Support NeoGAF

[SouthernDragon]

Miami.

 

[Night_Trekker]

I think that people are somewhat apathetic anyway. The people who grew up adopting the tenets of the Christian faith but weren't exactly hardcore are slowly drifting into religious apathy. I think that cultural subjectivity is chipping away a little at the cornerstone of Christianity. Greater connectivity helps. People see that there are other beliefs, that their own beliefs hardly make sense in every context. I think that the Christian right had one last gasp, but trust in the church has fallen dramatically in the past two decades. It's become a political movement, and I don't think people like that. I would welcome a more de-centrilized, personal faith over these organized coalitions attempting to control people and their actions.

Agreed on all points.

 

[Kitschkraft]

Calling the singularity god is like the 21st century version of the sun god. Sure, they're both powerful and responsible for life, but an omnipotent god? Nope.

God damnit, I skipped to this page without reading most of the thread, and I thought that somehow, the argument had drifted to some sort of futurism discussion, and that people were talking about technological singularity....:lol :lol :lol

Anyways, I'm all for this "post-christian" nation that is talked about in the article. Although, I've gotta say, I think that this may be being overstated a bit by both sides. Judging by how most of my friends and family are...I'm probably not going to feel comfortable standing up in a room and saying "I'm an atheist" in my lifetime.

Then again, with Obama as president, I guess anything is socially possible.

 

[chase]

I wish.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Religion could merely be a natural defence of humanity's conscience against it's probable insignificance. Through the hands of power, both secular and religious, religion has been used as a currency of manipulation and control over its subjects. The validity of observational evidence of a supernatural power existing on the level posed by such beliefs is lacking, to understate things quite a bit. All these rationalizations move to disenchant many with the plausability of religious belief and the intelligence of those who continue maintain it.

However, I would argue that the flaws of inductive reasoning populate these anti-religious arguments. The hubris of scientific thinking is that its predictive funtions are based on natural laws that are not entirely provable. In essence, faith crosses over from religion, and while belief in a supernatural power isn't likely in the context of inductive reasoning, attempts to disprove all chances flounder once it is established that scientific knowledge cannot fully ascertain causation. Just like religion, science is in the realm of faith.

Many would say the latter is more reasonable, but I would argue that everything can't simply be encapsulated by this perception. The scientific method has direct and clear results that are convincing in their success. Yes, but does that mean religion must be dismissed completely in convenient fashion? Indeed, why has the cultural function of our day been to emphasise the adversial aspects of religion and science when in fact the past entails a picture more complex than those with the agenda on either side would suggest?

Religious belief might be illogical since it presumes a natural law - creation from a supernatural being - that is unprovable, but so is inductive reasoning in this way; how one is judged more reasonable than the other is down to our perceptions. What should not be lost is that if we can maintain belief in something unprovable everyday with ease since we observe its clear successful results, why is an extension of that into the aspect of the supernatural - although it would hold no such clear results - such a large invitation to condescension and rejection in the supposed period of Enlightenment we now approach? My theory is that faith in inductive reasoning provokes a varying response of some revulsion to that which is believed without observational evidence. Not to say that inductive reasoning breeds arrogance, but rather that there is an element of close-mindedness there which could be altered very easily with the understanding that the only thing which is certain is uncertainty.

The main thing both sides of the fence could learn from - religious and atheist fundamentalists - is humility. The wisdom of tolerance is a branch from this tree. That's the type of future reasoned or "post-Christian" world I'd like to live in.

 

[Panda Bear]

Religion could merely be a natural defence of humanity's conscience against it's probable insignificance. Through the hands of power, both secular and religious, religion has been used as a currency of manipulation and control over its subjects. The validity of observational evidence of a supernatural power existing on the level posed by such beliefs is lacking, to understate things quite a bit. All these rationalizations move to disenchant many with the plausability of religious belief and the intelligence of those who continue maintain it.

However, I would argue that the flaws of inductive reasoning populate these anti-religious arguments. The hubris of scientific thinking is that its predictive funtions are based on natural laws that are not entirely provable. In essence, faith crosses over from religion, and while belief in a supernatural power isn't likely in the context of inductive reasoning, attempts to disprove all chances flounder once it is established that scientific knowledge cannot fully ascertain causation. Just like religion, science is in the realm of faith.

Many would say the latter is more reasonable, but I would argue that everything can't simply be encapsulated by this perception. The scientific method has direct and clear results that are convincing in their success. Yes, but does that mean religion must be dismissed completely in convenient fashion? Indeed, why has the cultural function of our day been to emphasise the adversial aspects of religion and science when in fact the past entails a picture more complex than those with the agenda on either side would suggest?

Religious belief might be illogical since it presumes a natural law - creation from a supernatural being - that is unprovable, but so is inductive reasoning in this way; how one is judged more reasonable than the other is down to our perceptions. What should not be lost is that if we can maintain belief in something unprovable everyday with ease since we observe its clear successful results, why is an extension of that into the aspect of the supernatural - although it would hold no such clear results - such a large invitation to condescension and rejection in the supposed period of Enlightenment we now approach? My theory is that faith in inductive reasoning provokes a varying response of some revulsion to that which is believed without observational evidence. Not to say that inductive reasoning breeds arrogance, but rather that there is an element of close-mindedness there which could be altered very easily with the understanding that the only thing which is certain is uncertainty.

