How the atheists fell for fundamentalism

[Terxpahseyton]

Common understanding is good, your urge to define this term in very narrow view, based on very narrow understanding of only a very narrow subset of the discussed phenomenon (i.e. Christianity) is what sucks.

You might have as well just said: "No you suck!"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Ah, I see, sorry. But what does that have to do with favouring a model of "essences" over concious generalisations?

I am quit conscious - thank you
But I wouldn't say I favor it. Just that it can be useful in understanding the nature of a phenomena. It alone surely won't suffice.
Likewise, assuming that customers are rational can be useful to understand economics. It alone surely won't suffice, either.
For instance, this model of essence can explain why in times of crisis religions tend to do better.

Would you be able to lay out how the distinction is drawn, in your mind? I don't think that anyone's actually explicitly laid that out yet, because the discussion has mostly been about the definition of religion in itself, rather than its distinction from other/broader categories.

I actually already said how I would do it. Religion = main foundation consists of assumptions about the supernatural (initially included "dogmatic assumptions", but I fear that is too specific to do justice to the varying ways religion can be practiced). Likewise, not a religion = main foundation does not consist of assumptions about the supernatural.
As I understand Confucianism (and I don't understand it well, but I hope well enough), it is not more than a set of rules on how to behave, how to lead your life etc. .. And that's it. If then Confucianism is a religion anyway, it seems to me everything could constitute a religion that gives advise on that sort of category. But that surely is not what is commonly understand as an religion, either and IMO would certainly proof to be way less useful than my approach.

Why are "stories", for you, of such importance? It's obviously true that many religions do place great weight on narratives, to varying extents, but why does it possess this centrality, rather than that being attributed to organisation, practice, or cosmology?

Because I assume stories to be a less intellectual/cultural challenging and in turn a more natural way to convey messages - because they allow to do so in mental pictures rather then abstract concepts. Hence I assume that primitive cultures made great use of stories to explain the world (where religion can be suspected to have been invented).
And where there is a story, there (as said) is imagination, there is own "creative" contribution, there is illustrative expression of emotions, desires, dreams. IMO a perfect breeding ground for religion

 

[Syterion]

Yeah, but the atheists are right.

 

[Mark1031]

Beware of people who see vast richness and complexity in seemingly simple propositions. It reminds me a bit of the overly pretentious art critic finding great meaning in the drunken splatter of a Pollock.

through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—religion displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close.

Would someone care to explain to me how to view religion through the lens of medicine? This is just so much BS and a form of argument I have seen used before (on other topics) which attempts to squelch the opposing arguments essentially through condescension (ie it is so complex and rich a subject that you best not worry your untrained mind on it).

There is a strong, burning desire to paint atheists as having essentially the same characteristics as religion as this makes it easier to ignore. There is one simple argument the atheist makes- there does not exist a supernatural entity. You accept this and you are an atheist. You can appreciate aspects of religion, the art, music, philosophy etc., you can devote your life to studying it if that floats your boat but none of it is relevant to the simple atheist thesis.

It seems shrill and simplistic and dogmatic for the simple reason that the atheist position has not been widely stated publicly (in US) until recently and even now only in a very limited way and those who are religious are unnerved by hearing it.

 

[Algeroth]

Would someone care to explain to me how to view religion through the lens of medicine? This is just so much BS and a form of argument I have seen used before (on other topics) which attempts to squelch the opposing arguments essentially through condescension (ie it is so complex and rich a subject that you best not worry your untrained mind on it).

I'm not an author, but cognitive or neurobiologic approach is currently all the rage now in religion studies. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

 

[Traitorfish]

I am quit conscious - thank you
But I wouldn't say I favor it. Just that it can be useful in understanding the nature of a phenomena. It alone surely won't suffice.
Likewise, assuming that customers are rational can be useful to understand economics. It alone surely won't suffice, either.
For instance, this model of essence can explain why in times of crisis religions tend to do better.

To be honest, this just sounds like you're dealing with generalisations, and calling them "essences", rather than actually proposing any sort of essentialist model of social dynamics. Unless I'm misunderstanding?

I actually already said how I would do it. Religion = main foundation consists of assumptions about the supernatural (initially included "dogmatic assumptions", but I fear that is too specific to do justice to the varying ways religion can be practiced). Likewise, not a religion = main foundation does not consist of assumptions about the supernatural.
As I understand Confucianism (and I don't understand it well, but I hope well enough), it is not more than a set of rules on how to behave, how to lead your life etc. .. And that's it. If then Confucianism is a religion anyway, it seems to me everything could constitute a religion that gives advise on that sort of category. But that surely is not what is commonly understand as an religion, either and IMO would certainly proof to be way less useful than my approach.

