with reference to the original question, religion is neither true not false. Religion is something that human beings do and experience.
The notion that religion is either true or false is an aberration that is probably caused by religious behaviour being taken over by such politicians as Constantine and Charlemagne, and perpetuated by the religious Right in modern politics.
True, most Christian churches teach creeds.This is evidence that Christian churches are in part at least authoritarian control mechanisms that keep order among the faithful in their congregations by their implication that rewards and even in some cases punishments will apply.The commonest punishment is being excluded from the congregation unless you affirm the creed.The most genuine and good-living atheist would be looked at with disapproval, perhaps politely concealed disapproval, in most Christian churches,
Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free! If you are a member, please log in.
Search found 26 matches
Return to: Is religion good even if it's false?
November 19th, 2009, 7:26 am
That is a fascinating way of looking at it. But when one religion says that the burning off of bad karma is necessary, while another religion says that sins can be forgiven, it does not seem the two religions can be reconciled
Nick, when I said that religion is neither true nor false I mean that religion is something that people do. When burning off bad Karma is done, acted out, this is comparable to one person preferring or having been taught that rice is the staple food, whereas someone in the west has been taught that wheat is the staple food. Neither food is poisonnous unless someone tries to persuade others , with sanctions against unbelief, that it is poisonous. Actually, both foods are nourishing, and people may even cross cultural boundaries and get a taste for rice dishes and find it to be nourishing too.
As James Saint writes,
Ego is probably at the root of the problem of religious intolerance. Inflated and narcissistic egos make people distrust those who don't conform to ones own preferences.This is perhaps most obvious in islamist terroists whose insistence that they are right in their beliefs causes death and destruction. The narcissism, the inflated egos, may be due to the their preferred beliefs being caused by present and historical threats to cultural ego.Religion is to society as an ego is to an individual.
Religion does not have to be like that. It was not like that for Jesus as portryaed by the Gospels, nor for Muhammad of the Qur'an when the Qur'an is interpreted in the light of historical knowledge.
May 21st, 2010, 4:09 am
Religion cannpt possibly be false, whatever else it is. Religion is better phrased as 'religious experience'/ In other words, religion is something that people do, hence, it cannot be false. There is no doubt that even in comparatively secular England I can see religious behaviours.I can walk into the village and see four churches with active congregations that obviously spend hard earned money on their churches.I could walk into a nearby neighbourhood and see a flourishing mosque or Sikh temple, and I can see Muslims wearing traditional ethnic Muslim dress.
I think what 'religion' means to many people reared in a mainly Christian tradition is better called 'supernatural teachings', or 'supernatural doctrines'. In the case of supernatural beliefs I predict that they are disappearing even in America and even in West Africa, and will continue to do so. If there is some terrible catastrophe that panics people or destroys high civilisation, then supernatural beliefs and superstitions will make a comeback.
I think what 'religion' means to many people reared in a mainly Christian tradition is better called 'supernatural teachings', or 'supernatural doctrines'. In the case of supernatural beliefs I predict that they are disappearing even in America and even in West Africa, and will continue to do so. If there is some terrible catastrophe that panics people or destroys high civilisation, then supernatural beliefs and superstitions will make a comeback.
October 13th, 2010, 6:25 am
I agree with Antone that religion is integral to the structure of a society.The tradition of sacred cows ---I never previously heard that justification and it seems credible.
I don't understand.I would have thought that unwanted babies would have lesser chances of growing up to be productive citizens and would be more of a drain on social security . What I think about birth control(nobody likes abortion as method of birth control) is that in the affluent areas of America and in Europe, where there are more educated middle class people than elsewhere, contraception is practised more enthusiastically by the educated middle classes. The result is that in Europe and North America poorer sub-groups have more children than the middle classes who are not ruled by religiously based traditions that cause them to reproduce. This pattern is even more obvious in South America and Africa where evangelical Christianity and Islam are growing apace along with increasing populations. Exponentially, evangelical Christians and Muslims are going to predominate in the world of the future. This is worrying. When the ignorant and superstitious vastly outnumber the educated and reasoning education and reason will disappear.
