Philosophy Now Forum

Dubious wrote:

Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

That's not so easy. It's the Ritual of religions, more often than not, which hold a society together in which God operates as a mere formality though an indispensable one. Take the Shias and Sunnis not unlike Catholics and Protestants in earlier times. Their differences then and now didn't amount to a difference of Gods but more on political, philosophical and even commonplace motives. Even as people become more secular believing in no God or a completely indifferent one, it's the rituals and customs which flow from it which bind cultures and societies. These are far more difficult to dismantle since they're always based on some Sacred Constitution even if no longer believed in by those who continue to observe its customs. Religions are already, and more so now, atheistic in the sense they no-longer require God as an active entity and not in the least desirable by those who profess to believe.

I agree that people are mostly following culture and tradition and that God does not mean much.

If they did, secular law would soon outlaw most religions for the barbaric laws and Gods they follow.

That is why I advocate ridding ourselves of the archaic laws and to try to save the baby as we dump the bath water.

You cannot do that with Christian and Muslim idol worshipers.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: "Where? If there were any gods, why would they hide?"

When one is not an idol worshiper then the seeking after a God is just seeking the best rules and laws to live life by. As shown in the O.P., that begins with the Golden Rule.

Regards
DL

That's no good for adults, either. 'Seeking' suggests that the best rules and laws are to be found, rather than invented, designed and constructed by humankind. It's like "The truth is out there." and comes perilously close to The Truth having an eternal existence, independent of the minds that discover it; that a superior - super-natural - body of laws exists. That's not a very wide loop back to idols, nor to the people who are always ready to have The Law 'revealed' exclusively to them - and they're more than happy to interpret it for the rest of us.

The golden rule is simple pragmatic social interaction; no hocus-pocus; no mysticalities.

[quote="Greatest I am"][/quote]

What is a person like me exactly, GAI? No, seriously. If I get the blame for oppressing women, the least you can do is tell me who you think I am. I'm waiting. Because I'm not of an Abrahamic faith, nor Dharmic.

Why do you assume my religion?

Greatest I am wrote: So atheists and others who are not homophobic or misogynous should refrain from trying to improve the lot of women and gays.

Please don't put words into my mouth, GIA, it is both ungentlemanly and counter-productive. All I'm saying is that arguing with a theist is a waste of breath on a par with arguing with a climate science denier. Such folk are unreachable with the tools of human reason and attempting such an adventure does nothing except entrench them more deeply in their illogical positions. I offer the rise of all forms of religious fundamentalism in recent decades as complete and adequate evidence of this. What we're witnessing is the last gasp of dying ideologies whose time has come and whose inflexible defenders have withdrawn behind the barricades.

As a keen gardener I've noticed that many flowering shrubs do the same thing. If a shrub in your garden flowers more profusely than it ever did before then it's time to think about replacing it because the likelihood is that the bloody thing will be dead next year.

Arguing with a believer is like mud-wrestling with a pig. You use up all your best moves in the first five minutes but you just can't get a grip on the bastard. As you lie exhausted in the stinking mud you happen to glance up to find that the pig is grinning at you.

THE FUCKING PIG IS LOVING IT.

Skip wrote: 'Seeking' suggests that the best rules and laws are to be found, rather than invented, designed and constructed by humankind. It's like "The truth is out there." and comes perilously close to The Truth having an eternal existence, independent of the minds that discover it; that a superior - super-natural - body of laws exists.

The notion of an eternal truth or immutable suite of divine laws is a filthy conceptual habit but a difficult one to shake off. It remains the sole reason why the models of modern physics make not the slightest lick of sense.

That's why I'm so leery of the language in which these ideas are usually couched.
Words matter; they shape and limit our thoughts - but they're vulnerable things, far too susceptible to abuse.

Greatest I am wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Are you happy that the women in your family are second class citizens thanks to Christianity?

Regards
DL

You paint all Christians with the same brush, that is not very realistic, no more than all atheists believe the same thing, or that you believe what every other believer, believes.

The Abrahamic cults have been the majority in the West forever.
Ignore that they are the cause of homophobia and misogyny in the West all you like.
Seems that you do not care that the women in your family are second class.
You must be a theist.
Regards
DL

You stupidly assume that I treat the females in my family badly, nothing could be further from the truth. Just proves what a bigot you are. A bigot is a stupid person who believes that everyone is exactly the way they think they are

thedoc wrote:

The Abrahamic cults have been the majority in the West forever.
Ignore that they are the cause of homophobia and misogyny in the West all you like.
Seems that you do not care that the women in your family are second class.
You must be a theist.
Regards
DL

You stupidly assume that I treat the females in my family badly, nothing could be further from the truth. Just proves what a bigot you are. A bigot is a stupid person who believes that everyone is exactly the way they think they are

See what I mean about words? I appreciate the linguistic shift in this exchange. From systemic ideological discrimination (true) in entire cultures (true), and Doc takes exception to the generalization - without denying or refuting the main point. GIA moves in to a personal accusation of "not caring" that the main point is true (his concern or lack of is not established). The Doc shifts it to whether he "treats the females in my family badly."
Not only is the question still unanswered, but the issue has become one of undefined subjective judgment. Good or bad treatment of the women in one family is hardly relevant to the structure of a whole society - and we have no idea what he considers good or bad treatment of second-class citizens. Many slave-owners didn't use the whip; many would have said "We treated them like family!" which may have been true in some households, but didn't change the status of Africans in America.

"God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we — we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

---Rev. Nietzsche
______________________________

GAI wrote:So I do not want to kill all religions but just encourage them to be more moral, tolerant and give equality to women and gays.

A thousand years is a long time. A dying creature is anything but 'dead' from a biological perspective: rather that corpse lights up from within and instead of one light there are a thousand lights as each cell decomposes.