How do you defined the "supernatural", in this case? I'm guessing that it's something more precise than simply upholding the existence of a spiritual dimension to existence, otherwise you'd have to lump Platonism or Cartesianism in as "religion".
Also, what is meant by "assumptions"? Not all religious systems are just based on a hodge-podge of old customs- Buddhism would be only the most obvious example of a religious system which has been historically defined by a concious development on the part of its practitioners- so, again, I'm assuming something more precise?

Because I assume stories to be a less intellectual/cultural challenging and in turn a more natural way to convey messages - because they allow to do so in mental pictures rather then abstract concepts. Hence I assume that primitive cultures made great use of stories to explain the world (where religion can be suspected to have been invented).
And where there is a story, there (as said) is imagination, there is own "creative" contribution, there is illustrative expression of emotions, desires, dreams. IMO a perfect breeding ground for religion

Do you have any reason to believe that the process unfolds in quite this manner? I'll admit that I haven't read as much as I might have done on the topic, but I've never encountered a "Just So stories > religion" model of cultural development before. First and foremost, it doesn't take into account the animistic belief-system which "primitive" peoples, for want of a better word, almost universally possess, which from what I understand is believed to precede any particular mythology.

Beware of people who see vast richness and complexity in seemingly simple propositions.

But only once you've dealt with the people who think that "seeming simplicity" is permission to assume genuine simplicity.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To be honest, this just sounds like you're dealing with generalisations, and calling them "essences", rather than actually proposing any sort of essentialist model of social dynamics. Unless I'm misunderstanding?

Essences as I use it can be understood to be generalizations based on what generally makes a group of social institutions distinct to other groups. So it is a special kind of generalizations.

How do you defined the "supernatural", in this case? I'm guessing that it's something more precise than simply upholding the existence of a spiritual dimension to existence, otherwise you'd have to lump Platonism or Cartesianism in as "religion".
Also, what is meant by "assumptions"? Not all religious systems are just based on a hodge-podge of old customs- Buddhism would be only the most obvious example of a religious system which has been historically defined by a concious development on the part of its practitioners- so, again, I'm assuming something more precise?

The main problematic here seems to be that what we today view as supernatural was as an idea very natural to Plato.
I am not sure how to exactly define supernatural to be honest I said early that the definition of religion probably also requires a certain type of implementation (which I expressed by "development" and "organization"), which could ease this problem.

As to assumptions - I explicitly removed the attribute dogmatic so to give room to conscious change.
Now as long as Buddhism stays with its aim of "enlightenment" and as long as this state of being is treated as something supernatural rather than just people using specific techniques to mess with their brain, I don't care how that status is supposed to be reached.
So if some modern Western guy embraces teachings of Buddhism, but without actually having faith in the so-called nirvana, I wouldn't say he is religious but just someone who embraces specific techniques of a religion.

Do you have any reason to believe that the process unfolds in quite this manner?

Not more than my thoughts.

First and foremost, it doesn't take into account the animistic belief-system which "primitive" peoples, for want of a better word, almost universally possess, which from what I understand is believed to precede any particular mythology.

I find it really hard to imagine how a group of people started to adhere to holy wolf spirits or whatever without predating stories which transformed into such believes.
I mean how is that supposed to have happened?
"Guys, I really think those wolfs have some kind of spirit."
"I am glad I am not the only one! Let's spread the message! But wait, what is a spirit?"
"Erm.. I have some great idea for that, too!"

Meaning, I find it hard to imagine how religion was invented consciously rather then naturally. And by naturally I mean it is the natural product of another process - and that IMO can only be stories and their further development. What else could it be? But keep in mind that by stories I don't necessarily mean a specific mythology. I just mean people talking about their experiences and emotions and putting them into the context of what they were told by their parents and so on and how such narratives developed over time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Essences as I use it can be understood to be generalizations based on what generally makes a group of social institutions distinct to other groups. So it is a special kind of generalizations.

That's really not how the concept of "essence" is usually conceived.

The main problematic here seems to be that what we today view as supernatural was as an idea very natural to Plato.
I am not sure how to exactly define supernatural to be honest I said early that the definition of religion probably also requires a certain type of implementation (which I expressed by "development" and "organization"), which could ease this problem.

What do you have in mind?

