August 06, 2007

• Isn't working.
• Well put, Gramma. However, the link is just fine
• (Link works for me.) As long as everybody is willing to go along with the ideas that "it's all just metaphorical" and "religion is just a big coping mechanism", that's all swell. But just about half of the American population takes it literally, and THAT is the problem. Good piece, BTW.
• QE[not!]D
• A lie--or, if you prefer, a fiction--is not "sacred," no matter how you dress it up or how many times you bow before it. The first requisite of the sacred is that it be true.
• This thread would be worth more if more of those commenting actually read the article. There's nuance there, worth discussing.
• And for the record, the language of the FPP isn't mine, but is from the link.
• I should like to see how his theory of the "righteous and knowing sacrificial victim" applies to non-Christian religions, especially eastern.
• rushmc: where's the borderline between "lie" and "belief?" I'm not religious, but think it's best to respect the beliefs others hold. You,for example, seem to believe that religious adherence relies on lies or fiction. I don't think you can prove that's true, but it's what you believe. That's no skin off my nose, but you might want to give others room to believe what they can't prove. That would be no skin off your nose. Or, were you just trolling?
• Well, a novel is "just a lie", yet one can find truth in it.
• No, nick, that's "truth."
• Also, for an interesting look at the role of sacrifice in the early version of the world's major religions, check out Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions. Excellent book. (Excuse the Amazon link, but really I have no problem with promoting sales of her books.)
• I especially liked his closing paragraph: "Of course, you don't have to follow Girard into those obscure and controversial regions in order to endorse his view of the sacred as a human universal. Nor do you have to accept the cosmology of monotheism in order to understand why it is that this experience of the sacred should attach itself to the three great transitions—the three rites of passage—which mark the cyclical continuity of human societies. Birth, copulation and death are the moments when time stands still, when we look on the world from a point at its edge, when we experience our dependence and contingency, and when we are apt to be filled with an entirely reasonable awe. It is from such moments, replete with emotional knowledge, that religion begins. The rational person is not the one who scoffs at all religions, but the one who tries to discover which of them, if any, can make sense of those things, and, while doing so, draw the poison of resentment." The idea of "reasonable awe" as a starting point seems right on target. That that awe led to a confusion of beliefs is what we argue about.
• "And for the record, the language of the FPP isn't mine, but is from the link." Then y'ought t'have quoted it.
• Link works just fine, religion doesn't. I'm all about the "awe" factor. A questioning and scientific view of the universe and "reasonable awe" are not mutually exclusive. One can hold a "reasonable awe" without belief in Flying Spaghetti Monster and all His Noodley Appendages. How can anyone claim to hold the three human acts of copulation, birth, and death in "awe" and yet feel free to kill other human beings who are fellow participants in these acts of "awe"? Why does religion hedge copulation about with so many rules and strictures, allowing only one, or at best two, expressions of sex (procreation and linking of two 'officially' married heterosexual people) yet still view the act as somehow foul? The ideal of birth is talked about as transcendent, but the actual physical act is normally viewed as disgusting by religious others than the participants. You'll get tossed out quick if you bring your home-made birth video to church. Only the supposed spiritual birth is viewed as amazing. Go to any church, they never announce, "We've to another little human bean!" It's always framed as "another soul for Christ" or some such wording. Got to be a member of THIS church, because just being a human bean isn't awesome enough. Death is the most interesting one of the three "awesome" acts. There are strictures about death--Extreme Unction is necessary, suicide is wrong--yet it's pretty tough to get the dead to adhere to the party line. A religion can attempt to control how people copulate, which also affects how they give birth, but it's hard to control the dead. You can make the living afraid by telling them people go to hell, but generally, wars aren't fought, and laws aren't passed about how you die. You can argue about the nature of God, expressions of sexuality, or ham with your eggs, but it's hard to get into a religious argument about death. Maybe I'm reading the whole thing wrong, but it seems to me that this was an apologia for why violence and religion are so intertwined. Get folks together, they start to get all pissy, develop ideas of "them" and "us," want a scapegoat 'cause they do shitty things to each other, then decide their way of living is A-OK because they've got something "Bigger" that says they're right and can keep on doing shitty things to somebody that doesn't believe in Mr. "Bigger." And that's OK, because we have an awesome view of the universe and have decided that Mr. "Bigger" is Teh Awesomenest. It's too bad we can't view the universe and ourselves with all the true awe it deserves. A real religion would have us look at each other and go, "AWWWWWWESOME, DUDE!" and mean it. It would also be so much easier to see our awesomeness if there weren't so many of us in competition. Unfortunately, competition is what nature is all about. Human nature is all about one-upmanship. Worshiping the One True Only God is the ultimate in one-upmanship. God on your side = entitlement.
• "Whew" *keeps ramblin' right on outta the thread
• yeah, but you ramble good, GramMa, real good.
• yes, you ramble very very good.
• I read the article, HW, and I still agree with everything that's been said in this thread. The author seems to have entirely missed the point of those against whom he's arguing.
• The way I read it, the solution part boils down to "Christ sacrificed himself and so takes the place of all further scapegoats, which is an attempt to diminish violence against other potential scapegoats by creating an all-in-one place to deal with feelings on either side of the resentment/guilt coin." I can't say I think it's a particularly good solution, though.
