What's your opinion on Liberal Religion?

[Belacqua]

(if Belacqua also lives in the US)

My passport says I'm American, but I've lived in Japan most of my life.

join a religion in name only, not out of belief but for other 'superficial/social' reasons

This raises important questions -- what is it that religions enjoin us to believe, and whether social reasons are really superficial. That is, are religions primarily their metaphysical theories, or are they practices? 

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage. 

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

Also (as I've mentioned before on this forum), the word "belief" has different meanings, and I think people should be careful about which they're using. In terms of metaphysical claims, we use "belief" to mean "assent to a proposition." As in "I believe in life after death." But in terms of moral issues, we use it as commitment to a principle. As in "I believe in equal rights for women." Obviously the two are different -- almost opposite, since we know that equal rights for women don't exist in the world. I think that most of Christianity is the second type, as in a commitment to principles we attribute to Jesus. 

Commitment to the first type of belief may not be as essential to Christianity as we moderns (especially we Internet atheists) make it out to be.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, sure, Em. What we would call liberal politicians in the us are far right conservatives across the pond. Same with religion.

Religion and politics are so close that for the majority of human history we’d be a fool to insist they were different things.


That’s why Vulcan prefaced his question with how we all know the conservative nuts and their conservative religion…are….well….nuts.

[Ferrocyanide]

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

You can also use a metal detector to find this watch, since all digital watches have metallic components.

In any case, scientists have be "working in the dark" for a long time. Our eyes are limited, so it is necessary to use other detection methods to understand how nature operates.

[vulcanlogician]

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

What about the part about having urges towards a married woman being just as bad as committing adultery? That's emphasis on internal desires and urges... and not just emphasis... equating it with actually behaving in a given way. That verse has always bothered me. Like, you can't control spontaneous urges. Nor should one be faulted for them.

Also, maybe @Neo-Scholastic can fill me in on this query, since he's the de facto resident scholar on the topic: doesn't the Bible seemingly endorse hylomorphism? I'm largely ignorant of where and how it does this, but some philosophers think it does. And I even remember some televangelist saying things about the resurrection being a "bodily resurrection." Is this actually in the Bible or is this more theology from Augustine or something?

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage. 

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

I really regret using the term liberal, as it is a somewhat relative and somewhat loaded term. Anti-literalist may have been more precise, but that may even be too clinical given my meaning. I was thinking mostly of the Quakers. The Quakers impress me immensely. Not only because of the bold strain of pacifism that runs through Quaker praxis, but of their attempt to incorporate atheists, gay, transgendered, criminals, and other disenfranchised people into their community. But they don't do this to be politically savvy. There really is some radical adherence to the Sermon on the Mount that inspires this. But they're also quick to say, "Maybe the Sermon on the Mount is wrong... it's worth investigation." Anyway... yeah. I'm seriously impressed by the Quakers.

Also (to the broader subtopic that has emerged in this thread) I wonder if "Anti-literalist" (or liberal) religion isn't a way for some folks to contemplate the deeper realities of life. I mean, personally, I like the logical rigor of philosophy. But that's not everyone's cup of tea. There are large numbers of people who may prefer to examine things like human suffering or justice through a religious lens. Again, I only think the literalists are dangerous when they do this. Symbols like "Christ," "Samsara" or even "Satan" allow us a vantagepoint to contemplate the deeper things.

I'm also kind of curious about your Zen Buddhist experience, as another poster was. It's cool if you'd rather not share, but I am awfully curious...

---

I think theism is a rational position. I am swayed by John Hick, who in an essay lays out a rational basis for theism. That basis? Direct experience. If I have direct experience that William Johnson exists (I see him every day at work, for example), then I don't need to pay any heed to skeptics about William Johnson.

The thing about that is, it only applies to mystics. If someone hasn't had direct experience of God, they have no rational basis.

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

But you don't have to trust their testimony, Neo. You can say: "Russia exists? Prove it!" 

There is a process that will lead you to being satisfied that Russia exists. You don't HAVE to trust the testimony. You don't have to trust a book's say-so. If a rational investigator looks into things, they can be promised to discover convincing evidence that Russia exists.

[Belacqua]

What about the part about having urges towards a married woman being just as bad as committing adultery? That's emphasis on internal desires and urges... and not just emphasis... equating it with actually behaving in a given way. That verse has always bothered me. Like, you can't control spontaneous urges. Nor should one be faulted for them.

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of this as metaphysical at all. Though it's an interesting psychological and ethical question. 

I think traditionally -- in a way that's unfair to Jews -- the idea is that Jewish practice was legalistic, and that as long as you outwardly follow the letter of the law you're fine. It makes sense to me that a change of heart, while far more difficult, is also a superior goal. 

