Once again, this is simply not a correct understanding of the term "liberal" when applied to religion (or anything else). It doesn't particularly matter what Weinberg or anyone else says about one needing to be a fundamentalist or don't bother (I kind of agree, actually). What matters is that the word "liberal" means "favorable to progress or reform, especially in the pursuit of rights of the individual". It does *not* mean "doesn't believe in x" (x in this case being religious precepts or dogma). A religion's holy text is NOT reduced to "nothing but an empty fetish" for a liberal member of that religion. The text still forms the foundation of their beliefs to varying degrees. A liberal theist may reject parts of the text, or interpret them in a non-literal manner; but this does not mean the text is not at the root of the theist's beliefs.
Yes, the non-fundamentalist theist has a "filter" that interprets the holy text... but when you claim that therefore the holy text is irrelevant, you're failing to realize that what is filtered all comes FROM the holy text. If I pour a substance through a filter for the purposes of cooking a meal from the filtered out material, my meal is STILL informed and determined by the original substance; even if I've filtered out 90% of it. A liberal theist who interprets (ie; filters) a holy text according to his own standards, is nonetheless still beholden to the holy text and its precepts. Just less so than the fundamentalist.
Again... you're confusing the metaphor with reality. The metaphor is just a simplification to make a point. It's not an actual filter.
I recall an on-line discussion I had with a Jehova's Witness. For fun I joined an on-line Bible study hosted by Jehova's Witness. In the first lesson they interpreted a line in a way (I judged) as the exact opposite of what it actually read. I asked the basis for this complete contradictory interpretation. I was expecting some sort of analysis of the original Aramaic text or some context. Nope. It was something "the Governing body of Jehova's Witness" had decided after careful contemplation. That's fundamentalism in action.
Similarly. The Quranic text that is used to justify adulterers being stoned for adultery actually says something along the lines of they should be stoned, unless they admit what they did and repent. In which case they're let off with no punishment and forgiven. Ie, the exact opposite of what is actually happening in Islamic fundamentalist countries. The Sharia is full of this stuff.
I can barely see any connection between these holy texts and what is actually going on in fundamentalist Islam or fundamentalist Christianity. You'd have to squint really hard to make that case. I get the impression that these fundamentalist say that they're following these holy texts to the letter and then secularists accepts this as a fact without questioning it. I think it's obviously bullshit. There's a type of extreme conservative people who are drawn to fundamentalist movements and fundamentalist culture. But fundamentalist cultures seems divorced from the holy books they claim they use as the basis for their fundamentalism. There's something else going on her. Something way more sociologically interesting, as well as complex. I think the Quran could be exchanged for Winnie the Poo and ISIS would be going just as strong. I don't think anything would change. Nothing at all. If that's true for fundamentalism it's obviously true for liberal religion.
My own private theory on how ancient religious texts came about is that they were mirrors to society. They included ethical teachings already present and obligatory in that culture. But since they weren't written down people couldn't be sure whether their own values were universal. The point of writing them down (and to have a priest read them back to people) was simply as a receipt for the believer that this church shared their values (they already had). And this is still going on. I mean, the ten commandments... mostly just common sense stuff anybody would agree with. This theory is of course (by definition) due to the oral nature of it impossible to prove or disprove.
The faithful in any church simply expect getting their beliefs, they already hold, confirmed. There's also a lot of cherry picking and selective deafness. People only need to have a tiny part of any sermon to validate their beliefs, for them to neatly warp and morph the rest of the sermon to fit. Our innate psychological tendency for confirmation bias would support this. There's quite a lot of cognitive dissonance require before the faithful eventually lose interest.
That's why I believe that a religion might as well do away with moral and ethical teachings. As they serve no practical purpose in any religion other than just identity building. Identity can be built on many other ways, that aren't complete bollocks and lies. So I prefer to use those instead for Syntheism.
