So many people who believe so fervently that they'd kill, or themselves die, rather than question or be questioned, that I don't see how humanity can continue to exist along this path.
+1
Theology as we've exercised it so far seems very infantile.
again, I'm trying to demarcate the areas where faith is a valid method and where it is not.
Curious about this quest of yours.
I find it heartening that Christianity as a worldly political power is a thing of the past.
Do you really believe that? I don't think that's accurate. If nothing else (you know, despite that faithful still being a third of all humanity), the Vatican still commands prodigious wealth and is one of the few legitimate City-States remaining.
Interestingly enough, I have a worthwhile anecdote about the Vatican's wealth for later.
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
I'd like to think we aspire so.
I think that I misunderstood what you meant by "pedigree", Madness. To me, your sentence implies some sort of ranking where science is privileged over faith and philosophy. But, upon consideration, I see that one could indeed consider science the superior method (or even the "ruling" method), while still valuing the contributions of the "lesser" methods. I hope I'm understanding you correctly now.
I'm not even sure that's accurate (and I don't believe pedigree has positive or negative connotations).
For me, referring to science or faith or philosophy as "superior" than other methodologies is unnecessary. As Wilshire has said a couple times, these phenomenon exist because they fulfill some functional crux in human sociocultural behavioral output. As Bakker might say, whether or not these cognitions are concurrent/harmonious/whatever within a given cognitive ecology has no warrant for "superior/inferior/better/worse" attributions.
I don't think the prototypical Believer who's willing to kill and unwilling to question is representative of any real segment of religious practitioners. It's a caricature.
Likely but those caricatures also still exist and do harm for real.
I just don't understand the calculus when anti-theists allege religion does more harm than good (I know many of you have denounced that proposition here). Yes, belonging to different denominations is inherently a division but so is rooting for different sports teams (actually dangerous) or graduating from different universities, I don't think it's something uniquely endemic about religion.
This thread has certainly ranged.
I think you might have hit something of a crux in this conversation. The problem is that religion does harm at all. As does science, philosophy, basically any type/grade/spectrum/etc of certainty. Again, I don't like to speak for Wilshire, but I'm fairly sure we're not saying anything about harm being uniquely endemic in religion - but it does seem that religion has far more adherents than science (or philosophy for that matter).
I *feel* (and data could very easily prove me wrong) like more people punch each other out over religion than sports.
Its that system's resistance to corruption that really sets one apart from the other. To me though, a religious order is the most highly susceptible to corruption, as it relies on small groups of people with absolute authority, and I have so little faith in people. The old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, seems to be particularly poignant in this case.
I speak of governance, because major religions indirectly govern more people than any particular single country or government. This makes them extraordinary dangerous to the existence of humanity at large, again imo, regardless of how well - or unwell - they make the communities they are in. Its not the little things, the orphanages and the charitable donations, that worry me.
+1
I would think, absent origin stories of our divine right over all things, a more peaceful humanity would develop. Burying good will, kindness, morality, inside of old doctrines that also carry within them a deep penchant for violence seems like a bad idea to me.
It especially riles me when it is suggested that without organized religion "the beast that is human simply couldn't 'behave' itself."
The "pulls" of this lies deeper than "religion" - all in the name of religion, it would still occur without religion.
Would this violence occur as much or with such vehemence?
The long and short ... all the history and disparity and violence and control, blah blah blah - does not address the every day spiritual experience of a parishioner; the human abuse of religion does not negate the authenticity of individual experience. The "conundrum" of why so much variety in religious faith can be easily reconciled by accepting time/place/culture impacting human perception of the divine ... all of them are a beautiful expression of connection to the meta-physical, so it makes perfect sense they would all appear different - but the participants share the same connection, that internal experience/joy of seeing god, being with god and elevation. Could be manipulation, but for those of us "in it", it appears not.
I'm not sure anyone is purposefully trying to invalidate the "everyday spiritual experience" of faithful individuals.
Otherwise,
Blind Men and the Elephant.
I agree with this to an extent. Judeo-Christianity, (Christianity, Judism and I'm probably forgetting one), account for the most followers by far on this planet. Not as much diversity as most seem to think. While there are plenty of other religions, the vast majority peaceful, I find it fascinating that all these religions basically have the same origin stories.it truly blows my mind. That's why I said there is only ONE GOD, and religions are just offshoots from those original teaching way back when.
Anecdote, neither here nor there, really, but my Dad was a protestant who gave up his faith for my Mom (poor choice, either way, I'm fairly sure they married because of me and were never good together). A couple of years ago he decides that he's going to read the primary texts of every major religion he can source.
Not news to any of us, I think, but, of course, he - on the rare occasion that he talked to me - reported "they're all saying the same thing!" with the incredulity of the horrified. "Why is anyone fighting over these texts?!"
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
For those concerned about the tyranny of religion, while you have been presented a different view of historical evidence of said tyranny, has re-examination eased your alarm? Are you sure it's not driven by your personal experience?
For my part, I'll simply repeat what I've over and over. No matter what your belief, up to and including Bakker's Semantic Apocalypse, "so what?" How do individuals act because of or in spite of what creed/ideological/philosophical commitments they maintain?
...
+1
Human can and will use anything they can get their "hands" on to manipulate the world toward pragmatic ends. Religion is absolutely no different than anything else in this respect. That isn't a knock on religion though, that's a comment on human nature. Science can and has been used for the same purpose throughout human history, consider things like "phrenology" and other nonsense like that. Indeed, when it comes to science it is "easier" to debunk some of those things, but again, my point isn't that science is better than religion, it's that humans (in general) are manipulative and heavily, heavily biased.
"Science!" has been used as an excuse to do some terribly unethical things, just as religion has, just as philosophy has, etc, etc.
You noted yesterday, in a different context, that destruction is easy compared to creation.
I think that was me.
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion.
That problem is more a direct result of technology than it is embodied creed/ideology, no?
To that end, I'd absolutely admit that identifying and preserving what's been done correctly in faith communities is a worthy endeavor. Prayer, as an obvious example, when done in groups (like before dinner), is a suburb way of telling people you care about them. Being told you're cared about is deeply satisfying and I'm sure has all kinds of measurable positive psychological effects, but I don't imagine most people would willing hold hands in a group and tell those people they love them - family or not. Its somehow easier when you're speaking affirmations and being grateful, to do so at/to a third part, rather than directly to a person/group.
Song, hymn, etc., like prayer, is likewise beneficial. Communal oscillation. The content can safely differ, I think, though.
This is why my own personal belief is to categorize "what people believe" and "what people do" separately.
I really don't care what people need to think in order to be better humans, I care that they are actually act better.
+1