The main thing both sides of the fence could learn from - religious and atheist fundamentalists - is humility. The wisdom of tolerance is a branch from this tree. That's the type of future reasoned or "post-Christian" world I'd like to live in.

I approve of this post in every single way possible.

 

[KHarvey16]

Religion could merely be a natural defence of humanity's conscience against it's probable insignificance. Through the hands of power, both secular and religious, religion has been used as a currency of manipulation and control over its subjects. The validity of observational evidence of a supernatural power existing on the level posed by such beliefs is lacking, to understate things quite a bit. All these rationalizations move to disenchant many with the plausability of religious belief and the intelligence of those who continue maintain it.

However, I would argue that the flaws of inductive reasoning populate these anti-religious arguments. The hubris of scientific thinking is that its predictive funtions are based on natural laws that are not entirely provable. In essence, faith crosses over from religion, and while belief in a supernatural power isn't likely in the context of inductive reasoning, attempts to disprove all chances flounder once it is established that scientific knowledge cannot fully ascertain causation. Just like religion, science is in the realm of faith.

Many would say the latter is more reasonable, but I would argue that everything can't simply be encapsulated by this perception. The scientific method has direct and clear results that are convincing in their success. Yes, but does that mean religion must be dismissed completely in convenient fashion? Indeed, why has the cultural function of our day been to emphasise the adversial aspects of religion and science when in fact the past entails a picture more complex than those with the agenda on either side would suggest?

Religious belief might be illogical since it presumes a natural law - creation from a supernatural being - that is unprovable, but so is inductive reasoning in this way; how one is judged more reasonable than the other is down to our perceptions. What should not be lost is that if we can maintain belief in something unprovable everyday with ease since we observe its clear successful results, why is an extension of that into the aspect of the supernatural - although it would hold no such clear results - such a large invitation to condescension and rejection in the supposed period of Enlightenment we now approach? My theory is that faith in inductive reasoning provokes a varying response of some revulsion to that which is believed without observational evidence. Not to say that inductive reasoning breeds arrogance, but rather that there is an element of close-mindedness there which could be altered very easily with the understanding that the only thing which is certain is uncertainty.

The main thing both sides of the fence could learn from - religious and atheist fundamentalists - is humility. The wisdom of tolerance is a branch from this tree. That's the type of future reasoned or "post-Christian" world I'd like to live in.

Falsifiability - science has it, religion does not. Moreover the burden of proof is on those who would like to prove a god exists, not on anyone to disprove that.

 

[Panda Bear]

Falsifiability - science has it, religion does not. Moreover the burden of proof is on those who would like to prove a god exists, not on anyone to disprove that.

Unless someone were to claim god does not exist.

 

[KHarvey16]

Unless someone were to claim god does not exist.

The majority of atheists do not.

 

[Panda Bear]

The majority of atheists do not.

Right. I would argue that the majority of theists don't claim God exists either. To believe in something and to claim you know it is real are two different things.

 

[djtiesto]

After dating a hardcore fundamentalist, I say "good riddance". I have no problem with people who are religious and practice it in private, but when they try and manipulate me to attend church and "accept Jesus as my savior", then I draw the line.

 

[KHarvey16]

Right. I would argue that the majority of theists don't claim God exists either. To believe in something and to claim you know it is real are two different things.

So in your estimation the question "Does god exist?" on a national survey will return mostly "I don't know" as opposed to "yes."

I highly doubt this.

 

[Panda Bear]

So in your estimation the question "Does god exist?" on a national survey will return mostly "I don't know" as opposed to "yes."

I highly doubt this.

No. That question is asking one's opinion regarding the topic, not if one knows it to be so.

I remember you yourself saying that you think most theists are agnostic.

 

[Always-honest]

yeah.. bye

 

[KHarvey16]

No. That question is asking one's opinion regarding the topic, not if one knows it to be so.

I remember you yourself saying that you think most theists are agnostic.

Being agnostic means you believe we can't now or maybe ever know for sure, or prove, that god exists. That doesn't mean they get to say "I believe in god" and dodge the burden of proof at the same time, it still exists. They just hold the position that they can never satisfy that burden.

 

[Panda Bear]

Being agnostic means you believe we can't now or maybe ever know for sure, or prove, that god exists. That doesn't mean they get to say "I believe in god" and dodge the burden of proof at the same time, it still exists. They just hold the position that they can never satisfy that burden.

You and I have different definitions of "believe" then. To me, one can believe something without claiming their belief is true. I hold the belief that Lost is the best show on television. I would never make that claim though because I know that my view on the matter is completely subjective. I don't have to prove to anyone that Lost is the best show on television unless I actually make the claim.

 

[Keen]

The proportion of Americans who think religion "can answer all or most of today's problems" is now at a historic low of 48 percent. During the Bush and Clinton years, that figure never dropped below 58 percent.

I still think this is a shockingly high number.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million

+1 for me. the more i thought about the traditional judeo christian belief of God, the less sense it began to make to me.

 

[Chipopo]

Religion could merely be a natural defence of humanity's conscience against it's probable insignificance. Through the hands of power, both secular and religious, religion has been used as a currency of manipulation and control over its subjects. The validity of observational evidence of a supernatural power existing on the level posed by such beliefs is lacking, to understate things quite a bit. All these rationalizations move to disenchant many with the plausability of religious belief and the intelligence of those who continue maintain it.

