Religion!

[greyorm]

intellectually true religion

Would you describe the beliefs of, or the workings of, an intellectually true religion?

I ask because I'm not getting what you're claiming (all) religions lack or fail to deal with intellectually/logically just from what you've said so far on the subject.

[Eero Tuovinen]

I agree fully with Shreyas' sentiment, and don't think anyone else has said anything awfully incorrect. Really, it's a losing proposition to argue religion with these people; there's just too many opinions correct in their own way.

Shreyas: I'm fully in agreement that religions have a crucial and important part in the aesthetic and "soul" of humanity. I'd think world were a much less interesting or desirable place without the follies and nobility engendered by religion. At the same time we'd probably have remarcably less hassles with everything, but that's the price we pay for freedom and interesting times. I'm not trying to deny the aesthetic, just the ethical relevance religions claim. Actually my own aesthetic theory has for a couple of years explained religious experience as primarily aesthetic. Thus I can only say that I don't "believe", as I ascribe only aesthetic, not cosmologic, epistemologic or ethical relevance to religion.

Christopher: What you describe as scientific atheism is as close to agnostism as one probably ever gets. See why I deem it the only defensible position? You cannot prove the existence or non-existence of gods (or rats from Alpha Centauri), and thus are forced to come to one of two conclusions: either there is no supernatural, or you take the nominal, scientific stance of "there is no supernatural - so far". And that's agnosticism, as differentiated from atheism, the belief that there is no supernatural. Essentially you are calling atheism what I'd call agnosticism, so there doesn't seem to be a disagreement.

[greyorm]

if you're strongly religious...I'm actually strongly anti-religion.

Brian, Brian, Brian...didn't you read my rant last year?
You're strongly anti-fundamentalist is what you are. You aren't anti-religion, at least not based on the reasons you give in your post, because you aren't describing religion...you're describing Western Judeo-Christian religions, with strong fundamentalist overtones. But not all religion.

[Christopher Weeks]

And that's agnosticism, as differentiated from atheism, the belief that there is no supernatural. Essentially you are calling atheism what I'd call agnosticism, so there doesn't seem to be a disagreement.

But I do believe that there is no supernatural.  Just like I believe that I'm not alien rat chow.  And I'll say that I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong, but at the same time, I have spent serious time trying to figure out what evidence I'd accept as supportive and I can't think of any.  I think open-minded atheism is the only rational response to my life experiences.  (Also, I can't be in anyone else's mind of course, but I'm highly dubious of those who come to a different conclusion, even though many of them are clearly smarter than me.)

Chris

[Christopher Weeks]

But not all religion.

What are the fundamental defining attributes of religion?  I'll admit to being largely unstudied, but off the cuff, I consider faith in unsupport(ed/able) notions as a prime attribute.

Chris

[BPetroff93]

Hey Jonathan, did you by chance read The Law is for All.  It's the Book of the Law with the only authorized commentary (ie: Crowley's) it clears up alot.  By  the way, The Religious arm of the OTO is the EGC or Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica  (universal gnostic church) its not Christian but was inspired by the Russian Orthodox rite.  Here is a small sample, the statement of faith:

"I believe in one secret and ineffable LORD; and in one Star in the Company of Stars of whose fire we are created, and to which we shall return; and in one Father of Life, Mystery of Mystery, in His name CHAOS, the sole viceregent of the Sun upon the Earth; and in one Air the nourisher of all that breathes.

And I believe in one Earth, the Mother of us all, and in one Womb wherein all men are begotten, and wherein they shall rest, Mystery of Mystery, in Her name BABALON.

And I believe in the Serpent and the Lion, Mystery of Mystery, in His name BAPHOMET.

And I believe in one Gnostic and Catholic Church of Light, Life, Love and Liberty, the Word of whose Law is THELEMA.

And I believe in the communion of Saints.

And, forasmuch as meat and drink are transmuted in us daily into spiritual substance, I believe in the Miracle of the Mass.

And I confess one Baptism of Wisdom whereby we accomplish the Miracle of Incarnation.

And I confess my life one, individual, and eternal that was, and is, and is to come.

AUMGN. AUMGN. AUMGN."

Anyway, I hope you dig.

[Anonymous]

Hi.
So what do you believe, and why?  Do you think other people are wrong?  Why your religion?

I don't have a religion per se (if you mean religion as in a practice).  However, I describe myself as animist because after examining how I truly interact with reality.  It is, of course, more complicated than it initially seems, but I will try to put it succintly.  

I believe (for lack of a better term) that all physical phenomena are a manifestation of spirit.  I don't believe all spirits have bodies, nor do I believe that bodies are necessary for spirits.  I don't worship spirits so much as acknowledge and respect them as I would any creature of nature (mostly by leaving them be).  I have no idea if bodies are needed for most spirits to interact with the world.  I do not know if there is a grand cosmic scheme for all this.  I do not distinguish between sacred and profane in the same sense that Judeo-Christian ideologies do.  I think rationality is a great tool, but not the only one we have for understanding reality.  

As such, I don't make a habit of killing things just because they are in the way or because I am afraid of them.  I do, however, take measures to keep my home and person free from parasites and creatures that carry pestilence.  I don't go digging into realities that I do not understand unless the situation truly warrants it.  Basically, I strive to understand and appreciate things for what they are and not for how I think they should be.  This does not mean I don't have ethical standards or that nothing angers, frustrates, or frightens me.  Yet, I do try to give things the room to be, insofar as it does no harm, but you won't see me trying to play superhero/supervillain and campaigning to spread good/evil.  Instead, I tend to try to mind my own business and pursue my own goodness and understand my own capacity for evil.  In other words, I don't try to change everybody else's nature, but seek to understand and express my own.