And of course all these are goals, and recognized to be beyond the reach of most. That's what grace is all about. Then I suppose we might even distinguish between spontaneous urges and those desires we mentally encourage. This becomes almost Zen-like -- if you watch the thought come and go through your mind, you're not responsible for the thought. If you attach yourself to the thought, that's a different level. 

But all of that is just me pondering -- I don't know what the experts have said on the issue. 

I do remember years ago learning about mirror neurons, and saying (to the annoyance of the doctor I was translating for) "This shows Jesus was right! Action and thought are the same!" 

Also, maybe @Neo-Scholastic can fill me in on this query, since he's the de facto resident scholar on the topic: doesn't the Bible seemingly endorse hylomorphism? I'm largely ignorant of where and how it does this, but some philosophers think it does. And I even remember some televangelist saying things about the resurrection being a "bodily resurrection." Is this actually in the Bible or is this more theology from Augustine or something?

The only instance of hylomorphism in the Bible that I can think of is when Paul talks about resurrection. He doesn't say, significantly, that we will be disembodied souls, but that we will be given a new body of a different kind. Dante emphasizes this, too. 

All kinds of sin, including urges towards ones neighbor, are misdirections of love. Purification of the soul is learning to aim one's love to the proper end, which is really our best end, in our own best interest. I'm guessing that a post-resurrection body would make this easier, but the real work is done in the soul. 

I really regret using the term liberal, as it is a somewhat relative and somewhat loaded term. [...] I'm seriously impressed by the Quakers.

I think "liberal" is as good a term as any. It's in wide use, and any good discussion will demand a definition of terms anyway. 

There is a fascinating history of non-conformist and antinomian sects in England, of which the Quakers are the best known. These started in secret, put their heads up during Cromwell's reign, and then went underground again. They stayed quiet and didn't evangelize, and, as part of their structure had no hierarchy or official administration, which makes them hard to research. 

William Blake appears to have been raised Muggletonian, and many of his ideas about the necessity of personal expression in religion appear to come from them, but little is known of that group -- as they wanted it. 

Again, Christianity includes more than its detractors usually acknowledge.

Also (to the broader subtopic that has emerged in this thread) I wonder if "Anti-literalist" (or liberal) religion isn't a way for some folks to contemplate the deeper realities of life. I mean, personally, I like the logical rigor of philosophy. But that's not everyone's cup of tea. There are large numbers of people who may prefer to examine things like human suffering or justice through a religious lens. Again, I only think the literalists are dangerous when they do this. Symbols like "Christ," "Samsara" or even "Satan" allow us a vantagepoint to contemplate the deeper things.

Plato knew this. Logical rigor is necessary but limited. Aporia are inevitable. Myth is required for deep understanding and wisdom.

I'm also kind of curious about your Zen Buddhist experience, as another poster was. It's cool if you'd rather not share, but I am awfully curious...

I was not very good at it. I don't mean to be secretive about it, but I'm not sure there's much to say. The place was beautiful, the food was great, the goals were admirable. I learned some things about myself, most of them bad.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

Want proof of Russia without going there? Ask if there is an officially recognized nation called Russia. After all Alaska and Finland used to be part of Russia.

[vulcanlogician]

What about the part about having urges towards a married woman being just as bad as committing adultery? That's emphasis on internal desires and urges... and not just emphasis... equating it with actually behaving in a given way. That verse has always bothered me. Like, you can't control spontaneous urges. Nor should one be faulted for them.

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of this as metaphysical at all. Though it's an interesting psychological and ethical question. 

Just to clarify, that particular objection had nothing to do with metaphysics. It was in response to your statement: "Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another." Lusting after a married woman was just a counterexample to challenge that statement, as that hardly counts as behavior towards another. It has to do with inner impulses that are largely beyond our control. (At least for us non-Zen Buddhists  ).

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

What about the part about having urges towards a married woman being just as bad as committing adultery? That's emphasis on internal desires and urges... and not just emphasis... equating it with actually behaving in a given way. That verse has always bothered me. Like, you can't control spontaneous urges. Nor should one be faulted for them.

Also, maybe @Neo-Scholastic can fill me in on this query, since he's the de facto resident scholar on the topic: doesn't the Bible seemingly endorse hylomorphism? I'm largely ignorant of where and how it does this, but some philosophers think it does. And I even remember some televangelist saying things about the resurrection being a "bodily resurrection." Is this actually in the Bible or is this more theology from Augustine or something?

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage. 

