Therefor the Scientific method is not proper for it.
FTW. Srsly.
<SNIP>
I disagree, there are differences. That is where we are at issue. As Sebastian suggested this is a major point of consideration for him.
</SNIP>
I've made a pretty clear case why they're the same in this thread, over the course of months. Have I been sometimes unnecessarily abrasive? Almost certainly. For that I'm sorry. But my argument stands unrefuted.
So to me, the question to me is: Can we discuss this point of disagreement without beating up on each other? And further, is there a point? If you can't refute my logic, and yet you remained unconvinced, then there's very little more I can hope to accomplish. No offense, but that's a state of mind I just can't comprehend.
|
I think I'm starting to see where you are coming from. Is this really what Catholics think?It certainly was my understanding. It also seems to be the thinking of the Lutheran church I occasionally attend. Is there some other meaning behind Jesus and his death on the cross?
Yes. God did not intend for Christ to die, but knew that if he spread the news of grace and love, with no conditions attached, that the upshot would be that the religious bigots of their day would try to silence or kill him. People like having rules to follow. People don't like not being able to take revenge when they feel it's their due and people don't like to be told that Jesus and God are One. Such Blasphemy! But he fulfilled God's Law by demonstrating that not one person could keep it and be saved. On faith in Christ as the ultimate sacrifice (i.e. God himself becoming a limited man, suffering as a man, living a sinless life. To then be be murdered for no crime either temporal or spiritual would suffice to satisfy the gift of saving Grace. For what is impossible for man everything is possible for God. Christ was prophesied throughout the bible, thousands of years before arriving on Earth.
I'm not Roman Catholic, Protestant etc. I am simply a sinful man who loves Christ's ways, and listen to him in prayer or let Him lead me to the things that need to be achieved, that moreover I am capable of achieving. To do that you have to be aware of the Holy Spirit. For with his aid, Christians and all men and women who thirst truly in their hearts for goodness, justice, honesty and compassion will find Him there closer than they can imagine.
I am a bad man in many ways, there is nothing good about me, I am a real person, and I live in a rational world. I am an accredited scientist and know only too well that what we think we know already is just a fraction of what there is yet to know.
Jesus would die simply because the World would not accept Him. Were he to come back today, as he did those 2000 years ago, someone somewhere would kill him. MLK was killed for emulating the life of Christ, for preaching peace against injustice.
But Jesus being God is Lord and Master even over the Grave. The Grave will not hold him and therefore he still lives, just as he was able to raise a rotting man four days lain in a hot cave and beginning to decompose. Lazarus.
Belief before seeing is key. Because most people will simply not believe even when they do see regardless. God cannot be proved but he will act in the lives of anyone who truly and honestly put their faith in Him.
... But I know a guy named Jesus and he plays world championship poker so it really doesn't matter to me, except that the facts as far as we know them have to be represented. ...
Lord Jesus Christ was also hit by a car on May 4th. But he is Ok and has forgiven the driver. {Link}
|
Lord Jesus Christ was also hit by a car on May 4th. But he is Ok and has forgiven the driver. {Link}... But I know a guy named Jesus and he plays world championship poker so it really doesn't matter to me, except that the facts as far as we know them have to be represented. ...
Did it look like This
|
Did it look like ThisLord Jesus Christ was also hit by a car on May 4th. But he is Ok and has forgiven the driver. {Link}... But I know a guy named Jesus and he plays world championship poker so it really doesn't matter to me, except that the facts as far as we know them have to be represented. ...
That is so wrong on so may levels. ~shakes head in shame~
|
|
<SNIP>
I disagree, there are differences. That is where we are at issue. As Sebastian suggested this is a major point of consideration for him.
</SNIP>I've made a pretty clear case why they're the same in this thread, over the course of months. Have I been sometimes unnecessarily abrasive? Almost certainly. For that I'm sorry. But my argument stands unrefuted.
So to me, the question to me is: Can we discuss this point of disagreement without beating up on each other? And further, is there a point? If you can't refute my logic, and yet you remained unconvinced, then there's very little more I can hope to accomplish. No offense, but that's a state of mind I just can't comprehend.
Logic can be used to 'prove' most anything.
