The Morman hypothetical

[Hopper]

Repost:

Ah, so we're bringing Philosophy into the argument now. Scientific method be damned, we have PHILOSOPHY to solve all our problems.

Are you of the opinion, Dark, that analysis of belief systems, etc., is a "scientific" matter, rather than a more or less philosophical one?

Yes. What do you think Anthropology is about?

Well, Dark, I don't rightly know just exactly what all anthropology is about, truth be told. But if ya wanna know how it relates to religion and the "scientific method," ya might wanna read the very first sentence of that anthropologist you cited, eh?:

"The anthropological literature on religion is diverse and voluminous, but there is one common perspective that pervades virtually that entire body of work, and that is the conviction that the epistemological principles of the scientific method cannot and/or should not be applied to the content of religious beliefs..."

https://faculty.ircc.cc.fl.us/faculty/jlett/Article on Religion.htm

 

[Hopper]

Hmm, seems sumbuddy gimme another red rep hit for that last post, eh!? With fanmail attached, even!: "Jump off a cliff, you sack of balls. I hate you."

That you, Sharpie?

 

[One Brow]

Well, why not, eh, Eric? It does, after all, preach reliable conclusions about the existence of a supreme bein, the existence of an afterlife, all that kinda stuff, don't it?

As reliable as any other belief system.

Aint that sumthin ya can kinda structure your life, beliefs, activities and morals around?

Not that I can see. Strong atheism fits equally well with communist and libertarian political views. It fits equally well with supporting or opposing abortion, the death penalty, or gun control.

Christians don't their beliefs or morals around the absence of reincarnation. Hindus don't structure theirs around an absence of salvation. These religions have positive teachings and points of view regarding morality. Such teachings are lacking in strong atheism.

I mean, it deals with the BIG questions, don't it? One has a basic obligation to his fellow man to convert others to that kinda truth, don't he?

I would classify an atheist with a need to convert as being at least slightly neurotic/insecure.

 

[One Brow]

If your contention is that one simple belief, standin all by itself, is insufficient to be called a religion, I see your point, but that aint really the issue here. Theism, in isolation, is not a "religion" either, but it's got the makins of one.

I don't think you could "structure your life, beliefs, activities and morals around" around merely saying "gods of some sort exist", so I agree that theism, per se, is not much of a religion. Theism has one one acpect that is more religious than strong atheism: the acceptance of the supernatural.

 

[Hopper]

Strong atheism fits equally well with communist and libertarian political views. It fits equally well with supporting or opposing abortion, the death penalty, or gun control.

Well, in practice, at least, so does catholicism, judaism, or about any other major "religion" I spoze, so I'm not sure that's a distinguishing factor

Christians don't their beliefs or morals around the absence of reincarnation. Hindus don't structure theirs around an absence of salvation. These religions have positive teachings and points of view regarding morality. Such teachings are lacking in strong atheism.

Well, "positive teachings" aren't the only things that motivate people. Just being "against" sumthin is enough, and opposition alone will invariably generate "positive" values, like the KKK has (or thinks it has). To oppose sumthin, you must pay rigorous attention to the things you "must" do, and of course those things must be (or appear to be) the opposite of what your hated enemy does/values. Two negatives always make a positive. If you wanted, I spoze you could say that christians base their faith, in part, on the assumption that atheism lacks merit.

I would classify an atheist with a need to convert as being at least slightly neurotic/insecure.

Well, I would too, but I don't think that alone would disqualify them from bein "religious."

 

[Hopper]

I don't claim to know anything about world religions or comparative religion, but it seems to me that there are "creeds" that have traditionally been considered to be religious, that have little or nothing to do with the "supernatural." Buddism and Taoism (or at least certain sects thereof) come to mind. Anyone can make "belief in the supernatural" an essential criterion for what they choose to call "religion," but I'm not convinced any such criterion has been applied as a rule by the majority of people. I might personally be more inclined to call buddism a "philosopy" than a "religion," but again, I don't really know that much about it. I'm not sure where the distinction lies. Any systematic set of beliefs generally carries a heavy dose of philosophy with it--Thomism and catholicism, for example.

 

[Hopper]

Gosh dammit, this is two posts in two days that I agree with Taint.

Just curious, Bum...do you agree because you think it's Sharpie? I'm pretty sure it is, now, my own damn self.

