On Abrahamic beliefs, their spread parameters, and the ethical and religious validity of same

[LuisDantas]

I have to wonder if you understood me. There is no such pressupposition that I can see.

 

[dybmh]

Should it be for anyone? How can one possibly justify it?

Butterfly effect - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.

By that definition, my atheistic humanism is a religion. I can produce a list of what I consider "virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable." I reserve the word religion for worldviews that invoke supernatural agents, that is, conscious agents separate from and transcending nature.

No definition of religion is right or wrong, just some are more useful. Without gods, worldviews are naturalistic, and I find value in separating them from supernaturalistic ones, since that's also the line between empiricism and faith, which is a fundamental difference in the way people process information and decide what is true about the world.

I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.

As I suggested, it's gods that make a worldview religious for me, and I have a working definition for those - sentient, universe-creating agents. This wouldn't include pagan or Dharmic gods, which I understand as symbols for aspects of nature and not sentient entities. So, do I consider them religions if they don't have Abrahamic-type gods? Not really. They're secular worldviews to me, and it's not a coincidence that many never say anything that an atheist humanist would take exception to.

If you want to give the processes of creation and destruction or the qualities of the wind and trees a name, but aren't praying to it as if it could hear or respond, that isn't really different from my worldview, so I don't find value in segregating such people from atheists conceptually the way I find value in separating all of those from Abrahamic religions, which are in a class of their own, and in my opinion, a harmful detour man took in his cultural evolution.

I hope you consider this on topic.

Millions of humans are better people for their experience of religious Christianity. And yet millions are also using that religion to justify doing evil to others.

Millions of people are better people for their experience of humanism, and billions more because of the contributions of Enlightenment ideals to improving the human condition (science, the modern liberal democratic state), but none I've encountered use that worldview to justify doing evil to others. Au contraire. I'd call that an argument for substituting the latter for the former. What need does Abrahamic religion fulfill that it doesn't create or perpetuate?

I matured outside of religion and have no need for it. What does that tell you about those that didn't and do, people who still have a need that religion fulfills without which they would be anxious of feel incomplete or disoriented? It tells me that their faith prevented them from being comfortable with the possibility that there is no god watching over and protecting us, that death means the extinction of consciousness, jettisoning faith for critical thought, and never developing an autonomous moral compass - in essence, preservation of the juvenile state rather than proper maturation of the intellectual and moral faculties.

 

[dybmh]

What need does Abrahamic religion fulfill that it doesn't create or perpetuate?

1. People are not gods
2. No one is above the law

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

1. People are not gods
2. No one is above the law

Why do you call those needs? Those are factual claims. You know what a need is - something to minimize some type of dysphoria, like food, shelter, the company of others, a sense of self-worth or purpose, and the like.

Do you have an answer to the question, "What need does Abrahamic religion fulfill that it doesn't create or perpetuate?" that meets that definition of need? It's a rhetorical question as I ask it, meaning a statement in question form rather that a request for information, but if you have an answer, we can discuss it. If not, would you agree that the implied claim - that it meets no such need - has merit?

 

[idea]

Religions are a form of groupthink:​

Groupthink is a phenomenon that occurs when a group of individuals prioritize consensus and conformity over critical thinking and independent decision-making. In this situation, group members tend to suppress their personal opinions and ideas to maintain group harmony, and to avoid conflict or disagreement. (Lose yourself, serve, avoid contention, faith over reason)

Groupthink can lead to poor decision-making because the group may overlook important information, fail to consider alternative perspectives, and ignore warning signs that could result in a negative outcome. (Abuse of power, financial ruin, ) It occurs in any setting where people work together in groups, such as in business, politics, academia, religious, and other social groups.

Some common symptoms of groupthink include overconfidence, self-censorship, stereotyping of outsiders, pressure towards uniformity, and a perception of invulnerability. Groupthink can be avoided by promoting diversity of thought and opinion, encouraging constructive criticism and debate, and by assigning a "devil's advocate" role to someone who challenges the group's assumptions and conclusions.


