Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Viking]

I was discussing this conversation.  Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective.  Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.

It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...

Well, you don't seem to be willing to define what you believe in or why you believe. All you claim is that your believe and religion helps you be moral. So as long as you keep declining to say why you believe and how it makes you morale we HAVE TO GUESS!!! Well, not guess, I don't usually guess. I try to work out a plausible explanation and work from there. I can deduce from your previous posts here that me and you have very similar moral compasses. We agree on what is right and wrong (for the most part). So you can't be talking about the morals of the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be picking and choosing. I want to know how you pick which bit is moral and which bit is not. I haven't been attacking the fundamentalist perspective, I don't want you to justify why Jepteh murdered his daughter when he came home from genociding some caananite people, I want you to tell me why you should this story to help you be moral. If you tell me to use my own moral compass I want you to explain what I need the bible for.

To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.

[Razgovory]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.

[grumbler]

I'm not saying "this is right because Freud says so" - I'm saying "this is what I think but Freud puts it into words better than me".

Chrissake grumbler.

  Sure.  Your gambit fails, and now you claim it was just an accident that you were telling everyone to heed the words of Freud on the subject.

Chrissake miglia, have the balls to own up to your mistakes when caught out, rather than blatantly weaseling like this.  No one believes a naked weasel.

[grumbler]

To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.

The mistake is to believe that this is a zero-sum game, and that Beeb has to be wrong for you to be right (and vice-versa).  The fact of the matter is that we will never know who is right... and that lack of knowledge will harm no one, unless someone chooses to get worked up over someone else's beliefs.

I have no more respect for the people who say "heaven doesn't exist because no one can prove it exists" than I do for "my god exists because no one can prove that she doesn't exist."   Though no less, I suppose.

No one needs to be deluded to believe that religion has had both a beneficial and a detrimental impact on human history.  One does have to be deluded to think that only one or the other effect is true, but Marti is the only one arguing that and he doesn't believe it himself.

So, I think we can dismiss the delusion concept and, if anyone cares to argue the abstract concept of the level of evidence necessary for each of us to "have faith" in un-evidenced things, that is a more interesting conversation than trying to decide who is deluded.

[Malthus]

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

I think you need to keep in mind, Mal, that there are people who view certain books as "the word of God" and, while such people may be schizophrenics to your mind, that is a misuse of the medical term.  Certainly they don't see themselves as schizophrenics.  They just believe, for whatever reason, that their god is attempting to communicate with them.

I would note that I am gonna head you off at the pass on prayer as well.  It may look like the act of the mentally disturbed, but perfectly sane people can engage in it, so don't jump to conclusions there, either.

In prayer, the person praying talks to god; if he answers, he rarely answers directly. It isn't a conversation, and God doesn't, generally, speak directly to the person praying.

Similarly, there are certainly holy texts that claim the status of the Word of God. Some fundamentalists take this quite literally, but in truth they are all things written down by humans; God is not talking directly. Thus a certain amount of human interpretation is necessary to understand what God is attempting to say, even for those who do believe that the texts were inspired directly by the deity. At the very least, there are arguments over the translation

Those to whom God speaks directly and literally "tells what to believe", as to Moses out of the burning bush, are few. I do not think that they are all insane - some may in fact be prophets or saints. 

[Eddie Teach]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.

I don't see why they both can't be.

[Razgovory]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.

I don't see why they both can't be.

He said either.

[grumbler]

In prayer, the person praying talks to god; if he answers, he rarely answers directly. It isn't a conversation, and God doesn't, generally, speak directly to the person praying.

How do you know this? 

Similarly, there are certainly holy texts that claim the status of the Word of God. Some fundamentalists take this quite literally, but in truth they are all things written down by humans; God is not talking directly.

How do you know this for sure, when so many others debate this?

Thus a certain amount of human interpretation is necessary to understand what God is attempting to say, even for those who do believe that the texts were inspired directly by the deity. At the very least, there are arguments over the translation

The fact that some argue over the meaning doesn't mean that everyone must accept that the meaning is uncertain.  I give no credence to the idea that the Bible is the inspired direct word of God, but I don't think those who believe this (and are not saints) are insane.

