“A common view of religion in atheist or humanist writers is that it is a kind of blend of cosmology – a theory of the universe – and morality. The cosmology is typically described in terms of something like Richard Dawkins’s God Hypothesis: “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us”. And the morality involves commitment to something like the commandments and teachings of the Bible, the Qur’an or other sacred text. In this picture, the link between the cosmology and the morality is often made through the idea of the afterlife: we must behave well, according to the morality of the church or the Bible or the Qur’an, because if we do we will have eternal life in heaven with God, and if we don’t we will have eternal damnation or punishment in hell.

“I am sure this picture of the essence of religion will be familiar to many. But it seems to me deeply inadequate, and its persistence frustrates the proper understanding of the phenomenon of religion and religious belief...”

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/tim-crane-religion-philosophy/



I don’t agree with everything in this article, but it goes a long way towards reframing the woefully inadequate framing of many popular atheists.

Recovery is many things. Part of it for me involved coming to an understanding, an honest and charitable understanding, of what it is exactly I left and why exactly do people stay.

Human

Interesting article.
I probably agree with less of it than you do, though :)

For me, I think the author hasn't considered the purpose of the repetitious rites and "rules" he thinks don't fit the "cosmology and morality" mold. I see them as "designed" -- intentionally invented by human religious leaders -- to give their members a sense of belonging, a tribal feeling, sharing ritual and obligation and cementing them more firmly into the bedrock of the group. They take advantage of humans' fondness for unthinking ritual, which gives a sense of "comfort" (once you get over the flat-out oddness of some of the rituals), regularity, solidarity. The content of the ritual behaviors is almost irrelevant -- it's the practice of them that makes one part of the group, and more accepting of the rest of the group's rules.

Anyway...thanks for the link.

I would, by the way, point out that the "woefully inadequate framing" you ascribe to "many popular atheists" (as does the author) is also exactly how many religious people describe their religion to me. So don't blame the atheists...:)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I would, by the way, point out that the "woefully
> inadequate framing" you ascribe to "many popular
> atheists" (as does the author) is also exactly how
> many religious people describe their religion to
> me. So don't blame the atheists...:)

Wish I could discuss more...

Funny how we know dramatically different religious people. Never met one who went to church because of cosmology. I do hear about ethics, with the qualifier that you don’t necessarily need to go to church to be good but it’s easier if you do. Mostly, though, I hear about community, being grounded, centred, etc. Catholics I know invariably speak of, “well I was born catholic, so, you know...’l and then go on about tradition, family, community. Same with the few Jewish people I know.

Cheers

Spend some time in a rural evangelical pocket of SoCal.
It's an anomaly compared to the rest of the state, that's for sure :)

You are right on the psychological role of ritual in religion. There was a great scholar of religion and myth at the University of Chicago named Mircea Eliade, who wrote books on the common elements of faiths. His books unraveled the Mormon temple ceremonies for me to a remarkable degree.

I don't for a minute believe JS knew what he was doing consciously, but he saw the utility in ritual and in the Masonic practices and adopted them. Key parts of those fit the Eliade pattern nicely. For example, temples are places where the heavens and earth and the underworld realm of the departed meet. People step into those temples to touch the universal. Their entry is marked off from the world through clothing, entry rituals, etc. And many ancient religions used their creation myths as the basis for the rituals in those sacred spaces--what better way is there to unite the individually with the divine?

On a lesser level, the same pattern applies to a lot of Christian and Mormon rituals. One dresses specially to enter a chapel, uses song and prayer to separate people from the mundane world, then use the Eucharist to let the worshipper experience God (literally by eating him, metaphorically by participating in the last supper).

These things give people a "higher" psychological experience and mark him or her off from the rest of the world. They create an experience that binds the worshipers together in their own community and divide insiders from outsiders. For most of human history (and I believe today), ritual has played a major role in reinforcing religion.

there are popular Atheists ?

Sure.
Just not you and me, Dave :)

huh. Funny I wrote “popular”. Usually I would say “professional”, indicating those atheists writing books, making speeches and movies and generally selling their selves and making money on the back of their non-belief.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Maybe it's only a good thing when christers do it.