• I agree with the notion that religion serves some sociological function, but then again that point is so obvious it's hardly worth mentioning. The problem I have with the article is here:

  The Genesis story of the creation is easily refuted as an account of historical events: how can there be days without a sun, man without a woman, life without death? Read as a myth, however, this naive-seeming text reveals itself as a study of the human condition. The story of the fall is, Hegel wrote (in Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, 1827), "not just a contingent history but the eternal and necessary history of humanity." It conveys truths about freedom, about guilt, about man, woman and their relationship, about our relation to nature and mortality.

  Do you see the fast one here? Religion serves a social function (obviously true), it can be read as myth (of course), and therefore it conveys truths about life, the universe and everything (gong! not necessarily the case, and anyhow the notion of "truth" is left undefined).
• While not believing in religion, I'm really glad it's there to keep the millions of idiots out there in check. (OOOhhh the invisible man is going to get youuuuu if you're baddddd)
• Thought on Buddhism: sacrifice of the self to the self. The ultimate righteous scapegoat. Parallels to Christ in Gethsemane. The idea of holding oneself ultimately accountable, and then transcending the self. The idea of the self and the other combined and ultimately cast aside. Evolution.
• Bingo.
• Huh?
• Then y'ought t'have quoted it. To make this comment, you come out of the woodwork? Thanks for the contribution, friend! And as far as Human nature is all about one-upmanship goes, what about the human impulses toward compassion, nurturing, justice, morality, etc.? Again, it seems to me that, with consciousness, humans are (or have the capacity to be) more than just Darwinian competitors. And as far as Go to any church, they never announce, "We've to another little human bean!" It's always framed as "another soul for Christ" or some such wording. Got to be a member of THIS church, because just being a human bean isn't awesome enough., I bet if you asked MCT he'd let you know you're going to the wrong church -- the one that doesn't get it. And TUM, I'm not religious, but I think there's an expanded view of what religion is after, here, that many of those focused strictly on the material would do well to consider. Indeed (and I sure as shit ain't the first to say this), it's quite likely the current rise in popularity of religion (including the "bad" kinds of religion, unfortunately) is at least in part a response to a world that has become TOO focused on the material. Maybe I read it wrong, but I didn't see this as an apologia, but more as an effort to see beyond the science vs. myth debate to the psychological and social truths behind the religious impulse.
• I can't say I think it's a particularly good solution, though. Agreed.
• Read like that, I'd agree with you HW, but can put aside the word "truth" and simply say that studying religion can tell us something important about human society and sociology and leave it at that? As to whether there is a "religious impulse" that applies across cultures, well that seems to be a researchable question to me. Whether that impulse is valid or not is a completely different question and the question "is there a god" is quite different from the question "do human beings have a predisposition to find one." Conflating these two questions is problematic and that's what I tried to point out in my earlier post and I don't like the word "truth" in this context because it seems to imply a linkage between the two.
• meant to say: "society and psychology"
• I was just watching another anthropologist speaking to Jonathan Miller in his History of Disbelief arguing that one of the most prevalent underlying reasons for religious belief is a desire to attribute agency to the universe: why is this shit happening to me? That seems about right to me. I am certainly struggling to think of a concept analogous to the sacrificial theme that was at all widespread in Chinese thought of any strand. One of the advantages of the Chinese belief systems in my view is the early positing of the Dao as the immanent pattern shaping the phenomenal Universe we live in. Since the Dao is impersonal, contemplating its role in our life and how best we might accord to it led to what for me are more fruitful episodes of "religious" speculation and inquiry. A sense of wonder has been one of the greatest gifts endowed to me, but it never prompted a need to explain, and I think that many cultures have historically been content to marvel at "the universe as-it-is" without then engaging in complex fictions as necessary to feel life is coherent (as opposed to making up some good stories for other purposes).
• The truth is that we know what the truth is. Inventing god helps ease that truth We don't need to have god We need to have meaning Without god (for most) There is no meaning For most humans to survive They need to believe that life Is more than reality Survival neccesitates feeling good Who has the best invisible man? I do! I do! Thank you! Thank you! Now I can face the banality Of everyday living Who wants to pray To my new creation? Every-fucking-one Please send us money Yes! God needs it Yes! Only my God The one I created He needs your money And your votes God needs your votes. After all, It's a basic human need You don't want to die in pain Do you?
• human impulses toward compassion, nurturing, justice, morality It's been argued that these "human impulses" are social adaptations that assist in our Darwinian fitness. Our group of related genes is in competition with your group. If we practice compassion, nurturing, justice and morality to assist the individuals (genes) in our group to out-reproduce your group, we win. It's all about the genes. I bet if you asked MCT he'd let you know you're going to the wrong church -- the one that doesn't get it. That's the point!! No matter WHAT church anyone goes to, if they don't go to the "right" church, that is, YOUR particular church, they don't get it. AFAIC, they're all the wrong church. It's not enough to have "reasonable awe" to be considered sufficiently religious, you have to buy into someone else's dogma. Why is it that the human impulses toward compassion, nurturing, justice, morality are always assumed to be absent or deficient if someone isn't part of a particular religion? If a person of Religion X looks at Religion Y, the morality is immediately assumed to be in doubt--there goes the first three commandments! and their capacity for compassion, nurturing, and justice are also suspect. it's quite likely the current rise in popularity of religion I'm wondering about any "current rise." I would argue there are more atheists and agnostics now than in the whole of recorded history. Statistics anyone? I get told all the time I'm an atheist, although I consider myself more of an agnostic*. I've got a pretty healthy case of "reasonable awe" but I don't believe in a FSM or any Noodley Appendages. agnostic: 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Like all of humanity, I want to know things, and need a raison d'être. If I lived in an ancient shamanistic culture, I'd have myths about powerful spirits, in an attempt to explain and rationalize existence. Instead, I live in a time when scientific knowledge is exploding; we know more than we've EVER known about the way things are, and it still doesn't diminish any amount of "reasonable awe" for me. We don't have all the answers, and there is a type of person that finds that disturbing. That person invents a god that does have all the answers, and uses that god to smack down anyone raising uncomfortable questions. ...the loneliness and anxiety of the human individual is confronted and overcome, through immersion in the group... The violence comes from another source, and there is no society without it since it comes from the very attempt of human beings to live together. So are the choices are to be lonely and anxious or violent? --- It's an interesting article. Religious arguments from a philosophical or Jesuitical point of view ARE very interesting. Unfortunately, the theory of religion and the practice are two different kinds of cats. Theory never hurt anyone. It's the practice that's scary. How does the Golden Rule and the fifth commandment get translated into Kill a Commie for Christ? Sfred, I admire your ability to tease out the significant questions.
