Is Religion Just Making Stuff Up?

[Muffled]

An impressive moment, filtered through an accepted worldview, alters the way in which that moment is experienced and expressed in retelling. You don't have to be clairvoyant to understand how a mind works, especially when you have one yourself...

Do you not find it odd that Christians attribute their moving experiences to the handiwork of God (with a Jesus facet), while Muslims explain the same experiences to the handiwork of Allah, who is essentially the same god, but while purposefully excluding or rejecting the Jesus facet? Hindus attribute their experiences to their gods, just as the Romans and Greeks did to theirs, and so on. All religious people attribute their human experience to something other than themselves - generally something that they've accepted mentally - something completely imaginary and without substantiation.

The experience, then, can be said to be a shared and common (and therefore real) experience - a normal emotional response of human physiology and psychology to any given variable. The spiritual and mythological explanations, however, are limited to the presuppositions of the faithful, who explain the experience through a set framework (dogma). This variable nature of explanation is what should logically lead us to conclude that the latter part of our subject is wholly subjective - wishful thinking - made up - delusional - nonsense... however you wish to describe it.

When you break down any given experiential moment, the explanation could range from the more familiar, like the movement of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ through a crowd of people hopeful for his mercy, to something less common like invisible gremlins who like to pull on people's arm pores when they hear a certain type of music, causing goosebumps. Those two explanations for the phenomena of "hair raising emotions" are equally as substantiated and equally as ridiculous. The only difference is that one gets met with defensive sentimentality and the other is agreed to be absurd.

I believe that is possible but I also believe a person can view the event objectively. I believe it is possible to embellish the account but I also believe it is possible to accurately report the account. I do know how the mind works. It tries to fit a new event into a set of learned experiences or educational experiences. That is not imagination but simply the mind working to logically assess the event.

I believe you do have to be clairvoyant to determine whether a person has used imagination or logic.

I do not believe something is wishful thinking et al simply because it is subjective.

I believe that statement is absurd. There are a great many differences that have nothing to do with sentimentality although of course anyone attacked will be defensive.

I believe you have taken an a priori view. You have already decided that an attribution is imaginary so it can't be valid.
If you are trying to say that many attributions conflict and thereby one or another is invalid I believe you have to get more specific. For instance Muslims believe in praying to God and so do Christians and Jews. The experience is a human one and thereby the participants share a lot in common.

 

[Quintessence]

In your post #153 you mentioned that things can be "useful". I agree that usefulness is "good". It strikes me that you would agree that some things can be labeled "good" and others "bad"? From my perspective that requires some sort of philosophical set of axioms, or at least one axiom. For me: "promoting well being is 'good' " is my axiom. I acknowledge that I can't prove that my axiom is true. My intuition is that it is, but that's all.

Do you have any such axiom?

My axiom would probably be something along the lines of "things are what they are." In practice, I operate by what could be called virtue ethics, not moral axioms. The aim is to be true to oneself... true to one's desired character and sense of virtue or honor. This internal sense of honor/character/virtue is poorly described with words like 'good' or 'bad' - it simply is what it is. The internal bit is important - one's sense of honor comes from and is enforced by oneself rather than externalities. Externalities may help remind you of who you are, certainly, but the ultimate punishment is self-criticism and the self-hatred that comes from failing yourself. You always have to live with yourself, after all, and few things are more miserable than despising your own company.

 

[Augustus]

Much of "western intervention" has been negative, no disagreement there. But I would suggest that we broaden our definition of "intervention". If we include things like vaccinations, and medical advancements, electricity, clean water, better agricultural practices and so on into the definition of "interventions", then I think that changes the equation. Again, slowly reducing the amount of indoctrination and increases the amount of education, seems moral, humane, and compassionate.

Providing assistance to those who would willingly accept it is fine. I have no argument against that.

On the other hand, unwelcome Western interventionism has caused people in many places to see vaccinations as part of a Western conspiracy to make people infertile or spread disease though.

You can't help people against their will.

 

[icehorse]

Providing assistance to those who would willingly accept it is fine. I have no argument against that.

On the other hand, unwelcome Western interventionism has caused people in many places to see vaccinations as part of a Western conspiracy to make people infertile or spread disease though.

You can't help people against their will.

Indeed. But there are 10's if not 100's of millions of kids in the world that would love a better education, and their society blocks such results.

 

[icehorse]

My axiom would probably be something along the lines of "things are what they are." In practice, I operate by what could be called virtue ethics, not moral axioms. The aim is to be true to oneself... true to one's desired character and sense of virtue or honor. This internal sense of honor/character/virtue is poorly described with words like 'good' or 'bad' - it simply is what it is. The internal bit is important - one's sense of honor comes from and is enforced by oneself rather than externalities. Externalities may help remind you of who you are, certainly, but the ultimate punishment is self-criticism and the self-hatred that comes from failing yourself. You always have to live with yourself, after all, and few things are more miserable than despising your own company.

I would guess that helping someone in need would be compatible with your internal sense of honor? If so, it could just be semantics we're sorting out (which is what I suspect)

 

[rabkauhallA]

I’d say religion is the very opposite of making things up since it tends to rely on followers accepting pre-defined beliefs and world views on faith. Those fundamental beliefs generally aren’t allowed to be changed, certainly not at the whim of random individuals.

How those initial beliefs first came about, typically hundreds or thousands of years ago could be a different matter but I suspect that more often than not the originators truly believed they had some kind of revelation rather than knowingly making stuff up for some reason.

I don't know. This atheist thinks the world of Pope Francis, who with his amazing humility and his theme of helping the poor, the sick, elderly etc. seems to be changing long standing catholic focus on abortion, death penalty, divorce etc. He may not change Canon, but he sure has angered conservative Catholics from the flock to high ranking church officials. And I might add it's about damn time the church what they see as universal human flaws and tackle real tragedies happening. Though John Paul II was the Pope much of my life, I payed no attention to him. Benedict either. But this saintly man lives the way he preaches. I almost wish I was Catholic when I see him do things like kiss the feet of prisoners. And the quote on the plane about lgbt folks? "Who am I to judge?" He's like the Bernie Sanders of the Papacy. God bless that man!

I’d say religion is the very opposite of making things up since it tends to rely on followers accepting pre-defined beliefs and world views on faith. Those fundamental beliefs generally aren’t allowed to be changed, certainly not at the whim of random individuals.

How those initial beliefs first came about, typically hundreds or thousands of years ago could be a different matter but I suspect that more often than not the originators truly believed they had some kind of revelation rather than knowingly making stuff up for some reason.

 

[rabkauhallA]

Indeed. But there are 10's if not 100's of millions of kids in the world that would love a better education, and their society blocks such results.

Right??? Just ask Malala. Heroes come in all ages, genders, and religion. She is one of my biggest heroes. Nobel Laureate to boot! So well earned.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't know. This atheist thinks the world of Pope Francis, who with his amazing humility and his theme of helping the poor, the sick, elderly etc. seems to be changing long standing catholic focus on abortion, death penalty, divorce etc. He may not change Canon, but he sure has angered conservative Catholics from the flock to high ranking church officials.

Not everything a religious person (even a Pope) does is religion. Francis has spoken about the practical realities of the world much more than his predecessors but as you say (and as he is always forced to confirm), he isn’t changing the beliefs and doctrine of the Catholic Church. He isn’t saying these things because of the religion, he’s speaking despite the religion, which I think supports my statement on religion being about continuation of age-old beliefs rather than “making things up” as suggested by the OP.