Thanksgiving discussion.

[oldfella1962]

Yeah, you’d think they could be a little more imaginative in their names.

The PCA is theologically conservative. The PCUSA is liberal.

Oh I see.

 

[WaltL1]

The trend is away both from organized religion and from a belief in god.

Not an argument per se but a point -
All of the charts and graphs show RELIGIOUS affiliations, attendance, self identification etc... I think that and "belief in "God" should and are 2 different subjects that would have differing numbers.
In other words a belief in God but not so much in the organized religion of Christianity.
I just have a hard time believing that many of these folks bailing out on church attendance all of a sudden dont believe in God either. Some small number sure, but not the majority. But of course, Im just guessing.

 

[oldfella1962]

Not an argument per se but a point -
All of the charts and graphs show RELIGIOUS affiliations, attendance, self identification etc... I think that and "belief in "God" should and are 2 different subjects that would have differing numbers.
In other words a belief in God but not so much in the organized religion of Christianity.
I just have a hard time believing that many of these folks bailing out on church attendance all of a sudden dont believe in God either. Some small number sure, but not the majority. But of course, Im just guessing.

Good point! It sounds logical & reasonable that a lot of people have a belief in a "god" AKA "higher power" but not in a specific religion with a god fitting the description of that religion. I think that many of the Native American tribes had a reasonable way of looking at god as "the Great Spirit" - the mysterious & unknowable. Probably a lot of tribes & societies worldwide had that view up until reading & writing came along. Once spiritual/religious ideas could be preserved, studied, tweaked and passed along in an organized manner and became dogma they could become politicized - assuming those religions caught on in popularity in the first place.

Atheist or theist, if you believe in evolution then it's obvious that the human imagination & curiosity evolved along with other advances in human brains over countless generations - it is hardwired into our species at this point. A belief in a higher power is very natural and not unique to any individual nor society. But the flipside is that because this belief is widespread across the planet and not unique nor special, the idea that only one of these beliefs is manifested as reality while the other beliefs are false doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line to my way of thinking either all religious beliefs/gods are valid or none of them are. The evidence supporting their existence is only accepted within the circle of believers around that specific religion/god.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that based on "reality" as I have experienced it so far, no god exists. I could be wrong, and there are billions of followers from thousands of different religions who can state that myself and billions of followers from religions different than theirs are wrong, but nobody has any evidence that I nor they are wrong.

 

[WaltL1]

Good point! It sounds logical & reasonable that a lot of people have a belief in a "god" AKA "higher power" but not in a specific religion with a god fitting the description of that religion. I think that many of the Native American tribes had a reasonable way of looking at god as "the Great Spirit" - the mysterious & unknowable. Probably a lot of tribes & societies worldwide had that view up until reading & writing came along. Once spiritual/religious ideas could be preserved, studied, tweaked and passed along in an organized manner and became dogma they could become politicized - assuming those religions caught on in popularity in the first place.

Atheist or theist, if you believe in evolution then it's obvious that the human imagination & curiosity evolved along with other advances in human brains over countless generations - it is hardwired into our species at this point. A belief in a higher power is very natural and not unique to any individual nor society. But the flipside is that because this belief is widespread across the planet and not unique nor special, the idea that only one of these beliefs is manifested as reality while the other beliefs are false doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line to my way of thinking either all religious beliefs/gods are valid or none of them are. The evidence supporting their existence is only accepted within the circle of believers around that specific religion/god.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that based on "reality" as I have experienced it so far, no god exists. I could be wrong, and there are billions of followers from thousands of different religions who can state that myself and billions of followers from religions different than theirs are wrong, but nobody has any evidence that I nor they are wrong.

It sounds logical & reasonable that a lot of people have a belief in a "god" AKA "higher power" but not in a specific religion with a god fitting the description of that religion.

Yep. That ^.
Specifically they are catching on to the difference between religion and God..
God = God
Religion = differing groups of men's differing opinions about that God.
Folks are cutting out the middle men.

 

[oldfella1962]

Yep. That ^.
Specifically they are catching on to the difference between religion and God..
God = God
Religion = differing groups of men's differing opinions about that God.
Folks are cutting out the middle men.

Fair enough, but if people do that, how are the "middlemen" going to pay their bills? I would say that back in the day when few people were educated or literate - or even today in countries where few people are educated or literate - the middleman can justify his position of power.
But thanks to the internet/literacy/rising education levels people are much more capable of a DIY style of "spiritual enrichment" or whatever we want to call it. I wish I had a time machine to see how things will be in 1,000 years or so concerning this topic.

