• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Alceste

Vagabond
I'm unsure most people really have an ultimate concern. At least not in practice --- though I'm sure many people might think they do.

I certainly don't. I leap like a gazelle from one concern to another with an attitude of skeptical credulity.

Certainly nothing you could build a religion on. I mean, at this moment my ultimate concern is whether or not to have another bag of crisps, and which flavour to choose if I do.

The problem with Tillich's definition of "religious" is that any adjective that includes everyone is essentially meaningless. If "religious" is going to mean something, the place to start is the dictionary. You can extrapolate from there, but when someone like Tillich strays too far from the meaning of the word - as understood by nearly everyone - you have to start again with the basics.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Except for Storm, none of Dawkins' critics on this thread answered my question:

I'm curious to know if any of Dawkins' critics on this thread have actually read anything Dawkins has written, or heard him speak, and if they can point to anything specifically that bothered them.

Well, have you? Can you?

(And thank you Storm for your response :) )

I watched a video he did on young earth creationism in schools and I have a problem with his language rather than the points he makes. It's not necessary to be insulting to get a good, logical point across.
 

challupa

Well-Known Member
Except for Storm, none of Dawkins' critics on this thread answered my question:

I'm curious to know if any of Dawkins' critics on this thread have actually read anything Dawkins has written, or heard him speak, and if they can point to anything specifically that bothered them.

Well, have you? Can you?

:) )
I have watched the movie Root of all Evil. Although I agree with a number of points I do see it as not being the whole picture. While I see the teachings of fear and retribution in religion to be dangerous and detrimental to our world, I disagree that there is nothing divine about our world. He does not believe it is possible to be a critical thinker and believe in anything that is unseen and unprovable in a logical scientific manner. I cannot agree with that 100% because of the number of unexplainable mystical experiences sages have experienced through out the centuries. Their experiences have been pretty consistent no matter what age they lived in. This opens a window of possibility that there is something to be experienced beyond the physical realm. I do not believe religions do justice to this phenomenom so I understand the logic of atheism. I do believe that atheists do not spread as much fear in this world and that is a good thing imo. I have never understood the reason why religions feel such a need to embrace a belief in a place of eternal torment. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Anyway, that's my thoughts on what I have heard of Richard Dawkins.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I guess it would come down to he says, she says, except isn't the burden of proof on you
Are you really saying that you think there are people who don't care about ANYTHING?

Even sociopaths care about something, just not people.


I certainly don't. I leap like a gazelle from one concern to another with an attitude of skeptical credulity.

Certainly nothing you could build a religion on. I mean, at this moment my ultimate concern is whether or not to have another bag of crisps, and which flavour to choose if I do.
Right Alceste, that's why you spend so much time on these forums arguing about politics, the economy, religion... because you don't care about anything more than a bag of crisps. :sarcastic
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Are you really saying that you think there are people who don't care about ANYTHING?

You didn't say "anything", you said one thing.Everybody I know cares about more than one thing.

Right Alceste, that's why you spend so much time on these forums arguing about politics, the economy, religion... because you don't care about anything more than a bag of crisps. :sarcastic

They're certainly not an ultimate concern, or anything close to a "religion", as you claim. Don't you agree that there's no point even having an adjective if you define it so loosely as to apply to everyone, without distinction?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Religion is simply philosophy put into practice.

If philosophy is not practiced, then it is nothing more than navel-gazing.


As I said, *everyone* has a religion. There is no monopoly.


That is true. I was being semantically lazy. But it was because I thought addressing that would confuse the issue.


Milk duds.

I'll just have to disagree with your assertion in regards to religion. I do not believe that the historical context of religious beliefs equates them with contemporary worldviews, or even ancient worldviews, that lack supernatural elements.

I'm also starting to rethink my constant assertions about atheism and theism as being characteristics. Too many other threads, as well as the increasingly common usage, regarding atheism as synonymous with irreligious may just render any attempts to define it otherwise as moot.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
You didn't say "anything", you said one thing.Everybody I know cares about more than one thing.
If you care about even one thing, then there is something that you care about the most. Hence, ultimate concern.


Don't you agree that there's no point even having an adjective if you define it so loosely as to apply to everyone, without distinction?
What, you mean like human?

I would rather make the correct distinction.

Tillich's point is that everyone has a world view and set of values from which they operate. That is what colors how they perceive things and informs their choices when they interact with the world. Everyone. (Ok, fine, not infants, the comatose, the brain-dead, or those who are severely mentally disabled. :rolleyes:)

You may not appreciate this, but I would hope the Americans here can. The first amendment of the U.S. constitution protects U.S. citizens by saying that govt cannot impose a religion on us and cannot interfere with our practice of religion. Does that apply to just to what yall call the "religious" folks? Or does it apply to everyone?

If the latter, why?

I'll note here that our govt in its wisdom does NOT define religion as being a set of beliefs or rituals. The reason it does not define religion that way is the same reason why the religion clause of the first amendment protects everyone, is the same reason why Tillich, the Anglican theologian, myself and others argue that everyone has a religion.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I'll just have to disagree with your assertion in regards to religion. I do not believe that the historical context of religious beliefs equates them with contemporary worldviews, or even ancient worldviews, that lack supernatural elements.
If you define religion as that which has supernatural elements, you exclude systems that are religious and include supernatural beliefs that are not religious.

