What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Is it your experience that most Christians base their religion on issues such as the mind/body problem? 

Or is it more of a sociological phenomenon, involving behavior, ethics, and goals?

Right, I think I see what you're saying. Firstly that's the relevant issue for me as a potential Christian but I grant that like you say (or seem to be saying) many Christians would have other reasons for their belief... or have different priorities... but I would still think it would - or should - be a cause of cognitive dissonance; something that would need to be resolved not just suppressed. But I suppose you could just be saying in answer to my question, rather cynically, that it would be little different than other cases of Christianity where you'd think there would be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, such as a creationist confronting evidence of evolution, but in practice they seem remarkably resistant to it. I have to say, I don't know if that's what you mean or not... you said somewhere else that you're not religious, but you certainly seem to be... ie are you atheist, agnostic, or is 'not religious' just another way of saying 'non-denominational Christian', like Neo?

ETA: I think I further see what you may mean, just in the sense that those sorts of questions might not even be on some people's radar, but I think the same points would still hold in the sense that once there's enough awareness about an issue, it becomes harder to ignore it... even if you were completely ignorant of it beforehand.

Reasons for belief?  I guess, if you're a convert.

However, around 85% of the world population believe in some kind of god. Why?

First, for most, a specific religion is no more than an accident of birth. One learns and accepts the dominant religion where he/she lives. Religion and our world view are both taught and absorbed without question before the age of seven. They become simply the way things are. As far as I can tell, relatively few people ever seriously question their religious beliefs nor indeed the world view they were taught. Imo, if they did so, there would be vastly more atheists [and far fewer republicans] ..

The other reason is that I think human beings as a species have an urge to the divine. Religion meets some important human needs. Such as comfort in the fear of death, having belief in purpose, order, a sense of community, and control most of all. A sense of belonging to the dominant group can still be a matter of life and death.

 That religion is universal leads me to believe that it has or at least had an evolutionary advantage.  Human behaviour always has purpose. The behaviour may continue long after the purpose has ceased to be. Many folk customs and ritual behaviours seem to have that element.

 As far as I can tell religion always provides a feeling of control  over one's life.  Humans build up a relationship with their gods based on influencing their god. This is done through ritual, ranging from prayer and the mummery of Catholicism to the human sacrifices of the Babylonians and Mesoamerican cultures.  The control may be for say rain or victory over enemies (that's still a biggy)  or to simply pacify the god so he won't destroy them. Religion is always transactional at some level, as far as I can tell.

[Angrboda]

 That religion is universal leads me to believe that it has or at least had an evolutionary advantage.  Human behaviour always has purpose. The behaviour may continue long after the purpose has ceased to be. Many folk customs and ritual behaviours seem to have that element.

Evolution says that traits which survive either were useful, or are byproducts of traits that are useful. I'd lean toward the latter more than the former.

[Belacqua]

In my opinion, anthropomorphism is inherent in any God-concept.  Without a mind God has no sentience or knowledge, and can't willfully exercise power, so he isn't a God at all.  If God has no changing mind, you just have the natural world of physics, chemistry, self-organization, and evolution -- just as atheists contend.  At best, "God" is reduced to a metaphor for physical processes, in whole or part.

You have imagined a very specific image of what God would be like if he existed. And you have successfully argued that God, as imagined this way, couldn't exist. 

Maybe you'll be happy to know that all the major theologians agree with you. God, as you describe him, couldn't exist. 

You and Ferro wonder how a God who doesn't willfully exercise power could affect the world. The standard answer to this question is the one given by Plato, and affirmed by Augustine, Aquinas, Dante, etc. etc. If someone arguing about metaphysics is unaware of this concept, then that person is unaware of absolutely basic concepts in the field. 

Platonists, Aristotelians, and theologians have all been superseded by scientists.

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.

[Ferrocyanide]

If god is unchanging, then how can he do anything?
Yes, I see people throw around the word immaterial but can you explain how this immaterial brain works?

In my opinion, anthropomorphism is inherent in any God-concept.  Without a mind God has no sentience or knowledge, and can't willfully exercise power, so he isn't a God at all.  If God has no changing mind, you just have the natural world of physics, chemistry, self-organization, and evolution -- just as atheists contend.  At best, "God" is reduced to a metaphor for physical processes, in whole or part.

Platonists, Aristotelians, and theologians have all been superseded by scientists.

I’m not exactly seeing what Swedendorg is talking about (Neo-Scholastic mentioned a guy named Swedendorg).
Isn’t a dog an anthropomorphic animal? Aren’t all mammals  anthropomorphic to some extent?
The general pattern, the skeletal structure, the internal organ arrangement is kind of similar.

When it comes to the brain, perhaps the brain structure is similar as well.
Perhaps some animals lack certain features. Can a dog laugh?
I know that a dog cares about his owner. Some dogs have alerted their owner when there was a house fire.
I saw in a video a dog pull out a baby that fell into a pool.

An experiment that you can try is approach your dog or cat slowly from behind and make a large noise. They’ll jump, just like your fellow human.

