Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own. — T. R. V. Murti

:up: The no-doctrines way. That touched a chord in me. The notion of "factually correct" becomes meaningless.

:flower:

A lot of Buddhists would answer 'no'. But the first real in-depth book on Buddhist philosophy I read was The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by T.R.V. Murti. He was an Indian scholar who had trained at Oxford, and the book has many in-depth comparisons between Buddhist and European philosophy, especially Kant. See this. — Wayfarer

That book is yet another attempt to incorporate non-western philosophy into western, highly abstract philosophies. To put a western umbrella on top of them. It's not a translation but an eating to digest them and shit out Kantian ideas.

Are you arguing that all religions should become like secular humanism? — Pinprick

Certainly not. ) I'm just making observations

It's not a translation but an eating to digest them and shit out Kantian ideas. — TenderBar

It's a great book, a classic. Bet you knew nothing about it until this thread (and still don't).

. Of course, there are secular Jews, even atheist Jews like Harari, but they lie somewhat outside of the instant discussion, right? — Michael Zwingli

Are there? Really? Who would have thought that?

Is Judaism an ethnicity? A race? A nationality?

It's a great book, a classic. Bet you knew nothing about it until this thread (and still don't). — Wayfarer

Why do you think that I dont know the book? Its a typical book meant to assimilate.

Why do you think that I dont know the book? — TenderBar

Just a wild guess. Am I right? Go on, don't be bashful.

I many cases I can tell by physical appearance if someone is jewish. They are Kaukasian but have distinct features.

Just a wild guess. Am I right? Go on, don't be bashful. — Wayfarer

Yes, you are right. But I have a suspicion...

That's fair.

The very concept of a solitary, omnipresent, omnipotent and onmiscient God developed first among the Israelites of old. Christianity, largely thanks to the fact of the first Christians being Jewish Christians, as well as the influence among the Greeks of Saul of Tarsus, took that conception of God directly from the Jews. — Michael Zwingli

Whether Christianity can properly be called monotheistic presents an interesting question. The concept of the Trinity--three Divine Persons in a single Godhood--has always been something of a problem in Christianity. How could it not be? The good old Credo (derived from the Council of Nicea) spells out the difficulty, and the unsatisfying resolution of the difficulty, quite well. To use the English translation of the Latin: "I believe in one God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth....And in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, born of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father..."

For Jesus to be God, he must of course be consubstantial with the Father, and with the other Person, the Holy Spirit, but the "Three Persons" seems oddly dissimilar to "One God." Then there is, or was, the cult of the saints (who are sometimes strangely similar to pagan gods), and of course the status of Mary. All this has been explained, rather clumsily I believe, by apologists for centuries. But Christianity for me seems more like a hodgepodge of Judaism of the first century B.C.E., Greco-Roman religions current at the time, with a bit of pagan philosophy thrown in for good measure, than anything else. That may account for its astonishing success.

Everything for you is an argument. Who is justifying what to whom? Actual members of the religious community don’t have to justify to you. And internally, they may not justify to one another - they simply receive what has come before. — Ennui Elucidator

Dude, this is a philosophy forum. Do you not expect to be asked to justify your assertions? You’re asserting that the correct interpretation of religious texts is non-literal. I’m asking you why. I’m asking because to me the more logical assumption to make is that they mean what they say. So when they say the universe was created in 7 days, it’s literally what they mean, unless there’s reason to doubt this. I find no reason to do so other than to rectify its contradiction with science.

The question is not WHY they believe what they do, but whether religious people accept that their sacred myths are allegorical and not historical. — Ennui Elucidator

I’m not talking about beliefs of religious people at all. I’m talking about religious founders intentions. The question is why do you think these religious founders did not intend for their teachings, sayings, etc. to be taken literally?

You made the claim that no religious group admits that their stories are not making factual claims. When shown evidence to the contrary, you want to argue about why they admit it and whether their admission qualifies according to your as-of-yet undisclosed standard. — Ennui Elucidator

What evidence? We both agreed, or so I thought, that there was no evidence of what the religious founders intentions were. That means we’re both assuming what their intentions were. I’m asking why you’re making the assumption you are. But, regarding evidence, if the Pope admitted Christianity was fictional, that would fit the bill. But, my guess is that you could ask just about any Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. if their religion is fictional, and they would say no. Almost nobody believes that, because there’s no reason to believe that. That is never suggested by the people who started the religions, or by those who commented on religion in the beginning. My theory is that interpreting the Bible (and therefore Christianity), for example, in a non-literal way only began when the Bible’s empirical claims began to clash with newly discovered scientific facts.