I am convinced, that is not the question. I am just convinced other then you. This thread is to discus religion not try to make others believe as we do. But rather to comprehend why they do. Maybe its just the approach to this discussion that needs to be addressed.
Logic can be used to 'prove' most anything.
You seem to be trying to state that logic (the study of reasoning and a form of critical thinking) is just a means to get the upper hand in an argument. Please explain.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Logic can be used to 'prove' most anything.I am convinced, that is not the question. I am just convinced other then you. This thread is to discus religion not try to make others believe as we do. But rather to comprehend why they do. Maybe its just the approach to this discussion that needs to be addressed.
No, logic cannot be used to "prove" almost anything. Everyone claims to be making logical arguments, but that is precisely why critical thinking is so important. The unfortunate truth is most people aren't very good at it.
I'm not trying to "make" anyone believe anything. I'm trying to "make" people think critically. Once that happens, the rest will take care of itself.
|
I'm not trying to "make" anyone believe anything. I'm trying to "make" people think critically. Once that happens, the rest will take care of itself.
Be careful here. Religion aside, it's coming across as a bit arrogant. I feel that I'm a rather "critical thinker" yet I do not believe the same as you. While I understand what you are trying to say, your implied conclusion is not necessarily the case.
|
|
That is so wrong on so may levels. ~shakes head in shame~Did it look like ThisLord Jesus Christ was also hit by a car on May 4th. But he is Ok and has forgiven the driver. {Link}... But I know a guy named Jesus and he plays world championship poker so it really doesn't matter to me, except that the facts as far as we know them have to be represented. ...
Can't help myself there, I just had to have a sarcastic response for that news story.
I agree to keep it out of most aspects of the Government. Most of the time it works best that way. The only place a religion should be discussed in a classroom are in a religious class. That is if you have one in said school. History class, simply because missing a persons religious beliefs, or group of people, does sometimes does not in fact give you the full story. and finally in a religious studies class, which because of current affairs I think more and more schools should have. Being able to look at another's point of view will allow our future leaders to do more to solve both local and world affairs.
Honestly, as long as we're agreed on that much, it doesn't much bother me if a person worships one God, or 17 thousand of them, or none at all. Great post, CJ.
Belief before seeing is key.
I simply can not agree with this statement. Otherwise, people will blindly believe whatever they are first indoctrinated into. Maybe Sam was right.
Be careful here. Religion aside, it's coming across as a bit arrogant. I feel that I'm a rather "critical thinker" yet I do not believe the same as you. While I understand what you are trying to say, your implied conclusion is not necessarily the case.
Arrogant? Quite possibly; I won't deny it. But I'm not saying that all thinking people are necessarily atheists (though admittedly I personally believe that most are, that's beside the point). I'm saying that, however some might not like it, comparing one God to another, or even to the FSM, is a valid analogy.
As for that proves? Ultimately, it doesn't prove anything. Analogies never do. They're intended to help others understand a position. And my position isn't, and has never been, I can prove God doesn't exist. I can't. What I can do is demonstrate that there is insufficient evidence to prove he does exist, and further, than many people of faith reject any number of other things based on a similar lack of evidence, and do so without a second thought.
|
|
... than many people of faith reject any number of other things based on a similar lack of evidence, and do so without a second thought.
Where does "personal experience" fall with regard to this?
I agree with what you are saying when it comes to trying to convince another side of things. But when it comes to "faith" or "personal convictions" I find that personal experiences do a lot to form a person's beliefs -- and these may or may not be "logical" or prone to "critical thinking".
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.
|
|
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.
As opposed to saying that all religions are superstitious. Or as opposed to the brainwashing that says something like "all religion is 'bad' and must be destroyed" that seems to be around quite a bit recently.
I'm not denying what you are saying. I'm also saying that "personal experience" includes quite a bit more. All I'm really trying to say is that "logic" only goes so far with conviction and faith.
|
|
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.
Are you saying that all faith conflicts between religions are just people fighting over who has the better imaginary friend?
I believe that religion is a necessary step in the evolution of a sentient life form. When a being becomes self-aware, it is going to wonder what it is, why it is. Religion can fill that gap.
The problem I see is that the answers religion offer are not necessarily right.