These are indications that our brain works in a similar way.

CONCLUSION:
Logic is logic. It doesn’t matter from which planet you are from, it doesn’t matter if you are a klingon.
Math is math. It doesn’t matter if you do your calculations under a Mac, a Windows, a Linux, a Unix, or some alien calculator.

So, when it comes to a thinking brain, there is a limit to how that brain will function.

Some mystics, like Swedendorg, are very explicit that the human mind cannot concieve of God except as a human which is given as the reason Jesus in His humanity was given to us as Christ in His Divinity.

See above.

I’ll also add this:
What logic lead this jewish god to say to himself:
“Hey Jesus. I have a mission for you. You are going to go into a human female. 9 months later you will be born.
For the first few years of your life, pretend to be an ordinary human. Later on, show them some magical powers.
The goal is that you need to get sacrificed so that people’s sins get wiped.”

So, why the waste of time?
Why waste 9 months as a fetus?

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as the op q, I think liberal religion is a good fit for the core competency of institutions. Given the tendency for religious thinking to become institutional thinking, I far prefer a liberal religion to the alternative.

[emjay]

Right, I think I see what you're saying. Firstly that's the relevant issue for me as a potential Christian but I grant that like you say (or seem to be saying) many Christians would have other reasons for their belief... or have different priorities... but I would still think it would - or should - be a cause of cognitive dissonance; something that would need to be resolved not just suppressed. But I suppose you could just be saying in answer to my question, rather cynically, that it would be little different than other cases of Christianity where you'd think there would be massive amounts of cognitive dissonance, such as a creationist confronting evidence of evolution, but in practice they seem remarkably resistant to it. I have to say, I don't know if that's what you mean or not... you said somewhere else that you're not religious, but you certainly seem to be... ie are you atheist, agnostic, or is 'not religious' just another way of saying 'non-denominational Christian', like Neo?

ETA: I think I further see what you may mean, just in the sense that those sorts of questions might not even be on some people's radar, but I think the same points would still hold in the sense that once there's enough awareness about an issue, it becomes harder to ignore it... even if you were completely ignorant of it beforehand.

Reasons for belief?  I guess, if you're a convert.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here... how it relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about, could you rephrase?

However, around 85% of the world population believe in some kind of god. Why?

First, for most, a specific religion is no more than an accident of birth. One learns and accepts the dominant religion where he/she lives. Religion and our world view are both taught and absorbed without question before the age of seven. They become simply the way things are. As far as I can tell, relatively few people ever seriously question their religious beliefs nor indeed the world view they were taught. Imo, if they did so, there would be vastly more atheists [and far fewer republicans] ..

The other reason is that I think human beings as a species have an urge to the divine. Religion meets some important human needs. Such as comfort in the fear of death, having belief in purpose, order, a sense of community, and control most of all. A sense of belonging to the dominant group can still be a matter of life and death.

 That religion is universal leads me to believe that it has or at least had an evolutionary advantage.  Human behaviour always has purpose. The behaviour may continue long after the purpose has ceased to be. Many folk customs and ritual behaviours seem to have that element.

 As far as I can tell religion always provides a feeling of control  over one's life.  Humans build up a relationship with their gods based on influencing their god. This is done through ritual, ranging from prayer and the mummery of Catholicism to the human sacrifices of the Babylonians and Mesoamerican cultures.  The control may be for say rain or victory over enemies (that's still a biggy)  or to simply pacify the god so he won't destroy them. Religion is always transactional at some level, as far as I can tell.

Also, I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about?, but it's interesting nonetheless. I would add though that I personally think of religion as the inevitable byproduct of the way our minds work; noticing patterns/regularities in the world, always questioning, and with a tendency to ascribe agency where there is none/anthropomorphize things... so in pre-scientific times/places it's not at all surprising there are so many gods and spirits ascribed to the various regularities of nature, such as the Sun, or that the agency of gods are used to explain unpredictable calamities like storms and famines etc. And where knowledge increases, if it increases, those concepts evolve (I'm especially thinking of the classical philosophy I've been reading of late, thanks to the Aquinas thread, where it's very interesting to see those philosophers straggling the line between polytheism and monotheism, and seeing how their thought evolves on those questions...and it raises interesting questions of how those two ideas relate/depend on/follow each other, if they do). So that's my own take on what it stems from, but granted where I see a bug, the religious most probably see a feature.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Reasons for belief?  I guess, if you're a convert.

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here... how it relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about, could you rephrase?

However, around 85% of the world population believe in some kind of god. Why?

First, for most, a specific religion is no more than an accident of birth. One learns and accepts the dominant religion where he/she lives. Religion and our world view are both taught and absorbed without question before the age of seven. They become simply the way things are. As far as I can tell, relatively few people ever seriously question their religious beliefs nor indeed the world view they were taught. Imo, if they did so, there would be vastly more atheists [and far fewer republicans] ..