However, I would argue that the flaws of inductive reasoning populate these anti-religious arguments. The hubris of scientific thinking is that its predictive funtions are based on natural laws that are not entirely provable. In essence, faith crosses over from religion, and while belief in a supernatural power isn't likely in the context of inductive reasoning, attempts to disprove all chances flounder once it is established that scientific knowledge cannot fully ascertain causation. Just like religion, science is in the realm of faith.

Many would say the latter is more reasonable, but I would argue that everything can't simply be encapsulated by this perception. The scientific method has direct and clear results that are convincing in their success. Yes, but does that mean religion must be dismissed completely in convenient fashion? Indeed, why has the cultural function of our day been to emphasise the adversial aspects of religion and science when in fact the past entails a picture more complex than those with the agenda on either side would suggest?

Religious belief might be illogical since it presumes a natural law - creation from a supernatural being - that is unprovable, but so is inductive reasoning in this way; how one is judged more reasonable than the other is down to our perceptions. What should not be lost is that if we can maintain belief in something unprovable everyday with ease since we observe its clear successful results, why is an extension of that into the aspect of the supernatural - although it would hold no such clear results - such a large invitation to condescension and rejection in the supposed period of Enlightenment we now approach? My theory is that faith in inductive reasoning provokes a varying response of some revulsion to that which is believed without observational evidence. Not to say that inductive reasoning breeds arrogance, but rather that there is an element of close-mindedness there which could be altered very easily with the understanding that the only thing which is certain is uncertainty.

The main thing both sides of the fence could learn from - religious and atheist fundamentalists - is humility. The wisdom of tolerance is a branch from this tree. That's the type of future reasoned or "post-Christian" world I'd like to live in.

Just have to say this right away - we are not "approaching" the age of enlightenment. The age of enlightenment came and went.

The Judeo-Christian religions were both formed in times of utter destitution, times that were so horrid for its people that only complete transcendence from this world could provide adequate spiritual nourishment. This reliance on emphasizing "another world" over "this world" is the heart of what makes organized religion an utter perversion. It's a form of stagnation. Instead of progressing we repeat the same few lines of decaying scripture that has absolutely no applicability to the world we are living in.

The remedy is not about becoming astringently scientific in our thinking. No scientist who's cultivated his mind properly would declare that science is tantamount to the Truth, or that the only things that exist in the world are the things that a scientist can discover. The whole point is that we know nothing. The scientific method is indeed the best tool we have and it's still woefully inadequate. And this leaves room for a certain spiritual position that is almost entirely based on humility. It is the reveling in the not knowing. This is something you yourself touched upon, but is not a position shared by the religious.

To fill in this utter lack with so many empty signifiers. It's so gluttonous. And it's not even a harmless gluttony. It sets us all back. And I think you should really reconsider the position you're taking on 'tolerance', which is essentially to white-wash and equalize everything, probably the most asinine mentality of PC-addled America still in existence (although I do believe that this mentality, like Christianity, is on the way out). Of course I tolerate religious people. I tolerate them every day. I'm friends with them. But it hurts no one to try to get them to work through their own system, for them to be put on the spot and told to think about the position they're taking and why they might be taking it. My personal position is that the world we live in doesn't allow for such coddling. And the flip-side of course is that by being critical I'm allowed to falsify my own beliefs and see the shortcomings in my own arguments.

And just to quote from the article in the op:

Which is precisely what most troubles Mohler. "The post-Christian narrative is radically different; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority," he told me. "It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step." The present, in this sense, is less about the death of God and more about the birth of many gods. The rising numbers of religiously unaffiliated Americans are people more apt to call themselves "spiritual" rather than "religious." (In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, 30 percent describe themselves this way, up from 24 percent in 2005.)

Accepting this world for what it is does not make for a barren hopeless existence and is not something our own psychology can't find ways to cope with.

 

[Pojo]

And along with it goes the last remnants of culture America had.

It's been around for 2,000 years, in light of every possible assault against it. It's not going anywhere, hivemind GAF, be it Christianity is the religions of the East. Turn your misplaced hatred for religion into something more productive...and reasonable, for God's sake.

 

[Stoney Mason]

And along with it goes the last remnants of culture America had.

It's been around for 2,000 years, in light of every possible assault against it. It's not going anywhere, hivemind GAF, be it Christianity is the religions of the East. Turn your misplaced hatred for religion into something more productive...and reasonable, for God's sake.

lol. The idea that religion is the one that has been "assaulted" for most of the last 2,000 years is indeed funny.

 

[Karakand]

lol. The idea that religion is the one that has been "assaulted" for most of the last 2,000 years is indeed funny.

Hey man people assaulted Muslims during the Crusades.

Then there were those wars of religion in Europe. Back when people had conviction.

 

[AndresON777]

Would it be insensitive to say "Good riddance"?

Probably.

Anyway, good riddance. Here in the South, the land that time forgot, you literally can't walk a solid mile without running into some sort of church. They're on every street, crammed into mini-malls, and seem to grow in every nook and cranny of major cities. Hell, my place is sandwiched between two of the damned things, so my doorbell will ring every couple of weeks or so with people trying to spread the "good news." I've lived in Tennessee all of my life, and it's never, ever felt like home. When you don't play on their team, Xtians can be a pretty nasty, smarmy little bunch. Feeling like I had no connection to my community, I withdrew pretty early in life and I always wished I'd been born in a place where that wasn't my natural reaction.


