Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Valmy]

If you read the Bible (or the Koran), much of it does outline various rules, guidelines, and parables for how to live our lives.  That is the very definition of "moral philosophy".

Yes it does.  Nowhere did I ever say or claim it has nothing to do with moral philosophy dude.  That comes out of the religion not the primary source of it.  Once you accept the faith, faith being the primary element, then the moral philosophy should naturally follow that being a secondary element.

It does not follow once you start following a moral philosophy faith in Christianity or Islam naturally follows.  Hence it is not the primary element of those religions.

[Malthus]

I don't think I claimed that religion had a unique ability to force societal compulsion. Saying that it happens in non-religious contexts as well doesn't really excuse religion.

And I would argue that Marxism, to the extent that it becomes dangerous, does so for exactly the same reason religions become dangerous - the drive to create us-vs-them dynamics based on some enforced ideology.

Humans are suckers, for the most part. They buy into all kinds of idiotic things and then go kill each other over it. Religion hardly has a monopoly on that.

I agree. Thus, the issue is whether the philosophy or movement or whatever has a reasonable ability to accept dissent and questioning.

That's why I disagree with this:

The problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".

The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.

There is no proof that, absent supernatural sanction, philosophies or movements become less dangerous. On the contrary, one could equally well propose that the more modern movements are, the less reticent they are to accept limitations; and most modern movements of the last century (thinking particularly about Communism here) that gained acceptance among first world types did not rely on supernatural sanctions. Some religions have as it were mellowed with much history; their adherents no longer have the burning conviction to establish a utopia on top of a big pile of human corpses.

To my mind, there is a spectrum of movements. At one end are as it were relatively harmless ones whose adherents go about their business, conduct their rituals, regulate their morality, find inspiration from the world without forcing their views on anyone; at the other are truly dangerous movements, ones in which the adherents are certain that they know the capital-T Truth, are driven to expand, seek domination over others in the name of a higher ideal, are uncaring of human life in the pursuit of that ideal, and brook no dissent.

Certainly some religions fall towards the latter end of the spectrum. Many fall towards the former end. Purely secular philosophies are equally split. The 'higher ideal" may be a god, or an infallible political philosophy, or a national group. This does not mean that having gods, political philosophies, or nations are of necessity bad.

[Maximus]

Malthus, the problem is one of credibility and power.

Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.

If your religion is just about morality, without any of the "explanation"/goddidit/ claims, then why is it religion, as opposed to just some guy writing about how it would be cool if we weren't such dicks to one another?

If you stirp the bible of all the supernatural stuff, and are just left with the moral message (whether the good parts or the bad), then it isn't "special" anymore, it just becomes a book with some recommendations about how people should act. There are lots of those out there.

The problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".

The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.

While I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.

So if we redefine religion to mean something bad then it's a bad thing? Hard to argue with that.

[Barrister]

Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.

Plenty of religions don't put a whole lot of focus on supernatural elements.  Confucianism, as mentioned.  Judaism however from what I understand tends to put very little emphasis on any supernatural elements.  Various sects of buddhism don't spend a lot of time on miracles and the supernatural.  And all of those religions seem to be pretty compelling.

While I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.

I see you're interested in having a balanced, and nuanced discussion on the topic.

[Malthus]

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.

I have no problem with any religion or philosophy that contains within its structure the possibility of questioning beliefs and modifying rituals.

I am wary of any philosophy that tends to the opposite - whether termed a "religion" or not.

Reformed Judaism is "better" than most forms of Marxism, even though the former is a "religion" and the latter is a "secular philosophy".

Of course you can do bad things without being religious. Of course there can be secular authoritarianism of the mind as well as celestial authoritarianism of the mind. I don't see the relevance at all.

edit: changed dictatorship of the mind to authoritarianism of the mind, which is more what I was getting at

The issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.

[Pat]

All of you attempting to draw aa bright line between philosophy and religion - what do you classify confucianism as?

I thought I was doing the opposite - that they're essentially the same thing. Except religion feels the need to add a lot of bells andd whistles to their philosophy. I'd be fine with removing the bells and whistles, and call religions philosophies, but, as I've said many times before in this thread, I don't think the religious would be fine with that. Would you?

[Pat]

The issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.

But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.

[Valmy]

All of you attempting to draw aa bright line between philosophy and religion - what do you classify confucianism as?

I think it is similar to Humanism in the west.  It can take a similar role in society that used to be filled by religion but it is not a religion itself.  They are often confused because of their similar social roles.

Confucianism holds harmony as an over-riding principal and strives to build a system of practices and values around that.

[Valmy]

But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.

Yeah...that is more inherent in your views of religion than religion itself.

[Malthus]

The issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.

But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.

Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. 

I by no means agree that "authoritarianism of the mind" is inherent in religion.

[Pat]

You'll see I qualified it with "...if god tells you what to believe". If god tells you what to believe, and does indeed spy on you to know if you do as he says, and will punish you if you don't, then that is celestial authoritarianism.

[Malthus]

You'll see I qualified it with "...if god tells you what to believe". If god tells you what to believe, and does indeed spy on you to know if you do as he says, and will punish you if you don't, then that is celestial authoritarianism.

If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic. 

[Barrister]

Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. 

I find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.

[Pat]

The issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.

But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.

Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. 

I by no means agree that "authoritarianism of the mind" is inherent in religion.

I know there is no hell in Judaism, but isn't this an accurate description of christian theology, for example? Maybe christianity has had to change it's message to still be relevant to people in the western world (though you still find fire-and-brimstone-churches attracting people in America) but I think you're wrong and that the concept of divine punishment is still very much alive in the minds of people in the third world, for example, who make up a majority of the world's worshippers.

And if there is no punishment for disobeying god, that means everything is indeed permissible, as per the Karamazov argument. So then I really don't see why religion would have any advantages.

If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic.

Doesn't holy scripture tell you what to believe? If not, what is their purpose?

[Pat]

And of course you wouldn't "see it that way", just as convinced communists in the Soviet union wouldn't "see it that way" either - they'd be convinced their thralldom was voluntary and honorable.