Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Schwartz
I'd say the main thing that separates a religion from a philosophy or secular belief system is belief in the supernatural in some form. Related to that would be a mythology that is meant to be literal to a degree.
|
See comment on Augustine.
Quote:
| Even if a rabbi thinks that the Garden of Eden is a metaphor, he believes that there is one God who created everything, and that there were twelve tribes of Israel, etc. |
But he also believes that there's nothing supernatural about that God. He's part and parcel of existence. And He, himself, might even be a metaphor. Some might consider God to be a very real concept, yet one that's only giving shape to some sort of spark within each of us. It's using literary language to get at something that can't be expressed using the language of reason.
Quote:
| The line between history and myth is hazy, though, so it's not as reliable. But even non-theistic religions like Buddhism or Jainism have beliefs about reincarnation, karma, etc. that they are unable or uninterested in supporting with empirical evidence. That's what makes them a religion and Objectivism (based on my understanding) not. |
Objectivism can't support shit with empirical evidence - it's a philosophy that tries to support selfishness with a hard-to-swallow cover story involving rationalism. There's no real employment of empirical evidence, merely the twisting of it to support a fundamentally stupid system.
Interestingly, though, it focuses on practice above all else. You know what else does that? Judaism. To some extent, Buddhism does this, too, I'm pretty sure.
Quote:
| Minsky already kind of addressed this, but the idea that you have to eschew objectivity in order to be objective about it seems non-sensical to me. When I talk about rationality, I'm not talking about some kind of expansive philosophical theory from the Enlightenment, but the basic premise that things happen for a reason. "The world exists because God made it," may not have a strong basis in scientific fact, but it still relies on the basic rational premise that the world exists for a reason. Even people with the most ridiculous religious ideas rely on if/then statements or "because" to express them, and rely on the shared recognition of rational principles for others to understand them. |
Whether you're talking about reason in terms of the Enlightenment or not, you're a product of it, as am I. We're inherently biased in the way that we employ reason. This also afflicts the religious in our society, which is why you have Kirk Cameron trying to convince us of the actual, literal existence of zombie Jesus.
Quote:
| What I'm trying to say is that saying there are things (God or whatever) that humans are incapable of fully understanding or explaining in a "rational" way is a statement based on the observation of the limits of human comprehension and extrapolation from that, and is, in that sense, based in rationality. |
Right. A reason codified, in many ways, via the Enlightenment. Seriously, read some postmodern/poststructuralist (or feminist, for that matter) critics on this subject. The way we interpret knowledge has a lot to do with culture - reason is not necessarily a unified, single perspective that will yield "truth." I'm not talking about the accuracy of a single given position, because conclusions can ALWAYS be wrong, of course - I'm talking about the theoretical framework each of us employs that lets us come to those conclusions, as well.
Quote:
| Of course I'm biased. Whatever else I may be, I am a human being and incapable of being 100% objective. The solitary fact that someone might or does argue something doesn't speak to it's accuracy at all, so I don't see the point there. |
But I'm not talking accuracy of a given position. It's a bigger concept than that.
Quote:
| I agree that the goals of religion are closer to those of art in many respects, although it does overlap with science due to it's "everything to everyone" nature. Also, these conversations always seem to be instigated by some doofus like Kirk Cameron making outrageous psuedo-scientific claims, which is probably why the science angle seems over-represented. |
Yup.
Quote:
| Hell, you got me. You're the one who brought up that many of the greatest thinkers in history were religious, which I thought was pointless if not outright misleading. I'd say there are more non-religious folks now than ever before, but they're still the sizable minority. I'm sure that the majority of redheads, murderers, alcoholics, and left-handed people throughout history have been religious too, but that doesn't mean the two issues are related. My point was that if anything, religion has consistently stood in the way of progressive and radical thinking and thinkers. |
Completely untrue. Radical and progressive thinking has thrived among the religious, only not among the
dogmatic. Why do you think schisms happen? They're simply instances of progressives and radicals re-drawing the religious lines, sometimes flying in the face of the dogmatic. Not all religion has the anti-intellectual bent we've seen in this country and in select instances in other countries. The Jesuits are specifically pro-education, and this extends WAAAAYYY beyond religious education. Irish monks were instrumental in retaining important Roman history against attacks from Germanic tribes. If we're talking about "progressive" in terms of human rights and charity, you probably won't find groups more active in these capacities than those religious in nature or presided over by a religious leader (Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa, Malcolm X... the list goes on).
We can offer plenty of counter-examples all day long. All I think this shows is that religion, like anything else, can be a good or a bad thing.
I'm backing off from this argument now. I get involved in this same discussion about twice a year on this board, so if you want my full thoughts, check the archives. Like I usually say, I suggest reading up on what you're dismissing out of hand, particularly from those who approach it with open, non-dogmatic minds. Read some Karen Armstrong or Elaine Pagels. Read Jonathan Kirsch's God Against the Gods (if nothing else, you'll gain an appreciation for the plurality of polytheism). Historically, there's been a fluidity to religion that isn't accounted for when you say "it's a bunch of stupid fairy tales that justifies oppression" or whatever. Religion has had a complex history and it developed along with humanity; we can learn about ourselves and our history by understanding it. If a heathen-from-birth like me can learn to appreciate it on some level, anyone can.
