. — Noah Te Stroete

Okay, let's minus philosophy from the equation and see how that looks. Phew! Good thing we avoided those European wars of philosophy. And look! The twin towers are still standing because those terrorists who were zealous adherents of Socratic philosophy lived completely different lives.

You really are more tribal than I am. I don’t really care if you personally don’t find value in religion. I do. I don’t wish to fight you, and I am done engaging you.

Yes, I believe your tribalism could be cultivated given effective propaganda. — Noah Te Stroete

:rofl:

The Soviet bloc was one of the most abusive regimes in history, especially to their own people. — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, but you would need to add up all of the abuses of religious regimes throughout our entire history and compare it to that. The abuses of the Soviet bloc would clearly be dwarfed. You do realise how recent and short lived that was, and how the victims numbered considerably less, relative to the long, long list of religious abuses spanning hundreds and hundreds of years, right?

You really are more tribal than I am. I don’t really care if you personally don’t find value in religion. I do. I don’t wish to fight you, and I am done engaging you. — Noah Te Stroete

It is an ad hominem to focus on my alleged tribalism instead of the content of what I'm actually saying. Let's face it, you're throwing in the towel because you're losing the fight. :strong:

That sounds more like something a Satanist would say to egg someone on rather than a reasonable atheist.

Religion is not for everyone. Philosophy is not for everyone. I was speaking of the Internet as a network of computers. Of course there are specific sites on the Internet that have valuable information. That wasn’t my point. A library full of books would do the same job. It takes a discerning mind with some humility to gain wisdom. I’m not calling myself wise, but I am trying. Science is not the end all and be all. It has its domain. — Noah Te Stroete

There is wisdom to be found in various religions. — Noah Te Stroete

But then it seems that you assign value to the content of the texts themselves, regardless of whether they have a religious origin. In other words, there is wisdom to be found everywhere. And I would agree with you; that a text has a religious origin should not merely on that basis exclude it from our base of analysis or learning.

I think the main problem with the religions I know (Christianity and Islam) is that their scripture and method do not extend us that same courtesy. Both the Bible and the Qur'an explicitly state that their contents, as fragments of divine revelation, cannot be disputed or compared to sources of other origin. The latter sources can, in a religious method, only contain wisdom in so far as their contents do not go against the claims of scripture. That seems like an undue limitation on inquiry or reasoning, that can only be justified by presupposing a state of affairs that we have no reason to assume is true (at least not over any other possible state of affairs).

That sounds more like something a Satanist would say to egg someone on rather than a reasonable atheist. — Noah Te Stroete

Ah, it "sounds like" that, does it? Well, I must be guilty by association then! And it's a good thing that you're focussing more on what it "sounds like" to you than what I'm actually saying.

Saint Noah Te Stroete: beacon of reason. We should all take a leaf out of his holy book.

I don’t disagree with you. Personally, I don’t believe the Bible is infallible as a text. It was written by fallible men, and it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways. It takes humility to be open to different interpretations and admit that your interpretation could be wrong.