You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
@SaxonRider Just to clarify. No way do I think it's anywhere near a scam. Just sits a bit odd. I possibly have some small equivalent of your theological expertise in an aspect (Art History / Art Criticism Theory) of my field, but if I thought there was any interest in an online STW discussion of the impact of art on culture and society I can't imagine not just doing it for the interest alone. Having said that, I'm lucky enough for that not to be an issue for me right now.
If it's just to cover some costs, then I don't have an issue really (just had an immediate knee jerk image of tables being turned over in the temple - apologies if that's not part of orthodox teachings!). That knee jerk 'religious' reaction that I as an atheist still have is one of the reasons I find this stuff interesting BTW.
You should definitely sign up for this @chewkw it’s one evening online, not a theology degree. I think you’d have a lot to offer the conversation.
I would but my mind now is preoccupied with solving one of my last problem in life. What a life lesson that opens my eyes to see the world differently. 30 years suffering and 20 years to find the problem and now trying to solve it.
To me all religions, if you strip away all the bad interpretations, are teaching roughly the same truth. i.e. the rights are always right and the wrongs are always wrong. However, the corruption to the religions come not from the teaching but the people who interpret them.
Understanding a teaching is nothing without actually practicing it. i.e. conducts but not because someone has longer beard.
The interpretation of the holy books need to be crossed reference with a system of checks and understanding before they can being "preached". The problem is many so called religious leaders are themselves not well verse in cross checking the meaning and interpretation. Worst still when the holy books are being "rewritten" into many editions to suit the audience.
In addition not all religious leaders/gurus are well verse in all aspects of the teachings because it is impossible to understand them all unless you are a saint (even a saint does not understand all). Therefore, some are good at teaching certain aspects of the religion.
For me I am more interested in the interpretation of the teachings with cross reference to present the logic. For example, in Islam the Anti-Christ is "one eye" but that is being literally interpreted as a person with one eye. The sentence can also mean the person who only sees with sinister intention but most conventional religious gurus tend to ignore alternative interpretation apart from few Islamic Scholars who are views and interpretation are not ignored.
It does not matter which religion you have so long as you know the true meaning.
@molgrips. no offence but even the idea that those 2 distinct terms are entertained in the context of things is absurd. each to their own
I don't even know what this means.
As the majority of people in the world are in some way religious it is always good to be open minded about it and have some knowledge about it.
I have never been religious but I am agnostic rather than atheist as the atheist argument is an odd one as most atheists seem to know there aren't gods as much as religious people know there are so both are just beliefs.
I sort of envy religious leaders in the way that they are living their life and the purpose of their lives to do good, help people etc,. in their way but clearly not something for me with no belief in any of it!
The premise does not quite work for me, although it clearly does for others. I'm less interested in an event mc'ed/chaired/curated by a person of faith with the purpose of explaining that faith as I would be in an event where that person put themselves forward as essentially an articulate 'exhibit'. For me the fascinating aspect of religion, especially in the modern world, is not so much what they believe in (I see this as mostly irrelevant) but is how a person with a religious faith came about and maintains it, rejecting more 'suspicious' paths. This will sound very derogatory (it probably is!) but I see a close analogy between that act of 'faith' and how Trump supporters have recently bought into his statements. picking and choosing which tidbits to hang their hats on and which to conveniently brush under the carpet. And further back (and an even more derogatory comparison!) how huge numbers of an otherwise intelligent and educated German population swallowed the direction Hitler took them in, believing what they did. I would have zero interest in an event were a Maga or a Nazi tried to explain what they believe in, but I would be interested in an event where a third party 'unpicked' them to help others come to a better understanding of how they got where they did ideologically. Likewise religion and people of religious faith.
As an atheist I'd be interested to know who's right, the Russian or Ukrainian Orthodox priests, both of whom seem pretty convinced God is on their side.
BBC News - 'I'm shocked by my church leaders in Moscow' - priest in Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61109104
Just because it makes me laugh every time I watch it.
If 100% of respondents said they wouldn’t attend unless it was free, then it would be free.
Whilst contributions towards celebrations, feasts and sacrifices are part of Biblical teachings there's the notion that people should contribute according to their means:
Deuteronomy 16:13-17
"13 “You shall keep the Feast of Booths seven days, when you have gathered in the produce from your threshing floor and your winepress. 14 You shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are within your towns. 15 For seven days you shall keep the feast to the Lord your God at the place that the Lord will choose, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.