 

[One Brow]

Well, in practice, at least, so does catholicism, judaism, or about any other major "religion" I spoze, so I'm not sure that's a distinguishing factor

In practice, you can have a religion and choose not to structure your moral around it, absolutely. However, if you choose to structure your morals around Catholicism (as an example), then you will be anti-abortion-rights, anti-euthanasia, and anti-death-penalty. The teachings of the Church are very clear on these issues. By contrast, I am unaware of single moral principle that can be derived from either stroong atheism or simple theism.

Well, "positive teachings" aren't the only things that motivate people. Just being "against" sumthin is enough, and opposition alone will invariably generate "positive" values, like the KKK has (or thinks it has).

Strong atheism does not oppose anything. To oppose something, you have to believe it exists.

If you wanted, I spoze you could say that christians base their faith, in part, on the assumption that atheism lacks merit.

Probably some do.

Well, I would too, but I don't think that alone would disqualify them from bein "religious."

I agree, that is not the reason for the disqualification.

 

[One Brow]

I don't claim to know anything about world religions or comparative religion, but it seems to me that there are "creeds" that have traditionally been considered to be religious, that have little or nothing to do with the "supernatural." Buddism and Taoism (or at least certain sects thereof) come to mind. Anyone can make "belief in the supernatural" an essential criterion for what they choose to call "religion," but I'm not convinced any such criterion has been applied as a rule by the majority of people. I might personally be more inclined to call buddism a "philosopy" than a "religion," but again, I don't really know that much about it. I'm not sure where the distinction lies. Any systematic set of beliefs generally carries a heavy dose of philosophy with it--Thomism and catholicism, for example.

I have heard of sects of Buddhism that have no gods, and would not be surprised if there were also Taoist sects. I have no problem calling such sects atheistic. However, I am unaware of any Buddhist sects that disbelieve in an immortal soul, reincarnation, etc. Taoism seems to be deeply entrenched in notions like chi and spritual energy. Both of these sets of beliefs are used to offer priciples for living, moral behavior, etc. So, They would still be religions in that sense, more so than deism or plain theism.

 

[Hopper]

Well, Eric, like I said before, everyone is free to define "religious" in a way that suits them. I may be in the minority, but for me, being "religious" has virtually nuthin to do, per se, with mere "beliefs." I don't care much about what sumbuddy professes to "believe in." I don't care much about whether they have joined some established institution, or pledged themselves to adhere to a particular code of conduct.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and lip service paid to doctrinaire canons says little to me. The question for me would not really be what a person's particular set of beliefs are, but rather the degree to which they rely on those beliefs as a primary guide and motivation for their actions, on a principled, consistent basis.

To me, a person without integrity cannot be truly "religious," regardless of the "beliefs" they profess to have adopted. Winston Churchill was once asked which of the "virtues" he thought was primary and most important. He replied that it had to be "courage," because, he reasoned, none of the other virtues would even be possible without it.

 

[One Brow]

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, and lip service paid to doctrinaire canons says little to me. The question for me would not really be what a person's particular set of beliefs are, but rather the degree to which they rely on those beliefs as a primary guide and motivation for their actions, on a principled, consistent basis.

That is a reasonable take on one of the less common definitions. So, I'm still waiting to hear how a belief that there are no gods can serve as a primary motivation and guide for actions on a rincipled, consistant basis.

Nice Churchill quote. He rocked, eh?

 

[Hopper]

That is a reasonable take on one of the less common definitions. So, I'm still waiting to hear how a belief that there are no gods can serve as a primary motivation and guide for actions on a rincipled, consistant basis.

Nice Churchill quote. He rocked, eh?

Winny ROCKS, sho nuff! "Winston! You are drunk," said Lady Ashley. His reply was "Yes madam, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly."

Well, Eric, I thought I kinda done explained alla that. The belief is just a startin point. Belief in God doesn't gitcha to some Thomistic catholic doctrine--ya gotta work at it.

Once you identify yourself as an "atheist," certain paths become open to you, so it's a startin point. Now you can be taught to HATE theists. Now you can make a devoted career out of ridiculing them, and resolving to undermine every goal they may seek. That takes dedication and devotion...eternal viligence and commitment, if you're a "true believer." It kinda gives ya a day-to-day agenda, and all, see?