• Thanks for this, HawthorneWingo. My own religious convictions arise, undoubtedly, from having been brought up with them. This doesn't mean I've been indoctrinated, it means I've had chance to observe how faith kind of causes Dad to pause at times and be less angry; how it reminds Uncle John that he ought to give money and even some of his time to good causes. If I declare my faith, it's as much a matter of pledging my allegiance to good over evil as indicating rational assent to a set of propositions. Does that mean I don't really believe in God? No; having taken the leap of faith, I know from my own experience that what's working in Uncle John is not a guilty conscience or the ingrained habits of his early training, but an undeniable inner voice which reinforces his own best impulses and lends him extra strength to be in everyday life the better man he really is in himself. I hope it does the same, intermittently I guess, for me. That's the best evidence I can have that my religion is true. You laugh at the idea of an old man with a white beard sitting on the clouds: but if you think the world isn't absurd enough to encompass that, you just ain't getting out enough.
• Good god man! The world is not absurd, but just complex. But not so complex that it needs a man in a beard up in the clouds. It's had about 4 billion years to get to where it is. Without our help (and by 'our' I mean our theistic projections). We have achieved consciousness / self-awareness, and it is this, the knowledge that we 'are' that should drive to raise above our genetic imperatives and treat our fellow man and the planet with respect. That's the 'inner voice' we hear, not God, or Ishtar, or Zeus, or Ganesh or whatever. IMHO, obv.
• And as far as Human nature is all about one-upmanship goes, what about the human impulses toward compassion, nurturing, justice, morality, etc.? BH said it best, but I'll add my voice - primates are some of the softest, squishiest, most vulnerable potential meals out there in the wild. Cooperation, looking out for each other, and treating each other well is just as strong and effective a survival mechanism for us as huge pointy teeth are to the big cats. Those things didn't come about with the dawn of Christianity or of any other religion.
• The thing is, darling, religion doesn't always have the salutary moral effects you may have observed in your own family. Christianity imposes absurd demands - love your neighbour as yourself - which no-one could meet or needs to meet. The result tends to be that some people become hypocrites, claiming a virtue they haven't really attained, and being led thereby to a dangerous sense of their own rightness. Others fall into equally false convictions of worthlessness, and waste time and emotional energy on guilt and superfluous self-reproach. Of course, I start this subject from the other end to you. Since I know theism is false (as m'learned friend Mr Kitfisto explains), I can't really believe it could be a good thing in the long run and over all.
• *bows to Pleggers, QC, adjusts wig, grips lapels*
• I understand the religion hatred in this thread [disclaimer: I'm an atheist] because it is written with Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, James Dobson, and their ilk in mind. And of course, it's really their brand of Christianity we hate, not religion in general. But what about people like Jimmy Carter, Mahatma Ghandi, and Fred Rogers? They're all very devout believers. Are/were they evil? Deluded? Mentally or morally deficient?
• But what about people like Jimmy Carter, Mahatma Ghandi, and Fred Rogers? They're all very devout believers. Are/were they evil? Deluded? Mentally or morally deficient? No more or less so than they would have been without their religious faith, I would argue.
• Couldn't you say the same about the others?
• Sure. I can imagine a Pat Robertson finding some other tool to be a horrible person with. Others have done so. Religion is just a particularly effective one.
• I think it's kind of absurd to say that people's deeply-held beliefs had no influence on their character. Do you really think Gandhi's non-violence had nothing to do with religion? I'm pretty sure that Carter, Gandhi, and Rogers would all themselves insist that religion had helped make them what they were. Anyway, the principles and politics of those three flow coherently from their religion. The case of greedy and venial "celebrity christians" is quite different: their behaviour is at odds with their professed beliefs. I don't believe you will honestly tell me you think it was following the teachings of Jesus that made these people what they are.
• Of course they would say that they couldn't have been the kinds of men they were without their religion! Anyone with deeply-held religious beliefs would say that. And of course none of us would be the exact people we are without the specific set of influences that shaped our lives over the years. But I still don't believe that they couldn't, or necessarily wouldn't, have been kind, caring, driven, intelligent, philanthropic men who did just as much good in the world if there had been no religion in their lives. And the question isn't whether you or I believe that the Falwells and Robertsons, and Hitlers of the world are actually following the teachings of Jesus, but whether they themselves do. Everything I've seen says that they do.
• Addendum: Everything I've seen says that they do, and that they are able to convince their followers of the same.
