Is Allegorical Religion better than Fundamentalism?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd probably call that a component that would -not- be found in your idea of a religion of x.  

Faith isn't a requirement of religiosity.  The Most Faithful™ people need no faith, because they know (and/or are contended to have met) god in person, for example.  Conversely, a religion of no gods may need no faith because it's premised on fact or a commitment to facts, instead.

I don’t see what you are describing as a religion.

You'll appreciate the irony that alot of contemporary christians also say they don't see their religions as a religion.

[Disagreeable]

I don’t see what you are describing as a religion.

You'll appreciate the irony that alot of contemporary christians also say they don't see their religions as a religion.

I wouldn’t, for example, call Humanism an atheistic religion. It is an ideology not a religion. Sure religions can contain no belief in gods but they have to contain SOME belief in something supernatural. A religion is not merely a set of beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's actually a good example, as there is a thing called religious humanism. There's a term (terms, really) for the ideology underpinning christian belief as well, that has nothing to do with gods or religion on it's own.

[Angrboda]

Reality is many have come back from the dead, you may not want to accept it, but it is a fact.

Okay. That's settled. So who wants S'mores?

[Jehanne]

Reality is many have come back from the dead, you may not want to accept it, but it is a fact.

It's not a fact but anecdotal evidence like alien abductions, Elvis sightings, etc.

Wikipedia -- Travis Walton UFO incident

[Disagreeable]

That's actually a good example, as there is a thing called religious humanism. There's a term (terms, really) for the ideology underpinning christian belief as well, that has nothing to do with gods or religion on it's own.

But if it doesn’t fit the definition then it is a misnomer

[The Grand Nudger]

That's actually a good example, as there is a thing called religious humanism.  There's a term (terms, really) for the ideology underpinning christian belief as well, that has nothing to do with gods or religion on it's own.

But if it doesn’t fit the definition then it is a misnomer

It does fit the definition of a religion...chances are, you have additional and negatively weighted requirements for what you would consider a religion..such that, if you can't find those things wrong with it, it must not be a religion.  

I stress this all the time.  Religion isn't shitty, the shitty religions just put that little effort into the thing they swear is of utmost import. I think that's the most relevant aspect of religious failure to the op q. It's not now nor has it ever been impossible to create a religion of x - x defined as any collection of things religiously apprehended that any given person could find absolutely no quarrel with.

AKA, good fundamentals.

There's some question as to whether or not a good actor in a market full of bad actors could be competitive, maybe that's why the religions we're all familiar with are a sewer, but here again, it's a "the other guys are so shitty they'd rather see us dead" problem, not an issue of the potential for religious organization around a particular set of principles. Now, personally, I think there's something to that, but there are people who hold to religions of x that say otherwise and, really....it's hard to argue over the future with them. It may also be that we've spent so much time reforming our states, effort that would have otherwise been spent reforming our religions (and for all of the same reasons, to all of the same ends), that they just lag behind at present.

[vulcanlogician]

If you were to guess at the percentages involved in which one creates more problems, allegory or fundamentalism, how would the numbers fall? 

Hmm I think the way your question is asked is slightly problematic. I think it is better to compare allegorical interpretations to literal interpretations than with fundamentalism. This is because it seems possible to have fundamentalist views towards allegorical interpretation. I think this is precisely the case with most cults. For example, the Branch Davidians, Heaven's gate, among others, have a tendency to depart from traditional literal interpretations into something more allegorical and alternative. And we then see individuals develop fundamentalist behavior towards these new ideas.

Yeah. The OP is rough around the edges. For one, I was trying to pose the question in a way that atheists would have a ready response to. I was (pleasantly) surprised to see multiple Christians weigh in. But I didn't expect it as you guys have been a bit dormant lately.

Also, as Bel pointed out, much due diligence could be done as far as defining terms and such. Any clarifications of the issue are welcome. Putting all that stuff in the OP would have made it less approachable.

