ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

Uh, I think the idea that "religion is the sole source of moral behavior" is, in fact, a "dogma issue."

this is more of a major psychological issue that if you live your life according to a religion, you're going to value it highly. but yes, there are dogmas that clearly indicate that belief in god is the only path to moral behavior. i'm just saying that it doesn't stem from the dogma (at least not fully) as there's plenty of dogma that is not considered particularly important (and you can believe in 'religion/god' and not follow any other dogma at all, and you won't run into the same problem as an atheist)

Not to mention that for most of those denominations, they preach in dogma that people of opposing religions don't have access to salvation/morality -- but that hasn't gotten in the way of religious voters supporting religious candidates (tho there's def been a convalescing of Judeo-Christian faiths in American life that leaves out other faiths)

(convalescing, not really the word i was looking for...)

I don't think it matters so much that you actually believe but that you are willing to put up the pretense of belief, and are therefore subordinate to the mainstream. Even GWB admitted he wasn't a literalist w/r/t the bible.

something like that. also communicating the affect that surrounds religion and is so important to american public spaces/discourse. look at obama's speeches, a guy who is certainly not a particularly overt subscriber to religious dogma, but peppers his speeches with belief in god, religious sentiment, etc.

I should probably let this lie, but...

2) With regards to "proof" - this is again where Spirituality is like Justice, and not like Geology. How do you *prove* Justice? People have so many different conceptions of what Justice is, for example:
a) there is no such thing as Justice, it's the Law of the Jungle, dog eat dog
b) an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
c) there is a social contract where we agree to give up certain rights in exchange for freedoms
d) there is a strict code as handed down by an Authority like God or Hammurabi or the Highway Code
e) it is what is decided by the consensus of the majority of one's culture and established by precedent
f) we hold these truths to be self evident, that man has certain in alienable rights blah blah blah
g) it is to be decided on an individual case by case basis and must be tempered with Mercy

^^^^^ how would you go about establishing *proof* for any of these views? And even if you could, with all of these conflicting views, how *could* proof or disproof of one affect any of the others?

So apparently you think it's impossible to have any kind of discussion about the legitimacy, coherence, or efficacy, of any of the above conceptions of justice? That their merits cannot be debated and compared? Do you think that physical tangible 'proof' is the only form of intellectual justification?

beause if you don't, then don't assume that that's how i think about religion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-11360659 Kind of off topic, but I'm always interested in the more batshit elements of religion.

Last night i met some Swedish people who, when told I am from the states, asked me if I was Mormon! They really wanted to hear all about Mormonism! LOLz

I started out as atheist (baptized by aunt/uncle, my folks never went to church tho, mom still says Xtianity is "a death cult") who would rather read & believe in ancient Greek or esp Egyptian myths and legends. In my teens was very anti-Christian (growing up alt in Bible Belt), then I got into Buddhism, then Theosophy, New Agey stuff, then Hinduism, and recently with Alan Watts' "Behold the Spirit" I'm finding tremendous value in Christianity at last. Basically I have found spirituality through reading.

It's hard to articulate what I believe, but over the years my definition of God (call Him what you will) has grown into something I can truly say I believe in.

So apparently you think it's impossible to have any kind of discussion about the legitimacy, coherence, or efficacy, of any of the above conceptions of justice? That their merits cannot be debated and compared? Do you think that physical tangible 'proof' is the only form of intellectual justification?

No, dude. I'm saying that 1) even if you "debunk" or rather prove that one conception of Justice is flawed, you have *not* debunked the entire concept and 2) "proof" is a really flawed way of dealing with concepts which require individual interpretation to start with. You can debate and compare all you like, but there IS no one right conception of Justice, nor is there one of Spirituality.

Is it possible for you to stick to one strawman at a time? Or for at least more than five minutes?

I dunno, is it actually possible for you to accept that my actual experiences, no matter how "atypical" you seem to want to think they are, as *valid* as your observations and just as representative of the *actual* experience of A Religious Person as what you have observed, second hand, in others?

