You are equally inconsistent Paul. You criticize many particular practices of religious individuals as well as organized religion, then you point vaguely to groups with "religion" in their names that do it better and people who are spiritual in the correct way but you never describe the specifics of what is right or better. You just assert it.
Prima facie, nothing is inconsistent here. Some religious organizations, and some people acting in the name of a religion, build community and are very effective in being socially conscious, while on other points they may be soundly criticized. Meanwhile, other organizations and individuals may do a lousy job on either or both fronts. Perhaps you could point me to an example or more of these inconsistencies.
No matter the theology, even a if it’s a spiritual experience unrelated to cultural icons, the one thing that can’t be challenged is the personal experience. If someone feels that god is love, that is their feeling, not much else can be said. Claims of miracles, healings, apocalyptic predictions, historical details, all that can be challenged, and when used for political gains as it often is, should be challenged. The problem with a religious organization is it exploits that personal experience, claims that it points to their god, then builds their community on that false claim. It’s like starting a marriage based on a lie, it eventually fails.
I agree with all of that. My only point here was that individuals can fall back on personal experience with or without an organization to encourage or prod them.
I didn’t use that disjunctive.
Yes you did. Look at the second nested set of quotations in post 19. Those were your exact words.
I get the sense we're talking past each other. I'm not interested in whose fault that is. I'm interested in the issues.
Some religious organizations, and some people acting in the name of a religion, build community and are very effective in being socially conscious, while on other points they may be soundly criticized. Meanwhile, other organizations and individuals may do a lousy job on either or both fronts. Perhaps you could point me to an example or more of these inconsistencies.
Examples don’t help here. We both know of problematic religious organizations. That there are orgs that call themselves religious and are socially conscious is irrelevant. The question is one of what structure best supports the integrity of an org.
Any group of people with integrity will produce decent results. A benevolent dictator is by definition benevolent, but I still would prefer he allow for an election, because his successor may not be. A community with an education system, with boards, with oversight commitees, with blind testing and validation methods supports integrity. If religions started doing that, it would change what we think of as religion.
My only point here was that individuals can fall back on personal experience with or without an organization to encourage or prod them.
Anyone CAN fall back on personal experience, and if you are a priest, you get to keep your job if you do. If you are a scientist, you are called out for it. If you are a non-scientist, making a truth claim, you should be called out for it.
I didn’t use that disjunctive.
Yes you did. Look at the second nested set of quotations in post 19. Those were your exact words.
I get the sense we're talking past each other. I'm not interested in whose fault that is. I'm interested in the issues.
Huh, busted. Well, I stand by it anyway. I was not saying the two are equal. I hope you are not denying they are related. Either one has no place in science. That’s what threw me, I didn’t see how what you said referred to my meaning. I see no point in drawing the distinction in this context.
Examples don’t help here. We both know of problematic religious organizations. That there are orgs that call themselves religious and are socially conscious is irrelevant. The question is one of what structure best supports the integrity of an org.
Examples would help me. I was asking for examples of my being inconsistent. I don't think I was. If you can show me examples of what you're referring to, then I can work to identify a weakness, so that I can correct it. I'm here to learn, and interact with others so that we can all learn together. I want to be an effective spokesperson for Humanism, and I want others to be, too. If you show me where I'm going off the rails, you do me a great favor. On the other hand, if there aren't any examples, then the statement isn't true.
Huh, busted. Well, I stand by it anyway. I was not saying the two are equal. I hope you are not denying they are related. Either one has no place in science. That’s what threw me, I didn’t see how what you said referred to my meaning. I see no point in drawing the distinction in this context.
I already explained why the distinction matters, in post 15, but that wasn't my main point. We have been discussing how we can use language to communicate and persuade - at least that was my intention. This thread involves round 3,846 in the ongoing kerfuffle over "religion." I've explained repeatedly why I think that matters but that's not my main point either.
If you're unaware that you've written things, then there's a weakness in your presentation, and probably a lack of clarity in thinking. Having it pointed out gives you a chance to reflect on it so you don't get busted again. You don't owe me or anyone a response. Now that you've seen it, you have an opportunity to reflect on it and improve your game.
