December 6, 2012
-
Religion
How’s that for nice non-controversial subject?
This is one of those times of the year when almost all religions have some special rites or observances, so a look at the religious influence you feel is probably appropriate.
How important is your religion in your life?
Almost all religions preach some form of non-violence. What is, in your opinion, the major impact of religion in the modern world?
Comment below, or comment at your site and link below.
Reminder: Flaming will not be tolerated; reasonable (and reasoned) disagreement is OK.
Comments (16)
Christian religion – faith – is all I know first-hand; but to speak for the impact it has, again I am not qualified. From what I see of late, Christianity is the scapegoat for all the ills of the world. Little credit is given for the many works of Christians throughout history, hospitals, schools, orphanages, ministries to the poor. All of these are the fruit of believers who felt they were extending the hand of God to those in need. They did so because of the revolutionary impact of God in their own lives.
I personally don’t do the whole religion thing. I think organized religion has proven to be very divisive. Everyone is so proud of their labels and some how think they are the right version of this label. I don’t choose labels, or a certain system of beliefs. I do not trust systems of any sort. I don’t celebrate holidays because I don’t feel as though there is cause for celebration. Not with so much happening in the world. So many issues that need attention.
In the modern world, religion despite teaching nonviolence, is still the source of violence in the middle east. One group battling another, over who’s god is the right one, and all of that. The role of religion should be to inspire people to do goodwill towards others. Give to the least of your brothers, help the sick and needy. Put community before your beliefs.
Well, approaching this philosophically, religions are all exclusive(1), so the claims of at least (all religions -1) have to be wrong in some respect and possibly all known religions. Religions taken as a whole have contributed a lot of confusion. Of course, one must avoid the distributive fallacy, so one must leave open the important possibility that one religion is true. If one discovers a/the religion that is true, that discovery outweighs all the confusion produced by the rest of religion.
Ethically, many people do good works that they ascribe to their religion, but I see no reason to tie the good works to religion despite their claims. The same generally goes for the evil works that people do. Unless a religion advocates doing works that a reasonable person would see as evil, I see no reason to tie evil works to religion. For example, some crusaders did evil works, but those evil works aren’t required of Christianity; this is uncontroversial to reasonable people. Otoh, jihadis do evil works which are required by their religion; of course, this may be controversial within Islam and one will likely get into demarcation issues.
Metaphysically, religion must address eternal questions, such as: 1. What happens to us after we die? 2. What is God like? 3. Is there a God? Since all men must die, it seems that it would be a good thing to have answers to some of these questions.
Perhaps the good impact of religion on the modern world is diminished by lesser minds spouting nonsense about religion.
(1) Even so-called “inclusive” religions such as Hinduism must exclude all exclusive religions. Hence, “inclusive” religions are therefore also necessarily exclusive in some sense. They must deny the exclusive claims of other religions, such as the Christian claim that faith in Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation.
Pink elephants and a walking talking snake………..
@soccerdadforlife - Your comment
:”For example, some crusaders did evil works, but those evil works aren’t required of Christianity; this is uncontroversial to reasonable people. Otoh, jihadis do evil works which are required by their religion”
is historically inaccurate.
At the time, the crusaders were exhorted by their religious leaders – including the Pope, then the supreme Christian authority – to do what we would now think of as “evil works”. The modern jihadis are, by definition, responding to exhortations of their religious leaders who are, as was the Pope, convinced that they are acting as Allah wishes.
The teaching of both Jesus and Mohammed decries most violence – though, to be sure, Jesus was the more outspoken on the subject.
Culturally speaking, Religion, as a cultural institution, has traditionally had the responsibility of setting the moral tone and rules of the culture as well as explaining the unknown. The problem of modern Christianity is that five hundred years ago its leaders guessed wrong on the second responsibility and lost credence to Science and thus lost much of their authority. Societies that do not place so much importance on Science tend to allow their religious leaders much more authority. This has been a major problem in the relationship between the “Western”developed world and the traditional underdeveloped regions. This is one reason African Christian Bishops have so much power in their countries and tend to be so conservative.
@tychecat -
Sorry, you really don’t understand either Christianity or Islam. The authority of the Pope is controversial. The authority of the Bible, within Christianity, is not. Show me where in the Bible it says anything about taking up a crusade to conquer the Holy Land. There were plenty of Christians who ignored the Pope’s exhortations and didn’t participate in the Crusades. Even at the time, the Pope’s exhortations were controversial. You are very much mistaken about history.
Mohammed’s words are found in the Koran. The belligerency of his statements depended on the strength of his forces. The Koran has him preaching peace when his forces were weak, but war when his forces were strong. This is uncontroversial.
Umm, with regard to “Science,” you are obviously a strong Positivist. Philosophy has shown that strong Positivism can’t be maintained. Also, what is science? Within philosophy its meaning is controversial and undemarcated. Your statements involving “science” have no meaning, philosophically speaking.
