Is Allegorical Religion better than Fundamentalism?

[Anomalocaris]

Its more like how sharing a drink can be both refreshment and celebration.

Yes indeed, and which one of those is fundamentalism to you, refreshment or celebration?

[Disagreeable]

It's definitely better. Its only downside is that it often cherry-picks the texts and mental-gymnasticizes in absurd ways. And it often protects fundamentalism. But that's only bad because fundamentalism is bad.

Fundamentalism itself is the real threat. Being fundamentalist about even the worst of holy techs is extremism. And extremism is dangerous.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think christopher hitchens used to point out that there's no problem with fundamentalism aside from the contents of what is seen to be fundamental. There's no sense in giving a shit religion a pass as though all religions just had to be shit. It's worse than that. They don't have to be.

[Anomalocaris]

I think christopher hitchens used to point out that there's no problem with fundamentalism aside from the contents of what is seen to be fundamental.  There's no sense in giving a shit religion a pass as though all religions just had to be shit.  It's worse than that.  They don't have to be.

Really?   Can a religion not be shit and remain a religion?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's up the the creativity of it's creators. The whole utility of allegorical religion is a rehabilitation with time towards that same end.

[Anomalocaris]

That's up the the creativity of it's creators.  The whole utility of allegorical religion is a rehabilitation with time towards that same end.

no, it’s up to who benefits from sustaining and increasing the influence of the religion.   Those people who seeks such benefits would not be seeking it for the good of mankind.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're included in the set, ofc. I don't mean the original authors or orators of an initial story. Religion is a collective effort. It's certainly true that history is full of examples where a religious institution isn't maintaining a narrative for the benefit of mankind. It's arguable that any religious narratives have ever been created for the benefit of mankind, strictly speaking, in the first place. So let's use that as our point of reference. Let's say you followed a religion that wasn't constructed or maintained for the benefit of mankind - but you wanted it to be? That's where you might try to employ an allegorical understanding.

[vulcanlogician]

I think christopher hitchens used to point out that there's no problem with fundamentalism aside from the contents of what is seen to be fundamental.  There's no sense in giving a shit religion a pass as though all religions just had to be shit.  It's worse than that.  They don't have to be.

Really?   Can a religion not be shit and remain a religion?

I think it could. In principle. 

What if there was a religion that consisted of only a simple and truthful doctrine? Take your pick as to what that doctrine might be. Buddhism's Four Noble Truths... something like that... but with no doctrine of reincarnation.

I think that what makes religions problematic is that they are founded on falsehoods, engage in interpersonally destructive practices, and fail to question the truth of their own claims. On paper, it seems possible to remove these aspects from a given religion while still letting it retain something we might call religious in nature but yet not have the problems you listed above. Modern Quakerism (the liberal strains anyway) might come close to matching that ideal.

[The Grand Nudger]

A religion of absolutely everything you agree with, and nothing you don't.

In fairness..the crop of garbage religions has been that religion for alot of people.

[RBP3280]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of allegorical religion.  We all have stories that define our place in the universe, our values, and our purpose.

The issue is "what do the stories say"?  Accepting 2000 year-old stories to be true or meaningful may also mean discarding the stories of a modern liberal culture.  

Are modern ideas always better?  No - but for FSM's sake, come up with your own stories that combine the best of all that you read, experience and believe.

The stories that define our places in the universe, values, or purposes may almost appear to be a religion, but few would really call them religions unless there a fundamentalist advocacy for it.

For me the term allegorical religion is nonsensical because fundamentalism is what makes religion a religion.  

That is not to say all or most followers are dyed in the wool fundamentalists.    But the religion would Peter out if there is not a core of people attempting to impose fundamentalist interpretation and justification to keep the religion alive.    I would caveat that by saying the core of people attempting to impose fundamentalist interpretation and justification may not even be fundamentalist themselves in the literal sense, but “while I may not think the Bible is the literal truth, you must believe it is the literal truth or else I lose control, or else the world would go to shit, etc, etc”.

Is it possible the bible holds many truths, but also fails in other areas without destroying the basic message? Many believe it should be read from a spiritual perspective and not a literal one.