The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Swan isn't dying yet > Comments

The Swan isn't dying yet : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 13/1/2016

My criticism of the rationalists, the humanists and the secularists is their desire for a society in which the sacred is no more.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All
People aren't born as jews or christians! It takes some significant indoctrination to establish their blind faith in any religion.
Posted by Nigel from Jerrabomberra, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 8:19:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Nigel,

Religions involve some belief in supernatural figures and mythical actions, AND inevitably a set of ethical principles which even secularists can evaluate, criticise and live by. As an atheist, I am comfortable with the notion that much of whatever passes for my own ethical base derives to a large extent from Christian principles.

Of course, every religious tradition, if it relies on written sources, is thereby a grab-bag of principles which have been developed in all sorts of environments, running off in all directions. The ideas of the Enlightenment in western Europe were painfully and slowly developed to a very large extent on the basis of a variety of selected Christian principles, meshing with other traditions. These include Judaic-Greek-Roman influences, early European tribal organisation, the separation of church and state, Magna Carta, the Treaty of Westphalia, and the sheer weight of social, economic and political experience in Europe's multitude of political environments over many centuries.

Other church traditions of course opposed those developments towards a secular-oriented Enlightenment tooth and nail. You could say that the Enlightenment developed in the interstices, the gaps, within established Christian ethics. But for all that, without Christianity - if all of Europe had been overrun by barbarians, for example - there may not have been anything like the Enlightenment and our present-day set of core values, with all their faults and side-tracks.

Well, that's my opinion. The right of everybody to express their opinions should be respected in modern societies, and I'm sure you would agree that not every opinion is worthy of equal respect: some opinions [you may say those above] are just daft, and those are what should be criticised, 'deconstructed', and countered with 'better' opinions. Give it a go :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 8:54:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again you go the verbal Peter and with nothing more than your par for the course grab bag, of pure speculation and assumption.

You simply cannot know what folks think, or why the majority have turned their collective backs on organised religion, which may be sacred to you, but anachronism to others?

Not for nothing is it writ large, an unexamined life is hardly worth living. One could say the same for an entirely unexamined belief system.

And as a consequence blind acceptance of a religion founded on a sea of bloodletting,(six million slaughtered Muslims) ritual sacrifice, (burning at the stake) pagan superstition, (sacrifice at an altar) lives spent in penniless servitude and last but not least endemic pedoephelia.

The Swan is dead buried and cremated. Only blind control freaks refuse to accept that, or the fact people have minds of their own; and are able to discriminate between proven fact and endless fable, backed only by the accounts of other fable writers in a patent exercise of the discrimination bias.

A discrimination bias that proves nothing, other than the blind faith of this or that author!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 9:06:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rhosty,

Those who won't learn from history may not be doomed to repeat it, but neither can they possibly understand how they got where they are and what foundations they build their assumptions on.

Not sure where you get that figure of six millions Muslims - you're not counting those killed by other Muslims - Genghis Khan, Timurlaine, etc. - by any chance ? Or is it just a handy figure to wave at Jews ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 9:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmonth (Joe) happy to take a bet that that just about every one of your ethical rules existed long before Christianity.

Peter, I think you continue to be confused to how many Christianity is seen by many secularist.
And you are certainly confused about how most Atheist see any religion.

Secularist say that all religion have equal footing and therefore we should give no religion favoritism. Peter that means Christianity is treat the same as Jainism.

Many atheist Peter would see the idea of christian theology as the same level as having a serious study in astrology.

Peter we do agree on one thing though...the falling number attending Christian churches has nothing to do with the truth of the christian message. It was never true, they haven't all rushed off to become atheist, they just joined different made up religions where organised religions have no power.

