Truth Or Relevance?

[Vigile]

If we are to embrace the value of critical thinking and free thought, than we should do everything necessary to keep those words true to their intent, rather than become a new symbol of some new social program. smile.gif I'm 100% in favor of that.

 

I agree. I wasn't suggesting that we teach courses on debunking religion or phenomenon. Just that people be sent out into the world with tools to avoid poor lines of thinking. As it now stands, people in general (in the US and many other places) are poorly equipped. Very poorly. My experience in school was that we were taught scientific discoveries but the method under which scientists weed out results was poorly covered.

 

When I took a writing course in college, however, there was a short critical thinking section in the book and we were encouraged to view our sources with a critical eye. To examine potential motivations, bad reasoning, unsupported claims, etc... This was easily taught yet it opened up the world to me in a way I'd never seen it. I began to realize how often I'd just taken what I had heard and read at face value.

 

This is, IMO, a vital tool for people to be taught right along side the 3 Rs. Without it I think the education system is letting people down and leaving them poorly educated and vulnerable to buying all sorts of claims and accepting all kinds of emotional pleas, etc... And I'm not just referring to religion.

 

I wouldn't expect this to create a Utopian society nor would I expect that everyone would suddenly become more reasonable and logical. I do think that it would have a broad effect though that would ripple through time. The degree of that effect cannot be known until tested so I won't even attempt to predict the outcome. My hypothesis is that it would be positive. How? Again, it would need to be exposed to research.

[Neon Genesis]

This is why I say that the flag, or the cross, or the church, or Jesus, or the Bible, or God are not the causes of our ills. We are. And we are all using symbols to talk to each other through, rather than getting to the heart of the problem.

Symbols in themselves may not be the cause of our ills, but aren't some symbols more easily used to inspire evil than others? Like, why is it that we don't see Wiccan terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into airplanes? Why don't we see Wiccans trying to teach the controversy about witchcraft in public science class? Of course there are some fundamentalist neopagans out there, but you don't see the majority of Wiccans using their beliefs to spread hate. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's harder to misinterpret the Wiccan Reed's don't hurt others for the purpose of hurting others like you could with the bible.

 

 

I see getting rid of it as impossible and doomed to failure. It will result in a never-ending cycle of swinging from one extreme to another without understand exactly what it is and how it functions, and how and why it is, has to be, and will always be a part of society.

But what about nations like Denmark and Sweden which are largely secular and the issue of God's existence is a non-issue and can still survive? The UK used to be more religious like the U.S. is now yet it's a much more secular nation now and the people haven't fallen into disarray or into a sort of existential crisis of the meaning of existence.

[Antlerman]

I agree. I wasn't suggesting that we teach courses on debunking religion or phenomenon. Just that people be sent out into the world with tools to avoid poor lines of thinking. As it now stands, people in general (in the US and many other places) are poorly equipped. Very poorly. My experience in school was that we were taught scientific discoveries but the method under which scientists weed out results was poorly covered.

 

When I took a writing course in college, however, there was a short critical thinking section in the book and we were encouraged to view our sources with a critical eye. To examine potential motivations, bad reasoning, unsupported claims, etc... This was easily taught yet it opened up the world to me in a way I'd never seen it. I began to realize how often I'd just taken what I had heard and read at face value.

 

This is, IMO, a vital tool for people to be taught right along side the 3 Rs. Without it I think the education system is letting people down and leaving them poorly educated and vulnerable to buying all sorts of claims and accepting all kinds of emotional pleas, etc... And I'm not just referring to religion.

 

I wouldn't expect this to create a Utopian society nor would I expect that everyone would suddenly become more reasonable and logical. I do think that it would have a broad effect though that would ripple through time. The degree of that effect cannot be known until tested so I won't even attempt to predict the outcome. My hypothesis is that it would be positive. How? Again, it would need to be exposed to research.

I'm in total agreement with everything in here. I really have nothing to add to it. And for me, that's quite amazing.

 

This is why I say that the flag, or the cross, or the church, or Jesus, or the Bible, or God are not the causes of our ills. We are. And we are all using symbols to talk to each other through, rather than getting to the heart of the problem.

Symbols in themselves may not be the cause of our ills, but aren't some symbols more easily used to inspire evil than others? Like, why is it that we don't see Wiccan terrorists hijacking planes and flying them into airplanes? Why don't we see Wiccans trying to teach the controversy about witchcraft in public science class? Of course there are some fundamentalist neopagans out there, but you don't see the majority of Wiccans using their beliefs to spread hate. And I don't think it's a coincidence that it's harder to misinterpret the Wiccan Reed's don't hurt others for the purpose of hurting others like you could with the bible.