• I've known many people in my life. Some are religious and some are not. The ratio of good people to assholes is about the same in both groups. To me, that eliminates religion as a cause. Personally, I don't really concern myself with what others believe. Whether it's God, reincarnation, ghosts, extraterrestrials, psychics, astrology...whatever. I believe in none of those things. But I understand why others do, and I don't think any less of them for it.
• Hitlers?
• I mean, I'm not altogether comfortable putting Jimmy Carter in with Gandhi, to be honest, but I do feel it's kind of clear how religious beliefs fed through into the way they lived their lives. I can't see that in the same way with, say Falwell (...or Hitler...): even if we grant you the premise that he really thinks he is living out Jesus's teachings, Jesus is actually no more responsible for him than Jodie Foster.
• Yes, HItler. If you haven't heard of Hitler's religious beliefes before, there's a lot of material out there. even if we grant you the premise that he really thinks he is living out Jesus's teachings, Jesus is actually no more responsible for him than Jodie Foster. Well, that's for Jesus to know, isn't it? All we can attest to or debate, and what the article seems to be discussing as if it were a new idea, is humanity and its psychology in relation to religion. Person A reads the Bible and gets Idea B from it, and person X reads the Bible and gets Idea Y from it. Who is Person C to come along and say, "Both of themr eally should have gotten Idea D, and therefore neither of them is really a Christian?" It all boils down to Man's interpretation.
• If some nut had tried to kill the President and said he did it for the Underpants Monster, you'd accept responsibility? (Maybe we should imagine the President isn't Bush for the purposes of this exercise...)
• If some nut had tried to kill the President and said he did it for the Underpants Monster, you'd accept responsibility? Is there some empirical way, that doesn't involve taking somebody's word for it that jesus spoke to him in his head, that Jesus accpets or denies responsibility for acts carried out in his name? I'm here in person to answer that question in writing. He isn't. It isn't a reasonable analogy.
• I just got a phone call from President Bush. He spoke to Jesus and Hitler and you are all going to Guantanamo, then to hell.
• > religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred ritual. I think there is an overwhelming human need for ritual, but I'm not sure about this requirement that ritual be considered "sacred".
• the question "is there a god" is quite different from the question "do human beings have a predisposition to find one." Well, yeah. Look at the FPP: "Today's atheist polemics ignore the main insight of the anthropology of religion--that religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred." It's all about the genes. Maybe, but it seems facile to equate morality one-to-one with genetics. There's learning, acculturation, in there too. (Of course you can say that our predisposition towards that is genetic, too, but I have a hard time believing everything about human life is prescribed by our genes.) And as far as the idea that religion has increased violence goes, I'm not sure about that. The main argument of the article, IMO, is that religion was a tool to help people sublimate their previously rampant impulse towards violence. I'm betting there are a fair number of people around who are still using religion for that purpose, successfully -- and that the Dobsons and Bin Ladens of the world would've been just as violent without their religion. It's an interesting question, in any case -- not one that merits derision or immediate dismissal. And to consider it is not to claim that religion is the only or best way to approach our impulse towards violence.
• And sfred, I hear your queasiness about leaving "truth" vaguely defined. And for the record, I'm an agnostic. (Seems the only logical place to be, really.)
• (Pretty damn sure there's no God, and live my life and have my thoughts using that assumption -- and discount totally others' "faith" when they try to use it to affect my life and my world. But there's definitely strangeness out there, too, so who knows?)
• And roryk, the way I read it "sacred" just means "outside the normal; set apart." So quite similar to "ritual". 'nuf of my blabbering
• When Hong Xiuquan read the Bible, he got some distinctly funny ideas, including that he was Jesus' little bro. The Taiping Rebellion lead to the deaths of around 20,000,000 people.
• Well, I don't see how "today's atheist polemics" are ignoring the idea that religion is more about human need than it is about God himself. I mean, that's pretty much the core of the atheist's view of religion, isn't it? Just because every atheist doens't begin his discussion of atheism or religion with a atatement to that effect doesn't mean he's ignoring it. That would be like saying that religious people ignore the atheist's disbeliefe in God.
• ...it seems facile to equate morality one-to-one with genetics. Our species, like the rest of nature, is an evolutionary work-in-progress. We have attained a certain level of intelligence, are self-aware and are able to communicate using abstract concepts. We remain, however, a tribal and territorial species. Our atavistic instincts engender fear and aggression towards those outside our pack or those with whom we compete for resources. I think that certain religious beliefs can be seen, at least partially, as an expression of those instincts. One of the more pernicious assertions in the Christian creation myth is the idea that humans are separate from and superior to the rest of nature and have been divinely granted dominion over the world. How very convenient. If we somehow manage to survive long enough without exterminating ourselves or destroying our planet, we should continue to evolve. As our understanding of our world grows and if our genetic evolution proceeds in the right direction, perhaps our least noble instincts will begin to wane and our religion will evolve as well. Given enough time and luck, our need for myth, religion or "the sacred" as a means of explaining the mysteries of life may well diminish. In the meantime, I'll remain fervently agnostic.
• religion is not primarily about God, but about the human need for the sacred. The author's making a logical leap, which seems unwarranted in my opinion. The human need for the sacred gives rise to religious feeling or spirituality. Religion is just one way of addressing this feeling, and as others have pointed out, a deeply flawed one.
• Assuming there really is a human need for the sacred, StoryBored, that's a really elegant way of putting it.