With a special aside- I know there are lots of reasonable Christians, some of whom post here, and it's not my intent to offend. I have no problem with people who choose to live their life that way, just with those who think that they have the right to demand that I do so as well.

for reals there's a church on every street. The most disturbing ones are the mega churches that cost millions of dollars to build. I really hate it on sundays when the damn cops block the streets to let these people in/out of church.

And can I please buy some fucking alcohol on sunday.

 

[Chipopo]

And along with it goes the last remnants of culture America had.

It's been around for 2,000 years, in light of every possible assault against it. It's not going anywhere, hivemind GAF, be it Christianity is the religions of the East. Turn your misplaced hatred for religion into something more productive...and reasonable, for God's sake.

hmmm not convincing. Better come up with something better...and fast! Time doesn't seem to be on your side :-/

 

[wolfmat]

So you're finally making progress in the US of A?

I don't know any Christians. The last one I knew was a hot girl - from Russia. Where I live, religion is uncommon and only relevant to old people, I think.

(I'm in Hamburg, Germany btw)

To re-invigorate religion in my social vicinity would mean making a step backwards in history. We're pretty much over it.

 

[Skiptastic]

for reals there's a church on every street. The most disturbing ones are the mega churches that cost millions of dollars to build. I really hate it on sundays when the damn cops block the streets to let these people in/out of church.

So your views on religion are influenced by your driving pattern? Interesting.

My view is that it would be better if more people were religious, but less people were so fervent in projecting their religion and religious views onto others. Religion is where you should find common ground with your fellow man in your belief in God or whatever deity, not where you should plan out political strategy. The whole "I want more Christian politicians but less Christianity in my politics" or something along those lines.

I don't know, I have my own beliefs on God and morals and what's right and wrong and whatnot (probably more in line with the "zealots" than the non-believers), but I don't see politics and laws as being the proper forum for persuading people to my viewpoint. Politics and laws should be there to keep a society humming along with less problems, not change the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Just my opinion.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Just have to say this right away - we are not "approaching" the age of enlightenment. The age of enlightenment came and went.

Perhaps I should have worded it as a "second" age of enlightenment; as typified by the "post-Christian" message of the article. The end of the domination of assumed Christian-based (I say this because what is propagated by elites to the masses as Christian-based values has not always been Christian-based values) thinking and the approach of reasoned and critical thinking driving the minds of people. You could argue that that has largely taken place already, but I thought we were talking about the position of Christianity and other religions in an increasingly secular world. I was trying to argue that summary condescension imposed on those of religious faith was unnecessary and misplaced in the broad scheme of things.

To be fair, in the political context, commercialization and fear has long since overtaken religion as the methods by which most governments manipulate their populace. I would also say that the Western world lagged far behind the Muslim world in embracing the age of enlightenment you talk of: as certain governments still do today in certain parts. Look at Lee Kuan Yew and his insistence that core elements of liberalism are unfit for Asian people due to their incongruity with "Asian" values, when really, he is simply a social conservative advocating against breaks with tradition.

The Judeo-Christian religions were both formed in times of utter destitution, times that were so horrid for its people that only complete transcendence from this world could provide adequate spiritual nourishment. This reliance on emphasizing "another world" over "this world" is the heart of what makes organized religion an utter perversion. It's a form of stagnation. Instead of progressing we repeat the same few lines of decaying scripture that has absolutely no applicability to the world we are living in.

Taking your point out of context for a second: I would argue that Jesus Christ's core message - and that of many religions - has applicability to the world we are living in today. If you're an egoist, I'm sure you'll disagree, though.

In context: Whether religion is there or not, existentialism has the same capacity for stagnation in the acceptance of this world as meaningless. See what I did there? Not all religious people are taking up Pascal's Wager as not all existentialists are giving into despair. Some actually have concern for the here and now, the world they leave behind them and the people they effect.

The possibility for progression exists with religion if the purposeless adherence to tradition and hold on legal principles of the state can be left behind. Basically, practices stemming solely from religious belief should be opt-in, not mandatory. If this does not occur, I accept your criticism of stagnation. I would be lying if I didn't remark on all the flaws I've recognized in organized religion, but there it turns again, another generalization of all the religious as wholly the blind sheep - unthinking and uncaring outside their progression down the track firmly marked out by tradition.

The remedy is not about becoming astringently scientific in our thinking. No scientist who's cultivated his mind properly would declare that science is tantamount to the Truth, or that the only things that exist in the world are the things that a scientist can discover. The whole point is that we know nothing. The scientific method is indeed the best tool we have and it's still woefully inadequate. And this leaves room for a certain spiritual position that is almost entirely based on humility. It is the reveling in the not knowing. This is something you yourself touched upon, but is not a position shared by the religious.

Religion is a presumption of the Truth. I feel that many religious people understand their belief is a leap of faith that should entail humility - it cannot be proven. The paradox is that faith like that provides power. To believe is self-nourishing in itself - whether you believe no God exists, that you cannot know, or that God does exist. The problem I have is - as I'm sure many do - when that power is used as launching pad for self-righteousness or smug certainty: fundamentalism. It is the branching off of the superiority complex.