16 “Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that he will choose: at the Feast of Unleavened Bread, at the Feast of Weeks, and at the Feast of Booths. They shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed. 17 Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord your God that he has given you."
Given the financial state of some on here then a 1p minimum would seem reasonable and I'd expect a sheep from Mefty. 😉
If you're in the mood for a theological debate, this is worth your time, when Hitch took time out between chemo sessions to have a chat with Blair:
I'm interested OP in the very significant challenge you would have in characterising these inputs for your book and YouTube channel. I mean, how would you describe STW input, as a source? Definitely not 'the view of mountain biking' or even 'cycling' I guess? The 'view of the internet' seems unlikely (in fairness that would be waaaay weirder). 'Men over 40 who like to be left alone'? I'm just a bit fascinated by how you will present this in your book, seems like a key output of your plan 😀
'SaxonRider's STWeird Weekend'?
As one of the 'good guys' on here, I wish you all the best SaxonRider.
However I won't be taking part.
I've always thought of many Religious leaders as being 'arrogant' in believing their 'way' is the only 'way' and others should be recruited into their 'club', although this is not what you are about SaxonRider.
But I'm sure that if I was in a burning building with little means of escape then I would be praying to something or someone to save me.
My belief is simple - treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, also try to be kind.
I'm more in the listen to science than the made up stories of religion camp. However it would be a great day if the Pope could have a little word in Putin's ear and get him to stop being a murderous, disgusting excuse for a human being.
Interesting project. I've no wish to see myself on YouTube but would be okay to contribute online stuff. Questions, thoughts, whatever. Good luck with it and happy to help.
However it would be a great day if the Pope could have a little word in Putin’s ear and get him to stop being a murderous, disgusting excuse for a human being.
It would be an even greater day if the Russian Orthodox Patriach Kirill were to do the same:
Bunnyhop sums it up pretty well for me.
But I’m sure that if I was in a burning building with little means of escape then I would be praying to something or someone to save me.
If you look deep into all religious teachings, you will realise that at the end of the day they might guide you in a certain path but you still need to walk the path in life yourself. They are no one there to force people at the gun point to follow their guide (unless you are unfortunate to live in certain parts of the world - those are wrong teachings).
Different religion suits different people but the message is almost the same. Walk your own path in life but choose the guide (religion) that suits you best and your lifestyle. Obviously this message is sometime lost in translation because those who teach also wish to earn a living too and when there is money (large sum) involve there is temptation.
Praying is actually a way to instill discipline and hope in someone to do good. A reminder of the teaching.
Why would one need discipline or hope in order to do good? Indeed why does anybody need a guide on how to best live their life? More importantly, @saxonrider have you ever been out for a ride whilst wearing your vestments? I really, really hope you have
Different religion suits different people but the message is almost the same.
Shut up, work hard, do what you're told, and after a short, sh!t life you'll be rewarded with eternal bliss. But don't kill yourself to get there quicker because you can't tolerate your sh!tty life; we need you to farm and pay your taxes, keeping us in the lifestyle to which we've become accustomed - so we've made suicide a mortal sin. You're welcome.
have you ever been out for a ride whilst wearing your vestments?
If SR is female then I may have driven pastor.
I am agnostic rather than atheist as the atheist argument is an odd one as most atheists seem to know there aren’t gods as much as religious people know there are so both are just beliefs.
I believe that Dawkins holds much the same view for much the same reasoning. I disagree (with both of you), I'm more of the Russell's Teapot persuasion myself.
Bunnyhop sums it up pretty well for me.
Lost me at the 'burning building' bit. There's an adage that goes something like "there are no atheists in foxholes" and it makes me really uncomfortable, it's the sort of special pleading that Catholicism in particular excels at. "You say you're an atheist but you're not really are you, you'll soon come running back when you're dying." No, no I really won't and it's offensive and disrespectful to my beliefs to suggest that it must be otherwise.
‘Men over 40 who like to be left alone’?
There's a quote for the spine of the next issue. 😁
I possibly have some small equivalent of your theological expertise in an aspect (Art History / Art Criticism Theory) of my field, but if I thought there was any interest in an online STW discussion of the impact of art on culture and society
I wonder whether there's legs in this, you know. The STW forum is notorious famous for being dripping with specialists in every field under the sun (literally in Welshfarmer's case😁). Maybe we could set up a semi-regular thing like we did with the quiz (grat plug, next one coming soon), some form of 'ask me anything' affair with folk with interesting backgrounds?