Trying to be helpful. Maybe you should limit your claims more narrowly–say to statements about evolution or some such thing.
As regards the relationship between experimentation, the study of Nature, and the Christian religion: Religion was a major impetus to experimental science. The devout Christian Robert Boyle and his Christian allies in the Royal Society debated fiercely in favor of experimental science against the rationalist skeptic Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes passionately doubted the efficacy of experimentation. For Boyle, the study of Nature was a divine calling which he chose instead of pursuing the ministry.
@soccerdadforlife - LOL As a person who made a life’s work of studying and teaching History – as well as being a one-time religious education director of my church, I am amused by your declaration that I am mistaken about history; but I’ll let your judgment stand as the one basic thing I have learned is that both History and Religion is their subjectivity.
The impact of the Enlightenment and rise of Science and Reason and its impact on Christianity is well documented.
The discussion is the impact of religion on the modern world – and I must say, Religion, in all its forms, has been a mixed blessing as far as world peace has been concerned. In modern times Religion has been a major factor in most bloody conflicts. Christianity is certainly not free of responsibility here – just ask anyone who lives in the Balkans.
@tychecat -
Well, you might be an expert on some part of history other than the crusades, but that doesn’t carry over necessarily to the crusades. You’re commenting in a philosophy blog and your words will probably be weighed a little more carefully than in other blogs.
“…as well as being a one-time religious education director of my church…” Ah, that explains your positivism. For some reason, liberal church leaders were perhaps the most enthusiastic to embrace positivism.
“The impact of the Enlightenment and rise of Science and Reason and its impact on Christianity is well documented.” You’re probably talking about obsolete ideas, but let’s hear your sources. Christianity had a major impact on experimentation and research, which is well documented, though perhaps not well known. Steven Shapin, Nancy Pearcey, and Rosemary Sargent have written on various aspects. I have taken some interest in history as well.
“Religion has been a major factor in most bloody conflicts.” So have technology and military tactics. Responsibility? Lol, only to the uninformed. The primary factor in the Balkans is ethnic differences. Religious differences only serve to exacerbate the ethnic differences. How did the muslims in Kosovo get there? They weren’t around during the Byzantine era. The hatred isn’t religious, but ethnic. Serbs hate Albanians. It goes back to the Turks elevating Albanians to rule the Serbs after the Turks conquered Kosovo and other parts of the Balkans. It is a mark of a shallow mind when they cannot distinguish between accidental correlation and primary causality. But you are dodging the point: How do the mandates of Christianity (i.e., the Bible) figure into the actions of the Serbs?
Your point seems to be that some Christians have done evil things. That Christians are sinners like everyone else is uncontroversial and trite. Do you have some serious point?
@soccerdadforlife - I assume that by Positivism, you are referring to Logical Positivism? While I suppose I may be considered a Positivist, I’m more inclined to see things from the viewpoint of Saint-Simon and Comte than from that of the LPs Comte’s view of philosophy as proceeding through Theological, Metaphysical, and Scientific stages seems pretty old fashioned and simplistic nowadays – but I still find it valid and much more interesting than the Epistomologic viewpoint of so many modern philosophers.
I tend to see Religion is strictly socio-cultural terms – probably due to my training as a sociologist and social historian. I am by no means a proponent or spokesman for any religion – I tend to view them all as fundimental institutions of their respective cultures. As the three great Mediterranean religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) have spread world-wide they have tended to morph into institutions mirroring their societies basic values – but that’s a whole other subject for discussion.
@tychecat -
I mean Rudolph Carnap’s version of Positivism (generally the Vienna Circle’s version). They were radical anti-metaphysicists who were discomfited to find out that if philosophy could not make any meaningful statements, then their work was meaningless, since it was philosophical in nature. Strong Pos
Positivism asserted that the metaphysical aspects of Religion were irrelevant since they could make no meaningful statements as defined by the Positivists. The aim of the Positivists was science triumphalism over all of metaphysics, including both philosophical and religious metaphysics.
Positivism has no serious following anymore among philosophers. There may be a few trying to resurrect it, but they aren’t having a significant impact. Kuhn and Feyerabend effectively buried Positivism. Positivism relied upon Science being the ultimate in meaning, but Kuhn showed that the history of science by no means followed the whiggish history of science of the Positivists and Feyerabend showed that any attempt to define a “scientific method” met with failure if one looked at what scientists actually did. Laudan followed this up with his examination of various definitions for “science.” The Positivist plan was shown to be a house of cards. So if you’re still a positivist, maybe you were left out of the loop. :/
So what is the upshot? We still see a lot of liberal religious leaders embracing Positivism and using it to attack fundamentalists, which is pretty comical, all things considered.
