(January 18, 2018 at 1:29 am)Khemikal Wrote: Are you concerned that..in his novel approach of calling that religion..he might lose the majority of religion, or the pulse, if you will..and be talking about something else instead?  t the beginnig, removing the cultural artifacts...that;s a hel of alot of the substance of what we take the term religion to sensibly mean or refer to.   Is it really still religion when you remove all of that, and the gods too?  

I'm pretty sure you gathered from the definition I provided that experiences of God count too, but you might not have because I intentionally emphasized the inclusion of the non-theistic dimension. So gods aren't necessarily removed, but yes, James doesn't consider theism essential to the religious experience. To explain himself on this account, he references Buddhism (most likely intending Theravada, but he does not specify) as a set of symbols which have a real existence to the practitioner-- yet they are not (and cannot be) verified by empirical investigations. In this he captures the essence of belief as it exists to the believer. 

While experienced most profoundly in solitude or contemplation, these symbols are nonetheless transmitted via doctrines and cultural means. To James, the origin of this body of symbols does not matter. What matters is how the adoption of these symbols impacts one's personal experience. I haven't gotten to his lecture on mysticism yet, but I remember reading an excerpt from it a while back. I recall that he recommends that if you have a mystical experience that you should count it as a valid experience, just like any other ordinary perception you might have. It's true but it's only true for you. You ought not, advises James, assume that your mystical experience has relevance to anyone else's life.

I suspect that James doesn't hold "cultural religion" in much higher esteem than you or I do (at least, he gives that vague impression with some of his statements). But he regards personal religious sentiments as more than just flashes of revelation. They are SUSTAINED attitudes about the universe and our place in it which come about due to reflections upon the divine, the transcendent reality. They are to be considered in higher regard than ordinary experiences of things.

Quote:The value of an lsd induced "religious" experience is, in that paradigm, functionally equivalent.  A sudden experience of the numinous can be..and often must be distinguished from "religion" - as they aren't in any way limited to religious people and obviously don;t always refer to anything we'd otherwise consider a religion.  

I haven't got to that part yet, but he does explore religious experiences as they might come via psychotropic substances. I doubt he is as thorough or informed as Tim Leary or Aldous Huxley on such matters...

Quote:I can manufacture that feeling with such intensity and reliability that I like to joke with people about having found zen at the bottom of a hole.  I put in the work, it's not actually natural talent.  Part of therapy.

(Imagine me as Lao Tzu or somebody)

A man who finds zen at the bottom of a hole
has not found zen, because he has not found the bottom of the hole.
But if he jokes about finding zen at the bottom of the hole,
because he knows he hasn't truly found zen,
then he has only found the bottom of the hole,
and therefore zen...  

(January 18, 2018 at 12:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Hm, didn't realize Maher had ever interviewed Father Foster.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to Khem about any of this. I know his AF persona well enough by now to know that he's not interested in what's actually true. He's going to keep accusing me of heresy for what I said about Original Sin, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what was taught to us in Catholic school. Moron.

No. You said it was your interpretation.

(January 18, 2018 at 12:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Anyway, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to Khem about any of this. I know his AF persona well enough by now to know that he's not interested in what's actually true. He's going to keep accusing me of heresy for what I said about Original Sin, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what was taught to us in Catholic school. Moron.

And according to both the catechism and my RCC school, both you and your school are not only wrong but also heretical.

(January 17, 2018 at 11:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 11:57 pm)Whateverist Wrote: My impression is that there is an institutional tolerance bordering on commitment to encouraging a wide range of belief levels, ranging between the literal with an emphasis on rule following on up to someone like Mother Teresa who recognized she no longer believed in God at all.

