Let's define Religion.

[Augustus]

Am I correct in recalling that it is your position that all belief is myth?

No, not all belief is myth. It's not a myth to believe the Olympics are happening now for example.

Additionally, is it your position that beliefs in myth are necessary or required? Essentially, that we cannot function without myths?

All ideology is grounded in myth, and humans cannot function without ideology.

Your definition of myth might differ from mine though. Importantly, it is not pejorative at all.

Myth: an explanatory narrative that is not objectively true.

All belief systems require axioms and these axioms must be justified somehow. We justify these via narratives that explain why things are desirable.

Someone might say we need to take care of the planet because it is god's creation.
Another person might say we have a duty to Humanity and the future generations.

Both are myths.


You didn't answer this

In terms of equating belief systems with other, which pair of belief systems share more in common (and do you think it is particularly close):

1. Liberal protestantism and Secular Humanism
2. Ancient Greek religion and Liberal Protestantism
3. Ancient Greek religion and Secular Humanism

 

[MikeF]

You didn't answer this

In terms of equating belief systems with other, which pair of belief systems share more in common (and do you think it is particularly close):

1. Liberal protestantism and Secular Humanism
2. Ancient Greek religion and Liberal Protestantism
3. Ancient Greek religion and Secular Humanism

I apologize for not answering this point directly. When considering how best to answer, I could only envision a continuation of the following cycle:

"My dear Augustus, your point is downplaying the important elements of our discussion and is highlighting aspects that do not address what is at issue, and here is why ..."

"Ahh, but Mike my dear fellow, surely you see that you have simply whitewashed all the key elements of what is really germane to this issue and continue to focus on those aspects that fail to address what we are really talking about, and here is why ..."

I decided to try a change of tact to see if I could break the cycle.

As to your point, Religion has clearly evolved throughout history. If, by Liberal Protestantism, you refer to something like the Unitarian Universalists, I see just another step in this evolutionary process. The UU church is a pluralistic Church that bifurcates religious belief from fellowship, social values, and societal engagement. Shared religious belief is no longer the common denominator that is shared among members as members can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose, or hold none at all. Instead, the common denominator is a shared belief in secular humanism.

It is a long, slow process weaning humanity away from its primitive beginnings, where all aspects of human life were bound in religious myth, to a gradual acknowledgement that humanity is solely responsible for its collective actions and that it is incumbent upon humanity to take responsibility for its collective self.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

It is a long, slow process weaning humanity away from its primitive beginnings, where all aspects of human life were bound in religious myth, to a gradual acknowledgement that humanity is solely responsible for its collective actions and that it is incumbent upon humanity to take responsibility for its collective self.

Well, no! This one is older than Christianity and yet, it is a religion to some, but not to you.

Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision

To me, that is as bad as any other religion that in effect claims objective authority.
As for your text for my bold. There is no collective self. That is ontological idealism. I don't believe like you do, but you are different because your beliefs are special, right?!!

 

[MikeF]

No, not all belief is myth. It's not a myth to believe the Olympics are happening now for example.
All ideology is grounded in myth, and humans cannot function without ideology.

Poor wording on my part, thanks for narrowing the scope of what we are talking about.

Your definition of myth might differ from mine though. Importantly, it is not pejorative at all.

Myth: an explanatory narrative that is not objectively true.

I have been thinking about our use of the term myth over the last few posts and our conversations elsewhere. I feel we are using the term in a figurative way, and as such, it creates a false equivalency between belief categories that should be considered distinct.

I think the word myth has a more academic and technical use that provides a much narrower definition than the one you have provided.
Myth - Wikipedia

The problem with your definition of the word myth is that it makes the word myth synonymous with the word propaganda, which I do not find helpful in fostering clear communication.

All belief systems require axioms and these axioms must be justified somehow. We justify these via narratives that explain why things are desirable.

Someone might say we need to take care of the planet because it is god's creation.
Another person might say we have a duty to Humanity and the future generations.

Both are myths.

I think if we look at your two examples above, we can see how calling both myth creates a false equivalency.

In your first example, I would agree that this qualifies as a myth, both by your definition and the technical definition of myth. The individual is inferring care for the planet is required based on the expectation of the mythical entity.

In the second example, there is no narrative myth involved. Here we are seeing the expression of subjective choice. This person is advocating a preference, not complying with behavior scripted by myth.

Belief justified by myth is belief prescribed by myth, there is no choice in the value being expressed, just choice in whether or not to comply.

But a subjective belief can be justified by objective evidence that one can use to advocate for that belief. Whether others choose to share that belief would be by choice, not as a result of complying with a belief prescribed by myth.

Subjective choice is not equivalent to myth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

But a subjective belief can be justified by objective evidence that one can use to advocate for that belief. Whether others choose to share that belief would be by choice, not as a result of complying with a belief prescribed by myth.

...

That is wrong in practice since nobody has actual been able to do it. They say they can, but they can't. It is the problem of is-ought.

 

[MikeF]

Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.

Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.
Our Vision

https://www.atheists.org/about/our-vision/

You put the above in a yellow quote box which gives the impression that you are continuing to address comments or opinions expressed by me. If you have issues with the ideas expressed in your quoted definition, please address them to the author.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You put the above in a yellow quote box which gives the impression that you are continuing to address comments or opinions expressed by me. If you have issues with the ideas expressed in your quoted definition, please address them to the author.

No. I won't. You are so subjective in your belief of being objective that I only scatter post. I doubt you are capable of understanding that you are as much a product of nature and nurture as all other humans and there is no actual salvation in your belief system.

 

[MikeF]

That is wrong in practice since nobody has actual been able to do it. They say they can, but they can't. It is the problem of is-ought.

Then perhaps it would be better to say objective evidence can provide sufficient justification for one to hold and advocate for a subjective belief.

 

[MikeF]

No. I won't. You are so subjective in your belief of being objective that I only scatter post. I doubt you are capable of understanding that you are as much a product of nature and nurture as all other humans and there is no actual salvation in your belief system.

Interesting. I would have thought that my collective comments would affirm a conclusion that I understand I am solely a product of nature and nurture, just like everyone else.

Is the requirement for salvation in a belief system an objective requirement or a subjective requirement?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then perhaps it would be better to say objective evidence can provide sufficient justification for one to hold and advocate for a subjective belief.

No, you are still overlooking the is-ought problem. Don't just say you can solve it. Solve it or learn that you can't That problem is over 2000 years old in effect. And it hasn't been solved so far. That you can write that you can solve it, only mean that you can write that you can solve it. Not that you have done so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting. I would have thought that my collective comments would affirm a conclusion that I understand I am solely a product of nature and nurture, just like everyone else.

Is the requirement for salvation in a belief system an objective requirement or a subjective requirement?

You say you can save our collective self using science. That makes it objective and we are back to the is-ought problem. And Agrippa's Trilemma, the problem of epistemological solipsism and the foundational problem in epistemology. Not to speak of the limitations of the 2nd law of classical logic.

Your solution is to ignore all the problems that hasn't been solved in philosophy and declare that you have solved them all using science. Well, so far, you haven't.

 

[MikeF]

No, you are still overlooking the is-ought problem. Don't just say you can solve it. Solve it or learn that you can't That problem is over 2000 years old in effect. And it hasn't been solved so far. That you can write that you can solve it, only mean that you can write that you can solve it. Not that you have done so.

You are failing to appreciate that I am not arguing that there is an "ought", rather, there a is subjective preference for which one might seek an accord.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are failing to appreciate that I am not arguing that there is an "ought", rather, there a is subjective preference for which one might seek accord.

Yeah, the subjective preference is an ought, if you analyze it. You seem to think that if you rephrase the words, you can solved that problems in philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, the subjective preference is an ought, if you analyze it. You seem to think that if you rephrase the words, you can solved that problems in philosophy.

Isn't Agrippa's trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma in reference to completing a proof? We are not speaking of proofs here.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Isn't Agrippa's trilemma or the Münchhausen trilemma in reference to completing a proof? We are not speaking of proofs here.

No, it is about rational justification in general. That also applies to your belief system. And mine.

You really have to study the history of Western ideas and how old Greek philosophy is still with us and the problems I listed.

 

[Augustus]

I apologize for not answering this point directly. When considering how best to answer, I could only envision a continuation of the following cycle:

"My dear Augustus, your point is downplaying the important elements of our discussion and is highlighting aspects that do not address what is at issue, and here is why ..."

"Ahh, but Mike my dear fellow, surely you see that you have simply whitewashed all the key elements of what is really germane to this issue and continue to focus on those aspects that fail to address what we are really talking about, and here is why ..."

I decided to try a change of tact to see if I could break the cycle.

As to your point, Religion has clearly evolved throughout history. If, by Liberal Protestantism, you refer to something like the Unitarian Universalists, I see just another step in this evolutionary process. The UU church is a pluralistic Church that bifurcates religious belief from fellowship, social values, and societal engagement. Shared religious belief is no longer the common denominator that is shared among members as members can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose, or hold none at all. Instead, the common denominator is a shared belief in secular humanism.

It is a long, slow process weaning humanity away from its primitive beginnings, where all aspects of human life were bound in religious myth, to a gradual acknowledgement that humanity is solely responsible for its collective actions and that it is incumbent upon humanity to take responsibility for its collective self.

Yours is basically the liberal protestant worldview

Whig history - Wikipedia

I think the word myth has a more academic and technical use that provides a much narrower definition than the one you have provided.
Myth - Wikipedia

The problem with your definition of the word myth is that it makes the word myth synonymous with the word propaganda, which I do not find helpful in fostering clear communication.

Other way around.

The word myth in popular usage has a much narrower meaning than it does in academic contexts.

It is certainly not synonymous with propaganda though as it has no negative connotations.

I think if we look at your two examples above, we can see how calling both myth creates a false equivalency.