I would be willing to say that the majority of Christians likewise don't use their beliefs to spread hate. The vocal nut-cases do, and fundamentalists by definition are in the always in the minority. But why don't you see Wiccan terrorists, or fighting the teaching of science in school? Even though both are myth systems operating in similar ways, they do on an entirely different scale on a different level.

 

Wiccan movements are pretty novel actually, mainly within the last century (1950's on). Of course it makes claims to go way back to the most ancient religions of the planet, but this is really more the same type of origin-myth effort as the early Christians did in trying to link the novelty of their religion back into the great Jewish Epic at first, interpreting obtuse passages to support their claims, eventually going so far as to end up with a mythology that tied it back all the way to the very origins of the Universe itself! "Beat that one!", I can almost hear Johnny say as he writes it into his Gospel. Origin myths are for the purpose of giving credibility to a movement. People can and have easy poked holes into such claims of these movements being ancient traditions. But facts are besides the point for mythology.

 

So Wicca, as a novel sub-culture social experiment, is busy defining its supporting mythology just as Christianity once did. But the difference between them and Christianity today is that Christianity is no longer a sub-culture movement. It's been fully transformed into the mainstream culture. And as such the reach of its myths go far deeper into the issues confronting society as a whole. When radical change to the main society needs to happen, someone isn't going to start ranting about the will of some obscure deity that has little meaning for most people, they're going to choose one that's relevant. Wicca has a certain vision for society, which is valid and admirable, but its only nipping at the edges of society at this point.

 

The bellowing of the fundamentalists in their war to reclaim this nation for God is because they see themselves as the defenders of mainstream America, rather than as some novel social experiment. Same for Islam. This type of fundamentalism is not about finding a new and better way, they are about preserving the past. Wicca cannot be about preserving the past, because it's a novel movement. Those who are interesting in conservative social values aren't going to find that myth system very useful for that end. So it's not that there is inherent elements that make one myth more dangerous or useful than another, but probably more the degree of relevance to support their motives.

 

Say... that's the word I used for the title of this topic... (wheels start turning on some new thoughts... )

 

 

 

I see getting rid of it as impossible and doomed to failure. It will result in a never-ending cycle of swinging from one extreme to another without understand exactly what it is and how it functions, and how and why it is, has to be, and will always be a part of society.

But what about nations like Denmark and Sweden which are largely secular and the issue of God's existence is a non-issue and can still survive? The UK used to be more religious like the U.S. is now yet it's a much more secular nation now and the people haven't fallen into disarray or into a sort of existential crisis of the meaning of existence.

I've never said that mythology is strictly theistic. I've always argued the opposite. They have their mythologies, just as any secular society does. The American Dream. All men are Created Equal. Etc. All myths.

 

I'm not that knowledgeable on Denmark and Sweden, but if I'm not mistaken they do have Christian churches that functions as a social religion. Just because someone isn't as limited and narrow in understanding as American Conservative Evangelicals, doesn't mean they don't operate within myth systems of their own. The real question is, is theirs more relevant to societies needs in today's world? Probably so.

[Neon Genesis]

I'm not that knowledgeable on Denmark and Sweden, but if I'm not mistaken they do have Christian churches that functions as a social religion. Just because someone isn't as limited and narrow in understanding as American Conservative Evangelicals, doesn't mean they don't operate within myth systems of their own. The real question is, is theirs more relevant to societies needs in today's world? Probably so.

Hans would probably know the most on it since didn't he live in Sweden? But here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

 

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

 

Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: “a society — a markedly irreligious society — that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.”

[Antlerman]

I'm not that knowledgeable on Denmark and Sweden, but if I'm not mistaken they do have Christian churches that functions as a social religion. Just because someone isn't as limited and narrow in understanding as American Conservative Evangelicals, doesn't mean they don't operate within myth systems of their own. The real question is, is theirs more relevant to societies needs in today's world? Probably so.

Hans would probably know the most on it since didn't he live in Sweden? But here's an article on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28beliefs.html

Phil Zuckerman spent 14 months in Scandinavia, talking to hundreds of Danes and Swedes about religion. It wasn’t easy.

 

Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.

 

It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier.