I support religion when it is reasonable. The unfortunate thing about religion is that it becomes entrenched in old and outworn traditions. I say 'outworn' because social change is so fast now that religion tends not to keep in tune with developments. For instance, in Africa, the Roman Catholic demands that condoms not be available is killing babies through AIDS and the malnutrition that comes of poor mothers having too many babies.
In America, Planned Parenthood has aborted several millions of babies since Roe vs. Wade... And if you took all of those babies, who would now be adults, and many having babies of their own, and the problems that we're having with the collapse of social security would not be anywhere near as significant a problem.
I don't understand.I would have thought that unwanted babies would have lesser chances of growing up to be productive citizens and would be more of a drain on social security . What I think about birth control(nobody likes abortion as method of birth control) is that in the affluent areas of America and in Europe, where there are more educated middle class people than elsewhere, contraception is practised more enthusiastically by the educated middle classes. The result is that in Europe and North America poorer sub-groups have more children than the middle classes who are not ruled by religiously based traditions that cause them to reproduce. This pattern is even more obvious in South America and Africa where evangelical Christianity and Islam are growing apace along with increasing populations. Exponentially, evangelical Christians and Muslims are going to predominate in the world of the future. This is worrying. When the ignorant and superstitious vastly outnumber the educated and reasoning education and reason will disappear.
I support religion when it is reasonable. The unfortunate thing about religion is that it becomes entrenched in old and outworn traditions. I say 'outworn' because social change is so fast now that religion tends not to keep in tune with developments. For instance, in Africa, the Roman Catholic demands that condoms not be available is killing babies through AIDS and the malnutrition that comes of poor mothers having too many babies.
October 14th, 2010, 7:39 pm
This is, in part, the role that religion takes. It sets those things that work into a moral code--and creates increased incentives for people to follow them.
Yes, but I wonder which comes first, the myth or the ethics.And I wonder which should come first, the myth for our times, or the ethics.I think that perhaps this is the function of art, to create myth and meaning for our times.
Certainly the sort of evangelical religions(versions of Islam and Christianity) that we see proliferating in South America and Africa are not suitable for North America and Europe.
October 16th, 2010, 5:12 am
Antone wrote:Belinda wrote:Yes, but I wonder which comes first, the myth or the ethics.And I wonder which should come first, the myth for our times, or the ethics.I think that perhaps this is the function of art, to create myth and meaning for our times.
Certainly the sort of evangelical religions(versions of Islam and Christianity) that we see proliferating in South America and Africa are not suitable for North America and Europe.
Generally speaking, I believe that if religion is to be a positive force, the "myth" as you call it and the ethics must develop together and at their own pace.
Because religion is often so society specific, it is not surprising that a religion in one area would be unsuitable for another. The surprising thing is when a religion is suitable for a wide range of people.
Christianity became widely accepted because it was the first religion ever to cater to the "outsider", the gentile. Originally, some would argue, Christianity was a Jewish specific religion. It was Saul (A gentile who persecuted Christians until he saw a vision on the road to Damascus) who began to promote Christianity as a religion that targeted gentiles. Before that, every religion had it's own personal god. Each Greek city, for instance, had its own god, and they often went to war fighting over who's god was whatever.
This is what allowed Christianity to eventually spread so widely over the whole planet--and why (despite the slander said against it) it has done more to bring about the modern attitudes of our "civilized society" than any other force you can mention. It not only taught that you should turn the other cheek, but you should not only do this for people in your own society but also for people outside of your own society. The Good Sameritan, for instance, is a story about stopping to help someone who wasn't your own. That was an extremely radical view back then.
In today's modern world, the original versions of Christianity are an aging religion that is increasingly out of sync with the needs of its members. And so it is slowly evolving.
Meanwhile, Islam has introduced a new religious wrinkle by combining aspects of Christianity with aspects of the older religions. On the one hand, fundamental Islam teaches Muslims to accept anyone. But it does not teach tolerance for the outsider. An apostate is to be killed. Infidels are to be killed or subjugated and taxed. Lying to outsiders is encouraged, to further the Islamic Jihad... etc. It also teaches its adherents to have multiple wives and bear numerous children. Osama bin Lauden, has some 25 children and he is one of 50 some children. All of whom are born Muslim and under a death sentence if they try to leave the fold. These combined strategies have proven to be immensely effective at expanding its ranks.