If I have a straw man, it's trying to figure out why *you* clearly have a lot invested in denying my experiences even exist - but that certainly seems the way that you are presenting this.

Anyway, even I'm getting bored of this thread at this point. Things like this only seem to retrench people in their already decided systems and that kinda sucks.

I have not once denied that you have experienced what you've said you have. Not once. And a read back through will show that. All that I have said is that my experience of religious life in America is counter to what you seem to believe is typical, and that I don't think that American culture and politics would be what they are if what you have experienced were typical. That's it.

You appear to have a chip on your shoulder about ten miles wide about this that's causing you to think I'm saying or insinuating that you're lying about your own experiences. Sorry, but that's your hangup at work, not anything I've actually said.

(The closest thing I can think of is my insisting that your claim that only a "small group" of religious people believe in God as an actual entity can't possibly be correct. And, absent some real numbers, I'm sticking by that. But it seems a long leap from that to me "denying that your experiences are valid.")

look at obama's speeches, a guy who is certainly not a particularly overt subscriber to religious dogma, but peppers his speeches with belief in god, religious sentiment, etc.

"Certainly" presumes evidence not offered, but I'll allow it. In any case, does it really matter? Continuing to play the game that way lets the dumber elements of society -- or even the smarter but more venal -- continue to aver that not only is religious the source of morality, it's the source of law. ("This is a Christian nation!") Combine that tendency with the American myths about self-reliance and Manifest Destiny, etc., and thus we find ourselves in the fucked-up position we are w/r/t reproductive rights, criminal law, immigration, health care, taxes . . . I think it becomes even more clear when, given the current landscape, when you scratch a Tea Partier you seem to find a Christian Dominionist or some similar retrograde religious freak underneath.

just as representative of the *actual* experience of A Religious Person as what you have observed, second hand, in others?

And, see, now this just pisses me right the fuck off when I've told you, outright, that I have first hand experience as A (Formerly) Religious Person myself and as a family member to fundamentalist Christians and Reform Jews. (Actually, one of them is Orthodox.) (And yes, family members count as "first hand experience," clearly, if your father's experience as an atheist at Bible Study is to be counted.)

You're not arguing honestly, not even close, and you mostly just seem cheesed that there exist people who are willing to say publicly that they find something you believe to be silly. Well, not to go all Kanye here, but deal with it. Certainly there are people in the world who believe things that you find to be manifestly ridiculous, and I have no doubt you're quite willing to say so, even to their faces.

In any case, does it really matter? Continuing to play the game that way lets the dumber elements of society -- or even the smarter but more venal -- continue to aver that not only is religious the source of morality, it's the source of law...

This is a silly remark, Phil. Understanding the role that religion plays in American life, and to what extent it may emerge from dogma or may be embedded in affective dialogues, etc, is not "playing the game." I don't think anyone here has argued with you that allowing religious faith to have a hegemony on political expression is probably not a great thing (or argued that it hasn't existed). So why the antagonism? No one is sitting at home thinking, "Oh hey, this Mordy guy says that all you have to do is profess some religious sentiment and you'll become more attractive to voters -- let's curtail reproductive rights some more." At the same time not paying attention to how sentiment/affect works is gonna bury anyone who is trying to make a change (and two particular examples why: 1) Progressive values in the US married to religious affect have always been more successful than progressive values that eschew religion and 2) There are probably rhetorical ways of making progressive cases for things, while even being an atheist, that might tap into a history of dialogue + religious idiom without necessarily constituting a belief in God. I'm not sure it has been uncovered yet, but it won't be until someone who is very serious and probably verbally intelligent studies how language works in politics and forms a way of tapping into that language despite being an atheist -- possibly in a similar acculturation process that occurred for Catholics, Jews, etc...)

"Certainly" presumes evidence not offered, but I'll allow it.

Uh, thanks?