Not on the issue of original sin.  Its fundamental, as they state in catechism, nothing of scripture can be made sense of..in their intepretation of it, without that literal and very specific insistence.  The central mystery of their faith depends on it.   Catholics -can- believe in a range of things..especially on peripheral issues..this isn't one of them.  It's central not only to their theology..but it;s the whole purpose of their rites..of mass - of recieving communion, hell, even the confessional is not necessarrily meant for ones current sins, but an expression of your openess to god and your relationship with the divine by being willing to divulge them honestly, in humility and a true spirit of repentence.  This is thought to effect the deeper issue of sin.  It's thought to help us bare the sin of adam, our real first parent, whose trangression we inherit as a mark upon our souls and whose sin was so great that it condemded all mankind in that very instant.

Now ofc our protestant friends are going to tell us that's wrong or unbiblical and double plus ungood..even catholics are..apparently, willing to object - but that -is- catholicism.  It's more rigid than some faiths.  A necessity of creating that unity, that ring of the church of christ they perceive themselves (and seek, I;m sure) to be.

(January 18, 2018 at 8:15 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 12:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Anyway, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to Khem about any of this. I know his AF persona well enough by now to know that he's not interested in what's actually true. He's going to keep accusing me of heresy for what I said about Original Sin, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what was taught to us in Catholic school. Moron.

And according to both the catechism and my RCC school,  both you and your school are not only wrong but also heretical.

Ahh the trials and tribulations of trying to institutionalize anything so sublime as religious experience.  (James' variety, of course).  Institutionalized religious experience isn't my cup of tea but I generally am not offended if other people honor their own tastes in tea.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 12:47 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 17, 2018 at 11:57 pm)Whateverist Wrote: My impression is that there is an institutional tolerance bordering on commitment to encouraging a wide range of belief levels, ranging between the literal with an emphasis on rule following on up to someone like Mother Teresa who recognized she no longer believed in God at all.  The pope she corresponded with about it touted her struggle to continue in her convictions even without belief laudable.  

Then there was that person at the Vatican interviewed by Bill Mayer for Religulous who was very openly accepting of this even as he conceded the difficulties for the literally minded.

Hm, didn't realize Maher had ever interviewed Father Foster.

Anyway, I wouldn't bother trying to explain to Khem about any of this. I know his AF persona well enough by now to know that he's not interested in what's actually true. He's going to keep accusing me of heresy for what I said about Original Sin, despite the fact that what I said is exactly what was taught to us in Catholic school. Moron.

I'd be interested in how you hold the seeming contradictions between the way various people who call themselves catholics understand your church's teachings.  Here you say it happens to have been the way you were taught it.  But of course it is a bit of an accident which school you may have attended, so then the question becomes why do you think the way you were taught it is the right one.  At that point the fact that it was the way you were taught it is no longer sufficient as an answer.

I think you know I don't ask in order to belittle your position.  Far from it.  It is more like wondering whether I can reasonably get my hopes up that there are more where you came from.  If you want to answer publicly, good for you.  If it doesn't feel safe to do so here and now I understand.

Oh and is there more you can tell me about this Father Foster?  I only know him from the Religulous movie.  Quite the character.

(January 17, 2018 at 7:48 pm)Banned Wrote: When we talk about mistakes we are talking morality. And since that term is out of the question with atheists, they cannot admit making mistakes.

And yet I, a godless atheist, can count the number of times I've raped, murdered, stolen, adultered etc on the fingers of Abu Hamza's bad hand. Wonder why that is?

(January 18, 2018 at 2:26 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 1:29 am)Khemikal Wrote: Are you concerned that..in his novel approach of calling that religion..he might lose the majority of religion, or the pulse, if you will..and be talking about something else instead?  t the beginnig, removing the cultural artifacts...that;s a hel of alot of the substance of what we take the term religion to sensibly mean or refer to.   Is it really still religion when you remove all of that, and the gods too?  

I'm pretty sure you gathered from the definition I provided that experiences of God count too, but you might not have because I intentionally emphasized the inclusion of the non-theistic dimension. So gods aren't necessarily removed, but yes, James doesn't consider theism essential to the religious experience. To explain himself on this account, he references Buddhism (most likely intending Theravada, but he does not specify) as a set of symbols which have a real existence to the practitioner-- yet they are not (and cannot be) verified by empirical investigations. In this he captures the essence of belief as it exists to the believer. 