 

[ambush80]

Good point! It sounds logical & reasonable that a lot of people have a belief in a "god" AKA "higher power" but not in a specific religion with a god fitting the description of that religion. I think that many of the Native American tribes had a reasonable way of looking at god as "the Great Spirit" - the mysterious & unknowable. Probably a lot of tribes & societies worldwide had that view up until reading & writing came along. Once spiritual/religious ideas could be preserved, studied, tweaked and passed along in an organized manner and became dogma they could become politicized - assuming those religions caught on in popularity in the first place.

Atheist or theist, if you believe in evolution then it's obvious that the human imagination & curiosity evolved along with other advances in human brains over countless generations - it is hardwired into our species at this point. A belief in a higher power is very natural and not unique to any individual nor society. But the flipside is that because this belief is widespread across the planet and not unique nor special, the idea that only one of these beliefs is manifested as reality while the other beliefs are false doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line to my way of thinking either all religious beliefs/gods are valid or none of them are. The evidence supporting their existence is only accepted within the circle of believers around that specific religion/god.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that based on "reality" as I have experienced it so far, no god exists. I could be wrong, and there are billions of followers from thousands of different religions who can state that myself and billions of followers from religions different than theirs are wrong, but nobody has any evidence that I nor they are wrong.

I've started becoming convinced that the idea of God is utilitarian and cohesive for constructing a moral framework. When Jordan Peterson debated Sam Harris about God, Peterson asked Harris "Why should we be 'good'?" Harris made a utilitarian, secular, rational argument about the benefit of striving toward "the good" but couldn't answer why he valued it. Without an a-priori assumption of an Ideal, a Logos, Harris always ran into the dead end of Nihilistic Hedonism as the ultimate motivation. I'm kind of in that place myself. I'm stuck with pursuing the hedonistic, nihilistic goal of "That which improves my life", which thankfully, often supports improving the lives of those around me. Luckily, I haven't been confronted with a scenario that wasn't improved by that modus operandi, but I imagine there is one.

 

[oldfella1962]

I've started becoming convinced that the idea of God is utilitarian and cohesive for constructing a moral framework. When Jordan Peterson debated Sam Harris about God, Peterson asked Harris "Why should we be 'good'?" Harris made a utilitarian, secular, rational argument about the benefit of striving toward "the good" but couldn't answer why he valued it. Without an a-priori assumption of an Ideal, a Logos, Harris always ran into the dead end of Nihilistic Hedonism as the ultimate motivation. I'm kind of in that place myself. I'm stuck with pursuing the hedonistic, nihilistic goal of "That which improves my life", which thankfully, often supports improving the lives of those around me. Luckily, I haven't been confronted with a scenario that wasn't improved by that modus operandi, but I imagine there is one.

I would posit that the idea of - or a belief in a "god" - can be utilitarian for many societies, or it wouldn't still be around. But an actual supernatural god? No way, Jose. If there was one, I couldn't imagine them allowing hundreds of other gods to co-exist in the "running the universe" business. And I do not think that it's a binary choice between "godly" morals (which vary from god to god anyway) and ego driven hedonism. There are people who are totally dedicated to putting the needs of society and those around them above their own needs without any reliance on nor reverence for nor perceived guidance from any supernatural entity. And while I feel that it depends on our individual attitude, most of the time what benefits society also benefits us personally too, because what is a society but a collection of generally like-minded individuals? That's where that "golden rule" of do unto others - which many religions & societies also agree with - comes into play.

As for Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris, both are educated and articulate guys, but with vastly different styles & world views. But with Peterson taking the "it doesn't matter if religion is factually true, as long as we can benefit from believing that it's true" then is there really much point in him being a Christian versus believing in any other religion, since none are factually true anyway? Why keep up the charade - the delusion - if nobody really believes it anyway? Is that much different than Sam Harris saying ditch the whole religion shebang completely? At the end of the day both men are successful, responsible, law-abiding citizens and are a net asset rather than a detriment to society. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

[WaltL1]

Fair enough, but if people do that, how are the "middlemen" going to pay their bills? I would say that back in the day when few people were educated or literate - or even today in countries where few people are educated or literate - the middleman can justify his position of power.
But thanks to the internet/literacy/rising education levels people are much more capable of a DIY style of "spiritual enrichment" or whatever we want to call it. I wish I had a time machine to see how things will be in 1,000 years or so concerning this topic.

how are the "middlemen" going to pay their bills?