Accepting this world for what it is does not make for a barren hopeless existence and is not something our own psychology can't find ways to cope with.

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. I've never argued that a non-Christian life or world would lead into a "a barren hopeless existence". I can even appreciate the paradoxical sense of joy that existentialism can entice if that's the "reveling" in the certainty of uncertainty you're talking of.

To fill in this utter lack with so many empty signifiers. It's so gluttonous. And it's not even a harmless gluttony. It sets us all back. And I think you should really reconsider the position you're taking on 'tolerance', which is essentially to white-wash and equalize everything, probably the most asinine mentality of PC-addled America still in existence (although I do believe that this mentality, like Christianity, is on the way out).

Tolerance and respect for the beliefs of fellow human beings as long as it places no harm on the greater community is a misguided mentality to entertain? Does conviction truly demand that we ostracize the believer or non-believer and antagonize contention between them (or, in the case of the religious, perhaps between their sub-groups as well)?

Of course I tolerate religious people. I tolerate them every day. I'm friends with them. But it hurts no one to try to get them to work through their own system, for them to be put on the spot and told to think about the position they're taking and why they might be taking it. My personal position is that the world we live in doesn't allow for such coddling. And the flip-side of course is that by being critical I'm allowed to falsify my own beliefs and see the shortcomings in my own arguments.

Are you saying that the true separation of Church and State that this article is describing as occurring with the beginnings of the end of a Christian-dominated culture does not go far enough?

 

[soul creator]

You and I have different definitions of "believe" then. To me, one can believe something without claiming their belief is true. I hold the belief that Lost is the best show on television. I would never make that claim though because I know that my view on the matter is completely subjective. I don't have to prove to anyone that Lost is the best show on television unless I actually make the claim.

I would argue that most people don't see "god exists" as a "subjective" question. People tend to be taught that a god made the universe, god set some rules for us to follow, and he's involved in our lives in some way, and has done many specific actions throughout history. That's kind of the point of the major monotheistic gods being so possessive (I am a jealous god, thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc.). There's a reason why religions are generally taught from birth. There's a reason why monotheistic gods tend to be "kings" and "father figures". You're supposed to see them as your very real leader that you're supposed to worship. Not as just some subjective concept that someone happens to personally agree with.

(note: I'm talking about the average person who believes in interventionist type gods, not the academic, vague, and generic philosopher concept of "god". Also, Eastern religions vary a bit as well, but I assume we're all speaking from majority Christian/Islam/Judaism country here)

"Subjective" almost by definition means that it's just a personal thing that's all in your head. I would say most people don't see their god belief as something that's just all in their head, and would probably be pretty insulted if someone said that to them. Of course, the ultimate endpoint of their arguments points to the fact that it is practically subjective, since there aren't really any good arguments for the literal existence of invisible universe-creating beings.

Now, a lot of more progressive folks in modern times approach the question of god's existence and their religious claims as a "that's just like, my opinion man, it's cool if you believe differently, dude it's just a metaphor" type of thing. Which is fine and all, and is obviously much more preferable from a practical standpoint, and generally won't see any complaints from me (except on message boards where the whole idea is to provoke discussion). But in a weird way it's sort of an admittance that the claims that religion has made for thousands of years are pretty much made up, lol.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

Now, a lot of more progressive folks in modern times approach the question of god's existence and their religious claims as a "that's just like, my opinion man, it's cool if you believe differently, dude it's just a metaphor" type of thing. Which is fine and all, and is obviously much more preferable from a practical standpoint, and generally won't see any complaints from me (except on message boards where the whole idea is to provoke discussion). But in a weird way it's sort of an admittance that the claims that religion has made for thousands of years are pretty much made up, lol.

Stopping short of the metaphor statement, it could also be an admittance that conviction allows for respect of disagreement rather than just preclusion for contention and assumption of superiority as has been the modus operandi for too long. (ie those thousands of years you mentioned) I would agree that saying "dude it's just a metaphor" suggests more "spiritual" or agnostic belief.

 

[LegendOfGood]

In my opinion, there is a correlation between the turning away from Biblical values and the downfall of America, in its loss of morale, purpose, and morality.

Don't hate me.

 

[soul creator]

Stopping short of the metaphor statement, it could also be an admittance that conviction allows for respect of disagreement rather than just preclusion for contention and assumption of superiority as has been the modus operandi for too long. (ie those thousands of years you mentioned) I would agree that saying "dude it's just a metaphor" suggests more "spiritual" or agnostic belief.

One could argue that the "assumption of superiority" is directly built into a lot of the monotheistic religions (they generally came after the polytheistic religions, and didn't seem to think too highly of them), so of course it was going to be the modus operandi. One glance at the Old Testament for example seems to indicate that "respect of disagreement" is not high on the list of priorities. In essence, it's a feature, not a bug. Now, with regards to Christianity specifically, Jesus came along and said some nicer things later on, which is awesome. But it makes the story a bit muddled and contradictory if Jesus is supposedly the same character (or endorses the same character) from the Old Testament.

