. 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

OK. And "the masses" probably didn't read until the 19th-20th centuries. I see your point.

↪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

Ok, in written history, that is as far as we know, every state-organisation was fused with some kind of religion. So yes the early city-states in Sumer, sure.

This is speculation of course, but I would presume that most of these tribes also had some kind of mythos (a kind of mostly made up origin-story to pass on the wisdom of the tribe).

Language-use is speculated to have evolved because we are an eusocial species. That is to communicate, to share knowledge that we then can pass on over generations. Because we are social species, we are also specifically interested in all these rather mundane social happenings... and so a narrative form with characters is easier to remember and pass on over generation in an oral tradition. These eventually turned into stories about great men ancestors, semi-gods and gods etc etc.... But to return to point of the OP, you can see that if the function is to pass on wisdom in an easy to remember form, it doesn't matter so much that it isn't literally true in the details.

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 want, 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.

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

But it's not about truth, it's about values, which do not have a truth-value (as in something that can just be verified empirically). I know this is a whole other can of worms where there is much disagreement, so maybe we should park it here.

I don't doubt some of the things you alluded to were part of it, but I think there is more to it than that.

The claim is an authoritative yet wholly unsubstantiated opinion, no? — 180 Proof

Not if you count the witnesses described in the Gospels. Of course, those are not unbiased sources.

But one of the awkward issues around these old and significant stories is that they are sometimes contain a nugget or two of truth. Homer's epics are an example, as I'm sure you know. The line between history and myth is not clear.

Even if you accept the witnesses, it would not prove the resurrection. It seems not impossible that Jesus might have been in a coma when they buried him. The Resurrection was just a recovery from coma. Not that that explains everything, but it shows something about how the argument might go. And that's the point. If it's dogma, argument is not allowed or frowned upon.

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

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?

These are all 'not true'. But they tell important truths in story form. — unenlightened

Quite so. Truth is not just facts.

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.

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

Your values come for a large part from the society you get raised in. Experience feeds into it, but not in this direct factual way one maybe might presume. To put it simplistically, one experience usually doesn't suffice to evaluate a value. For that we usually tap into a larger ongoing societal dialogue. We can question those values we get passed on, sure, but it helps that we can at least start from something and that we don't have to all individually devise them out our experiences as we stumble through life. If we want to get across these larger points about values, the factual details usually are no that important.. it's the larger story-arc where it is at.

Did you grow up in the U.S. South? Mormons have historically been especially disfavored in that region, although that is changing. — Hanover

I was more midwest, but we spent some time in both Kentucky and Texas too -- it may have been in those states. The memory is too vague to remember exactly where it was at.

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

Fair, this makes sense to me. Science ought not be dogmatic, but it's done by people so it, too, can be subject to this human tendency. And many a scientist has gone to their grave defending an abandoned theory -- scientific change happens because new scientists are born, not because people change their minds. So I'm definitely painting an ideal picture rather than a real one in saying dogmatism is anti-scientific.

This is a new feature of dogmatism that hasn't been mentioned yet: dogmatism as a tendency to protect a belief. Maybe to combine two theories put forward, yours and @Wayfarer 's -- dogmatism is a tendency in human beings to protect the regular form of an accepted principle. And dogma is whatever is being protected.

Then the atheist dogma would just be those beliefs which atheists tend to accept and want to protect. Similarly so with any other person.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

This is from an old Grauniad review.

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

I think Grayling quite rightly holds that sophisticated theologies like those held by David Bentley Hart are not a great concern to anyone in daily life. No one is at risk from the God of Paul Tillich. I have no doubt Grayling can explore more sophisticated philosophical accounts of god if pressed. But these are not a significant problem.

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.

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

I wouldn't say I'm a sceptical ironist, but I sure as hell ain't no champion of the enlightenment.

:up:

:up:

, I don't think Hitler could be called a Christian soldier, more like an opportunist occultist or something.
Nazi racism and the Holocaust rode in on (age-old) existing anti-semitism, adding another level of horror.
Also keep in mind, some 95% of Nazi Germany were Christians.