I'll say it again: I'm here because I want a thriving Humanist community. As you point out, scientists critique each others' work. That is an essential element in advancing science. Our communities should work in the same way.
When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it?
It's not just a lapse, Lois. You do it routinely. I opened one other topic to see if I could find an example, and sure enough, in "What is the non-believers story," yours is the first response, in which you refer to religion in a negative sense. Please don't tell us after all you've written that you have a favorable view of religion.
No, I don't. I think all religion has the potential to be destructive, but some more than others. Religion that forces a belief system on people and threatens them with harm if they leave is the worst kind. Unfortunately, those are the kinds of religions that we hear most about--the ones people are afraid to leave.
Religions are so potentially harmful that I think we should be wary of all of them.
Lois
When did I use the word "religion" to criricise it?
It's not just a lapse, Lois. You do it routinely. I opened one other topic to see if I could find an example, and sure enough, in "What is the non-believers story," yours is the first response, in which you refer to religion in a negative sense. Please don't tell us after all you've written that you have a favorable view of religion.
No, I don't. I think all religion has the potential to be destructive, but some more than others. Religion that forces a belief system on people and threatens them with harm if they leave is the worst kind. Unfortunately, those are the kinds of religions that we hear most about--the ones people are afraid to leave.
Religions are so potentially harmful that I think we should be wary of all of them.
Lois
You just did it again, making a categorical criticism of religion. Your first line is entirely reasonable but then your concluding line goes right back to categorical religion-bashing. You walk yourself back, then turn right around and march forward again. You don't even seem to realize that you did it.
Everything is potentially harmful. Humanism is potentially harmful. We should be wary of Humanism too. But that does not justify singling out Humanism as being different from anything else, the way you clearly single out religion.
Consider some examples, like Ethical Culture, Tibetan Buddhism, Wiccan and Unitarian-Universalism as it exists in the United States today. What, if anything, should make us especially wary of those religions?
You just did it again, making a categorical criticism of religion. Your first line is entirely reasonable but then your concluding line goes right back to categorical religion-bashing. You walk yourself back, then turn right around and march forward again. You don't even seem to realize that you did it.
Everything is potentially harmful. Humanism is potentially harmful. We should be wary of Humanism too. But that does not justify singling out Humanism as being different from anything else, the way you clearly single out religion.
Consider some examples, like Ethical Culture, Tibetan Buddhism, Wiccan and Unitarian-Universalism as it exists in the United States today. What, if anything, should make us especially wary of those religions?
It's not a categorical error if you have good evidence that fits the entire category. This forum is loaded with that evidence. I've been focusing on the structure of religion. Lois mentioned apostasy. I spent years in a church that welcomed gays and helped prostitutes leave their pimps. You could be almost anywhere "on the path" and be a member, BUT, one guy accepted Islam, another was a cultural Jew and was never going to accept Christ, neither of them could be members. We didn't stone them, but that's not the point. The point is, religion by definition is exclusive. You seem to be hinting that is not part of the definition, but no one knows what you're talking about.
I could answer your examples above with similar stories to my so-called liberal church. But that's off my track. You asked for examples of your inconsistency, so I'll look into that.
It's not a categorical error if you have good evidence that fits the entire category. This forum is loaded with that evidence. I've been focusing on the structure of religion. Lois mentioned apostasy. I spent years in a church that welcomed gays and helped prostitutes leave their pimps. You could be almost anywhere "on the path" and be a member, BUT, one guy accepted Islam, another was a cultural Jew and was never going to accept Christ, neither of them could be members. We didn't stone them, but that's not the point. The point is, religion by definition is exclusive. You seem to be hinting that is not part of the definition, but no one knows what you're talking about.
I could answer your examples above with similar stories to my so-called liberal church. But that's off my track. You asked for examples of your inconsistency, so I'll look into that.
But it doesn't fit the entire category. I gave some examples. How does the critique fit them? Or religious humanism? How does the critique fit there?
In a sense, every group is exclusive, but not necessarily in bad ways. There are religious organizations that welcome people no matter what they believe. Of course, if you want to bring an assault rifle to services, you're probably going to be excluded.
You don't know what I'm talking about but I strongly suspect that there are people here who do.
But it doesn't fit the entire category. I gave some examples. How does the critique fit them? Or religious humanism? How does the critique fit there?