Of course, in modern times, the Old Testament now gets the "dude it's just a metaphor, stop taking it so literally" treatment . Which, like I mentioned, is great! I'm glad not everyone takes it completely literally. Of course, if most of the Old Testament is now just a metaphor, then all the Jesus stuff ends up not making that much anymore (what does Jesus need to save us from, if "the fall" and all of the savior prophecies are now just myths?). Normally, I wouldn't give a care either way, but the fact that so many do, and even want to make laws based on this "belief system" worries me a little.

 

[soul creator]

In my opinion, there is a correlation between the turning away from Biblical values and the downfall of America, in its loss of morale, purpose, and morality.

Don't hate me.

I don't hate you, I just think your viewpoint is hilariously false.

When were these good old days of America, by chance?

 

[mckmas8808]

Didn't Obama say were aren't a Christian nation, but a nation of every strip?

 

[Jeff-DSA]

In my opinion, there is a correlation between the turning away from Biblical values and the downfall of America, in its loss of morale, purpose, and morality.

Don't hate me.

I agree, but it's not just religion, man. I think the bigger contributor is that parents no longer instill respect into their kids for authority, property, privacy, themselves, others, or the sacred. It's the lack of respect and common decency that is the bigger factor.

I'm still on Team Jesus. We're planning a comeback at some point!

 

[Plinko]

My favorite part of this is the title:

"The End of Christian America"

According to the article, 76 percent of people still identify themselves as Christian. However you feel about Christianity, a 10 percent drop from 86% does NOT define "the end."

 

[Bananakin]

The golden rule is overrated - would you want masochists following it?

 

[Chipopo]

Perhaps I should have worded it as a "second" age of enlightenment; as typified by the "post-Christian" message of the article. The end of the domination of assumed Christian-based (I say this because what is propagated by elites to the masses as Christian-based values has not always been Christian-based values) thinking and the approach of reasoned and critical thinking driving the minds of people. You could argue that that has largely taken place already, but I thought we were talking about the position of Christianity and other religions in an increasingly secular world. I was trying to argue that summary condescension imposed on those of religious faith was unnecessary and misplaced in the broad scheme of things.

I took this to be the heart of your initial post:

What should not be lost is that if we can maintain belief in something unprovable everyday with ease since we observe its clear successful results, why is an extension of that into the aspect of the supernatural - although it would hold no such clear results - such a large invitation to condescension and rejection in the supposed period of Enlightenment we now approach?

If we recognize that both science and religion are predicated on faith, and that both manifestations of faith provide benefits, indeed, more benefits then either side would like to admit, then why not let sleeping dogs lie and recognize that each position has something to offer.

I disagree with this position, primarily because I do not feel that religion offers anything that the secular position does not, but that it also willingly harbors a number of malignant behaviors and attitudes that would be more difficult to preserve under secular conditions.

To be fair, in the political context, commercialization and fear has long since overtaken religion as the methods by which most governments manipulate their populace.

Perhaps this says it all, but I have difficulty discerning between using religion and using fear as a means of manipulation. The Bush administration justified a number of its more heinous actions on religious positions that were nothing other then latent forms of fear.

Taking your point out of context for a second: I would argue that Jesus Christ's core message - and that of many religions - has applicability to the world we are living in today. If you're an egoist, I'm sure you'll disagree, though.

It's a complex issue. Secularism can be said to harbor within itself a number of Christian ideals. Whether we like it or not the world we live in is a Judeo-Christian world. But within that con-text we should be willing to trim the fat.

In context: Whether religion is there or not, existentialism has the same capacity for stagnation in the acceptance of this world as meaningless. See what I did there? Not all religious people are taking up Pascal's Wager as not all existentialists are giving into despair. Some actually have concern for the here and now, the world they leave behind them and the people they effect.

To whatever extent a Christian is concerned with the present, is capable of seeing the world in a historical con-text and constructs his world view from experience as opposed to doctrine is the extent to which he is not a Christian. This isn't just rhetorical. Such a person is either involved with a highly reformed Church (a Church that is reformed as a direct result of Enlightenment rationality) or he is a misnomer, an exceptional person in the march of history.

Of course there are (what I would consider) weak-minded existentialists. The difference being, of course, that existentialism is predicated on people discovering their own meaning within the historical con-text in which they are thrown.

It's as though you are arguing (and this is true of your last post as well) that I should except organized religion on the basis of their own existential ungroundedness. That because there is no pipeline to truth that I should recognize the religious as one of my own. I should recognize that it's not fair to generalize all religious people in to a category. That we are all essentially different, and we all have our own historically bound perception of reality that guides our life.

And my response is: I do! But you and I and every other Christian are only capable of recognizing those things insofar as we are not Christian. The religious position is not the position that permits what you're defending. The religious position is that we are all equal under God. The religious position is a-historical. The religious position sets up a rigid and specific set of signifiers and wallpapers over all the things that make your position and my position possible.

The possibility for progression exists with religion if the purposeless adherence to tradition and hold on legal principles of the state can be left behind. Basically, practices stemming solely from religious belief should be opt-in, not mandatory. If this does not occur, I accept your criticism of stagnation. I would be lying if I didn't remark on all the flaws I've recognized in organized religion, but there it turns again, another generalization of all the religious as wholly the blind sheep - unthinking and uncaring outside their progression down the track firmly marked out by tradition.

There is no motive from within Christianity itself to do anything besides following the demarcated lines. All variations amongst its members has come extrinsically.