There is also the problem of someone using religion for their own agenda. I concede that is not a fault of the religion itself, but it should stand as a warning about religion.
|
|
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.
Unfortunately I have to agree a bit with CF on this one. I have met many "cradle Catholics" who know nothing about the actually teachings and beliefs of the faith that they share. So much evangelical beliefs have creped in over time. I remember sitting in a family religious class and being the only person in the room who could answer any of the basic questions being asked.
Are you saying that all faith conflicts between religions are just people fighting over who has the better imaginary friend?
If you mean the religious wars, no. I believe there are a lot of politics and personalities involved in those conflicts. If you mean Christians vs. Jews or Mormons vs. Christians, ect. Yes.
Didn't Moses have to prove to Pharaoh that Yahweh was better than the Egyptian gods?
|
|
Are you saying that all faith conflicts between religions are just people fighting over who has the better imaginary friend?If you mean the religious wars, no. I believe there are a lot of politics and personalities involved in those conflicts. If you mean Christians vs. Jews or Mormons vs. Christians, ect. Yes.
Didn't Moses have to prove to Pharaoh that Yahweh was better than the Egyptian gods?
Ok just checking. I personally agree. From a psychological perspective I can see how religious belief can be comforting that way, even if not necessarily true.
... than many people of faith reject any number of other things based on a similar lack of evidence, and do so without a second thought.Where does "personal experience" fall with regard to this?
I agree with what you are saying when it comes to trying to convince another side of things. But when it comes to "faith" or "personal convictions" I find that personal experiences do a lot to form a person's beliefs -- and these may or may not be "logical" or prone to "critical thinking".
I'm sure I have no idea. I have no personal experience with God or any other supernatural entity, but that doesn't mean I can prove you haven't. Can we agree that I have no reason to find your personal experiences evidential, just as you have no reason to find a Zeus-worshipper's personal experiences evidential?
Don't misunderstand; I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't try to strive to understand, respect, and be tolerant of one another. All I'm saying is that there is no logical reason for me to accept your view of reality, whereas as my view is essentially the empty set, and therefore doesn't demand you take into account my personal experience in order for it to be credible.
|
|
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.Unfortunately I have to agree a bit with CF on this one. I have met many "cradle Catholics" who know nothing about the actually teachings and beliefs of the faith that they share. So much evangelical beliefs have creped in over time. I remember sitting in a family religious class and being the only person in the room who could answer any of the basic questions being asked.
I'm really failing at communicating. I'm trying to keep things short and succinct and look where it's getting me.
A) Is it really "faith" if they just go through the motions because they always have?
B) Are you then saying that NO ONE can come to faith with out being born into it?
C) None of this is what I'm talking about anyway.
Things happen in our lives. Some can be explained, some that can't be easily explained. Some that cause us to pause and re-evaluate our lives or what's important or whatever. These are things that happen to us (you) that don't necessarily happen to anyone else that help to define how we think or see the world. Much of faith (or lack thereof) in ANYTHING seems to come as much if not more from these experiences (or lack thereof).
Therefore, it seems difficult at best to use "logic" to try and convince people that what they have experienced in their lives to get them to where they are is "wrong" or "right".
Unfortunately I have to agree a bit with CF on this one. I have met many "cradle Catholics" who know nothing about the actually teachings and beliefs of the faith that they share. So much evangelical beliefs have creped in over time. I remember sitting in a family religious class and being the only person in the room who could answer any of the basic questions being asked.
A brief glance at the distribution of various faiths across globe shows that the majority simply adopt the dominant faith of their society. I honestly can't see how that could reasonably be argued, but I'm not sure anyone here is trying.
|
|
I have no personal experience with God or any other supernatural entity, but that doesn't mean I can prove you haven't.
I'm not even talking specifically about "God" here. From an opposite point of view, Jeremy (based on his testimony) "met" God through his father and was repulsed by him (to put it mildly). And I don't fault him for it in the least.
People can and do come to "faith" for any number of reasons and this could be from something as dramatic as a bolt of light from Heaven striking someone blind to something as simple as a friend helping someone out when they really needed it. But my point is that I feel that people come to where they are with regard to religion based on experience more than logic.