Monotheistic religions follow a particularly dangerous hierarchical firm of group think in which individual leaders dictate policies (rather than democracy)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Religious as I understand them are meant to play a central role in the transformation of the character of the individual and society. They are temporary and each religion goes through its own cycle such as spring, summer, autumn then winter when it dies out as a major force in society despite its name and institutions outwardly remaining.

The reason today why religion seems meaningless is because I believe each one was meant for a specific age and stage of our spiritual development. So I believe it is more accurate and honest to state that current religions are failing humankind because their teachings are not relevant to this age but I consider they were relevant and very useful for the age in which they were established.

For example King Ashoka who renounced war and devoted himself to peace and the promotion of Buddha’s Dhamma. Another example is Muhammad Who united the barbaric conflicting tribes of the Arabian Peninsula into a nation. This concept of nationhood then spread throughout the world. Each religion has had its bronze, iron, copper and golden age.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe it is more accurate and honest to state that current religions are failing humankind because their teachings are not relevant to this age but I consider they were relevant and very useful for the age in which they were established.

What is the evidence that those religions were more relevant when they were newer? I see a series of people over time making proclamations and speaking for gods, some credited with starting new religions, but none generating value to posterity. And you still think that this process will generate answers that lead to world unity. It's a dead end.

Contrast that with humanism. It is relevant to this age and all others. Its foundational principles - reason and evidence, not faith, and conscience and compassion subject to reason, not crystalized received commandments - are timeless. They will never be outdated. And they will continue to improve the human condition to the extent that they aren't successfully opposed by religions and authoritarian influences.

 

[PearlSeeker]

While Abrahamic beliefs vary considerably, they also show very specific traits that, I want to argue here, put in doubt their ability to qualify either as religions proper or as ethically defensable doctrines.



1. What is an Abrahamic doctrine?

For the purposes of this text, I will define them as creeds or doctrines that adopt some version of Abraham's god - meaning that they specifically declare that god exists; that it is conscious; that it has a will that is in some sense responsible for existence itself; and that it is sufficiently aware of humanity to have communicated with specific people at least once during the history of human existence.

Every single one of those four stipulations is dubious at best. Nonetheless, literal billions of people have been raised to treat them as sacred truths, with varied and significant consequences.



2. What are we calling religions here?

For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.



3. What about God?

I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.



4. But...

No, really. I will not use any variation of god-concepts in my discussion of religions. That is final. That is not negotiable. And ultimately, that is removing a very big and very unnecessary hurdle that gets in the way of meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.

More specifically, "god talk" tends to create the superficial appearance that there is some actual, known-to-exist entity - or at least a clearly defined concept - that the word refers to. And that is just not true at all. Worse still, there are huge social taboos in place and constantly reinforced that make it hard to even point out that lack of object.

We all deserve better than just repeating that mistake for generation after generation.



5. If religions are not about god, what are they about instead?

Sometimes they are indeed about god. Or gods. Or Devas, or Kami, or totem spirits. There are all kinds of entities used for religious purposes, but few if any are expected to be one-size-fits-all answers for everything - except in the Abrahamic traditions, that is. Nor are those entities, which are not always expected to be taken as real by adherents, usually expected to be some source of supreme moral authority that somehow extends even to people who never heard of them.

In truth, god-conceptions are tools, useful mainly as shorthand for certain perspectives and values.



6. So what do I (Luis) consider to be a proper religion?

Religions are activities and exercises that aim to help people (sensitive and rational beings) in dealing with the anxieties and challenges that come from the realization of how little options we have in everyday life and how badly we want to achieve some sort of certainty and stability.

Of particular note is that they are aimed at the specific people and should take personal characteristics into account. Also, religion is a human activity that must take social and even technological circunstances into account; a healthy doctrine allows itself to be reconsidered and course-corrected often, and should in fact have mechanisms to pursue that correction.

Doctrines that do no acknowledge that need, including the Abrahamics, end up owing a debt to its own unsconcious herectics, who often end up doing the course-correction without receiving the proper gratitude in return.



7. Where to Abrahamic creeds stand by that perspective.

In short, they are strange and confused about what would a religion be.

