Religion – fact or cultural phenomena?

I found that article rather facile. The argument from sectarianism is very, very old (at least thousands of years), and it is more than a little naïve to think that any "true believer" is going to be convinced by these types of arguments. They don't believe because they are rationally convinced (c.f., Soren Kierkegaard's "leap of faith")--they believe because they want or need to believe.

I find the notion that "atheism" can be proselytized to be both a form of intellectual masturbation (any putative "atheist" engaged in proselytizing "disbelief" is conducting an ego-centric exercise, in my never humble opinion--they are doing it to gratify themselves, and not because they give a rat's ass what their target individual believes; in fact, a stubborn resistance to their message, the evidence of "invincible ignorance" will gratify them by proving what they had believed in advance); and i also see it as antithetical to the merest definition of atheism--the state of being without god--because "reason" is being raised to the level of a higher power, and the putative "atheist" engaged in such an exercise is preaching their favorite dogma.

At the end of the article you posted is a link for another article entitled: Evangelistic Atheism: Leading Believers Astray--in addition to the objections which i have already detailed, if am amused to outright hilarity (i literally laughed aloud when i saw that) by this thought. At Answers-dot-com, the definition of evangelize is given as:

e·van·gel·ize (ĭ-văn'jə-līz')

v., -ized, -iz·ing, -iz·es.

v.tr.

1. To preach the gospel to.
2. To convert to Christianity.

v.intr.

To preach the gospel.

(The source document is given as the American Heritage Dictionary.)

More to the point, the word derives from the Greek (Koine Greek--meaning the Greek of Asia Minor in the period of the first century CE), and means "to bring good news," a coinage which was especially created originally to create the word evangelist, which specifically refers to the four putative authors of the "gospels." Anyone who cannot see how ludicrous it is to speak of evangelizing atheism lacks a sense of proportion, a sense of humor and a sense of irony, at the least.

*************************************

All of which being said, this site is precisely the venue to discuss such things, which is why i have held forth at length on how laughable i find the notion of actively trying to disabuse believers of their beliefs. In real life, i never discuss religion with anyone. I have a single friend--ironically, a conservative and supporter of Bush--who brings up the topic, and rails vehemently against the evils of organized religion. I listen to him politely because, having had his brief rant, having had his say, he is content, and the subject is easily changed to more pleasant subjects.

Only at a venue such as this do i discuss religion, and the manifold and manifest absurdities of theism. When "atheism" such as this comes along, as an organized and militant adherence to disbelief, i find that equally absurd.

I hope, though, that you will have an enjoyable discussion, and i hope that i never meet you in real life. If i did, and you began to "evangelize atheism," i'd probably pretend to be a fire-eating Christian fundamentalist just to piss you off.

bm

This is a good point. Therefore, does it make sense to say that religion is "cultural phenomena" and not fact? Everyone cannot be right, correct? But everyone can believe whatever then want to believe...

The article itself does present good ideas in terms of religious diversity...



That's not very nice. :wink: After all, I'm not an atheist. I'm Agnostic, meaning that I'm very skeptical towards religion, but at the same time I don't dismiss the idea of a higher power. The truth is, at the end of the day we don't understand the concept of the universe. I simply raised a legitimate question that's worth discussing.

Knowing that you jump to conclusions, I don't know how much credibility you have given to the other ideas in your post.

To all:
Please disregard the "Evangelistic Atheism" article at the bottom of the article to which I have linked!
Only focus on the ideas and reasoning in the original article.
(And no, I'm not an atheist!)

c-logic,

You can't have it both ways. If, as you say, we don't understand the concept of the universe then the word "fact" is either meaningless or is itself a matter of "social convention". (I refer here to Kuhn's concept of changing scientific paradigms.) Note that "a higher power" is predicated on naive realism in which there is "an objective universe" separate to "persons" and/or "higher powers". That is the philosophical flaw in agnosticism.

fresco, you raised some interesting points, and I see what you're trying to say.
However, I don't believe it's necessary to go this far in order to answer such a simple question. It's a question that yields an answer that makes sense to our own universe, even though we don't know what the source of our universe is.
For example, I may ask you whether you think I had breakfast this morning. The simple answer is to say yes or no, however, we could go into the details that don't neccessarily need to be answered, or are irrelevant to the subject. For example, we could start arguing whether there is really such thing as breakfast in the first place. Matter as we know it in our context of existence may not even really "be there" in the first place.
Also, we could start arguing in regard to the concept of "you" - such as what are we? Do we really exist? If we don't exist in the context we think we do, then we can't possibly have breakfast.
This way we would never be able answer any questions or come to any sort of consensus.

At the end of the day, the question "Religion - fact or cultural phenomena?" is simple to argue/answer in the context it's presented. You either believe it's fact, or you believe it's a cultural creation.

I do thank you for showing patience and composure, and not becoming all flustered like Setanta (he thought I was trying to "evangelize atheism" and got offended). Anyway, this is the sort of debate I'm looking for, and I hope we can argue about this further.

c_logic,

Your "simple question" ultimately centres on a debate about "evidence". Deists argue that "evidence" is "all around you" ...an impossible point to argue with ! Beyond such "simplicity" we inevitably encounter general epistemological problems which immediately go beyond lay concepts of "proof".

