No-Man, nice.

Au revoir.

The point that I was trying to make is that a religious community and traditionalism in general is constraining, both in openness to new ideas and in moral development. That’s not to say that progressivism is better than conservatism, it’s just pointing out the difference. An independent can defy a group and the leader of a group if what they’re doing is judged to be immoral. — praxis

I don't disagree, but I'm not convinced that you aren't saying one is better than the other. And I'm not convinced that to be constrained is inherently a bad thing.

Well, maybe you can help me figure out who my ultimate authority is. I may get a clue if you would share who your ultimate authority is. — praxis

How would that help you? I don't get it.

I do wear a felt hat - it's fuckin' Australia, Mate! — Tom Storm

That's a thing?

Good idea. George Lakoff's notion of framing is interesting in this space too. — Tom Storm

I was riffing, but maybe we should start a thread. I'm unfamiliar with Lakoff; will look into it.

I totally forgot about notions of the evolving consciousness of human beings. — Tom Storm

From what I know about you, I take this at face value, yes? Sorry, there are so many sarcastic posters here, myself very much included, that I have to do a double take. Incidentally, if you are being sarcastic, I tip my hat to you like a fedora wearing atheist (of which I am not).

Yes. I hold to this too. — Tom Storm

I love this concept, albeit in a terrified way. It's something we should probably explore further in other threads, given the courage.

Feel free to come back to the center at any time.

True. Today they take it to mean submission to God. I just meant that it doesn't come from their fiber, it comes from their heritage. — frank

The word doesn't come from their fiber; of course not. but the concept is indeed in their fiber. Pedantry gone wrong in your case.

Yes, it is a bit and perhaps a digression. I guess your approach to evaluating beliefs is different to mine, I was curious about your approach and whether you identify progress as a tangible phenomenon and to what extent you see secularism as being a barrier to or carrier of progress. — Tom Storm

Thanks for the clarification. Well, of course this is a huge topic, and I don't want to derail the thread. I'll try to respond succinctly. I probably won't get to everything that's actually on my mind. (I sound like @T Clark).

How do I approach evaluating beliefs? I don't know if I evaluate them much to begin with; rather, I take a pretty psychological approach in which I try to observe and gain some understanding of why people think the way they do and believe what they believe. One belief of mine that's probably pretty important is that there's a sense in which each of us lives in our own world. That just means that our thoughts and beliefs shape the world we see around us. I'm not even trying to get into whether that world is real or not; objective or subjective. But if you observe people in life, you will notice that certain people live within mental narratives that confirm implicit biases. Each of us in our own world. Again, with the (failed) attempt to be brief, I'm not arguing for solipsism. I'd rather not go into that, but can if needed.

The quote button isn't working, so in regards to this:

I was curious about your approach and whether you identify progress as a tangible phenomenon and to what extent you see secularism as being a barrier to or carrier of progress.

I'm much more conflicted about this. Ultimately, I do see progress as being real. But not in the sense that the enlightenment narrative situates it. I think there's a possibility of the expansion of consciousness that could signify a real form of progress. If that sounds woo-woo, consider the millions of years of evolution that have lead to where we are now: life is finally aware of itself for the first time. We seem to be in infancy of conscious experience.

Ok, cool. I don't know how that affects the discussion. The word used to mean that, now it means what it means now. There's no special mojo that makes the original use of the word have some power after that use has fallen out of favor.

Or rather, the question seems out of left field to me, so I'm at a loss. If you could elaborate it would be helpful.

I'm unsure of what you mean by

what framework do you use to determine if someone holds acceptable or unacceptable beliefs? — Tom Storm

That's why I was trying to emphasise difference rather than scoring either. Athiests (rationalists, empiricists...) are, quite fairly, bristled when told they 'just the same' as religious people in their belief systems, having made such strenuous efforts to try something different. The religious are again quite fairly, upset when told their approach is old-hat or the 'cause of all wars', or some such trope. — Isaac

I don't accuse you of fence-sitting, although I do it a bit myself; however, while I agree with what you say here, and I agree that it's fair for atheists to be bristled by being called religious, the only difference is that I'm not aware of this being common. Not to toot my own horn, but I feel that I've been poking the flames in this way here for years every now and then, to not much use, but I don't see this approach happening often. In other words, if it's been done before, I'm not aware of it; I came to this position on my own. On the other hand, the religious are of course used to being told that they're old fashioned, so that is nothing new.

My suspicion is that the loudest voices (which are often the minority) on either camp are distrustful of such a solution because each know their flaws and are afraid to have them exposed, but then I have a habit of psychologising everything so... — Isaac

I agree, but I also psychologize everything. :smile:

It seems to me that atheists submit to authority in their thinking as much as religious people. — Jamal

My intuition agrees, but what's a concrete example? Without pulling out the straw man of scientism, there does seem to sometimes be an unthinking trust in science, whereas in reality science lives and breathes by constant change and updating of previously erroneous hypotheses, etc.