By your definition, seances and "crystal therapy" are "religion" while UU, religious humanism, and certain branches of Buddhism are not.

I'll politely say that definition does not work for me.


I'm also starting to rethink my constant assertions about atheism and theism as being characteristics. Too many other threads, as well as the increasingly common usage, regarding atheism as synonymous with irreligious may just render any attempts to define it otherwise as moot.
I know plenty of religious atheists. I sit in the pews with them every week.

In fact, I was just chatting on Second Life with a atheist UU and mentioned this particular argument on RF. She had no trouble agreeing that she is religious even tho she rejects all "supernatural" beliefs, and that religion isn't about that at all, but rather about what you value most.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Rue_L.gif

Praise for Religion Is Not about God

"Loyal Rue has written a bold, scholarly, and gracefully composed discussion of the complex relations between the concepts of God and religion. I learned a great deal from the rich tapestry of facts that filled the gaps in my understanding of the history of these ideas and believe that readers will enjoy a similar intellectual experience."-Jerome Kagan, research professor of psychology, Harvard University

"This book is an important step toward the naturalistic, hence truly general theory of religion. It harmonizes contemporary scientific understanding of the origin of human nature with a positive view of the centrality of religion in culture."-Edward O. Wilson, university research professor, emeritus, Harvard University

In the course of human history, thousands of religious traditions have appeared, each with distinctive patterns of meaning. Some speak of a myriad of gods, others speak of only one, while some recognize no gods at all. Volumes have been written attempting to prove the existence or non-existence of supernatural being(s). But, if religion is not about God, then what on earth is it about?

In this provocative book, Loyal Rue contends that religion, very basically, is about us. More specifically, it is a series of strategies that aims to influence human nature so that we might think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively. Employing images, symbols, and rituals, religion's main goals are to promote reproductive fitness and survival through the facilitation of harmonious social relations.

Rue builds his argument by first assembling a theory of human nature, drawn from recent developments in cognitive science and evolutionary theory. He shows how cognitive and emotional systems work together and how they are conditioned by cultural influences, including religion.

He then surveys the major religious traditions-Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism-to show how each, in its own way, has guided human behavior to advance the twin goals of personal fulfillment and social coherence.

Rue also considers the prospects for religious traditions in the light of contemporary challenges. As all religions are increasingly faced with a dual crisis of intellectual plausibility and moral relevance, they are being rendered less capable of shaping behavior in ways that are usefully adaptive. Rue warns that when religions outlive their adaptive utility, they become positive threats to human survival.

Despite its bold and ambitious goals, this book is hostile to neither the idea of God nor religious life in general. Rue acknowledges that both can coexist with the idea of religion as a natural phenomenon. Written respectfully throughout, Religion Is Not about God will appeal to a broad audience interested in issues of faith and science.

Loyal Rue is a professor of philosophy and religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. Along with numerous articles and reviews, he is the author of several books, including Amythia, Everybody's Story, and By the Grace of Guile (A New York Times Notable Book). [source]
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
Please name the set of beliefs and practices that make up Judaism.

(After that, I'll ask about Hinduism... etc.)

Well, we'll start with the Ten Commandments, and go from there. We could name some other beliefs and a bunch of practices, but is it really necessary?

(I won't even get into Hinduism, as I don't know nearly enough about it.)
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I know plenty of religious atheists. I sit in the pews with them every week.

In fact, I was just chatting on Second Life with a atheist UU and mentioned this particular argument on RF. She had no trouble agreeing that she is religious even tho she rejects all "supernatural" beliefs, and that religion isn't about that at all, but rather about what you value most.

I think that's what he was trying to say. I think his point was that people see atheism as irreligious, and that is incorrect.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
I think that's what he was trying to say. I think his point was that people see atheism as irreligious, and that is incorrect.
I'm not exactly sure what gnomon was saying. I will, however, point out the context of his comments.

1. I'm the one arguing that everyone has a religion. Gnomon seems to want to restrict the definition to superstitious beliefs.

2. Gnomon correctly pointed out to me earlier in the thread that neither atheism nor theism are religions.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Well, we'll start with the Ten Commandments, and go from there. We could name some other beliefs and a bunch of practices, but is it really necessary?
What about the Ten Commandments? Are you claiming that they are beliefs or practices??

You do realize, don't you, that there are significant numbers of Jews who do not believe in God?
 
Praise for Religion is Not About God said:
More specifically, it is a series of strategies that aims to influence human nature so that we might think, feel, and act in ways that are good for us, both individually and collectively. Employing images, symbols, and rituals, religion's main goals are to promote reproductive fitness and survival through the facilitation of harmonious social relations.
Is it warranted to assume that the goals of religion always coincide with strategies which are good for us? As Daniel Dennett has pointed out, while it is true that every single human society has had some sort of religion, and we can point to countless examples where it increases individual/collective human survival and fitness, the same could be said of bacteria. Yet not all bacteria are interested in what is best for us; some are parasites, and they trick us into perpetuating them to our own detriment.

Written respectfully throughout, Religion Is Not about God will appeal to a broad audience interested in issues of faith and science.
Well, that's a huge relief. I was worried the book might not go out of its way to show sufficient "respect". :p
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Jay, there's a definition of religion that you've quoted a few times. Something about meaning and cohesion. What was it again?

Not that I expect anyone to listen. :sarcastic
 
Top