This is a utilitarian argument for either believing or pretending to believe poorly-supported superstitions for social benefits. Do you value the truth that little?
This is not my position. I have made no claim that you should believe poorly supported superstitions. I specifically believe you can engage in religion without doing this, which is part of what I’m pointing at in this post.
I also added ‘pretending to believe’. I see your position as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You’re encouraging people to join the most watered-down religions that make the smallest epistemological demands on followers, so that they can enjoy the benefits of community and mental well-being.
You say:
My argument is roughly that religions uniquely provide a source of meaning, community, and life guidance not available elsewhere, and to the extent anything that doesn’t consider itself a religion provides these, it’s because it’s imitating the package of things that makes something a religion.
I’d tend to agree with you. But how is it that religions are able to uniquely provide a source of meaning, community and life guidance, if not through shared belief? You’re arguing we can reap the benefits of the effects without the cause. I’m most familiar with christianity. Where do you think the source of meaning and guidance on how to live your life come from, if not in a shared belief that jesus is the son of god, that he died for your sins, and was resurrected?
I’m less familiar with buddhism, but every religion requires some commitment of belief, and that’s the whole point.
Not all religions require much in the way of shared beliefs. Many require only that you do. It’s your duty to, say, carry out some rituals and practices, but what meaning you find in them and what you believe about them is up to you to decide. This is the way it is in Zen and among old-line Quakers.
It’d be unfair to say there’s no shared beliefs, of course. If you don’t believe in the Four Nobel Truths, it’s hard to be a Buddhist, but you can take them more as claims that you either agree with or don’t. If you don’t agree with them, Buddhism is probably not for you. If you do, then it might be.
I’ll just also say that commitment to a belief being the whole point is a very Abrahamic view and less common in other religions.
I’ll just also say that commitment to a belief being the whole point is a very Abrahamic view and less common in other religions.
It seems to me that Anglo-American atheists often have a Protestant (or even specifically Lutheran) ontology of religion; they implicitly expect that “religion” must mean something creedal, evangelical, often sola scriptura, and various other things that aren’t even universal among denominations of Christianity.
This is not my position. I have made no claim that you should believe poorly supported superstitions. I specifically believe you can engage in religion without doing this, which is part of what I’m pointing at in this post.
I also added ‘pretending to believe’. I see your position as wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You’re encouraging people to join the most watered-down religions that make the smallest epistemological demands on followers, so that they can enjoy the benefits of community and mental well-being.
You say:
I’d tend to agree with you. But how is it that religions are able to uniquely provide a source of meaning, community and life guidance, if not through shared belief? You’re arguing we can reap the benefits of the effects without the cause. I’m most familiar with christianity. Where do you think the source of meaning and guidance on how to live your life come from, if not in a shared belief that jesus is the son of god, that he died for your sins, and was resurrected?
I’m less familiar with buddhism, but every religion requires some commitment of belief, and that’s the whole point.
Not all religions require much in the way of shared beliefs. Many require only that you do. It’s your duty to, say, carry out some rituals and practices, but what meaning you find in them and what you believe about them is up to you to decide. This is the way it is in Zen and among old-line Quakers.
It’d be unfair to say there’s no shared beliefs, of course. If you don’t believe in the Four Nobel Truths, it’s hard to be a Buddhist, but you can take them more as claims that you either agree with or don’t. If you don’t agree with them, Buddhism is probably not for you. If you do, then it might be.
I’ll just also say that commitment to a belief being the whole point is a very Abrahamic view and less common in other religions.
It seems to me that Anglo-American atheists often have a Protestant (or even specifically Lutheran) ontology of religion; they implicitly expect that “religion” must mean something creedal, evangelical, often sola scriptura, and various other things that aren’t even universal among denominations of Christianity.