That is what organised religion fears not the lack of belief but the lack of power.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 10:41:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To call someone a rationalist who can't see the totally morally bereft fruit of secularism is a twist on the English language. Imagine doing just a little rational thought on the affects of feminism. Look at the totally messed up lives of those that secularist enshrine. Our universities which were originally great places of learning are now socialist propaganda producing places. We turn out people with pseudo morals like the getup crowd, the gw alarmist, the gay brigade, the transgender promoters, the baby killers etc. Secularism has not only produced a morally bereft society but dumbed down the population to a very large extent. With no absolutes, no right and wrong (except for those rotten Christians)and no moral base its no wonder. No wonder Islamist laugh at us.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 10:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What happens then when the Very Divine Person, Who is the supposed subject of religion and "theology" (or so called theological "knowledge") comes to town and thoroughly examines at a profound depth-level every proposition every made about the nature of Reality in all times and places. Beginning, by urgent necessity, His examination of Christianity, because He was born in Christian America, and because Christian-ISM is the world dominant religion.And thoroughly explains the relationship between science as an open-ended method of free enquiry, scientism as "religious" dogma, and old style entirely reductionist exoteric religiosity (the kind of naive religiosity that Sells promotes)
http://www.dabase.org/up-1-2.htm
http://firmstand.org/articles/separation_of_church_and_state.html
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/religion-scientism
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm

It is also interesting to note that with very rare exception none of the supposedly modern "experts" on religion, that is the theologians with their supposedly superior theologically "knowledge" ever talk about Consciousness or Light, which IS the Energy Of Consciousness.
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
Nor do they talk about the intrinsic fact that the world is a psycho-physical phenomenon.
Nor do they even begin to talk about the significance of the dream state (which we enter every night). Nor the state of formless/imageless deep sleep, which again we enter into every night - which is the state in which we are (gladly) relieved of the inherent stress of having to deal with objects and others.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 11:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe. That number is one I can recall reading in some history book. And not all that unimaginable in a crusade which lasted 40 years, included the ritual slaughter of captured women and children; and when the spaniards recaptured spain from the moors, or those put to death during the height of the spanish inquisition.

Let's not forget those pesky middle ages when warrior popes rode at the head of private armies and sacked whole non compliant towns and cities.

Anyway I won't dispute a lessor thoroughly proven figure, save say a lot of non believers were put to the sword in the name of a christian God?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 12:11:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a pentecostal Christian I am disgusted by the revelations of the Royal Commission re child sexual abuse. This includes, as far as I am aware, all the mainstream churches and 'mainstream' pentecostal Hillsong leader Brian Houston who either 'forgot' or swept under the carpet his father's confessions. How any Christian leader can 'pontificate' whether they are Roman Catholic or not about the love of Christ and suffer little children come unto me and apparently 'overlook' the warning given by JC that 'it is better for [child molesters] to be thrown in the sea with a large millstone around their neck' is beyond me when they go 'into damage control' against the Highest cause - their own denomination or bureaucratic prostitution of what a church in the New Testament model should be.
It is little wonder that mainstream Australia who mainly sees clergy on TV dressed up in 'nice' golden robes, etc etc with or without tassels on their archaic [but heaven forbid must not be dispensed with] decorated 'stations of office' including church top hats [mitres]. How far from the average Oz bloke can they get! No wonder it is labelled male steer manure! Some of those that shun dressing up to project a 'modern, trendy -get with us' prosperity gospel aka Hillsong, etc are not much better. In all of this don't bleat on about your faith in religion, humanism, communism, socialism, etc but Show me your actions and then I MAY just want to know why you act as you do . . . and you never know I may even want to join [however I am a sinner].
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 12:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am glad to hear that theology is alive and kicking, Peter.

I do hope that the Christian religion is alive and kicking as well, for what use is theology if not in the service of religion?
To employ theology merely for culture preservation, is wasteful like a gold ring in a pig's snout.

Indeed, God is not a part of nature, but God is not a human construct either. While it is true that humans colour-in the CONCEPT(s) of God in order according to their own tastes in order to support our feeble and hopeless minds, if you consider God Himself to be a human construct, then perhaps you may be teaching some form of Christianity, but you are not teaching religion and I even suspect that you teach humanism instead. Please remember: Deus ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 12:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Cobber,

Well, I did mention "Judaic-Greek-Roman influences," and "early European tribal organisation" [i.e. pre-Christian political organisation]. I apologise for not mentioning Indian Mathematics, Nabataean and Austronesian navigation sciences, and the Phoenician alphabet.