The bottom line is that if religions are truly meant to be interpreted non-literally, then the people who created those religions would more than likely have made that intention known. There’s no evidence that they suggested that was their intentions. Therefore, it’s more likely that that was not their intent.

If you spent as much time googling as writing wholly speculative posts, you might have learned something by now. Founders are long since dead and gone. A religion exists as a product of its people in dialogue with its past. When you ask “What Does X believe”, you don’t read a book, you ask the members of the religion. Some books are good authorities on what X believes and some are not. I leave you to your judgement.

In any event, what people believe is not changed by their justification for what they believe. You might want them to justify, but they don’t have to and they may not have any answer that satisfies you. That won’t make them stop believing. So if the question is, “Does X believe?” it is a waste of time to engage in talks about why they do so.

Meaning is not inherent in words or traditions. Actual people give meaning. Discussing religion as if it is somehow different than the rest of meaning making (or interpretive contexts) is just silly.

not that it has anything to do with the topic of this thread, but yes, yes, it was Saul/Paul, he of Tarsus, dogmatist par excellence, who put this all together in his own creative way. It was Paul who created "ex nihilo", as it were, the "Christ", which can bear but little resemblance to this man Ye'shua (Jesus), whom Paul never knew in life, and whom we really know so little about. Paul actually created an entirely new type of religion, very much without precedent, getting a great deal of pushback from the leaders of the "Jesus movement" in Jerusalem along the way, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Protestant Christians eliminate the Mary and saints problem quite handily, but having been raised Roman Catholic myself, I am very familiar with the issue, as well as the conundrum posed by Trinitarianism. The usual recitational formula is "three persons in one God". The problem with this for me is that the Church refuses to define what if means by using the term "persons". English "person" has a variety of meanings and senses, a wide semantic field, and the Church never specifies what sense it might be ascribing to the term in their use of it. "Three persons" here cannot mean "three distinct beings", as that would be tantamount to describing a pantheon. Perhaps by "persons", they mean "emanations"? This is never advanced as the meaning, though. It is a huge unresolved doctrinal problem for the Church, usually minimized or explained away as "a mystery of the faith". Not that I myself mind a little mystery, I just don't like it served as an explanation for an assertion which is irrational on it's face, and an apparent mathematical impossibility.

I’m talking about religious founders intentions. — Pinprick

And for the record, you may want to consider something called “moving the goal posts” in your quest to be logical.

I’m just asking for evidence, because to the best of my knowledge, no religions make such claims. — Pinprick

Also, the vast majority of the followers of these religions make no such claim. — Pinprick

I simply pointed out you have no knowledge of what the founders’ intent was…

It would be good if we could at least discuss people that you have some evidence about rather than compare unsupported theories about what the founders may have intended. — Ennui Elucidator

Look around for evidence of what actual religious people besides fundamentalist Christians think and you may discover a rich history of religious thought where religious myth is happily understood not as historical fact. — Ennui Elucidator

IOW’s, I take whatever religious text you want to use at face value. — Pinprick

No one who is religious cares what you think, Pinprick. You don’t control their interpretation of the sacred texts or their understanding of their sacred myths. So if you participate in a discussion about the point of religion (present tense), you need to look at what religious people espouse/believe, not what you do. It would be like watching porn and thinking that women enjoy what they are moaning to - you see what you want even though anyone that has a clue understands it is fiction.

The peculiarities of Christianity, and in particular those of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, are fascinating in themselves, and it's easy enough to lose oneself in them. But I think they can be relevant to the topic of the thread.

I think factual correctness isn't and shouldn't be the goal of religion, because its subject matter is largely ineffable (as is that of art). But I think that a religion should be at least reasonable to a degree, i.e. that it shouldn't require those who believe in it approve of and accept assertions, concepts or ideas that are clearly absurd. It's a personal opinion only, I suppose, but I think one of the goals of a religion should be to avoid being ridiculous.