I make something of an exception to Judaism, mainly because they accept that their creed isn't to be applicable for everyone.

Later Abrahamisms, however, aim to be true religions while doing arguably the exact opposite; they expect to build whole doctrines and ways-of-living based on the daring yet foolish bet that there is a creator of existence itself who also expects us to be personally in awe of its moral judgement, despite apparently going out of its way to make its very existence doubtful and inconsequential even if true.

But the main flaw of the Abrahamics is in presenting themselves as a Source of Truth that they would somehow have the right to impose on their own children as some sort of duty-of-belief. That is a disrespectful stance that reflects very badly indeed into the very idea of religiosity.

Religion that doesn't resonate with you, that you don't believe, like or agree with... is not a proper religion to you. Right?

Isn't this a no true Scotsman fallacy?

 

[PearlSeeker]

No definition of religion is right or wrong, just some are more useful. Without gods, worldviews are naturalistic, and I find value in separating them from supernaturalistic ones, since that's also the line between empiricism and faith, which is a fundamental difference in the way people process information and decide what is true about the world.

Yes. A common definition of religion includes some supernatural beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion that doesn't resonate with you, that you don't believe, like or agree with... is not a proper religion to you. Right?

It would appear that way, certainly. Except that, like anyone else, when I talk about religion I have the duty to clarify what I mean with that word.

It is a duty that I choose to dive in enthusiastically, because neglecting it is destructive.

I fully hope that others will attempt to fulfill that duty when discussing religion with me as well, and point out that they use wildly diverging definitions far more often than not. Clarity is a good and respectful trait to exert.

Isn't this a no true Scotsman fallacy?

Thanks for asking.

This is a very, very significant thing to notice.

No, it isn't.

Why?

Because there is no escaping the need to arbitrarily decide what should be considered a religion and how much worth and respect (if any) comes with that designation.

Unfortunately we have no well developed terminology to readily distinguish the various, mutually exclusive understandings.

I distinguish creeds - even those with superb marketing and wildly succesful demographic expansion - from religion, which is supposed to be a reasonably well defined activity with at least a decent shot at having positive overall results.

Granted, that often gives the superficial appearance that I am trying to dissociate from what seems to me to be diseased religion. But that is only an appearance; I do not consider those creeds to be religions at all, and I will gladly explain why.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes. A common definition of religion includes some supernatural beliefs.

It is also an useless definition, unfortunately. It provides nothing better than unnecessary and destructive confusion.

Reliance on supernaturalism is deeply corrosive to religiosity, as so amply demonstrated by the history of the creeds who made the attempt to reconcile the two traits.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It is also an useless definition, unfortunately. It provides nothing better than unnecessary and destructive confusion.

Reliance on supernaturalism is deeply corrosive to religiosity, as so amply demonstrated by the history of the creeds who made the attempt to reconcile the two traits.

I would agree that supernaturalism is a less than useless idea, but not that it is useless in defining religion. It's a sine qua non for me.

My first division among world views when classifying them is between naturalistic worldviews and magical ones. The next subdivision is between Abrahamic supernaturalism and other magical thinking, since the latter has become dominant, organized, and politicized, making this latter group the greater danger and impediment to humanity.

The supernaturalism of the Dharmic religions - reincarnation - is not a destructive doctrine as I understand it, so I separate these religions (and the pagans, if they hold magical beliefs) from the Abrahamic religions.

In the end, I don't care about religion much except for the way it affects others who in turn affect unbelievers. As I have become increasingly uninvolved in the world since retirement, the impact of religion in it has been diminished as well. No religion has any direct impact in my life any more unless you count being able to hear the time and when mass is beginning via church bells I hear every day, which I like, or the bottle rockets they explode on holidays, which we all hate, especially the dogs.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What is the evidence that those religions were more relevant when they were newer? I see a series of people over time making proclamations and speaking for gods, some credited with starting new religions, but none generating value to posterity. And you still think that this process will generate answers that lead to world unity. It's a dead end.

Contrast that with humanism. It is relevant to this age and all others. Its foundational principles - reason and evidence, not faith, and conscience and compassion subject to reason, not crystalized received commandments - are timeless. They will never be outdated. And they will continue to improve the human condition to the extent that they aren't successfully opposed by religions and authoritarian influences.