My point was that, out of the spaghetti of pathways, up and down, good and bad, workable and non-workable, of our historical antecedents, through all of that tangle, slowly and painfully, [with - surprise ! - nobody knowing what the future held], pathways have emerged towards (and with a multitude of side-tracks) the various strands of the Enlightenment. Christian ethics play a major part in all of that, but not necessarily consciously, intentionally, with foresight: none of us has those magic skills.

But thanks anyway :)

Rhosty, you may be re-imagining some of the Muslim slaughters: Timurlain's butchery of hundreds of thousands when he captured Baghdad, for example.

After the capture of Granada at the end of 1491, the peace terms included [according to Conde (1855)]:

"To Abdallah El Zaquir, King of Granada, .... to be assigned certain Taas and domains, to enable him to live as befitted his birth; these he was himself to select in the Alpuxarras." [i.e. in the Sierra Nevada].

That " .... the Moslemah inhabitants of Granada were to be permitted to remain in undisturbed possession of their houses and valuable of every kind .... ; they were not to be deprived of their arms, their horses, or any other part of their property ... " [p. 396] and so on.

As the King looked on Granada for the last time and wept, his mother is supposed to have commented: "Well doth it become thee to weep thy loss like a woman, since thou has not been able to defend thyself like a man." [p. 402]

I think it was the Catalan economic historian, Vicens Vives, who described the freeing of the slaves in Spain after the Castilian re-conquest.

Yep, Christian authorities have a lot of blood on their hands, no less than any other brutal forces in history. How far back to do want to go ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 1:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The entire belief in God, Jesus etc and the man made church, really a control mechanism and money maker is bereft of validity.

The constructs put forward are based on earlier ancient understandings based on the movements of earth through the celestial way. Evidence abounds on the origins of the movement of the earth, based on the knowledge of the 'precession of the Equinoxis' thus giving knowledge of the epochs changing, the revering of the sun and its importance in esoteric knowledge of astronomy and of time it self.

This ancient knowledge provides the sun (God or Jesus), Orions Belt (the three wise men), and so many other astronomical realities, unfortunately picked up and misinterpreted into a religious belief which is somehow earth bound and constructed into a religion clearly false in nature.

As an atheist I find it interesting for people to follow a God and religion that has been created by man, one which is really a misinterpretation of ancient solar understandings. These being based on time, seasons, agriculture and so many other things not related in any way to a 'religion'.

Delusion and blind faith abounds, absurd really given the misery and suffering brought about by religious doctrine and the so-called divine belief in what is right and wrong.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 1:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Geoff,

I always suspect that people who go on about the evils of religion, as if that is its only legacy, haven't really got over it yet :)

There are no gods, Geoff - put it behind you and get on with understanding history more fully.

Think of the history of religion as an old rubbish tip: there are valuable bits and pieces there that you can kick over if you keep looking, even in the midst of the stench.

[People don't do that any more, which is a pity, it as one of my childhood pleasures. As well as stepping on broken bottles.]

So, where does your ethical basis come from, Geoff ? Out of thin air ? Like it or not, all of us in the West derive at least some of our basic principles from long-gone origins, and they include, unintentionally, some Christian principles, along with other human constructions, some very bitterly fought over. I don't think that we are conceding anything to accept that.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 2:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
evolution, big bang and gw. And they have the hide to be critical about faith. Oh well that's what dumbing down does for you.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 2:13:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

"To Abdallah El Zaquir, King of Granada, .... to be assigned certain Taas and domains, to enable him to live as befitted his birth; these he was himself to select in the Alpuxarras."

So these Spaniards were your teachers, where you learned how to treat religion!

I find this cunning attitude of yours more disturbing than that of some other blunt and hot-headed atheists in this forum: no you won't kill religion and oppress the religious - instead you would tame it and turn it into a pet for people's amusement, dress it with a symbolic cultural role to cover its stark nudity and build those grandfathers and grandmothers nice and comfortable nursing homes offering them "sweet dreams".

