b’shalom

bananabrain

Yes but that’s not the point I’m making. More often than not, the non-prosletysing nature of some faiths emanate from the fact that the faiths were originally tribal or caste orders. One had to be born into a caste (Brahmanism) or a race (Judaism) to belong to the particular religion. The whole premise of Christianity was that Judaean god was open to Gentiles through Divine Love. Similarly Buddhism’s success can be ascribed to the break in Brahmanism which it offered to the masses.

Has history itself not perhaps become more violent, rather than less so?

in the general course of things, definitely less. despite the major wars of the C20th, the sentiment about war on the planet in general is extremely opposed, compared to what it was in, say, the C19th.

It is, IMVHO, not until folk started to think independently, meaning outwith religious sensibilities that any sort of real progress was achieved.

nonsense; most of the great scientific achievements of the middle ages in the west were from the clergy and eminent religious figures, because as a “natural philosopher” there weren’t the artificial barriers that now exist. in the east, buddhism, hinduism, confucianism and taoism were in no way acting as a brake on what you call “progress”.

But is that not what priests have done to us for three thousand years? In a more subtle way, perhaps, but with the same intent. To keep us suppressed.

powerful people use the tools that help them manipulate power. in the past this would have been kingship and priesthood – nowadays it is more likely to be the apparatus of state and legislature.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Thanks for the reply, I nearly missed it what with all the excitement going on up above. The replies below are to specific points you have made.

Has history itself not perhaps become more violent, rather than less so? That was what I was getting at. I am a touch astonished that you’d think it was only my opinion. Our capacity for violence now clearly outstrips our reason, and quite often seems to have large sections of humanity in awe of it. The Cold War is the most extreme, unrealised, example of that.

If you care to cast your mind back over the broad history syllabus that was taught at school, more or less nothing much happened – except wars – up until about the 17th C.

are you being sarcastic here? perhaps nothing happened in christian europe, but i don’t really agree with that either. the “guide for the perplexed” was written in C11th and rashi’s commentaries in the C12th. what exactly do you mean by “nothing happened”?

Well I’m not being deliberately sarcastic. I knew when I wrote it that it was a heck of a broad brush, and that something must have happened in that sweep of history. The Magna Carta falls into that era too. But in my sweeping way, all I see is might being right.

To what extent did Maimonides actually change anything? The same question hangs over the Magna Carta.

It is, IMVHO, not until folk started to think independently, meaning outwith religious sensibilities that any sort of real progress was achieved.

And that, frankly, does not deny that many of these people were of themselves religious. But it does mean that they had another idea in their head. An idea that was, at the very least, a gnawing doubt about the absolutism of the religious perspective.

There are hero’s here, and villains.

Another point which it is really just handy to post here. In Orwells’ 1984, he talks about the military boot being in the face of the populace for a thousand years. (I paraphrase, as I’ve leant my copy)

But is that not what priests have done to us for three thousand years? In a more subtle way, perhaps, but with the same intent. To keep us suppressed.

which is why that was such a bad theory to start with and why i have always sought accommodation between religion and science, not conflict, like the dawkinses of this world. i’ll aim you, sir, at daniel dennett’s book: “breaking the spell”.

You’d never get an arguement from me – OK, never, is impossible, but you know what I mean – that Dawkins approach is anything other that confrontational. I completely reject it.

I happen to think that whatever you think, and whatever I think is moderated by a common purpose. I see no animosity between us, it is, if you like an intellectual debate, it is not going to cause warfare.

I shall certainly read Daniel Dennett’s book. Which is a surprising bit of synchronicity, as I’d only encountered Mr Dennett about a week ago.

I know many people who have come to religion (Buddhism or Islam) through books. That’s still proseltysing.

only if the books are written for the purpose of winning adherents to the religion, explicitly or tacitly. that is the difference. if the “coming to religion” is an accidental side-effect of the education, then i don’t have a problem with that; it is making an informed choice.

I don’t particularly think there is any premium to a religion which boasts of being non-proseltysing. All it means is that the orthodox nature of these religions was only open to people who were originally born into it by dint of some spurious spiritual elitism. The Jewish “Chosen People” or the Brahmin caste springs to mind.

that can only be characterised as “spiritual elitism” if it means that you are effectively on a lower spiritual level, nor can you live as morally correct a life, if you are not a member of that religion. we do not hold this opinion, although i cannot speak for the brahmins. you don’t get more “G!D points” for being jewish; that is not our purpose. non-proselytisation is better, when coupled with a healthy theology of non-members of the religion, because it is the only guarantee that you not considered any less for not being a member of the group. that, for me, is fundamental to tolerance.

douglas:

In only an oblique way can I see what you are saying as relating in any particular way to what I was saying.

in that case, it’s possible i may have misunderstood you.