Baha’is believe that a new world order would serve to ensure the prosperity of all nations and races but that it cannot ignore religion of a large percentage of humankind are members. Many of the principles of humanism are already incorporated into religion so there is no reason these groups cannot work together for the betterment of the world.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Granted, that often gives the superficial appearance that I am trying to dissociate from what seems to me to be diseased religion. But that is only an appearance; I do not consider those creeds to be religions at all, and I will gladly explain why.

Can you give some examples of religions (by your definition)?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Baha’is believe that a new world order would serve to ensure the prosperity of all nations and races but that it cannot ignore religion of a large percentage of humankind are members. Many of the principles of humanism are already incorporated into religion so there is no reason these groups cannot work together for the betterment of the world.

Yes, you've said so already.

I asked, "What is the evidence that those religions were more relevant when they were newer?" and got this reply. I don't see an answer here, and I don't generally ask twice (never thrice), since that's the road to asking six times and never getting an answer - a dance I choose not to engage in. My preferred approach is to tell the noncompliant poster what my default position is, and in this case, that you are making empty claims that you choose not to defend because you cannot.

If one declines to answer questions asked of him, then he chooses to play no part in their assumed likeliest answers. He still has the opportunity to disagree with that by adding to it, deleting some of it, and/or modifying some words, but if he chooses to ignore the question and then my suggested answer to it further, that is understood as tacit agreement.

 

[LuisDantas]

I would agree that supernaturalism is a less than useless idea, but not that it is useless in defining religion. It's a sine qua non for me.

My first division among world views when classifying them is between naturalistic worldviews and magical ones. The next subdivision is between Abrahamic supernaturalism and other magical thinking, since the latter has become dominant, organized, and politicized, making this latter group the greater danger and impediment to humanity.

The supernaturalism of the Dharmic religions - reincarnation - is not a destructive doctrine as I understand it, so I separate these religions (and the pagans, if they hold magical beliefs) from the Abrahamic religions.

In the end, I don't care about religion much except for the way it affects others who in turn affect unbelievers. As I have become increasingly uninvolved in the world since retirement, the impact of religion in it has been diminished as well. No religion has any direct impact in my life any more unless you count being able to hear the time and when mass is beginning via church bells I hear every day, which I like, or the bottle rockets they explode on holidays, which we all hate, especially the dogs.

That is fair enough, but also leaves us with any subject matte worth discussing. And there is something worth rescuing from the morass of superstition that many mistake for religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you give some examples of religions (by your definition)?

Religion is essentially a proposal that may or may not be properly actualized on an individual level. So you should never assume that adherence means much by itself. It is always necessary to put a bit of effort, wisdom and course correction into it.

That said, Taoism and the Dharmas qualify. So does Shinto. Probably also paganism, including Asatru.

Really, most non-Abrahamic traditions.

 

[dybmh]

Why do you call those needs? Those are factual claims. You know what a need is - something to minimize some type of dysphoria, like food, shelter, the company of others, a sense of self-worth or purpose, and the like.

Do you have an answer to the question, "What need does Abrahamic religion fulfill that it doesn't create or perpetuate?" that meets that definition of need? It's a rhetorical question as I ask it, meaning a statement in question form rather that a request for information, but if you have an answer, we can discuss it. If not, would you agree that the implied claim - that it meets no such need - has merit?

The need is to limit the power of humans. There are authority figures to this day who behave as if they are above the law. Having a divine law giver and divine retribution addresses this need. There is also a need to avoid treating individuals ( including themself ) as if they are flawless and beyond critique. These are needs which are not manufactured by the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[dybmh]

Religion is essentially a proposal that may or may not be properly actualized on an individual level. So you should never assume that adherence means much by itself. It is always necessary to put a bit of effort, wisdom and course correction into it.

That said, Taoism and the Dharmas qualify. So does Shinto. Probably also paganism, including Asatru.

Really, most non-Abrahamic traditions.

How is course correction included in each of the religions you have listed above?