OK I have not been here for a while. But I have a serious question that I would like to open for discussion.
As many of you know my viewpoint is “All gods and all religions are created by human; to meet human needs and achieve human ends.” I also think that religions are rapidly losing followers because they are based upon the false premise - rewards or punishments in the afterlife; the existence of all knowing never ending intelligences, etc.
The question that this raises for me is how do we replace this greatest of human social inventions? Religion provides great social contact beyond just the local community; helps humans raise their children in a relatively safe environment; expands the borders of individual thinking in that it shows that each individual is not at the center of their own universe. I could go on but I will leave it here for now with the observation that religion brings as much good as evil to the world.
My basic question is what do we replace religion with in the modern world? Or do we become just another cog in Buster Keaton’s machine. Capitalism may be providing amazing material gains, but it also based upon a false premise - that humans are inherently competitive with each other, which while true in some cases ignores the fact we are a highly cooperative species overall.
Where do we go from here? Where is our social organization going to come from.
Wow, well I think your basic idea of religion is way off for starters. I would say it’s the worst of human inventions based on the horrible suffering, both physical and mental, it has inflicted for thousands of years. And raise children in relative safety? OMG that’s off base. Then you say is shows that each individual is not the center of their own universe? Do you actually know what religion is my friend? It’s actually the exact opposite of that. Why do you think the big churches fought tooth and nail against astronomical views that moved earth, and hance people, OUT of the center of the universe. My goodness you inhabit a strange world.
BUT ignoring all that. There’s already something that will eventually replace religion, for the most part, and it’s called Secular Humanism. The difference is, no one will go to social places and say “hey I’m a secular humanist, what are you?” That’s not how SH works. And honestly I’d guess many many people are SH who just never heard the term.
For many people, who lack the wherewithal to establish a sense of meaning for their own lives, religious beliefs can provide this. For some it is a ready made social support system. For some, who can’t tolerate not knowing what we don’t (yet) know, it provides easy answers (albeit false ones) with which they can convince themselves that they know all they need to know.
Each of those may require different solutions to ameliorate the loss of religion, for persons who are relatively dependent on it.
But generally speaking, I would say that the establishment of “continual-seeking-of-objective”-truth as a highest order value, is needed.
OK I have not been here for a while. But I have a serious question that I would like to open for discussion. As many of you know my viewpoint is "All gods and all religions are created by human; to meet human needs and achieve human ends." I also think that religions are rapidly losing followers because they are based upon the false premise - rewards or punishments in the afterlife; the existence of all knowing never ending intelligences, etc. The question that this raises for me is how do we replace this greatest of human social inventions? Religion provides great social contact beyond just the local community; helps humans raise their children in a relatively safe environment; expands the borders of individual thinking in that it shows that each individual is not at the center of their own universe. I could go on but I will leave it here for now with the observation that religion brings as much good as evil to the world. My basic question is what do we replace religion with in the modern world? Or do we become just another cog in Buster Keaton's machine. Capitalism may be providing amazing material gains, but it also based upon a false premise - that humans are inherently competitive with each other, which while true in some cases ignores the fact we are a highly cooperative species overall. Where do we go from here? Where is our social organization going to come from.It's going to come from the same place it's always come from--for religious people as well as for non-religious people--human interaction. The only difference between religious and non-religious attitudes toward social organization is that the religious try to insert a magical, supernatural source for their social organization where none exists. There is no magical, supernatural source. None has ever been shown to exist. All humans get their drive for everything they do and think from natural sources: genes, mental function and experience. The habit of religious people to insert something else is of no consequence. It is derived from certain humans' habit of fictionalizing natural phenomena. Humanists would like people to understand this. That is the source of Humanism. Lois
Religious communities might not be the safest environments for kids. Consider the sociopathic behavior of catlick priests and other clergy. On another note, religious dogma posits the concept of anthropocentrism which is primitive, nonrational, and delusional thinking. BTW, love Buster Keaton.