Which thread includes more downs than ups it has to be said.

i think it has to be said that that’s your opinion.

If you care to cast your mind back over the broad history syllabus that was taught at school, more or less nothing much happened – except wars – up until about the 17th C.

are you being sarcastic here? perhaps nothing happened in christian europe, but i don’t really agree with that either. the “guide for the perplexed” was written in C11th and rashi’s commentaries in the C12th. what exactly do you mean by “nothing happened”?

Serving gods, in all their glory, and particularily hierarchies of priests and kings, had failed to serve the rest of us particularily well at all.

it failed to serve people who didn’t understand that this hierarchy was not infinitely scaleable. the ‘ummah or the church might work as a community, but not as a global empire. we were fortunate enough never to be overtaken by the idea that we could spread judaism throughout the world. a small piece of it will/did just fine. in fact, as you point out, the problem with hierarchies of priests and kings was and is that they are far too subject to corruption and much of classical, rabbinic judaism is founded upon this insight, which is found in the Torah:

http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/primer/torah/kings.html
http://www.vbm-torah.org/kings.htm
A freedom away from that mind set was a long time coming. And it was a revolution that was instigated, for the most part, by people who would nowadays be considered devout. You may find this interesting at least:

It is the start, sir, of the god of the gaps.

which is why that was such a bad theory to start with and why i have always sought accommodation between religion and science, not conflict, like the dawkinses of this world. i’ll aim you, sir, at daniel dennett’s book: “breaking the spell”.

b’shalom

bananabrain

bump,

sir

my dear friend, you appear to me to be arguing as much with yourself here as you are with me. If I can tease out for a moment what I said:

The authors of these books are probably just as bemused as I am that a watch that had consistently pointed towards a more rational future has inexplicably started to tell the time backwards. It is quite annoying to get caught up in this resurgent drivel.

In only an oblique way can I see what you are saying as relating in any particular way to what I was saying.

You are attempting to weave together too many ideas and concepts into a complete refutation which is frankly incomprehensible. One arguement gets in the way of another. The overall edifice seems polemical.

Let’s try to discuss it an issue at a time.

but religion didn’t start this particular fight – the enlightenment did, as a revolution in thought. what annoys me particularly, though, is the ignorance about the profound rationalism and humanity to be found within many religious traditions such as my own.

Logic and rationality predate Christianity, obviously. It is also a light that was kept alive throughout the thread of history from then until now. Which thread includes more downs than ups it has to be said.

If you care to cast your mind back over the broad history syllabus that was taught at school, more or less nothing much happened – except wars – up until about the 17th C. (And don’t you dare come back with the Monty Python ‘What did the Romans do for us?’ sketch.) Really, whatever progress there was was painfully slow.

Serving gods, in all their glory, and particularily hierarchies of priests and kings, had failed to serve the rest of us particularily well at all. A freedom away from that mind set was a long time coming. And it was a revolution that was instigated, for the most part, by people who would nowadays be considered devout. You may find this interesting at least:

http://www.timelineindex.com/content/select/366/44,1573,366

Part and parcel of that rise is in mechanistic views – the orbits of planets, the classification of species, etc, etc. It is the start, sir, of the god of the gaps.

The arguement has gone ever since. My point merely being that, in a gradualist fashion, the arguement between god and atheism went on within the minds of individual men and women. It took Darwin for instance a long time to publish because he was, in younger life a theist, and he understood the earthquake it could cause, despite his latter day agnosticism. The point being that the arguement was an internal conflict, not an extrenal one. At least, not at first.

It is certainly not the case that atheists have a prior claim on rationality or logic. And theists are just as capable of wielding it as anyone else. Whether atheism or theism wins in an examined mind is another matter altogether.

gosh, i totally do. conversion is necessary for people who can only see one “truth”. how can one be tolerant of diversity if you expect other people to recognise that you have the “truth”?

