Why I Cannot Abide Organized Religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

Arguably that might be a mystery source. But it is hardly sustenance in anything but a metaphorical sense. And a source, no matter what it might be, is not, and could not be the purpose all that is.

Well, yes, you are right, yet not in another sense. Here is the long version, but it has to be.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[PureX]

Oh, I absolutely agree with that. I have always thought that the ideas are great to explore; both as an atheist, and previously as a theist. I guess I just don't see the need to consume the idea in anything more than the hypothetical.

Me either. That's why I am such an advocate of faith, as opposed to belief. Faith does not require me to "consume" anything. I can remain open-minded and skeptical and wait for the results. Whereas belief keeps demanding that I "consume" the idea up front, based on someone else's "authority". NO THANKS!

They do seem to tend that way.

Yup. And I know that some people thrive in it. Which I don't really understand. it's why I am not of the militant anti-religious camp. I have no desire to take religion away from anyone else, even if I don't much like it, myself.

 

[PureX]

Arguably that might be a mystery source. But it is hardly sustenance in anything but a metaphorical sense. And a source, no matter what it might be, is not, and could not be the purpose all that is.

Existence is an ongoing event, taking place. In that sense, the source of it is also the sustenance of it. And because the ongoing event is organized (or it wouldn't be ongoing), it implies some sort of intent, or goal. We don't know what any of these are (source, sustenance, or intent) but existence exists, it continues, and it is organized, ... and WE DIDN'T DO IT. So there is an open, standing, question of other-agency, here, that cannot logically be ignored.

This isn't about answers, it's about the questions, and the possibilities, and what they can mean to us, and do for us.

 

[Link]

OK, so I'm thinking it's time to change the debate subject a little. ***MOD EDIT***

I am a theist, but I am not religious. I am not one of those religion-haters that think religion should be erased from the face of the Earth, but I both understand and can identify with their objection to it, nevertheless. Though it's not because I blame religion for man's inhumanity to man; as that would be stupid. Religion, if it does anything, tries to mitigate man's inhumanity to man, not inflame it. (Though it clearly fails at this in a collective sense.)

My main objection to religion is in the fact that it keeps trying to become "organized" into a one-size-fits-all, top-down, authoritarian, semi-cultist subculture intent on controlling people's thoughts and behaviors instead of helping people individually relate to and express their best selves through the ideology of "God". I'm going to repeat that:

My main objection to religion is in the fact that it keeps trying to become "organized" into a one-size-fits-all, top-down, authoritarian, semi-cultist subculture intent on controlling people's thoughts and behaviors instead of helping people individually relate to and express their best selves through the ideology of "God".

And it's main means of creating this sort of spiritual abomination, as I see it, is organized religions obsession with confusing and conflating faith with belief. Turning what should have been an open-minded and skeptical personal experiment in spiritual practice into a dogmatic mandate from 'on high' that one must follow stupidly and blindly because "God said so". Just writing this hacks me off! Mostly because it's so completely antithetical to the beauty and value of the actual practice of faith at work in our lives. And also of the amazing gifts of imagination and clarification that the mere possibility of a 'God' affords us. All that swept right off the page by organized religion's blind, stupid, authoritarian threats.

No thank you! I'll have none of it. And to those of you who find that sort of thing somehow useful, all I can do is shake my head in mystified confusion.

People are going to follow people no matter what. I'd rather God clarifies who to follow and who he wants us to rally around. That said, I believe only the chosen ones from God are to be followed, and that scholars have to be held accountable to teach truth and not just blindly trusted.

The view everyone is welcomed to an opinion and can express it except God and his chosen ones, doesn't seem rational to me.

 

[ppp]

Me either. That's why I am such an advocate of faith, as opposed to belief. Faith does not require me to "consume" anything. I can remain open-minded and skeptical and wait for the results. Whereas belief keeps demanding that I "consume" the idea up front, based on someone else's "authority". NO THANKS!

I don't know how you are using "faith" and "belief" there. When I say I believe a proposition, I am just saying that I have concluded that the proposition is likely true. I try to make sure that the conclusion is based on the evidence I see and non-fallacious reasoning. I try. And that conclusion is subject to revision with better evidence and/or better reasoning. But when I say faith, I am specifically talking about the acceptance of a proposition where the requirement for non-fallacious reasoning has been suspended.

How does that differ from your usages of the words?

 

[PureX]

This kinda jumped out at me, PureX. Speaking only for Catholicism although understanding there are other ancient religions out there: "trying" to be organized? Catholicism has been organized for close to 2 thousand years. How is it still trying?

I was speaking more in terms of religions as a collective. They all seem to exhibit the tendency to want to become organized and authoritative, rather than to remain a service that people can use or not use as they see fit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People are going to follow people no matter what. I'd rather God clarifies who to follow and who he wants us to rally around. That said, I believe only the chosen ones from God are to be followed, and that scholars have to be held accountable to teach truth and not just blindly trusted.

The view everyone is welcomed to an opinion and can express it except God and his chosen ones, doesn't seem rational to me.

I rather have God leave it to the individual, because you individually choose who to trust or not. It ends in you and not those who claim to speak on behalf of God.

 

[Link]

I rather have God leave it to the individual, because you individually choose who to trust or not. It ends in you and not those who claim to speak on behalf of God.

So everyone tries to express the truth and no one can agree with it and no one has proof, the one being (God) who has the power to make the truth so clear to humanity and his chosen shouldn't try to guide us?

God can provide clear proofs for religion, but most people not aware of this.

