|
The problem of many religions. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
but even if they did, you'd be breeding hopeless drones who know from the outset that they're ed and can do nothing about it. I don't see any more point in raising children like that than raising them under the false belief that any religion is absolutely, literally true. |
Wow, such a pessimist :wtf:
Maybe the truth is only so hard and cold when you're waking up from fluffy fairytales you've been fed your whole life. The world doesn't have to be all dark and gloomy - and I think people would realize that more if they were thought to understand it from the begining, rather than being shielded from it. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Wow, such a pessimist :wtf:
Maybe the truth is only so hard and cold when you're waking up from fluffy fairytales you've been fed your whole life. The world doesn't have to be all dark and gloomy - and I think people would realize that more if they were thought to understand it from the begining, rather than being shielded from it. |
It's not pessimism, it's the truth. The realities of the world aren't predominantly fun, they're difficult, and the world is a harsh and unwielding place.
My only point is that you can call it "simplified answers" or you can call it a fable - it's still not the whole truth that you're comfortable giving kids at an early age, and regardless of which approach your taking, the argument could be made that you're lying to them.
Do I think that's really what's going on? Absolutely not. Do I think parents raise their kids in a fantasy land of "heaven or hell based on how well you listen to the 10 C's
"? Absolutely.
I just don't see very much of a disctinction between that blatant lie and the "little white lie" of half truths. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Meat187
The more interesting question is, why did (and maybe does) religion pop up almost everywhere like an itchy rash. Why did so many cultures develop some sort of religion? |
Short answer:
(1) Humans die.
(2) Humans know that they will die.
(3) Humans don't want to die.
And many of them (probably most) have an awfully hard time coping with it. |
|
|
| Lira |
Great thread, Rob.
Personally, the reason why I choose to be an atheist is exactly because, once I'm "out of the game", and exclude religion and supernatural entities from my reality, many barriers simply disappear.
But, let's challenge our atheism for a minute, shall we, Rob?
Let's revamp pluralism with a pragmatic twist: All religions are valid and contradictions are tolerated due to the different exposure to information received by every different (group of) individual(s). God cannot require from you any knowledge that you have not been exposed to. Therefore, if you sin in ignorance, according to someone else's religion, you're forgiven thanks to the different world you live in.
How's that for a start? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Let's revamp pluralism with a pragmatic twist: All religions are valid and contradictions are tolerated due to the different exposure to information received by every different (group of) individual(s). God cannot require from you any knowledge that you have not been exposed to. Therefore, if you sin in ignorance, according to someone else's religion, you're forgiven thanks to the different world you live in.
How's that for a start? |
This is clearly the most practical way to approach the pluralist argument, however it doesn't really get around the problem that many people are going to have in asking how to resolve the most stark of contradictions between cultural groups. Should one geographical group of people decide that god tells them killing is a mortal sin, yet another decide human sacrifice is what god demands of them, who gets to say who is right?
Since loads of religion (particularly western - but you find it all over the world) require faith based on the revealed word of god, when contradictions arise they are not easily resolved by saying "well, god just didn't manage to get the message to you in time."
I think in an ideal world where religion was true/real, your pragmatism would be awesome - unfortunately, in practice I just can't wrap my head around it working. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
It's not pessimism, it's the truth. The realities of the world aren't predominantly fun, they're difficult, and the world is a harsh and unwielding place. |
That's not a question of truth, it's a question of perception. You and I both live in the same world, I'm sure.
| quote: |
My only point is that you can call it "simplified answers" or you can call it a fable - it's still not the whole truth that you're comfortable giving kids at an early age, and regardless of which approach your taking, the argument could be made that you're lying to them. |
That's not what I meant by simplifying. I meant that you can give them as much information as they're hungry for. Surely it's not true of every child, but I do know for a fact that many of them do have the potential to grasp the world as it is, and if so, I don't think it's fair to keep them from achieving that potential under the pretext of protecting them from what some of us perceive to be a harsh truth. Let them make that determination for themselves. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
That's not what I meant by simplifying. I meant that you can give them as much information as they're hungry for. Surely it's not true of every child, but I do know for a fact that many of them do have the potential to grasp the world as it is, and if so, I don't think it's fair to keep them from achieving that potential under the pretext of protecting them from what some of us perceive to be a harsh truth. Let them make that determination for themselves. |
In so far as I misunderstood your meaning of simplifying, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say about using morality tales to educate kids on acceptable behavior. I'm in no way, shape, or form arguing that you need to protect children from the truth, what I'm saying is that how you impart the truth about the world to a child is going to be vastly different than how you would address an adult.
Further, morality, and ethical behavior in general, is always going to be a subjective pursuit - so I guess discussing truth in any sense related to the kind of discussion we're having was pretty inappropriate to begin with.
I just don't think telling children how to act versus illustrating why they should act a certain way is going to be particularly effective means of education. Children rarely, if ever, take anything you tell them at its face value, and contextualizing the kinds of information you want to impart to them in the form of morality tales seems far more likely to work than to sit them down and say "You have to act this way, because that's the way it is." |
|
|
| d-miurge |
I disagree with you when you compare worshiper to children (not the right term but I see what you meant). A lot of believers are ing bright & smart. Transcendence is beyond reasoning. To me 'faith' can be a non-religious belief. Btw you can see that in the Latin root of the word: fides, who means trust. Faith is a trust in something you can't prove.
That's why I consider atheism & religion as the same level of reflexion, atheist indirectly try to prove believers are wrong, and vice versa.
In a certain way, atheism tells fairy tales too.