Unfortunately, you succeeded in taming Peter Sellick, who now wags his tail to his humanist masters: "I'm nice, I bring you culture, I bring you art, I bring you music, I bring you purpose, I bring you order, so please be nice to me" - but you won't be able to tame me, because I care for nothing less than God and have no need for these cultural trinkets on the way!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 2:49:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe. I agree with you, I just don't believe the Christian church and its so called teachings have a monopoly on the outcome of how each individual thinks and acts. There is no doubt we are mostly, in the main, influenced by it here in Australia, but as we grow and develop many other influences teach us many other things. Religion, in my view, is a straw man, I just find it odd that people can follow it so blindly without understanding its origins.

Runner, if you would like to learn where your religion comes from, please watch the following linked movie, you only need to watch part one (I) which starts at about minute 3.00 and goes for about ten minutes. I dare you to. Let me know your thoughts after, perhaps you can explain you rigid faith following the revelations this important movie contains!
http://youtu.be/pTbIu8Zeqp0

Cheers Geoff
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 2:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth(Joe) in the case of Humans it was almost certainly ethical behavior first rationalisation later ( Ie invention of religion).

We are a herd animal and therefore have evolved patterns of behavior to make the herd successful. Most of our behavior is governed by these and we often justify our actions afterwards.
The so called golden rule is something that is part of our make up.

Hey Peter, aren't you happy you have Runner on your side!
Posted by Cobber the hound, Wednesday, 13 January 2016 3:09:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« My criticism of the rationalists, the humanists and the secularists is their desire for a society in which the sacred is no more »
.

I note that you did not include atheists in your list !

The OED definition of “secularist” is :

« A person who advocates separation of the state from religious institutions »

This definition by no means excludes people of religious faith, including yourself, from being secularists.

The term “secularism” was coined by a British co-operative newspaper editor, George Holyoake in 1851, to describe his views on promoting a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief (cf. secularism in Wikipedia).

No doubt, you too are a secularist, Peter, just like everybody else in Australia - apart from the odd exception, of course. I honestly can’t imagine that, as a deacon of the Anglican Church, you are seriously advocating that Australia should become a theocracy such as Iran or the Vatican City or, perhaps, even Saudi Arabia.

But please correct me if you are !
.

You also wrote :

« Do away with the sacred and you will do away with the centre of art in all its manifestations. … It [art]… has capitulated to the secularist notion that the world is superficially understandable »

Online Etymology dictionary definition of “sacred” :

- from Old Latin "saceres", from PIE root *sak- "to sanctify”

Online Etymology dictionary definition of “sanctify” :

- from sanctus "holy", transferred sense of "to render worthy of respect" is from c. 1600

A great deal of visual art “worthy of respect” has been created by renowned atheists such as Francis Bacon, Delacroix, Matisse, Picasso, Monet, etc. ...

So-called “sacred” art (revered and respected, entitled to veneration) is not just limited to religious art.

There are some things in life that we hold “sacred” that have nothing to do with religion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 14 January 2016 2:18:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

In other words, Peter, if ever we were tempted to do away with religion (God forbid !), under no circumstances would we be doing away with the "sacred".

Not just rationalists, humanists and secularists, but even atheists (!) would continus to cherish and defend, tooth and nail, anything or anybody they hold "sacred".

You can rest assured about that, Peter, and have a good, peaceful night's sleep.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 14 January 2016 7:29:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder, Mr Sellick.

"Worldwide, academic theology is alive and well with centres in all the leading universities. If Christianity was doing a dying swan act then it would be expected that such studies would be moribund. But they are not. Conferences are organised, books published, reputations established. The Church is actively involved in a conversation with the world."

The first part may well be true.

But I don't see the conversation of which you speak being conducted, at all, with "the world". I have a sneaking suspicion it may be an entirely internal matter, taking place entirely between fellow theologists.

Your own conduct on this Forum illustrates this, as you consistently refuse to engage with anyone but those few loyal souls who employ the same jargon, refer to the same sources, and generally comport themselves as theological insiders.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 14 January 2016 1:09:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Sellick wrote: "Given all, this my criticism of the rationalists, the humanists and the secularists is their desire for a society in which the sacred is no more."