And there in lies part of the problem. Alot of churches have determined the way to keep and attract more people (and their tithings) is to "relax" the traditional rules.
Old school folks dont like that and leave. Some find new churches and some dont. And round goes the circle....

I wish I had a time machine to see how things will be in 1,000 years or so concerning this topic.

Would be really interesting.

But thanks to the internet/literacy/rising education levels people are much more capable of a DIY style of "spiritual enrichment"

I think this ^ will increasingly come into play.

 

[ambush80]

I would posit that the idea of - or a belief in a "god" - can be utilitarian for many societies, or it wouldn't still be around. But an actual supernatural god? No way, Jose. If there was one, I couldn't imagine them allowing hundreds of other gods to co-exist in the "running the universe" business. And I do not think that it's a binary choice between "godly" morals (which vary from god to god anyway) and ego driven hedonism. There are people who are totally dedicated to putting the needs of society and those around them above their own needs without any reliance on nor reverence for nor perceived guidance from any supernatural entity. And while I feel that it depends on our individual attitude, most of the time what benefits society also benefits us personally too, because what is a society but a collection of generally like-minded individuals? That's where that "golden rule" of do unto others - which many religions & societies also agree with - comes into play.

As for Jordan Peterson & Sam Harris, both are educated and articulate guys, but with vastly different styles & world views. But with Peterson taking the "it doesn't matter if religion is factually true, as long as we can benefit from believing that it's true" then is there really much point in him being a Christian versus believing in any other religion, since none are factually true anyway? Why keep up the charade - the delusion - if nobody really believes it anyway? Is that much different than Sam Harris saying ditch the whole religion shebang completely? At the end of the day both men are successful, responsible, law-abiding citizens and are a net asset rather than a detriment to society. That's my 2 cents anyway.

There's been some research showing that pre-speech toddlers have some semblance of a moral sense. Peterson would probably attribute the moral sense to God "writing the code on our souls", whereas Harris would attribute it to mindless evolutionary forces. Toddlers also exhibit behaviors which we might call evil and we try to socialize them so that they temper and control those impulses. Many religious stories attribute the existence of those tendencies to a malevolent entity. Belief in one narrative over the other can have psychological implications for the believer. Absent a Logos, one is left with moral relativism, morality is subject to evolutionary pressures and may change over time. That model of the world comports with my experience of reality.

 

[WaltL1]

There's been some research showing that pre-speech toddlers have some semblance of a moral sense. Peterson would probably attribute the moral sense to God "writing the code on our souls", whereas Harris would attribute it to mindless evolutionary forces. Toddlers also exhibit behaviors which we might call evil and we try to socialize them so that they temper and control those impulses. Many religious stories attribute the existence of those tendencies to a malevolent entity. Belief in one narrative over the other can have psychological implications for the believer. Absent a Logos, one is left with moral relativism, morality is subject to evolutionary pressures and may change over time. That model of the world comports with my experience of reality.

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding, I'm not sure how anyone could argue this -

morality is subject to evolutionary pressures and may change over time

Not to be true.
Sure there can be individual exceptions but overall it cant be argued (successfully).

 

[ambush80]

Unless I'm totally misunderstanding, I'm not sure how anyone could argue this -

Not to be true.
Sure there can be individual exceptions but overall it cant be argued (successfully).

I will work from that assumption until some other data disproves it.

 

[oldfella1962]

There's been some research showing that pre-speech toddlers have some semblance of a moral sense. Peterson would probably attribute the moral sense to God "writing the code on our souls", whereas Harris would attribute it to mindless evolutionary forces. Toddlers also exhibit behaviors which we might call evil and we try to socialize them so that they temper and control those impulses. Many religious stories attribute the existence of those tendencies to a malevolent entity. Belief in one narrative over the other can have psychological implications for the believer. Absent a Logos, one is left with moral relativism, morality is subject to evolutionary pressures and may change over time. That model of the world comports with my experience of reality.

It makes sense that morality is subject to evolutionary pressures especially since humans are a very social species. Morality that enables psychotically aggressive behavior that fragments a group is generally counterproductive. Morality that enables excessive timidity and passivity could weaken a group and make them vulnerable to competing groups. I would posit that morality is not relative to the individual as much as to the group to which they belong. "No man is an island" as the saying goes. The group will ostracize or reward the group member accordingly.