Meanwhile, Christianity has lost its big family ethics. And as a result it's population is rapidly shrinking. To prevent shrinking populations and developing crisis in their countries, they are encouraging immigration, much of which is composed of Muslims. And because those Muslims reproduce faster and have a more virulent form or propogation, they will inevitably take over each country they immigrate to--assuming that nothing happens between now and then, such as changes in the communities opinions about Muslims and war.
Some of these changes can already be observed to be happening in countries like Denmark. Again, a very multi-cultural country. After the riots sparked by the Cartoon fiasco, many in Denmark are waking up to the precarious situation they are in. And an anti-Muslim tide is arising.
The take over by Muslims has also already happened in countries like Lebanon, which used to be a Christian majority country. They had very open, multi-cultural U.S. like perspective. The Muslims were a "peace-loving" integral part of the community--until they became the majority and then they took over and subjugated the rest of the people. They turned what was once called the "Paris of the Middle East" into a battle torn war zone.
I find your post difficult to reply to, Antone, for two reasons. One is that I am not at all sure to what extent Christianity has been a force for good. Christianity has as a matter of fact carried the central message of the life of Jesus as the paradigm for the good life. But without Christianity, Islamic societies may have developed into reformation and scientific enlightenment.
I am troubled by your criticism of Islam. This is partly becuase I have read the Koran only partly and I must read it soon, and thoroughly. Also, I have been told that if Muslims were to read the Koran along with the history of the development of Islam they would see that the unpleasant bits of the Koran were anchored to the temporary need for Muslims to fight against infidels. Also I have been told that most Muslims are 'moderate' which I suppose means that moderates are not theologians but are simple people who do religious observances because of devotion to their ethnic customs.
October 17th, 2010, 5:29 am
Antone wrote
It was only a suggestion that the cookie may have crumbled in ways that nobody can be sure about. The fact is that Christendom became what it was and subsequent events were as they were, but that some small or large event might have changed the history of the Islamic empires to enable enlightenment. As it is Islam is medievally mired in superstition and ,for some Muslims , in violence.
As Kapra and Antone say, there is real fear of Muslim revenge if one says anything against Islam or Muslims as Muslims. PC also asks that we tread very carefully around Muslim eggshell sensibilities.
I oppose all old time dogmatic religious behaviour and belief systems, whether they are Jewish, Muslim or Christian or whatever else.
Kapra, Antone, do you think that it is fear of violent attacks from Islamists that stop 'moderate' Muslims from taking to the streets to protest against Islamist terrorism, or against Taliban dictatorship?
After all, 'Christians' may shoot abortion doctors or behave pretty badly in certain other ways but they don't shoot me for taking leave of the Christian God and I don't expect that they ever will.
Belinda wrote:
...without Christianity, Islamic societies may have developed into reformation and scientific enlightenment.
I'm not sure what motivated such a comment, or where you draw your inspiration for the thought, but frankly, it would not be possible for me to disagree more with this statement.
It was only a suggestion that the cookie may have crumbled in ways that nobody can be sure about. The fact is that Christendom became what it was and subsequent events were as they were, but that some small or large event might have changed the history of the Islamic empires to enable enlightenment. As it is Islam is medievally mired in superstition and ,for some Muslims , in violence.
As Kapra and Antone say, there is real fear of Muslim revenge if one says anything against Islam or Muslims as Muslims. PC also asks that we tread very carefully around Muslim eggshell sensibilities.
I oppose all old time dogmatic religious behaviour and belief systems, whether they are Jewish, Muslim or Christian or whatever else.
Kapra, Antone, do you think that it is fear of violent attacks from Islamists that stop 'moderate' Muslims from taking to the streets to protest against Islamist terrorism, or against Taliban dictatorship?
After all, 'Christians' may shoot abortion doctors or behave pretty badly in certain other ways but they don't shoot me for taking leave of the Christian God and I don't expect that they ever will.
October 18th, 2010, 6:32 am
Antone wrote
I think that all eggshell sensibilities are caused by fearfulness, including those of Muslims. If it were true that Muslims are so sensitive to disrespect because of some tenet of their faith the faith itself would protect them against the apparent disrespect. The Muhammad cartoons sort of protest are too tinder-dry to be rationally securely attached to faith but are much more likely to indicate insecurity of ethnicity or economic status. The historicl facts are, I understand, that western, notably British, empire building demoted Islamic societies to servile conditions.