I think cults can be highly allegorical or highly fundamentalist. The Twelve Tribes doesn't really seek to allegorize the Bible. To the contrary, they eschew mainstream Christianity precisely because they take a more traditional view on things. Once you remove a few quirks, the same could be said of JWs.

Then you have the problem of what a "traditional literal interpretation" is. 19th century fundamentalism is perhaps more literalist than 4th-5th century Augustine. You also had a bunch of early Church fathers who held wildy allegorical views, and even helped build the Catholic church, only to have their beliefs denounced as heresies centuries later.

---

It's mighty convenient to find them both lumped in together then, isn't it? That just sounds too good to be true. Jesus not only fed people, but did so in a way that conveyed a message through time. Allegory doesn't work like that.

Allegory can work like that. Often it does. 

Remember that when we read about a historical event, we are not experiencing the event directly. We are reading an account of the event that has been selected, interpreted, described from a particular point of view, and carefully placed within a larger narrative. A real event can easily function allegorically in this way. 

I guess I can concede the point that actual events can have allegorical value. That was Neo's point. But like I said to him, the actual happening doesn't strengthen the truth value of the allegory in any way. A made-up event (which is what most allegories are) will work just fine and does no more or less work than an event that actually happened. As for the "God as author" apologetics. Sure. In principle there's nothing wrong with that. But I personally have plausibility issues with it.

Peshat (פְּשָׁט‎) – "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.

Remez (רֶמֶז‎) – "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.

Derash (דְּרַשׁ‎) – from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") – the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.

Sod (סוֹד‎) (pronounced with a long O as in 'lore') – "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

Christians adapted this system for their own use, since at least the time of Augustine. 

Reading this immediately reminded me of Kabbalism. And, after finding a wiki article on Pardes, I discovered this:

The use of "Pardes" as an acronym for these four methods of interpretation apparently first appears in the writings of Shem Tov in the late 13th century.

In earlier works, the word "pardes" refers either to the esoteric parts of the Torah[4] (similar to "sod" in the acronym), or to all Torah study (without differentiation into different types of study).

Shem Tov is believed by analysts to have composed the Zohar in the 13th century, although Orthodox belief dates it to around the first century CE. It's also possible that Shem Tov collected various teachings of mystical Jewish brotherhoods of the era, teachings passed through time, so the concepts may be older than 13th century CE. But nothing suggests they date back to the 1st century or were instrumental in the development of Christian theology. Even the article is careful to say where the acronym "first appears."

That's not to say that a similar approach isn't found in Augustine. It may even be that Shem Tov was somewhat inspired by Augustine in Catholic-dominated Spain and decided to put some of Augustine's principles to work in his own theology. It's plausible, anyway.

I don't deny that Augustine was more realistic than 19th and 20th century Christian fundamentalists. I just tend to think of that as strike against the fundamentalists rather than a boon for Augustine. To me, Augustine is just one good thinker among many. I like his quasi-Platonism. The doctrine of original sin (or his elaborations thereof) aren't so impressive. Even taken as pure allegory... ain't so good. But he's more or less a precise thinker. And I appreciate that.

[Disagreeable]

It's not now nor has it ever been impossible to create a religion of x - x defined as any collection of things religiously apprehended that any given person could find absolutely no quarrel with.

AKA, good fundamentals.

The problem is what it would mean to religiously apprehend things. That isn’t going to be rational. And if it is merely being used as a synonym for passionate or emotional then you are redefining what is normally meant by a religion. Religiosity and religiousness are not necessarily the same thing. And we are normally referring to the former. Anything can be done ‘religiously’ or zealously or passionately. And if you are just saying that a collection of beliefs believed in passionately can be good then I have no quarrel with that but that is not what is normally meant by religion. Important not to equivocate.

[Belacqua]

The problem is what it would mean to religiously apprehend things. That isn’t going to be rational.

I also don't know what it means to apprehend something religiously. 

How can you be sure that such a thing won't be rational?