Does this explain religion?

[URAVIP2ME]

But isn't that the point? Religion is story, engaging, involving, but analysis is the part where we examine the elements, give them precise descriptions, and regardless of the story seek to find what's true in reality?
The synthesizing (religious) as against the analyzing (scientific, objective) personality?

To me Scripture truth is in harmony with known science.
The religious is a reconciliation or fusion of differing systems or stories of beliefs.
This has resulted in new teachings or belief systems that can Not be reconciled to biblical Christianity.
Many even blend or mix the 'secular with the sacred' (Scripture) as if that is biblical.
This result often takes place when such foreign beliefs are introduced into the native or 1st-century Christianity.
Thus, the 'new' or blended beliefs then takes on a shape or life of its own although Not gospel.
Once the non-biblical parts are expose, the mirage (cherished myths) is kept alive because of being so deeply embedded in people's minds that it is now so hard to erase having the ' new ' flourishing as if it is the ' old '.

 

[blü 2]

PruePhillip@
[Your post keeps insisting on justifying to the right margin, which is weird;[[​

 

[blü 2]

Its insufficient.

Granted; but not irrelevant, I'd say.

People look for new modes of communication, and we have discovered many: writing, astrology, pictures, music, folktales. We constantly improve on these and diversify. Now we have Mathematics, Philosophies, traditions, rites of passage...and so on. All are attempting to bridge divides, to communicate and to mediate suffering.

I'd say suffering was part of the evolutionary imperative of surviving and breeding.

And it seems to me that religion is not least about cementing tribes together into cooperative groups, sharing a story and usually a related lifemap in common; language fits in there too ─ you'll recall the 'shibboleth' account in the Tanakh.

By contrast, reasoned enquiry, which includes scientific method, is analytical and as far as possible objective. Those traits are rare, indeed often studiously avoided, in religion and theology. The appeal of a story over an explanation is what the OP quote is referring to.

 

[blü 2]

Interesting, according to our enlightened skeptics, this whole story of Moses, the Levites, King David and the ark of the covenant were all made up a thousand years later. But here they are, under the trowel of the archaeologists and geneticists.

First, you misstate the case you're arguing against. The idea that there was no historical Moses goes back to the 18th century (based on a scrutiny of the text). The archaeological evidence contains (a) nothing about a relevant Hebrew presence as slaves in Egypt and (b) since the last century, considerably more about the Egyptian occupation of the Levant coastline up to Canaan, which meant the Canaanite tribes were ruled by Egyptians. On top of that, Yahweh first appears as the god of a tribe south of modern Israel in 1500 BCE; it's a feat of imagination to get the proto-Jewish nation into and out of Egypt in the historical time available.

David is notable for the very little archaeological evidence about him. Whatever he was, he doesn't appear to have impressed his time and his neighbors in anything like the bible portrait of him. But there may be more to learn.

The important thing about history and archaeology here is that they speak for themselves; and that their interpreters don't try to force them into molds in conformity with their own beliefs.

Objectivity versus story again.

 

[blü 2]

Many things can explain religion, though I have discovered via objective studies that the most reasonable explanation for religion is comprehended in accordance with the imagination manifesting a deep desire for comfort.

As distinct from analysis.

Hard to argue with that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd say suffering was part of the evolutionary imperative of surviving and breeding.

And it seems to me that religion is not least about cementing tribes together into cooperative groups, sharing a story and usually a related lifemap in common; language fits in there too ─ you'll recall the 'shibboleth' account in the Tanakh.

By contrast, reasoned enquiry, which includes scientific method, is analytical and as far as possible objective. Those traits are rare, indeed often studiously avoided, in religion and theology. The appeal of a story over an explanation is what the OP quote is referring to.

Shibboleth does seem cool although its actually meant as an example of something to be avoided. Lots of programmers like to use the term though, and its got that spy feeling to it. "My code has a shibboleth! Its cool and high tech! Very secure!"

Suffering is good in moderation, not in extremes. The mind must be larger than the pain, or it gets too distracting. Some people live with a lot of pain, and there are some good survival traits from that. They're good at solving puzzles and have strong awareness, but on the other hand they are constantly in pain. It also depresses them. I prefer no unnecessary pain.

 

[blü 2]

Historically, religions were often very practical in that they create bonds of fictive kinship between people and serve as a vehicle for the intergenerational transfer of culture, experiential knowledge, folk wisdom and heuristics.

No single aspect of human society or cognition explains religion though.