As far as Christianity mirroring its society’s basic values, again, history shows this to be controversial. If we look at the first century, we find Christians being non-conformists all over the world. (We should remember that Christianity was widespread very early on (following the AD 45 persecution), from Spain to India to Britain.) Even in contemporary, times, in the U.S. we find that about half the population is theologically conservative. That doesn’t fit well with your notion that conservative religion tends to remain confined to illiterate/uneducated societies. Evangelicals tend to have a high proportion of college graduates and they are fairly conservative in a theological sense.
@tychecat -
You know, it’s been 50 years since Kuhn wrote his work demolishing Positivism and it still hasn’t made it into the popular culture. I suspect the reason is that the urban myth that Positivism advocated (i.e., that science has disproved religion) is so attractive to the dominant players in the culture, including especially the teachers’ colleges and the departments of natural science at various universities. It’s also in many seminaries, but I don’t really consider liberal theologians to be viewed with respect anywhere, really.
@soccerdadforlife - Thomas Kuhn had some very good ideas but unfortunately his ideas led philosophers down the path they now so delightfully inhabit- far off the beaten track – where philosophy, once Queen of the Sciences, is now relegated to a reality where nothing is known or can be known – if you believe modern philosophers.
Don’t make too much of the early spread of Christianity. there were not that many early Christians and their beliefs ranged almost as widely as their meager colonies before Constantine got them whipped into shape – a shape that very closely identified them with the existing Roman Value set; remember, many of the early writings were discarded by the Council of Nicea and the Catholic Christian Religion that emerged was already pretty far from that of Jesus and Paul.
According to a UN study, the US is the most theocratic developed country in the world – outstripping even Ireland. I think this mostly shows how far we still have to go if we want to declare ourselves literate and educated
While soccerdad and tychecat’s discussion is interesting – well to me anyway – It is far afield from my original questions: Religious importance to you, and Religion’s current world impact.
Religion is of course, universal. It always has been the subject of questioning and controversy – just about every Religion has some form of heresy and even questioning religious beliefs in some modern countries can be a capital crime – as I well remember.
Just how important is your religious belief in shaping your life? Do you wish it was more/less important? What is your idea of the ideal world as far as religious belief is concerned?
@tychecat - Yes, philosophers are far off the beaten track of urban myths, which, unfortunately, is where the bulk of the cultural “elite” runs. Some of the “elite” may give lip service to Kuhn, but the cultural pressure where the “elites” live is intense to adhere to the urban myths that Kuhn demolished (e.g., science, not religion, makes meaningful statements).
As regards the state of early Christianity, you seem to be heading into controversial (i.e., information-sparse and speculation-dense) territory again, so I don’t see any profit in discussing its state. The uncontroversial part is that it was widespread, which was my point. No question that when the church was “Romanized” by Constantine it started adding unbiblical stuff. I think that your assertion about Christians being few is unlikely based on the growth experiences documented in Jerusalem (5000 by Acts 4), Antioch (Acts 11), Iconium (Acts 14), etc. By Constantine’s time, they were a significant group in Rome, which is why he used Christianity. We can still learn a great deal about the early church from the early church fathers, who were prolific writers and gave us a wealth of historical literature unmatched by any other group in ancient history. Even the occurrence of church councils gives us information about challenges to orthodoxy, which also give us the state of orthodoxy at the time.
I agree with you about Constantine’s impact on the church. However, it wasn’t that the church adapted to the culture, but that Constantine imposed a cultural norm on the church at the time. By making Christianity the state religion, that necessitated a bunch of new, ignorant converts including ex-pagan priests who still needed to make a living and would have become clergy, tho still ignorant about Christianity. The pagans would have brought a lot of pagan practices into the church and a lot of pagan temples would have been converted to function as Christian church buildings. However, that seems to have been a one-off event. Many Christians today still talk about confronting the culture and not being conformed to the world (i.e., the non-Christian culture). Many Christians in Africa still find themselves battling witchcraft, for example. So, your notion about Christianity adapting to the dominant culture seems quite an overreach. No question that many Christians adapt to the culture, but one would think that they are among the least committed to the faith and have the least impact on the faith.
Not too sure what you mean by “discarded by the Council of Nicea.” Sound like you might be going beyond speculation into urban legend again.
I couldn’t find that UN study. Link?
@Socrates_Cafe -
Well, if you only want answers to poll questions without engaging one another and discussing the original answer, why didn’t you say so at the start? That seems profoundly boring to me as well as being anti-philosophical.
@soccerdadforlife - Re; The UN study on religious beliefs
I couldn’t find it either with a quick search. As I remember it was part of Arcot Krishnaswami’s study
Here’s a clever satryic Beat poem (ahhh those were the days) relevant to the discussion I’ve been having with soccerdadforlife
it’s adult in content and somewhat vulgar in spots – well, most spots
Tim Minchin – Storm