Wow, well I think your basic idea of religion is way off for starters. I would say it's the worst of human inventions based on the horrible suffering, both physical and mental, it has inflicted for thousands of years. And raise children in relative safety? OMG that's off base. Then you say is shows that each individual is not the center of their own universe? Do you actually know what religion is my friend? It's actually the exact opposite of that. Why do you think the big churches fought tooth and nail against astronomical views that moved earth, and hance people, OUT of the center of the universe. My goodness you inhabit a strange world. BUT ignoring all that. There's already something that will eventually replace religion, for the most part, and it's called Secular Humanism. The difference is, no one will go to social places and say "hey I'm a secular humanist, what are you?" That's not how SH works. And honestly I'd guess many many people are SH who just never heard the term.No black church - no civil rights movement. No RC Church - no University system. The protestant churches in early US founded the first schools for the common people. First moveable type printed book - Gutenberg Bible. Religion is a human invention that can be used for the benefit as well as detriment of everyday people. If your philosophy is based upon the real world you have to admit to this.
Lois
It’s going to come from the same place it’s always come from—for religious people as well as for non-religious people—human interaction. The only difference between religious and non-religious attitudes toward social organization is that the religious try to insert a magical, supernatural source for their social organization where none exists. There is no magical, supernatural source. None has ever been shown to exist. All humans get their drive for everything they do and think from natural sources: genes, mental function and experience. The habit of religious people to insert something else is of no consequence. It is derived from certain humans’ habit of fictionalizing natural phenomena. Humanists would like people to understand this. That is the source of Humanism.
Where are the community based non-religious organization where people can get the “experience” you speak of.
Lois It’s going to come from the same place it’s always come from—for religious people as well as for non-religious people—human interaction. The only difference between religious and non-religious attitudes toward social organization is that the religious try to insert a magical, supernatural source for their social organization where none exists. There is no magical, supernatural source. None has ever been shown to exist. All humans get their drive for everything they do and think from natural sources: genes, mental function and experience. The habit of religious people to insert something else is of no consequence. It is derived from certain humans’ habit of fictionalizing natural phenomena. Humanists would like people to understand this. That is the source of Humanism. Where are the community based non-religious organization where people can get the "experience" you speak of.Humanist and secular organizations are everywhere: schools, colleges, universities, libraries, theater, museums, sports, games, secular social organizations of all sorts. Just interacting with other humans creates experiences that people can use to design social venues. Why should humans need supernaturalism to have social venues? Lois
Lois - Humanist and secular organizations are everywhere:
No they are not. The few organizations that exist can barely stay in business and if you don’t count the orgs. on college campuses they are extremely rare. This is my main problem with secularism. Where are the humanist food banks; the groups that look put for you during illness, when you lose your job & other bad times. Where are the lectures and discussion groups promoting Secular Humanism. Humanist do not seem to want to be bothered with the rest of society. Also they don’t seem to recognize that there is more to science than the physical sciences. Ask any one making a living in sales; given a choice would they join a church or a humanist group to increase their contacts?
I am not religious but I don’t like being just a cog in a machine and without the social organization of religion; that is what it appears to me we are becoming.
Lois - Humanist and secular organizations are everywhere: No they are not. The few organizations that exist can barely stay in business Like churches, do you mean? and if you don't count the orgs. on college campuses they are extremely rare. not where I live. There are hundreds, of not thousands, of secular social organizations in my community and state. Are you living in the middle of Mississippi, or somewhere similar? This is my main problem with secularism. Where are the humanist food banks; the groups that look put for you during illness, when you lose your job & other bad times. In my area there is a whole web of secular food banks and similar organizations I know many humanists who volunteer at them. They are secular and not tied to either religious or humanist organizations, which is as it should be. It's the church affiliated charities that are disappearing and being replaced by charities that are open to everyone. There is no need for churches or humanist groups to be to be the only source of social charities. Unlike churches, everyone works together to provide services to people in need and we don't do it to glorify any particular organization or group. Where are the lectures and discussion groups promoting Secular Humanism. Humanist do not seem to want to be bothered with the rest of society. You have been living in a black hole long enough. There is a strong free thought community here, and there are weekly lectures and organizations that promote humanism, which is true in most communities across the country. You are simply blind to it. Also they don't seem to recognize that there is more to science than the physical sciences. I have never heard a humanist make such a statement--but I have often heard religious people do so--especially religious people who want to spread the lie that only theistic religions and religious people care about society and form charities to help them. Ask any one making a living in sales; given a choice would they join a church or a humanist group to increase their contacts? -----People in sales would join anything they think would improve their sales. That says nothing about the religious organizations and everything about the business people. Churches, after all, follow a business model. Their aim is not to do the right thing but to bring glory to the religion. I am not religious but I don't like being just a cog in a machine and without the social organization of religion; that is what it appears to me we are becoming.----Whether you identify yourself religious or not, a cog in the religious machine is exactly what you are. You promote religion for the sake of religion and it has made you blind to reality. Lois
I think the initial volley from gary to Cuthbert is the usual just seeing past each other. I believe gary sees “religion” as an idea, something expressed in many ways, attempting to get at the big philosophical questions of who we are and why. Cuthbert takes a colder, harder look at what is really there. I think both would agree that as humans, we have failed at whatever it is religion says it is attempting to do. Besides not finding any gods or producing any miracles, it hasn’t founded a decent society. It has produced decent people who say they are inspired by religion, but those people have to twist the foundational principles to make them work.