While experienced most profoundly in solitude or contemplation, these symbols are nonetheless transmitted via doctrines and cultural means. To James, the origin of this body of symbols does not matter. What matters is how the adoption of these symbols impacts one's personal experience. I haven't gotten to his lecture on mysticism yet, but I remember reading an excerpt from it a while back. I recall that he recommends that if you have a mystical experience that you should count it as a valid experience, just like any other ordinary perception you might have. It's true but it's only true for you. You ought not, advises James, assume that your mystical experience has relevance to anyone else's life.

I suspect that James doesn't hold "cultural religion" in much higher esteem than you or I do (at least, he gives that vague impression with some of his statements). But he regards personal religious sentiments as more than just flashes of revelation. They are SUSTAINED attitudes about the universe and our place in it which come about due to reflections upon the divine, the transcendent reality. They are to be considered in higher regard than ordinary experiences of things.

This brings up a complaint about the New Atheist movement (an ideology) which seeks to aggressively eliminate religion (of any kind) and replace it with 'scientific reasoning'. Since scientific reasoning does not meet all the needs of people (as you are discussing), this is a dangerous ideology. If you create a climate where all religions are rejected, a significant part of the population is going to be left with a void they are going to struggle to fill. What is going to be the effect? I was reading last year that social scientists recognize this problem but are drowned out by the New Atheist ideology--which is like an exact mirror image of religious fundamentalists in its behavior.

(January 18, 2018 at 10:04 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
This brings up a complaint about the New Atheist movement (an ideology) which seeks to aggressively eliminate religion (of any kind) and replace it with 'scientific reasoning'. Since scientific reasoning does not meet all the needs of people (as you are discussing), this is a dangerous ideology. If you create a climate where all religions are rejected, a significant part of the population is going to be left with a void they are going to struggle to fill. What is going to be the effect? I was reading last year that social scientists recognize this problem but are drowned out by the New Atheist ideology--which is like an exact mirror image of religious fundamentalists in its behavior.

Could you please elaborate on this New Atheist ideology? It's not something with which I am familiar. Thanks.

'Scientific reasoning' would be the replacement (upgrade?) for failed epistemology. Namely, the big four:
Faith, Authority, Revelation and Tradition.

Easier abbreviation to remember... it equals hot air.

There are other aspects to religion that can be salvaged. Casting aside Divinity Ethics would leave Community Ethics (unless you go for US-style prosperity-gospel stuff which is more aligned to Autonomy Ethics).

Divinity Ethics sans anything supernatural leaves ideology. But I'm not seeing anything 'sacred' coming from atheists in general.

(January 18, 2018 at 10:04 am)SteveII Wrote: This brings up a complaint about the New Atheist movement (an ideology) which seeks to aggressively eliminate religion (of any kind) and replace it with 'scientific reasoning'. Since scientific reasoning does not meet all the needs of people (as you are discussing), this is a dangerous ideology. If you create a climate where all religions are rejected, a significant part of the population is going to be left with a void they are going to struggle to fill. What is going to be the effect? I was reading last year that social scientists recognize this problem but are drowned out by the New Atheist ideology--which is like an exact mirror image of religious fundamentalists in its behavior.

lol, so people need religion and atheism is religion because it wants to destroy religion - so religion destroys religion - although people need religion but they can't have live in atheism - although atheism is a religion.

Well, they don't call Christianity a wishful and delusional thinking for no reason.

(January 18, 2018 at 10:27 am)DLJ Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 10:04 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
This brings up a complaint about the New Atheist movement (an ideology) which seeks to aggressively eliminate religion (of any kind) and replace it with 'scientific reasoning'. Since scientific reasoning does not meet all the needs of people (as you are discussing), this is a dangerous ideology. If you create a climate where all religions are rejected, a significant part of the population is going to be left with a void they are going to struggle to fill. What is going to be the effect? I was reading last year that social scientists recognize this problem but are drowned out by the New Atheist ideology--which is like an exact mirror image of religious fundamentalists in its behavior.