In a sense, every group is exclusive, but not necessarily in bad ways. There are religious organizations that welcome people no matter what they believe. Of course, if you want to bring an assault rifle to services, you're probably going to be excluded.
You don't know what I'm talking about but I strongly suspect that there are people here who do.
3 of your examples were of non-diestic organizations. They barely fit the definition of religion. And Wiccan, really? You can't even define, it has no central structure, it believes in magic, it has rites of passage, it fits my definition of an organization that does not build community or support a decent culture. It's just a club.
You keep repeating yourself that there are good religious organizations out there. Can you even link to a website where one says "we welcome everybody". Of you course you can, but what does it really mean it? Does it mean, "we welcome you to come to our service, but eventually you'll have to accept our creed to be part of us." So cut with the assault rifle crap already.
First, you I didn’t miss anything. My “religion or theology" statement could have been replaced by “religion and theology". I can refer to both of them with stopping to define how they are distinct.
Now, here are some statements from you
To the extent they are making fact claims that extend beyond their personal experience, personal experience is not a valid justification.
Just because hard-line fundamentalist religions are so visible and do so much damage does not mean that they have completely taken over religion.
Religion can help provide a framework for living productively and with dignity. Our challenge as Humanists is to push religion in that direction.
The problem I have with what passes for religion today is that often, but not always, it includes theistic belief. In addition to the dreadful effects this can have on education and scientific literacy, some of the theistic religious groups and their members maintain that God wants them to do some dreadful things, which manifests itself mainly in social policies.
So we are in agreement about the problems. And they are tied into belief in a diety. You say "often but not always", I'd say closer to 99% define religion as including a belief in some kind of supernatural entity or entities. The important thing is that we agree that there could be a way to keep some of the ritual and community aspects of religion but remove the exclusive theology aspects. You seem to think there are already a lot of groups doing that. You would need some data to convince me of that. Your short lists of organizations has done nothing for your cause, for reasons I've already provided.
You just keep repeating
I know of several religions that promote and practice ethnic and cultural equality, and church-state separation.
It doesn't mean much. The question of my thread would be different anyway. It's not "are their groups that have dropped supernatural belief but still call themselves religions and are doing a good job of building community". To address my question you have to look beyond the labels. Look at how they are organized. Do you rise through the leadership by being appointed by previous leaders, or is it more democratic and meritocratic? How do they review their goals and purpose? Do they sit in a room and meditate about them, or do they review the latest studies? How are grievances from the membership addressed? If you answer those questions based on modern philosophies of fairness, equality and a scientific method of inquiry, then you agree with my OP. If you answer them with statements about a founder, or quotes from the Upanishads or that the org "honors the spirit of mother earth", then you are talking about something else.
Guess I may as well enter here. Humans form a great many kinds of groups. Some are democratic, some authoritarian. Some are based on a (usually informal) search for understanding the reality of the universe while some have a definition of reality based on historical stories and presented by the authorities. It is my belief (sorry, Lois) that anything which gets in the way of a rational search for a truth that constantly moves closer to describing reality inhibits the progress of the group and ultimately damages the members. Every religion I’ve seen fits the authoritarian, myth based structure, whether they are theistically based or not. As such, they are uniformly destructive.
Just because they may have some positive characteristics which might actually help some members doesn’t absolve them of their ultimate harmfulness.
Occam
Thanks for the validation guys, Paul and I are in a bit of rut here. I just can’t see his claims as any different than anyone who said, “Yes but, you should go to my church. My church is doing all these good things. My church is not infected with political problems.” It’s anecdotal evidence anyway, and even if true, it says nothing about the structure that created all those good things. It could have been a chance meeting of a bunch of good people, something that happens all the time.
OK, so here we are, deeply engaged in argument number 6,742 on CFI over what a religion is or isn’t. Let’s see if we can reach any agreement. I’ll begin by posing a few questions.
Why are we arguing about religion at all? One of about ten of our forums is devoted to that subject. Why? Is it really that important? We seem to have general agreement here that religion has done a lot of damage throughout history. You get no argument from me on that point. Many people here know my history, and how visibly my son and I took on a proselytizing teacher in a public high school. So yes, Lausten, we probably agree on what most of the problems are.