People can and do come to "faith" for any number of reasons and this could be from something as dramatic as a bolt of light from Heaven striking someone blind to something as simple as a friend helping someone out when they really needed it. But my point is that I feel that people come to where they are with regard to religion based on experience more than logic.
And I guess that's we diverge. I view "experience" as a synonym for "data gathering." I attribute feelings to changes in brain chemistry. I can find a sunrise as beautiful as the next guy does, but I to me it's still just a sunrise.
If someone helps me, I feel gratitude, and sometimes admiration if the person is acting in selfless way. I do not see God in it.
If I'm struck by a bolt of light from heaven, I (after I'm through being pissed) will look for the physical explanation. If I can't find one, I chock it up to something we as a race just aren't smart enough to have figured out yet. I do not see God in it.
I can't help but feel the only way to see God in those things is if you're already convinced he's there. Otherwise, how could one draw such an specific, elaborate conclusion? Also of interest is the overwhelming extent to which your culture shapes one's conclusion, as I alluded to earlier. Such leaps are called unfounded in other contexts...why not religion?
Anyway, thanks for keeping up the conversation...I am well aware I can be...difficult.
|
|
Personal experience would include growing up exposed to one particular religion and therefore being more inclined to believe that religion on faith while dismissing other religions as superstition.Unfortunately I have to agree a bit with CF on this one. I have met many "cradle Catholics" who know nothing about the actually teachings and beliefs of the faith that they share. So much evangelical beliefs have creped in over time. I remember sitting in a family religious class and being the only person in the room who could answer any of the basic questions being asked.I'm really failing at communicating. I'm trying to keep things short and succinct and look where it's getting me.
A) Is it really "faith" if they just go through the motions because they always have?
B) Are you then saying that NO ONE can come to faith with out being born into it?
C) None of this is what I'm talking about anyway.Things happen in our lives. Some can be explained, some that can't be easily explained. Some that cause us to pause and re-evaluate our lives or what's important or whatever. These are things that happen to us (you) that don't necessarily happen to anyone else that help to define how we think or see the world. Much of faith (or lack thereof) in ANYTHING seems to come as much if not more from these experiences (or lack thereof).
Therefore, it seems difficult at best to use "logic" to try and convince people that what they have experienced in their lives to get them to where they are is "wrong" or "right".
No it is not faith as I know it.
Yes many and in fact most of the people I know of have come to their faith without being born to it. In point of fact our priest was born into a Wiccan family. He never even had been to mass until he was in seminary school.
I realize that this was not your point but by the time my brain turned on it had passed the time to edit my previous post.
|
|
People can and do come to "faith" for any number of reasons and this could be from something as dramatic as a bolt of light from Heaven striking someone blind to something as simple as a friend helping someone out when they really needed it. But my point is that I feel that people come to where they are with regard to religion based on experience more than logic.And I guess that's we diverge. I view "experience" as a synonym for "data gathering." I attribute feelings to changes in brain chemistry. I can find a sunrise as beautiful as the next guy does, but I to me it's still just a sunrise.
If someone helps me, I feel gratitude, and sometimes admiration if the person is acting in selfless way. I do not see God in it.
If I'm struck by a bolt of light from heaven, I (after I'm through being pissed) will look for the physical explanation. If I can't find one, I chock it up to something we as a race just aren't smart enough to have figured out yet. I do not see God in it.
I can't help but feel the only way to see God in those things is if you're already convinced he's there. Otherwise, how could one draw such an specific, elaborate conclusion? Also of interest is the overwhelming extent to which your culture shapes one's conclusion, as I alluded to earlier. Such leaps are called unfounded in other contexts...why not religion?
Anyway, thanks for keeping up the conversation...I am well aware I can be...difficult.
we can all be difficult at times.
|
|
Anyway, thanks for keeping up the conversation...I am well aware I can be...difficult.
For what it's worth, compared to a year or two ago, you are significantly less ... difficult.
One more thought. You mentioned that you are starting with an "empty set". I'm not sure that's possible. You are actually starting with the idea that God cannot be and is not in anything. That is not an empty set.
But otherwise I see what you are saying.
Things happen in our lives. Some can be explained, some that can't be easily explained.
I think my only problem with your comments there is that "the supernatural" in general, and "God did it" in particular, are all too often not explanations but rather willful refusal to consider explanations.
