Religion and Folklore

[detrop]

So I have this box, and I put this kid into this box, and I raise him(back off, Skinner, this is my project). During the time in which he is in the box(10 years) I never expose him to religion, never mention the word "God," but teach him the english language.

When I let him out of the box, how would he become religious?

Either the child has ideas which will later be called "religious." Or the "religion" will cause the ideas in the child.

Which is it?

Now, if I took every post that mentioned any one of the various conventional religions in this forum back in time(using Billy's time machine) before the period of that specific religion, presented it back to you, you wouldn't know what you were talking about and would dismiss it as fast as I dismiss this argument.

You might recall as a child that you hadn't ever considered such things until you were introduced to it. Discovering the world and how it worked kept you occupied until you stopped to ask why. At such a point, anything works as an excuse as no single excuse can be proven wrong. It would come natural that your intellectual development would run parallel with whatever excuse was used as an answer to that question: being exposed to Christianity, becomming comfortable with it, and adapting to those ideas you think you had before you were introduced to it. But this is not so. You are the kid from the box, so it isn't that the logic you use in asking the question "why" needed Christianity to pose it. Its that Christianity created that question and is contingent...or that question preceded Christianity and therefore has no use for Christianity.

The same goes for any other religion.

"GOD" IS NOT A RELIGIOUS MATTER.

(jeez...why the caps?)

Brown shoes, white suits, blonde wives who take phone calls, and passing the plate around is "religion."

It is the chimpanzee part of the brain thinking.

Please use this thread to share with us your favorite and most ridiculous "religious" interpretations of "God."

[chanbengchin]

"GOD" IS NOT A RELIGIOUS MATTER.

wow! That's some insight!

[detrop]

wow! That's some insight!

Now you see, Mr. Chan, I don't know how to intepret that statement. Upon my initial reading I had deduced that it was the epitome of sarcasm, which embodies the entire spectrum of your confusion:

1. That it is indeed a great insight, and you speak the contrary.
2. That not only did you not know this, but you were also prepared to mock me from a position that does not exist.
3. That you think I am kidding or something and want to joke around.

However, it is possible that you have considered my post and are only just hesitant to accept it. In this case, I can handle your withdrawals from religion and take your insults as grains of salt. But to think that 1 through 3 might actually be happening, I not so sure I should even begin a debate(if you could call it that).

I expect a pious argument from anyone who even has the word "religion" in their vocabulary.

Disregard this entire post if you were not being a smartass.

[chanbengchin]

er ... what about

4. I actually meant it.

[detrop]

No, sweetheart, that would be number 2.

That is, you actually think you "mean" anything at all and in fact are not kidding.

[*trix*]

yeah, i use to think something like what you wrote down, de'trop. and maybe it's because i'm taking a course on the history of philosophy, but i really don't think this view is valid. if you look at 'religion' before the major western tradtion, homer and hesiod being the main sources, i don't think you'd get a very 'folklore'ish view of spirituality. further, i don't think one can say this about native american beliefs, or eastern. these seem to have a strong element of contemplation in them, different from greek thinking, which was more of a celebration of the body, i think. in any event, it's not until plato and aristotle that you get a huge warping of many of their texts, and christianity really leeched off that. 'fraid poor reading of philosophy is to blame for much of the western religious tradition

[chanbengchin]

And why should I be mocking you if I actually mean it?

[detrop]

Okay. Thank you, Chan, for making an ass outta me. I apologize for misunderstanding you twice.

Trix, great post.

My biggest objection seems very legitimate. That of the historical contingency of religion. To think that during the millions of years that we have existed any one specific religious model would be any more credible than another. Yet we see various religions growing in numbers, we see generation after generation pass those traditions down. As if the people didn't realize that their story is just one among countless stories told by humans for millions of years.

I hear a Christian arguing with a Muslim. And to actually think that either of them feels confident makes me laugh. Often I'm tempted to butt in, but then again, do I want to talk to someone who would believe such a thing to begin with?

It works like this. IF there is any truth in a statement made by one who claims that they or the statment is religious, then the truth value cannot be religious since religion is contingent:

Was that the truth before that religion?

Or the extreme:

Was there a different kind of truth before God created that specific religion if the religious truth didn't exist until he created the religion?

