I have to say, this concept of joining a religion only for ...or primarily for... superficial/social reasons, is pretty novel to me, but it's nonetheless interesting to hear your perspective Belacqua, and your experience of Buddhism, though that somehow feels different to these social theists you're describing. Though staying, as you mention... and as opposed to joining, seems more understandable; ie if there's already attachment to those sorts of things.

(November 22, 2021 at 1:19 am)emjay Wrote: superficial/social reasons

I guess I feel that the social reasons can be far from superficial. For some people. Human connection is absolutely necessary for life, and church communities provide that. 

The only Christian I know personally is my niece, who is in a big liberal church in a biggish midwestern city. They work with new immigrants, do same-sex weddings, have a pro-trans page on their web site. 

I guarantee you that if I quizzed her about the hypostatic union she would say something like "that's above my pay grade." For her it is all about how we structure society to help each other.

Human connection is necessary for all of us. That’s one of the reasons to prefer liberal religions compared to the alternatives. Liberal religion is about human connection, and promotes human connection. The alternatives are divisive and ruinous of that connection by design.

(November 22, 2021 at 1:45 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 22, 2021 at 1:19 am)emjay Wrote: superficial/social reasons

I guess I feel that the social reasons can be far from superficial. For some people. Human connection is absolutely necessary for life, and church communities provide that. 

The only Christian I know personally is my niece, who is in a big liberal church in a biggish midwestern city. They work with new immigrants, do same-sex weddings, have a pro-trans page on their web site. 

I guarantee you that if I quizzed her about the hypostatic union she would say something like "that's above my pay grade." For her it is all about how we structure society to help each other.

(November 22, 2021 at 7:41 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Human connection is necessary for all of us.  That’s one of the reasons to prefer liberal religions compared to the alternatives.  Liberal religion is about human connection, and promotes human connection.  The alternatives are divisive and ruinous of that connection by design.

---

To both of you, I feel like maybe I've stumbled into an issue beyond my pay grade, in the sense that maybe what you guys are both describing is a uniquely American phenomenon? (thus why to me, being from the UK, it could be both literally and figuratively, a foreign concept)... due to the pervasiveness of religion, particularly Christianity, in so many aspects of your culture (if Belacqua also lives in the US). Ie if liberal churches are wholly or in part a direct response to cultural or political influences/pressures... basically if the language of the land literally is religion itself, and the only way to make any real statement is through religion. Do these churches actually have the word 'Liberal' in their names... or is it just a generally understood label/designation... and if so, should that be taken in part as a political statement if nothing else? Like when I typed 'liberal church' into Google I was inundated with autocompletes 'liberal churches near me' or 'liberal churches in [this or that state]'... suggesting a generally US phenomenon... and asking my dad if he can relate to any of this in his experience of UK churches, and the answer is no he can't; he's just as confused about it as I am, since religion here is not so ubiquitous or divisive as to need distinctions like that.

But all this wasn't what I was (or thought I was) talking about with Belacqua... that being the question of how someone could join a religion in name only, not out of belief but for other 'superficial/social' reasons. But this may be the bigger picture I was missing, as in this wider context where religion is the language of the land and intricately interwoven into all aspects of it, social, political, economic etc, and is as such basically unavoidable, then that makes a lot more sense... ie you've got to work with what you're given and within the framework (ie of your society) you're given. Likewise it perhaps puts what you were saying elsewhere, GN, of the socio-economic pressures you had around religion in your upbringing, into better perspective.

So, with all that in mind, then sure I agree that in that context, where religion is basically unavoidable in the culture, liberal religion... as a direct response to, or backlash against more oppressive forms of religion... is a good... or at least better... thing. But obviously I think the more ideal situation is where religion is not so ubiquitous/divisive in the first place as to cause all of this, however utopian or unrealistic that may be in the context of the US.