Taking religion off the table for a bit, the wildcard of morality is that great ape/human groups were small through the hundreds of thousands of years of our hunter-gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic evolution. Along comes large scale agriculture and thus exponentially larger group sizes and now morality has to be more strictly codified and enforced to avoid being fragmented by sub-groups deviating too much from the moral norm. Now religion * is put on the table as a very useful tool for large group cohesion & unity. Research indicates that once a human group has a population exceeding about 400 members, individuals don't know the other group members very well. There's very little "small town everybody knows everybody's business" familiarity anymore. It's very useful to have some type of all seeing/all knowing/all powerful authority that has "the big picture" and keep everybody on the same page and make sense out of all the chaos & craziness that will ensue trying to control a large group.

* not all religions are the same! Groups form their own religions - or adopt the religions of other groups - based on the general existing culture/mindset/practical reasons unique to that group. Judaism - without which there would be no Christianity - is an example of a group that was fragmenting both geographically and politically thus requiring the invention of a fictional "origin story" with the central character (Yahweh) being the biggest, baddest, most powerful god of all time who can help them accomplish anything - take on and vanquish the world if need be - if their group stays on his good side. Even the greatest human leaders & warriors can only do so much - but having the greatest IMMORTAL supernatural storm/war god of all time on your side means that your group is unstoppable in the face of often overwhelming odds! So credit where credit is due - Judaism got it right when it comes to giving their group exactly what they needed when they needed it in the form of religion. I'm sure they were not the first to do this, but we have a great deal of documentation revealing the process that is still playing out in the modern era thanks to the link between Judaism (small number of worldwide followers) to Christianity (a huge number of worldwide followers).

 

[ambush80]

It makes sense that morality is subject to evolutionary pressures especially since humans are a very social species. Morality that enables psychotically aggressive behavior that fragments a group is generally counterproductive. Morality that enables excessive timidity and passivity could weaken a group and make them vulnerable to competing groups. I would posit that morality is not relative to the individual as much as to the group to which they belong. "No man is an island" as the saying goes. The group will ostracize or reward the group member accordingly.

Taking religion off the table for a bit, the wildcard of morality is that great ape/human groups were small through the hundreds of thousands of years of our hunter-gatherer nomadic or semi-nomadic evolution. Along comes large scale agriculture and thus exponentially larger group sizes and now morality has to be more strictly codified and enforced to avoid being fragmented by sub-groups deviating too much from the moral norm. Now religion * is put on the table as a very useful tool for large group cohesion & unity. Research indicates that once a human group has a population exceeding about 400 members, individuals don't know the other group members very well. There's very little "small town everybody knows everybody's business" familiarity anymore. It's very useful to have some type of all seeing/all knowing/all powerful authority that has "the big picture" and keep everybody on the same page and make sense out of all the chaos & craziness that will ensue trying to control a large group.

* not all religions are the same! Groups form their own religions - or adopt the religions of other groups - based on the general existing culture/mindset/practical reasons unique to that group. Judaism - without which there would be no Christianity - is an example of a group that was fragmenting both geographically and politically thus requiring the invention of a fictional "origin story" with the central character (Yahweh) being the biggest, baddest, most powerful god of all time who can help them accomplish anything - take on and vanquish the world if need be - if their group stays on his good side. Even the greatest human leaders & warriors can only do so much - but having the greatest IMMORTAL supernatural storm/war god of all time on your side means that your group is unstoppable in the face of often overwhelming odds! So credit where credit is due - Judaism got it right when it comes to giving their group exactly what they needed when they needed it in the form of religion. I'm sure they were not the first to do this, but we have a great deal of documentation revealing the process that is still playing out in the modern era thanks to the link between Judaism (small number of worldwide followers) to Christianity (a huge number of worldwide followers).

There's a good book called A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century that posits (in summary) "humans have developed technology that creates conditions which we haven't evolved to properly contextualize", like the mass urbanization and increased density of populations and mass media. I've been mulling over the notion that it might be beneficial to incentivize people to rally around a basic moral structure, using our apparent tendency to be motivated by superstition might be the easiest lever to apply.

 

[oldfella1962]

There's a good book called A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century that posits (in summary) "humans have developed technology that creates conditions which we haven't evolved to properly contextualize", like the mass urbanization and increased density of populations and mass media. I've been mulling over the notion that it might be beneficial to incentivize people to rally around a basic moral structure, using our apparent tendency to be motivated by superstition might be the easiest lever to apply.