In your first example, I would agree that this qualifies as a myth, both by your definition and the technical definition of myth. The individual is inferring care for the planet is required based on the expectation of the mythical entity.

In the second example, there is no narrative myth involved. Here we are seeing the expression of subjective choice. This person is advocating a preference, not complying with behavior scripted by myth.

Belief justified by myth is belief prescribed by myth, there is no choice in the value being expressed, just choice in whether or not to comply.

But a subjective belief can be justified by objective evidence that one can use to advocate for that belief. Whether others choose to share that belief would be by choice, not as a result of complying with a belief prescribed by myth.

Subjective choice is not equivalent to myth.

People still create narratives to justify the subjective choice though, and they aren't just a rational evaluation of objective facts.

If we look at human history most societies have taken the 'tragic' view on human history which is cyclical and limited by human failings.

The progressive teleology is very uncommon and emerged from Christian theology before being secularised while remaining basically the same ideology.

It evolved from Liberal Protestantism to providential deism to secular humanism

Look at a Deist like Thomas Jefferson for example. He stopped believing in the supernatural aspects of Christianity yet wanted to retain the ethical values and so regrounded them in Providential Deism. Secular Humanism just went one step further.

They just changed the mythical foundation for the axioms they want to hold as true and crafted a new narrative. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

If you did a scatterplot of human beliefs these 'secular' and 'religious' views would be right next to each other, yet very far from most other 'religious' beliefs.

It wasn't the case that people suddenly stopped believing in god and then did a neutral reevaluation of factual reality and just so happened to come up with basically the same, rare combination of beliefs that had evolved in exactly the same societies at exactly the same time.

As for "Belief justified by myth is belief prescribed by myth, there is no choice in the value being expressed, just choice in whether or not to comply."

That is not remotely how myth works.

You are making the common mistake of taking modern US fundamentalist Protestants as the model for myth/religion.

Even with the US fundies though your view is overly simplistic, myth is always interpreted and contextualised according to current realties. Even among the most rank Biblical literalists, they pick and choose what to take literally.

 

[WalterTrull]

Hmmm... these days it looks like a euphemism for witchcraft.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The last thing when she emptied the box was hope lol. I’m glad in a way you have “earthly hope”. I think I do too though we might define it differently. I’ve come across your counter points; believers in “everlasting hope” including my own parents, who view evil in the world as good because it means that Jesus will come back sooner. The world will be destroyed, but they’ll be fine because they’ll get raptured or whatever. I feel the latter is a dangerous position to hold because they obfuscate themselves and others into believing evil and wrongdoing in the world is the result of a divine plan for which they have no control or responsibility. It’s gods plan. God works in mysterious ways kind of thinking.

A lot of churches (Not the Bible) teach the Earth will be destroyed.
The Bible teaches: the Earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
So, its the 'world' (aka people of badness) that will be destroyed.- Revelation 11:18 B.
The 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15.
Please notice Isaiah 26:20 because: No rapture.
Keeping Jesus' words in mind found in the 24th chapter of Matthew ' just as the Day's of Noah were.....'
There was No rapture in Noah's day. Rapture is a modern 'church' idea over what the Bible teaches.
People's actions as found at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 is Not from God. Please notice James 1:13-15.
Each person is drawn out by one's own desire and Not from God's doing.
We can all act responsibly toward God. It is free-choice matter.
God's purpose is that only humble meek inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11.
Instead of 'rapture' a great many people will come through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
As the 'end' came ' hard and swift ' in Noah's Day and Sodom and Gomorrah so it shall be when Jesus comes.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.......Is the requirement for salvation in a belief system an objective requirement or a subjective requirement?

I wonder which one anyone would choose going by Jesus' words of Matthew 24:13-14; Mark 13:13_____________
- The one who has endured to the end will be saved.

 

[infrabenji]

A lot of churches (Not the Bible) teach the Earth will be destroyed.
The Bible teaches: the Earth abides forever - Ecclesiastes 1:4 B; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
So, its the 'world' (aka people of badness) that will be destroyed.- Revelation 11:18 B.
The 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15.
Please notice Isaiah 26:20 because: No rapture.
Keeping Jesus' words in mind found in the 24th chapter of Matthew ' just as the Day's of Noah were.....'
There was No rapture in Noah's day. Rapture is a modern 'church' idea over what the Bible teaches.
People's actions as found at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 is Not from God. Please notice James 1:13-15.
Each person is drawn out by one's own desire and Not from God's doing.
We can all act responsibly toward God. It is free-choice matter.
God's purpose is that only humble meek inherit the Earth as Jesus promised - Matthew 5:5; Psalms 37:9-11.
Instead of 'rapture' a great many people will come through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9.
As the 'end' came ' hard and swift ' in Noah's Day and Sodom and Gomorrah so it shall be when Jesus comes.

That’s really well put together. I should send that to my doom loving mother lol. One of the reasons I left my pastoral appointment was over my inability to reconcile my view of revelations to my denominations required doctrinal practices and teachings. Hope you’re having a great day. Talk soon.