You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion". — baker
The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine. — baker
If a person says they have "left Christianity", but it turns out they have a poor knowledge of Christianity, then what has such a person actually left? Half-baked ideas, misremembered slogans, false equivocations, hasty generalizations, superficial socializing, ... and not necessarily "Christianity". — baker
For instance, I could ask a dozen questions about rebirth that no one could answer.
— praxis
I double dare you. — baker
Given that in life you also do a lot of other things, their effects mitigate eachother. If you once stole a loaf of bread, but you later regret it, work hard, earn money, and with it buy a hundred loaves of bread and give them to charity, then having stolen that one loaf once can be mitigated and then some.1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis
If you ask a "book reader" about this they will say that such things are imponderable, or to put it another way, the book they read from is fiction.
It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well.You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion".
— baker
If true, is that relevant? — Tom Storm
The extent of a person's knowledge of their religion's doctrine only becomes relevant for other people when that person claims to be a representative of said religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine.
— baker
Are you saying that people are only real Christians or Muslims if they have a extensive knowledge of the religion's doctrine? I would think then that only a tiny percentage of believers qualify as 'real'.
How can someone believe in God in any intelligible manner unless they have at least some knowledge of theistic religious doctrine??Generally people leave religions because they don't believe in god. Knowledge of the religion may not be a factor.
No. But one can't be an anti-theist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god.Will you also argue, by extension, that one can't be a true atheist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god?
I expect that someone who claims to "believe in democracy" has at least studied up on what "democarcy" means, and related themes, and preferrably, can discuss the topic.Can one believe in democracy unless someone has studied the history of democracy and has a working knowledge of political science and alternative governments?
It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?
It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well. — baker
How can someone believe in God in any intelligible manner unless they have at least some knowledge of theistic religious doctrine??
If they don't have such knowledge, but still claim to "believe in God", then such a "belief in God" is likely wishful thinking, idiosyncratic. It's no surprise then if such a person "leaves the religion". — baker
I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?
It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.
It's like with any other claim of proficiency in something. If, for example, someone claims to "speak French", and then it turns out that they know only a few phrases in French, it's only natural to be skeptical about whatever claims they make about French. — baker
Scientific textbooks and terms are not authorities.
— praxis
No, people just treat them as such. — baker
Given that in life you also do a lot of other things, their effects mitigate eachother. If you once stole a loaf of bread, but you later regret it, work hard, earn money, and with it buy a hundred loaves of bread and give them to charity, then having stolen that one loaf once can be mitigated and then some. — baker
What is said to be imponderable is knowing in advance what consequence some particular action you did now will have in the future, given that you will also do a lot of other things and their effects will mitigate each other. But right now, we don't know what other things you'll also do, hence the imponderability. — baker
What you describe above is more like the Jain doctrine, a type of karmic fatalism. Hindu or Buddhist doctrines of karma are different.
...
Instead of freestyling your ideas about karma and rebirth... — baker
My understanding of such studies are that it is community and being with people for a common cause promotes flourishing. I don’t think this is deniable. The theistic part of it is likely to be moot, but in today’s atomised culture, it is generally only sporting clubs or religious groups that still encourage and build community and no doubt people benefit. Has nothing to say about the truth of those beliefs - it’s likely more about the power of conformity (shared values) and tribalism.
But I think you could also say that being a Nazi in Germany in the 1930’s seemed to boost metrics of flourishing (for most) too. All that community building, sport, collaboration, infrastructure. Shared values and the promotion of a strong culture certainly seemed to benefit most of the citizens.
Yes and no. All groups help promote common metrics of well being. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. :sparkle: :eyes:.Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48
It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats.
Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid.
When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion – its message becomes meaningless. — Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
Oh Jesus. I have simply identified a boundary. Identifying a boundary is not "sneering and insinuating".It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well.