 

[ppp]

Existence is an ongoing event, taking place. In that sense, the source of it is also the sustenance of it. And because the ongoing event is organized (or it wouldn't be ongoing), it implies some sort of intent, or goal. We don't know what any of these are (source, sustenance, or intent) but existence exists, it continues, and it is organized, ... and WE DIDN'T DO IT. So there is an open, standing, question of other-agency, here, that cannot logically be ignored.

This isn't about answers, it's about the questions, and the possibilities, and what they can mean to us, and do for us.

I do not see how ongoing existence implies either intent or goal or agency.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know how you are using "faith" and "belief" there. When I say I believe a proposition, I am just saying that I have concluded that the proposition is likely true. I try to make sure that the conclusion is based on the evidence I see and non-fallacious reasoning. I try. And that conclusion is subject to revision with better evidence and/or better reasoning. But when I say faith, I am specifically talking about the acceptance of a proposition where the requirement for non-fallacious reasoning has been suspended.

How does that differ from your usages of the words?

Solve the problem of what you know of objective reality other than it been independent of your mind and I might listen to you. As long as you take that for granted and haven't done it, I will ignore any claim to evidence or claims that reasoning can decide what objective reality is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So everyone tries to express the truth and no one can agree with it and no one has proof, the one being (God) who has the power to make the truth so clear to humanity and his chosen shouldn't try to guide us?

God can provide clear proofs for religion, but most people not aware of this.

I believe differently.

 

[Link]

Solve the problem of what you know of objective reality other than it been independent of your mind and I might listen to you. As long as you take that for granted and haven't done it, I will ignore any claim to evidence or claims that reasoning can decide what objective reality is.

I am trying. I can't make you believe, it's up to you at the end. I can just present what I know and proofs that are clear to me.

 

[ppp]

Solve the problem of what you know of objective reality other than it been independent of your mind and I might listen to you.

I don't know that objective reality is independent from my mind. It seems as though it is, and I have no choice other than to deal with what is presented to me. As such, it does not matter what objective reality is until we can peek at that hypothetical underbelly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not see how ongoing existence implies either intent or goal or agency.

Well, it implies values, because you have values and you are a part of existence. That is the problem of how objective reality gives rise to subjective values, so that is the indirect intent or goal or agency.

 

[ppp]

Well, it implies values, because you have values and you are a part of existence.

Seriously? A fallacy of composition.

 

[lukethethird]

Because the possibility of that kind of all-encompassing ideal provides us with maximum breadth of idealism, within ourselves. We can imagine and contemplate what perfection would mean, to us. (I use the term "God" to refer to the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Not to any religious depiction or label.)

God is an underachiever, terrible role model.

 

[PureX]

I don't know how you are using "faith" and "belief" there. When I say I believe a proposition, I am just saying that I have concluded that the proposition is likely true. I try to make sure that the conclusion is based on the evidence I see and non-fallacious reasoning. I try. And that conclusion is subject to revision with better evidence and/or better reasoning. But when I say faith, I am specifically talking about the acceptance of a proposition where the requirement for non-fallacious reasoning has been suspended.

How does that differ from your usages of the words?

The difference is in the application. Your 'beliefs' are apt in regards to determining the efficacy of crossing a river, let's say. You gather the information you need to establish a reasonable probability that you can cross without drowning (or whatever), so you believe you can cross. But when it comes to the great mystery of (our) existence, what information is there to gather? How do we establish ANY probability? ... It is an instance where our 'belief' is basically just going to be an unfounded presumption. (Yet this is what many religious orgnizations promote.)

When we find ourselves in these kinds of situations, where the pertinent information is not available, and not going to become available, that's when we can choose faith. Faith isn't about information and probabilities, because they are insufficient or non-existent. Instead, faith is about imagination, and desire, and choosing to act on behalf of what we HOPE TO BE TRUE as opposed to what we "believe' to be true based on ... whatever. And the interesting thing about faith is that it has a tendency to create the results that we'd hoped for BECAUSE WE ACTED on behalf of that hope.

Faith only demands our hope and courage, whereas belief demands presumptions in advance of taking action based on evidence that we just don't always have, or have enough of. And that we NEVER have to the degree of logical certainty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know that objective reality is independent from my mind. It seems as though it is, and I have no choice other than to deal with what is presented to me. As such, it does not matter what objective reality is until we can peek at that hypothetical underbelly.

So you are in effect a **mod edit** empirical realist. Okay. But from your experience of me doesn't follow that I exist as me. Only that you have an experience of me, unless your experience of me is me as me. So you haven't ground your use of "we". You take for granted the rest of the world in itself is as you experience it. How do you know that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is an underachiever, terrible role model.

To you. Don't forget that. Stop being The Truth of all humans.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You talk about "God" referring to "the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is." Yet, not only do you know absolutely nothing about any of that, you don't even know that there is a source or a purpose for all that is -- or even that it needs sustaining.

Yes, that's why it's such a profound mystery. And the interesting thing about our not knowing is that it's the one thing that is self-evident to us. If we can formulate the question, but not the answer, then we can be sure that there is something we don't know. We don't know WHAT we don't know. But we can know THAT we don't know it. Because we were able to ask.

You think that makes sense, but I'm afraid that you are leaving out the fact that there could well be (and it is even very likely that, given the evidence we have so far) the answer is known, and that the answer is: "there is no great mystery source, sustenance or purpose -- this 'just happened' this way, in this universe."

The biggest problem with assuming a source or purpose is that then you are left with the meta-question, "wherefore that particular source or purpose?" And that leaves you just where you were before -- nowhere.