I call myself an atheist because I think history shows that the concept of "God" is socially pernicious at the macro-level rather than "lacking in evidence". The need to believe is clearly a social or cognitive "fact" for many and it is the consequences of such a need which have, or might have, negative impact on me in the form of the particular cultural or tribal embellishments attached.

There are indeed many conflicting theologies seeming to have cultural roots. This does not permit us to conclude that a single true religion does not exist, or, as Bertrand Russell concluded, that none exist.

I am a Buddhist. I believe the power to change ones destiny comes from within. Few people would argue that WE exist!

Score a point for free willl

neologisi and Nickfun,

To question "existence" would indeed seem to be "perverse" as "we" appear to sit here communicating with each other, but recent scientific research indicates that "objectivity" and "time" are both problematic. This has repercussions on all aspects of "existence" inluding "self", "causality" and "will". So, like traditional Newtonian physics which still "works" at the local level, religions too may have a parochial function but any attempt at deeper analysis quickly undermines such local constructions.

As I see it most religions convey pretty much the same message. The variances are mostly in the spiritual framework, and this is highly socially and culturally dependent.

Aspects of society that were enhanced in one culture would naturally be closely linked to how members of that culture would describe their spiritual existence.

I believe all humans are seeking answers to the same questions. In understanding them we associate them with things from our daily lives, and in this way establish a framework for our spiritual quest.

So I'd agree that religion is a cultural phenomena, while the questions from wich it grew are not.

I agree. Although religion is strongly shaped by cultural views and values, the source behind one's reasons for "becoming religious" in the first place is very human/individualistic. (Of course, the exception being some cultures that force its people to be "believers", or else...)
In other words, people - on a biological level - need answers to questions such as "who we are" and "where we are going". Though religion itself is not fact and cannot be proven, it does give humans some sort of answers that make sense of the world.

When I used to be religious as a teenager, I found the ideas of Christian teachings very "warm" and appealing. Now that I'm Agnostic, the world seems like a cold and lonely place, and without any clear sense of purpose.
Therefore I clearly see the reasons behind somebody being religious on a personal level. Having realized for myself that religion is not fact - and placing a high weight on factual proof - there's no coming back for me.

c_logic

Have you considered that it may be perfectly possible to be "spiritual" without being "religious"? Once you discard simplistic concepts like "facts" and "purpose" there still remains a realm in which "consciousness" can operate at a transcendent level. Such transcendence involves a holistic dissipation of "self"...i.e. there is no "vehicle" to experience"loneliness".

Yes. Especially when you go back to your comment regarding paradigm shifts. I personally believe that as we speak, there's a strong paradigm shift in religion/spirituality. Some people who are already religious are becoming "spiritual", and the new generations are becoming more "spiritual", rather than religious. Over a few generations - I predict - organized religion will almost completely be replaced by "freelance" spirituality. (at least in the western world)

The specific people that I know who consider themselves "spiritual" seem to pick and choose the "best" qualities/statements that major religions make. Other spiritual folks have dedicated themselves to not explaining consciousness, but rather embracing it.



I guess there are many different ways to be religious and spiritual, however, on a personal level, I am aware that at the end of the day we don't have any answers whatsoever.
Consciousness is a very bizarre phenomenon and we may never find out what it is. Maybe it's something very simple and nothing "special" per se. Maybe it's something very "deep" and complex and another property of the universe. Maybe it's something created by a supernatural being.
We can speculate its nature, but the truth is we don't know, and the sheer variety of different religions reflects how much we trully don't know.
Religion/spirituality is a way to cope with the lack of answers.

c_logic

You wrote:



I would tend to disagree on this point on the grounds that one of the primary social functions of organized religion is to strengthen group identity and to reify tribalism. Such tribalism has already been observed in primates and "religion" may be merely a cognitive epiphenomenon which bestows "divine authority" over an evolutionary tendency to form in-groups and out-groups. A secondary implication of this is that racial and religious prejudice is a "natural" phenomenon.

c_logic wrote:


This brings to mind something I saw on TV about an octopus.
They had discovered that instead of one brain it had nine.

There was one in the head, a central brain to wich the other eight were connected. The other eight were located in the arms of the octopus. Each arm had a brain, and the curious thing was that the neural commands that told the arm how to move did not come from the central, but from the brain of that particular arm.
Sensoral impressions were directed from the central brain, but the decicion to act on them was made by the brains in it's arms.

Just goes to show that conciousness is indeed a bizarre phenomenon. The more I think about these "existential brainteasers", I get the suspicion that we humans have more in common with that octopus than we might think...

Sure, that may be one of the purposes of religion, but it doesn't change the fact that it's being slowly "eroded away". Religion/spirituality seems to be moving towards a decentralized form.



Are you trying to say that it's one and the same consciousness? - an aspect of the universe?
I had the same thought a few months ago.
I have to admit that the more I try to figure out consciousness, the more it makes my head spin.

Re: Religion - fact or cultural phenomena?


RELGION is a cultural phenomena.
But GOD is a FACT.

Unbelief is a cultural phenomena.
But the BIBLE is FACT.

Hell will be a cultural phenomena
And HEAVEN will be a christains FACT.