To reiterate, a dick head is a dick head regardless of religion. It's a non-factor.
Arguably the same can actually be said about fundamentalism as well. Nobody would belong to a fundamentalist sect unless they already shared the values before joining.
Yes, I suppose people who've been in a fundamentalist sect since the day they were born already shared those values before joining. Don't be absurd. Just because people join religions and organizations because they already share their values, *does not* mean that there aren't also people who only adopt those values *after* joining. People join organizations and religions for all sorts of reasons, even when they don't believe in their values; and they are then often manipulated/conditioned into becoming part of the herd. Again, you seem to make absolute all-encompassing statements that just don't make a lot of sense when you examine the issue a little.
Let's agree to disagree.
And they wouldn't stay in the sect unless they kept sharing those beliefs.
Another absolute statement that may sound reasonable at first but turns absurd once examined just a little. People stay in cults/sects/religions all the time without sharing the values and beliefs. One would have to be quite ignorant of other people's experiences with religions and cults to think that nobody stays a member without sharing the beliefs. There are countless accounts of people at all levels of these communities, staying a member of their given group even when disagreeing with all of their values and beliefs. It isn't hard to find an account of a priest who comes to realize he doesn't believe in god or the morality of the church, but still decides to keep on being a priest and pretending he believes just because that's all he really knows. There's a plethora of accounts from people who have stayed for years, even decades, in cults despite not believing anymore. They've done so for any number of reasons: defeatism and apathy, threats of sanctions from the cult leadership, fear, ties to the other members, etc etc.
Which would prove that values don't come from the religion? How aren't you just arguing against yourself now?
Which is Socrates argument in the Euthyphro dilemma. Values doesn't come from religion and never has. Socrates/Plato proved as much in antiquity. As far as I'm concerned that argument is still as watertight as ever.
That is actually not what the Dilemma is about. It doesn't deal so much with whether or not a person's morality can be fully informed by external means (ie; adopting it from a book); but with whether or not a thing is moral because it is dictated by god, or because it is moral in and of itself. It is an irrelevant question in regards to what I'm talking about, since I'm arguing about whether or not a person's beliefs/morality are solely their own, or whether they can be formed (either fully or partially) by others. I am not concerned with whether or not the beliefs/morals are valid and what makes them valid.
I think you're making irrelevant distinctions. Even if you're correct that still proves my point. Let's just agree to disagree.
Gay hating fundamentalists may blame the Bible for their hate, but they can't. They're just douchebags, all on their own. They're getting no help from the Bible.
Once again, this simply doesn't make a great deal of sense once you think about it a little.
Sure, if Bob Fundie one day opens up the bible for the first time ever and reads about god hating gays, he will not suddenly start hating gay people unless he already did to begin with. However, now imagine another scenario.
Bob Fundie hates gay people to begin with, and he opens up the bible for the first time ever and finds that it supports his views. He converts. Surely this is a fine book that he must live his life by! He becomes a fundamentalist, and finds himself a fundamentalist wife. They have a child together, Jimmy Fundie. Now Jimmy Fundie, doesn't hate gay people. Jimmy is after all a kid, who doesn't even know what sex is yet. But he is raised with a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. Every day, he is told that god is real and everything in the bible is true. It's repeated to him over and over and over and over. He doesn't really know anything else. Maybe at first he just humors his parents, but over time he starts genuinely believing. God is real to him, and the bible is true word for word. Jimmy has no reason to doubt what the bible says, because the bible is the word of god in whom he believes. The bible says to hate gay people. Jimmy has no reason to doubt the bible, but he doesn't necessarily know about gay people enough to hate them. Still, the bible says they're bad, so he becomes biased against them. Later on, as he starts exploring sexuality and adult life, he comes into contact with actual gay people and years of fundamentalist belief have made him very prejudiced against them. Now, it is possible for the gay people to prove him wrong, but then again it's well known that people with strong biases respond to being proven wrong by actually doubling down on their beliefs. More than likely, exposure to gay people will just make him even more prejudiced against them.