It's not as if our theologically inclined brethren have a monopoly on metaphor and allegory, and certainly not on wisdom. Interestingly it was Grayling who pointed out that Christianity is not Christianity but borrowed Greek philosophy.

Yes, and one of the great tragedies of current Western culture is that it threw the baby of Greek sapience out with the bathwater of theological autocracy.

Sure. I would not argue Hitler is a Christian any more that I would argue Trump (a very different figure) is a Christian. But they both galvanized Christians expertly to achieve their political ends. And drew upon existing bigotries and hatreds that the church had fermented for generations. That's bad enough. To argue, as some might, that there were some Christians against Hitler is beside the point. Over the years, I've met many staunch Catholics who were against the Vatican and various Popes. Religion follows complex, twisted pathways, like most human endeavors.

And for that, Luther and Calvin bear the major responsibility, by rejecting scholastic philosophy in favour of fideism.

That's an elegant little piece of AC's writing.

Also keep in mind, some 95% of Nazi Germany were Christians. — jorndoe

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]"

"Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[38] Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the Kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-Church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[39"

This is an example of an atheist dogma, certainly an example of the enforced secularism and not a religious evil.

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

Excellent point! I defend the right of individuals to hold any religious faith that suits them, and to congregate and commune with like-minded individuals, but when dogma arrogates to itself the right to trespass on the political realm it deserves to be critiqued and resisted, and hopefully, put back in its place.

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

I agree. My own departure from The Rod of Truth involved both factual and emotive forces. The factual bits were important because they made me feel like I had a point, and they were also important because people would insist that this or that is true.

I don't think this quite counts as dogma though. This is more emotive narrative and personal. Maybe it's such a common feeling that it's dogma in the sense that we want to protect it, and believe it? Which would surprise me.

But if they truly believed that death is not dying, but a passage to something better, why would they be? — Vera Mont

As I said earlier there is no faith without doubt (or at least it is extremely rare).

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]" — Hanover

Could be. Doesn't mean the Nazi's didn't make consistent and effective use of Christianity in 'productive' ways, tapping into associated anti-Semitism and nationalism, which so often accompany religious dogma. It's worth noting that Hitler killed allies and associates when he had strategic changes (e.g., Ernst Rohm and the SA, who were so useful in establishing Nazi power at the start). Even if Hitler was an atheist and even if Hitler wanted to vanquish Christianity after the war was won - has little bearing upon the cultural uses of Christianity in galvanizing the German Volk and supporting the Nazi worldview and plans. After all, even an assassin is likely to dispose of the rifle once the killing is done.

As I said earlier there is no faith without doubt (or at least it is extremely rare) — Janus

Right. So... They believe that their God is all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, merciful and benevolent. Except they're not sure enough to trust him/them with their lives. Ordinary guys in the trenches have more confidence in their comrades, children in parents and spouses in each other. Hm.

:smirk:

Here's an example of atheist dogma. Einstein's relativity theory, by denying the possibility of an absolute present, also denies the possibility of God. "I am" of God requires an objective present, or else what is now, could also not be now, by the ambiguity of "now" Therefore relativity is atheist. And Einstein's relativity is the dogma of physics, hence "atheist dogma".

:eyes: :rofl:

:wink: :kiss:

, sure, if the Catholic and Protestant organizations couldn't be reined in, then they might have faced disassembly of sorts; I guess we'll never know.
That part isn't about non/theism, it's power politics.
Authoritarians use larger/influential organizations or them' begone.
(We can speculate on religion in the area if the Nazis hadn't lost; I'm guessing (pure conjecture on my part) that there'd have been some moves toward occultism or Germanic paganism of sorts.)
The earlier point, however, was that Nazi anti-semitism didn't appear out of the blue, but was part of a larger (sub)culture/tradition that Luther also was part of, another proactive part.
An established precedence in 1939's Nazi + Christian Germany.