Secularists have nothing against the sacred in any form. A secularist may be an ardent practitioner of religion or an adherent of some other form of the sacred. A secularist is for separation of religion and state. That has nothing to do one way or the other with a feeling toward the sacred.

Rationalists and humanists can have feelings of wonder at the fact that there is something rather than nothing, the immensity of the universe, the beauty of life, the interrelations of the different forms of life, the miracle of birth, the love of living beings for each and all the other things that make living awesome.

What rationalists and humanists also have is a sense of the ridiculous. A religion founded because a king wanted a divorce, a woman impregnated by a ghost but remaining a virgin, an entity taking on the sins of others, a god divided into several parts, an afterlife and all the other nonsense that go with your religion are things that a thinking person must find ridiculous.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 January 2016 6:44:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

God is nothing but a human construct. Humans invented God. Humans did not invent the natural world. We can see it all around us. However, there is absolutely no evidence for God. He/she/it is nothing but a human construct.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 January 2016 6:52:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

You are just confusing between God and the concept of God. I agree that the latter is a human construct.

I could for example throw a cat in your face, but not online, only if we met face-to-face - online I can only throw you the concept of 'cat'.

And yes, there obviously is no evidence for God - if there was, then it would reduce God to the state of an object which in turn would become a subject for jokes. I am not interested in worshipping an object and in that case I wouldn't have called an object 'God' in the first place (perhaps it could be called a 'god' with a small-g, but that would mean something else altogether and then "deity" would probably be a more accurate and appropriate term).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 15 January 2016 10:53:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
loudmouth writes; "As an atheist, I am comfortable with the notion that much of whatever passes for my own ethical base derives to a large extent from Christian principles."

As Cobber pointed out to you, the concepts and understandings that gave rise to our observance of ethical and moral behaviour in a social environment existed in all cultures from China to Ireland for millennia before the appearance of christianity in the Arabian lands. There is an expanding body of evidence that among the "higher" mammals, the great apes, elephants and possibly cetaceans there is a sense of morality. Though I must admit credible references are not easily come by. The Abrahamic upstart religions plagiarised and plundered their scriptures and demanded recognition as the source and origin with threats of horrible consequences for skepticism and curiosity. Thus are these new religions born of theft and conspiracy. Discard your acknowledgment to christianity as it has no basis in fact. Read the Hindu Upanishads, Confucius and Lao Tzu and Siddhartha Gautama [the Buddha]. There are many ways to an harmonious way of life, much wisdom and genius at our call if we just seek it. None need threats of personal violence and eternal pain. Condemnation of modest personal pride in one's own achievements comes only from those who have achieved nothing by their own efforts.

I trust you won't think me to be of too pedantic an inclination when I advise that George Santayana, Spanish-born USA philosopher wrote; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." He is so often misquoted and hardly ever credited and definitely deserves the kudos for his wisdom
Posted by Pogi, Friday, 15 January 2016 11:50:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Pogi,

I'm quite impressed about what is being taught in high school these days :)

Just a couple of points: when Christianity was being invented and assembled, those lands were not Arabian: that came some centuries later, through invasion from Arabia. The people there were a mixture of Jews, Levantines, Afro-Egyptians, Syrians, Yazidis and Kurds and spoke Syriac, Aramaic, Kurdish languages, and many other languages.

My misquote of Santayana was deliberate: it may pay you to read it again.

As an atheist, I'm comfortable with the notion that, to the extent that I have any ethics, they may spring to a large extent and INDIRECTLY, and through a number of historical filters, from some basic Christian ethical principles. As I'm sure yours have also, Pogi.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 15 January 2016 1:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Hi David !

.

Still no news from Peter Sellick alias Sells, despite his vibrant declaration of good intentions on Thursday, 28 May 2015 12:34:51 PM :

“ I will engage with you if you engage with me ! ” :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885
.