Secularism also lacks successes that can be attributed to secularism. That’s partly due to secularism not having any foundational documents. We only have our philosophers, and we throw out some of what they said as we gain new knowledge. I see this as a good thing, but a lot of people see it as chaotic. What’s funny to me is, I believe the message from the early gospels is that we should think for ourselves. This can also be found in the books of Sirach or Ecclesiastes. There are a few passages in the Koran as well. Not to mention Buddhism.
Secularisms biggest hurdle right now is, there aren’t rich people walking around today with great memories of talking with a secular philosopher and getting their life in order and adopting a philosophy that helped them get rich. My hope is, we are only one generation away from that.
Where are the humanist food banks; the groups that look put for you during illness, when you lose your job & other bad times.They're just called "food banks", "hospitals" or "job centers". They don't call themselves "The Spinoza center", they call themselves whatever they are, whatever it is they do. It's like the produce section, instead of a can of apples ready to dump into a frozen pie crust, it's just apples.
Lausten
I think the initial volley from gary to Cuthbert is the usual just seeing past each other. I believe gary sees “religion" as an idea, something expressed in many ways, attempting to get at the big philosophical questions of who we are and whyI see religion as a highly successful human invention creating a large amount of social organization. Organization that both builds local communities and goes beyond national and all other political boundaries to each individual the possibility to influence wider society. ie. see Women. Religion and Peace Building by Susan Hayward and Katherine Marshall eds.
I put that book on my list, but probably not near the top. Sorry. I guess I see religion playing the of the role of the leviathan mostly. Can’t remember who said that, but it basically means any large enough entity that can control a population can create peace. Peace doesn’t always mean fairness or compassion or quality education or sustainability or anything else.
We have much better entities now to compare to. Look at the international space station or CERN or how someone can go to France and learn to be a doctor and transfer that to any other country without too much trouble. These kind of things have been around for less than a century and look how they have crossed all political, social and sexual boundaries. Religion is just trying to keep up.
I think the initial volley from gary to Cuthbert is the usual just seeing past each other. I believe gary sees "religion" as an idea, something expressed in many ways, attempting to get at the big philosophical questions of who we are and why. Cuthbert takes a colder, harder look at what is really there. I think both would agree that as humans, we have failed at whatever it is religion says it is attempting to do. Besides not finding any gods or producing any miracles, it hasn't founded a decent society. It has produced decent people who say they are inspired by religion, but those people have to twist the foundational principles to make them work. Secularism also lacks successes that can be attributed to secularism. That's partly due to secularism not having any foundational documents. Religion doesn't have any either, except those made up by and designated as godly by humans with vivid imaginations. We only have our philosophers, and we throw out some of what they said as we gain new knowledge. I see this as a good thing, but a lot of people see it as chaotic. What's funny to me is, I believe the message from the early gospels is that we should think for ourselves. This can also be found in the books of Sirach or Ecclesiastes. There are a few passages in the Koran as well. Not to mention Buddhism. Then believers and "leaders" of societies declare such independent thinking as ungodly. They don't want too many independent thoughts running around. Then they might not be able to control people. Secularisms biggest hurdle right now is, there aren't rich people walking around today with great memories of talking with a secular philosopher and getting their life in order and adopting a philosophy that helped them get rich. My hope is, we are only one generation away from that.It will come. I don't think it can be attributed solely to money. People tend to become more educated and rational with time. Lois
We only have our philosophers, and we throw out some of what they said as we gain new knowledge. I see this as a good thing, but a lot of people see it as chaotic. What's funny to me is, I believe the message from the early gospels is that we should think for ourselves. This can also be found in the books of Sirach or Ecclesiastes. There are a few passages in the Koran as well. Not to mention Buddhism. Then believers and "leaders" of societies declare such independent thinking as ungodly. They don't want too many independent thoughts running around. Then they might not be able to control people.Well, yes, but. It was religious leaders that pointed out the passages about thinking for yourself too. Look at the Abassid dynasty in Iraq or the early humanist writers in Christianity. They were doing all the wrong things that religions do, but that's how it works. Jefferson screwed his slaves, ya know? Not gonna throw out the Constitution based on that, are ya?