As for Islamic societies never having undergone Enlightenment, I mean 'Enlightenment' as historical process evolving through Renaissance and religious Reformation into scientificEnlightenment. I visited a mosque as invited visitor and spoke to the nice young Muslim man whose duty was to help visitors. I did not go into the realms of philosophy, one does not do so of course in normal day to day conversations, but it was apparent that this young man was as sure of the proof of God from the design argument as any under-educated Christian.
Antone's point about Nazi fanaticism and its parallel with Muslim fanaticism(re Eva Braun etc paragraph) I cannot agree with, because I apply the fallacy of medieval beliefs to both Nazism and fanatical Islam. I think that Nazi fanaticism was not an Enlightenment idea at all. I think that Nazism was medieval in its tribalism. I think that what is wrong with Muslim bad behaviour can also be attributed to tribal isolationism in a global world.
Angela Merkel has given up on multiculturalism as have a majority of the German people. She calls for more integration into German society of ethnic minorities. I think she is right and that this should be happening in Britain too. Has the USA a good workable system for integrating ethnic minorities? For sure the USA has the relevant experience.
I would have thought that Americanism could be a cohesive idea.'Britishness' whatever that is, does not seem to work, as there are home grown Islamist terrorists from here and as Antone seems to me to remark 'moderate' Muslims are generally simple apathetic folk like the rest of us.
Why do you think Muslims have such "eggshell sensibilities"? It's part of the DNA of their religion. They are taught that it is literally their religious duty to destroy other religions--so defecating on a bible or slandering Christianity in some way is a righteous thing to do. But their religion also teaches that mocking Mohammad is one of the gravest of all possible sins. (Which indicates to me that he was probably an emotional mess of a human being). So any disrespect for Mohammad or anything Muslim, is seen as an extreme offense.
I think that all eggshell sensibilities are caused by fearfulness, including those of Muslims. If it were true that Muslims are so sensitive to disrespect because of some tenet of their faith the faith itself would protect them against the apparent disrespect. The Muhammad cartoons sort of protest are too tinder-dry to be rationally securely attached to faith but are much more likely to indicate insecurity of ethnicity or economic status. The historicl facts are, I understand, that western, notably British, empire building demoted Islamic societies to servile conditions.
As for Islamic societies never having undergone Enlightenment, I mean 'Enlightenment' as historical process evolving through Renaissance and religious Reformation into scientificEnlightenment. I visited a mosque as invited visitor and spoke to the nice young Muslim man whose duty was to help visitors. I did not go into the realms of philosophy, one does not do so of course in normal day to day conversations, but it was apparent that this young man was as sure of the proof of God from the design argument as any under-educated Christian.
Why do you think Muslims have such "eggshell sensibilities"? It's part of the DNA of their religion. They are taught that it is literally their religious duty to destroy other religions--so defecating on a bible or slandering Christianity in some way is a righteous thing to do. But their religion also teaches that mocking Mohammad is one of the gravest of all possible sins. (Which indicates to me that he was probably an emotional mess of a human being). So any disrespect for Mohammad or anything Muslim, is seen as an extreme offense.
Antone's point about Nazi fanaticism and its parallel with Muslim fanaticism(re Eva Braun etc paragraph) I cannot agree with, because I apply the fallacy of medieval beliefs to both Nazism and fanatical Islam. I think that Nazi fanaticism was not an Enlightenment idea at all. I think that Nazism was medieval in its tribalism. I think that what is wrong with Muslim bad behaviour can also be attributed to tribal isolationism in a global world.
Angela Merkel has given up on multiculturalism as have a majority of the German people. She calls for more integration into German society of ethnic minorities. I think she is right and that this should be happening in Britain too. Has the USA a good workable system for integrating ethnic minorities? For sure the USA has the relevant experience.
I would have thought that Americanism could be a cohesive idea.'Britishness' whatever that is, does not seem to work, as there are home grown Islamist terrorists from here and as Antone seems to me to remark 'moderate' Muslims are generally simple apathetic folk like the rest of us.