There is an immediate common sensical notion that tells us that "God" doesn't change his mind often and is not very prankish...or would at least provide some justification during the major worldly religious shifts.

Logic tells us that if God is not a clumsy and prankish being, then real metaphysical thinking is possible at any point in history on its own. That it would be pure reason based on timeless truths. That, ironically, it would become indistinguishable from philosophy and science.

The problem with religion as I see it is that it bogs down the intellect. And it does so because the content of the religion is usually logically inconsistent if not blatantly contradictive or ridiculous. If people aren't yet learned in even the basics of critical rational thinking then an early introduction to religion will be unproductively persuasive. But if one is already skeptical, then the religion serves as an excellent demonstration of what is not the case, and builds an even stronger more passionate thinker.

As an "atheist" I am in a peculiar spot. There is no doubt that I can claim with some general accuracy that I understand any concept of "God." And I also continue to accept that such a possibility(a God) cannot be entirely ruled out. Yet I have never felt comfortable or convinced with/by any external idea outside of my own head, dismissing any and all religion that doesn't fit my thinking. One would think that to be an "atheist" would mean to disregard any idea of God...I appear to be an exception to this rule.

I guess you might hear me reply to a theist something like this:

"Yeah, I know what you are talking about, but you aren't explaining it like you think you are...so no, I don't know what you are talking about."

Ain't that a bitch?

[Bob]

i don't think one can say this about native american beliefs, or eastern. these seem to have a strong element of contemplation in them

I believe that most major religions have a contemplative element about them, but the way that many religions are practised is contradictory to their origins. It is this inconsistency that causes us problems.

Was that the truth before that religion?

Religion is really just the formal practise of believing, whereas trust is a frame of mind that comes from experience. The truth of experience before Religion was in Mysticism (before it was called Mysticism) .

The trouble with the boy in the box is that he'd probably die before you could reach an age where he could be useful for your experiment. I heard of an experiment with children in which they never saw a face or felt the naked skin of a mother -and died quickly.

I think too that Pestalozzi observed correctly
"1. Personality is sacred. This constitutes the 'inner dignity of each individual for the young as truly as for the adult.
2. As 'a little seed... contains the design of the tree', so in each child is the promise of his potentiality. 'The educator only takes care that no untoward influence shall disturb nature's march of developments'.
3. Love of those we would educate is 'the sole and everlasting foundation' in which to work. 'Without love, neither the physical not the intellectual powers will develop naturally'. So kindness ruled in Pestalozzi's schools: he abolished flogging - much to the amazement of outsiders.
4. To get rid of the 'verbosity' of meaningless words Pestalozzi developed his doctrine of Anschauung - direct concrete observation, often inadequately called 'sense perception' or 'object lessons'. No word was to be used for any purpose until adequate Anschauung had preceded. The thing or distinction must be felt or observed in the concrete. Pestalozzi's followers developed various sayings from this: from the known to the unknown, from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract.
5. To perfect the perception got by the Anschauung the thing that must be named, an appropriate action must follow. 'A man learns by action... have done with [mere] words!' 'Life shapes us and the life that shapes us is not a matter of words but action'.
6. Out of this demand for action came an emphasis on repetition - not blind repetition, but repetition of action fol"lowing the Anschauung."

William H. Kilpatrick in his introduction to Heinrich Pestalozzi (1951) The Education of Man - Aphorisms, New York: Philosophical Library.

Shalom
Bob

[detrop]

Bob,

I swear to God that I don't set out to make an example out of your words, but every time I see one of your posts I also see exactly what I am opposing.

I believe that most major religions have a contemplative element about them, but the way that many religions are practised is contradictory to their origins. It is this inconsistency that causes us problems.

Not even a real problem. First there is human contemplation...then there is established groups of belief systems called "religions"...then there is the inevitable red herring which you demonstrate as the inconsistency.

It is precisely because "religion" doesn't constitute human contemplation, is mistaken as the source and measure of human contemplation, and breaks down when this consequence is finally realized:

People rely on the religious doctrine as the substantial source of their reason and freak out when the religion collapses on its own accord. [insert favorite religious war].

Tell me. How can one be consistent with something that itself is inconsistent? As Kierkegaard asked, "How can one be a Christian? There is no such thing."