• I agree, StoryBored and islander. Way I see it, though, religion does happen to be absolutely central to the rise of civilization, and may well be central to an overall decrease in humanity's violent or amoral actions. Whether it's the best way forward is another question. I don't see how "today's atheist polemics" are ignoring the idea that religion is more about human need than it is about God himself. I think this was in reference to people who focus on things like the factual basis of the stories that are the basis of religions, and on the lack of provability of the existence of God. That does seem to be the way that many enter the argument. The article has value, IMO, in that it points out that religion is about more than God and stories that may or may not be true. That that concept might be old news to some doesn't lessen its value. One of the more pernicious assertions in the Christian creation myth is the idea that humans are separate from and superior to the rest of nature and have been divinely granted dominion over the world. Agreed. However, I do believe that consciousness makes humans different from the rest of nature in that it gives us an unparalleled ability to override instinct and modify our behavior. It's funny to me when people scream and yell about how humanity would have been better off without religion. Again, there's a real case to be made for the idea that religion allowed for human progress by helping people sublimate baser impulses. And in the end, there's no way to know one way or the other. So claiming that religion has been on balance a detriment to humanity is as much an act of faith as claiming that God created the universe.
• No matter WHAT church anyone goes to, if they don't go to the "right" church, that is, YOUR particular church, they don't get it. I don't think this is true as a rule (though I agree there's depressingly too much evidence to the contrary). I think there are lots of people in most of the major religions who are open to the idea that there's validity in other faiths. And then there's Buddhism, which avoids taking a stand one way or the other. The problem you're referring to here may be more about the will to power and hegemony in some than about religion or the need for the sacred in general.
• God hates this thread
• Buddhism, which avoids taking a stand one way or the other I don't know what you mean by that. Surely Buddhism is just as split up between different sects, all of whom think the others are wrong, as any other religion. Even sectarian violence is not unknown. Sure, if you ask a Buddhist, they'll probably get that 'more enlightened than thou' look and tell you Buddhism respects all faith. Just as a Muslim will tell you earnestly, if not assertively, that Islam is the religion of peace. Correctly, of course; but what happens on the ground is something else again. All I'm saying is, we ought not to judge Christians by their performance and others by their ideals.
• all of whom think the others are wrong That's a very broad-brush mischaracterisation, darling (that feels so Blackadder to write!). There certainly are doctrinal differences, and indeed even some sectarian infights, but there's also plenty of ecumenical cooperation, even between Mahayana and Theravada groups. My experience of visiting a number of Bufddhist holy places is of a happy intermingling of various people from backgrounds in various strands of the Sangha, those from other religions and none. I'll add I've experienced similar at Christian, Muslim and Sikh places of worship too.
• I am aware of some very unseemly rows at a few temples too, to be fair.
• Buffdhists are that sub-set of monks with long martial arts training. Totally ripped, man.
• Perhaps my brush is broad, AC, and I don't disagree with HW's main point: I just thought he was singling out Buddhists as uniquely free of all sectarian feeling, which seems a mischaracterisation to me. Don't set the Buffdhists on me...
• What I think I did mean to imply earlier though, darling, was that I do think dogma comes in to play to a great extent. Buddhism in all its mainstream iterations makes no claim to exclusive truth and no "thou shalt have no God but me.". One sutra has the Buddha describing himself as a doctor informing you of a cure for the ills of the human condition; the implication has usually been that if you don't have those ills or have your own solution, you don't need the medicine (even if it is believed that we pretty much all do). I do think this sets the Dharma apart from certainly the Abrahamic faiths.
• I accept that the distinction you mention is there, AC - for Christianity and Islam (not sure about Judaism) belief, and correct belief, is essential in a way it isn't for Buddhism (and other oriental religions?). All the same, I reckon if you pressed a Buddhist to say whether he thought good Christians were right to seek eternal life in Heaven, rather than enlightenment through the eightfold path, honesty would kind of require him to say he didn't think so.
• However, I do believe that consciousness makes humans different from the rest of nature in that it gives us an unparalleled ability to override instinct and modify our behavior. My observations of non-human animals tell me that this is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels.
• And for the record, I'm an agnostic. (Seems the only logical place to be, really.) Indeed it does. So long as we live and let live.
• Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? --Douglas Adams
• What is the name for those who believe that theists and atheists should be locked in a room which should then be filled with boiling oil, mustard gas, and, possibly, sharks?
• Isn't it bad enough to lock them in the room together!??! How could you do that to the poor sharks? You're just evil, man.
• My observations of non-human animals tell me that this is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels. Talk about this. I don't understand your point.
• Not saying that other species can't override instinctive impulses by force of will, just that humans' level of consciousness gives us more of that ability than other species have.
• Said another way: I can't imagine a gaggle of geese having this conversation, much less building a culture that is consciously at least somewhat tolerant of diversity and fosters attempts to understand how others experience the world.
• In ur biblz, creatin' stuf.
• Maybe geese don't have consciousness in the way I think of it, but looking at behavior in many ape species tells me that they are feeling and self-aware creatures. Certainly my dog and my mom's dogs have learned to override their instincts in order to fit in better with humans. Plus, they have their own personalities and seem pretty aware of their place in the family, if not their place in the world. And there are probably many other animals I haven't taken the time to consider that meet some criteria for consciousness. And who is to say that humans are overriding their instincts? Don't we all have competing instincts mixed in with learned social practices that we try to sort out to make the best decisions we can? Why does the fact that our collection of instincts and abilities lead to skyscrapers and the internets mean that we are better than animals whose collection of instincts and abilities leads to marching over ice or building subterranean complexes? We're more powerful, sure. And our brains are pretty badass-useful bits of evolved structure. But the line separating us from chimps is no different from the line separating cows from horses.
