ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

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.

I think, as an atheist, this is part of the concern though. Perhaps most religious people don't believe in 100% of their church's doctrine, but how is that a good thing? There's something even more disturbing about the idea that people are supporting these anti-science, anti-gay, anti-rational power structures just out of a sort of lazy "what's on the radio" social impulse. Sure, there are billions of individual, nuanced personal interpretations of religion but I think that has less to do with any spirit of inquiry fostered by the church and more to do with the fact that very few people actually think this shit through.

^^^ Right. These people are often -- to belabor the analogy -- hitting the "scan" button over and over looking for that particular station, and become involved as listeners as a reaction to being "surround[ed] with tolerant, liberal thinkers." They don't have to be "RWAs" to be extremely frightened of and resistant to change, and the more they are surrounded by it, the more they react and lash out against it. That's what the whole damned "Culture Wars" are.

I mean, this is basically reducing people -- actual human beings -- to, I don't know, chameleons? Lemmings? Or something? "Oh, just move them from this cage here to that one there and they'll behave entirely differently!" That seems like a million times more condescending than anything atheists have posited ITT.

lol sweden is incredibly un-heterogenuous, and, well, kinda swinging rightwards

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html

― paying AFFECTIONATE homage to his somewhat exaggerated teeth (history mayne), Sunday, 19 September 2010 18:16

point is, it's got further right to go than the us or uk in the first place. europe as a whole is moving to the right, unfortunately.

oh yeah, and those hate crimes were commited by religious people, not exactly a great way to back up your point. did you read the article?

Still, being born and raised into a culture where their biggest influence is RWA FM means that they're virtually unchangeable at this point.

No, this wasn't backed up by the evidence. These people were changeable when they were exposed to different viewpoints, and the stats backed that up - that going to big state universities and meeting people with different belief systems was enough to challenge their viewpoints. Even in middle age, encountering and getting to know *actual* gay people, for example, was one of the biggest forces for changing their minds.

And this isn't "move these lemmings from this cage to another" - it's the idea that lots and lots of people *do* respond to peer pressure, but that peer pressure can be used for good as well as evil. Exposing people to other *people* with other ideas, especially ideas about tolerance, *can* lead them to become more tolerant people themselves.

No, this wasn't backed up by the evidence. These people were changeable when they were exposed to different viewpoints, and the stats backed that up - that going to big state universities and meeting people with different belief systems was enough to challenge their viewpoints. Even in middle age, encountering and getting to know *actual* gay people, for example, was one of the biggest forces for changing their minds.

fair enough, but this has been a rarity in my experience.

Also I'm more interested in how churches are sources of power that affect the world socially and politically. The Tibetan Buddhist retreat is pretty much beside the point. It's like trying to have a discussion about the effects of WalMart and having someone constantly trying to change the subject to their local indie record store. I don't know, maybe that's valid, and any critique of corporate capitalism is made moot by the existence of cool mom and pop stores, but I kind of think not.

I mean, are Californians really lacking in gay people to know personally? It has the highest % gay population of any state. And yet they still managed to pass Prop. 8.

And there's also the cognitive dissonance that people are more than capable of. I've known more than one abortion clinic worker who has told me about women who were regular protesters, who later showed up to get an abortion for themselves or their daughters, and were right back out front screaming and protesting thereafter. Sometimes, even personal experience is not enough, let alone just knowing people.

I'm certainly not going to gainsay the evidence and statistics of a book I haven't read, but, like . . . as Americans, we live in the evidence. And either I'm just interpreting it wrong, or something is seriously awry.

Also I'm more interested in how churches are sources of power that affect the world socially and politically. The Tibetan Buddhist retreat is pretty much beside the point. It's like trying to have a discussion about the effects of WalMart and having someone constantly trying to change the subject to their local indie record store. I don't know, maybe that's valid, and any critique of corporate capitalism is made moot by the existence of cool mom and pop stores, but I kind of think not.