If you disagree, disagree. If you agree, agree. Don't be like, "You haven't proven this case that I already agree with but that's okay I'll let it go." What exactly is the point? To show that I haven't made a compelling argument for something I posted on a message board? Generally the way these things work is that you make a remark, and if someone disagrees, then you can unpack it. When you skip the middle step you get TL;DR syndrome.

The closest thing I can think of is my insisting that your claim that only a "small group" of religious people believe in God as an actual entity can't possibly be correct

I'd like to put some pressure on this, actually. What would it mean to believe God is an actual entity? What is the opposite of that? What is an actual entity? Is the Holy Ghost an actual entity?

Phil, it seems to me like you are repeating the whole "religion is the cause of all wars / problems in the world/ problems in this country" which is as simple, reductive and just wrong as the old religious saw of "people without religion don't have morality." It's not that simple.

You seem to *want* religion to be this horrible backwards thing so that you can blame "Religion" for the problems of your country - rather than actually blaming the conditions of greed, ignorance, etc. which people have manipulated in a quest for power.

I've never denied that there *are* people who are the way you describe, just that they is not necessarily *typical* of the myriad experience of human religion, either. You aren't arguing yourself at this point, you're just stamping your feet up and down and saying that *your* experiences are "typical" and mine somehow aren't. Like I said earlier, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point, so I just have no interest in arguing with your projection any longer. Sorry.

- rather than actually blaming the conditions of greed, ignorance, etc. which people have manipulated in a quest for power.

that's a really good point. i don't think it's the content of people's beliefs which others find particularly objectionable as much as it is the background motivations

The closest thing I can think of is my insisting that your claim that only a "small group" of religious people believe in God as an actual entity can't possibly be correct

I'd like to put some pressure on this, actually. What would it mean to believe God is an actual entity? What is the opposite of that? What is an actual entity? Is the Holy Ghost an actual entity?

Maybe a personal/conscious infinite force rather than an impersonal/mechanistic force? Something with more love than a quantum void?

I think the majority of American religious believers probably believe in a personal/conscious infinite force instead of a mechanistic force. Actual entity is a weird term tho, especially if you believe in an infinite God (one that necessarily exists above time/reality/language). If it's just about being personal v. being mechanistic, I'd def agree with Phil that is the predominant strain of religious belief.

If you disagree, disagree. If you agree, agree. Don't be like, "You haven't proven this case that I already agree with but that's okay I'll let it go." What exactly is the point? To show that I haven't made a compelling argument for something I posted on a message board?

Lighten up, Francis. It's called "one (1) joke."

that's a really good point. i don't think it's the content of people's beliefs which others find particularly objectionable as much as it is the background motivations

This was certainly the take-home message that I got from Altemeyer's book.

That there is in any society, a core group of right wing authoritarians who are very literal minded, and will follow a leader blindly because that is their personality type. This is not the problem IN ITSELF - the problem is when you combine this group with a high social dominant leader type who wants power at any cost and will lie and manipulate that group for his/her own ends.

Even if you COULD just flip a switch and make those right wing authoritarians stop believing in god, you would *not* get nice, freethinking liberals. You would get a bunch of right wing authoritarian super-dogmatic ATHEISTS instead.

My other point is that although this is a core group within religion, it is *not* the only group and it is *not* necessarily "typical" of the human religious experience.

what a poorly formed joke, dude xp

Phil, it seems to me like you are repeating the whole "religion is the cause of all wars / problems in the world/ problems in this country" which is as simple, reductive and just wrong as the old religious saw of "people without religion don't have morality." It's not that simple.

I quite clearly did not say any of those things, nor did I even imply them.

You aren't arguing yourself at this point, you're just stamping your feet up and down and saying that *your* experiences are "typical" and mine somehow aren't.

I quite clearly did not say that, either. Nowhere did I say my experiences are "typical," nor would I ever say that. I never said anything close to that. If I did, then I misspoke, but I didn't, and you can't point to a single post of mine that claims my experiences are "typical." In fact, I challenge you to do so. What I have said is that I do not believe your experience is "typical." That does not imply that I believe mine are -- you're jumping over umpteen million steps there just so you can get all offended and cheesed off.