• That may be true, yentruoc, but I think there's a pretty strong argument that humans have free will to a degree the vast majority of other species don't. It's not a better/worse division; it's just a difference.
• And we're back to the central problem. Most people have a problem seeing a difference without seeing better/worse.
• Well put.
• Various Deities Still Sorting Through Victims Of Tragic Queens Bus Accident
• I don't think it's so much a question of better/worse as of having quality X/not having quality X.
• That may be true, yentruoc, but I think there's a pretty strong argument that humans have free will to a degree the vast majority of other species don't. I'd love to hear that argument. I can;t imagine what it might be, to so throiroughly conflict with everything I've observed in my life.
• Heh, that's a hilarious Onion piece, Kit.
• TUM, again, I invite you to outline your evidence. I'll outline mine: It seems pretty obvious that humans have sublimated at least some of their instincts, considered and learned new ways of thinking and being, and altered their behaviors over time, as evidenced by the development of language; the move from tribal nomadic societies to bigger, more complex agricultural societies; the development of religion, art, math, science; ongoing technological innovation, from the wheel to the lever to the steam engine to the Internet; and of course the development of consciousness, or, the ability to study one's self. If you can show me evidence that other species have those qualities to the degree than humans do, please do. While it's true that the family dog can alter its behavior to pull some kid it doesn't know from the wreckage of a car crash, and that ants build complex colonies, neither of those things indicates the ability to self-manage and manage societies to the degree that humans have that ability. Really, I think the onus is on you here, logically; you talk about "everything you've observed in your life," but you have yet to detail what that "everything" is. Have at it.
• I'll just dip my toe into the cold water of this thread and ask this, HW: Ants build tunnels, and we say it is instinct. Humans build iphones, and we say it is altered behavior (or whatever you prefer). How do we determine the difference? Isn't it possible that sending a person to the moon and learning Fortran was instinctual? Is it the human instinct to learn and stand on the shoulders of giants, while the canine instinct is to bark at trucks and lick themselves? Because we (speaking as a human here) do things that are loftier, how do we know it is of "free will"? Could we not have instinctually been programmed to do these things? And, is "instinctually" a word?
• It's definitely a word, Ralph. And thanks for putting the point a little more clearly than I did. Also, we don't give animals credit for making choices (i.e. free will), but I think that's only because we don't have insight into their thought process and when they do something we see only the one result, not the possible options. And HW, nobody's arguing that animals are just like people. We have changed the world to fit us more than any other species I can think of. But why? Our consciousness? Or a random conflagration of instinct and opportunity and social tendencies and evolved structure that has put us way at the top of the food chain? I'm just saying that the line between people and everything else seem a little arbitrary and self-centered. Any time someone says they are more special or more deserving than someone (or something) else, it gets my hackles up because it is usually a pretext for greed or injustice.
• I used to explain to my cat how cool it was that I had free will whereas he was ruled by instinct. He'd nod sagely almost as if he understood what I was saying. Then I'd go clean his litter tray and get him some food.
• the line between people and everything else seem a little arbitrary and self-centered I totally hear you. Like you, I have things that raise my hackles -- and in my case, claims that our thought and behavior is predetermined (or "programmed" as RtD puts it) is one of those things. It appears WAY too simplistic to me. I think the evidence indicates that, if there's free will, humans have WAY more of it than most other species do, and while what you're claiming (that we don't have free will but rather that our behavior is a result of "a random conflagration of instinct and opportunity and social tendencies and evolved structure") is possible, I think that claim is to some degree a matter of faith. But I acknowledge that there's an element of faith to my belief in free will, and that I could be unduly influenced by my subjectivity, and completely wrong. I wish we could all more readily divorce ideas from the preconceptions that they trigger (such as, in this case, the assumption that saying "humans are different" is the same thing as saying "humans are better" -- or, to close the circle, that saying "religion may have had or have real value" is the same thing as saying "religion is all good" or "everyone should be religious").
• And RtD, my short answer to your question is that yes, what you're saying is possible, but since our behavior has changed so much in such a short time, what you're positing seems unlikely to me. "We have consciousness, and as a result have been able to learn ways to alter ourselves and our world more than other species" seems a simpler explanation than "we were programmed to behave and live pretty much the same way for a couple of hundred thousand years, then change our behaviors and ways of living and relating to each other and the world extremely rapidly over the course of just several thousand years." But then, you're a dog, and here you are surfing the Internet...
• Oh, and to return to the FPP, I think there's something worth considering in the concept outlined in the article that religion played an important role in humans' development in those past several thousand years. That's all. Not that humans are better than anything else, or that religion is the answer to our problems, or that religion is truth, or that religion... You get the idea.
• I like it that we can disagree with civility. There is a lot of love in this room. Except for that moron kitfisto. Perhaps related to nothing, here are these nuggets: 1. In any set of creatures, one set will have intelligence greater than or equal to the other creatures. 2. In our set, with all due apologies to the porpoises out there, the most intelligent creatures seem to be the humans. Yay for our team. 3. That we are on the top does not imply some sort of divine superiority, or a right to exploit or slaughter the "lesser" forms. Nor does it give us a right to claim higher moral ground. 4. Were extremes indeed a measure of comparable superiority, the fact that I am 6' 3", made of raw muscle, and have a huge penis would indicate that I am far, far better than you. Even if only one of the three was true.