Does that mean that we should globally oppose or bad-mouth religion? I say no, for several reasons. To get there, I need to make an observation and ask some more questions.
The observation is that a religion isn’t something that can be measured like the chemical composition of a rock. Religions are of human invention, and quite literally are what people say they are. They also evolve, and every religion has evolved, some more than others. This means that they can evolve in the future. Virtually every human institution does evolve, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Consider our political parties and our communications media (newspapers, television) as examples.
Still, a word has to have some core of meaning, with the caveat that words can be used in several different ways. So we have to be careful not to make the linguistic tail wag the reality dog but at the same time, we are best advised to speak and write in ways that will effectively communicate our thoughts.
So what is a religion? Of course, anyone can define it as they please but when I look at religious history, I can condense it down to this statement: a person’s religion is the way that person pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns; or we could say that it is a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns. I didn’t make this up. This idea comes from some of our finest scholars of religious history. Let’s consider two examples, both drawn from my personal experience.
a. In my childhood, Roman Catholicism was my religion. Day-to-day, my focus was directed toward the idea of God as I understood it, as relayed to me by my family and local clergy. A set of moral obligations came along with it, and I tried to live by them. We went to Sunday mass, where there was some community, though Catholics aren’t big on that compared to some of the Protestant denominations. Over time, this religion became less and less satisfactory to me for a variety of reasons, which others have expressed without even knowing my personal history.
b. As a result, over time and through an evolution in my thinking, I became a Humanist. Day-to-day, my focus is directed toward the human condition, which I seek to understand more fully through both the physical and the social sciences. I choose to impose a set of moral obligations on myself because I perceive that others experience suffering and happiness, much as I do. At various times, I have attended Humanist gatherings, though my work on my website keeps me away from that most of the time. Over time, as I have developed it, this religion has become more and more satisfying to me. And here’s the key definitional point: it occupies the same space in my life as Catholicism used to occupy, so I call it my religion. The main difference is that Humanism works. It makes sense. There is no separation between my religion and my life. It’s all one. So for me, Humanism is more of a religion than Catholicism ever was or ever could be.
So I approach this question knowing, for a fact, that religion can have positive effects on a person. I use my religion as a means of orienting myself. It doesn’t matter whether it makes sense to anyone else, though I can explain it in a way that is easily understood. I reared both of my children in this religion, and they’ve incorporated it with great success. It works for me and apparently for my kids, lifts me up and makes me a better person. And if you want me to defend my religion, have at it with any question you care to ask. I have no problem defending my thesis, as it were.
So Occam, when you say that every religion you have seen fits an authoritarian, myth-based structure, I wonder whether you have spent any time at an Ethical Culture Society. They bend over backward to obtain consensus for anything they do, and to follow democratic procedures. And I see less mythology in Ethical Culture than I do right here on this forum, including from you, Occam – with all due respect. UU isn’t authoritarian either, in my opinion. I don’t know what your criteria are, Occam, but I’ve witnessed several religious organizations that did not seem authoritarian to me. Quite a few of them were myth-based but not all of them. Again, I offer Ethical Culture as an example. Felix Adler founded it in 1876 as a religion without dogma. I think he made a positive and important contribution that paved the way for us today.
So why does it matter? It matters because it affects how we will approach these issues. We can choose to declare war on the whole of religion, to critique it categorically and do whatever we can to wipe the “scourge of religion" from the earth. We can launch these broad and categorical critiques of all religion, even though our real enemies are supernaturalism and the authoritarianism that often come from that – in a word, mainly, theism – engaging in these endless circle jerks about how dreadful religion is. To what end? Or we can say “there’s another way of looking at it and another approach." I choose to draw my critiques of other people’s practices and belief systems as narrowly as I can, so that I can confidently and consistently defend the critiques that I make. In my opinion, we are more likely to succeed by offering another way of looking at religion than by trying to pulverize it into oblivion.
You guys do what you want. That is where I stand and what I intend to do. And as I said, if you want to have me defend my thesis, have at it. Ask me any question or series of questions you like. Just keep in mind that I do have a busy law practice and spend too much time here as it is.
Religions are of human invention, and quite literally are what people say they are.
