What were the good old days?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

These are human matters, things that we use our own minds to solve. God isn't like people and probably doesn't care about human happiness.

Of course, in my own mind you are correct that God isn't like people -- we exist and he doesn't -- and in not existing I'm quite certain he doesn't care about people.

Well if truth is criteria for good old days then arguably the best times have been when there has been most honesty, in primitive tribal societies.

Well, they worked less, but died earlier. And certainly didn't adhere to any of our modern religions -- mostly animists, if anything at all.

This doesn't apply to religions in general, perhaps more to religions that you're familiar with.

I disagree. I know of nothing that can be called a religious that does not make some assertion of truth that it cannot demonstrate, but that must be accepted on faith, without proof or demonstration.

I think most sensible people will think those are the worst days of their religion.

Do you? The missionaries of old are still held in quite high esteem in the respective churches, and no religion that has killed for heresy has yet issued an apology for doing so -- let alone paid compensation. No, they were all certain that God wanted them burning other humans cruelly to death. That's one of the reasons I have -- from my earliest memory -- found the God that I was told about to be despicable, and something I could never accept.

I'm not selling any good old days. I'm looking for other peoples ideas. So many say things are bad now that supposedly there has been a better time if things are "bad" now instead of normal.

Welcome to human life. Things are bad -- other things are good. That has always been true, and not just for us, but for every species we know of. And that, my friend, is "normal."

 

[Jumi]

Of course, in my own mind you are correct that God isn't like people -- we exist and he doesn't -- and in not existing I'm quite certain he doesn't care about people.

I understand that this is your view, because you haven't experienced God or have any proof of God's existence. My view is of course different from you and the view of theists you're familiar with.

Well, they worked less, but died earlier. And certainly didn't adhere to any of our modern religions -- mostly animists, if anything at all.

Indeed there were downsides to it and what religion they adhered to makes no difference to me as I don't have one myself.

I disagree. I know of nothing that can be called a religious that does not make some assertion of truth that it cannot demonstrate, but that must be accepted on faith, without proof or demonstration.

Just because you aren't aware of them, doesn't mean they don't exist. You haven't heard of mystics or philosophical religions. Of course there are equally humanistic assertions that cannot be demonstrated like value of humanity and diversity.

Do you? The missionaries of old are still held in quite high esteem in the respective churches, and no religion that has killed for heresy has yet issued an apology for doing so -- let alone paid compensation.

The problem there is people don't believe or haven't heard of what was done in the name of their religion.

The state church here recently offered an apology for killing Christians deemed heretics for their pacifism and adult baptisms. They did this as a part of a protestant Christian community. It was late almost 500 years, but it does happen. I think next they will apologize for what they did to atheists and suspected communists in our civil war.

No, they were all certain that God wanted them burning other humans cruelly to death. That's one of the reasons I have -- from my earliest memory -- found the God that I was told about to be despicable, and something I could never accept.

Yes, it's incomprehensible isn't it? I could never be part of any group that believed in murder as pleasing to some deity.

They might have believed that, because their view of God was based on faith alone, none of them had experienced God if they thought it would please God they would be wrong. The reason for this starts with the early history of Christianity when the battle against those who favored knowledge of God was won by those who believed in authority of texts and men in high position.

Welcome to human life. Things are bad -- other things are good. That has always been true, and not just for us, but for every species we know of. And that, my friend, is "normal."

I agree.

 

[Augustus]

Religion has no mechanism to acquire such a thing.

What is collective human experience if not a method of acquiring knowledge?

Religion asserts pedagogically that the mechanisms that can get you there (test, discard what is shown to be false and keep what is shown to be true, build on the latter, and above all to question everything). Religion hates those simple things that are the only things that tell us what is true.

If this is true, how do religions evolve and adapt to changing historical circumstance?

I disagree. I know of nothing that can be called a religious that does not make some assertion of truth that it cannot demonstrate, but that must be accepted on faith, without proof or demonstration.

Does this not apply to all ideologies though? There are no ideologies that are objectively true (including your own).

 

[`mud]

hey Augie,
"What is collective human experience if not a method of acquiring knowledge?"

It's called gnosis.......isn't it ?

 

[David1967]

From a religious perspective, your own or your religions, was there ever a time when things were better then they are today?

I don't think so. Every generation tends to look back at the "good old days" and gripe about how those pesky young people are making a mess of things. But living in the southern USA, I want nothing to do with what some call the "good old days". Back then segregation not only applied to public things like water fountains and eating establishments, churches were segregated as well. Nope, I don't want us to ever go back to those days.

 

[Valjean]

What is collective human experience if not a method of acquiring knowledge?

Collective technological experience may increase knowledge, but I'm skeptical about accumulating religious 'knowledge'.
How does one evaluate the effectiveness of religious practice or doctrine? Can we determine the relative success of faith vs acts in getting a soul to heaven? How about infant vs adult baptism, Shiite vs Sunni, or even Islam vs Christianity? Can we question God and expect clear answers? History and the multitudes of conflicting doctrines suggest not.

If this is true, how do religions evolve and adapt to changing historical circumstance?

Why should religion, which bills itself as eternal truth, adapt to anything? Natural law doesn't adapt. E has always equaled MC^2. But, of course, this knowledge was arrived at by questioning, testing and a willingness to discard unsupported hypotheses, techniques anathema to religion.

 

[Jumi]

Why should religion, which bills itself as eternal truth, adapt to anything? Natural law doesn't adapt. E has always equaled MC^2. But, of course, this knowledge was arrived at by questioning, testing and a willingness to discard unsupported hypotheses, techniques anathema to religion.

As counter-examples we can use the Dalai Lama who said something to the effect that if something in his religion was disproven by science, they would get rid of it. Same goes for some modern religions or eastern ones.

 

[Valjean]

Quite so. I was thinking of the Abrahamic varieties -- minus Baha'i, of course.

 

[Augustus]

Collective technological experience may increase knowledge, but I'm skeptical about accumulating religious 'knowledge'.
How does one evaluate the effectiveness of religious practice or doctrine? Can we determine the relative success of faith vs acts in getting a soul to heaven? How about infant vs adult baptism, Shiite vs Sunni, or even Islam vs Christianity? Can we question God and expect clear answers? History and the multitudes of conflicting doctrines suggest not.

Human experience doesn't require an actual god to exist. And 'religious' knowledge is really just human experience. Where else does it come from?

In almost all areas of life, things which are successful for long periods of time serve a beneficial function. Why would we expect religions would be somehow excepted from this?

Ideology is essential to human society. Much as religions have often been far from ideal, it's not like the totality of non-religious ideologies have done much better (pound for pound they probably have been worse).

Why should religion, which bills itself as eternal truth, adapt to anything? Natural law doesn't adapt. E has always equaled MC^2. But, of course, this knowledge was arrived at by questioning, testing and a willingness to discard unsupported hypotheses, techniques anathema to religion.

Why should it adapt? That's beside the point. We have an overwhelming amount of evidence that it does adapt.

Why should we think in terms of a subjective normative concept of religion rather than its actual reality?