For me, acceptance of sky-god religions, the Abrahamic religions, in their original form, requires acceptance of certain essential beliefs which clearly make no sense and are inexplicable. That seems to have worked quite well for a very long time, but any belief system which is incredible will provide no insight, no comfort, no joy, no contentment to a person inclined to accept what we encounter in life and the world. So we see apologists for that kind of religion becoming more and more inclined over the years to ignore if not reject those essential beliefs and claims of exclusiveness, or refer to them as metaphors, or as not to be taken literally.

what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

But if a religion or philosophy is not correct (according to the opinion of most people) how can it give them moral guidance and the rest? If, e.g., I say inconsistent, nonsensical etc. things are you going to take my advices seriously?

Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, it seems they have and in fact a massive interest! (Not for me, of course, but for millions if not billions of people.)

it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes — stoicHoneyBadger

(BTW, "living out those believes" -> "leaving out those believers")
That's an interesting idea. The believers would be certainly left out!

The fact of the wrapper-story being factually correct — stoicHoneyBadger

I'm not sure if we can talk about the correctness of a story. A story is just a story.

***

Because, I sound somewhat negative with my above remarks, I will talk now about something positive: :smile:

Reasoning can be evaluated as correct or not. So, I believe what can not only gain existing believers from various religions, but also gain followers from non-believers. To create a successful religious philosophy, it must be based on a sound ethical system. A system that is rational and will resonate as logical to people. Such a system could be based, e.g. on the principle of "major good for the most". Ethical behavior based on helping and enhancing survival and well-beingness, for oneself, the family, the society, the humanity. Such a system is objective, since it is applicable everywhere in the world. Behavior can also be evaluated, always according to the customs and values of the civilization to which such an ethics system is applied.

Other ethics systems can also be considered. But a religion and religious philosophy must be based on ethics and appeal to reason.

But if a religion or philosophy is not correct (according to the opinion of most people) how can it give them moral guidance and the rest? If, e.g., I say inconsistent, nonsensical etc. things are you going to take my advices seriously? — Alkis Piskas

No, I would not take an advice seriously if it sounds like nonsense to me. )
But if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'.

Well, it seems them have and in fact a massive interest! (Not for me, of course, but for millions if not billions of people.) — Alkis Piskas

No, the interest is because those commandments are wrapped in a story.

To create a successful religious philosophy, it must be based on a sound ethical system. A system that is rational and will resonate as logical to people. — Alkis Piskas

I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system. Also note that it needs to have thumos, i.e. its adepts need to be driven to action, not just nodding in agreement with some ethical ideas.

For example, look at Islam. We would consider the ideas archaic, yet their followers are full of energy to implement them with fire and blood. While all that utilitarianism stuff clearly won't drive anybody to wage a holly war on the non-believers in the holly head of Jeremy Bentham. :D

I think factual correctness isn't and shouldn't be the goal of religion, because its subject matter is largely ineffable (as is that of art). But I think that a religion should be at least reasonable to a degree, i.e. that it shouldn't require those who believe in it approve of and accept assertions, concepts or ideas that are clearly absurd. It's a personal opinion only, I suppose, but I think one of the goals of a religion should be to avoid being ridiculous. — Ciceronianus

I quite agree with you, save that I would rather a 'high degree' of, though not necessarily absolute, factual correctness in religion. I feel thusly because of one of the three purposes that I ascribe to religion in general, namely the provision of vital purpose...of a sense of purpose in peoples' lives. The three valid reasons that I have been able to discern for religion are: (1) to bring people together as a community in a world of diverse nation states and mega-cities, both of which tend to thwart the formation of reasonably sized communal structures, (2) to provide significant and meaningful ritual to the observance of the milestones of peoples' lives, and so render those milestones increasedly significant, and (3) to provide people with a vital purpose which can make their lives more meaningful.