March 22nd, 2011, 5:42 am
Dewey says 'what the heck is a false religion?'There is no false religion but there are relatively bad religions and relatively good religions.Relatively bad religions are geared to tribal benefit as opposed to universal benefit.
What Antone writes about Islam and Muslims if true and I thionk it is true as far as it goes is descriptive of Islam as a tribal religion. If Islam were to metamorphose, as has Christianity, into a religion that aims to benefit everyone and everything then it would be a good religion. Christianity was at one time authoritarian and tribal and still is among some Christian believers.
What caused Christianity to metamorphose into the liberal and universal religion it can be is historical events in the Western world that led to scientific enlightenment. Islam never had a scientific enlightenment that directly affected the beliefs and practice of Islam.
Now, it is necessary for Islam and the people of Islam to adapt to the post-enlightenment modern world.The connection between enlightenment science and a modernised religion is in the universalistic and democratic ethic that a modernised religion can display, and which science uses as its binding ethic.
The Islam that Antone describes is worrying and undoubtedly exists and maybe I am too optimistic, but I do think that increased democracy and freedom among the subservient Muslims will almost automatically reform Islam and haul it into the modern world of science and universal ethics.
What Antone writes about Islam and Muslims if true and I thionk it is true as far as it goes is descriptive of Islam as a tribal religion. If Islam were to metamorphose, as has Christianity, into a religion that aims to benefit everyone and everything then it would be a good religion. Christianity was at one time authoritarian and tribal and still is among some Christian believers.
What caused Christianity to metamorphose into the liberal and universal religion it can be is historical events in the Western world that led to scientific enlightenment. Islam never had a scientific enlightenment that directly affected the beliefs and practice of Islam.
Now, it is necessary for Islam and the people of Islam to adapt to the post-enlightenment modern world.The connection between enlightenment science and a modernised religion is in the universalistic and democratic ethic that a modernised religion can display, and which science uses as its binding ethic.
The Islam that Antone describes is worrying and undoubtedly exists and maybe I am too optimistic, but I do think that increased democracy and freedom among the subservient Muslims will almost automatically reform Islam and haul it into the modern world of science and universal ethics.
March 23rd, 2011, 4:48 am
Antone wrote:
*****************
By opposing 'tribal' and 'universal' I am looking to the saying of Jesus 'Who is my neighbour?',(Good Samaritan story) which is universalising. 'Who is my neighbour?' accords with the liberal Pharisee tradition of the time which was opposed to the conservative and ritualistic official Synagogue.
The conservative and ritualistic institution is often a tribal institution, by which I mean inward-looking and defensive.
Antone mentions St Paul as a universalising influence, and yes, I'd say that is the great strength of St Paul.
Most Muslim countries have authoritarian regimes which repress the freedom of ordinary people to acquire the knowledge that would tend to set them free.
If there is any sense to be made of the phrase 'true and false religions' it means that liberal religions such as Unitarianism, The Society of Friends, Scientific Pantheism, and Buddhism are truer than authoritarian Islam and Roman Catholicism.
True. But a Western-educated person, be he Muslim or infidel, who reads the Koran can understand that Muhammad wrote differently at different times according to social needs. Thus Muhammad wrote warlike words when Muslims perceived themselves to need to go to war against infidels. Koranic literalism is like Biblical literalism; all literalistic interpretations of texts are false because there is no knowledge of the intentions and sociocultural background of the originators but those intentions and backgrounds are necessary to proper interpretation.Anyone who can read the Koran can interpret the words in the way that will return the religion to it's violent and destructive roots
*****************
By opposing 'tribal' and 'universal' I am looking to the saying of Jesus 'Who is my neighbour?',(Good Samaritan story) which is universalising. 'Who is my neighbour?' accords with the liberal Pharisee tradition of the time which was opposed to the conservative and ritualistic official Synagogue.
The conservative and ritualistic institution is often a tribal institution, by which I mean inward-looking and defensive.
Antone mentions St Paul as a universalising influence, and yes, I'd say that is the great strength of St Paul.
Most Muslim countries have authoritarian regimes which repress the freedom of ordinary people to acquire the knowledge that would tend to set them free.