As always, there are benign cases where it is perfectly ok for me to agree with your belief system, if you make a good case. And cases where you belief system is imposed on me by force or fear. Which is bad.

i think you’re making a mistake here, ravi. what you actually believe in are the control systems of the human organisations that allow people to qualify as pilots, engineers and so on. when someone says “this is your captain speaking” i presume i can trust them. it is not the science that lets you down but human error in either understanding an application or competence. science itself is never at fault – only our understanding and measurement of it.

Science is a human fabrication to interpret reality, and it can be proven to be false. When you go on a flight, a lot of faith is required in regards to secular matters: not only that the pilot is competent, the technology involved is working, but that the science involved in building the technology is sound and complete for the task at hand, and can withstand most scenarios like extremely bad weather. The point here is that we put a lot of faith in science and technology with our lives.

gosh, i totally do. conversion is necessary for people who can only see one “truth”. how can one be tolerant of diversity if you expect other people to recognise that you have the “truth”?

I know many people who have come to religion (Buddhism or Islam) through books. That’s still prosletysing.

I don’t particularly think there is any premium to a religion which boasts of being non-prosletysing. All it means is that the orthodox nature of these religions was only open to people who were originally born into it by dint of some spurious spiritual elitism. The Jewish “Chosen People” or the Brahmin caste springs to mind.

“Falsehoods? I wouldn’t call it that. More ‘best fit’ explanations subject to review as more data is acquired. I can’t remember who it was, but I was struck by a half-remembered comment from a scientist who said of a current theory in physics, ‘All we can say for certain is that it is wrong. Our job is to find out where it is wrong and how it is wrong.’ Very Popperian.

Absolutely: sometimes science brings better explanations that fit data acquired. An example of this are unifying theories. But other times, new data acquired can mean your existing explanations are just wrong or false. And this is what makes it science according to Karl Popper: the ability to prove something is false by observation or experiment.

The classic example that illustrates this is the black swan. For a long time, Europeans believed that all swans were white. This is because that’s what they observed, and became scientific truth. Until a black swan was spotted in Australia, and thus the original assertion was proved false. To prove the universal truth of the statement “all swans are white” would be impossible because you need to take into account all swans in every place in the past, present and future. However, to prove it is false, all you need is a single black swan.

This means that in theory, the whole belief system built by science can be wiped off by a single observation. Also, there is no guarantee that the scientific belief system is the actual reflection of reality, but a crude representation of it. The difference between yourself and a picture your 3-year old kid draws where you look like a tree.

Science has served us pretty well in regards to our well-being, and will continue to do so, thanks to its rigorous scientific method. But I believe we are still in Plato’s cavern when trying to answer the fundamental questions of life, and we will continue to be so, regardless of what anyone thinks to be the truth. I believe we are all delusional in some way, because everyone’s belief system are bound to contain not only falsehoods, but crude approximations of reality.

The RC and Anglican hierarchies are very slick and practiced machines who know when to trim to the wind. Very reasonable until the mask slips, as with the Bishop of Carlisle’s pronouncement last year that the lethal floods were God’s way of showing how being tolerant of gays is a sin.I don’t mistake that for a change of heart, just PR.

I would interpret this as the words of a silly old man. The idea that God kills sinners is not part of the Catholic doctrine. Instead, it focuses on judgement day: all your sins will be judged when you die. Your narrative is that the Church is hiding its true motivations, and then you speculate that sometimes the mask comes down and the ugliness of the whole religious organisation is exposed based on the words of a few men. The irony is that their (official) prejudices are very open: they oppose gay marriage and believe gay sex is a sin. This to me this is enough to be disgusted.

I don’t mistake that for a change of heart, just PR. The real challenge today, as you rightly indicate, is from the evangelicals who lack that subtlety.

Are you saying that priests in Catholic schools teaching Darwinism/evolutionism and every other scientific topic in school without any changes in school curricula for a few generations now, are engaging in an exercise of subtlety and PR? If anything, they are promoting science.

I was surprised to learn how Kansas decided to add creationism as a “scientific theory” into science books. It cannot be *even* considered a scientific hypothesis, because if creationism is indeed false, there is no way that it can be proven wrong through observation or experimentation.

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with religious proseltysing

gosh, i totally do. conversion is necessary for people who can only see one “truth”. how can one be tolerant of diversity if you expect other people to recognise that you have the “truth”?