Maybe we could set up a semi-regular thing like we did with the quiz (grat plug, next one coming soon), some form of ‘ask me anything’ affair with folk with interesting backgrounds?
I love this idea. Being an unrepentant nerd, I love learning more about pretty much everything. Especially maths.
I do!
Bunnyhop sums it up pretty well for me.
Lost me at the ‘burning building’ bit
Sums it up not focus on one specific sentence. Most religious leaders could do a lot more good than they do.
+1 for what bunnyhop said. I didn't want to stir the pot by talking of the arrogance, but I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that way.
In a burning building, I wouldn't be praying to anyone, mythical or real, I'd just be hoping that someone would come.
there are medical doctors on this forum who kindly give advice when we ask, and when we have had historical/religious discussions on here, I have tried to share things that I know about.
That analogy works. As long as it's all equally evidence-based... 🙂
^ I disagree. Religions are a belief system, so it's perfectly reasonable for an expert / academic who has studied belief systems, and as SR has already said how those belief systems are communicated, to share their expert knowledge with others.
Whether it's proven or not is irrelevant, I'm interested to understand someone's beliefs even if they aren't mine.
Monotheism sucks, the greek, norse, roman etc much more fun. besides "Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is." so makes sense that it was a team effort.
Just checking in on this thread... Ah yes, as predicted, it's descended into the age-old debate of religion's pointless/toxic, religion's not pointless/toxic. As you were...
I like(or at least find telling/interesting) that all this heresy isnt now subject to horrific torture and death by fire.
Oh how religion has moved on 😆
Just checking in on this thread… Ah yes, as predicted
Might've helped you if you'd actually read it rather than 'checked in' just to throw peanuts.
Religions are a belief system, so it’s perfectly reasonable for an expert / academic who has studied belief systems, and as SR has already said how those belief systems are communicated, to share their expert knowledge with others.
This is where I fell down with RE at school. It wasn't education, it was christian dogma. I think I'd have been much more engaged if it'd been "the Christians believe this whereas the Muslims believe that and the Sikhs think this..." rather than five years of mandatory Aesop's Fables presented as fact. The theology side of it is interesting to me, the worshipping not so much.
Might’ve helped you if you’d actually read it rather than ‘checked in’ just to throw peanuts.
I doubt you can convince me it would have been worth my time.
the Christians believe this whereas the Muslims believe that and the Sikhs think this…
I think RE is much more like that these days. Like you, when I did an RE O-level it was confined to a study of a few cherry-picked bits of the KJV of the New Testament. Actually, not really a study, more of a 'memorise this and regurgitate it in the exam'.
I just admit that I live (I think I live) in a world (environment) that I don't understand in any way.
But for me, all religous doctrines and beliefs seem to quote texts and writing that have been written by a human being. And that human being has no more knowledge of what life is all about than I do. They may think they do, but they don't.
I’d be interested to know who’s right, the Russian or Ukrainian Orthodox priests, both of whom seem pretty convinced God is on their side.
I think only in a Far Side cartoon has a general ever stood in front of his troops and said "We're stuffed men, God is on their side today"
Maybe we could set up a semi-regular thing like we did with the quiz (grat plug, next one coming soon), some form of ‘ask me anything’ affair with folk with interesting backgrounds?
I love this idea. Being an unrepentant nerd, I love learning more about pretty much everything. Especially maths.
That idea might just have some legs.
@masterdabber sums it up for me. At least science doesn't pretend to know everything. That's built into the whole hypothesis/theory/peer review thing.
That said I applaud @saxonrider for attempting to open up discourse even if I think it unlikely that I will take part.
I'd be interested. I am not of faith but interested in philosophy and find religion to be a useful source. I am also interested in considering the meaning of God (I have some ideas on possible interpretations).
I also have a think with the personification of God and fundimentally believe this is one of the tools that has been miss used by people to currupt religion both for political mass gains and for personal excusing their own behaviour and creation double standards and excusing their own behaviour rather than excepting their own behaviour is bad.
Anyway if you want to talk send me a message but due to the crap messages on this forum I might miss it as I primarily browse on a mobile.
I doubt you can convince me it would have been worth my time.
Yet here you are.
The single biggest question must be - how (and why) did a Canadian living in Cardiff become a priest in the Russian orthodox church?
there are medical doctors on this forum who kindly give advice when we ask, and when we have had historical/religious discussions on here, I have tried to share things that I know about.