I see religion as an attempt to make sense off the capriciousness of the Bell Shaped Curve.

Sorry ‘bout the Dodgers, eh.

Bell Shaped Curve ball...

Toss religion a ball.

As I watched the interviews last night of the disappointed Dodger fans I remembered why years ago I finally figured out why I just couldn't get into sports--I didn't care who won. You have to care who wins in order to enjoy the game. I couldn't for some reason. I didn't get the gene.

I was shocked at the passion exhibited by the interviewees. They talked as if they were the team, not fans, but part of the team. They discussed the bad plays or missed opportunities using the "we" as if they had been on the field and were part of the effort. I would say some owned the experience more than the highly paid team itself.

I thought how true this is of religion. Since I left Mormonism I no longer care who wins. I still watch the Mormon game because I had so much invested in it and still do with family being major "fans" of Mormonism who seem to care more about it than the highly paid team itself. But religion itself, don't care as long as they play nice--some do, most don't.

Why are the people I work with so ardent for the Dodgers? They live in this town and they were raised on the Dodgers. They learned to give testimony to the Dodgers. They partake of the Dodgers sacrament (Hot dogs and beer), and they wear the Dodgers blue garments. How is this different to religion? You care because it is YOUR team and your friends team and your family's team and you desperately want it to win because of that, not because it is really that different to any other team. Different colors, different logo, different coaches or pastors, but loyalty comes from the indoctrination within.

What I gleaned from this article is that some people desperately need to belong to a herd and the rituals and rules make them feel more a part of the herd. Others are happy to find strength in themselves, be different, and find their own path. Is the propensity already in our genes? Has technology eliminated the need to find safety in numbers as we are able to find strength in our selves? Is singularity the new plural? Am I overthinking as badly as this article does? :)

Good comparison

My atheism isn't necessarily related to religion. In fact I find it infinitely easier to disbelieve religion than I do to disbelieve in god. The reason is simple, god is potentially undefined while religion, by nature, is defined.

I believe this is the reason why many philosophically inclined scientists dislike the the label atheist.

I'm an atheist, I both don't believe there is a god and I disbelieve in the gods that have been presented to me.

I'm an agnostic, I recognize that it is an impossibility for me to actively disbelieve in a concept that isn't even defined. Although I passively disbelieve, since I hate sitting on fences seeing as they are really uncomfortable.

I'm not a theist, deist, pantheist, apathiest, and so forth.

I am religious about my Cowboys. I hope we win this week.

It is control.

Badassadam1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is control.


If not other than that, it’s more than that, right?

Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Wikipedia

Noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2017 10:41PM by Beth.

Hi Human: I hope you are enjoying your visit to the Big Apple.

The linked article strikes me as simplistic, perhaps necessarily so because it is designed to make a point. No doubt the religious come with an assortment of all sorts of complex motivations, making it impossible to generalize with much accuracy.

Nonetheless, it strikes me as fundamental that a "genuine" religious person accepts some metaphysical conception of reality that offers an expansive, transcendent, hope that frees them to some extent from the mundane and difficult aspects of ordinary life. Religious authority molds such hope within a conceptual structure, and offers the supportive communal environment addressed in the linked essay.

But, what seems to invariably happen is that when applying structure to otherwise innocent metaphysical hopes, dogma is introduced, eventually spilling out into social beliefs, practices and commitments based not upon logical, humanistic problem solving, but religious fantasy. Given that, no matter how understanding and tolerant an outsider strives to be with religion, such a person is left constantly looking over their shoulder while desperately trying to stamp out abuses.

All in all, I see religion as detrimental on a social level, however comforting and innocent it might be on an individual level. Social problems are too complex to be addressed by commitments that place logic, reason and empirical reality on a second tier to the "certainties" of religious faith.

That is not to say that I object to metaphysical speculations in one's personal search for meaning, nor do I object to, or discount, transcendent "religious" experiences. But it scares me to death when the communal aspect of religious faith surfaces; and if history is a judge, for good reason.