Superstition might be the easiest lever to apply in theory - but how would we choose WHICH superstition to rally around? I can't envision any scenario that wouldn't end up in a worldwide bloodbath with no winners in the long run.

 

[ambush80]

Superstition might be the easiest lever to apply in theory - but how would we choose WHICH superstition to rally around? I can't envision any scenario that wouldn't end up in a worldwide bloodbath with no winners in the long run.

It's too divisive to assert that there's a being who can be attributed with establishment of the moral code, especially one who's existence can only be confirmed by an individuals' subjective experience. It creates the necessity for someone to have the ability to receive and interpret Divine Revelation, which from my observations is one of the most destructive beliefs one can have about themselves.

This is such a tough question.

I'm thinking that the superstition could be based on a lie, or a un-confirmed fact that is proven to be profoundly beneficial if operated upon as an a-priori truth, kind of like how treating all guns as if they're loaded is a lie that's better to act upon as if it were true. There needs to be the threat of accountability to something for behaving in maladaptive ways, but it can't come from a being. Perhaps the pitch could be "We have tried many different ways to solve this problem and some of the best ways we have discovered require deep trust in the evolutionary processes that have caused these solutions to arise". In other words "These solutions aren't perfect, but they're the best we've got so far", leaving unlimited room for improvement (which a religious dogma doesn't allow).

 

[atlashunter]

Not an argument per se but a point -
All of the charts and graphs show RELIGIOUS affiliations, attendance, self identification etc... I think that and "belief in "God" should and are 2 different subjects that would have differing numbers.
In other words a belief in God but not so much in the organized religion of Christianity.
I just have a hard time believing that many of these folks bailing out on church attendance all of a sudden dont believe in God either. Some small number sure, but not the majority. But of course, Im just guessing.

That is a valid distinction but those same polls show not only a move away from organized religion but a growing percentage of atheists. Makes sense when you consider most people who go from religious to atheist go through a transition period of agnosticism. Some people stay on that fence but in either case the trend is away from religion at least in those parts of the world once referred to as Christendom.

 

[ambush80]

That is a valid distinction but those same polls show not only a move away from organized religion but a growing percentage of atheists. Makes sense when you consider most people who go from religious to atheist go through a transition period of agnosticism. Some people stay on that fence but in either case the trend is away from religion at least in those parts of the world once referred to as Christendom.

What would you say to the claim that the degradation of Western society is the result of the move towards atheism that you describe?

 

[Spotlite]

Not an argument per se but a point -
All of the charts and graphs show RELIGIOUS affiliations, attendance, self identification etc... I think that and "belief in "God" should and are 2 different subjects that would have differing numbers.
In other words a belief in God but not so much in the organized religion of Christianity.
I just have a hard time believing that many of these folks bailing out on church attendance all of a sudden dont believe in God either. Some small number sure, but not the majority. But of course, Im just guessing.

Most people don’t see God in organized religion - they see a church leader that seems to take place of God.

They’ll leave that but still believe in God.

 

[WaltL1]

Most people don’t see God in organized religion - they see a church leader that seems to take place of God.

They’ll leave that but still believe in God.

They’ll leave that but still believe in God.

I think thats ^ true for the majority. But as has been pointed out, there is also an increase of full blown Atheism. So looks like the minority is getting bigger.

Most people don’t see God in organized religion

Not sure if I agree with that ^.
I think most people (Christians) view church/organized religion as basically "God's word". They feel commanded to go there. Its their responsibility as a "good" Christian.
I got to think more about that one.
Oh and I know fellowship is also a big part of attending church.
As long as the churches my friends go to continue to have their bake sales, I'm good with churches

 

[Spotlite]

I think thats ^ true for the majority. But as has been pointed out, there is also an increase of full blown Atheism. So looks like the minority is getting bigger.

Not sure if I agree with that ^.
I think most people (Christians) view church/organized religion as basically "God's word". They feel commanded to go there. Its their responsibility as a "good" Christian.
I got to think more about that one.
Oh and I know fellowship is also a big part of attending church.
As long as the churches my friends go to continue to have their bake sales, I'm good with churches

When I think of organized religion I think of “associations” where a leader is either elected or appointed to serve as “president”……”pope”……..”bishop” that approves what’s being taught and the church’s that pay their membership fees teach accordingly.

To me that’s different than church attendance with a Pastor that you “follow as he follows God” or as he follows God as far as you know. When he doesn’t you don’t have an outside oversight to get him out.


I’m against organized religion of any denomination.