If we are to tell people that the purpose of their lives is to one day live in "heaven" (which, after all, is the old Anglo-Saxon word for "sky") with God, the angels, and the redeemed, which assertion appears to be unfactual for many reasons, then I think we do them a disservice. This, because we initially delude them, and because if they are eventually able to rationalize away said delusion, they are left with the horrible feeling of living an utterly purposeless life (this I know from experience, as I have experienced that "dark night of the soul"). Even so, it is for this last stated reason that I am not in favor of disabusing people of what Dawkins called their "God delusion" unless I have some alternate belief system to replace it, and so avoid the deficit of purpose which might arise as a consequence of my actions. All in all, I think it better to live with delusion than with purposelessness. So, when people tell me that they believe God, or Jesus, or Saint Jude, etc., is going to help them with some problem, I simply nod affirmatively, and tell them that "I hope so", since I have no "religion" to replace what I might damage.

For reasons involving the foregoing, I would rather we inculcate religion within our yor children which does not stand in essential opposition to any known or reasonably theorized fact of reality. What such relugion might look like, I am unsure as yet, but it is something that I have been giving much thought to recently.

I think we're generally in agreement on these issues. The need someone like Dawkins apparently feels to tell everyone there is no God strikes me as no more appealing than the need others feel to tell everyone there is a God.

As far as alternatives to what seems to be our common upbringing in the Catholic faith, for me, the immanent deity of the Stoics has an appeal, or some form of pantheism or pandeism.

The need someone like Dawkins apparently feels to tell everyone there is no God strikes me as no more appealing than the need others feel to tell everyone there is a God. — Ciceronianus

I feel the same. To my mind, the Dawkinsian/Hitchensian imperative reflects the difference between atheism and antitheism. The atheist arrives at his stance based upon what I call "the (Bertrand) Russell rule": the acceptance of supernatural claims demands supernatural proofs, the atheist being he who has discerned no evidence for the supernatural claim of a divine being of any type (but in the instant case, one which is conveniently incorporeal...omnipresent...as well as omniscient and omnipotent), and so does not believe the claim for lack of evidence, yet allows for the possibility of the supernatural, including of deity, which has not yielded any evidence. In contrast, the antitheist is he who is opposed to the very concept of God, believes affirmatively that there is no such thing, and often scoffs at those who choose to believe, as well as those who allow for the unverified possibility.

As far as alternatives to what seems to be our common upbringing in the Catholic faith, for me, the immanent deity of the Stoics has an appeal, or some form of pantheism or pandeism. — Ciceronianus

Hmmm. I have been giving this problem of alternatives some thought recently, because I believe that religion adds a great deal to human life. Regarding the Stoic concept of deity, I have but meager knowledge, and even less understanding. I have read Seneca's De Providentia, but as I was studying Latin at the time, my reading thereof was more focused on the Latin grammar and sentence structure, and not at all on actively synthesizing the ideas presented into a coherent whole. My reading was of the Latin text, in an extremity of fits and starts, and with frequent but disjointed references to the parrallell English text. Luckily, I still have the Loeb Classics edition, so I can revisit that work by reading only the English text. I wonder, which other of the Stoic authors may I turn to for an exposition of this topic?

Certainly, there exist religions which present non-theistically. Buddhism, for instance presents itself as a non-theistic alternative in the eyes of many. It is not a theistic religion per se, but it seems to have it's own ideological and epistemological problems, nonetheless. For instance, it presupposes reincarnation, which itself is steeped in the concept of "the soul" as an eternal, incorporeal part of every living thing, something which we have no more evidence for than for God. Within Buddhism, the achievement of "moksha" involves the breaking of samsara, the cycle of reincarnation, and this is the ultimate purpose rendered to men by that religious observance. In addition, I feel that Buddhist ideology places an impossible task on it's adherents by injuncting them to renounce all attachment and all desire, even while there are evolutionarily established, genetically determined desires which are inherent in homo sapiens. In so doing, it is creating an imperative for men and women to renounce an integral aspect of their humanity, which I fear an impossible task for most.

As science exposes more and more of the nature of our universe, it appears that theistic religion shall become less and less tenable for many, the fact becoming more and more apparent that there is no evidence for the existence of any gods. My supposition is that the future of religion lies, ironically in my view, within the sphere of what would most aptly be called "neopaganism". I, as well, have considered the pantheistic idea, but the principle of deification, even of nature, inherent in that term throws me a bit. The tendency might develop to deify every star and mountain individually, which sends us from the apparent delusion of monotheism right back to the greater delusion of polytheism. Do you not suppose that the conception of Dyeus Pater, essentially a deification of the sun, by the Proto-Indo-Europeans proceeded directly from the pantheistic mindset? We all know where that led: Zeus, Jupiter, and all their preposterous colleagues. I think, rather, that an effective religion can be nature-based, universe-based, or existence-based without deification of any kind, perhaps by observing and reverencing nature and the universe that we can percieve, without engaging in any kind of "worship" of anything.