I'd guess this is also what the OP, @vulcanlogician, means when he talks about Liberal Religion (being, I believe, in the US also?)? I wasn't sure tbh when I first read this thread... to me, the first thing that came to mind when I thought of 'liberal theists' was what I would call 'wishy-washy' or 'pick 'n' mix' type theists, ones whose positions you (or indeed sometimes even they) can't really pin down, and which generally can be just as frustrating to argue/debate with as fundamentalists. But I think it's pretty clear you're not talking about that... ie not talking about intellectual differences so much as real world consequences of Liberal Religion in the US?

I’m not talking about theists at all. Theism, god belief…like belief in the afterlife, is a superstition, not a religion.

What you’re more used to in the uk -is- a liberal religion.

(November 22, 2021 at 12:25 am)Belacqua Wrote: My take was that not so many people are as thoughtful as he is concerning the intellectual side. I suspect that people join or stay for reasons having more to do with lifestyle -- camaraderie, support, ethical encouragement, etc. And I think these are perfectly good reasons to be in a religion and, traditionally, probably more important than the theology.

I was part of a group. We would attack other people, we would hang them, burn them, kill their children and take their livestock, the gold, copper, iron, silver, mercury.
The camaraderie was great. We gave each other ethical encouragement and we lived the good life.

Thousands of years in the future, my descendants are still in this club.
They don’t do any killing and burning of people, but they understand the holy work that their ancestors (me) had to do.

(November 22, 2021 at 12:25 am)Belacqua Wrote: If I wanted to do it sincerely, I had to accept the philosophy. And I couldn't agree with the metaphysics, so I stopped.

You left Zen Buddhist?
What was in the metaphysics that you did not agree with and why did you not agree with it?

(November 21, 2021 at 6:51 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Science has not superseded anyone on metaphysical issues, because science doesn't address metaphysical issues. By definition, science works within the boundaries of methodological naturalism. (This is why it's so good at what it does.) Some people, like "polymath," also hold naturalism as a metaphysical belief, but of course science can't prove this. It may be true, but it's not demonstrable by science.

I'm not sure i would say that I hold to meta[physical naturalism, at least partly because I have yet to see a good definition of what the word 'natural' means.

What I *do* hold to is the idea that any subject that claims to have knowledge about something has to have testing procedures that can reliably say when at least one of them is wrong.

Based on history, simple logical consistency is far from being enough to establish truth. Otherwise Ptolemy would have been correct.

In math. the test is whether the argument can be reduced to commonly accepted axioms (ZFC set theory is the default). If one person proposes a proof and another questions it, rhe process for resolution is to see whether the argument works step by step back to those axioms.

In the sciences, observation is the key to determining who is wrong. if two people disagree, the process is to formulate an experiment that gives different results based on the two viewpoints. Then conduct the experiment and see who was wrong. if no such experiment is possible, even in theory, then the decision is that the views are equivalent. No 'metaphysical naturalism' is required: only testability by observation.

I have yet to see a reliable method for determining who is wrong in theology.

(November 22, 2021 at 1:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I’m not talking about theists at all. Theism, god belief…like belief in the afterlife, is a superstition, not a religion.

What you’re more used to in the uk -is- a liberal religion.

I have to say, I still don't see exactly how you're defining it, but I guess it doesn't matter. Basically on the one hand in the UK we don't (to my knowledge) have extreme churches like the Westboro Baptist Church who preach hate... so in comparison to things like that, UK churches are indeed liberal. But if you were to lay out the most extreme examples of American churches, WBC and its ilk on one side vs the sort of liberal, gay-friendly church that Belacqua was talking about on the other, then on that scale I wouldn't say UK churches are particularly liberal... or at least not necessarily... just middle of the road really. For instance I can't imagine them doing same-sex weddings at my dad's church or any other church I've been to growing up. So basically it seems to depend on what you mean by 'liberal' and what it is contrasted with.

When polymath loses his watch in a dark alley, we'll find him looking for it under the street lamp where the light is better.

Quote:When polymath loses his watch in a dark alley, we'll find him looking for it under the street lamp where the light is better.

Nah he will have a cell phone with a flashlight and he will find it just fine