[Green]

Sorry.  I forgot to log in when I posted before.  Guest = Green.

[Jonathan Walton]

Anyway, I hope you dig.

I can dig it.  Not such a big fan of Crowley (he was a real nutjob), but I'll definitely check the book out.  Personally, when gnosticism goes down the "Occult Road" and I feel like it becomes obscured and less cool, generally.  I mean, mystery cults are all well and good, but they apply a heirchary to things, which doesn't make sense if truth and wisdom are supposed to be obtainable by all.  Stuff like "The Hypostasis of the Archons" is hard enough to understand without people claiming some elitist "true understanding" or turning to numerology or overly-complex symbolism or other traditional tools of the occult.

[BPetroff93]

I can understand your sentaments Jonathan, even if I disagree :)

[Matt Wilson]

I'm without religion. I don't know for certain that there's nothing out there, that there isn't some "higher power," but it isn't a concern for me.

[Jason Lee]

I just have to comment on the science equals religion thing.

Broader definitions of 'science' must be at work here, 'cause that just seems wrong to me.

In science, for something to be a fact it must be observable and replica-table.  Even if biologists generally consider rejection of evolutionary theory tantamount to rejection of reason (that's a quote from by zoology book), it is still a theory (scientific definition), not a fact.

Faith (I'm going to say faith instead of religion, to separate belief from the trappings of religion) is all about believing something is true that you cannot see.

Logically, they are opposites.  Science is believing through observation.  Faith is believing without observation.

[RaconteurX]

I think I have decided that I'm actually strongly anti-religion.

Amen, brother. Institutionalized ideologies in any form are a thorn in the collective side of humanity. Pretty much every war in human history can have its origin traced to one or another. Religion alone is not at fault, as nominally secular ideologies have caused plenty of grief all their own.

The chief problem, in my opinion, is when people accept what others tell them without question. Belief is not a bad thing, but unquestioning belief has lead to the sorts of atrocities we have come to associate with Hitler, Stalin, bin Laden and Milosevic. Political or spiritual, dogma is dogma.

[Scourge108]

I try to follow the 3-fisted path of "Bob."

[greyorm]

Heya Christopher,

faith in unsupport(ed/able) notions as a prime attribute

But that wasn't what Brian was objecting to, in the main. Note all of his examples are actions undertaken on behalf of specific religious groups that all fall under the Judeo-Christian family, and its attendant demands and behaviors, which are not shared by all world religions.

But to follow that tangent, as for religion being based on faith (which requires unsupported/able notions), I can see that. However, I disagree that faith, religion, and spiritually necessarily have anything to do with each other.

For example, I have faith in a lot of things...religion (or more correctly, spiritual realities) isn't one of them, however.

Am I going to discuss why I know there's something beyond human, something that I can really only describe as "spiritual", that exists? Not really, it's personal, private, and not for public consumption. My wife knows, and my closest friends know -- so maybe five people in the world, total, including myself.

Will I discuss why I say "know" as opposed to "believe"? Briefly.

Honestly, in standard parlance, I would be forced to admit that I know nothing and only believe what I know. But if we're talking reasonable doubt, then I can use know.

Given the experiences I've had, and one in particular, there are no other reasonable explanations that do not require additional unlikely assumptions in order to work -- that means other explanations exist, yes, but none of them are as reasonable given Occham's Razor and all that. I also don't expect anyone to understand that, given that I've not provided the experiences for examination.

All I can say is that, yes, something is "out there" -- I don't know what it is or why it is, but it's there.

However, my religion is about ethics, not ritualized behaviors or beliefs. The gods exist, whether "for real" or "imagined" -- as signposts and goals by which to judge one's own life, as great idols to be emulated.

But whether real or imagined simply doesn't concern me much in actual practice, as Bhuddist philosophy concerning "that which cannot be proven" is that it is not relevant to the here and now, and self should not be concerned with it. If the gods are real, if the afterlife is real, one is to deal with that when one enters the afterlife, not worry about it here and now.

Why? Becauses it's like worrying where the river comes from, or why water is wet, when you're trying desperately just to swim across it.

(You non-mystic types shouldn't try to read too much into (ie: overanalyze) that analogy, BTW)

I'm open to being shown that I'm wrong, but at the same time, I have spent serious time trying to figure out what evidence I'd accept as supportive and I can't think of any. I think open-minded atheism is the only rational response to my life experiences.

Interestingly, I'm the mirror image of you, Chris. My thoughts are all the same, but my conclusions differ, based on my own life experiences.

I also find myself nodding in agreement with Rich's statements about the attitudes and behaviors (and suggestions) of certain scientists and other "men of modern times" as-it-were being as bad as those of the institutions they decry or turn their noses up at.

However,

To my experience, no evidence for a divine experience of any kind has accumulated.

I would say the opposite, that there is overwhelming evidence of the divine historically and culturally. If every individual and culture throughout history has reported that the sky is blue, then there's a good chance that the sky really, actually is blue. Certainly there is enough evidence that the concept of the divine, stripped of specific religious overtones, cannot be dismissed out of hand, even if "what it is, really" is entirely unknown.

Rather like knowing there's something causing fluctuations in the light spectrum given off by a distant star, but not knowing what the cause is. You can't dismiss the fluctuations just because you don't know the cause, and just because there are wildly competing theories. (Again, I caution this is an analogy, it does not map 1:1 to the real, actual situation, and if it did, would be full of easily exploited holes. As such, don't waste my time with those and overanalyzation of such. It's an example.)

Anyways, my problem with Brian's statements is that he's talking about the problems and foibles of a specific religion, then mapping his dislike of those things to all religions. Synedoche.