• I must disagree (with civility) your point #3. That we are on the top *does* give us a right to exploit and slaughter those beneath us. I'm not advocating that we should, but is it any different than the lion's right to hunt antelope, simply based on it's superior position on the food chain? Granted, there is no devine right to man's dominion over lesser creatures, as proposed by the bible, but there is a natural right.
• Lucky you've got #2, because the porpoise is killing you on #4.
• R88: We are in agreement. I'm not saying it is wrong for the lion to hunt the antelope, but if the lion starts raising antelopes in confinement pens and force-feeds them to create mmm-tasty antelope liver pate while simultaneously raising brutish male antelopes for the purpose of entering them into antelope fights to the death, then perhaps the lions have gone too far. Goddamn lions.
• HW, there is no "onus" on anybody here. I disgareed with what you said, and since you brought up the subject of there being a good argument for it I was curious to hear it. One man's "obvious" is another man's "subjective speculation," so without omniscience I don't think either one of us can be "proven" to be more correct than the other. Studies of chimpanzee society, most notably by Goodall and de Waal, show it to be as complex as anything I've seen among humans. Bees build structural marvels in which they live in complex agricultural collectives. Other animals may not have the same kind of language we do, but to say that they don't have their own languages seems odd. There's the bee dance and radar, the way my cat knows his feline rivlas by their smell (and the fact that he should have friends and enemies among his feline peers speaks of something above base fleshly desires, since there is no competition among them for food or other resources), and the fact that gorillas have learned our own sign language. To the bee and the beaver, the hive and the dam must surely be as great works of art as Chartres. Because the horse doesn't express his self-knowledge in the same terms as I do strikes me as no reason to assume he doesn't have it. Altruism? Look at the many links right here on this site to stories of mother animals who spontaneously adopt strays of other species - even species we think of as their natural enemies. What does human religion have to offer that is more spiritually noble than that? That we are on the top *does* give us a right to exploit and slaughter those beneath us. I don't look upon it as a "right" so much as a "good reason." If people truly need something from an animal, I have no issue with them taking it respectfully. Predators did it to our ancestors when we lived in the wild.
• I disagree.
• I think mythic themes like the legend of the Fall point to a long understanding that somewhere along the way humanity did step out of the pattern of life and become something different. The difference is in part manifested in a heightened sense of the self, and a related fear of death that pervades our societies and institutions in ways it doesn't even prey species. A lot of what we do could be painted as strategies to cope with this and the long-standing appeal of activities that temporarily or more permanently subjugate that self, from narcotic to religions and like movements. I am not expecting subscriptions to my newsletter.
• Get it? That's all I was saying, TUM: An unsubstantiated "I disagree" isn't worth much in an debate such as this. Nobody said anything about other species not having their own languages, or altruism, or social complexity, or even art or religion. Still, the rapid change in human behavior in a relatively short time, and the corresponding increase in the complexity of human thought and social organization, seems a pretty strong argument for humans having a greater ability to modify their behavior than other species have. And religion's positive role in that progression is worth noting. Look at the many links right here on this site to stories of mother animals who spontaneously adopt strays of other species - even species we think of as their natural enemies. What does human religion have to offer that is more spiritually noble than that? Who said that's not spiritually noble, or that human religion is more spiritually noble? Not me.
• Get it? That's all I was saying, TUM: An unsubstantiated "I disagree" isn't worth much in an debate such as this. Yes, I "get it;" thank you for oh, so cleverly teaching me my little lesson. Being pedantic ALWAYS helps. It also would have been helpful if you'd started the thread by defining the terms of the deabte so I'd have known it was "a debate such as this one." Also, my post in which I simply said I disgareed wasn't in response to one in which you actually presented some kind of argument, or reasoning behind you statement. So if you're trying to make an analogy between my response and yours, mission not accomplished. Nobody said anything about other species not having their own languages, or altruism, or social complexity, or even art or religion You mean it wasn't you who said "the development of religion, art, math, science" in your list of thisgs that set us apart from other animals?
• Who said that's not spiritually noble, or that human religion is more spiritually noble? Not me. OK, then, what IS it about human religion that makes it more developed, or indicative of higher intelligence or consciousness, than the way other animals treat each other?
• Of course religion has played a role in shaping society. So have war, technology, disease, and trade. The thing generally being disputed is whether religion's role in shaping society has some special significance in relation to other factors. When you think about it, society has had a pretty big influence on shaping religion, as well.
• Once humans socialized to a large degree, religion became a natural necessity. "Because I said so" is not nearly as effective a social motivator as "Because God said so". It's not hard to see the evolutionary advantage that an ordered, religiously homogeneous society with a divine rule of law to follow would have over an unstructured, chaotic, every-man-for-himself society.
• Being pedantic ALWAYS helps. Hey TUM, that doesn't really seem fair. The way I experienced this thread, you took us to the "touchy" realm with comments like this is wrong, wrong, wrong on so many levels and I'd love to hear that argument. I can;t imagine what it might be, to so throiroughly conflict with everything I've observed in my life (neither of which you even attempted to substantiate until prodded to do so). I'm sorry if I touched a nerve with you; I was just enjoying hashing through the ideas we were throwing around -- and with "get it?" I was just trying to be lighthearted and get us as much as possible on the same page. I'm not sure why you're so defensive, but I really don't think you're justified in taking it out of me via sarcasm and derision. Seems against the spirit of things here, IMO.