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

I really regret using the term liberal, as it is a somewhat relative and somewhat loaded term. Anti-literalist may have been more precise, but that may even be too clinical given my meaning. I was thinking mostly of the Quakers. The Quakers impress me immensely. Not only because of the bold strain of pacifism that runs through Quaker praxis, but of their attempt to incorporate atheists, gay, transgendered, criminals, and other disenfranchised people into their community. But they don't do this to be politically savvy. There really is some radical adherence to the Sermon on the Mount that inspires this. But they're also quick to say, "Maybe the Sermon on the Mount is wrong... it's worth investigation." Anyway... yeah. I'm seriously impressed by the Quakers.

Also (to the broader subtopic that has emerged in this thread) I wonder if "Anti-literalist" (or liberal) religion isn't a way for some folks to contemplate the deeper realities of life. I mean, personally, I like the logical rigor of philosophy. But that's not everyone's cup of tea. There are large numbers of people who may prefer to examine things like human suffering or justice through a religious lens. Again, I only think the literalists are dangerous when they do this. Symbols like "Christ," "Samsara" or even "Satan" allow us a vantagepoint to contemplate the deeper things.

I'm also kind of curious about your Zen Buddhist experience, as another poster was. It's cool if you'd rather not share, but I am awfully curious...

---

I have never been to Russia but I trust the testimony of those who have been there.

But you don't have to trust their testimony, Neo. You can say: "Russia exists? Prove it!" 

There is a process that will lead you to being satisfied that Russia exists. You don't HAVE to trust the testimony. You don't have to trust a book's say-so. If a rational investigator looks into things, they can be promised to discover convincing evidence that Russia exists.

 Just to confuse thing further. Australia has its Liberal Party.  They are our equivalent to the British Tories. They are currently in power. Our current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison is a happy clapper. He prays in a crisis and at every other opportunity.

In contrast, The Australian Labor Party  was once the radical left.  Today it's more centrist, with Left and Right factions.
 The elected members are commonly atheists. There are also a sprinkling of gays. Has been thus for decades. .   We've had quite a few Labor atheist Prime Ministers, at least from WW2,as far as I can tell.

[emjay]

(if Belacqua also lives in the US)

My passport says I'm American, but I've lived in Japan most of my life.

join a religion in name only, not out of belief but for other 'superficial/social' reasons

This raises important questions -- what is it that religions enjoin us to believe, and whether social reasons are really superficial. That is, are religions primarily their metaphysical theories, or are they practices?

Famously, the Bible contains very little metaphysics. John 1:1, and a few vague sentences by Paul. "In him we live and move and have our being," has certainly been used by immanentists, for example, but I'm not completely sure Paul meant it metaphysically. Nearly all of what the prophets and the NT urge has to do with how we behave towards one another.

This is why I say that even if most of the science-incompatible claims become untenable, I have no doubt that Christianity would continue. Whether this deserves the label "liberal" or not I'm not sure. Again, much of what we dislike about Christianity has to do with its adoption of bizarre radical politics in the US, and it might thrive without all of that baggage.

Or perhaps we have a Wittgenstein situation, in which "religion" is not a thing with an essence but is defined only by family resemblance. Whereas one religion, or one person's religion, is a question of metaphysical beliefs, another is simply practice.

Also (as I've mentioned before on this forum), the word "belief" has different meanings, and I think people should be careful about which they're using. In terms of metaphysical claims, we use "belief" to mean "assent to a proposition." As in "I believe in life after death." But in terms of moral issues, we use it as commitment to a principle. As in "I believe in equal rights for women." Obviously the two are different -- almost opposite, since we know that equal rights for women don't exist in the world. I think that most of Christianity is the second type, as in a commitment to principles we attribute to Jesus.

Commitment to the first type of belief may not be as essential to Christianity as we moderns (especially we Internet atheists) make it out to be.

Well, this has definitely been the strangest/most unique conversation I've ever had about religion... but thanks for sharing your viewpoint with me, it's certainly opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at religion, both in general and in the US.

You've actually been making me doubt my sanity... have I been using the word 'religion' wrong all my life? Looking it up I get: "religion, noun, belief in, or worship of, a god", so your perspective is actually kind of covered in that definition, by separating "belief in" from "worship of" by a strict OR condition and allowing for 'worship of' to be unaccompanied by 'belief in'. But for me, the way I would read the same definition is that the core of religion is 'belief in', OR "worship of (which entails 'belief in')". So my viewpoint, at least thus far, has 'belief in a god' as the core principle of religion, and anything else as secondary. Whichever is more accurate, nonetheless, thus far, the thought of religion without underlying belief is something I've never considered possible, or really considered at all.