Religion is really just the formal practise of believing

Bingo...but not really. Are there any formalities in believing? Are there limits to what can be believed? How then can a religion place all its stock in this absurdity from the start?

I can believe anything I want to. What I am searching for is a model in which to understand the universe without so many inconsistencies, Bob. You must understand that "belief" is not synonomous with "truth." It is possible that it can be, but not impossible that truth still exists without belief. This is called trimming the hedges of logic. We start with ground rules and eliminate those possibilities that are contingent.

Since it isn't a rule that what is true is what is always believed, then it must be a rule that what is true is without being believed.

I'll tell you a secret, Bob. God loves this shit, man. He's tickled pink over our careful and cautious reasoning. But don't tell him I said that.

[trix]

Logic tells us that if God is not a clumsy and prankish being, then real metaphysical thinking is possible at any point in history on its own. That it would be pure reason based on timeless truths. That, ironically, it would become indistinguishable from philosophy and science.

if the religion is contingent on rational thinking. i'm adamant that it's not, actually, but that's my personal belief. it's true, though, that especially with aristotle and from then on in the medieval period (to now, the juedeo-christitan tradition that you mention) the God is a primarily rational being and the above statement would be true.

i just happen to believe that religion, and faith, involves far far more than just this. i don't think i can even explain in words what 'this' is, and i know it sounds like i'm chickening out. but it's true. for those who hold reason to be the supreme quality in life, then your arguement makes sense. i don't hold reason as dear, and i don't particularly want to.

[chanbengchin]

God is reasonable.

Look at yourselves.

Then look at the animals.

Biologically what's the difference? Perhaps none. We as all animals do, breed, live, bleed and die.

But only we can asked each other and ponder, sometimes meaninglessly, such questions. And only we, apparently, have such notions as Reason, Love, Justice, Mercy, Beauty, Meaning, Goodness and even God.

Where do these notions originated from? In us? Most likely.

And I think that the de'tropified and boxed up child of 10 years will still have such ideas, isolated as he is from "religious" thoughts and doctrines.

For God is not in rituals and religions. God is in us.

We can see and know God, even as we can see and know ourselves looking in a mirror, misty and obscured though the mirror maybe.

[chanbengchin]

Since it isn't a rule that what is true is what is always believed, then it must be a rule that what is true is without being believed.

Interesting but wrong.

The rule that what is true is not always believed leads to what is always believed is always not true, not that what is true is without belief.

The proof is:

Let T=What is True, B=Always Believed

The de'Tropian rule is then:

T=>NOT B ....... [1]
This is equivalent to:

NOT(NOT B)=>NOT T ...... [2]

or B => NOT T ....... [3]

Which means that which is always believed is ALWAYS not true.

So common opinion and the democratic process is potentially seriously flawed, for if ALL conclude on the same thing then it is certainly not true!

[Bob]

Hi de'trop

It is precisely because "religion" doesn't constitute human contemplation, is mistaken as the source and measure of human contemplation, and breaks down when this consequence is finally realized:

I think it is the illusion that Mankind is primarily meant to be rational, reasonable and cognitively intelligent that is your problem with what I consider to be true. I believe that Mankind is only to a certain degree rational - and mostly in reflection of what has occurred. Most of the time people are reacting intuitively to occurrences and reflect on them afterwards.

"Contemplation is keeping the idea which is brought into the mind for some time actually in view." say's John Locke. What kind of ideas constitute contemplation? I would say all ideas are valid, including religious notions. Taking the fact that Mankind usually reasons by comparing, it would be understandable for me, if early human beings saw the material world and concluded that this can't be an accident. It would be in keeping with the intelligence of Mankind to assume that some other intelligence was responsible for creating something that we hold in awe.

It would equally be in keeping with human intelligence, if Mankind slowly realised that whatever intelligence is responsible for the material world, it isn't human and it isn't superhuman either - it must be vastly different. But how do you communicate about such an idea? You can only use the terminology that you would use for another intelligence - i.e. Mankind. None the less, the awareness would be present, that such a conversation would not be about some "old man with a beard" or indeed any such imagination.

