Diablo. The Puritans found equality in the natural order of creation, echoed in John Ball's poetic, but revolutionary and subversive line (inciting the Peasant's Revolt, a fore runner of the British civil wars), 'When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?'

(August 25, 2014 at 5:03 pm)Michael Wrote: Diablo. The Puritans found equality in the natural order of creation, echoed in John Ball's poetic, but revolutionary line, 'When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?'

You know perfectly well that I meant equality in terms of the equal treatment of people socially and before the law. That doesn't feature inthe bible as far as I know.

---

(August 25, 2014 at 4:40 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(August 25, 2014 at 2:43 pm)Blackout Wrote: Hey there pickup_shonuff, I've only read your thread now, it's interesting. To start off I'd like to ask - Are you implying that evolution has created a sort of psychological predisposition to religion? And if the answer is yes, would that explain why some people remain religious even after tremendous amount of evidence is presented on the contrary?

Yes, precisely. You said it well. I do think that's an excellent question for 'science of religion' to address, and ties directly into everything else.

Quote:Religion is certainly useful in a variety of ways, even if based on lies - Religion gives people a sense of purpose and mysticism, may make them happier, helps people have a code of rules to live by, and for some it is a tool of power (politically speaking), it also helps people cope with fear of death and tries to explain mysteries, some that have already been explained, others that remain unexplained.

If evolution does shape some people to be religious/theists, could the next evolutionary stage, from a biological/psychological perspective, be the absence of religion/theism (and therefore atheism)? The age when people do not need religion - It's happening right now.

See my above response to Cato. I'm not so sure that will ever be possible--I say that simply as an observation, not really sure if it's a "good" thing one way or another.

Quote:I do not like to compare religion with politics, hobbies or any other topic - I think each case is an individual one and comparison is useless - Politics isn't comparable because it de facto shapes what happens in society (or at least it shouldn't be religion exercising this function) - And I'm as tolerant of political ideologies I don't like as I am with religion - I'll treat Marxists/communists the same way I treat Christians and Muslims - I accept they have the right to think like this or that but I do not adopt their views, and in some cases I find them reprehensible.

True, I was only making the point that I think I'm beginning to grow disenchanted with the way many atheists--and I include myself as one of them until very recently--seem to want to paint all religious people with a broad brush as either stupid, brainwashed, naive, dishonest, or what have you, and I was simply saying perhaps we should treat it in terms of those other things (politics, hobbies) on the singular point that within 'religion' exists great diversity of ideas--some useful, some harmful, some thoughtful, more true, others not, etc.

---

(August 25, 2014 at 4:35 pm)Diablo Wrote: I honestly think that you're treating this as some kind of a logical discussion, which it isn't. People believe this stuff because it's been crammed into their heads since before they could think. It's not optional: they believe it, that's all.

That's certainly the case for many, and believe me, I'm as vehemently opposed to those types of--shall we call--coercive or dogmatic religions, as anyone... but can we paint all believers into that corner? I don't think so. I think a great many do come to belief through their own choice, a prime example being Leo Tolstoy (if you're not familiar with his conversion story, I'd recommend it... heavy stuff).

You've got 1 so far. What % would you think came that way?

Quote:Yes, precisely. You said it well. I do think that's an excellent question for 'science of religion' to address, and ties directly into everything else.

I've always wondered if there is a type of cognitive/psychological/neurological mechanism that creates a predisposition to religion and theistic beliefs - We all know there are people who believe even when presented with clear evidence (and by clear I mean the kind of evidence any minimally educated person cannot deny and must acknowledge), there are highly intelligent and educated people who are religious, there are people who are raised non religious/atheists and convert - I take it that there has to be some kind of pattern that makes these people believe - And this is something I've always believed in even though there is not evidence to confirm it.

Quote:See my above response to Cato. I'm not so sure that will ever be possible--I say that simply as an observation, not really sure if it's a "good" thing one way or another.

Well all societies have a religion/s, I'm sure religion will prevail even when Mankind can naturalistically explain all mysteries. The numbers may come down, but they certainly won't disappear.

Quote:True, I was only making the point that I think I'm beginning to grow disenchanted with the way many atheists--and I include myself as one of them until very recently--seem to want to paint all religious people with a broad brush as either stupid, brainwashed, naive, dishonest, or what have you, and I was simply saying perhaps we should treat it in terms of those other things (politics, hobbies) on the singular point that within 'religion' exists great diversity of ideas--some useful, some harmful, some thoughtful, more true, others not, etc.