Why keep a structure that encourages such a thing in place? I am not saying that such rigidity in people would disappear once religion disappeared. But I think people underrate how advantageous it would be to designate such people as such when they don't have an entire super-structure justifying their position.

Or perhaps another way of looking at it: Let's update the superstructure so that the sheeple will d things that are useful to the present instead of totally backwards, xenophobic and anti-progress.

Religion is a presumption of the Truth. I feel that many religious people understand their belief is a leap of faith that should entail humility - it cannot be proven. The paradox is that faith like that provides power. To believe is self-nourishing in itself - whether you believe no God exists, that you cannot know, or that God does exist. The problem I have is - as I'm sure many do - when that power is used as launching pad for self-righteousness or smug certainty: fundamentalism. It is the branching off of the superiority complex.

I'm not sure that we're talking about the same thing. I've never argued that a non-Christian life or world would lead into a "a barren hopeless existence". I can even appreciate the paradoxical sense of joy that existentialism can entice if that's the "reveling" in the certainty of uncertainty you're talking of.

I thought it was relevant because you're essentially talking about what are the psychological benefits of faith. It's ability to nourish. That nourishment is not lost in a world without religion.

Tolerance and respect for the beliefs of fellow human beings as long as it places no harm on the greater community is a misguided mentality to entertain? Does conviction truly demand that we ostracize the believer or non-believer and antagonize contention between them (or, in the case of the religious, perhaps between their sub-groups as well)?

The truth is that there are no good methods for raising peoples self-awareness when they utterly refuse to do so, and arguing is just pissing in the wind. There's nothing rational about it. Still, in the interest of not stuffing the religious in to a box, I still hold out hope that someday I might be witness to an epiphany. Hasn't happened yet though.

Are you saying that the true separation of Church and State that this article is describing as occurring with the beginnings of the end of a Christian-dominated culture does not go far enough?

Yes. But that's probably why I would never get elected in any capacity, which is probably for the best :lol

 

[LegendOfGood]

I don't hate you, I just think your viewpoint is hilariously false.

When were these good old days of America, by chance?

I define "good days of America" as a time when when there was a (seemingly) common value placed on the presence of moral scruples, a (seemingly) common respect for authority, and a (seemingly) common value placed on tradition.

I say seemingly because maybe I am wrong, and those things never really did exist. Or, maybe they did exist and those who didn't hold them were a bit more subtle in their resistance.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

One could argue that the "assumption of superiority" is directly built into a lot of the monotheistic religions (they generally came after the polytheistic religions, and didn't seem to think too highly of them), so of course it was going to be the modus operandi. One glance at the Old Testament for example seems to indicate that "respect of disagreement" is not high on the list of priorities. In essence, it's a feature, not a bug. Now, with regards to Christianity specifically, Jesus came along and said some nicer things later on, which is awesome. But it makes the story a bit muddled and contradictory if Jesus is supposedly the same character (or endorses the same character) from the Old Testament.

Of course, in modern times, the Old Testament now gets the "dude it's just a metaphor, stop taking it so literally" treatment . Which, like I mentioned, is great! I'm glad not everyone takes it completely literally. Of course, if most of the Old Testament is now just a metaphor, then all the Jesus stuff ends up not making that much anymore (what does Jesus need to save us from, if "the fall" and all of the savior prophecies are now just myths?). Normally, I wouldn't give a care either way, but the fact that so many do, and even want to make laws based on this "belief system" worries me a little.

In terms of Christianity, I don't think the narrative is difficult to follow if you sit down personally and read the scripture. Jesus Christ exists to wash away the power of guilt when it comes to sin, the "chosen people" aspect of Judaism, and advocates personal choice as well as disinterest with control through political infrastructure. Key dogma: love, forgiveness, respect.

I don't see how the theistic states that rose in Medieval times which pursued Crusades, limited or blocked knowledge that included the scriptures themselves and endorsed heathen/heretical killings are linked with the actual core message of Jesus Christ and why people insist on seeing this as some sort of "pure" form of Christianity. I would argue that the elites of the time and their institutions utilized Christianity - as Lee Kuan Yew and other Asian leaders today utilize "Asian values", as Lenin modified Marxism - as a means of asserting authoritarian control of the mass populace.

Edit: I'm going to sleep on your post, Chipopo, it's past 3am here.

 

[Panda Bear]

I would argue that most people don't see "god exists" as a "subjective" question. People tend to be taught that a god made the universe, god set some rules for us to follow, and he's involved in our lives in some way, and has done many specific actions throughout history. That's kind of the point of the major monotheistic gods being so possessive (I am a jealous god, thou shalt have no other gods before me, etc.). There's a reason why religions are generally taught from birth. There's a reason why monotheistic gods tend to be "kings" and "father figures". You're supposed to see them as your very real leader that you're supposed to worship. Not as just some subjective concept that someone happens to personally agree with.

If you're talking about a traditional and conservative idea of religion then I would agree with you. I suppose what I am saying is that the evangelists and fundamentalists that practice the type of religion you just described are but a vocal minority. I am saying that I think most religious people are much more open minded and reasonable about their faith in God, and I think that this article with its discussion about people turning away from organized religion to a more personal one supports that.