The authors of these books are probably just as bemused as I am that a watch that had consistently pointed towards a more rational future has inexplicably started to tell the time backwards. It is quite annoying to get caught up in this resurgent drivel.

but that is predicated upon a fundamentally C18-19th viewpoint (not dissimilar to fukuyama’s “end of history”) where “progress” and “reason” take man to utopia. unfortunately, “progress” has been experienced too often by cultures outside of western europe as a fundamentally alienating and negative force – read karen armstrong’s “the battle for G!D” – that is where fundamentalism comes from. religious fundamentalists grew out of the protest movements against C19th western imperialism; i find it very odd that lefties should feel that they can protest against imperialism whilst expecting the globalisation juggernaut of the enlightenment to be accepted without demur. what is more, many of the assumptions that these authors started with are based upon fundamental misunderstandings of nuance within the religious mindset, lumping them all into voltaire’s “écrasez l’infame”. but religion didn’t start this particular fight – the enlightenment did, as a revolution in thought. what annoys me particularly, though, is the ignorance about the profound rationalism and humanity to be found within many religious traditions such as my own. i only have “blind” faith about 13 things and it doesn’t actually feel all that blind to me, it seems far more empirical. the idea that history is a constant move in one clear direction is philosophically suspect to the highest degree – teleology is a religious idea for a start!

I have said elsewhere in this thread that I am not at all convinced that there is a need for gods to frame human morality.

you only really need something to function as the basis for the “argument from authority”, the “because i said so”. other than that, it is perfectly possible to deduce the basic frameworks for morality given enough work. that is what the jewish concept of the “noahide laws” makes clear.

Finally a lack of something is not the same as something. So atheism ain’t theism. I really wish all you folk would stop describing it as a belief when it clearly and simply isn’t.

it is a *belief* that there is no G!D, or if you prefer, it is a belief about belief. you have “proof”. we have “proof”. you think your “proof” is better then ours and probably vice-versa. but apart from this, atheism *acts* like a religion – science certainly does – in terms of its structures, behaviours, arguments and preoccupations. so does communism. the trouble is that human beings are involved in all of these belief systems. if you want to really understand the philosophical basis to all this, i strongly suggest you read the atheist daniel dennett’s book “breaking the spell”, with whose conclusions i beg to differ, but with whose methodology and approach i find admirable.

True, but it differs in nature from a belief system which includes supernatural entities in that a secular belief system only holds belief contingently.

most atheists seem to require theoretical entities to exist; conceptual thought is based upon the ability to posit something you cannot *yet* prove, such as the existence of a “meme”, for example. memetics is not an especially respectable idea, scientifically speaking, but it is certainly useful and used.

belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method in approaching questions about the world is based on the observable fact that it works.

belief in the effectiveness of my religious system in approaching questions about the world is based upon the observable fact that my group appears to have been very successful in all measures you might suggest to measure whether it “works”; we continue to propagate ourselves, we’ve survived several thousand years of human society, we enjoy an influence out of proportion to our numbers; these too are observable facts.

most of the fairly recent pronouncements by non-theists are a reaction to a more assertive religiosity which is flexing its muscles throughout the world and has a strong anti-science bent.

i agree – but why do the non-theists have to have a go at those of us who are not anti-science? why do the non-theists have to lump me in with osama bin laden? that is what i am talking about.

The catholic church makes accomodation with secularism where it must, but where it feels strong enough it is as authoritarian as ever it was.

my jury’s still out on that, but i’d be inclined to agree.

I mean, you really need to have faith when you go on a plane that science, mechanics, gravity, technology will not let you down (pun intended).

i think you’re making a mistake here, ravi. what you actually believe in are the control systems of the human organisations that allow people to qualify as pilots, engineers and so on. when someone says “this is your captain speaking” i presume i can trust them. it is not the science that lets you down but human error in either understanding an application or competence. science itself is never at fault – only our understanding and measurement of it.

The real challenge today, as you rightly indicate, is from the evangelicals who lack that subtlety. We now have three schools in my area run by creationist evangelicals. We may not be in Kansas, Toto, but Kansas is coming to us.

and the wizard of oz may be a fraud as far as you’re concerned, but we’re the best friends you’ve got, if only you’d realise it. these guys are not on our side at *all*.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Falsehoods? I wouldn’t call it that. More ‘best fit’ explanations subject to review as more data is acquired. I can’t remember who it was, but I was struck by a half-remembered comment from a scientist who said of a current theory in physics, ‘All we can say for certain is that it is wrong. Our job is to find out where it is wrong and how it is wrong.’ Very Popperian.