— baker
What a sneering and insinuating response. Thanks. — Tom Storm
Where? In your mind, apparently obsessed with judgment and persecution.where does 'some' knowledge become sufficient for you to decide they are true Christians or true Muslims since this seems to be your concern?
I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?
Nevertheless, the secular community contains numerous members who were once devout. They found their way out. — Tom Storm
Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. — 180 Proof
Yes. It's a trend toward infantilization and consumerism. And a victim mentality.This is an excellent point. It used to be that people looking for spiritual truths would abandon everything they had to live with some great teacher. Rigorous study, ascetic practices, long periods of meditation — these are the norm in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions.
To be sure, these traditions allowed for other roads to enlightenment or spontaneous revelation. But in general, the truth required a great deal of study and praxis to ascertain.
But now the general take is: "beliefs about the most central questions if what being is and how we should live should be summarizable in five minutes." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Of course. But it's not simply blind trust. If one is going to even have a conversation with another person, then one should be able to act in good faith to begin with. Otherwise, why even begin talking to them?Saint Augustine makes a related point, which is that we can never learn anything without trusting others. Our parents might not be our real parents. Our kids might not be our real kids, they could have been switched at birth. Anything we are taught could be bunk.
And yet, if you don't put effort in, assuming your physics textbook might be able to shed some light on the world for you, then you'll never get anywhere in understanding the subject. The same is true for theology, which is up with philosophy for most abstract disciplines.
Oh Jesus. I have simply identified a boundary. Identifying a boundary is not "sneering and insinuating". — baker
It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well. — baker
It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.
It's in the nature of religiosity that different people will have varying degrees of knowledge of and involvement in their religion.
But the extent of their knowledge of and involvement in their religion becomes relevant if they claim to deserve some kind of special recognition and respect. — baker
Heaven knows I'm no fan of religion. But I think many atheists, agnostics, and humanists grossly understimate it. As far as I'm concerned, these atheists etc. have nothing helpful to offer me as far as dealing with a religious problem is concerned. — baker
Whatever my religious problem was at the time.That may well be true. But what are you counting as a religious problem? — Tom Storm
The cunning. The tenacity. The mental and physical toughness. The bad faith. The wealth. The socio-economic power.What is the secular thinker underestimating - the emotional support; the explanatory power; the metaphysical explanation, the meaning of religon?
So far, you haven't asked any such question that I can't answer. — baker
What is said to be imponderable is knowing in advance what consequence some particular action you did now will have in the future, given that you will also do a lot of other things and their effects will mitigate each other. But right now, we don't know what other things you'll also do, hence the imponderability.
The tenacity. The mental and physical toughness.
“I have wild animals,” the proconsul said. “I’ll throw you to them unless you change your mind.”
“Call them in,” Polycarp replied, “for we are not allowed to change from something better to something worse.”
Immediately they began to pile the wood around him. They were going to nail him to the stake as well, but Polycarp said, “Leave me the way I am. He who gives me power to endure the fire will help me to remain in the flames without moving, even without being secured by nails.”
Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. — 180 Proof
And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.
— baker
Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?
But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok. — Tom Storm
Of course, via the language you use. I have brought this up with you at least once before (as well as with some other posters). And I wouldn't bring it up, if this weren't a philosophy forum, and if you wouldn't work in some counselor capacity. I presume you had to be professionally trained in different styles of communication, and so you should know what I'm talking about.Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?
In Theravada and Early Buddhism kamma is intention. Generally, only intentional actions have kammic consequences. This is why two people, externally acting the same way, could face very different kammic consequences if their intentions for doing the actions differ, respectively.1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis
I think this has sometimes more to do with an unwillingness to engage in time-consuming explanations to people who seem hostile rather than anything else.My question basically has to do with narrative. Buddhists claim that karma & rebirth act according to cause & effect despite being unable to provide a narrative that shows this structure in their narratives. — praxis
I've never found it difficult to find others among the godless who are religiously / theologically well-read, especially here on TPF — 180 Proof
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.