Often, the worst way to become prisoner of a system is to have a dream that things may turn better, there is always the possibility of change. Because it is precisely this secret dream that keeps you enslaved to the system.

Could Enlightenment be that dream? — Tom Storm

I like this.

They don't have religious authorities that compare to Christian ones. — frank

Yes, I'm not saying they do. but Allah is certainly the ultimate religious authority. The ulama is to be respected. Again, the word Islam means "Submission"; it's in their very fiber, it would appear.

I think that everyone is bound, at least to some extent, by their conditioning and ideologies and that this is inescapable. Maybe that's all that you're trying to say? — praxis

Essentially, yes. I just sometimes do so in a way that might be knowingly provocative, i.e. describing secular views with religious terms. I do this not to get reactions or seek attention, but to try to get us to think differently about how value systems work, and to step outside of our own assumptions. Doing this can lead to not only better understanding of oneself but of other people who are different than ourselves. If I sound like some idealistic high school teacher, I don't really care.

You forgot to mention that the purpose, meaning, and value within it are shared. — praxis

No I didn't, I mentioned that.

As for religion, it's as though you're only willing to acknowledge the positive aspects — praxis

In this discussion, I haven't criticized religion, no, because I'm trying to illustrate it's role in this whole "progress narrative", and to do so religion needs to be considered with as little bias as possible, and with an open mind. I was raised protestant and in some ways truly despise protestantism, but I'm not here to do that. I'm trying to get us to be open minded towards the religious perspective. I'm using Islam because I've been learning more about it recently.

Using the crusades to criticize religion is low hanging fruit. I won't even get into it.

If my ultimate authority is science or whatever, what happens if I were to defy its decrees? Would I be declared a heretic and ostracized by the scientific community and lose the sense of purpose, meaning, and value that I share with them? :fear: — praxis

I don't know what your ultimate authority is. My guess is if you feel that you don't have one, you're just not aware of what it is.

These are some very good thoughts, to which I don't have much of an in depth response. I'm just thinking out loud, and I know it can be annoying to bring religion into this discussion, although I think it needs to be part of it. I appreciate that you bring a measured and seemingly fairly unbiased attitude to discussing religion, which is rare. I'm of course not advocating for any religion, but trying to think and talk through how best to interface with religion in regards to a topic like this, because I think we generally do it pretty badly. Thanks for the response.

Great discussion points which I'll address tomorrow. :party:

Edit: hopefully. :zip:

I do agree with you in the sense that I'm not a religious believer in the sense I've been describing. I do relate to the heuristic approach; it's an approach I use and it informs how I think about all of this. But I still think there's a misunderstanding about religion here. Within any given religion, there are classic forms of thinking (philosophies?) that allow for a heuristic approach. Within the context of any given religion, there are pluralities that mirror the pluralism of Enlightenment thought, at least in their diversity. I'm not making any argument in favor of any religion (I hope that's obvious), but I am trying to highlight that there are similarities in approach to religious and non-religious thinking. In Islam, for instance, the variance of jurisprudence should at least cause us to stop and consider it. Don't the discrepancies about law in the western world mirror this?

So, coming to here:

So when you say that the rational atheist is no less beholden to his belief system than the Muslim, you're ignoring what it means to make a rational decision. — Isaac

I don't think (but I don't know for sure) that a muslim would agree. Rationality exists in Islam. It's just not the same rationality that we know. To a muslim, rationality is arguably based on jurisprudence. To us, it's based on "thinking for oneself". I still don't know what that means, by the way. But to a muslim, rationality is based upon Shariah. What is it based on for us? We can't agree. I'm not making an argument in favor of Islam as a religion, but I'm making an argument in favor of gaining a better understanding about how people who are different from us think. A real attempt at understanding this, not just something half-assed.

The mental process of going through arguments pro and con for, say, homosexual marriage, are not similar to the mental process of checking in a book or asking an authority figure, even if both processes are reliant on faith in a system of beliefs. — Isaac

Again, I find sentiments like this highly hubristic and suspicious. I'm no expert on Islam, and I would cherish insights from anyone who is, but I guarantee you any member of an ulema would roll their eyes at best at this characature.

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities. — praxis

I don't think that's right either. A faithful muslim obeys and honors their religious authorities. The word "islam" means "submission". What they have faith in is the entire narrative of their belief system, with all it's wrinkles and curiosities, in the same way you have faith in whatever belief system you hold. Again, the way you're talking about it I think is misleading, although I don't mean that I think you're doing that intensionally.