Such are my thoughts pertaining to this, to religion in general. Sorry for rambling on...it's not often that I have occasion to express these usually solitary ruminations.

For reasons involving the foregoing, I would rather we inculcate religion within our yor children which does not stand in essential opposition to any known or reasonably theorized fact of reality. What such relugion might look like, I am unsure as yet, but it is something that I have been giving much thought to recently. — Michael Zwingli

I’ve already linked several of them. The gift of the existentialists to some extent is that modern people could use the same language/customs/rituals of their forebearers but understand them in fundamentally different ways, i.e. give them their own meaning. Existence precedes essence - the past is gone and has no claim to the meaning we make in the present. What was once a church is now a night club, no matter how deeply the buildiers of the church wanted it to be something else. Insisting that building is not a church is both right and wrong, but pretending as if it has no history is just disingenuous.

The gift of the existentialists to some extent is that modern people could use the same language/customs/rituals of their forebearers but understand them in fundamentally different ways, i.e. give them their own meaning. Existence precedes essence - the past is gone and has no claim to the meaning we make in the present. — Ennui Elucidator

:up:
My, I didn't realize that I had so many typos in my post...partly the fault of a bothersomely autocorrective AI, and partly my fat fingers on a tiny keyboard!

So if you participate in a discussion about the point of religion (present tense), you need to look at what religious people espouse/believe, not what you do. — Ennui Elucidator

I’m fine playing by your rules. But, I’d like to know what exactly your position is. Do you think religions were intended to be non-literal? Why or why not?

BTW, my personal religious views are irrelevant, as are yours. I’ve no concern in converting others, or what have you. I’m open to the idea that religions are meant to be metaphorical, but I just haven’t seen any good evidence of that. They do make empirical claims that I think most people would be hard pressed to interpret any way other than literal, but that’s just me.

if I like the advice itself, I might ignore the fact that it comes from a 'not very credible source'. — stoicHoneyBadger

I agree. That's what I would do too.

the interest is because those commandments are wrapped in a story. — stoicHoneyBadger

This indeed may be true. However, I don't think that these commandments and the story behind them, work like tales for little children ... If I remember well, when I heard about them in a Religion course (in elementary school, I think), I felt a kind of awe ... Not pleasant though! A feeling of blind obedience or something like that. And this is maybe how they were intended for. Actually, the whole Old Τestament is base on creating such an awe, if not terror! (Biblical catastrophes, God's relentless vengeance and punishment, etc.)
On the other hand, I loved the stories about Jesus. The New Testament is much lighhter and inspiring!

I highly doubt that you can use logic to derive an ethical system. — stoicHoneyBadger

Well, this sounds like a prejudice. It also sounds that you didn't read what I wrote on the subject! :smile:

How does Christianity survive without supernaturalism or the fact of Jesus (either as historical person or son of god)? How does it survive without a claim to exclusive access to heaven? Those are great questions for Christians and they seem to be working on them. If/when they move on and the Christian community follows them, will they in that instant stop being Christians? I doubt it. — Ennui Elucidator

They'll probably still call themselves Christians, but they won't be able to promise salvation anymore.


"Progressiveness" always comes with a cost: it works on the assumption that the original (or any previous version of the) religion is ineffective, impotent, that it cannot and does not deliver what it promises.

Given this, the progressives have two options:
One: they assume superiority over the original religion (or over whatever version came before theirs); as in "Those before us didn't get it right, but we do, and we can in fact deliver what is being promised".
Two: They relativize the whole project of religious/spiritual attainment (such as by suggesting there "really", "ultimately" is no attainment, or that it is irrelevant).

Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

By "factually incorrect" you mean what?

That there is no heaven, no eternal damnation, and no nibbana?

I got the reference. Do I take this as a compliment or an insult? — Tom Storm