Clearly, while Jimmy's views are not derived solely from the bible; the bible played a huge role in his formative years and the beliefs and biases he has later in life.
You make a logical argument. I have no issue with the line of reasoning. It's just that I don't think that's how it works. Clearly there's a connection between being religious and also being homophobic. I'm not denying that.
Before I make my case for how this works I should start by saying that I think homophobia is innate. I don't think there's anybody alive who hasn't wondered why they're attracted to the gender they're attracted to and unable to come up with an answer. We have a very strong urge to procreate as well as see our children procreate. That instinct is why our species exists at all. If we or our children are gay that's a threat to this ability. How do you or anybody know whether or not they'll turn gay tomorrow? This lack of knowledge can lead to fear, and fear often makes people lash out irrationally. They externalise an internal (perceived) enemy. I don't think gay hate is learned. I think gay tolerance is learned. And it has to continuously be re-enforced in a culture or we slide back to homophobia being the norm.
Ok, so how does this connect with religion? It connects to my theory on what religion is for. I think the point of the rituals and the community is to give emotional security. We're emotionally driven beings. It's important for us to be able to feel inward what our emotions is telling us. We can harden emotionally and refuse to feel inward. It can easily reach the point when we don't know our own emotions. That routinely happens to people who, in various ways, have been traumatised. And we all have gone through our share of shit. We're all on a continuous journey to work on ourselves and figure ourselves out. And that's the point of religion IMHO. I think that's the entire point of religion. It's to create an emotionally safe space (both psychologically and physically) where the believer can explore their emotions (without fear of being attacked for them). I think it's as simple as that. I guess, it's a kind of cheap man's therapy. I think it is it's ONLY function. And I think it's benefit to everybody. Maybe not for society as a whole. But certainly on a personal level. The vast majority of the teachings of any holy book is tips and tricks for emotional management given various social situations. I don't think that's a coincidence
Like I've said before, religion is a tool. Tools can be good or bad. Bad religions will re-enforce our most basic fears we all have. The simplest way to make people feel respected, listened to and secure (all of which makes us relax and open up emotionally) is to simply ape back to them whatever they're saying. To re-enforce what their heart is telling them is true. I think that's the only reason why fundamentalism is so homophobic. It is the simplest and dumbest form of religion. That's why it's in the Bible. Both the Quran and the Bible is created for populations of both smart and stupid people. So some of it is deep, profound and clever while some of it is stupid. That's what I meant with holy books being a menu the believer can freely pick from.
Good religion understands it's limitations. It's more honest about what we don't know. That's why liberal religion tends to be more tolerant and forgiving. It's more vague on the big question, less cocksure. It's more careful with re-enforcing hateful or purely negative emotions. It also tends to accept and understand that all religions have the same function and are on the same journey. I don't think there's any contradiction between religious leaders holding hands and wanting people to be more tolerate of each other, in spite of them teaching theologically incompatible dogmas calling for each other's destruction. No theology makes any sense anyway. This kind of a behaviour only makes sense unless you look at religious beliefs as about something other than what it says on the pages of their holy books.
Here's a concrete example; The Bhagavad Gita can be boiled down to the Lord Krishna being Arjuna's therapist on the battle-field. THe book is Arjuna, in succession, questioning every possible reason to keep fighting in this battle. The cynic might look at this and say that Arjuna is having the jitters. He's afraid to die and he's having a brain fart and unless he gets his act together he IS going to be killed (and lose the battle). Krishna swoops in to set him straight and help him deal with his conflicted emotions. Nobody is a good soldier (or good at anything) if they're not emotionally together. And that's the point of, not only Bhagavid Ghita, or Hinduism, but religion as a whole IMHO.
