Atheist Fundamentalism

[genkaus]

If you have information that you believe to be the divine architect of reality, with commandments that are supposed to be the ultimate in moral goodness, all contained within what's supposed to be the backbone of your religious beliefs, and you pick and choose which of those you want to follow, then you are being inconsistent with your position. Either you don't really believe in the moral or factual accuracy of the commandments, or you don't care about the authority of the source. Either way, the potency of your religion is now reduced, by the fact that you've deemed yourself the arbiter of your supposed religious instruction.

Far be it from me to say whether they are or are not a True Whatever, but what I will say is that they aren't comporting themselves in a manner consistent with the claimed origins of the information they accept.

That's a big if - and that is, I believe the point this moderate is trying to make. Most of the religious people don't the information to be the divine architect of reality and/or they don't believe it to contain ultimate moral goodness and/or they don't regard it as the backbone of their religious beliefs. What he'd probably argue is that the capacity to be the arbiter of religious instruction is what gives religion its true potency (bring morals to the scripture and not morals from the scripture).

[DramaQueen]

What is the religion about then?

[Chad32]

What is the religion about then?

Some christians might go to the verse where Jesus said love your god above all, and love your neighbor as yourself. Ignoring a verse where Jesus said to hate yourself and your family. And it would be better to drown someone than to let them lead people away from god.

[DramaQueen]

I mean what do they believe in? Don't they believe in the flood?

E.g when I was a Quranist I believed in the articles (it didn't last long, it was a stepping stone)

[genkaus]

NOT extracting your morals from the holy book is the basic lesson of religion - something you learn on your first day.

Where are the people that say this? I know it happens, because how could it not, but I've met very few people that proudly say they cherry pick, and everyone else should do it too. The book tells you that your level of wisdom is not enough, and is pretty clear that everything in the bible should be followed. Some stories are likely meant as allegory, like when Jesus says cut off the hand and gouge out the eye that sins, but when Yahweh talks about how slavery should be done, and what to do when a man rapes a woman, and how to deal with people who aren't worshiping Yahweh, it's meant to be taken seriously.

Cherry picking happens. We all know this. But I think the cherry pickers who are open and proud about it are in the minority.

The reason why cherry-picking has a negative connotation is because there is an implicit assumption that where scripture is concerned, you are supposed to take it or leave it in its entirety. It is that assumption that's being challenged here.

But your point is well-made. What we have here is a contradiction between what people do and say. Most of the religious people I know are silent on the question of whether their scripture is to be followed in its entirety. Saying that it should be and doing it would make them extremists. Saying it should be and not doing it would make them hypocritical. And saying it shouldn't be makes them think that they are undercutting their own beliefs. So most of them remain silent and practice cherry-picking. The vocal ones are those who shout that it should be followed completely and those are the ones we hear.

So, adherence to the scripture being a necessary aspect of religion is conclusion we draw based on what we here. But according to Reza, it is not a necessary part of religion if we judge by what we see.

---

What is the religion about then?

I've never been able to figure that one out. Whenever I come close to an answer, someone tells me "but that's not what religion is really about".

[Chad32]

Given the extreme view of the bible, you'd have to be pretty extreme yourself to follow all of it.

[Esquilax]

That's a big if - and that is, I believe the point this moderate is trying to make. Most of the religious people don't the information to be the divine architect of reality and/or they don't believe it to contain ultimate moral goodness and/or they don't regard it as the backbone of their religious beliefs. What he'd probably argue is that the capacity to be the arbiter of religious instruction is what gives religion its true potency (bring morals to the scripture and not morals from the scripture).

Which is just perplexing, because it takes all of the actual content out of the religion and leaves just the name. If you get to pick and choose whatever you want out of a religion and leave the rest then you're just acting like a person, not with the kind of purpose or unification that would indicate group membership. It'd be like forming a club, but having no declared interests or tenets or requirements. You can call it a club, but that's just people meeting in a room. There's nothing differentiating the members of that club from a bunch of random people stuck in an elevator.

Moreover, if that really is Aslan's point, then the actual authority of religion to govern the lives of others, and especially the lives of those who don't believe in it is essentially nil, because there's no actual content to those beliefs beyond what any given adherent would believe anyway.

If you have to take away the defining aspects of religion, the tenets, in order to make it palatable and immune to atheist criticism, then there was nothing worthwhile in that religion to begin with.

[genkaus]

Which is just perplexing, because it takes all of the actual content out of the religion and leaves just the name. If you get to pick and choose whatever you want out of a religion and leave the rest then you're just acting like a person, not with the kind of purpose or unification that would indicate group membership. It'd be like forming a club, but having no declared interests or tenets or requirements. You can call it a club, but that's just people meeting in a room. There's nothing differentiating the members of that club from a bunch of random people stuck in an elevator.

Not just the name. You take out scripture from the religion but you are still left with the culture, traditions, practices, rituals, festivals, certain moral dictates and so on. That is more than enough for most people to gain club membership.

Moreover, if that really is Aslan's point, then the actual authority of religion to govern the lives of others, and especially the lives of those who don't believe in it is essentially nil, because there's no actual content to those beliefs beyond what any given adherent would believe anyway.

Yes, I think moderates believe that government should stay out of religion and that religion should not have power over all aspects of life.

If you have to take away the defining aspects of religion, the tenets, in order to make it palatable and immune to atheist criticism, then there was nothing worthwhile in that religion to begin with.

That again would be a debatable point - whether the tenets actually are the defining aspect of religion.

[Esquilax]

Not just the name. You take out scripture from the religion but you are still left with the culture, traditions, practices, rituals, festivals, certain moral dictates and so on. That is more than enough for most people to gain club membership.

But again, only the ones you want to follow. And hell, that's basically just describing me. I'm not a christian, but I celebrate christmas, use the word god as an expletive, etc etc. It's not like they gate that shit off from nonbelievers.

Think about that: the thing you just described is equally true of the religious and the atheistic.

That again would be a debatable point - whether the tenets actually are the defining aspect of religion.

What else is there, that's specific enough to be a defining aspect of religion? You'd think that the content of its historical narrative and moral pronouncements would be enough, no? I mean, without that initial claim, "there's a god, and he did X and Y and Z, and that's why his moral authority is worth trusting when he says you shouldn't do A and B and C," there's not much left that's religious, is there?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheists often forget the myriad of ways a religion can be followed. NOT extracting your morals from the holy book is the basic lesson of religion - something you learn on your first day.

There is some truth to this idea. Ultimately however morals do not come directly from any sacred text; but rather, from God. God’s influence is not limited to instruction from an inspired text. It can also include providential order in the form of civil laws that enforce moral behavior until an individual can understand and adopt as part of their religious understanding. It also includes a conscience and intellect that can reflect on the previous in the event that the individual has received flawed instruction and/or was raised in a wicked society.

Same with the bible. Nowhere does it say 'this story is allegorical', so how on earth are we supposed to know when talking to a theist what part they accept and what part they reject unless it comes up in discussion?

Sacred texts do not exist in a vacuum. They are nested within cultures and traditions. They are particularly complex and one must receive proper instruction about them in order to make such subtle judgments. Demanding the precision of mathematics is simply unrealistic when navigating through the many and various circumstances of life to which the texts refer. Such a demand by an atheist is just as fundamentalist and literal minded as the believer he condemns. That I believe is the jist of the OP.