The RC and Anglican hierarchies are very slick and practiced machines who know when to trim to the wind. Very reasonable until the mask slips, as with the Bishop of Carlisle’s pronouncement last year that the lethal floods were God’s way of showing how being tolerant of gays is a sin.I don’t mistake that for a change of heart, just PR.

The real challenge today, as you rightly indicate, is from the evangelicals who lack that subtlety. We now have three schools in my area run by creationist evangelicals. We may not be in Kansas, Toto, but Kansas is coming to us.

True, but it differs in nature from a belief system which includes supernatural entities in that a secular belief system only holds belief contingently

Correct. But in essence you highlighted another similarity with theist belief systems: secular belief systems are subject to falsehoods. And they can be as powerful. I mean, you really need to have faith when you go on a plane that science, mechanics, gravity, technology will not let you down (pun intended).

I agree with Douglas that most of the fairly recent pronouncements by non-theists are a reaction to a more assertive religiosity which is flexing its muscles throughout the world and has a strong anti-science bent.

The Catholic Church (and the Anglican Church) have embraced a moderate stance of rationalism and do not clash with science (as far as I know). For instance, they teach evolutionism in Catholic schools… nothing that compares to what is going on in Kansas.

The precise use of semantics would be nice, thanks. I wouldn’t call political activism or a high regard of scientific enquiry or software programming a “belief system”. Nor would I call dancing with sufis in Djibouti or laying gifts on the alter to the goddess Bonbibi in the Sundarbans a secular activity.

That’s for “do we live in a completely secular country?”, which the answer would be NO. However, just because it’s not completely secular, doesn’t mean you can’t call it moderately secular, or somewhat secular.

Hey a point of agreement at last! So you accept that to build a more secular society we need to remove these priveleges and powers of subversion from the Church.

huzzah!

(1) is contradictory of itself

I guess we are discussing semantics. To me, and as I explicitly stated, a belief system is everything you hold to be true. Hence, it may not include supernatural beliefs or God. In that light, (1) and (2) are just fine.

Are you sure Ravi? Seats in the Lords, tax-exempt status, control of schools, censorship of the arts, protection from criticism and mockery or any other privilege, the right to not employ homosexuals, the right to not marry homosexuals as per the law of the land?

That’s for “do we live in a completely secular country?”, which the answer would be NO. However, just because it’s not completely secular, doesn’t mean you can’t call it moderately secular, or somewhat secular.

True, but it differs in nature from a belief system which includes supernatural entities in that a secular belief system only holds belief contingently. Even belief in the effectiveness of the scientific method in approaching questions about the world is based on the observable fact that it works.

Even the most cherished concepts, such as luminiferous aether, can be surrendered without trauma as new evidence emerges. The same cannot be said of belief systems which incorporate the incorporeal.

I agree with Douglas that most of the fairly recent pronouncements by non-theists are a reaction to a more assertive religiosity which is flexing its muscles throughout the world and has a strong anti-science bent. The catholic church makes accomodation with secularism where it must, but where it feels strong enough it is as authoritarian as ever it was. American evangelicalism more or less rules the roost, with presidential hopefuls obliged to parrot nonsense to suck up to the Elmer Gantry element. And while one may not see verses from the Quran on the sides of busses, Islam has not otherwise been shy or retiring in advancing an agenda of late.

1. “The point is: a belief system can be completely secular and devoid of supernatural elements.”

2. “It is retarded to call any religious organisation pro-secular, because of the definition of secularism.”

(1) is contradictory of itself, since god is a supernatural being by definition, and is the subject of religion by definition.
(2) is contradicted by (1)

On the other hand, its message and actions do not try to subvert our secular society and its institutions, so it can’t be anti-secular, correct Sid?

Are you sure Ravi? Seats in the Lords, tax-exempt status, control of schools, censorship of the arts, protection from criticism and mockery, the right to not employ homosexuals, the right to not marry homosexuals as per the law of the land?

Either it support secularism or it does not.

You do know that the Church’s belief system contains supernatural elements, so it cannot be secular, let alone have a pro-secular agenda, right Sid?

On the other hand, its message and actions do not try to subvert our secular society and its institutions, so it can’t be anti-secular, correct Sid?

So, how do we resolve this mess?

“Hold on. When I said that you claimed that the Church is pro-secular you said”

What does one thing have to do with the other? A belief system is comprised by what you believe to be true, regardless of what your beliefs are: natural or supernatural.

What’s so hard to understand?