The other reason is that I think human beings as a species have an urge to the divine. Religion meets some important human needs. Such as comfort in the fear of death, having belief in purpose, order, a sense of community, and control most of all. A sense of belonging to the dominant group can still be a matter of life and death.

 That religion is universal leads me to believe that it has or at least had an evolutionary advantage.  Human behaviour always has purpose. The behaviour may continue long after the purpose has ceased to be. Many folk customs and ritual behaviours seem to have that element.

 As far as I can tell religion always provides a feeling of control  over one's life.  Humans build up a relationship with their gods based on influencing their god. This is done through ritual, ranging from prayer and the mummery of Catholicism to the human sacrifices of the Babylonians and Mesoamerican cultures.  The control may be for say rain or victory over enemies (that's still a biggy)  or to simply pacify the god so he won't destroy them. Religion is always transactional at some level, as far as I can tell.

Also, I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about?, but it's interesting nonetheless. I would add though that I personally think of religion as the inevitable byproduct of the way our minds work; noticing patterns/regularities in the world, always questioning, and with a tendency to ascribe agency where there is none/anthropomorphize things... so in pre-scientific times/places it's not at all surprising there are so many gods and spirits ascribed to the various regularities of nature, such as the Sun, or that the agency of gods are used to explain unpredictable calamities like storms and famines etc. And where knowledge increases, if it increases, those concepts evolve (I'm especially thinking of the classical philosophy I've been reading of late, thanks to the Aquinas thread, where it's very interesting to see those philosophers straggling the line between polytheism and monotheism, and seeing how their thought evolves on those questions...and it raises interesting questions of how those two ideas relate/depend on/follow each other, if they do). So that's my own take on what it stems from, but granted where I see a bug, the religious most probably see a feature.

Oh, sorry about that, I obviously misunderstood.

[emjay]

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here... how it relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about, could you rephrase?


Also, I'm not sure how the rest of your post relates to what me and Belacqua were talking about?, but it's interesting nonetheless. I would add though that I personally think of religion as the inevitable byproduct of the way our minds work; noticing patterns/regularities in the world, always questioning, and with a tendency to ascribe agency where there is none/anthropomorphize things... so in pre-scientific times/places it's not at all surprising there are so many gods and spirits ascribed to the various regularities of nature, such as the Sun, or that the agency of gods are used to explain unpredictable calamities like storms and famines etc. And where knowledge increases, if it increases, those concepts evolve (I'm especially thinking of the classical philosophy I've been reading of late, thanks to the Aquinas thread, where it's very interesting to see those philosophers straggling the line between polytheism and monotheism, and seeing how their thought evolves on those questions...and it raises interesting questions of how those two ideas relate/depend on/follow each other, if they do). So that's my own take on what it stems from, but granted where I see a bug, the religious most probably see a feature.

Oh, sorry about that, I obviously misunderstood.

No worries. I think I could have probably been a bit clearer with how I phrased that bit... ie reasons for believing are seldom the same thing as reasons for not believing (ie I was talking about an issue preventing me from believing, and Belacqua was talking about a type of Christian that doesn't share those similar concerns) ... so it might have been better just leaving it as 'different priorities', as that looks like it encompasses both.

[Belacqua]

Reasons for belief?  I guess, if you're a convert.

I get what you're saying here. Most people are born into a religion and then may or may not come to question it later. Certainly a lot don't. 

I think that emjay and I were talking about the reasons that one might choose a religion, and this would include both choosing to join or choosing to stay, after you had grown up enough to interrogate why you're in the religion in the first place. 

Emjay found the more intellectual, metaphysical reasons to be a challenge to his faith. If certain tenets of the religion appear incompatible with modern science, that's a good reason to question. 

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. 

Here's my experience with the issue:

Many years ago I was spending time at a Zen Buddhist temple in the mountains outside Fukuyama. It was a pretty serious place; about half the people there ended up shaving their heads and becoming full-fledged monks. In terms of the lifestyle, it was idyllic. Beautiful place, like-minded people, all very calming. We worked outside, so we all got thin and tan and healthy, eating delicious organic meals we grew ourselves. The meditation was about four hours a day, and very settling to a confused mind. 

Nobody at the temple talked about Buddhist theology, because that isn't how Zen people do it. Nonetheless, Zen, like every other branch of Buddhism, is based on tenets about metaphysics. 

I realized that I could do it two ways: if I continued to spend time at the temple without thinking about the philosophy behind it, it was healthy and therapeutic but not really Buddhism. If I wanted to do it sincerely, I had to accept the philosophy. And I couldn't agree with the metaphysics, so I stopped. If I had continued to meditate for therapeutic reasons I'd probably be a healthier person today, but I stopped. 

So my position then was more like emjay's today. It was the intellectual part that became a deal-breaker. I could have stayed in just for the lifestyle, and the camaraderie, and the good food. A lot of people do, and I don't look down on that choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it would be difficult for me to join a religion that I thought was not only factually bankrupt- but practically and morally abhorrent- for good food and friends. I would definitely hold that against any person who did it, and I’ve heard it before.