Neopaganism Is The Worst

[Maximus]

Your argument that most religions lack an intellectual underpinning is based on a proposition that some people within those religions dont understand the intellectual underpinning.

That is not an argument such an intellectual underpinning does not exist - simply that some do not understand it.  But the failure to understand all the details does not prevent someone from ordering their life in a way that takes adantage the thinking others have already done.

I dont have to understand why all the gadgets I use work but I can still order my life around them...

But you can clearly tell that your gadgets do work and can compare them with other similar gadgets and make an informed decision about which you want to buy. That is an intellectual basis.

Without some understanding of the reasons why one believes a certain way, one cannot justify that belief, nor make an informed choice about whether it is, in fact, the best religion for them. Thus, while one could be benefiting from said beliefs, one could also be harmed by them, and it is probably as easy to find examples of the latter as the former.

[Sheilbh]

I think we're talking about different things though.  You're discussing an intellectual and moral 'basis' for faith.  Whereas I'm talking and I think CC is about the intellectual and moral 'framework' of faith.  I'd argue it's the latter that distinguishes a religion, regardless of why or how people believe. 

[Maximus]

Ok, it's a distinguished religion, so what?

Back to the original discussion, it doesn't make it a superior religion to have an intellectual framework if that's not what the individual is looking for.

[fhdz]

How would you describe what you are doing?

Holding a particular moral position (however you arrived at it, though hopefully through a process that involved at least *some* amount of reasoning?) until you encounter a moral dilemma your current framework is unable to satisfyingly answer, then attempting to figure out whether the problem is that your framework is insufficient or that your framework is incorrect.

[Sheilbh]

Ok, it's a distinguished religion, so what?

Back to the original discussion, it doesn't make it a superior religion to have an intellectual framework if that's not what the individual is looking for.

My argument was that the intellectual and moral framework's what makes it a religion and what makes neo-paganism and the like a mental hug, at best, not a religion.

[Maximus]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

[The Brain]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug

It's all in the memo.

[Razgovory]

How would you describe what you are doing?

Holding a particular moral position (however you arrived at it, though hopefully through a process that involved at least *some* amount of reasoning?) until you encounter a moral dilemma your current framework is unable to satisfyingly answer, then attempting to figure out whether the problem is that your framework is insufficient or that your framework is incorrect.

What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you?  Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong".  Is that not an unsatisfying answer?

[Razgovory]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug

It's all in the memo.

So Paganism is good and proper?

[Ideologue]

I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.

I've heard you say that before. I know a few Wiccans, and yes, they're pretty annoying in general, but your unbridled hatred is intriguing. I do wonder what's led to it... I sense a story here....

Are you kidding? He says that or something similar about everything.

[The Brain]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug

It's all in the memo.

So Paganism is good and proper?

Paganism isn't on trial here. Neopaganism is.

[fhdz]

What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you?  Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong".  Is that not an unsatisfying answer?

I guess I'm assuming the person we're talking about here has at least some capacity for reasoning beyond "me want gold brick" and "Great Zog in sky say NO". Maybe that is too much to assume?

Additionally: I can think of a number of cases in which stealing something could be a morally neutral or even morally positive activity. Can't you? Doesn't the utility of "my family will starve unless I take this loaf of bread; I am all out of other options" make sense to you on some level?

[Neil]

Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism.  I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.

Heh.  It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.

Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels.

What is it with you and goddamned bears?

[Neil]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug

It's all in the memo.

Islam is a religion.

[Razgovory]

What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you?  Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong".  Is that not an unsatisfying answer?

I guess I'm assuming the person we're talking about here has at least some capacity for reasoning beyond "me want gold brick" and "Great Zog in sky say NO". Maybe that is too much to assume?

Additionally: I can think of a number of cases in which stealing something could be a morally neutral or even morally positive activity. Can't you? Doesn't the utility of "my family will starve unless I take this loaf of bread; I am all out of other options" make sense to you on some level?

Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.  Not whether something is right or wrong.  Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?