We only have our philosophers, and we throw out some of what they said as we gain new knowledge. I see this as a good thing, but a lot of people see it as chaotic. What's funny to me is, I believe the message from the early gospels is that we should think for ourselves. This can also be found in the books of Sirach or Ecclesiastes. There are a few passages in the Koran as well. Not to mention Buddhism. Then believers and "leaders" of societies declare such independent thinking as ungodly. They don't want too many independent thoughts running around. Then they might not be able to control people.Well, yes, but. It was religious leaders that pointed out the passages about thinking for yourself too. Look at the Abassid dynasty in Iraq or the early humanist writers in Christianity. They were doing all the wrong things that religions do, but that's how it works. Jefferson screwed his slaves, ya know? Not gonna throw out the Constitution based on that, are ya? I never made such a suggestion. Humans are fallible. If we threw out everything anyone said because he or she had a moral lapse, we would have nothing to relate to, and nothng to talk about. We wouldn't even be able to communicate using computers or the Internet. Lois
If we threw out everything anyone said because he or she had a moral lapse, we would have nothing to relate to, and nothng to talk about. We wouldn't even be able to communicate using computers or the Internet. LoisAnd that's exactly what you did when you said "then believers...." and "they". You threw a whole bunch of people in the dust bin because of the actions of some who share certain traits with them. There's a word for that.
Wow, well I think your basic idea of religion is way off for starters. I would say it's the worst of human inventions based on the horrible suffering, both physical and mental, it has inflicted for thousands of years. And raise children in relative safety? OMG that's off base. Then you say is shows that each individual is not the center of their own universe? Do you actually know what religion is my friend? It's actually the exact opposite of that. Why do you think the big churches fought tooth and nail against astronomical views that moved earth, and hance people, OUT of the center of the universe. My goodness you inhabit a strange world. BUT ignoring all that. There's already something that will eventually replace religion, for the most part, and it's called Secular Humanism. The difference is, no one will go to social places and say "hey I'm a secular humanist, what are you?" That's not how SH works. And honestly I'd guess many many people are SH who just never heard the term.I don't see how any form of Humanism could replace commercial religions.I meant that in a general sense. The overhead of all the religious garbage will slowly get shed away and what's left will be the universals that were there all along, prior to and independent of religion - and that's the beliefs the make up SH.
Wow, well I think your basic idea of religion is way off for starters. I would say it's the worst of human inventions based on the horrible suffering, both physical and mental, it has inflicted for thousands of years. And raise children in relative safety? OMG that's off base. Then you say is shows that each individual is not the center of their own universe? Do you actually know what religion is my friend? It's actually the exact opposite of that. Why do you think the big churches fought tooth and nail against astronomical views that moved earth, and hance people, OUT of the center of the universe. My goodness you inhabit a strange world. BUT ignoring all that. There's already something that will eventually replace religion, for the most part, and it's called Secular Humanism. The difference is, no one will go to social places and say "hey I'm a secular humanist, what are you?" That's not how SH works. And honestly I'd guess many many people are SH who just never heard the term.No black church - no civil rights movement. No RC Church - no University system. The protestant churches in early US founded the first schools for the common people. First moveable type printed book - Gutenberg Bible. Religion is a human invention that can be used for the benefit as well as detriment of everyday people. If your philosophy is based upon the real world you have to admit to this.No religion - no NEED for civil rights movement. RC Church was the biggest DETRACTOR of universal education. Their system was meant to keep knowledge away from the masses. If they knew their "universities" would lead to what they have (educated masses who turn away from the RC) they wouldn't have started them. Same with early protestants most likely, and even so, their starting schools were most likely to mass indoctrinate not mass educate. And the Gutenburg bible, well that's just a coincidence. If the Christians hadn't drummed up their little story book in the first place, and maybe not ransacked the greatest library in the world at Alexandria, perhaps Gutenburg would have printed something else.