I think it's unproductive to insult and dismiss religious people as dumb right away, I certainly don't see much humane value in doing so - If religious people could have moderate attitudes, I wouldn't have a problem with them, even if I disagree with their theistic beliefs - Even as an anti-theist, I don't think it's just in anyway to discriminate, legally or personally/intellectually someone for being religious

Quote:That's certainly the case for many, and believe me, I'm as vehemently opposed to those types of--shall we call--coercive or dogmatic religions, as anyone... but can we paint all believers into that corner? I don't think so. I think a great many do come to belief through their own choice, a prime example being Leo Tolstoy (if you're not familiar with his conversion story, I'd recommend it... heavy stuff).

I don't think invoking a particular worldwide recognized write will give theism/religion any merit, but I get it that there are people out there who voluntarily convert and genuinely believe to be making the right choice - That's what leads me to believe that a belief predisposition must exist.

Quote:While clearly there are thousands of religions with contradicting creeds, to a great degree there is a common thread that runs through them:

Agreed. They all pretend to KNOW when what they really mean is HOPE.

I love when believers serve up Tyndale as an example of liberal Christian thought; delicious irony that dish.

Quote:The Puritans found equality in the natural order of creation

Indeed they did, which goes quite some way towards explaining why it was so difficult for them to find it in their fellow human beings.

It has been observed, with a considerable degree of justice, that the Puritans loved religious liberty so much they wanted to keep it all for themselves.

Boru

Something occurs to me (not often, but it does ).

It has been brought up more than once in this thread that there should be a distinction made between religious beliefs that are useful and those that are harmful. Question: Are there any useful beliefs that are uniquely religious in nature? If there are, then I think the case is made that religion can have value to human beings. If there aren't, then good in the world can be neatly accomplished without all the harm brought about by religion and the religiously minded.

Hitchens put it this was (approximately - I'm doing this from memory): Is it possible for an ethical statement to be made or an ethical deed to be performed by a believer that could not be said/done by an unbeliever? The Hitch claimed that he never got a satisfactory answer to this, and I suspect he was correct. If this is the case, then where is the value in supporting or even continuing religion, at any level? Believers give to charitable causes, so do unbelievers. Atheists are no less likely to go out of their way to help someone in rough straights than is a Christian or Hindu.

As for communal support, we ALL have that. Where I live, it takes the form of street parties and neighbourhood outings. For others, it could as easily be weekly church services. As far as a coping mechanism goes, why is chatting up God about your troubles any more valuable than talking to your best mate (if God is you best mate, you've got more troubles than whatever you're asking for help with)?

I'm willing to stipulate that religious belief may have been a survival mechanism (in the biological, not political sense) at one time but I remain unconvinced that it has any unique value in the here-and-now.

Boru

If professing another religion was a way to get killed by zealous adherents of whichever ONE TRUE FAITH was operating in a given area then obviously it was a survival skill. I don't think that gives it any inherent 'value' though.

Religion is shit.

Didn't know that about Dostoevsky. My favorite quote from “Crime and Punishment".

Quote:What do you think?” shouted Razumihin, louder than ever, “you think I am attacking them for talking nonsense? Not a bit! I like them to talk nonsense. That’s man’s one privilege over all creation. Through error you come to the truth! I am a man because I err! You never reach any truth without making fourteen mistakes and very likely a hundred and fourteen. And a fine thing, too, in its way; but we can’t even make mistakes on our own account! Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I’ll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one’s own way is better than to go right in someone else’s. In the first case you are a man, in the second you’re no better than a bird. Truth won’t escape you, but life can be cramped. There have been examples. And what are we doing now? In science, development, thought, invention, ideals, aims, liberalism, judgment, experience and everything, everything, everything, we are still in the preparatory class at school. We prefer to live on other people’s ideas, it’s what we are used to! Am I right, am I right?” cried Razumihin, pressing and shaking the two ladies’ hands.

This is why I don't think it is enough or at all preferable to coerce people out of their beliefs, in either direction. Being right isn't enough. You've got to own it or you wind up getting owned. Instead of fixing the rest of the world just get all those beams out of your own eye. Amarite? Amarite?

Diablo. On equality before the law, this was certainly a hallmark of the Puritan revolt of the 17th century. It was most strikingly shown by their willingness to imprison, try, and behead the king, Charles I. Central to their view was that no one had privilege before the law, not even a king. Of course power corrupts and Cromwell himself slowly established his own privileged position, but the willingness to execute a king after trial underlined their view that everyone was equal before the law, and nobility were not above the law. Alongside this we had redistribution of land, and the start of what we call 'common land' that thankfully still persists in England. It is hard to understate how much the old feudal 'noblesse oblige' system was completely overturned by Cromwell and the parliamentarians, though it would later take Mary Wollstonecraft to challenge men to include women in that basic order of equality of all before God (answering Paine's egalitarian 'Rights of man' with 'A vindication of the rights of women').