Like I said earlier, reading comprehension is clearly not your strong point,

I'll take this criticism from someone who can demonstrate that he or she is capable of not putting words in my mouth, even once. I'll note that, rather than attempt to suss out my position by asking questions ("DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN LOVE AND ART AND JUSTICE!!!!???!!!" doesn't count as a real question), you have simply resorted, again and again and again and again, to preposterous caricatures of what I've actually said, then gotten all shirty with me about it. At this point I have to believe that you're pathologically incapable of talking to people without lying about what they're saying.

Mordy: If it's just about being personal v. being mechanistic, I'd def agree with Phil that is the predominant strain of religious belief.

YES. Thank you.

what a poorly formed joke, dude xp

You've never seen a sitcom with a ridiculous courtroom scene, I guess? w/e

Actual entity is a weird term tho, especially if you believe in an infinite God (one that necessarily exists above time/reality/language).

i tend to agree with those schools of indian philosophy that say that there are no "actual entities" to be found anywhere

If it's just about being personal v. being mechanistic, I'd def agree with Phil that is the predominant strain of religious belief.

That said, I'd like to hear from Karen disagreeing with this -- it seems like a really hard thing to disagree with, so I imagine Karen thinks the argument is really about something else. It could be one of those things where you two are talking past each other.

Although, still, Mordy, certainly Christian believers, as a matter of dogma if not of actual practice, tend to believe in Jesus Christ as an actual, individual person as we think of ourselves as individual persons; and as a distinct and individual member of the Trinity. A real boy, as it were. Not something vague and indefinable, but as a person that they'd know on the street if they saw him.

Yes, but neither all of Christianity, let alone all of American religion, believes in the Trinity. On top of that -- belief in the trinity may include an actual human being, but only as piece of a larger divine body that includes incorporeal parts. The great novelty of Jesus in Catholic doctrine was that this infinity could be captured in a human body -- I don't think that should then go back and color the entire history of dogma.

Nor am I claiming it should. Again, it's getting at this "small group of believers" stuff.

Having taught philosophy of religion for several years now at a large public university in a red US state, I've found that my students rarely have any clear idea of what they believe re. religion, even if they're active-ish in churches. We spend lots of time trying to get clearer on such matters, but it's evident that this clarity isn't particularly important for what religion does for them in their lives, which is give them an identity & a vague sense that they live an orderly life.

At this point I have to believe that you're pathologically incapable of talking to people without lying about what they're saying.

s/"people"/"me
s/"they're"/"I'm"

it's evident that this clarity isn't particularly important for what religion does for them in their lives, which is give them an identity & a vague sense that they live an orderly life

^ most otm thing in this and all associated debates

^ most otm thing in this and all associated debates

YES!

i think exoteric religious traditions give one a sense of identity and tend to reify god

esoteric traditions are more about ruthlessly deconstructing one's sense of identity

i don't think either way is necessarily superior. you can be the most tradded-out religioner and still get to shake hands w/god or whatever

god just the aliens cultivating us anyhow, no?

sad that the west has no present-day shamanic tradition

you get people in charismatic pentacostal churches in throes of ecstasy, but i don't know if that's a healthy framework for engaging with the subtle body

You seem to *want* religion to be this horrible backwards thing so that you can blame "Religion" for the problems of your country - rather than actually blaming the conditions of greed, ignorance, etc. which people have manipulated in a quest for power.

I don't think this two things are as separate as that. Christianity has succeeded in the western world because of political expediency and its huge adaptability. Christian thought from the 6th century is very different from today's. This is a particular problem in America. The need for universal healthcare (not in any specific form, but rather just the 'concept') is something that would be morally correct if you read the Bible, but the current state of a lot of American Christianity believes the exact opposite. I think it's funny that many American Christians find Mormonism to be strange and even evil when it seems to be just to be the logical extension of American Christian thought. It's true that if you take religion out of the equation you won't get a bunch of free-thinking liberals, but taking away the supernatural justification/rationalization for so much odious behaviour couldn't hurt. The dangerous x factor in religion is that notion that a higher being/calling supersedes all worldly notions and conceptions of morality.