Could you please elaborate on this New Atheist ideology?  It's not something with which I am familiar.  Thanks.

'Scientific reasoning' would be the replacement (upgrade?) for failed epistemology.  Namely, the big four:
Faith, Authority, Revelation and Tradition.

Easier abbreviation to remember... it equals hot air.

There are other aspects to religion that can be salvaged.  Casting aside Divinity Ethics would leave Community Ethics (unless you go for US-style prosperity-gospel stuff which is more aligned to Autonomy Ethics).

Divinity Ethics sans anything supernatural leaves ideology.  But I'm not seeing anything 'sacred' coming from atheists in general.

In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 

The Criticisms under the Wikipedia article give an indication of the problems:

Quote:The theologians Jeffrey Robbins and Christopher Rodkey take issue with what they regard as "the evangelical nature of the new atheism, which assumes that it has a Good News to share, at all cost, for the ultimate future of humanity by the conversion of as many people as possible." They believe they have found similarities between new atheism and evangelical Christianity and conclude that the all-consuming nature of both "encourages endless conflict without progress" between both extremities.[70]

Sociologist William Stahl said "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists."[71]

The atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has made the claim that Richard Dawkins would fail "introductory" courses on the study of "philosophy or religion" (such as courses on the philosophy of religion), courses which are offered, for example, at many educational institutions such as colleges and universities around the world.[72][73] Ruse also claims that the movement of New Atheism—which is perceived, by him, to be a "bloody disaster"—makes him ashamed, as a professional philosopher of science, to be among those holding to an atheist position, particularly as New Atheism does science a "grave disservice" and does a "disservice to scholarship" at more general level.[72][73]

Paul Kurtz, editor in chief of Free Inquiry, founder of Prometheus Books, was critical of many of the new atheists.[8] He said, "I consider them atheist fundamentalists... They're anti-religious, and they're mean-spirited, unfortunately. Now, they're very good atheists and very dedicated people who do not believe in God. But you have this aggressive and militant phase of atheism, and that does more damage than good".[9]

Jonathan Sacks, author of The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, feels the new atheists miss the target by believing the "cure for bad religion is no religion, as opposed to good religion". He wrote:

Atheism deserves better than the new atheists whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.[74]

The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci feels that the new atheist movement overlaps with scientism, which he feels is philosophically unsound. He writes: "What I do object to is the tendency, found among many New Atheists, to expand the definition of science to pretty much encompassing anything that deals with “facts,” loosely conceived..., it seems clear to me that most of the New Atheists (except for the professional philosophers among them) pontificate about philosophy very likely without having read a single professional paper in that field.... I would actually go so far as to charge many of the leaders of the New Atheism movement (and, by implication, a good number of their followers) with anti-intellectualism, one mark of which is a lack of respect for the proper significance, value, and methods of another field of intellectual endeavor."[75]

Atheist professor Jacques Berlinerblau has criticised the New Atheists' mocking of religion as being inimical to their goals and claims that they haven't achieved anything politically. [76]

(January 18, 2018 at 10:52 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
In a nutshell, New Atheists believe that religion should not be tolerated (which is not the same as "we lack a belief..."). There is no common ground to discuss. All religion is harmful and holds us back. Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett are representatives of the ideology. 
...

Thanks for the clarification.

So, given that this is false premise, I guess I can dismiss the argument.

Hitch, maybe, but the other three have emphatically stated that not "All religion is harmful".  And Hitch won't be stating it again.

(January 18, 2018 at 10:52 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
The Criticisms under the Wikipedia article give an indication of the problems:

Quote:...
Sociologist William Stahl said "What is striking about the current debate is the frequency with which the New Atheists are portrayed as mirror images of religious fundamentalists."[71]
...

That's the key takeaway ... 'portrayed as'.  And there are obvious reasons (psychological and economic) for that.