No—I think this comment just makes my earlier point about “schizophrenia” in The uniquely awful example of theism: We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Also, this post says “theism” but really means “Christianity and Islam”.
Consider Scientology. I think we can agree it’s a religion. But it doesn’t presuppose a spiritual realm which can cause effects in the natural world and yet not be investigated. It doesn’t disclaim evidential reasoning; it actually relies on evidential reasoning. Just not very good evidential reasoning, plus some good stagecraft.
Consider Hinduism. It doesn’t have much dogma. It isn’t about making claims about the world the way Christianity or Islam is. It’s more like a catalog of Jungian archetypes and models for thinking about the world. A Hindu “God” isn’t a cause of events in the world; it’s more like a manifestation of or symbol for patterns of events.
Consider Buddhism. It doesn’t have any “offstage” place for events that impact our world.
Consider animism. It also is very brief on dogma. It’s very evidential. The volcano erupted; therefore, the volcano god is angry.
Consider Unitarianism. Brief on dogma. It’s mainly about community.
So why do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people (can we call them MW people?) use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community.
You’ve used the word “theism” in your post, instead of “religion”. Your points are better (tho still not to the point of my “agreeing” with them) if we’re careful to use the word “theism” and not “religion”. I might even agree with you if we use the term “monotheism”, although there are versions of Judaism that resist your accusations.
But it takes a lot of discipline to read an argument made explicity about “theism”, and refrain from applying it to “religion”. Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Heck, I’m a non-religious non-atheist. I consider it somewhere between possible and probable that our world is a simulation created by a God, probably for research or entertainment.
We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Being the least bit charitable, the irrational belief that the moon is made of cheese has nothing to do with religion and I am guessing most people here would not file it under that category. Your sentence might read better the other way:
We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything “religious” as irrational.
At which point I would hazard that the community would accept it and wait for evidence to the contrary.
Consider Scientology [… et al]
I am not sure what you are asking us to consider.
Are you proposing these as examples of rational religions? I can follow the concept that a “rational religion” may or could exist, which is what I think you are trying to say, but I cannot tell if you think the religions you listed were rational.
Perhaps the list is an example of nontheistic religions? That seems to fit better with the rest of what you said:
[W]hy do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community
Providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community fits a broader subject than “religions.” Your average high-school fits those criteria and does not qualify as a religion. At this point it would also be useful to start trying to strictly define the terms. This is especially true if you think that “religion” is negatively and unfairly associated with “irrational.”
Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Personally, I drop it in the folder labeled “arguments related to religion.” Argue semantics all you want, it fits.
The religions I listed, some of which are theistic, do not claim to be immune to evidential reasoning. The post says that is the defining characteristic of religion.
Consider Hinduism. It doesn’t have much dogma. It isn’t about making claims about the world the way Christianity or Islam is. It’s more like a catalog of Jungian archetypes and models for thinking about the world. A Hindu “God” isn’t a cause of events in the world; it’s more like a manifestation of or symbol for patterns of events.
Ex Hindu here: while my parents weren’t that strong on teaching me the religion, you are straightforwardly wrong in your characterization. Probably some Hindus are like that, perhaps even a higher rate than the chiller sorts of Christianity (though I actually expect it to be the other way around: Hindus in India are more extreme on average than Hindus that have assimilated to Western culture). There were claims like “These gods literally exist”, “these things are sins”, “these prayers should be said”, “these rituals should be done to remove the evil spirits”.
This is especially clear when you consider more extreme Hindus, e.g. in India. Part of why vegetarianism is more common there is because of Hinduism, and the women in my family who weren’t born in the US are much more likely to be vegetarian (the men typically stopped after a while here). Surely such a practice is evidence that Hinduism makes plenty factual and moral claims?
I regret writing that as if I were confident of my opinion. Hinduism is the major world religion that I know the least about, and I knew less about it 17 years ago.
(I’ve read more of the Koran since posting this, and retract my statement about Islam being like Christianity. I now see Islam as a political movement masquerading as a religion, more like the Iroquois Confederacy than like Christianity.)