No, that is a cop-out excuse people throw up when they can't effectively argue their case. Furthermore, I am not inclined to 'agree to disagree' when it comes to objective facts. I will not agree to disagree with someone who only drinks pepsi because he thinks water will kill him on account of the tiny evil fairies that live in water molecules. I would sooner force a glass of water down his throat than I would agree to disagree with him. The definition of atheism as being one that deals solely with the belief in god is not something that's up for grabs; it is an objective fact.
This thread is about Syntheism. I've explained Syntheism using words as I understand them, using those definitions. When you've asked I've explained my definitions. Instead of you then trying to understand my point you continuously just go on to squabble about definitions and how you think I'm using them wrongly. That's just arguing for the sake of arguing. It ads nothing to this discussion and is boring. I've explained that to me rejection of all supernaturalism is included in the term atheism. Whether or not you agree with my definition is beside the point. We disagree on this. It doesn't matter. The important thing is that we understand each other.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Just blaming religion explains nothing. You still need to explain why the religious motivation is motivating. It has to connect to some base physical or psychological need. It doesn't follow logically from your premise.
You're missing the point. I never claimed that religion magically goes from "religion say x" to "theist does x". I merely stated that religion can and often times *is* at the root of the chain. Human beings are easily manipulated, even through non-consciously driven events, into action. Like a child hiding under the blanket because he's afraid a ghost will get him when the lights go out. Is it the dark that causes this behavior? Or is it the uncertainty of what is in the dark that drives the fear? It doesn't fucking matter, since either way it doesn't happen without the dark.
The point is Occam's Razor. You brought it up. I merely pointed out that your explanation is more complicated than thievery. Yes, people are gullible and easily manipulated. I'm not disputing that.
Open a history book on religious conflict. Particularly involving persecution of religious minorities.
The conflict can almost almost always be traced to a class conflict. If not a class conflict, an ethnic conflict. Religions or sects tend to be class, or ethnic specific. This brings in money and power as a motivation, which makes a lot more sense IMHO. Both the Bible and the Quran constantly prattle on about the importance of forgiveness (as does every holy text that has ever been written). Which makes holy books an unlikely candidate as the source for conflict. Unless of course nobody cares about holy books, which defeats your argument.
For example, where was the usurpation of power, wealth, or territory in the medieval persecution of Jews? This persecution was after all, not aimed at rich jews (who were generally more insulated from it) but rather the poor. Poor jews in medieval Europe had neither power, nor wealth, or even territory. What they did have was religiously driven suspicion of them. Or look at civil wars where religious allegiance played an important role, or wars like the Schmalkaldic war, or the Eighty year war, or any number of such wars. These conflicts were often started (either in part or in full) because of religious differences; and while powerful individuals and groups may have seized opportunities that came with such conflicts for personal gail, the conflicts themselves were clearly caused by religious factionalism.
There's an even larger group of people you're ignoring. The poor, dispossessed and unaffiliated. It's better to be Jewish than to be nothing. Which was their only option. A converted Jew was still a Jew in the eyes of the Medieval European Christians. They had rarely anything to gain by converting. That said, identity was pretty fluid as the genetic evidence shows. Ashkenhazi Jews don't have a single drop of Semitic blood in their veins. This has been extensively studied. Over time the Jewish European diaspora got utterly and completely wiped out genetically, while the ethnic group numbered in their millions. So obviously there was a lot of extra-marital activity going on between Jews and gentiles.
In a world with zero government welfare available family was everything. And if not family then church.
I can't see how this comparison holds up. Murder isn't war. A war isn't just a collection of murders. They have virtually nothing in common. Also, never religious motivated IMHO.
War is just murder on a grander scale. Murder is a crime by one individual against another; War is a crime by one state against another.
Ehe... what? They're opposite activities. One is socially sanctioned the other is frowned upon to the extreme. A soldier is a hero. A murderer is not. Apart from both leading to death they have absolutely zero in common.