― wk, Sunday, 19 September 2010 19:20 (1 minute ago) Bookmark

^^^ this

I think those radio-listener people who are exposed to different lifestyles and ideas make them more tolerant, but their core beliefs mostly remain the same. As in, they meet gay people and are friends with them, and so they no longer think of all of them as hedonistic lost souls that deserve to burn in hell, but they still believe that marriage is a Christian institution and the gays should never be allowed to marry.

"are Californians really lacking in gay people to know personally"

haha yes. also, I don't think they have a good or cohesive program for winning over hearts and minds other than terrible pop-culture representations, which I must grudgingly admit, probably is a net gain, but still. but basically, if they can get the military issue resolved, everything else will probably take care of itself.

Here's a question for christians (with a lower-case 'c', if you will) who don't belong to a church and don't believe in any particular denomination. If people don't believe the Bible is literal, and don't believe in the dogma of the organized churches, why do they still consider themselves 'christian' at all?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjsW_B4eZTc

xp

Possibly because they look to the lessons of Christ as a standard toward which they aspire? btw, all that Old Testament stuff isn't really christian, nor the later Pauline epistles, as you may have figured out.

xp I'm not a Christian but I'd expect because they're tapping into a super long tradition of non-organized expressions of Christianity (some strands of which don't require biblical literalism) and which are not somehow less authentically Christian just because they're not institutionalized.

crimes in HM's article not via 'religious ppl'

My second favorite thing in the Mormon edition of the King James Bible is this little footnote for Song of Solomon saying "this is not a divinely inspired book."

I'd consider myself culturally christian the same way non-observing jews might consider themselves culturally jewish. it's not something you can really disown (well I guess you could, but really, being culturally christian means all sorts of perks like not feeling awkward when people pray before meals, running for office and having a shot at winning, etc.. so why disown it?)

My second favorite thing in the Mormon edition of the King James Bible is this little footnote for Song of Solomon saying "this is not a divinely inspired book."p

ha, that's awesome

But if you're aware enough to realize that there's a degree of bullshit going on with the church and whatnot, why is it the Christian God that is the Creator and Ultimate Divine Being? How do you reconcile all the other cultures throughout history that never had any exposure to the Christian faith or at least not one that featured as the dominant cultural faith? If you can look at the development of the Christian religion and understand its cycles and variations, can't you see that it's unlikely that it's real? At least as the One True Faith?

I'd consider myself culturally christian the same way non-observing jews might consider themselves culturally jewish. it's not something you can really disown (well I guess you could, but really, being culturally christian means all sorts of perks like not feeling awkward when people pray before meals, running for office and having a shot at winning, etc.. so why disown it?)

plus sex being dirty, don't forget sex being dirty! rowr

Possibly because they look to the lessons of Christ as a standard toward which they aspire? btw, all that Old Testament stuff isn't really christian, nor the later Pauline epistles, as you may have figured out. Of course, but what's wrong with it as a handy guide to something you aspire to rather than, ya know, fact.

But if you're aware enough to realize that there's a degree of bullshit going on with the church and whatnot, why is it the Christian God that is the Creator and Ultimate Divine Being?

because they are wrong, duh. read your bible, jackass.

My first favorite thing in the Mormon edition of the King James Bible is a "Joseph Smith translation" adding some extra gore to Matthew 27:6:

6 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he fell down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died.

Bowels gush out of this guy and they hang there . . .

That's what "divinely inspired" looks like, Solomon.

he's like Gus Van Sant. Like, it's understood that Norman Bates is sexually aroused by staring through the peephole watching the chick shower. We don't actually have to hear him jerking off to get it, ya know?

But if you're aware enough to realize that there's a degree of bullshit going on with the church and whatnot, why is it the Christian God that is the Creator and Ultimate Divine Being? How do you reconcile all the other cultures throughout history that never had any exposure to the Christian faith or at least not one that featured as the dominant cultural faith? If you can look at the development of the Christian religion and understand its cycles and variations, can't you see that it's unlikely that it's real? At least as the One True Faith?