The attempt to reduce religious thought to the childish imaginations of today is a misinterpretation of religious scripture. Because emotional intelligence has far more bearing on whether we are able to survive, reliable considerations were clothed in emotional myths and legends, and the passing on of wisdom occurred around the fire at night or whilst resting on a journey. These stories are immediately understandable by intuition - but intuition is something that Mankind is loosing.

Where this kind of thought broke down, was where Religion was institutionalised and misused for political aspirations. It is when power enters the equation that the system fails. Unfortunately it has been the alleged christians that have continually become a danger, because for a long time the oriental origins of Christianity were disliked and the Empires were able to contain other Religions.

Judaism has proved itself to be full of wisdom - and interestingly brought forth most of the scientific geniuses. The Islam was always a "protestant" movement - protesting about the perversion of Religion but becoming very militant. The eastern Religions were always very contemplative but less materialistic than the west - something that did influence Christianity here and there (especially amongst the Mystics) but has only recently found a wider audience. Other Religions like Hinduism provided a System of living that seems very archaic to our minds now, but find their access through the emotional intelligence.

Are there any formalities in believing?

Rigorous or ceremonious adherence to established forms, rules, or customs is traditionally Religion. Being formal, strictly ceremonious or precise is necessary when you require discipline - especially when you are in danger of being attacked by some other group. But it is also important for identity, for knowing where you are from. The lack of identity is very apparent in our mixed cultures and causes problems for those who are not able to get above the everyday conflict.

What I am searching for is a model in which to understand the universe without so many inconsistencies, Bob

That is probably the problem you have. You can't transcend your existence without Religion - “One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena” said Hilaire Belloc. And no-one is saying that it is the limit of our potential, but it is more than you give acknowledgement to. Your mistake to my mind is to believe you can achieve more cognitively than you actually can, and in sticking at it you actually achieve nothing.

Shalom
Bob

[Guest]

Interesting but wrong.

Chan, I'm going to show you how I interpret this symbolic logic that you have used. I need to do this for you because I don't, or haven't rather, learned the first thing about any of it or how it is used. If I make any errors in this interpretation, let me know.

My statement:

"Since it isn't a rule that what is true is what is always believed, then it must be a rule that what is true is without being believed."

Your formula:

"Let T=What is True, B=Always Believed

The de'Tropian rule is then:

T=>NOT B ....... [1]

This is equivalent to:

NOT(NOT B)=>NOT T ...... [2]

or B => NOT T ....... [3]

Which means that which is always believed is ALWAYS not true."

I agree with the first portion. I am indeed saying that there is "truth." And I am also saying that "truth" is not always(but sometimes) what is believed. So far so good.

The second portion I don't follow, the equivalent.

The "NOT(NOT B)=>NOT T ...... [2]" part.

First, what is a "(NOT B)?" According to this formula so far it can only mean "never believed." Then you say "NOT(NOT B). This can only mean "NOT never believed." What does that mean? "Sometimes believed," if "B" is "always believed?" That is the only alternative here, it can only be "always," "sometimes," or "never." Accepting that, I determine that you think I mean that "truth" is nonexistent without belief, or that "truth" can't be known "sometimes" as opposed to "never" or "always." I haven't said that, Chan. Look again...

"...it must be a rule that what is true is without being believed."

I didn't say that "truth" needs belief to exist. I said that it exists regardless of belief, whether "always," sometimes," or "never" changes nothing here.

Perhaps you should add a "Q" to the mix, eh?

Oh, and what is the little ">" symbol? What function does it serve?

Hey man, I told you already, I slept through school. Take it easy.

Bob, yer killin' me, man, really. What is this mess:

That is probably the problem you have. You can't transcend your existence without Religion - “One never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena” said Hilaire Belloc. And no-one is saying that it is the limit of our potential, but it is more than you give acknowledgement to. Your mistake to my mind is to believe you can achieve more cognitively than you actually can, and in sticking at it you actually achieve nothing.

Tell Belloc, or ask him/her rather, how he/she has come about this conclusion without the mind, reason, rationale, and logic. If the mind does not transcend phenomena, how does it come to mind that "one can never see the thing-in-itself?" Do you see how that statement collapses, Bob?