Say I'm getting mugged and my attacker is suddenly stricken dead. Needless to say, this outcome is somewhat unexpected. I have no explanation, so I say "God protected me by smiting him!" However, what I'm really doing is ignoring the more immediate possibilities: maybe he had a weak heart and the excitement was too much for him. Granted, I can't very well perform an autopsy on him in the alley, but to eschew a local explanation that I can't personally come up with on the spot, in favor of a cosmic deus ex machina by declaring "supernatural forces," is a bit of a cop-out, if you see what I mean.
Maybe I get a copy of the autopsy report later on, and it shows no heart problem. Maybe the guy performing it is a quack, too, though, so I still haven't proven that God did it. I'm not saying He didn't -- but it seems a bit hubristic to assume that unexplained events in our lives occur because God personally intervenes just for us because we're so special.
|
|
Things happen in our lives. Some can be explained, some that can't be easily explained.I think my only problem with your comments there is that "the supernatural" in general, and "God did it" in particular, are most often not explanations but rather willful absence of explanations.
You're right. But, again, that's not really what I'm talking about. I didn't say anything about "God did it". Or even "supernatural".
Anyway, thanks for keeping up the conversation...I am well aware I can be...difficult.For what it's worth, compared to a year or two ago, you are significantly less ... difficult.
One more thought. You mentioned that you are starting with an "empty set". I'm not sure that's possible. You are actually starting with the idea that God cannot be and is not in anything. That is not an empty set.
But otherwise I see what you are saying.
LOL. Since the rules prevent it, and/or you're too polite to say it, I will:
I can be a bigger ass than Denis Leary.
Am I allowed to call myself names? :P
If I understand you correctly, Moff, you are saying that life experiences, regardless of cause, are what shape a person's beliefs. How we respond to those experiences, can be, but are not necessarily based on logic and reason. We are emotional creatures, after all. Not machines.
Our perception of the world is largely influenced by our past experiences. CJ and I seem to have many nearly opposite experiences and we seem to have nearly opposite perspectives.
But, again, that's not really what I'm talking about. I didn't say anything about "God did it".
I misunderstood, then. And I agree that a person's experiences certainly help shape his or her perspective: when I realized at a young age that adults would willingly enter into conspiracies to lie to children for their own amusement, that probably set the stage for me being the cynical bastard I am today.
Still, I think this point is somewhat germane: most people, when asked why they have a particular faith, don't say "because my mom and dad were." They say things like "well, one time when I was 8 years old, I was hit by a truck and asked God for a miracle to save me and let me walk again and He did!" Or maybe, "I was a wretched sinner and hated myself but then I asked God to forgive me and He did and now my life is so much better because of it!"
In short, they cite instances in which they willfully looked past logical explanations in favor of a divine one, and they did so specifically because they wanted that particular event to be a life-changing one.
So I was wrong in one sense when I spoke about hubris. I still maintain that assuming God intervenes directly on one's behalf is a bit vainglorious. But I also find it speaks of a heartbreaking lack of self-confidence, when a person assumes that he or she is incapable of accomplishing anything by his or her own effort, but instead assumes that a thrid party (supernatural or otherwise) had to have done everything on his or her behalf.
<SNIP> when I realized at a young age that adults would willingly enter into conspiracies to lie to children for their own amusement, that probably set the stage for me being the cynical bastard I am today.</SNIP>
Wow. Is that a Santa Claus reference? I have kids, and tend to think of that particular lie as for their amusement. Or have I totally misunderstood?
EDIT: This explains it: Christmas 1973 at Kirth's house.
;-)
|
|
If I understand you correctly, Moff, you are saying that life experiences, regardless of cause, are what shape a person's beliefs. How we respond to those experiences, can be, but are not necessarily based on logic and reason. We are emotional creatures, after all. Not machines.
Yes. Very much. I was going to expand more and I found I was just obfuscating things more.
It's just hard to understand the "why" of things without really looking at the whole picture -- which is often very different depending on the individual.
Is that a Santa Claus reference?
