I love religion!

[Zagreus]

You said in your original post on this thread that religion cannot be separated from our species from any perspective, hence my question: "in what sense are you religious?", as your question seems to be implying that humanity cannot rid itself of religious convictions, when clearly you and I have both freed ourselves from the shackles. If we can do it, so can others, and a world free of religion could be possible. It's only connection with humanity would be in history.

No, I didn’t mean religious convictions, I meant just generally. I might have not been clear here, so I apologise. However, I will say that neither of us are clear of these shackles, and to give you a personal example, I am in England, which is technically a Christian country. I was educated in a state school, which all used to be run by the church. I had to do RE at school, 60% of which had to be Christian. Many people that I studied at school, and after, were religious, so their views have indirectly affected my learning. Some of the laws in my country are based on religious ideas; sanctity of life is the basis of our laws on euthanasia and abortion, for example. Tony Blair was a Christian, who after resigning became a Catholic, so someone who was religious was deciding laws and governing my country. Do you see? It’s inescapable, and I find it interesting.

There’s also recent research that I need to look into that suggests that religious belief and experience could also be biological (certain centres in the brain are more active in the very religious). I can’t comment on this yet, but it will be a new thing for me to get into soon. If it is biological, then it’s a bit inescapable.

Having said that, it is mostly religious history that interests me, as I think it has had an overwhelming impact on the development of our species. How can you not love something like that?!?

I’m also saying there is more to religion than is necessarily apparent to someone who dismisses the ideas as superstitions. I don’t want to escape it, I want to understand it. Tibetan Buddhist monks who spend years battling demons on the astral plane are not just idiots, they are, I think, exploring parts of the mind that western science does not know about yet. If they stopped doing this, we would lose that information. If you’re interested in this line of conversation I can go on, but that’s enough to illustrate my point for now.

As for the bulk of your discussions with others, I'm on the fence. I acknowledge that religions at their core try to provide hope, warmth, security, comradary, altruism and community. The main medium by which this is achieved tends to be through tales and anecdotes written in old scriptures to pass on a message. I personally like to read stories and tales from many of the eastern religions, yet I don't actually believe those stories.

This I totally agree with.

I think that this is how stories in scriptures were meant to be taken when they were written, however there has been a shift in thinking that has got people under the impression that those stories actually reflect reality as opposed to fiction, fable and cultural entertainment.

I’d say that the creation of the stories was more complex than that, but I don’t necessarily disagree with what you are saying. Each story is different, and some may be simply stories, others may reflect some basis in truth. Flood myths are common in many cultures, so why is that? Coincidence or common occurrence (I am not saying the world was flooded, far from it.)

This leads to a kind of anti-evolutionist fundamentalism which is dangerous. Also, many of the moral stories in these scriptures are vile and wicked (obviously, as they were written by more primitive peoples). It's these twisted and vindictive tendencies which pose the biggest threat to people worldwide. The stories are clearly outdated and likely fictional, but when taken as literal acounts with an absolute moral message, society has a problem.

Complicated issue this one. Two issues here, both of which I’ll have to simplify for space.

1) Primitive people were not necessarily less moral, or less intelligent than we are today; far from it. Morals are, in my opinion, subjective, and also reflections of thought at the time. They just had varying standards, and this is evident throughout history. Actions are simply actions, and whilst we may disagree with some ancient moral actions, it does not make them intrinsically wrong. Was it right to marry a 13 year old girl then, is it wrong now? Is sodomy ok now, but not then? I’m sure you know this too, but primitive people are/were not less intelligent too; brain size, etc, is the same – there is just more accumulation of information generation by generation.

2) People on the whole are not of the same intellectual capacity, but this does not lead to fundamentalism. I don’t think this is what you are saying, but I wanted to clarify anyway – people of less intelligence are not necessarily to be more fundamentalist in their beliefs. There are some very intelligent fundamentalists, and no doubt some very thick atheists.