Yes, but neither all of Christianity, let alone all of American religion, believes in the Trinity.

RIP Arians. Missin u guys. <3

now, plz don't take this as me being a dick BUT...

a lot of the talk on this thread relates to people's personal experiences or feelings. but how does that have anything to do with whether a god exists or whether religion is a good thing for people as a whole? why do these experiences necessarily have to be tied up with any one particular set of beliefs? i've have some amazing, life changing experiences that you might call "mystical" or "spiritual", but i'd never try to explain them in terms of organised religion (or for that matter, psychology/neuroscience). is there a point where you think "well, this makes me feel better, i'm not gonna analyse it too much."

tradition?

some people need context to frame their experiences. i guess you don't, which is great. personally, i feel weird being in an empty sterile room sans window dressing, props, etc. like, i recognize that much of it may be bullshit, but it helps me navigate the world. to my mind most things in this life are built on flimsy ideas, anyhow. why should responses to the big questions be any different?

ok. but that "context" obviously brings a lot of baggage with it. and do religious people really think that god and jesus and the virgin birth is just a story like lord of the rings of whatever, but it's the best one to make sense of their lives? the very moderate catholics i grew up around believed that stuff as fact (weird mysterious fact, but true none the less). and i think the majority of religious people do, otherwise it wouldn't have such huge influence and power in worshipper's lives.

really just trying to understand the nature of these beliefs, don't want to come across as saying that religious people are ignorant or whatever. some of the people i respect the most are quite religious.

in my experience a majority of people believe it to be factually true. i've often found (and perhaps this is arrogant/condescending) that those that don't believe it literally don't really buy a lot of what the Bible says, but they're just incapable of letting it go on some level because they were raised with it. xpost

xposts
well, i think many people have an deeply-ingrained need for myth

and as has been pointed out upthread, if you really question ppl about what they believe, i think many of them will come up with vague nebulous answers. like, the catholics you bring up may have professed those ideas here and there, but if you were hanging out with them and getting into deep discussion late in the night i imagine that the cracks in their belief system might start showing fairly quickly

when it comes down to it, most people, as much as they would like to flatter themselves for having hard-nosed materialistic sensibilities, have only the barest grasp on their experience and insight into their sense of self. all we have to go on is present-moment experience, which is largely made up of fading memories (myth). so, expecting people to speak definitively about "the other" when they are on such shaky ground as concerns what is ostensibly most intimate to their own experience (sense of self) is something of a joke

've often found (and perhaps this is arrogant/condescending) that those that don't believe it literally don't really buy a lot of what the Bible says, but they're just incapable of letting it go on some level because they were raised with it

i don't think that's particularly condescending or whatever. ppl are not very rational creatures when it comes down to it. that's just kinda fact

A lot of x-posts obviously

That said, I'd like to hear from Karen disagreeing with this -- it seems like a really hard thing to disagree with, so I imagine Karen thinks the argument is really about something else. It could be one of those things where you two are talking past each other.

Talking past each other is certainly possible, because we certainly no longer seem to be talking to one another on any meaningful level.

On the idea of "personal vs. mechanistic" - I stated upthread already that I thought that probably the vast majority of people who identify as vaguely religious (and how we get figures like "70% of the country is religious" or whatever was quoted upthread) treat religion the same way that most people who are *not* serious obsessive music fans treat music. That they are happy to "listen to whatever is on the radio." That their religious identification is simply part of their cultural identity, like supporting a football team, and if they go to church at all, it's like going to a social club. I do not know if deep questions of theology ever cross their minds - I wouldn't presume to know - it's about *identity*, not about belief or disbelief.

I think that when you are dealing with people who have very full-on, deeply held views on religion, you are already dealing with a subset of the whole spectrum.