I would agree with you except it doesn't work unless you believe in some kind of polytheistic religion of autonomous deities like the cartoon old-man-in-the-sky version of God, all competing against each other like in a political campaign. I think people that are really serious about their organized religion have a far more abstract concept of God. I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

As I recall, the One True Faith bullshit is based on a single offhand remark by Jesus to the effect that no man comes to the father but by me. In the mouth of a teacher who loved parable and metaphor, it isn't hard to interpret this in ways far different and less exclusive than the self-serving ways the church likes to interpet it.

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms. This is just not as fun or easy as slagging off on fundies.

I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

that still involves crude one-upmanship, though

just playing DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

but if it's abstract, why have any ties whatsoever to the christian faith? why not just an abstract concept that has no ties to any organized religion?

xpost

I mean "You shall have no other gods before me" doesn't mean the Christian God is number one in a lineup, but that he transcends all other subdeities and shit. Maybe.

Its pretty blatant in the Old Testament that other gods exist but that the god of the Israelites kicks all their asses.

Depends on which section of the OT you're talking about, but yeah -- monotheism developed after most of the OT was probably written

Organized religions seem to be an attempt at describing/investigating the abstract Unknowable Eternal at the root of everything. It's just what they do. If it wasn't truly beyond words and human comprehension, it would be called Science!

And yeah, in India, there are some that do call it a science.

And in America, some call is Scientology!

*it

Forming a church, in the sense of forming a community of shared ideals, is a normal human desire. Within that church it is not necessary that each person share an exact replica of the same beliefs for the church to function correctly, and when churches fall prey to this lockstep mentality they begin to fall away from the rightful purpose of a christian church, by making invidious distinctions between their neighbors and themselves, contrary to Christ's primary commandment.

It seems pretty obvious to me that several of the self-identified atheists posting here want desperately to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets, whereas approaching religion as a personal faith requires them to discover what each person's religious faith actually is and to engage with it on its own terms.

Confronting the effect of religion on the cultural and political spheres really has very little to do with individual expressions of faith, but of the organized religions as cultural institutions. Again, I don't care what people believe, I care what they do. Adam's or Karen's or del's or your personal religious faith really has nothing to do with how "religion" shapes cultural and political life in the United States. Your personal faith is how you conduct your life and is your business; the organized churches, and how they attempt to order life for everyone, is my business.

And they don't pay taxes.

I'd be interested in seeing some actual statistics on how many Churches are what you'd consider activist Churches and what percentage of religious institutions overall they constitute.

So, when we discuss religion, you consider that we are ipso facto discussing churches as institutions and their effect on society? But the effects of all the extant personal faiths has still more effect on society, in that they form a larger set of ideas, of which the other is a smaller subset. Some of those effects are decidedly quite positive. by leaving them out of the discussion, you are excluding a valid part of what you say concerns you.

"to confine religion to the publically professed doctrines of certain churches, because these doctrines are easy targets"

they're not only easy targets but they're the appropriate ones, don't you think? who here has a beef with benign churches who have kept their religion in check and had the courtesy not to impose it upon the public sphere? it's because they are so polite and basically good citizens that they have less influence on radio-christ.

Forming a church, in the sense of forming a community of shared ideals, is a normal human desire. Within that church it is not necessary that each person share an exact replica of the same beliefs for the church to function correctly, and when churches fall prey to this lockstep mentality they begin to fall away from the rightful purpose of a christian church, by making invidious distinctions between their neighbors and themselves, contrary to Christ's primary commandment.

and yet there's a good 1100 years where not only did this happen, the church fought tooth and nail to ensure it was that way.

not to mention from personal experience, where I sent a good amount of time (3+ years) at 4 different denominations, all of which believed their interpretation was the only true interpretation and ran services accordingly.

Churches, like governments, or sodalities, or sewing circles, can become corrupted. With certain twists, most of the arguments made here against "religion" could as easily be made against "politics".

I think that your ideal notion of what a christian church should be happens more as an aberration than a rule in the history of the churches.

I would like to see the heinous doings of this corrupted sewing circle.

Gukbe: corrupted governments are far far more numerous than anything even approaching an ideal government, too. (shrugs)

Abbbottt: malicious gossip and backbiting?