Is Allegorical Religion better than Fundamentalism?

[The Grand Nudger]

There is a reason why there are no rational religions. Because the meaning of the word ‘religion’ refers to things that aren’t rational.

If you have a system of beliefs that you are passionate about that you have actually thought  through and are actually rational it would be more accurate to call it your philosophy, your way of life or your worldview. You could religiously believe in the goodness of a complete absence of religions without that being contradictory and that just makes clear exactly what kind of equivocation could be going on here. It wouldn’t be your religion of no religions.

You can call whatever you want your religion but that doesn’t necessarily mean it actually is because words mean things.

Hopefully that last post cleared up any miscommunication.  You'll notice that there is no requirement of irrationality in what I'm talking about.  That, is what I was referring to when I mentioned there were probably negatively appraised requirements on your part for what you would accept as a religion.  To you, if it's not irrational, it can't be a religion.  We do have a tendency to refer to our religions when discussing our ethics and our philosophy - take any of the christian posters here in this thread as an example.  

A religion of no religions is an oxymoron, a religion of x is just a placeholder for a religion that doesn't contain those things you or me or the housecat might find problematic, and does contain those things we possess a great deal of confidence in. To clear the hurdle of religion, they would be the things we are most confident in, and there would have to be other people who shared our views. If irrationality is one of the problematics things, that would be reflected in it's rejection in the religion - and if rationality is a thing we have great confidence in, it would be included or even elevated.

[Angrboda]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order. If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible. On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!" If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor. The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable. We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

[The Grand Nudger]

Religion and religious apprehension can be the path from the bottom up, too. I know I use the example alot, but a religion of nature. Without god gods or animating spirits of any kind. Where the full and accurate explanation for the statue - which could be the object of reverence on a mountain or a modest hill in new york is completely natural, nature metaphysically ultimate - and thus all of the valid context of religious experience to be found in what we might otherwise call the mundane.

A person who holds such a religion is unlikely to call it mundane, ofc. Stonehenge may not be perched on a cliff, but it's pretty damned magnificent. Any rate, a religion of nature is a literalist or fundamentalist religion. It means exactly what it says and systematically builds it's coherent worldview on the basis of those few assertions. No analogies or metaphors or intermediaries required.

[RBP3280]

I know you didn't mean it literally and I for one believe it is critically important how we live our lives. 

So how is it meaningless without an afterlife?

You are obviously misinformed about cases of returning from death after days, it has happened, and well documented. 
Reality is, once the heart stops, breathing stops, and brain activity ends, the person is dead, not near death. Any physician will tell you that; otherwise they couldn't call the time of death.

After days, huh? Show me one example.

 George Rodonaia, After three days, when the autopsy of Rodonaia’s body was just getting under way, he succeeded in opening his eyes. At first, the doctors thought it was a reflex, but Rodonaia appeared to have actually come back from the dead, even though his death and his frigid condition had both been confirmed.

Now may I suggest doing your own homework you will find others. 
Here is a link for you. https://near-death.com/some-people-were-...veral-days 

---

I really appreciated your post, RBP. I don't agree with much of it, but that's okay. I think it comes from a place of honesty, makes proper concessions, and tries its best to be reasonable... that goes a long way with me. I felt like I should say that before I offered some counterarguments:

First of all I haven't seen any evidence that the resurrection didn't occur, so we can speculate all day long but all we have is the accounts in the bible. Since the Jewish leadership of that period attempted to discredit the resurrection they were never able to come up with the body.

You're off to a rocky start here. But I disagree with FM that this counts as antisemitism.

The problem I have with this is the same problem I have with every "for all we know, x might have occured" arguments. It's a weak argument. It says almost nothing. We have blind spots in our understanding of history and reality. You could put anything in any one of these blind spots.

The four gospels all written by different people that apparently had first hand knowledge are quite compelling. Not only the we have the apocrypha's with many more first hand accounts the life of Jesus, and of the Gnostic believers. 