 

Well documented though they may be, these two sets of facts run up against the assumption of many Americans that a society where religion is minimal would be, in Mr. Zuckerman’s words, “rampant with immorality, full of evil and teeming with depravity.”

 

Which is why he insists at some length that what he and his wife and children experienced was quite the opposite: “a society — a markedly irreligious society — that was, above all, moral, stable, humane and deeply good.”

I think what I am drawing off of is from something I read regarding stats of social illnesses and the Danes. A quick check found this quote in Wiki:

In spite of this, 82.1%[2] of the Danish population remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and a large majority of people attend churches for baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

Again, social function. They are not without the basic forms that makes myth systems culturally relevant. Let me see if I can find that other reference from a couple years back....

 

Here it is...

 

The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception.

That article, well, well worth anyone's read of it, is about actual studies looking into whether religion in fact relates positively to society well-being. In fact, the stats show an inverse effect - with the exception of Denmark.... ironically.

[Neon Genesis]

I think what I am drawing off of is from something I read regarding stats of social illnesses and the Danes. A quick check found this quote in Wiki:

In spite of this, 82.1%[2] of the Danish population remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and a large majority of people attend churches for baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

 

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Lutheran church sort of like the Catholic church where even if you don't go to church, you're still technically "members" until you go through this process to be officially removed?

[Antlerman]

I think what I am drawing off of is from something I read regarding stats of social illnesses and the Danes. A quick check found this quote in Wiki:

In spite of this, 82.1%[2] of the Danish population remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and a large majority of people attend churches for baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

 

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Lutheran church sort of like the Catholic church where even if you don't go to church, you're still technically "members" until you go through this process to be officially removed?

I should have included more of that quote above to reflect the view that it is more secular in its religion than devout. The poll from 1999 showed:

* 21% said "A personal God"

* 31% said "A spiritual force"

* 19% said "I don't know what to believe"

* 23% said "I don't believe there is a God"

* 6% did not respond

 

I did some other searching and found this on some Christian site which I'll quote for a couple points:

DENMARK TODAY

 

Today, the Word of Truth (Eph 1:13) has lost its voice... <blah, blah, blah... snip>

 

Although 84 percent of Danes belong to the official Evangelical Lutheran Church, very few Danes actually attend. The Lutheran Church is normally visited four times in the life of a Dane - at his or her infant baptism, confirmation, marriage, and funeral. Church attendance in Denmark is estimated to be at 2 percent with the majority of attendees being immigrants.

 

HOPE FOR DENMARK

 

Denmark has led the charge in postmodernism. Liberalism and socialism characterize this country and the rest of Scandinavia. Missionaries are few and far between in this often overlooked country. However, there is a glimmer of hope.

The Danes appear to have a growing interest in spiritual things. Unfortunately, it is being filled with New Age "spirituality."

God's Word is not heard because Denmark needs messengers of His Truth. God has opened a window of opportunity to reach this land with the Gospel.

Obviously they are evaluating the Danes using the colored phrases of Jesus-speak, but there is information in there behind all of that. They note the rise of novel religious movements. They are viewing them as serious competition ("unfortunately"). They see that Christianity is a social influence, not merely a personal experience by their bemoaning the rise of postmodernism. They see regular church attendance as the criteria of what makes someone a real Christian, as opposed to those who identify with the religion as a cultural identity.

 

What I hear is that it is not a country of "atheists", but a more secularized, social version of the religion. Belief in God is not a prerequiste. It's that face of religion here in the States that led to the rise of Humanists, who were essentially secular Christians displaced from the churches with the rise of social conservatives using the banner of Jesus as their tool taking over the postitions of leadership in churches and driving them out. They became our popluation of Agnositcs who, needed to find some home, some identity as they in fact did find value in the core "Jesus on a good day" messages of Western culture with which they identified. Humanism was it. Shared social values under a banner identity.

 

So maybe what we see in Denmark is more what we are, minus the push of social conservatives here using Christianity as the blunt object of choice. I think these flavors of social conservatives have pretty much burned out their flames with the demise of the Bush administration's regime, which had been the culmination of 20 years effort coming out the Evangelical movement of Dobson and pals. Mainstream is pretty much sick of their message now, and they will fall aside.

 

But as I suspect, because the reasons for religious institutions go far being just some personal spiritual experience, the Faith will evolve. It's not gone in Denmark, not on that level. But it is gone according to the Conservatives who judge what Faith needs to be by their own criteria in order to be considered valid. They are far from the keepers of the religion, though they would like others to imagine they somehow are. They are deluded in their self-appointment.