Yep. I figured out the truth and immediately wondering what other stuff they were lying about. The thing is, adults lie to kids all the time without thinking about it, especially when you include idle promises and/or threats that are never fulfilled. Most kids are oblivious, but when the odd one tumbles onto it and starts counting instances, it can be a fairly big deal -- I only wish the show "Lie to Me" had been on TV when I was a kid!
Nor am I unique; talking with my wife's grandmother, it appears she had almost exactly the same experience. (This is the same fine lady who, when she hears people talking about how things were better "back in the day," immediately snaps "Well, then you were asleep back in the day, because I was there, and it was a lot worse then than it is now!")
In my wife's family, they now tell the kids, "There's not REALLY a Santa Claus, but it's fun to pretend!" From my wife's description of her childhood, that approach apparently includes all of the fun, but avoids the bitter cynicism that might follow.
Is that a Santa Claus reference?Yep. I figured out the truth and immediately wondering what other stuff they were lying about. The thing is, adults lie to kids all the time without thinking about it, especially when you include idle promises and/or threats that are never fulfilled. Most kids are oblivious, but when the odd one tumbles onto it and starts counting instances, it can be a fairly big deal -- I only wish the show "Lie to Me" had been on TV when I was a kid!
Nor am I unique; talking with my wife's grandmother, it appears she had almost exactly the same experience. (This is the same fine lady who, when she hears people talking about how things were better "back in the day," immediately snaps "Well, then you were asleep back in the day, because I was there, and it was a lot worse then than it is now!")
In my wife's family, they now tell the kids, "There's not REALLY a Santa Claus, but it's fun to pretend!" From my wife's description of her childhood, that approach apparently includes all of the fun, but avoids the bitter cynicism that might follow.
What, no comment on your childhood picture? I spared no expense acquiring it! You're no fun. :P
What, no comment on your childhood picture? I spared no expense acquiring it! You're no fun. :P
Blocked at work. I'll check it at home later.
Belief before seeing is key.I simply can not agree with this statement. Otherwise, people will blindly believe whatever they are first indoctrinated into. Maybe Sam was right.
*proffers apple* Come on, you know you want to. :)
Seriously, the distribution of religion is geographic and historical. The vast majority of people who convert between religions will convert to the religion dominant in their particular area, or one among those which enjoys a higher prestige than the one they already believed. Thus it's not surprising to me that CJ's Wiccan-raised priest turned Catholic. (And what was a Wiccan doing at a seminary school anyway? Being raised in Catholicism!) I mean, what else would one expect? This is how cultures work.
The religious know this too, and act on it very aggressively. It's why there are religious schools to begin with. Their entire goal is to product the next generation of believers, who will in turn dutifully fill the coffers and send their own children along down the pipeline. They'll even say as much. It's important to "raise kids in the faith". Why? Because almost nobody will join up with it if they come in without piles of cultural baggage to predispose them that way.
That is a pretty bold statement. Care to share how you arrived at that conclusion? Until the formation of Israel, were not Jews constantly surrounded by more dominant and 'prestigious' religions? Are they an exception?
What about Mormons surrounded by Christians? Was that part of the reason Mormonism needed to be overlaid atop Christianity to appeal to the dominant surrounding culture? It seems Christianity would have been better served co-opting the Roman gods.
Cults. Another exception or are they simply outside of your 'majority'?
|
|
What about Mormons surrounded by Christians? Was that part of the reason Mormonism needed to be overlaid atop Christianity to appeal to the dominant surrounding culture?
It's hard to know what exactly Joseph Smith was thinking at the time. Personally, I don't think that he was thinking that it would have turned out the way it did -- nor that he was trying to get where it is now. The VERY early Mormon church didn't seem to try to "appeal to the dominant surrounding culture". As was shown by their military might and all the fighting that they did with the "surrounding culture". Brigham Young seemed to be more about taking the Mormons from "cult" to "religion".
Although this may be used to emphasize your point further. ;-)
|
|
Seriously, the distribution of religion is geographic and historical.