Those to whom God speaks directly and literally "tells what to believe", as to Moses out of the burning bush, are few. I do not think that they are all insane - some may in fact be prophets or saints. 

You will, again, forgive me if I don't accept your word on this as authoritative.  I don't believe those who claim to be neither saints nor prophets, who nonetheless insist that they have received a message from their god any more than I believe you saying that they are insane, but I don't believe them less, either.  My sneaking suspicion is that both of you are talking for effect rather than from conviction, but I don't care enough to investigate those suspicions.

[Eddie Teach]

He said either.

Sure, and I took that as an exclusive rather than inclusive or just like you did. But as he is deluded, he's in no position to say what isn't deluded.

[Malthus]

How do you know this? 

The claim that god speaks directly to people who pray isn't commonly made.

How do you know this for sure, when so many others debate this?

It isn't debated. Whether the writings are the authentic word of god is, but no-one contests that they are writings.

A person taking directly is not the same as someone's written message.

The fact that some argue over the meaning doesn't mean that everyone must accept that the meaning is uncertain.  I give no credence to the idea that the Bible is the inspired direct word of God, but I don't think those who believe this (and are not saints) are insane.

You are arguing a different point. I agree that many claim that the writings are certain. What they are not, is direct. Moses heard God directly - came face to face with him, in fact. I may believe that the account of Moses hearing god directly is certain and inspired by God - but it is not the same thing as being Moses, and actually haering god personally telling me what to believe.

You will, again, forgive me if I don't accept your word on this as authoritative.  I don't believe those who claim to be neither saints nor prophets, who nonetheless insist that they have received a message from their god any more than I believe you saying that they are insane, but I don't believe them less, either.  My sneaking suspicion is that both of you are talking for effect rather than from conviction, but I don't care enough to investigate those suspicions.

Speaking seriously, to my mind there are (rarely) people who claim to have received messages directly from God. These tend, from what I can see, to be mystic-type experiences, understood through the lens of that person's culture; the realm of saints & other notable mystics. Or the seriously delusional.

What they are not, is common. To most very religious people, the existence of God is a matter of faith, not personal experience. They have not heard the voice from the burning bush themselves, but believe that others have.

[grumbler]

The claim that god speaks directly to people who pray isn't commonly made. 

Maybe the god involved doesn't want the conversations discussed.

A person taking directly is not the same as someone's written message. 

Certainly people dispute that these are merely men's interpretations of the "word of God" and claim that they represent the voice of god directly.

You are arguing a different point. I agree that many claim that the writings are certain. What they are not, is direct. Moses heard God directly - came face to face with him, in fact. I may believe that the account of Moses hearing god directly is certain and inspired by God - but it is not the same thing as being Moses, and actually haering god personally telling me what to believe.

That isn't the same thing for you, I agree.  I wouldn't make any claims about what others believe, or what the nature of religious works 'really is," though.  To some, the bible is literally god's voice telling them what to do.  Weird as that my sound (to you and me), such people are not (necessarily) insane.

Speaking seriously, to my mind there are (rarely) people who claim to have received messages directly from God.

Don't start taking this conversation seriously, now!   

Oh, well, all good things come to an end.  I'll be serious as well,for a moment.

I have no idea how common or otherwise it is to claim direct messages from God. Joan of Arc claimed that, I know, but that is only because she is a historical figure.  The subject, frankly, does not interest me and, like you, I suspect I would have a hard time taking such talk seriously if I heard it.

[PDH]

OMG, languish is dying.

[Valmy]

Anyway, I've been thinking more on why America is the great exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity.

I really do not think our religiosity is that exceptional.

At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life.

See when you get into issues like this I really have nothing to say.  I generally consider heaven and hell to merely be religious images for A. living a life of principal or B. living a life where you just go along being pulled this way or that by your apetites and impulses and the sort of life you will lead.  The idea that there is in fact a reward like 72 virgins is simply the old fallacy where people mistake the symbol for the thing itself that comes from the inability of language to properly convey spiritual relevation.