But running with your perspective for a while, separating belief (in your first sense) from religion, all it seems we're left with is basically religious tradition, and whatever second sense belief the underlying source (ie the Bible and the philosophy around it in the case of Christianity) inspires in people. Clearly you see that as a very positive thing, and I don't disagree to a certain extent; ie I have no problem with some religious tradition... I'll happily sing hymns/carols at Christmas etc, nor do I have any problem with anyone inspired by the more positive messages of the Bible - forgiveness, charity, 'love thy neighbour' etc - but the problem comes in that for every person like that, there is another who is 'inspired' by the same book to do ill; to spread hate, bigotry and violence. So where you see a very positive and beautiful thing, I see a very depressing thing; the concept of a country which, under your thinking, would contain many Christians who didn't even believe (first sense) in God, yet still used the Bible to justify everything under the sun, good and bad. The division that is already apparent... and a consequence of the ability interpret the Bible in so many ways... is already bad enough, but to add no underlying belief (first sense) to the mix... thus making the associated actions in some sense seem less authentic/genuine, seems only to add insult to injury.

I mean it's interesting what you're saying, and I'm not condemning you for saying it, but just saying how I see it.

[Belacqua]

has 'belief in a god' as the core principle of religion, and anything else as secondary.

I think that Christianity has emphasized belief. And you're right to say that this generally entails belief as assent-to-proposition, even when in practice it behaves as commitment-to-principle. 

I'm not sure how general this has been in history, in non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures. And I don't mean that people are faking things and doing things they feel are dishonest. Just that assent-to-proposition may well be minor compared to the ritual, performative, inclusive aspects of the religion in other times and places.

This comes in part from my experience in Japan. Normally we are listed as one of the two most atheistic countries in the world (along with China). And certainly STEM studies get great honor here, and I have never heard of an evolution-denier. But there is a kind of non-Western disconnect between how a person might answer a questionnaire and how a person behaves. Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines are still common and well-maintained, and certain rituals are important to people who would no doubt call themselves atheists. 

For example, there's a late-August Buddhist holiday called Obon which is the day when dead souls revisit their graveyards. It is extremely common to go to clean the tomb and decorate it with a paper lantern at that time. My area is almost all True Pure Land sect, so the lanterns are very colorful. I knew an American guy one time who asked people coming back from the graveyard whether they really believed the souls were visiting. Some said they'd never really thought about it. The most common response was that very useful Japanese shrug-and-smile combination which allows one to avoid impertinent questions. 

Or if you have a major life-event coming up, like an entrance examination or major surgery, a large percentage of people would go to a shrine, write their wish in a wooden plaque, and hang it on the hook provided. If asked "Do you think there is a kami in the shrine who will assist you in your entrance into medical school?" I suspect most would say no, but they still took an afternoon off studying to climb up to the shrine. 

So I think we have to think of religion in all its roles. The role in which it serves as failed science is probably the least important. A sense of integration into the community, and a sense of how one fits into the universe, has traditionally been bigger, I suspect. To some extent this entails belief, but again, it isn't the full-on recitation of a credo which Christianity may demand. 

In Plato's Symposium, for example, nobody seems to question the fact that there's a goddess called Aphrodite. But everybody feels perfectly free to describe her however he wants. One person says there are two of her. One person says that Eros isn't really her son. It's very freewheeling, and nobody worries about heresy. 

I also suspect that this forum's moralistic approach to science is an inheritance from Christianity. People who reject science's authority are seen as bad people. We are free to insult them. Some people will recite their credo in praise of science on any thread where it's at all relevant. Science is the way and the truth and the life, and those who doubt it are not only incorrect but bad for the world. In fact science has no moral values built in, but some people find them nonetheless. 

Terry Eagleton wrote a book recently called Culture, which is in part about recent attempts to find something in society to fill the role of religion, now that religion is fading. If religion no longer gives us our values, how do we find values that aren't merely a reflection of what our capitalist masters want? Like it or not, we are propagandized from birth, and if it's not the pastor it's going to be the TV. I have never seen a more moralistic hour of propagandizing than the time I was forced to watch CNN while waiting to change planes at O'Hare -- and that all pretended to be objective news coverage. Eagleton concludes that none of the suggested substitutes has worked, and that none can. (This doesn't mean that religion is true; just that it has filled a unique role.) Science and capitalism came up in this world together, and the values generally associated with them very often support each other in ways that may not actually be good for us. 

And yes, religion can push bad things. Zen Buddhists in Japan were intimately involved in the pre-War militarism. Zen mindfulness is a useful tool for people about to die in a suicide airplane. But to say that that is intrinsic to religion and the good parts aren't is just lopsided.