What Dennett is proposing - largely - is it not nearly exactly what the Protestant Reformation initiated? Is that not largely what has been created by Teutonic Greco-Roman Europe? The revolutions in thought of the last 500 years - are they not an intimate aspect of a spiritual revolution?

I would ask some questions, though, about the terms 'moral', 'tolerant', and 'equal'. It is pretty difficult to decide what moral values shall be ascendent. 'Tolerance' is a loaded, politicised word that also has a debilitating, effeminate aspect. And there is no doubt that the notion of equality is often a corrupt concept.

Additionally, to propose that homosexuality - its closeted variety - be accepted is a sane position. But the issue is far more complex than just that. In the 80s and 90s there was a concerted effort to mainstream what has been called 'a gay agenda' and - some might say - to faggify the Western world. I deliberately choose the provocative word, both for fun and to forward thoughtcrime. I have no reason at all to desire, condone or abet a cultural process of homosexualisation, and I regard it as an extremely negative thing.

So, sure, the best manoeuvre for the religious mind, especially the Occidental mind, is to bring it all to a very conscious level and certainly to work to define morals, jurisprudence, good administration, and much else.

Additionally, the mention of 'equality' for women is problematic. Women are not equal to men. There are structural difference that are not negatable. True, in our advanced cultures we have artificially equalised the status of women, and some large part of that has been through offering to women the capability of choice in reproduction. But it is absurd on the face to propose that women are 'equal', and thus the premise is flawed from the start. It is possible, and perhaps also wise, to choose to artificially maintain a largely equal status and to intervene to see that that happens.

I am always reminded of a pithy statement by Camille Paglia:

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts."

To investigate why this statement is true requires turning against a tide of false assumption.

Skip wrote:Where? If there were any gods, why would they hide?

When one meditates on existence, on the fact that existence exists, that there is no alternative to existence, and that somehow all this is here, and we rise up in it and out of it, I guess that there is a quite natural tendency to suppose/intuit both Being and Intelligence. How could this ever be explained? Sat-Chit-Ananda is the way the Vedists interpret it. Eternal existence as an expression of 'ananda' (something like inconceivable pleasure). Your question is where the silly fairy tale resides. Your question expresses a lack of grasp of the essence that is the question! Yes indeed, all the concretions of mythology and fable, the symbolic formulations, are false. But they may never have been intended to have been real. Weren't they only symbolic vessels to help people to visualise? Those who meditate at deeply intuitive levels on 'our existence here' often have odd things to report, and when they attempt to place that intuition in words, the concretisation is born, and the misunderstanding.

Your question expresses a lack of grasp of the essence that is the question!

On such profundities are mythical systems built.

Skip wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: "Where? If there were any gods, why would they hide?"

When one is not an idol worshiper then the seeking after a God is just seeking the best rules and laws to live life by. As shown in the O.P., that begins with the Golden Rule.

Regards
DL

That's no good for adults, either. 'Seeking' suggests that the best rules and laws are to be found, rather than invented, designed and constructed by humankind. It's like "The truth is out there." and comes perilously close to The Truth having an eternal existence, independent of the minds that discover it; that a superior - super-natural - body of laws exists. That's not a very wide loop back to idols, nor to the people who are always ready to have The Law 'revealed' exclusively to them - and they're more than happy to interpret it for the rest of us.

The golden rule is simple pragmatic social interaction; no hocus-pocus; no mysticalities.

I agree with your last. Not much else.

Perpetual seeking for better laws is just admitting that what we have already invented and put in place likely can be improved. If we just sit back and idol worship the rules in place, then that would cause our societies to never advance further and we would stagnate without ever finder the best rules and laws to live by.

Regards
DL

Dalek Prime wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

What is a person like me exactly, GAI? No, seriously. If I get the blame for oppressing women, the least you can do is tell me who you think I am. I'm waiting. Because I'm not of an Abrahamic faith, nor Dharmic.

Why do you assume my religion?

Most mainstream religions promote homophobia and misogyny.

If you are in one of those, you are a part of the problem and not the solution unless you are fighting your own from within.

Regards
DL

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: So atheists and others who are not homophobic or misogynous should refrain from trying to improve the lot of women and gays.

Please don't put words into my mouth, GIA, it is both ungentlemanly and counter-productive. All I'm saying is that arguing with a theist is a waste of breath on a par with arguing with a climate science denier. Such folk are unreachable with the tools of human reason and attempting such an adventure does nothing except entrench them more deeply in their illogical positions. I offer the rise of all forms of religious fundamentalism in recent decades as complete and adequate evidence of this. What we're witnessing is the last gasp of dying ideologies whose time has come and whose inflexible defenders have withdrawn behind the barricades.

As a keen gardener I've noticed that many flowering shrubs do the same thing. If a shrub in your garden flowers more profusely than it ever did before then it's time to think about replacing it because the likelihood is that the bloody thing will be dead next year.

Arguing with a believer is like mud-wrestling with a pig. You use up all your best moves in the first five minutes but you just can't get a grip on the bastard. As you lie exhausted in the stinking mud you happen to glance up to find that the pig is grinning at you.

THE FUCKING PIG IS LOVING IT.

Imagine a world where all were like you and no one tried to correct poor thinking.
You might think of applying the Golden Rule my friend.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zhlDbMfDg

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI

Jesus Camp 1of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:[

You stupidly assume that I treat the females in my family badly, nothing could be further from the truth. Just proves what a bigot you are. A bigot is a stupid person who believes that everyone is exactly the way they think they are

Not treating women badly is not the same as granting full equality.

Not treating gays badly while calling them sinners is not granting full equality.

Christianity and Islam are both immoral creeds as they do not believe in equality and both discriminate without a just cause.

Regards
DL