Within this subset, there are people who are full-on right wing authoritarians. This is my small subset of completely literal thinkers. Then there are people who are "seekers after truth" - some of these people will have the spiritual-experience-gene or whatever and become people of faith - some of these people will demand proof, find none, and become atheists.

I'm prepared to accept a dichotomy of "personal vs. mechanistic" that is about "people who have given it a lot of thought" vs. "people who don't really think about it and go with the cultural majority".

But that wasn't the question, the question was about whether churches encourage the kind of deep personal thought and questioning that leads people to become atheists or religions scholars according to their temperament - my personal experience is that a significant amount (whether they are bored, overeducated MDivs from YDS looking for someone to discuss theology with, or Quaker meeting houses or Tibetan Buddhist centres) *are* willing to engage in and encourage that kind of thought. Yes, they are there, if you are the kind of person who is open to that kind of experience in the first place. And I *was* taught, by the churches I worshipped at, and the religious schools I attended, to *ask* those questions.

Is my experience as a "seeker after truth" typical of all humans? No, the majority of humans "just listen to whatever's on their cultural radio."

Is my experience "typical" of a Person Of Faith - given that it's a small subset of people who actually *care* or are interested to ask those questions in the first place? I think that it *is* a valid example of A Religious Person.

didn't vote in this, but i have a problem with both the "atheist" and "agnostic" labels, even though my general views fall somewhere in line with one or both. i don't call myself "an atheist" because it seems weird to me to define myself on the basis of what i don't believe in. it's true that i don't believe in "god" or any particular entity or force or process that could be called such -- but there are an awful lot of things i don't believe in, and i don't go around labeling myself as an a-unicornist or whatever. for me, the question of god's existence just isn't very interesting. there are so many more fascinating things to talk and think about, in science and philosophy and aesthetics and whatever -- i mean, i think baseball is more interesting to talk about than god. so saying i'm "an atheist" suggests a level of concern with the topic that i really don't have, and invites exactly the kind of debates that i find pointless. and with "agnostic," there's this idea that you're "on the fence" or something, which i'm not. i'm not hedging any bets, i'm just going with what i know. if i run into a burning bush or a divine entity manifests himself inside an orb of light on my front lawn, i'll incorporate that into whatever i believe -- but i'm not sitting around waiting to see if that happens. i'm agnostic in the sense that i try not to make value judgments about other people's faiths, because i do think that faith can serve important roles and i recognize that my own way of seeing things is just a way that makes most sense to me and is not the only way to see them. on the other hand, when i don't like the negative consequences of other people's beliefs -- if they have harmful effects on me or on other people -- then i do think they need to be challenged. but that's really a social/political issue, not a theological one.

anyway. in general i'd rather read about astronomy or phenomenology or something.

my personal experience is that a significant amount (whether they are bored, overeducated MDivs from YDS looking for someone to discuss theology with, or Quaker meeting houses or Tibetan Buddhist centres) *are* willing to engage in and encourage that kind of thought.

I accept that this is your personal experience, but people that go to tibetan buddhist centres and quaker meeting houses are an extremely tiny minority in the US. those are the places that encourage that type of thinking, but the 40,000+ a week megachurch most definitely is not.

I think you're possibly right about the casual religious person in the UK, but I think the 'casual religious' person in the US is a lot different. The default isn't a benign "I sort of vaguely believe but I don't know what in particular I do". They might not ask questions about their personal beliefs or certainly not theology, but that's because they're hard-wired to accept it all as literal. I think this is the problem with your grouping. That 'subset' is not really a subset at all. It's a majority.
xpost to kate

OK, maybe I lived in a strange, tiny bubble when I lived in the States (and that strange tiny bubble was called New York and New England) but my experiences were really not atypical in that bubble.

Well, if more than 3 people around you knew "Common People" when it was released, then yes, that was an atypical bubble. :p

I like religion. It imbues all the boring day to day shit I have to do with cosmic importance.