That analogy works. As long as it’s all equally evidence-based… 🙂
^ I disagree. Religions are a belief system, so it’s perfectly reasonable for an expert / academic who has studied belief systems, and as SR has already said how those belief systems are communicated, to share their expert knowledge with others
Whether it’s proven or not is irrelevant, I’m interested to understand someone’s beliefs even if they aren’t mine.
For sure there's scholarship. But the analogy was with medical doctors giving advice, presumably health advice, on here. This is generally based on scientific evidence, as far as possible, and they'll say if they're going beyond this. I don't think any similar advice from an unfalsifiable religious perspective is in the same category at all.
For sure you can talk history/anthropology/sociology/personal experience of being a minister etc, but that's not what was being advanced.
The analogy only works if doctors were giving advice on the history of medicine, not on actual evidence based medicine. So the second flippant comment on the thread about crystals or whatever, which drew a tetchy response from the OP, I think was making a reasonable point.
The single biggest question must be – how (and why) did a Canadian living in Cardiff become a priest in the Russian orthodox church?
Simple. Mother is British. Father is Russian-German (ethnic Germans who had colonised Southern Russia (today’s Ukraine) in the 18th century). My paternal grandparents spoke both German and Ukrainian. Both sets of grandparents emigrated to Canada - the latter as refugees from the Bolsheviks.
Lots of ethic compatriots also became Orthodox.
I did my PhD and post-doc in Wales, and stayed.
Mystery solved.
Thanks SR; that background merits a discussion in it's own right!
But for me, all religous doctrines and beliefs seem to quote texts and writing that have been written by a human being. And that human being has no more knowledge of what life is all about than I do. They may think they do, but they don’t.
But they might. Take away the worshipping deity bit and most religions boil down to a means to look after your own mental health and a code of ethics/morals. We're perfectly happy to pay for life coaches and fitness coaches, to buy their books and follow their "teachings" on YouTube and the likes. Why can't it be that some people have a better understanding of these other issues than you do?
have never been religious but I am agnostic rather than atheist as the atheist argument is an odd one as most atheists seem to know there aren’t gods as much as religious people know there are so both are just beliefs.
I’m an agnostic atheist inasmuch as certain claimed deities (including the Judeo Christian one according to all historical/scientific evidence to which I’ve been privy) I fully believe AFAICS that they are patently man-made (hence ‘atheist’) because I have no belief in them/disbelieve them, whereas the wider question to cosmic/supernatural/creator-being/s? Well, I have no compelling knowledge, experience or evidence of such a thing - hence ‘agnostic’. ie don’t know/don’t know if such would even be possible to know.
But back on topic - good luck with your venture OP. As landlord/priest you could invert/one-up my old landlord/local with a sign above the bar which instead reads ‘yes religion and yes politics’ 😉
Take away the worshipping deity bit and most religions boil down to a means to look after your own mental health and a code of ethics/morals.
I can see that. Identify yourself as someone who needs answers and reassurance, however tenuous, to some of life's big conundrums and unknowns or your mental health will take a battering and a bit of a moral handrail thrown in for good measure and a religion with a good dollop of deity is just the ticket.
Beyond that some people in organised religion can be fundamentally good people with people skills too. I spent time with a local minister after my father died. He knew I was an atheist and in all the time I spent with him religion was never mentioned but he did a wonderful job of helping me in a time of stress regardless.
SR's family backstory is really interesting and I agree with above, it is worthy of more of a discussion. A tiny bit disappointing too. The conviction in their belief that so many people of faith have to me is always rather tempered when it is revealed that their choice of that specific profoundly held belief structure basically comes down to family tradition. If you crossed the road to club in the building opposite, your mam would chop your bollocks off - end of. I've always had a bit more respect for those people with religious faith that selected their faith of choice in a more open minded way.
singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/a-proposal-for-the-whole-stw-community/page/4#post-12375100
-----------------
64% of the Nobel price winners believe in God. How does your intellect compare against them to say such a thing?
@SaxonRider Please cover the misconception that God and science are mutually exclusive. Another misconception is that "science is not a belief system".
This will be a good start I think
64% of the Nobel price winners believe in God. How does your intellect compare against them to say such a thing?
Probably quite well - they're Nobel prize winners in their speciality, and that's it. I bow down to Einstein's knowledge of Relativity, but his opinion on cooking or football or religion? Not so much.