[Ouroboros]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Lutheran church sort of like the Catholic church where even if you don't go to church, you're still technically "members" until you go through this process to be officially removed?

In the old days, the heritage records were kept by the state church. Like in Sweden, the state church was Lutheran, and in the 80's (or 90's?) the records where moved to be kept by the tax department. This meant that anyone born were automatically a member of the state church, and when I grew up, you had to un-register to become a non-Lutheran, and avoid paying the extra tax. So if you look in statistics for Sweden, it probably say more than 90% of the people is Lutheran, while of course the majority are more agnostic/deist/atheist in belief.

[Vigile]

If the US goes the Scandinavian direction regarding religion and education then I'd say they would be on a good course. Unfortunately it has a long way to go, especially if you chop off the coastal regions (including Great Lakes). I suspect the bible belt will drag its heels for another century.

[Ouroboros]

What I think is happening in US is more of a polarization. We probably will see more secular attitude in schools, and probably many denominations too, but I suspect we will also get more extremists, at least the more vociferous ones.

[Vigile]

What I think is happening in US is more of a polarization. We probably will see more secular attitude in schools, and probably many denominations too, but I suspect we will also get more extremists, at least the more vociferous ones.

 

Yeah, the US is at least two countries right now. As the empire continues to decline it will likely be ripe for a civil war. The next 100 years will be interesting times for the country. What's the old curse? May you live in interesting times?

[Antlerman]

What I think is happening in US is more of a polarization. We probably will see more secular attitude in schools, and probably many denominations too, but I suspect we will also get more extremists, at least the more vociferous ones.

 

Yeah, the US is at least two countries right now. As the empire continues to decline it will likely be ripe for a civil war. The next 100 years will be interesting times for the country. What's the old curse? May you live in interesting times?

[Neon Genesis]

Speaking of Wicca vs Christianity, I read recently that polytheistic societies have actually been more tolerant of people than monotheistic societies are. Here's a quote from Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not A Muslim on this

Monotheism has also been recongized as inherently intolerant. We know from the Koran itself the hated preached at all kinds of belief labeled "idoltary" or "polytheism." As the Dictionary of Islam says, Muslim writers are "unamimous in asserting that no religious toleration was extended to the idolaters of Arabia in the time of the Prophet. The only choice given to them was death or the reception of Islam." Implicit in all kinds of monotheism is the dogmatic certainity that it alone has the true access to the true God, it alone has access to trth. Everyone else is not only woefully misguided but doomed to perdition and everlasting hellfire. In the words of Lewis, "Traditinal Christianity and Islam differed from Judaism and agreed with each other in that both claimed to posses not only universal but absolute truths. Each claimed to be the sole custodian of God's final revelation to mankind. Neither admitted salvation outside its own creed."

 

To summarize, far from answering the spiritual doubts and questions of tribes {there were no such doubts or spiritual crises), Muhammed created a people and offered the Arabs what they had been accustomed to; namely, military conquests with all the attendant material advantages, loot, women, and land. Allah was preferable to the old gods simply because He had not failed them. He had delivered the goods here and now. Allah was certainly not preferable to the gods for some deep metaphysical reason; the Arabs had not suddenly learned the use of Occam's Razor. "Indeed", as Crone points out, "in behavioral terms the better part of Arabia was still pagan in the nineteenth century." As early as 1909, Dr. Margoliouth had anticipated Watt's thesis and had found it wanting. What is also important in Margoliouth's work is that he denies that Islam somehow lifted the newly converted to a higher moral level: "There is no evidence that the Molsems were either in personal or altruistic morality better than the pagans." In fact, the contrary seems to have been the case.

I'm not an expert on the subject of Islam. But if it's true that polytheistic societies were more moral than monotheistic societies, why is that the case if it's not faith and these religious symbols themselves that inspired the people's behavior? In any case, I think we're both in agreement that society would be a lot better if we had more Swedens. The question is how do we get to that point where we have more Swedens and what's preventing us from reaching that point? In other words, if a plant has been corrupted by bad fruit, can you still save the good fruits left by pruning the plant or is it better to just simply get rid of the bad plant? Can you get rid of the bad plant without damaging the rest of your garden or is the plant already too late to save and leaving it there half-rotted will risk damaging the rest of the good plants you still?