The "mistake" is to believe that anything can be achieved noncognitively. And if it can be, it is useless and irrelevent to mind, as mind constitutes any and all thoughts. Including the thought that "one never can see the thing in itself, because the mind does not transcend phenomena."

Are you chasing your own tail, Bob?

-de'trop-

(I can't log in for some reason)

[chanbengchin]

... I determine that you think I mean that "truth" is nonexistent without belief, or that "truth" can't be known "sometimes" as opposed to "never" or "always." I haven't said that .... I didn't say that "truth" needs belief to exist. I said that it exists regardless of belief, whether "always," sometimes," or "never" changes nothing here.

First NOT (NOT B). B is "Always Believed". So NOT B is NOT "Always Believed" meaning "SOMETIMES" or "NOT FOR ALL TIMES" Believed. NOT (NOT B) is B itself, ie Always Believed.

All I am saying in the logical manipulations is that the logical deduction or consequence from your rule - the "de'Tropian rule" - is: IF a thing is ALWAYS BELIEVED then it is CERTAINLY False, ie NOT (T).

And it is something I am not saying, but just the logical consequences of what you said, specifically in your rule you asserted.

I did not and neither did your rule say anything about truth's existence and its relation to belief, nor were there anything said about truth's knowability, eg that a truth needs to be believed to exist, or only knowable truths are believable, etc These notions do not follow in any sense from the "de'Tropian rule" asserted.

In other words you are trying to say more than what is logically sound or feasible. The issues are TRUTH, its existence or otherwise, and its knowability or otherwise. And on the other side of the coin we have human beings and their BELIEFS, what and how and why they believe what they believed, and specifically of truths. All that your proposed rule is saying is the veracity or otherwise of what is believed, nothing about how it came to be believed nor its relation, if any, to truth's existence and knowability.

A valid objection to my logical deductions of your rule is that I have represented it wrongly in equation [1], ie it is not T ==>NOT(B) but rather it should be NOT (T==>B). The logical consequence of that is subtly different, namely that what is Always Believed and what is False are synonymous, ie if you know something is false you are sure it is always believed too. [1] do not have this connotation.

[Bob]

Hi de'trop,

Tell Belloc, or ask him/her rather, how he/she has come about this conclusion without the mind, reason, rationale, and logic. If the mind does not transcend phenomena, how does it come to mind that "one can never see the thing-in-itself?" Do you see how that statement collapses, Bob?

I'm not really a fan of Beloc, but the quote was genuine. You must know that every time you make an equation about life, you are in the equation yourself. We can't exist above and independent of the world (material experience or the universe) because we are in it, a part of it, adhering to the rules that apply and influencing things.

That means that you are always biasing the answer to your question the way you want it, although you intend to be completely objective. Now, you may say that I do too, but I am not pretending to be objective. I am saying that the knowledge that "God" imparts is largely received intuitively and that Mankind is essentially ruled by "emotional intelligence" which he reflects cognitively.

The problem is that many people believe that they behave objectively and judge cognitively, but they don't, they are ruled by their emotions and intuition and occisionally (some less than others) they think about what they have done to back it up morally. You could sit down and think something through from beginning to end, but you would then stand up and behave as though you hadn't.

This is the amazing ambivalence in Mankind, and why a monster can be a lover of cultural achievements, why a mass murderer can be attentive to a child and a terrorist can be a lover of philosophy.

The "mistake" is to believe that anything can be achieved noncognitively. And if it can be ...

mind constitutes any and all thoughts

1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination.
2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.
3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality.
4. The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge: Follow your mind, not your heart.
5. A person of great mental ability: the great minds of the century.
6.
a. Individual consciousness, memory, or recollection: I'll bear the problem in mind.
b. A person or group that embodies certain mental qualities: the medical mind; the public mind.
c. The thought processes characteristic of a person or group; psychological makeup: the criminal mind.
7. Opinion or sentiment: He changed his mind when he heard all the facts.
8. Desire or inclination: She had a mind to spend her vacation in the desert.
9. Focus of thought; attention: I can't keep my mind on work.
10. A healthy mental state; sanity: losing one's mind.

It really is interesting to look at what a word can mean, which indicates that thought processes are invariably individual and influenced by a number of factors - which argues for my case that cognition plays a smaller part in our lives than we would like to believe.

Shalom
Bob