I didn’t say Hinduism doesn’t make moral claims, or impose duties. I don’t consider “vegetarianism is virtuous” to be a fact about the world. I don’t remember why I said Hinduism isn’t about making claims about the world. It makes philosophical claims about the nature of existence, which you might say is making the ultimate claims about the world.
Probably I meant that to be a Hindu, you don’t have a long list of very specific and theoretically falsifiable facts which you must believe, such as that Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and rose again on the 3rd day, etc. Christianity has a lot of claims that specific events happened at specific times and places, for specific purposes; and if you fail to believe any one of them in fact happened, for the reason given, some people say you aren’t a Christian. Catholicism has a LOOONG list of things you’re required to believe, called the Catechism, and many of them are impossible for most Catholics to understand. There were many centuries in which you could get burned to death for publicly denying any one of thousands of points of dogma which were officially stamped as dogma in a variety of ways (scripture, church council, certain Papal declarations, being in the Catechism, for instance). The Bible doesn’t say that the Sun moves around the Earth, and I don’t think it was even official dogma; but Galileo would have been burned if he kept on denying it.
Hinduism makes claims about the world, and has epics containing lots of events which maybe you are supposed to believe actually happened. I’ve read that some Hindus would get upset at someone who denied Rama was a real person. But I don’t think anybody has ever been burned to death for it.
Re. attitude towards the gods, what I’ve read about Hinduism said that Hindu theologians or philosophers usually see the gods as manifestations or symbols rather than as people who live one timeline, being at just one place at one time, while the masses see them as people living within time. I have the possibly bad habit of using the name of a religion to denote the rigorous theology rather than the folk practice. Probably I do this because I was raised Christian, and the theological Christians, like Catholics and Calvinists, must continually distinguish between “real” Christians who adhere to all the dozens or thousands of points of doctrine, and “phony” Christians who just go to Church on Sunday.
No—I think this comment just makes my earlier point about “schizophrenia” in The uniquely awful example of theism: We have such a negative impression of religion because we categorize anything irrational as “religion”.
Also, this post says “theism” but really means “Christianity and Islam”.
Consider Scientology. I think we can agree it’s a religion. But it doesn’t presuppose a spiritual realm which can cause effects in the natural world and yet not be investigated. It doesn’t disclaim evidential reasoning; it actually relies on evidential reasoning. Just not very good evidential reasoning, plus some good stagecraft.
Consider Hinduism. It doesn’t have much dogma. It isn’t about making claims about the world the way Christianity or Islam is. It’s more like a catalog of Jungian archetypes and models for thinking about the world. A Hindu “God” isn’t a cause of events in the world; it’s more like a manifestation of or symbol for patterns of events.
Consider Buddhism. It doesn’t have any “offstage” place for events that impact our world.
Consider animism. It also is very brief on dogma. It’s very evidential. The volcano erupted; therefore, the volcano god is angry.
Consider Unitarianism. Brief on dogma. It’s mainly about community.
So why do we call these things religions? Because “religion”, the way most non-LW people (can we call them MW people?) use it, has to do with providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community.
You’ve used the word “theism” in your post, instead of “religion”. Your points are better (tho still not to the point of my “agreeing” with them) if we’re careful to use the word “theism” and not “religion”. I might even agree with you if we use the term “monotheism”, although there are versions of Judaism that resist your accusations.
But it takes a lot of discipline to read an argument made explicity about “theism”, and refrain from applying it to “religion”. Unless you explicitly point out that you’re not talking about religion in general, I would expect the majority of LW readers to classify this mentally in the “arguments against religion” folder.
Heck, I’m a non-religious non-atheist. I consider it somewhere between possible and probable that our world is a simulation created by a God, probably for research or entertainment.
To be nitpicky...
Being the least bit charitable, the irrational belief that the moon is made of cheese has nothing to do with religion and I am guessing most people here would not file it under that category. Your sentence might read better the other way:
At which point I would hazard that the community would accept it and wait for evidence to the contrary.