64% of the Nobel price winners believe in God. How does your intellect compare against them to say such a thing?
It is a fair bit lower than the proportion of the global population who belive in sort sort of diety.
I’m less interested in an event mc’ed/chaired/curated by a person of faith with the purpose of explaining that faith as I would be in an event where that person put themselves forward as essentially an articulate ‘exhibit’.
I think that was the idea no? The suggestion was not to talk about the OP's actual religion, but to talk about theology. That means talking about religion in general, and that includes whether it is good or bad, why people believe in it, and wether or not God exists or if it is all in fact bollocks.
If you assert that it is bollocks, you are starting a theological argument that is perfectly valid. There is a lot to learn for anyone who likes to think, even if you aren't religious.
I offered to chair it, and I'm an atheist. Would that make it more interesting?
Here’s the puzzle, how can a seemingly intelligent person actually believe this twaddle.
A great question, why don't you join in and find out 🙂 oh and if you think you're the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
64% of the Nobel price winners believe in God.
Draw a Venn diagram with the US, specifically the American mid-south "Bible Belt", then let's look at those numbers again.
Please cover the misconception that God and science are mutually exclusive.
They aren't. Though they're awkward bedfellows.
Another misconception is that “science is not a belief system”.
Science isn't a belief system, it's the diametrical opposite. Science does not require belief. Science wants to be proven wrong. This is how we learn things.
I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been covered but my understanding on religions is...
Humans are rubbish at understanding their lives have no purpose so create belief systems that create a purpose. This can be 'I exist to make humanity better through my endeavours' or 'I exist to do the bidding of a higher being" or "I exist for a future purpose that I do not yet know" but basically it is to distinguish their short existence and its value from that of a buttercup or a woodlouse.
Once they have decided there is a 'reason' they exist then they have to do things to show they know about this reason. People try to make humanity better, perhaps through science or acts of kindness but it is their judgement of what they think makes stuff better, or possibly what other people suggest they should do. People existing for the bidding of a higher being are just laying themselves open for someone to declare themselves the voice of that higher being and being told what they should be doing, much the same as those with the unknown future purpose.
The ones doing the telling might fit into any one of the three categories and are not necessarily trying to exploit the others. Most religions start in desert areas where people are in hostile environments and really want to know that there is some reason for them being there. The religions create rules for them to live by. Many of these start out as basically health and safety which is why there are so many food related religious edicts. Don't eat pork - it goes bad really quickly in deserts, similarly with shellfish etc. Make sure your meat is properly butchered so it doesn't go bad etc.
Once all the easy stuff have been made into rules then you need to be different to the other religions or your followers might leave so you add some extra ones which don't make as much sense. Once you have done this you can laugh at the other groups with their silly rituals while you do your sensible ones. You can then try to kill the other groups because they laughed at you.
When they are not doing silly rituals or killing each other they can go back the their origins of trying to be helpful by creating a sense of belonging, making people think there is a reason to exist and holding village fetes.
I will pause here for today
if you think you’re the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
‘Appeal to Ray Comfort’ fallacy? 😉
if you think you’re the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
I don't know.
But I also find the 'we don't know. We have some theories but we're still working on it' statements more compelling than 'here's an old book which tells us everything'
.
Although I do note that Genesis saying light/dark, heaven/earth, etc, etc down to humans at the end is roughly the right order of stuff happening, even if it took more than a week in reality.
@WCA That sounds plausible bit it doesn't fit in to what I know of history. Is that just conjecture or the result of study?
We have some theories but we’re still working on it’ statements more compelling than ‘here’s an old book which tells us everything’
So you've disproved Genesis, well done. Now what about everything else?
Oh and hardly anyone seems to have taken Genesis literally throughout Christian history. St Augustine wrote to this effect in the 5th century IIRC.
So you’ve disproved Genesis, well done. Now what about everything else?
Oh and hardly anyone seems to have taken Genesis literally throughout Christian history. St Augustine wrote to this effect in the 5th century IIRC.
The 7 days timeline is actually Not the timeline as we defined. Time in God's term is nothing like the way human defined. In Islam we are just in the 6th day of creation. The logic is there.
Similarly in Buddhism the timeline in different dimensions is different from time defined by human.
if you think you’re the clever one answer this: why was there a big bang?
That too has been explained right down to whatever smaller than atom whatever (I am not scientist so I assume atom is small?). They vibrate to communicate so a bit like conscious energy. There are also other two source of energy being mentioned finer than atom.
