Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Valmy]

Okay. Right. As I've said earlier in the thread, I would be just fine to see religion as no more than moral philosophy. I doubt, however, that the religious would be content with that.

Philosophy attempts to deal with ideas and principals of right and wrong, good and evil, whereas religion is primarily about the spiritual experience.  While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

Certain religious people claim that it is impossible to really be a moral person without a spiritual experience but that is not the same as claiming it is a moral philosophy or should be. 

[Pat]

Okay. Right. As I've said earlier in the thread, I would be just fine to see religion as no more than moral philosophy. I doubt, however, that the religious would be content with that.

Philosophy attempts to deal with ideas and principals of right and wrong, good and evil, whereas religion is primarily about the spiritual experience.  While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

Certain religious people claim that it is impossible to really be a moral person without a spiritual experience but that is not the same as claiming it is a moral philosophy or should be.

Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.

[Barrister]

While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

I have to call BS on that one.  Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".

[MadImmortalMan]

Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.

Or perhaps some philosophies tap into both parts.

[Pat]

Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.

Or perhaps some philosophies tap into both parts.

I'm talking about religion and philosophy (or art, or literature, or anything similar) being capable of stimulating this (these) part (parts) of the brain in the same manner. I.e. religion is not the only thing that can produce spiritual or, for lack of a better word, "religious", experiences.

[Valmy]

Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.

They are perhaps closely related but not the same thing.  But it might be necessary to reach a similar state of...I don't know...elevated conciousness?...to get the insight necessary to have new philosophical insights that one might need to reach to have a spiritual insight or experience.

I guess it could also be argued that as religion really requires a social setting to be realized, philosophy might also require a group of people discussing a topic to get them to think of things in a new light?  Eh I don't know.

[Pat]

Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.

They are perhaps closely related but not the same thing.  But it might be necessary to reach a similar state of...I don't know...elevated conciousness?...to get the insight necessary to have new philosophical insights that one might need to reach to have a spiritual insight or experience.

I guess it could also be argued that as religion really requires a social setting to be realized, philosophy might also require a group of people discussing a topic to get them to think of things in a new light?  Eh I don't know.

When I read a book that is, for me, a form of communication and a sort of social setting in a way (i.e. I am having another human being communicating it's thoughts to me).

[Pat]

But you're right it doesn't provide the same group coherence and group mentality. I get that from supporting a football-team.

[Berkut]

Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.

I don't want to wade too much into the argument, but "imaginary" things effect human life as much/more so than "real things".  Language, for instance, is no less imagined than your non-existent God, nor are Art, Politics, or almost everything we do as a social species.  

My primary objection to you and, if I may be overly general, your type of positivist Atheism is that it appears remarkably inconsistent.  The United States government exists only in the heads of 300,000,000 Americans, as does the grammar of the English language.  I don't see why Religion is specially wrong.

You think the US Government is imaginary?

There really isn't any basis for argument with someone holding that position.

[Queequeg]

You are confusing intangible with imaginary. Government, Art, Politics and Social Interactions are Intangible, they are not Imaginary.

I fail to see the meaningful distinction here.  People do not have inalienable rights.  Letters do not have meanings.  From the point of view of a true positivist both are untrue.  You make exceptions there, and not here.  I think the only argument to be made is the Utility of religion.

[Berkut]

While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

I have to call BS on that one.  Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".

I have to call BS on that one. Moral principles are the primary focus of some religions, and some particular person's perception of their religion.

Moral principles is often the stated focus of many religions, while other things are the actual focus.

[Malthus]

While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

I have to call BS on that one.  Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".

Not necessarily. Religion serves many purposes.

One is certainly that of social control and thus morality.

Another is social cohesion - religion as identity. This includes much in the way of social structure and ritual.

Yet another is to give form to mysticism; the intuitive sense of universalism.

Last is to provide an explaination for observed phenomina - and this is where religion is often a problem.

What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).

[Queequeg]

You think the US Government is imaginary?

There really isn't any basis for argument with someone holding that position.

You would argue that the US Government, the thing-in-itself has some kind of ability or force independent of the people and materials that believe in it? 

[Pat]

While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.

I have to call BS on that one.  Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".

Not necessarily. Religion serves many purposes.

One is certainly that of social control and thus morality.

Another is social cohesion - religion as identity. This includes much in the way of social structure and ritual.

Yet another is to give form to mysticism; the intuitive sense of universalism.

Last is to provide an explaination for observed phenomina - and this is where religion is often a problem.

What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).

Right, and with such essentially secular "religions", which are really little more than philosophies, I have no quarrel.


edit: I think this is the third or fourth time I say this now.

[Queequeg]

What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).

Great post.  Completely agree.