Another user has already addressed how unreliable first hand accounts can be. So I won't beat a dead horse. But I share that user's concern. Also, it's possible that the Gospels have only two primary authors. "Mark" and John. Plus a team of editors that went to work adjusting them through the centuries. The first oder of business: multiply Mark into three separate Gospels, and then let the editors put their own specific spin on things.
   

The bible began as a narrative about the history of the Jewish people. To me the laws the Moses laid down were what I consider Mosaic laws, somewhat like our governments do today. That's why folks like the Muslims still murder homosexuals, thank goodness most have evolved beyond that.

What? The Jewish OT advises us to kill homosexuals. That isn't something specific to the Quran. The question isn't why Muslims kill homosexuals, it's "Why don't Christian and Jewish societies?" I think we have a clear answer in that regard: secularism.

To me the ten commandments are basic common sense laws. 

It's not common sense to acknowledge one god above all others. History is full of pagans. Nor is it common sense not to create graven images. When we get to murder and theft, that shit is common sense. You basically have like 4-5 common sense laws in there. And some could be improved upon. I want to think that if God actually wrote a law... that it couldn't possibly be improved upon by some random internet schmuck, but here we are.

The law against adultery. I will concede up front, adultery can be destructive in some circumstances. Sometimes it is done with hideous and hateful or ignorant intent. But in some marriages, it's a pressure relief valve that actually preserves marriages and the love between couples. (BTW, I'm not saying this for selfish purposes as you theists sometimes imagine. I've never been married. And if I did marry would probably never commit adultery. These are things I've recognized through life experience/ observing others.) But if that's true, adultery can be good or bad, how do we capture the spirit of forbidding the bad while allowing the good? How about, "Do not betray a person with whom you've made obligations." To me, that sounds like a better law. It covers the things the adultery law fails to, and also includes some fairly important other things.

As for the creation story, well that is problematic to say the least. 

Agreed. That could be its own thread. (And has been numerous times.)

I went through college in the late sixties, many things that were considered scientific facts have been proven incorrect. Does that mean that I consider all the books of that era worthless, of course not.  In the sixties psychologist treated homosexuality as a mental illness, today it is considered normal. 

What I find interesting most Atheist have never read the bible, and if they have it was only to find fault. That's kind of like looking at the cover of a book and calling it trash. The other side is I see many problems with the fundamentalist beliefs. 

I've read plenty of the Bible. I even like some of it. Ecclesiastes, Job, Matthew, and James, for example. I've read plenty of it, and was taught much of it growing up. You should talk to Mister Agenda and others who know it pretty well (way more than I do). They are atheists, and yet have pretty much memorized the Bible, some of them. There are quite a few of them around.

As I stated elsewhere, my theist beliefs came about by the in-depth study of what is referred to as near death experiences.

Man, I have listened ad nauseum to pretty much every nde argument out there. I have read all kinds of articles, published studies, you name it. I read like a whole Stephen King novel about the stuff just because one user CDF (the lion, RIP) suggested I needed to just to make an informed opinion on the matter. But despite my fatigue, I'm willing to give it another go-round... mostly because you seem like a sincere person who strives to make good arguments. I think the best way we could start this is in a thread where you explain what you think is the best support for ndes, and then we address the concerns from those of us who aren't unconvinced. You may want to label the thread [Serious] to keep the conversation on track.

Thank you, let me begin by stating my beliefs are only my opinions and they are open to correction, otherwise I wouldn't be here. 
My I suggest beginning with the scientific studies that have been done. The condensed versions are on the www. neardeath.com site.

[Fake Messiah]

So how is it meaningless without an afterlife?


After days, huh? Show me one example.

 George Rodonaia, After three days, when the autopsy of Rodonaia’s body was just getting under way, he succeeded in opening his eyes. At first, the doctors thought it was a reflex, but Rodonaia appeared to have actually come back from the dead, even though his death and his frigid condition had both been confirmed.

Now may I suggest doing your own homework you will find others. 
Here is a link for you. https://near-death.com/some-people-were-...veral-days 

This is complete bullshit. Everyone who is brain dead for over 3 to 6 minutes tops messes up his brain beyond repair and becomes a vegetable or should I say permanently braindead, let alone three days.

