. It is my contention that though the great and the good might agree amongst themselves a definitive canon and ritual and so on, and enforce that upon the great unwashed, a religion founded on inerrancy and literalism cannot become a popular religion until the masses can read the text in a language they can understand. — unenlightened
↪ChatteringMonkey
I know what secularism is. How about the tribes that lived by the seasons, and had pagan based celebrations? What are you calling a state? The early city states? Nomadic tribal communities?
Many early worship was based on nature and animism. Such societies could be quite secular in the sense that respecting the forest or even manifesting a forrest deity, did not necessarily affect how you shared the forrest provided food amongst your tribe. We don't have a great deal of knowledge oh how early civilisations separated their pagan beliefs from how the tribe/state functioned.
Epicurean Communes were not ran under religious dictates for example. — universeness
it doesn't matter so much that it isn't literally true in the details. — ChatteringMonkey
it doesn't matter so much that it isn't literally true in the details.
— ChatteringMonkey
Of course it matters! It remains almost critical as interpretation of what non-existent gods what has plagued our species since it came out of the wilds. Theism, was a side effect of the primal fears early hominids experienced under the survival rules of the jungle, that was still fresh in the minds of early more settled and less nomadic tribal communities. It was from these mental schisms that the superiority of one human over another was manifest, alongside xenophobia, conquest and territoriality. This had it's most horrific consequences in such as the divine right of kings, messiahs and so called prophets and our entire species still suffers from this terror. For anyone to suggest that the 'truth' of preached religion does not matter, is irrational, provocative and irresponsible. — universeness
The claim is an authoritative yet wholly unsubstantiated opinion, no? — 180 Proof
I'm glad you like "tendencies" - it's helpfully vague. I'm sure there are many varieties of dogmatic atheism and one of them may be anti-scientific. But I think science is not exempt from dogmatism quite apart from the atheistic variety. Dogmatism is a tendency (!) in people, including scientific people to protect what they believe in, and there is a temptation to rule difficult questions out of court because they are inconvenient and to confuse that motive with more respectable justification for rejecting a question. I would agree that it's not part of what science should be. But then, one needs agreed starting-points to start any research. Is temporary or provisional dogmatism ok?I'm not sure that I'd put dogmatic atheism with science -- usually my feelings on dogmatic atheism is that it's anti-scientific. — Moliere
These are all 'not true'. But they tell important truths in story form. — unenlightened
But it's not about truth, it's about values — ChatteringMonkey
But it's not about truth, it's about values
— ChatteringMonkey
In REAL life, not philosophy, your values come from what you experience and what you learn.
If those values are based on lies peddled as divine truth the people get seriously messed up.
Some get so messed up that they behave like Stepford wife stye automatons in their inability to question the religious doctrine being peddled to them. However, as you suggested, we can 'park it' there for now, if you want. — universeness
Did you grow up in the U.S. South? Mormons have historically been especially disfavored in that region, although that is changing. — Hanover
I'm sure there are many varieties of dogmatic atheism and one of them may be anti-scientific. But I think science is not exempt from dogmatism quite apart from the atheistic variety. Dogmatism is a tendency (!) in people, including scientific people to protect what they believe in, and there is a temptation to rule difficult questions out of court because they are inconvenient and to confuse that motive with more respectable justification for rejecting a question. I would agree that it's not part of what science should be. But then, one needs agreed starting-points to start any research. Is temporary or provisional dogmatism ok? — Ludwig V
Here the commonly accepted bit of dogma is literalism of scripture -- interpreting scripture with respect to factual truth. I don't know if this is a principle as much... but there is a tendency among atheists to interpret scripture with an eye towards factual knowledge. Maybe not quite a principle? But close enough to count as dogma, for my purposes at least, which is to avoid becoming dogmatic. — Moliere
Grayling sees himself as a champion of the Enlightenment, but in the old battle over the interpretation of religious texts he is on the side of conservative literalist fundamentalists rather than progressive critical liberals. He believes that the scriptures must be taken at their word, rather than being allowed to flourish as many-layered parables, teeming with quarrels, follies, jokes, reversals and paradoxes.
There's an old critique of A C Grayling which seems to agree with Un's view of this, its emphasis being that 'militant atheism' in a sense needs religious texts to be rendered literally, to make its literalist critique possible: — mcdoodle
The distinction between believers and unbelievers may be far less important than Grayling and the New Atheists like to think. At any rate it cuts right across the rather interesting difference between the grim absolutists, such as Grayling and the religious fundamentalists, who think that knowledge must involve perfect communion with literal truth, and the sceptical ironists – both believers and unbelievers – who observe with a shrug that we are all liable to get things wrong, and the human intellect has a lot to be modest about. — Grauniad
Also keep in mind, some 95% of Nazi Germany were Christians. — jorndoe
There's no question that in a world packed with various forms of religious fundamentalism, which can significantly damage a culture and disrupt the world - from Trump's evangelicals, to Modi's Hindu nationalists (and let's not forget Islam) - these ideas are worth resisting, debunking, challenging. Just as the ideas of secular dictators are also worth debunking and challenging. — Tom Storm
I think that emphasis upon factual knowledge comes in some portion from the emphasis upon the confession of belief that is expressed through creeds. Contrast the significance of repeating the Nicene creed with providing an offering to Athena at her temple. Athena is not testing if you have a correct set of beliefs. She might help you if you honor her properly. — Paine
But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]" — Hanover
As I said earlier there is no faith without doubt (or at least it is extremely rare) — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.