| More on communism and atheism |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 02.24.04 (5:30 pm) Very good, hopefully any debates on this one will be much more clear. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.25.04 (7:21 pm) Well, this is a popular post... posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.26.04 (1:40 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Actually, I started a reply but got sidetracked. I agree with most of what you have to say, but there is one area where I differ with you. You say, "However, when discussing religion itself, it doesn't much matter which particular faith, or set of beliefs, we are discussing. A belief in God or no such belief is much more reasonable a discussion to have than which definition of God is most accurate." I disagree, at least with the phrases as a whole. Whether God exists or not makes little difference. Even if you had conlusive proof one way or another, and people accepted it, the differences among religions would still exist. If you could prove that God exists, at least in the Deist sense of the word, and that God created the universe but there was no evidence that God interacts with our lives in any way, different religions would still debate whose view makes sense. If your proof constituted a specific theology, then it would be more about the differences among religions, which is counter to your assertion. Since it is a given among religions that God exists, and the major ones are monotheistic and accept the same God (in theory,) what would remain would be the differences in practice and which were appropriate if the proof were not related to a specific theology. Suppose on the other hand that your irrefutable evidence showed that God did not exist. Religions have never been about a mere acceptance of God and doing your own thing after that. They have been about a set of rules and a way of life. Even in a non-religious environment, government fills that role. We define what is acceptable and what is not, how people are to be punished, when people can marry, have sex, be naked, or what kinds of food to eat. Arabs and other Muslims might still wish to have Sharia law, and might still want to have a society with a structure similar to what they have now. Christians might still oppose homosexuality and abortion even if God did not exist because it seemed like the right thing to them. It's not likely that this would change without a belief in God any more that California would reverse its non-religious ban on selling horsemeat. Whether a decision is religious or secular is not the real issue. Atheists can oppose or support views as much as any Christian, and I can't think of much that would change. Perhaps issues of the 10 commandments would, but if you take a couple of them away, then you'd be left with some decent moral codes and could not claim that one is respecting the establishment of religion any more. Much of what we think of as religious difference is really social or economic difference. Looking at Ireland, one could conclude that Catholics and Protestants cannot get along. It that were true, the US would be a war zone. The real problems there are based on two groups of people of different class and economic backgrounds sharing an area. It has little to do with religion in the true sense. People don't riot in the street over differences of birth control. Likewise, the situation in Israel is more about land and autonomy than anything else. It was not until a few dedades ago that people started suggesting that this is abour religion, and even that is one sided. Israel never claimed that they dislike Palestinians because they don't pray the right way. So differences in culture would continue, whether you call it a religion or not. You are correct in the sense that which definition of God per se would not be a relevant issue, but which faith, in the sense of what people's cultural beliefs are would be as much of an issue as they are today. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.26.04 (5:14 pm) Reply to: mblog Well, my basic point was that the discussion of whether God exists or not is more rational than comparing various religions' views of God, at least in terms of a beginning point. You can't have religions without first determining whether God exists. Before deciding which religion is most accurate or appealing, you first have to address the issue of God's existence. I'm an atheist, so obviously the discussion of God's existence is more interesting to me than discussing the way different religions practice and what their concepts of faith and such are. That's not to say that religions themselves are not interesting, but considering the nature of faith and the problems associated with belief or non-belief is more appealing to me. As for your comments on cultural values, I think it's difficult to determine whether a culture's views would be different if there was no religion. If you mean that if all religions suddenly disappeared or ceased to exist, then I would agree that most would not alter their cultural values. This is because the religious views would have already been imposed on them and saturated the culture. My cultural views are based on the Judeo-Christian mindset, even though I don't ascribe to the religious views. But if you consider what the effect of religion never having existed would be on cultural values, it is very different. It is also impossible to determine, being that religions have always existed. Differences in cultural values are not solely based on religion and we can form opinions and values regardless of religious beliefs. This supports my statement that which religion we choose is less important than deciding whether God exists or not. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.27.04 (1:19 pm) Reply to: mblog Thanks m, that was really interesting. The problem, I think, lies in the definition of religion. Religion requires, by definition, a belief in and reverence for a supernatural being accepted as the creator of the universe. So those who claim allegiance to a particular religion but do not believe in God are not actually ascribing to a religion. It is something other than religion itself, perhaps a fringe embodiment of beliefs based on a religion. But it isn't religion. The primary function of religion is to provide answers to difficult questions such as why and how we exist and what happens once we die. This leads to defining ways to live one's life, and this accounts for those who claim no belief in God but ascribe to a religious view. Religion serves social purposes other than the simple belief in God. As an effect of religion, moral codes are enforced and some form of worship- ceremonies or congregational rituals- is embraced. These are social effects. It is quite possible to attend church services and participate in the rituals without having a belief in God or even following the religion's dogma. It is also possible to accept and ascribe to the moral codes enumerated by a religion while not complying with the other beliefs and aspects of the religion. But again, to claim that you belong to a religion while not believing in God is erroneous. You can't be a Christian without accepting that Jesus Christ is the savior and God's son, but you can still ascribe to Christianity's teachings and philosophies. To do so and claim to be a Christian is misleading- in many ways you would be a Christian, but in terms of the religion itself, you could not claim that you are a Christian. Basically, religion can be considered in its strict form, which must include a belief in God or some supernatural being(s), as well as the rituals and moral code. Religion can also be considered in terms of the social institution formed by religion. If we are talking about a person who is Jewish by heritage but not by actual belief, we are discussing religion as a social and cultural institution rather than as a true belief system. So I would say that the notion that it's more important to believe in God than to hold a certain religion is not one that is held uniformly across people of different religious backgrounds. I wasn't saying that it's more important to believe in God than it is to consider the beliefs of a particular religion, I just meant that it is pointless to contemplate different religions without first discussing and understanding the question of God's existence posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.27.04 (1:33 pm) But if we go by your definition, we would have to rule out Buddhism as a religion. Some already claim that it's not technically a religion, but others consider it a religion. While your definition of religion is certainly a valid one, there are other valid definitions that are generally accepted and listed in dictionaries. "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader" is a religion according to my dictionary. So according to definition one, your statements are correct. But according to definition two, it follows that teachings would trump the acceptance of a deity. But it does have an interesting catch. For some religions such as Christianity, both (not "either" but "both") definitions are part of it, while with others such as Reform Judaism, either definition would work for some members, and with Buddhists, only the second is technically appropriate. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 02.27.04 (1:48 pm) Reply to: mblog Buddhism could be considered a faith or system of beliefs, but not a religion. Similarly, Taoism is considered to be a religion by some, but it's more accurately described as a philosophy. My definition of religion was taken from a dictionary. The attributes of religion- dogma, rituals, and moral codes- were taught as the basic definition of religion in a philosophy of religion class. As I said, there are different ways of considering "religion," but only a belief system that fits under all the definitions of religion is accurately described as a religion. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 02.27.04 (4:15 pm) There's nothing wrong with taking a definition from a dictionary, but many words have more than one definition. The mistake people make is either sticking to one definition as if it's the only one, or switching among definitions within an argument when they are not synonymous. The best bet is to define your terms up front. If you want to discuss religion in that specific sense, that's fine if you make it clear, which you have been doing. But if you want to argue that that's what religion is, as opposed to arguing that it meets a specific definition of religion, then it becomes problematic. Otherwise, I think we are in agreement that your arguments make sense for that specific definition. |
|