[Belacqua]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

[Jehanne]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

]admin]Link removed.[/admin]

These types of books are being read by some of the folks lounging in the Barnes & Noble Cafe.  Can you provide a synopsis instead?

[Angrboda]

Perhaps an analogy might be in order.  If a 300-ton statue appeared on the summit of Mt. Everest, we might with some justification conclude that aliens or a god was responsible.  On the other hand, if that same statue were found on a modest hill in the New York countryside, we're not going to say, "Aha! Aliens!"  If the path up from the bottom can reach the goal, the path down from the top is eliminated by Occam's razor.  The path from the bottom up, ceteris paribus, is far more probable.  We don't consider relationships to the mundane to be "religious."

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

I haven't fully digested your prior post, but I will say that I am inclined to define the soul as that part of human nature which is not understood (the poorly illuminated corners of being human, like consciousness, meaning, monsters, and so on).  That being said, these things remain fertile ground because we have no bottom-up explanation for them.  You're basically confirming my point that religion is about the extra-mundane.  Extra-mundane doesn't mean unfamiliar.  We are all familiar with plenty of phenomenon that defies mundane explanation.  Put it into a different perspective.  Suppose in the 26th century we will have mapped out the brain and what is actually happening when a Zen monk experiences satori and it's readily demonstrated that there is nothing mystical about it.  Will it still be religious?  Or take ayahuasca.  If we learn that there are mundane reasons why people feel that everything is one under its influence, will the experience still be considered mystical, except by ignorant people?

[The Grand Nudger]

So how is it meaningless without an afterlife?


After days, huh? Show me one example.

 George Rodonaia, 

George Rodanaia himself appears to be the only source for this story.  It's a doosy.  Swears the kgb tried to kill him.  Obviously no record of that.  Swears he was dead for three days.  No record of that.  Claimed that jimmy carter and henry kissinger themselves brought him to the us.  No record.  There's a claim that he delivered a keynote address to the un, can't find any record of that.  Says he entered university when he was 15, had a masters by 19, and a phd by 22.  Also no record. Says he was ordained as an orthodox archpreist....no record. Says the kgb tried to kill him again, years later, when he was involved n something to do with georgia. Do I have to say there's no record of that at this point, or have we noticed a pattern? In the end, he claims that he was finally able to come to the united states and bring his family because his wife, through her church, had worked out a job for him in texas..at a church. 1989. Says he tried to "find help" in the scientific community..but you know those guys, too materialistic to let him in. Though, he claims, they let him be a visiting professor. At Harvard. At Emory. WGU. Duke. Berkeley. Other "big and good" universities. There's supposed to be an interview with Barbara Walters, can't find it, but it wouldn't surprise me. There's supposed to be more to the story about his alleged quest and (apparent) failure to get his many advanced degrees and titles and research recognized in the us...but if he ever got around to explaining that it got cut out.

This may be one of the least credible nde stories you could have pointed to. Here's an old interview, if anyone wants to waste some time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7Bh3HSbu2k

My opinion, another dirtball texas pastor with a conversion story.

[Jehanne]

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

I haven't fully digested your prior post, but I will say that I am inclined to define the soul as that part of human nature which is not understood (the poorly illuminated corners of being human, like consciousness, meaning, monsters, and so on).  That being said, these things remain fertile ground because we have no bottom-up explanation for them.  You're basically confirming my point that religion is about the extra-mundane.  Extra-mundane doesn't mean unfamiliar.  We are all familiar with plenty of phenomenon that defies mundane explanation.  Put it into a different perspective.  Suppose in the 26th century we will have mapped out the brain and what is actually happening when a Zen monk experiences satori and it's readily demonstrated that there is nothing mystical about it.  Will it still be religious?  Or take ayahuasca.  If we learn that there are mundane reasons why people feel that everything is one under its influence, will the experience still be considered mystical, except by ignorant people?

Electricity used to be believed by many to be magical until Ben Franklin pushed it into the arena of natural phenomenon.