I'm not sure about that. It's significant that we find religions ─ explanations of reality in terms of supernatural beings ─ wherever we find humans. It suggests to me that the explanation of religion is evolutionary, and relates to tribal bonding and the possessing of stories in common and related lifemaps.

 

[blü 2]

Not religion, but supernaturalism, certainly owes much to that very fact.

Non-supernatural religions aren't the norm, and are relatively modern. (Atheistic Buddhism comes to mind.) And they tend not to have the problems that supernatural religions have of placing their stories in reality.

The supernatural religions can only exist in the absence of objective analysis. For instance, there's no definition of 'God' appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real being who was a candidate, we could determine whether it was God or not. So right at the threshold it appears that supernatural beings / gods must be imaginary ─ a conclusion well supported by other evidence.

Which is why the contrast of the storyteller, the synthesist, with the conductor of reasoned enquiry, the analyst, strikes me as relevant here.

 

[blü 2]

Nope. In the universe I experience, the mysteries are there and the explanations are still insufficient.

But you and I have discussed in the past the problem that your mysteries lack authenticated demonstration of their objective existence as far as most of us are concerned.

 

[blü 2]

One should not take mysteries too seriously.

If only we could get that message across to the Trinitarians ...

And that's just for a start.

 

[blü 2]

Mystery inspires a myriad of possibilities, while explanations eliminate them. Religions offer us both.

The story-reading part of me agrees.

So perhaps the question raised by the OP is, if mystery is comforting or at least engaging, do the facts matter? As you know, the distinction between objectively real and purely imaginary is central to my view.

 

[blü 2]

The mystery of God does give an air of pleasurable profundity! I will agree to that! But explanations are not banal. Science is the explanation of the universe. Does that make what it explains banal? Not at all! It still continues to inspire awe, even enhancing it!

indeed!

But where does the supernatural exist, since by definition it doesn't exist in nature, in the universe? The only possibility is, in the imagination of the individual, no?

 

[blü 2]

I think religions developed due to an evolutionary advantage common to all human beings. ( See: Wikipedia article: Agent Detection ) The reason for the banal explanations is that we are all human and we have a lot in common biologically and historically.

But, for me, that doesn't rule out a higher power.

Interesting. What could a 'higher power' actually be? In what manner could it exist, perceive, think?

 

[blü 2]

Another petty religion-bashing post.

Is it your view that religion shouldn't be examined critically?

That's what the OP is about, after all.

 

[blü 2]

mysteries are for cults, not for religions.

Not really. Theology recognizes 'mysteries'. The Trinity is said (by theologists) to be a 'mystery in the strict sense'. And they go on to say that a 'mystery in the strict sense' cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, and cannot be cogently demonstrated by reason once it has been revealed.'

A moment's thought will show that 'a nonsense' is a proper synonym for 'a mystery in the strict sense', but perhaps that's irrelevant given the numbers of professed Trinitarians. Though, in their defense, very few of them have ever been invited by their churches to understand and analyze the doctrine ─ critical and objective analysis is not, in my experience, what churches sell.

 

[George-ananda]

But you and I have discussed in the past the problem that your mysteries lack authenticated demonstration of their objective existence as far as most of us are concerned.

Some things can be real but not reproducible on demand. So we use human reasoning skills to judge what we find most likely.

 

[blü 2]

Again a nice idea. However, I would not agree to the last sentence. Synthesizing also is objective. We do it for some purpose.

Hmm. I'd say synthesizing was putting things / ideas together, and analyzing was taking things / ideas apart. The etymology suits that view too.

 

[blü 2]

To me Scripture truth is in harmony with known science.

That's a big call. What, for you, is 'Scripture' in this context?

This has resulted in new teachings or belief systems that can Not be reconciled to biblical Christianity.

Is that bad, in your view, or is that progress in human thought?

Why would first century Judean thought be automatically better than what's available to us now?

 

[blü 2]

Some things can be real but not reproducible on demand. So we use human reasoning skills to judge what we find most likely.

And it'd be bad for the world, and the RF debate forums in particular, if we all saw things the same way.

 

[blü 2]

Suffering is good in moderation, not in extremes. The mind must be larger than the pain, or it gets too distracting. Some people live with a lot of pain, and there are some good survival traits from that. They're good at solving puzzles and have strong awareness, but on the other hand they are constantly in pain. It also depresses them. I prefer no unnecessary pain.

Luck has spared me from constant physical pain. So grieving has been the one that hurts; but even there part of my brain knows it's a natural process, a necessary dissolving of bonds that are felt as deeply as anything we are.