(note: I'm talking about the average person who believes in interventionist type gods, not the academic, vague, and generic philosopher concept of "god". Also, Eastern religions vary a bit as well, but I assume we're all speaking from majority Christian/Islam/Judaism country here)

"Subjective" almost by definition means that it's just a personal thing that's all in your head. I would say most people don't see their god belief as something that's just all in their head, and would probably be pretty insulted if someone said that to them. Of course, the ultimate endpoint of their arguments points to the fact that it is practically subjective, since there aren't really any good arguments for the literal existence of invisible universe-creating beings.

I don't think "subjective" implies that though. To say something is subjective implies to me that it is a feeling or an opinion lacking tangible evidence in light of ignorance or a lack of objectivity. For instance, what economic policy you might support is a decision that is being made subjectively since there really is no "right" policy. With the question of the existence of God there obviously is a right answer, there is just no way for anyone to know what that answer is. I think most people understand this concept and thus understand that their views on the issue are subjective.

Now, a lot of more progressive folks in modern times approach the question of god's existence and their religious claims as a "that's just like, my opinion man, it's cool if you believe differently, dude it's just a metaphor" type of thing. Which is fine and all, and is obviously much more preferable from a practical standpoint, and generally won't see any complaints from me (except on message boards where the whole idea is to provoke discussion). But in a weird way it's sort of an admittance that the claims that religion has made for thousands of years are pretty much made up, lol.

I think it depends on exactly what claims religion has made that you're referring to. If you're referring to the claims that there is a God and an afterlife, etc. then I would disagree with you. To admit your belief is subjective does however bring into question specific claims such as that a certain religion's ideas or beliefs are the "only correct answers" or things like that.

I will however agree with you in that it is extremely easy for people, especially those in power, to embrace the idea that their beliefs are universally correct and all others are wrong (or in one word, fundamentalism). It takes a great amount of humility and character to admit that you may not be right about these questions and that your way might not be the only true way. I do think though, and this is based solely on my personal experience with both believers and nonbelievers, that most people are able to understand and willing to take the latter route.

 

[soul creator]

I define "good days of America" as a time when when there was a (seemingly) common value placed on the presence of moral scruples, a (seemingly) common respect for authority, and a (seemingly) common value placed on tradition.

I say seemingly because maybe I am wrong, and those things never really did exist. Or, maybe they did exist and those who didn't hold them were a bit more subtle in their resistance.

I was actually wondering if you had specific dates/years in mind. I don't want to get all angry liberal on you, but the past wasn't very rosy for a large part of the population (and the present isn't either)...

 

[AndresON777]

I agree, but it's not just religion, man. I think the bigger contributor is that parents no longer instill respect into their kids for authority, property, privacy, themselves, others, or the sacred. It's the lack of respect and common decency that is the bigger factor.

I'm still on Team Jesus. We're planning a comeback at some point!

:lol

Awesome

 

[KHarvey16]

I define "good days of America" as a time when when there was a (seemingly) common value placed on the presence of moral scruples, a (seemingly) common respect for authority, and a (seemingly) common value placed on tradition.

I say seemingly because maybe I am wrong, and those things never really did exist. Or, maybe they did exist and those who didn't hold them were a bit more subtle in their resistance.

The good old days, when we had twice as many water fountains!

 

[soul creator]

The good old days, when we had twice as many water fountains!

:lol

 

[gohepcat]

I define "good days of America" as a time when when there was a (seemingly) common value placed on the presence of moral scruples, a (seemingly) common respect for authority, and a (seemingly) common value placed on tradition.

I say seemingly because maybe I am wrong, and those things never really did exist. Or, maybe they did exist and those who didn't hold them were a bit more subtle in their resistance.

What about the cold hard facts that crime (in the us) has fallen every year for the last 20 years? Teen pregnancy is down, drug use is down, etc.

I seriously do not understand people. looking at the crime rates in the 70's compared to now are shocking.

Look up H.H.Holmes if you want to see how wonderful the world was long ago.

 

[LegendOfGood]

I was actually wondering if you had specific dates/years in mind.

I did, and they are what I believe to be during the Reagan/Clinton years when our economy was fantastic.

I think at that time there was still a presence of the things I mentioned earlier. Again, I am speaking from my single perspective and acknowledge that I could be wrong.

 

[Chipopo]

I did, and they are what I believe to be during the Reagan/Clinton years when our economy was fantastic.

I think at that time there was still a presence of the things I mentioned earlier. Again, I am speaking from my single perspective and acknowledge that I could be wrong.

dot dot dot

 

[wayward archer]

I define "good days of America" as a time when when there was a (seemingly) common value placed on the presence of moral scruples, a (seemingly) common respect for authority, and a (seemingly) common value placed on tradition.

I say seemingly because maybe I am wrong, and those things never really did exist. Or, maybe they did exist and those who didn't hold them were a bit more subtle in their resistance.

Every generation thinks the good ol' days are behind us and that the world they live in is the worst it's ever been.

The world that Leave it to Beaver portrayed had a lot more racial and gender discrimination than we do today, and statistically had pretty much the same amount of murder, greed, crime, corruption, etc. It just wasn't allowed to be shown on tv.

 

[PrinceAdam]

A long as it's not replaced by fucking Muslims, I'll be happy

 

[140.85]

HAPPY EASTER! Love Newsweek.