I don't know if it's quite as simple as that. In addition to what CF was alluding to, (if memory serves me right) there have been a number of countries and/or areas that tried rather hard to eliminate religion -- which generally didn't work well. (My Google-Fu is weak right now, so maybe I'm imagining it, but I thought that Communist Russia and China had some pretty strong underground church movements.)
|
|
Seriously, the distribution of religion is geographic and historical.I don't know if it's quite as simple as that. In addition to what CF was alluding to, (if memory serves me right) there have been a number of countries and/or areas that tried rather hard to eliminate religion -- which generally didn't work well. (My Google-Fu is weak right now, so maybe I'm imagining it, but I thought that Communist Russia and China had some pretty strong underground church movements.)
Communist China has a pretty strong above ground Catholic presence.
That is a pretty bold statement. Care to share how you arrived at that conclusion? Until the formation of Israel, were not Jews constantly surrounded by more dominant and 'prestigious' religions? Are they an exception?
A majority does not constitute everybody. Furthermore, Judaism was quite successful at creating all-Jewish communities within communities to blunt the effect of living in a larger culture which though their religion good only for exterminating. This is how cultures perpetuate themselves when in the minority.
What about Mormons surrounded by Christians?
Same as the Jews, more or less. If you can get enough crazed sorts together to build their own community they can be very good at sustaining it. There is nothing about religion which exempts it from the same cultural forces at work everywhere else in the world.
Was that part of the reason Mormonism needed to be overlaid atop Christianity to appeal to the dominant surrounding culture?
Biblical fan fiction is ever-popular. Just ask the authors of the Left Behind series. Do I think Joe Smith, being a professional charlatan*, thought to himself "Gosh, I know how I can bilk a bunch of the dumbest suckers to walk the earth in the past thousand years! I'll throw in some Bible stuff! Bwa-ha-ha!" No. I don't think he needed to.
Smith grew up in a Christian culture. (In fact one saturated with tawdry revivalist movements, apocalyptic movements, loopy spinoffs, and all the rest to such a degree that being a vanilla episcopalian might as well have been fringe radicalism.) Of course he's going to use Christian tropes in his money-making scheme. It's what he's inclined towards anyway. It's far easier to sell people on something similar to what they already have than something completely different. Just ask Martin Luther, who spent virtually his entire later career re-inventing Catholicism. Or Paul of Tarsis who did the same with Judaism.
It seems Christianity would have been better served co-opting the Roman gods.
Had it developed in Italy, maybe. But the Romans were just about the ancient world's least enthusiastic enforcers of religious conformity. Syncretism, mystery religions, and the like were the order of the day. Hermes could be Mercury could be Thoth. If you moved to another land, you changed your gods along with your address. That's how Roman religious culture worked, and it makes perfect sense if you're a polytheist. Those are the gods of Italy, these are the gods of Anatolia, and so on.
Cults. Another exception or are they simply outside of your 'majority'?
I know no objective definition of cult that does not include every religion ever conceived. Cultural change is cultural change. But if we use the definition of "a small religion that I personally dislike" then you're defining them out of the majority yourself and don't need my help. :)
If you mean to ask that the forces that might drive someone to adopt a minority religion are different from those that would drive someone to adopt a majority religion, of course they are. They're two quite different things.
*I'll stand behind that. The man was a "professional" diviner for buried treasures. He got their locations through a pair of stones and staring into a hat.
Seriously, the distribution of religion is geographic and historical.(My Google-Fu is weak right now, so maybe I'm imagining it, but I thought that Communist Russia and China had some pretty strong underground church movements.)
Stalin tried to eliminate religion, right up until it became politically useful to have it around. Then suddenly he wanted to be best buds with the Patriarch of Moscow. (Hitler was involved in his change of heart, as it happens.) Afterward the anti-religious program never resumed with the same vigor. The Czechoslovakian communists had much better luck. The Czech Republic is about 59% atheist, and "no religion" remains the fastest-growing sect. I can't say that I approve of Stalinist repression of religion, since it reminds me pretty much completely of the functions of a typical theocracy, but it did very much reduce the religiosity of society. Ferdinand and Isabella, incidentally, did much the same except they only reduced the religiosity of their society that happened to be Muslim or Jewish.
Not everywhere and not equally well everywhere, of course. But the general trend is that the majority of people will not remain in a religion (or any other cultural practice) that brings them to social disfavor, official persecution, or anything of the sort. They'll follow the path of least resistance out of religion just as fast as they followed it in.
Did it look like This
That was awesome.