Besides if you really do good only because you think you are going to get a cosmic goodie at the end you are acting out of fear or greed or some other impulse and that kind of ruins the whole point of the symbol

[Valmy]

I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.

You have essentially come out saying you do not need religion for communal feeling or moral philosophy which is true.  Religion is there to explore the spiritual part of your brain there in the frontal lobe.  To me, again I only speak for myself, if you are exploring that part of yourself and being in the sort of place that stimulating that part of yourself takes you then what you are doing is 'spiritual' or 'religious' and the insights you get from that experience are then what we can get some moral philosophy and communal feeling.  But that is just a result and not even necessarily a result.

Of course because it is almost impossible to speak about the experiences in everyday language people use a highly symbolic language to discuss it and thus we get things like the Bible.  One might question how exactly we might get insights from slaughtering Amorites or raining frogs on Egyptians and from my perspective the Bible very clearly describes an elevation of human conciousness from a tribal perspective, which views the nation as a holy thing, to a universalist one which is most clearly evident in the Book of Isaiah but runs throughout.  But that is only one small element.  The characters in the Bible are surprisingly un-idealized even the ones that are supposed to be highly righteous and elevated precisely because they address certain elements of human behavior to attempt to discuss spiritual lessons.

Now if that is not useful to you feel free to get your spiritual messages from another book or another system.

The problem with religion I think is that we have symbols and rituals and stories to tie us to that elevated state and we get so damn attached to the symbols we forget their purpose.  It gets quite hilarious because this is the effect that Islam, for example, explicitly condemns in its attacks on idolatry and why it takes great pains to underline that Mohammed himself is just a highly spiritual dude and not a God to be worshipped...yet some Muslims do precisely this all the time considering the person of Mohammed to be like an idol to be worshipped which gets you to do all sorts of silly things and why Christians fought wars over whether or not transubstantiation is true.

[Malthus]

I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.

You have essentially come out saying you do not need religion for communal feeling or moral philosophy which is true.  Religion is there to explore the spiritual part of your brain there in the frontal lobe.  To me, again I only speak for myself, if you are exploring that part of yourself and being in the sort of place that stimulating that part of yourself takes you then what you are doing is 'spiritual' or 'religious' and the insights you get from that experience are then what we can get some moral philosophy and communal feeling.  But that is just a result and not even necessarily a result.

Of course because it is almost impossible to speak about the experiences in everyday language people use a highly symbolic language to discuss it and thus we get things like the Bible.  One might question how exactly we might get insights from slaughtering Amorites or raining frogs on Egyptians and from my perspective the Bible very clearly describes an elevation of human conciousness from a tribal perspective, which views the nation as a holy thing, to a universalist one which is most clearly evident in the Book of Isaiah but runs throughout.  But that is only one small element.  The characters in the Bible are surprisingly un-idealized even the ones that are supposed to be highly righteous and elevated precisely because they address certain elements of human behavior to attempt to discuss spiritual lessons.

Now if that is not useful to you feel free to get your spiritual messages from another book or another system.

The problem with religion I think is that we have symbols and rituals and stories to tie us to that elevated state and we get so damn attached to the symbols we forget their purpose.  It gets quite hilarious because this is the effect that Islam, for example, explicitly condemns in its attacks on idolatry and why it takes great pains to underline that Mohammed himself is just a highly spiritual dude and not a God to be worshipped...yet some Muslims do precisely this all the time considering the person of Mohammed to be like an idol to be worshipped which gets you to do all sorts of silly things and why Christians fought wars over whether or not transubstantiation is true.

Heh, something I have always thought: one of the most harmful of all sins is "idolitary" - not the literal worship of idols, but the mistaking of what is symbolic for what is real. Most religious conflict is caused by this - the clash of symbols, where the reality behind those symbols (if only their follows would realize it) is not particularly different.