Just as well an online 'pub night' was proposed. An actual pub night judging from the reactions thus far would be 1 broken nose, 2 black eyes and 4 arrests 😆
It's all just people, innit?
I don't really care what's going on inside peoples heads, it's what they do that matters. Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what people think - I just don't mind what particular God(s) you believe in, as long as you are not a dick/murderous about it.
I'm interested in religion from a historical perspective, but that's about it.
[i]@WCA That sounds plausible bit it doesn’t fit in to what I know of history. Is that just conjecture or the result of study?[/i]
A bit of both.
Paragraph 1 - People are incredibly insecure and have some deep need to have a purpose in life and seem to need to constantly strive for something. If they don't have one they either invent one, die of apathy or kill themselves. This seems to be true if they have everything and therefor nothing to strive for, or nothing with no objective and therefor no reason to strive. Check our https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/
Paragraph 2 - Largely from personal observation of how people justify their actions and explain their life goals.
Paragraph 3 - Most modern religions do come from desert areas and the oldest most basic rules have a common theme of be nice, don't kill each other and don't eat rotten food.
Paragraph 4 - It was the later interpretations of these rules that became be nice and wear funny clothes, don't kill each other but other religions are fair game and don't eat rotten food abd only buy our brand name products.
Paragraph 5 - Always try to end on an upbeat note to cheer up the audience.
It was a shortened, simplified version of some long and deep thought streams and discussions I have had over the years.
Which bits didn't match your view of history?
Science isn’t a belief system, it’s the diametrical opposite. Science does not require belief. Science wants to be proven wrong. This is how we learn things.
100% this. I would discount anyone who states that 'science is a belief system'. Anyone who has done even a BSc knows that science is built on having a hypothesis and then designing studies/experiments to try and prove it wrong in every conceivable way.
Religion is a philosophy. You could argue - quite successfully IMO , that without Christianity - in western European context, you cannot begin to even look at science. Christianity provides a set of morals/ethics/laws including things like secularism - a medieval French church invention, that give science (especially as it's practiced before say the 19thC) a framework to work within. Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel ...none of that happens without the church.
Basic ethics/morals that we take for granted in the Late20th/early21stC , including those practiced by non-religious organisations rely either partially or wholly on fundamentally Christian beliefs. And it's difficult not to overstate the revolutionary change that Christianity - as a set of rules, has had as an impact of the belief systems of those "in charge" Look after the poor, equal rights under the law, not being a slave, not being killed arbitrarily by the state and so on and on.
You may not like the hats and stories, that's fair enough, but Christianity (as a basis for a power structure) was revolutionary.
People had - and do have - morals and ethics without having the need for religion. Religion didn't invent those things.
Religion didn’t invent those things.
Not arguing that. The argument I'm proposing is that the morals and ethics that this particular religion bought to Europe changed everything.
people had – and do have – morals and ethics without having the need for religion
Yep, not arguing that either, however, at the time in Europe the moral and ethical framework that Christianity bought with it, changed the way that everybody (eventually) behaved. For example, The Roman empire is a totally different thing after Constantine converts - for better and worse
[i]Religion is a philosophy. You could argue – quite successfully IMO , that without Christianity – in western European context, you cannot begin to even look at science. Christianity provides a set of morals/ethics/laws including things like secularism – a medieval French church invention, that give science (especially as it’s practiced before say the 19thC) a framework to work within. Certainly Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus Mendel …none of that happens without the church.[/i]
Not disagreeing but because of the all pervasive nature of the Church within society and the State for the last (quite a) few centuries it isn't really possible to say what happened because of, despite of and with blind indifference to the church.
It is similar to saying that all advances in the USSR, while it existed, were down to communism or that all advances in the USA during the same period were down to Capitalism. Some were, some weren't, some were accelerated by it and some were delayed by it but most would have happened regardless of it because people basically want something to do and are curious so they invest stuff.
Basic ethics/morals that we take for granted in the Late20th/early21stC , including those practiced by non-religious organisations rely either partially or wholly on fundamentally Christian beliefs.
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Beliefs in honouring your parents, that murder and theft etc are wrong are almost universally held by all people and have been since long before monotheistic religions came along. They evolved as pragmatism which eases social interaction and cooperation amongst tribe members more than anything else. Christians claiming they invented or own morality is a other turn off from religion for me.
it isn’t really possible to say what happened
Counter factual is an intellectual dead end (how much fun they are to debate) The history of European scientific advancement and the established church are intertwined.
nickc - I think I agree with you. I was trying to say that it is very difficult / impossible to un-intertwine the two.