Like many people today I’m not bound by faith in religious authority and can think for myself and not be constrained in moral development. — praxis

But you are bound by faith in whatever you believe in. Whether that constitutes "thinking for yourself" is open to debate at best, and whether "thinking for yourself" liberates you from being "constrained in moral development" (what does that mean?) is also up for debate. What exactly do you mean by thinking for yourself?

@T Clark

I'll just add that I was motivated by the both of you to re-read the Yeats poem, and the hair stood up on my neck. Hasn't happened in awhile.

That's a great point. We're progressing (verb form), but whether or not it indicates progress (noun form) is what is in question.

Technology advances, but just in my lifetime humanity has become able to destroy ourselves. — T Clark

Technology is another important factor in this discussion. Not to get esoteric, but there's a sense in which technology could almost be thought of as the anima/animus of the Enlightenment; a subconscious mirroring of the concepts of reason and enlightenment that gives birth to something we're not fully conscious of, i.e. the bewildering proliferation of ways in which technological innovation affect our lives, both positively and negatively. My brother sent me this article, which is one example.

But certainly, technology seems to be the most obvious form of real progress, and therefore the form that we question the least. I don't think this is a good thing.

Thanks. You motivated me to respond to Praxis.

It's the wrong way for believers or followers to think about it, certainly, because if they do it will tend to be less useful. When people realize that they're being manipulated by a false narrative they tend to be less cooperative with those that try to use it. — praxis

I disagree. I don't accept the binary of religious belief and secular belief; they're different flavors of the same thing, and again, what they do is give the lives of believers a sense of purpose, meaning and value. If this sounds corny, just reflect and examine your own life, beliefs, and what you value. Even a nihilist or rigorous individualist does not function outside of this reality. Religion is, in a sense, simply an organized narrative around which groups of people orient their lives, beliefs and values. You are no different than a muslim in this way. That's why I think the concept of "usefulness" in regards to "religion" (you're actually using it in regards to a set of beliefs) is misleading. Religion is not the opiate of the masses; rather, belief is what keeps people going, religious or secular.

Is he essentially just another nostalgic modernist liberal? — Tom Storm

Potentially. Thinking again of Islam, clearly things like health, sustenance, happiness, etc., are all things that muslims want just like anyone else. But the very structure of an Islamic society is fundamentally different than a western society; how they structure their world in striving for what might be called "progress" is different from the core. Shariah for instance, is central. Does this mean a religion like Islam needs to be eradicated simply because it isn't compatible with western notions of progress? Again, this smacks of hubris to me.

I think "useful" is the wrong way to think about it. People are brought together by communally held beliefs (communism, for instance) because they give life meaning, from which value is derived. This isn't unique to religion.

I’m not sure what you mean.

Islamic culture thrived by discovering and reinterpreting Greek philosophy — Joshs

That's an important point that I had forgotten.

Maybe I’ll say something intelligent about it tomorrow. — Jamal

I'm rather rusty myself.

Sure, it's of course complex. Another interesting wrinkle in regards to the progress narrative is the role the Muslim world played during the middle ages, while Europe was mired in the "dark" ages. There was also considerable collaboration between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Middle East at the time. A rather sad comparison to much of religious relations today. One could argue that religious pluralism has de-progressed, but ironically this isn't even something the progress narrative generally considers, because it begins with the hubristic assumption that religion itself is in the same camp as war, famine, etc; something to be cast off and left behind.

One elephant in the room in regards to "progress" is it's inextricable connection with colonialism. I've been slowly reading The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism by Karen Armstrong. Part of the book deals with the rise of Muslim fundamentalism in Iran and Egypt during the 20th century. She makes the case that this religious fanaticism is actually a fearful reaction to the alienation experienced through the process of "westernization" or modernization of a pre-modern society. And this was of course introduced through colonialism.

But yes, I did that physically, sensually, and I loved the experience, but I found nothing. But I trust I missed it.

By dig around I just meant search for his quote from nearby in the text.

Surrounding page 48 for me is Chapter III: The Position of the West on the Question of Religion.

No worries, was being a bit cheeky but also serious; I can of course dig around myself, and better yet get context. don't sweat it.

The title is from Jung’s The Undiscovered Self, p. 48. — Mikie

Do you have the quote? I pulled up page 48 in my copy, but strangely it wasn't there. :chin:

An affection for Hats by The Blue Nile signals your aspiration to be a sophisticated urbanite. — Jamal

Indeed. Evidence of their lasting influence can be found in bands like The 1975. There's some Michael Jackson in here too.



I'm medium on this band overall, but this lyric is one of my favorites in current music:

"The war has been incited
And guess what, you're all invited
And you're famous
Modernity has failed us."

Corny maybe, but I un-ironically love it:

This is the coolest new music I’ve heard in awhile, maybe since the Pharoah Sanders/Floating Points collab:

Yes, I should underline that I echo this sentiment.