I am not sure what you are asking us to consider.
Are you proposing these as examples of rational religions? I can follow the concept that a “rational religion” may or could exist, which is what I think you are trying to say, but I cannot tell if you think the religions you listed were rational.
Perhaps the list is an example of nontheistic religions? That seems to fit better with the rest of what you said:
Providing explanations, perspectives, guidelines, and community fits a broader subject than “religions.” Your average high-school fits those criteria and does not qualify as a religion. At this point it would also be useful to start trying to strictly define the terms. This is especially true if you think that “religion” is negatively and unfairly associated with “irrational.”
Personally, I drop it in the folder labeled “arguments related to religion.” Argue semantics all you want, it fits.
The religions I listed, some of which are theistic, do not claim to be immune to evidential reasoning. The post says that is the defining characteristic of religion.
Oh! Okay, I think I understand much better. For reference, I think I found the relevant sentence in the original post:
Of note, what one claims to be is not always what one is, but I catch your drift and the point stands.
I’m pretty sure you’ve got it.
Ex Hindu here: while my parents weren’t that strong on teaching me the religion, you are straightforwardly wrong in your characterization. Probably some Hindus are like that, perhaps even a higher rate than the chiller sorts of Christianity (though I actually expect it to be the other way around: Hindus in India are more extreme on average than Hindus that have assimilated to Western culture). There were claims like “These gods literally exist”, “these things are sins”, “these prayers should be said”, “these rituals should be done to remove the evil spirits”.
This is especially clear when you consider more extreme Hindus, e.g. in India. Part of why vegetarianism is more common there is because of Hinduism, and the women in my family who weren’t born in the US are much more likely to be vegetarian (the men typically stopped after a while here). Surely such a practice is evidence that Hinduism makes plenty factual and moral claims?
I regret writing that as if I were confident of my opinion. Hinduism is the major world religion that I know the least about, and I knew less about it 17 years ago.
(I’ve read more of the Koran since posting this, and retract my statement about Islam being like Christianity. I now see Islam as a political movement masquerading as a religion, more like the Iroquois Confederacy than like Christianity.)
I didn’t say Hinduism doesn’t make moral claims, or impose duties. I don’t consider “vegetarianism is virtuous” to be a fact about the world. I don’t remember why I said Hinduism isn’t about making claims about the world. It makes philosophical claims about the nature of existence, which you might say is making the ultimate claims about the world.
Probably I meant that to be a Hindu, you don’t have a long list of very specific and theoretically falsifiable facts which you must believe, such as that Jesus was born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and rose again on the 3rd day, etc. Christianity has a lot of claims that specific events happened at specific times and places, for specific purposes; and if you fail to believe any one of them in fact happened, for the reason given, some people say you aren’t a Christian. Catholicism has a LOOONG list of things you’re required to believe, called the Catechism, and many of them are impossible for most Catholics to understand. There were many centuries in which you could get burned to death for publicly denying any one of thousands of points of dogma which were officially stamped as dogma in a variety of ways (scripture, church council, certain Papal declarations, being in the Catechism, for instance). The Bible doesn’t say that the Sun moves around the Earth, and I don’t think it was even official dogma; but Galileo would have been burned if he kept on denying it.
Hinduism makes claims about the world, and has epics containing lots of events which maybe you are supposed to believe actually happened. I’ve read that some Hindus would get upset at someone who denied Rama was a real person. But I don’t think anybody has ever been burned to death for it.
Re. attitude towards the gods, what I’ve read about Hinduism said that Hindu theologians or philosophers usually see the gods as manifestations or symbols rather than as people who live one timeline, being at just one place at one time, while the masses see them as people living within time. I have the possibly bad habit of using the name of a religion to denote the rigorous theology rather than the folk practice. Probably I do this because I was raised Christian, and the theological Christians, like Catholics and Calvinists, must continually distinguish between “real” Christians who adhere to all the dozens or thousands of points of doctrine, and “phony” Christians who just go to Church on Sunday.