Why people take on fundamentalist view is a complex issue, and one that I’m developing an interest in. On the other forum I participate on I have read whole threads where people are belligerently ignoring what is being said and persisting in saying that there is no evidence for evolution. Why do people do this? Is it psychological? It’s not the religious ideas that are to blame, as they are simply ideas, it is the people involved. Why do some people illogically (in my opinion) also act in a racist or homophobic manner?

Taking religious ideas literally is one thing, but some of the things people do because of them is beyond me. I think here I’m agreeing with you, in a round-a-bout way!

I think at it's heart, religion could be a very fulfilling set of cultural and anecdotal traditions and hand-me-downs. When taken as metaphor and fable, it can give rise to very soul-soothing spiritual canvas upon which you can paint your life. Being wary not to accept every story as infallible gives you the opportunity to decide when some passages are misguided or false. Many religious people operate in such a way, and I agree that being wholly dismissive of religion is perhaps slightly narrow.

Agreed. This is my personal opinion too, hence partly why I consider myself an atheist. However, I started the conversation merely saying I think religion is interesting and that I like it as a subject.

Fundamentalism costs lives, it stands in the way of progress and education, it poisons morality. The Dalai Lama's religious stance has never bothered me though- he accepts that homosexuals should be accepted in society and that abortion can be accepted in certain circumstances DESPITE what his religion says, because he also believes in a secular society where people are free to practise their own brands of religion without oppression from others. Religion is not the problem. Fundamentalism, even in it's weakest forms, is the problem we need to be tackling- theists and atheists alike.

Totally agree. However, we’re discussing fundamentalists again, and I’ve said I don’t agree with them (and I’m not that interested in them, other than a amusing phenomena). I love religious ideas and theory, not blind dogma. I’m interested in the religious ideas of worth, such as those of Blake and so on, not Dave the Dickhead who thinks fags are bad ‘cos God says so.

I would like to repeat your last point as it’s very, very good: Fundamentalism, even in it's weakest forms, is the problem we need to be tackling- theists and atheists alike.

Too true. What better way to break fundamentalist attitudes than to show respect and knowledge about their ideas, but to show them they are wrong and that their views are not those within their faith?

Perhaps when you take the fundamentalism out of religion, all you're left with is philosophy and fable though, huh?

No, they can be left with their faith, as long as it doesn’t affect other people.

Thanks for your reply, Luke, I enjoyed reading it.

---

Yes, it does say I am a "scholar" which is true by defintion "3" which is "any student or pupil." I almost had that word removed from the back cover as it is misleading even if barely factual. If you ask if I have a piece of paper from any university saying I am smart about the Bible, I do not. I have been instructed by Bible scholars James Tabor, Gary Rendsburg, and DSS scholar Peter Flint and have talked to them at length about different aspects of my ideas. I have a previous published book under the same name. I have been a member of the Atlanta Freethought Society and have represented them on talk shows (Hannity when he was in Atlanta) and in debates. Ed Buckner picked me to lead a seminar discussion at the World Atheist Conferance in Atlanta back in 1998.

Thanks for the info. I'll do some research on the people you say and look into their work. I came to this forum partly for leads like this, so I can read people I'd not heard of's ideas. Nice one, cheers.

I believe my book speaks for itself. It is heavily sourced. Due to the heresy which I present, I also quote the source as many will not have access to those books. That way when I use definition 3, you will know it. I am attempting to take a thoroughly discredited New Age viewpoint and show that it should be mainstream once one is able to cut out the BS.

Once I uncovered the truth, it became so plain to see. It was like that math problem you could never solve, then once someone showed you the trick, it became so easy, you wondered you you didn't see it before.

You've totally sold me on reading it. I'll get a copy as soon as I have the money. Heavily sourcing is a great idea, and is something I think gives weight to people's views. You've got me very interested now. It's been a while since I read books in the genre you've done, but it's something I always find interesting, especially if you're right.