You only seem to understand war as the purview of rational agents; of a "nation" deciding through rational means whether to try to risk a war that could either lose or gain them more resources. The reality is that wars are generally started by *individuals*. And individuals are extraordinarly flawed creatures. Millions of people throughout history have died because some king or prince felt slighted by a diplomatic faux pas. Countless have died because some emperor thought he was a living god whom should be worshipped by all known people.
The "great man" reading of history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory
An utterly and completely discredited way to interpret history. Today we're more convinced by various materialistic theories of historical reading. Karl Marx being the first and most famous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism
Bottom line, great leaders haven't historically really had that much power. The range of possible activities are in reality very small. If a leader goes against the will of the people he will inevitably be replaced. Those critical historical events we tend to blame great calamities on aren't really. Sure, the murder for Franz Ferdinand led to WWI. But the political situation of continental Europe at the time meant that sooner or later WWI would have happened, pretty much as it actually happened. Regardless of which event set it all in motion.
Great empires are built upon technological or social innovations. As far as the countries in which these innovations spring (or their leaders) from are concerned it's completely random.
The British Empire was a direct result of the Industrial revolution. The power of the British Industrial revolution sprung simply from the fact that they had their coal deposits close to the sea. That is the only and complete explanation of British Imperial might. It was the introduction of the railway that ended British dominance. Coal could now be transported over land just as efficiently.
The Roman Empire was built on the social innovation that the conquering nation can be more than just a leech parasiting off the conquered. Rome made sure that being conquered by Rome was a good thing for them. Especially for infrastructure and trade. The reality was that most non-Roman subjects were better off under the Roman thumb than they had been when "free". This was not a Roman idea. This was a Greek innovation. But Greece did not have a central government. So they couldn't utilise it as the basis for an empire. Pretty much anybody else around the Mediterranean could. If it hadn't been the Romans, it would have been somebody else. The result would have been the same. The Carthaginians certainly tried.
The Napoleonic empire was the result of conscription. A very stupidly simple yet powerful social innovation. It was just that nobody had thought using conscription in the way that Napoleon did before. It exploited citizenship which in turn exploited nationalistic republicanism. That idea as well as plenty others (standardisation for example, as well as conservation of food in tin cans) was the result of the French Enlightenment. Not Napoleon. If it hadn't been Napoleon it would have been some other French dude. The other monarchies couldn't have utilised conscription of the French model before significant social reforms. Which they then promptly instituted as soon as they could.
Bottom line. Random events in history are just random. Great men are more
Wars are often started for irrational reasons. You're confusing opportunism with intent. You see a religious war and people profiting from it and you assume that profit was the intent all along. This is a mistake.
It's not intentionality. It's social tipping points. When a tipping points are been reached almost anything will make it happen. Usually it involves something that is later identified as a key decision. But in hind-sight, if it hadn't been that person it'd be someone else. While on the topic. It's memes. Not that we agree on the definition. But this is meme theory. Once an idea is invented, purely at random, they then spread.
Simply wanting other people's stuff is about as base a reason as it gets.
Yes. It is a very common reason for war. It is not, however, the only reason.
I didn't say it was. But I think it's the only reason for aggressive war. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait, for example. Or the Iraq invasion of Iran for that matter.
You don't need to be a genius to do the maths of war. Nobody has ever made a profit from being an aggressor in any war.
Being Dutch, I can guarantee you that this is simply not true. My country got fabulously wealthy from being the aggressor in more wars than the history books care to count. Being the aggressor is extremely profitable, just so long as the defender is incapable of putting up a serious fight.
Point well made. You, Sir are correct and I was wrong. I didn't think of that aspect. But it's still the same basic motivator for war. The goal of the Dutch trade empire was to enrich the Dutch. Not by taking it from the natives, but because of they wanted the resources for trade. Getting rich was still the prime motivator. Religion was still a non-factor.
I'm not wired in the head like that. Silly is always silly. 