Of course, anyone can define it as they please...
First problem. Words have meaning. Some words have many meanings, but it's not that hard to agree on a definition for the sake of one discussion.
So I approach this question knowing, for a fact, that religion can have positive effects on a person.
I never said religion could not have positive effects on some people some of the time.
In points 7 and 8, you first kinda agree with what I’m saying, that organizations can drop dogma and pursue non-authoritarian models. Obviously we agree on that, but you want to focus on the negative and make all sorts of wild accusations. So instead of discussing how orgs could do that, we get to read your rants about how the rest of us are doing it wrong and you know all these people who got it right and how we aren't listening to you and wah, wah wah. Are you really a lawyer?
Peace to you.
Lausten, I have been practicing law for 36 years, a trial attorney, mainly medical malpractice cases for plaintiffs. Our main office is on Wall Street in New York City.
I have been watching people in our movements argue about these things for as long as I have been attending humanist meetings. Not once has any of those discussions accomplished anything. All it does is divide us, distract us from more useful endeavors and make us look radical to the general public.
I presume that if you had a substantive critique of anything I wrote, except to cut off my definition before I even gave it, you would have posted it. Yes, I’m pissed off because I think you’re doing it wrong. That’s my opinion, and I told you why.
In points 7 and 8, you first kinda agree with what I’m saying, that organizations can drop dogma and pursue non-authoritarian models. Obviously we agree on that, but you want to focus on the negative and make all sorts of wild accusations. So instead of discussing how orgs could do that, we get to read your rants about how the rest of us are doing it wrong and you know all these people who got it right and how we aren't listening to you and wah, wah wah.
You opened this topic in a post that isn't focused on organizations at all. If you want to discuss that, then open a topic on it.
In response #2, I took issue with this statement from your opening post: "Religion, when challenged, falls back on personal experience."
First, religion can't fall back on anything. It's not a conscious actor.
Second, as I pointed out, you're making a categorical statement, and using the wrong word. Clearly you're referring to theism. So say that. If you don't like three days of argument on the subject, then stop using the wrong word. If it's no big deal to you, then why the fuss?
Lausten, I have been practicing law for 36 years, a trial attorney, mainly medical malpractice cases for plaintiffs. Our main office is on Wall Street in New York City.
I have been watching people in our movements argue about these things for as long as I have been attending humanist meetings. Not once has any of those discussions accomplished anything. All it does is divide us, distract us from more useful endeavors and make us look radical to the general public.
I presume that if you had a substantive critique of anything I wrote, except to cut off my definition before I even gave it, you would have posted it. Yes, I'm pissed off because I think you're doing it wrong. That's my opinion, and I told you why.
I imagine that just about any discussion with you in it would be unproductive and divisive. And how it is even possible to cut someone off in a typed discussion forum. And how can I can cut something off BEFORE you give it? You have been long on the pissed off and short on the why. Your other post is just more of your repetitiveness and playing with definitions. If you have any actual responses to what I say, I'll respond back.
Religions are of human invention, and quite literally are what people say they are.
Of course, anyone can define it as they please...
First problem. Words have meaning. Some words have many meanings, but it's not that hard to agree on a definition for the sake of one discussion.
. . . when I wrote this . . .
"So what is a religion? Of course, anyone can define it as they please but when I look at religious history, I can condense it down to this statement: a person’s religion is the way that person pulls together and addresses life’s central concerns; or we could say that it is a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns."
. . . is cutting off the definition before I gave it. Maybe that wasn't your intent but it did appear that way. The least you could do is acknowledge that you did it.
PlaClair, “a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns” as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual’s personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world’s religions.
If one’s worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world’s predominate religions embody dogma.
PlaClair, "a set of ideas, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, etc., that the person uses in an attempt to pull together and address life’s central concerns" as a definition, seems to me to refer to an individual's personal paradigm or worldview. It does not define what I think of as the world's religions.
If one's worldview excludes dogma, that seems to me to be a good thing, but most of the world's predominate religions embody dogma.
But they don't all, and they don't have to. Religion can be something else, something positive. Why is that so hard for people here to accept?
Did you read what I wrote about religion in my life? I am far from alone. Maybe you haven't had experiences like that but much of our population has.