Don't forget that education & culture play a major role, and from my non-American, pro-secularist point of view, I can see why you have followed such a logical thought. A lot more people in America take literally the Bible while it's more a matter of metaphor and allegories in Europe. They forget the burden to the form. To me, that's those people that Clovis see as dumb.
Add the fact that in America religion is way more a matter of national cohesion than a matter of personal belief and you have another term to the equation. Sociologists here use the term of 'civilian religion' for the US. I remember a survey where 1/2 of Americans declare that God was American. ^^ |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
This is clearly the most practical way to approach the pluralist argument, however it doesn't really get around the problem that many people are going to have in asking how to resolve the most stark of contradictions between cultural groups. Should one geographical group of people decide that god tells them killing is a mortal sin, yet another decide human sacrifice is what god demands of them, who gets to say who is right? |
None of them. There should be a prior consensus between different religions that, first of all, they're (sorry for the Wittgensteinian lingo) playing different language games. So, in that case, any debate will have an unnecessary amount of noise inherent to it. But, if we ignore these theoretical problems and focus on the discussion themselves, it should be noted that religion is human activity, so if one religion accepts sacrifices, and another one frowns upon any sort of "unnatural death", leaving no room for debate, the only possible choice I can think of is to overcome ethics and place piety in a higher priority. So, in that case...
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Since loads of religion (particularly western - but you find it all over the world) require faith based on the revealed word of god, when contradictions arise they are not easily resolved by saying "well, god just didn't manage to get the message to you in time." |
This wouldn't be a problem any more. If piety is above ethics, the fact that both groups would be doing something for God is more important than the inconsistencies between their actions. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
I disagree with you when you compare worshiper to children (not the right term but I see what you meant). A lot of believers are ing bright & smart. Transcendence is beyond reasoning. To me 'faith' can be a non-religious belief. Btw you can see that in the Latin root of the word: fides, who means trust. Faith is a trust in something you can't prove.
That's why I consider atheism & religion as the same level of reflexion, atheist indirectly try to prove believers are wrong, and vice versa.
In a certain way, atheism tells fairy tales too. |
I'm not quite sure that I said that, and in fact when I quote Clovis and said:
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Lol, I'm not sure I'm willing to take it quite that far. |
I thought my sympathies for the religious (and specifically, religious educational traditions like the Jesuits) was clear. My apologies if it wasn't.
| quote: | Originally posted by d-miurge
Don't forget that education & culture play a major role, and from my non-American, pro-secularist point of view, I can see why you have followed such a logical thought. A lot more people in America take literally the Bible while it's more a matter of metaphor and allegories in Europe. They forget the burden to the form. To me, that's those people that Clovis see as dumb.
Add the fact that in America religion is way more a matter of national cohesion than a matter of personal belief and you have another term to the equation. Sociologists here use the term of 'civilian religion' for the US. I remember a survey where 1/2 of Americans declare that God was American. ^^ |
Absolutely agree with all of this as well, but you have to remember that part of all of this nonsense is that the first "Americans" came here to escape religious persecution and seek their own faith systems. We've had a much, much shorter life span than the bulk of Western Europe, which (like it or not) means that you've all had much more time to become fed up with the institution of religion, whereas our country was founded on the notion of preserving religious institutions without their influence on government.
People are only now learning that keeping the two seperate is much easier said than done. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
In so far as I misunderstood your meaning of simplifying, I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say about using morality tales to educate kids on acceptable behavior. I'm in no way, shape, or form arguing that you need to protect children from the truth, |
Fair enough.
| quote: |
what I'm saying is that how you impart the truth about the world to a child is going to be vastly different than how you would address an adult. |
This is what I disagree with...
| quote: |
Further, morality, and ethical behavior in general, is always going to be a subjective pursuit - so I guess discussing truth in any sense related to the kind of discussion we're having was pretty inappropriate to begin with. |
Agreed on that part.
| quote: |
I just don't think telling children how to act versus illustrating why they should act a certain way is going to be particularly effective means of education. Children rarely, if ever, take anything you tell them at its face value, and contextualizing the kinds of information you want to impart to them in the form of morality tales seems far more likely to work than to sit them down and say "You have to act this way, because that's the way it is." |
I wasn't trying to imply this alternative. I don't think educating kids on ethics needs to be taken so litterally. What I'm saying is that you can contextualize that information without fairytales. You can contextualize it through role models. Give them a wealth of information, and in the long run I'm certain that they will devellop those same moral values on their own. Kids don't kill - not because one of the ten commandements told them so, but because they understand enough about the world to have formed that value automatically. Framing that developement through teaching them the ten commandements only gives them something to deal with once they grow up and begin to question these teachings.
To clarify; You'd be taking something that already is a solid foundation and placing it on top of something with a very shaky foundation. |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
I wasn't trying to imply this alternative. I don't think educating kids on ethics needs to be taken so litterally. What I'm saying is that you can contextualize that information without fairytales. You can contextualize it through role models. Give them a wealth of information, and in the long run I'm certain that they will devellop those same moral values on their own. Kids don't kill - not because one of the ten commandements told them so, but because they understand enough about the world to have formed that value automatically. Framing that developement through teaching them the ten commandements only gives them something to deal with once they grow up and begin to question these teachings. |
I'm not so sure that using morality tales, fables, or religion necessarily has to develop this way. I was raised in a Catholic family, but was never raised to take anything in the bible literally - they were stories meant to illustrate an ethical code people should live by, nothing more.
I think contextualizing through role models isn't really any different than contextualizing a story using Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd - so long as you're not telling kids that Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd actually exist, and this is something that they did in the past so that we can learn how to live now.
No good can come of bull like that. |
|
|
|
|