As to assumptions - I explicitly removed the attribute dogmatic so to give room to conscious change.
Now as long as Buddhism stays with its aim of "enlightenment" and as long as this state of being is treated as something supernatural rather than just people using specific techniques to mess with their brain, I don't care how that status is supposed to be reached.
So if some modern Western guy embraces teachings of Buddhism, but without actually having faith in the so-called nirvana, I wouldn't say he is religious but just someone who embraces specific techniques of a religion.

So what "assumptions" are you actually referring to?

I find it really hard to imagine how a group of people started to adhere to holy wolf spirits or whatever without predating stories which transformed into such believes.
I mean how is that supposed to have happened?
"Guys, I really think those wolfs have some kind of spirit."
"I am glad I am not the only one! Let's spread the message! But wait, what is a spirit?"
"Erm.. I have some great idea for that, too!"

Why is it assumed that spirits are something which actually have to be invented? Studies in developmental psychology have demonstrated that the distinction between animate and inanimate objects is learned, rather than innate, so it's no foregone conclusion that people would reach any given set of conclusions in that regard- especially if the alternative more effectively articulates their experience of the natural world.

Meaning, I find it hard to imagine how religion was invented consciously rather then naturally. And by naturally I mean it is the natural product of another process - and that IMO can only be stories and their further development. What else could it be? But keep in mind that by stories I don't necessarily mean a specific mythology. I just mean people talking about their experiences and emotions and putting them into the context of what they were told by their parents and so on and how such narratives developed over time.

Why are narratives so vital for this development, as opposed to the actors which are actually described? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the tree-elf and the river-troll, or whatever, precede a story about their interactions?

 

[Mark1031]

But only once you've dealt with the people who think that "seeming simplicity" is permission to assume genuine simplicity.

You realize you could make the same argument about alcohol consumption. Can you argue with the following:

Drinking is by far among the most complex things that human beings do; on whatever scale we wish to view alcohol production, consumption and intoxication, through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—drinking displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close.

I can do the same thing to almost any human culturally common and ancient activity, dance, art, song, story telling, sex. All have great diversity and complexity, it does not stop me from making simple statements like drinking makes you drunk or do you argue I must understand all the historical and sociological complexity of spirits to make that claim?

 

[Mark1031]

I'm not an author, but cognitive or neurobiologic approach is currently all the rage now in religion studies. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science_of_religion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotheology

I'm well aware of this work. I guess I considered it more scientific research or covered under psychology rather than historical medical practice. It is also the kind of work athiests like Sam Harris do to try and figure out why so many people have what to him is a delusion.

 

[Traitorfish]

You realize you could make the same argument about alcohol consumption. Can you argue with the following:

Drinking is by far among the most complex things that human beings do; on whatever scale we wish to view alcohol production, consumption and intoxication, through whatever lens—sociology, psychology, history, anthropology, archaeology, medicine—drinking displays a richness and complexity to which other human phenomena do not come close.

I can do the same thing to almost any human culturally common and ancient activity, dance, art, song, story telling, sex. All have great diversity and complexity, it does not stop me from making simple statements like drinking makes you drunk or do you argue I must understand all the historical and sociological complexity of spirits to make that claim?

That's a terrible analogy. Alcohol is a definite chemical substance with a known molecular structure and measured physiological effects. The equivalent claim really cannot be made of religious belief (or a lack thereof). This sort of reductionism really does not transfer well from physical to social investigation.

 

[Mark1031]

That's a terrible analogy. Alcohol is a definite chemical substance with a known molecular structure and measured physiological effects. The equivalent claim really cannot be made of religious belief (or a lack thereof). This sort of reductionism really does not transfer well from physical to social investigation.

If you have no idea what I am talking about then how can you know it is a terrible analogy?

Simply put man has put a great deal of effort into the production and consumption of alcohol throughout history. It is in fact involved in religious ceremony as well as most culturally significant gatherings throughout history. It has influenced writers, artists and politicians. I’m sure there are more pubs than churches. The production and use of alcohol is a complex human behavior that affects all of the enumerated fields of study, just like other complex human behaviors. Why do you reduce such a complex subject to simple chemical structure?

 

[Traitorfish]

If you have no idea what I am talking about then how can you know it is a terrible analogy?

Because that was rhetorical rather than literal, hence my having changed it to something more useful?

Simply put man has put a great deal of effort into the production and consumption of alcohol throughout history. It is in fact involved in religious ceremony as well as most culturally significant gatherings throughout history. It has influenced writers, artists and politicians. I’m sure there are more pubs than churches. The production and use of alcohol is a complex human behavior that affects all of the enumerated fields of study, just like other complex human behaviors. Why do you reduce such a complex subject to simple chemical structure?