• You mean it wasn't you who said "the development of religion, art, math, science" in your list of thisgs that set us apart from other animals? You're right. I retract my comment about "or even art or religion." what IS it about human religion that makes it more developed, or indicative of higher intelligence or consciousness The article in the FPP talks about religion's role (Christianity's, anyway, but religion around the world seems to have made the same progression) in transforming humans from practicing human sacrifice to more purely symbolic sacrifices. Whether that's true or not, I don't know -- but there's more substance there than in most of your approach here. And the whole idea that religion (and morality, which there's an argument arose out of religion) resulted in the sublimation of baser/violent instincts is worth noting or at least debating. I think that for most of their history (as most understand it) humans have viewed the world through the prism of religion is decent evidence that religion has had a bigger role in shaping society than many if not most other aspects of life. Not saying it's been the only thing, by any means. As far as "laying out the terms of the debate from the beginning," give me a break -- it's a multipronged, organically progressing conversation. We all took it here. Anyway, I'm kind of upset with the tenor of this conversation, and taking a break from it for now.
• Not to digress, but if you think YOU'RE upset with the tenor, imagine the alto of this conversation, who had pretty much figured that the tenor was hers, until that soprano bitch came along and snared him with her coloratura. It makes a baritone wish he were a second bass.
• At it's best, religion can encourage compassion, respect for nature and a mindful approach to life. At it's worst, it can be a tool used to inflame our primal fears, justify our excesses and instill an attitude of righteous complacency. You can use a hammer to build a home but it makes an effective weapon too. And it's them sneaky damn castrati ya really gotta watch out for.
• The article in the FPP talks about religion's role (Christianity's, anyway, but religion around the world seems to have made the same progression) in transforming humans from practicing human sacrifice to more purely symbolic sacrifices. I READ the article. I really dislike the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with something just doesn't understand it. And it was religion that encouraged the human sacrifice in the first place!
• Second bass? You haven't finished the first one! Bones everywhere! Anyone read The Star Maker by Olaf Stapledon?
• More Fun with Religion.
• Two Christians are walking down the street...no wait, two Hindus are walking...two Jews...two muslims. Anyhow there are a lot of people on the street. Funny eh?
• Argh. Reading it, it's not so funny. How about this: "Two Christians are walking down the street...no wait, two Hindus are walking...two Jews...two muslims. Anyhow there are a lot of people on the street. And they're all walking around."
• Does one of them have a long face?
• yeeesh. hope me write funny religion joke.
• Does one of them have a long face? Would it be funnier if he did?
• if you don't get it, you don't get it.
• A Bábist, a Bahá'í, an Anglican, an Episcopalian, a Methodist, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, a Russian Orthodox Christian, a Roman Catholic, an Anabaptist, an Amish, a Mennonite, a Gnosist, a Sunni, a Shi'ite, a Wahabi, an Ibadi, a Druze, a Sufi, a Modern Orthodox Jew, a Haredi Jew, an Hasidic Jew, a Mahayana Buddhist, a Nikaya Buddhist, a Zen Buddhist, a Hindu devotee of Vishnu, a Hindu devotee of Shiva, a Sikh, a Jainist, a Confucianist, an adherent of the Shinto faith, a Taoist, a Yiguandao, a Zoroastrian, a Mithraist, an Orphist, a Huron, an Inca, an Iroquois, a Nuer, a Pantheist, an Atheist and an Agnostic walk into a bar. The Atheist asks the Agnostic, "can you get the first round in, mate?" and the Agnostic replies, "Yeah sure-wait hang on ah, fuck."
• Can't they just collect a bunch of acorns and have the Huron brew up something on the cheap?
• I don't get it.
• Have a drink and forget about it, SB.
• Infidel!
• I'll drink to that.
• From an interesting article: ...Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have recently led a charge against religion, and one of their main accusations is that religion encourages violence. This claim recalls similar ones that violent video games or pornography cause criminal behavior. Sometimes they might, but sometimes they clearly don’t. ...What if religion can serve either to incite or reduce violence, depending on some details that we have the good fortune to be able to influence? ...Religion placed immortal supernatural beings at the top of the clan, thereby reducing everyday violence between adherents. Crusades, jihads, and bloody schisms were the price paid for this improvement, though in the grim context of human behavioral history, that was probably a bargain. ...But why should a scientist show any degree of acknowledgment, much less friendliness, toward topics that are so big or mysterious that they can almost certainly never be addressed experimentally? Some answers are: Because to pretend to be certain that such big questions don’t exist is to be dishonest. Because noticing what I’ll call “permanent mysteries” evokes wonder. And most important, because people are afraid to die, and they sometimes find hope in the unresolved status of the biggest questions. Take away that hope and you hand victory to whatever creep can give it back. ...My favorite example of a potential permanent mystery is consciousness. Another is the source of mathematical truth. Yet another example is the question of what happened before the Big Bang, when time had not yet come into existence...Reasonable people can disagree about whether a particular question belongs in the ranks of the permanent mysteries, but I’ve found it is hard to empty the list completely. ...A workable definition of spirituality is “one’s emotional relationship with unanswerable questions.” It’s possible to find joy in them.
• In the end, it comes down to whether the world would be a better place without religion; and that is a matter of judgment, not certainty.
• And no, I'm not proselytizing. I have nothing to proselytize; I don't believe in God. I'm just suggesting that many, on both sides, fall too easily into the trap of being far too black and white in their thinking. Happy Labor Day!
• I'm just suggesting that many, on both sides, fall too easily into the trap of being far too black and white in their thinking. That's because you're wrong, Wrongy!
• What the New Atheists Don’t See: To regret religion is to regret Western civilization