If there is any sense to be made of the phrase 'true and false religions' it means that liberal religions such as Unitarianism, The Society of Friends, Scientific Pantheism, and Buddhism are truer than authoritarian Islam and Roman Catholicism.
March 25th, 2011, 4:16 am
Reply to Antone: any text of any sort cannot be interpreted as truly as it possibky can be unless the interpreter, i.e. you and me and everybody else, has knowledge of the times and places in which the texts were conceived.
This principle also covers immediate interpretation of other, living, people who speak to us and interact with us. We cannot understand them properly and as they deserve to be understood unless we understand where they are coming from. For instance every diplomat knows this, that he needs a thorough knowledge of the country and its people with whom he is interacting.Another instance is that knowledge of your wife's background is necessary before you can really understand her and forgive her faults and appreciate her strengths.
If Antone can produce a theory or evidence that any text is true for any interpreter at any time and place in history it would be interesting to hear about it. But I do not believe that such a text exists.
This principle also covers immediate interpretation of other, living, people who speak to us and interact with us. We cannot understand them properly and as they deserve to be understood unless we understand where they are coming from. For instance every diplomat knows this, that he needs a thorough knowledge of the country and its people with whom he is interacting.Another instance is that knowledge of your wife's background is necessary before you can really understand her and forgive her faults and appreciate her strengths.
If Antone can produce a theory or evidence that any text is true for any interpreter at any time and place in history it would be interesting to hear about it. But I do not believe that such a text exists.
March 26th, 2011, 4:42 am
Antone wrote in reply to Belinda
True, interpreting the Bible usually differs from interpeting the Koran as you describe, the Bible is filtered: the Koran is the literal speech of God dictated to Muhammad. But we surely know better than that. We rise above such traditions and we can see that both the Bible and the Koran are often accepted as revelations from God to man, the Koran as being in its entireity literally what God dictated to Muhammad.I do not accept that there is any subject called 'God' who intervenes in history by making helpful revelations. I regard both Bible and Koran as not especially privileged but as I regard any other works of literature.
Any work of literature, any text, may be interpreted according to the tools of interpretation of the reader. These tools are for investigating the conditions under which the texts were written, and also how the texts are interpreted and perhaps used at the time of reading.Those are two different meanings.
If any book, be it Bible or Koran, is regarded as being timeless in its meaning,then that book is a religious object for the religious person. I am not a religious person but try to be open-minded.I was reared as a Protestant which has permitted me to question and analyse religious beliefs and attitudes more than if I has been indoctrinated into the one of the more authoritarian sects such as Islam or RCC.
I don't disagree with this statement--but I'm not sure what the point of it is either. Unless perhaps you are trying to imply that I am working in a vacuum of knowledge. ????
True, interpreting the Bible usually differs from interpeting the Koran as you describe, the Bible is filtered: the Koran is the literal speech of God dictated to Muhammad. But we surely know better than that. We rise above such traditions and we can see that both the Bible and the Koran are often accepted as revelations from God to man, the Koran as being in its entireity literally what God dictated to Muhammad.I do not accept that there is any subject called 'God' who intervenes in history by making helpful revelations. I regard both Bible and Koran as not especially privileged but as I regard any other works of literature.
Any work of literature, any text, may be interpreted according to the tools of interpretation of the reader. These tools are for investigating the conditions under which the texts were written, and also how the texts are interpreted and perhaps used at the time of reading.Those are two different meanings.
If any book, be it Bible or Koran, is regarded as being timeless in its meaning,then that book is a religious object for the religious person. I am not a religious person but try to be open-minded.I was reared as a Protestant which has permitted me to question and analyse religious beliefs and attitudes more than if I has been indoctrinated into the one of the more authoritarian sects such as Islam or RCC.
March 27th, 2011, 4:12 am
Antone wrote:
But novels, poems, political speeches, everyday chitchat,reportage,film and stage plays, Twitter, manuals of instruction, and popular and academic scientific publications are also influential because of what people hold them to be.Story-lines are not the only components of novels etc. There are also themes, theories, rhetoric, dialogues,and various agendas of the authors.Even instruction manuals which is largely what the Koran and , more rarely, the Bible are for some people are theory based and constructed according to certain styles.