Who is making that reduction, exactly? It's your half-baked analogy.

 

[Mark1031]

Who is making that reduction, exactly? It's your half-baked analogy.

Yes it is my analogy and you have not addressed it in any way but dismissed it as half-baked. Which points do you dispute and why, based on what evidence. Do you not see that you are doing the same thing that you complain about others doing. Someone presents a vague appeal to complexity for religion and you scold people for not addressing the issue and dismissing it out of hand, perhaps even as half-baked.

Look I obviously don’t take the history and sociology of alcohol use as a serious area of study but that does not mean that my premises are incorrect, simply that it is one of many areas of complex human behavior with major impact on society that is probably not worthy of the intellectual energy. I can make it sound all fancy and deep to try and obfuscate and manipulate the discussion in the same way as the OP does with religion.

Atheism has a very simple premise and the undisputed richness and complexity of religious belief really has nothing to do with that premise. The fact that atheists occasionally argue against some of the most easily refuted fundamentalist tenets of a particular religion does not make them wrong, does not make them dogmatic or strident but more importantly does not make those with more nuanced and complex beliefs in the supernatural correct. That last part is IMO at the heart of the OP. The vast group of “moderates” or vague spiritualists or deists want to feel that the embarrassingly clear refutation of the most vocal fundie beliefs somehow does not impact them. I think they sense that they are on shaky ground but have a strong commitment to their beliefs as this seems to be a common component of human nature. The point I take issue with is this particular argumentum ad complexitum or condensentium. It is the attempt to suggest that the issue is so complex that no one is worthy to discuss it and makes their beliefs unassailable. I have no problem with people having whatever spirituality they like and they needn’t justify it to me or anyone else. But if you choose to come discuss that particular topic then do so in a straightforward manner rather than resort to this kind of obfuscation.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Look I obviously don’t take the history and sociology of alcohol use as a serious area of study...simply that it is one of many areas of complex human behavior with major impact on society that is probably not worthy of the intellectual energy.

Argument from intellectual laziness.

 

[Mark1031]

Argument from intellectual laziness.

Laziness, not at all. One of the hallmarks of a sharp mind is knowing what to devote your intellectual energy to. CFC is my only embarassment in that regard, but then it doesn;t really require that much thought.

 

[innonimatu]

Laziness, not at all. One of the hallmarks of a sharp mind is knowing what to devote your intellectual energy to. CFC is my only embarassment in that regard, but then it doesn;t really require that much thought.

And please keep it up, I'm enjoying the recent discussion!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Laziness, not at all. One of the hallmarks of a sharp mind is knowing what to devote your intellectual energy to.

Argument for Intellectual Laziness.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That's really not how the concept of "essence" is usually conceived.

I don't mind ^^ Got to use some word, right?

What do you have in mind?

Everything I come up with seems to be arbitrary in the end and to miss out on potential implementations of religions. But here is finally a new try.
How about: A religion is an ideology which for its justification rests on one or a set of beliefs based on supernaturality and which requires worship or some kind of ritual of its followers to be carried out.
Supernatural means powers which can not be observed, directly or indirectly, in a conclusive manner.

So what "assumptions" are you actually referring to?

About anything. Doesn't matter.

Why is it assumed that spirits are something which actually have to be invented? Studies in developmental psychology have demonstrated that the distinction between animate and inanimate objects is learned, rather than innate, so it's no foregone conclusion that people would reach any given set of conclusions in that regard- especially if the alternative more effectively articulates their experience of the natural world.

Good point, I actually just remembered to have heard the same. That is actually a good place to see the source of religion! Which picked up from there has been cultivated by stories and narratives of course

Why are narratives so vital for this development, as opposed to the actors which are actually described? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that the tree-elf and the river-troll, or whatever, precede a story about their interactions?

Well I am assuming that those actors came to being by narratives/stories. Though I concede to you that the ultimate origin of such actors seems to be the way our consciousness likes to project intentions and a human-like personality on any god-damn-thing. So why not project such on the whole universe and call it God.
Though religions like Buddhism which don't require this component of personification proof that it does not have to be that way. So I guess this is the point one can not help but admit that religion can know different origins (unless we take the human need for explanations offering orientation as a source, but that would apply to more than religion, like science).

 

[peter grimes]

And please keep it up, I'm enjoying the recent discussion!

Yes! This times 10!!!