Yes, agreed. There's little point in trying to extricate the influence of the church
Yep, not arguing that either, however, at the time in Europe the moral and ethical framework that Christianity bought with it
Luckily we have a bunch of Christian countries which arent, traditionally, counted as European. So we can test the theory that Christianity was the positive asset you claim or whether other cultural influences were in play. Logically if your claim is true then they should all have had roughly the same outlook but given the massive variation even within those countries which were under Roman Catholicism for a long period this is clearly incorrect.
changed the way that everybody (eventually) behaved
Even more problematic since it raises the question why it took so long and why plenty of extremely dubious actions were approved of by the church authorities at the time.
Christianity or any other religion does not have a monopoly on morality.
Again, that's not the argument that I'm proposing. The set of values/ethics/laws that Christianity bought to Europe are the basis for all the set of values of western philosophical thought that come after it (including those arguing against the existence of "God") and do so from the basic framework of the fundamental belief system of the Christian religion.
Look at say the Humanists for an example. Their moral framework which includes such stuff as
- That man should show respect to man, irrespective of class, race or creed is fundamental to the humanist attitude to life.
Is just basic Christian philosophy, it's literally identical. The morals that we take for granted now haven't happened by accident.Again, it's hard to overstate the impact of Europe essentially converting wholesale to one religion at (more or less) the same time. Is utterly revolutionary. I for one can't wait to discuss it with someone who's studied it just a few hundred years after it really gets going. It's going to be fascinating.
Even more problematic since it raises the question why it took so long
Because Humans. I'm not arguing it was massively successful. But the fact that suddenly it was thought important that treatment of the poor (for example) was something that you had to - or should do at least, pay attention to and was going to impact how successful you are going to be with God; was revolutionary.
The problem with a religion like Christianity is that it's philosophical tenants are so entwinned in our society it's hard to separate it all out.
SaxonRider
Full Member
Precisely the sort of thoughtful, scholarly remark I was hoping for.Posted 1 day ago
REPLY | REPORT
cinnamon_girl
Full Member
That’s pretty offensive @twinw4ll. A kind and generous offer has been made to users and yet you see fit to sneer.Posted 1 day ago
I am firmly in the same camp as twinwall and brucewee. CG's response is exactly why and how religion has been used to oppress, subjugate, and crush humanity since it was invented.
As brucewee said if the same discussion was offered about some other made up rubbish then it would not have been afforded the same respect.
Members of my family have been physically, mentally, and sexually assualted by relgious types, who were then protected by their organisation and their acolytes.
I am happy for any of you to delude yourselves, but please do not think christianity should be protected from the derision and contempt it richly deserves to recieve.
As an atheist I have absolutely no interest in this idea.
As an atheist myself, I am actually intrigued by the idea – I cannot understand why people choose to have belief personally, however many of these people are clearly very intelligent (like SaxonRider evidently given how he gives his time) so why do *THEY* choose to believe? What is it that makes them believe, gives them belief? Is it them or is it me that is mistaken?
I don't think you choose to have belief any more than you choose to be, for instance, homosexual.
I guess that you can live your life without knowing enough to make the choice though?
Another misconception is that “science is not a belief system”.
Science is belief. Belief comes from acknowleding the most compelling evidence. A belief "system" is a way of torturing any evidence to make it seem like your preconceived ideas are true.
Evidence of gods = zero
Evidence of the phemonenology of physics - huge, and constantly changing. Scientific theories are just that - theories based on the best available evidence, and they evolve and change as the evidence appears - see the progression of newtonian physics to quantumn physics and beyond.
I cannot understand why people choose to have belief personally
From a basic position; Given that what we know about how the universe works can be written down in a (relatively) very small book. Pointing at a Deity and saying "They did it" is as good a system as any other right now.
Here's one that's bang up to date though. It's a fundamental legal right for Jewish women to have access to abortion. That matter was settled in Rabbinic law in about 600BCE. The current legal wrangling of Wade vs Roe going on in the states right now could very much hang on religious freedom as promised in the original constitution. I'd imagine that Jewish women feel a bit different about the protection afforded to them by their religion.
I don’t think you choose to have belief any more than you choose to be, for instance, homosexual.
I don't believe that to be true.