I call for readings of both Bible and Koran to be backed up by knowledge of the circumstances of the authorship, so that bits that are irrelevant to this day and age are seen to be so.The bits of the Koran that are ethically irrelevant, except for those Muslims who are violent jihadists, are the bits that Muhammad wrote with a view to jollying-up Muslim aggression against infidels.The fault is not in the Koran but in literal readings of it as ethical instruction manual.
Novels, poems etc. are similarly prone to becoming out of date in whole or in part.
True, however I view this as difference of degrees of honorific reverence not as difference of kind. We see honorific reverence towards non-religious texts such as Shakespeare plays and the rest of the canon of great literature, art and science.
The Bible and the Koran ARE privileged works of literature... not because of what they actually ARE, but rather because of what religious people hold them to be. When I read a novel, I don't believe that the story-line is true. No one else who is intelligent is likely to do so either.
But when people read the Bible or the Koran, they DO believe these things... and that makes these books different from other works of literature.
But novels, poems, political speeches, everyday chitchat,reportage,film and stage plays, Twitter, manuals of instruction, and popular and academic scientific publications are also influential because of what people hold them to be.Story-lines are not the only components of novels etc. There are also themes, theories, rhetoric, dialogues,and various agendas of the authors.Even instruction manuals which is largely what the Koran and , more rarely, the Bible are for some people are theory based and constructed according to certain styles.
I call for readings of both Bible and Koran to be backed up by knowledge of the circumstances of the authorship, so that bits that are irrelevant to this day and age are seen to be so.The bits of the Koran that are ethically irrelevant, except for those Muslims who are violent jihadists, are the bits that Muhammad wrote with a view to jollying-up Muslim aggression against infidels.The fault is not in the Koran but in literal readings of it as ethical instruction manual.
Novels, poems etc. are similarly prone to becoming out of date in whole or in part.
Of course, I was simply saying that Muslim believe that the Koran is literally the words of God as dictated to Muhammad. That is the story line of the Koran.
In the Bible, by contrast, we occasionally 'hear the voice of God' emanating from the clouds or being written on the tablets of Moses, etc. Sometimes we are given quotes that are supposedly from Jesus, but even here, these words are placed in a larger framework that includes conversations between Jesus and other people--and storyline material that is obviously supposed to be the words of a 'human' narrator.
But (as I understand it) the Koran does not contain these other 'voices'... the whole Koran is supposed to be Muhammad taking notes on what God is saying to him personally.
True, however I view this as difference of degrees of honorific reverence not as difference of kind. We see honorific reverence towards non-religious texts such as Shakespeare plays and the rest of the canon of great literature, art and science.
March 30th, 2011, 7:41 am
Why is it an egocentric point of view?For one thing, you are looking at this from the egocentric viewpoints of an atheist and a modernist.
I recommend that you look at The hierarchy of Fowler, as posted here by PaulNZ. According to this hierarchy those Muslims who are unable to believe otherwise than they are told to think are low on the hierarchy, ,i.e. unfree.I have been like them , once, when I was a child, and I can if I choose revert to that way of thinking.
And they are not entirely unjustified in doing so--given the societies in which they are raised.
Each individual is 'justified' in believing what he or she believes even if that individual is a mass murderer, according to cultural determinism, if mass murder is an ethic of that society.But some cultures are bad and some cultures are good.One must choose which cultures, or which ethics of those cultures are good and which bad.It's not possible to live all the time as a post modernist.There are plenty of excuses for the terrorised and repressed Muslim to toe the line, but no excuses for modern people to hold to bad ethics and bad culture.
Atheists usually hold to universalistic ethics which apply to all people of whatever ethnic background.Any religious culture with the ethic that infidels must die is not universalistic, but tribal. My faith is that the world is going in the universalistic direction.
That's what I was saying. Certainly I don't expect under-educated people, Muslims or other, to educate themselves into modernity. I am hoping that modernity itself will force education for all the citizens under backword and repressive regimes.So the manual CAN'T be at fault.
But the manual serves as a guideline that shows people how to repair bikes.
An educated person is enabled to choose which manuals are out of date or downright bad.
the Global Warming Hoax.
If you believe it is a hoax you are less credible on other topics too.
- Search found 26 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to: Is religion good even if it's false?