That humanity seems to have a general need for religion does not mean that we can generalize about all religious people, especially in the way you have.
You suggest a new, more realistic myth, yet religion changes all of the time; religion is constantly evolving to meet the needs of practitioners. Some tradition may not meet your particular needs; that's fine, find another tradition, or maybe you have no need for any tradition. But to generalize that all religious traditions should be replaced with something more "realistic" is to have absolutely no sensitivity regarding the value of faith traditions to other people around you.
I think you are confusing something common to most would be intellectual issues with something particular to religious belief. The bottom line is that most people could not give a good account, to your rational standards, as to why they vote Democrat (or what have you). To expect people who do not even understand their politics to a reasonable degree to understand their religion to a reasonable degree is silly.
So what? Most people do not care about being reasonable with regards to religion. These failings do not translate to a total failure of rationality in religion as a whole.
What would you all say to someone who had an experience, or experiences, that led them to conclude "rationally" that something spritual exists beyond realm of our normal empircal understandings?
Personally, I think that if you would immediately judge him to be irrational without weighing the situation unbiasedly... that would be materialistic dogma.
If you go into a situation already assuming that your beliefs about the nature of the universe are so well grounded in reality that they can not be challanged, then you can't blame someone else for doing the same thing.
As an aside, I want to thank Aedes for (I believe) attempting giving the "religious" a fair shot. There are a lot of unblinkingly dogmatic religious folks out there, and too ofthen the seem to have the loudest voices. It's nice when people can look past some of that...
If people do not care to be reasonable about there faith as you have said, isn't it a tad insane to take it to a philosophy forum, and expected to be given protection in the stituation.
1) There are hundreds of mystic/religious traditions that have been around for thousands of years, they must provide practitioners with something. To imply that a practitioner is just one of the sheeple allowing herself to be brainwashed by some theocratic power clearinghouse is silly. No doubt that there are those people and no doubt there are those theocratic systems, but just like with governments, if they are not metting the needs of the people they will be overthrown and have been.
2) Saying religious people are not rational and that whatever religious method of knowledge creation they use is irrational is awfully elitist and really doesn't do anything aside from showing that you aren't really all that secure in your own method of knowledge creation. Any person who is truely seeking knowledge would be smart to use all methods at their disposal to do so. Mystic/Religious traditions have specific methods by which a person "converts", (proves to themsleves something is true and decides to apply their will in choosing to follow). They also often have non-science threatening methods to create knowledge. These methods are normally not secret, its simply that others scoff at them because these methods do not conform to the presupposed rationality that they have already been converted to. One day if you really want to prove to yourselves that a religious rational is bogus, make a sincere attempt to find knowledge by that method.
Really what is philosophy aside from a meta-conversation seeking knowledge, backing up statement in a manner that counters how that statement was obtained is pointless. To be posting in the religious section of the philosophy forum would probably require a willingness to post using methods that apply to religion, or at the very least a tolerance for those who are, without railing myopic elitism based on only one system of knowledge creation.
on and on and on
Humanity, your term, is a generality.
The bible does not change, and it frightens me that someone whom believes in Adam and Eve, the devil, miracles, evil deeds as in the supernatural sense, as an offense to god or absurdities llike the end times just might gain political power and have their finger on the ****on.
Mythology is as old perhaps as humanity itself, it is a natural response to wonder to create a story which informs its people of the nature of reality, some religions are sadly not up to it, they misinform and frighten children.
I really do not give a dam about whether the religious man knows what he is doing. What I object to is his unwillingness to be open and honest in his dialogue while attempting to convince others that his babbling is truth.
Let those who make proclamations back them up with the rational for how they got there, let them be held accountable like everyone else. Stupidity is a poor excuse, especially when it wants to lead. If people do not care to be reasonable about there faith as you have said, isn't it a tad insane to take it to a philosophy forum, and expected to be given protection in the stituation. Just as people nolonger believe in the Roman pantheon of the gods, so to it is time to place christianity on the same shelf. "To expect people who do not even understand their politics to a reasonable degree to understand their religion to a reasonable degree is just silly" I could not have said it better myself, ignorance is bliss. Amen!
I don't think this is a Christian specific thread. My last post was simply rooting out some silly biases held against Christianity, but the same can be said for any similar generalizations about any other faith tradition.
Not all mythologies insist on their fellowers believing the absurd, which the bible it literally stuffed with.
Can you look at Islam today and not see the dangers for christianity, makes my blood run cold. All self proclaimed world religions have totalitarian ambitions with the acception of Buddhism, and in the middle east judasim is not a problem simply because it is not a world religion.
The fact that christianity tries to stand in the way of a rational education--think the creation museum, the church trying to deny biological evolution and the church invading the classroom.
You say I am not rational, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black!
Let me ask you a direct question, do you believe in miracles, as in by means of violating the laws of nature to be realised.
At anyrate, no one would give a dam what christianity proclaims if it was not political, as a political animal it is fair game for all the hostility in the world.
Now I know christianity is not going to go away in the near future, but people should be made aware of the dangers of mythologies [group thought if you like] certainly history tell us to, BEWARE!
You do sound surprisinly rational but if Christianity is not responsible, this is an entity where only the individual is to be held accountable, not that which is his greatest influence.
Would this reasoning apply to some one in the mafia, he belongs to the mafia but it is not the mafia that is to blame.
It seems to me that what is done in the name of Christianity Christianity should be responsible for.
If it is individuals you are talking about where are these individuals when the church does something they do not approve of?
It is group thought and I wonder how healthy said individual are in order to serve as checks and balances.
I think it a fair question, many people are displease with Islam and wonder why the saner elements do not clean their own home. I am quite serious, for the way you make it sound, it would be impossible ever to hold the church accountable for anything----nice work if you can get it.
I have heard no protest about christianities push of intelligent design in the science classrooms of the nation, it does not take much to realise that this is not science.
These things need to be addressed by other christians, but, that does not happen. Tell me free thinking christians, is the world really only six thousand years old?
A sure way to disprove is analogy is to hear from free thinking christians in a public way protest things like the attempted usurping of the public school system.
All you've really done is paint a picture of a monstrosity, something with no correlation of its parts, obsurity is a defense posture, not unknown to man or beast.