Though he continues to avoid contradictory debate on his own articles, it is amusing to see that, at the same time, he posts comments on articles written by authors who share the same or similar religious beliefs as those he has been preaching here regularly every month for the past 12 years :

Here is the latest example :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17954#318882

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 15 January 2016 9:10:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I confuse nothing. The concept of God exists. However, there is no reason to assume that God exists.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 January 2016 10:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Runner, if you would like to learn where your religion comes from, please watch the following linked movie'

Geoff

I only need to read your posts to see you are totally clueless when it comes to truth. Strange how Christophic and Jew hating you have often shown yourself to be.
Posted by runner, Friday, 15 January 2016 11:00:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

To what extent can you identify with this (following loosely Robert Barron, Catholicism, A Journey to the Heart of the Faith, Image Books 2011):

- When Moses asked for the name of the mysterious speaker from the burning bush, he received the following answer: “I am who I am” (Ex 3:14). Moses was asking a reasonable enough question. He was wondering which of the many gods—deities of the river, the mountain, the various nations—this was. But the answer he received frustrated him, for the divine speaker was implying that he was not one god among many, not this deity rather than that, not a reality that could, even in principle, be captured or delimited by a name.

Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition, rarely designates God as ens summum (the highest being); rather he prefers the names ipsum esse (to be itself) or qui est (the one who is). Aquinas goes so far as to say that God cannot be defined or situated within any genus, even the genus of “being”.

He expresses the difference that obtains between God and creatures through the technical language of essence and existence. In everything that is not God there is a real distinction between essence (WHAT the thing is) and existence (THAT the thing is); but in God no such distinction holds, for Godæs act of existence is nor received, delimited or defined by anything extraneous to itself. A human being is the act of existence poured, as it were, into the receptacle of humanity (essence), but God’s act of existence is not poured into any receiving element. To be God, therefore is to be “to be”. -
Posted by George, Saturday, 16 January 2016 1:18:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George writes: "Thomas Aquinas, arguably the greatest theologian in the Catholic tradition..."

How is it possible to have a "greatest" in a discipline in which everything is made up?

I, for example, have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many who believe it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 16 January 2016 1:27:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ wrote: “How is it possible to have a "greatest" in a discipline in which everything is made up?”

Dear AJ,

In mathematics starting from various axioms one can generate a system of propositions. Axioms are made up. Axioms are not something one proves. They are given. However, as long as they are not contradictory one can generate a logical system. The same is true in theology.

That is part of what Thomas Aquinas did. In Denys Turner’s biography of Thomas Aquinas, there is the following:

...the proposition, clearly maintained by Thomas, that God could not create matter without form, Thomas having argued that no stuff could exist that was not stuff of some kind because to exist at all was to exist as something or other. In consequence, for Thomas the term “formless existence” was the nonsensical description of an impossibly existent nothing-in-particular. Even God, Thomas thought, cannot create anything that isn’t something.

Thomas Aquinas was more effective at systematising theology and eliminating that which could not stand the test of logic than any other theologian, and is, therefore, the greatest theologian.

Logical systems must follow from the axioms. With different axioms one may create different systems. An example in mathematics is geometry. Girolamo Saccheri, a brilliant monk, tried to prove the validity of Eucid's parallel postulate by negating it in two ways. He was aiming for a reductio ad absurdum. However, what he actually did was to create two other valid systems of geometry - spherical and hyperbolic.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 16 January 2016 2:29:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

>>How is it possible to have a "greatest" in a discipline in which everything is made up?<<

Well some people speak of Beethoven (or Mozart or Bach etc) as the greatest composer, similarly in other branches of the arts where everything is “made up” by the artist. And, as david f already pointed out to you, some people speak of abstract mathematics as being just “made up” but still hold this or that one to be the greatest in a particular branch of it.

Also, there are many contemporary theoretical physicists who “make up” their speculations about the cosmos (M-theory, multiverse, loop quantum gravity etc) before their theories can be supported by observation, while some people might still hold this or that one to be the greatest among them.

Dear david f,

Bertrand Russel allegedly called Aquinas great (as a philosopher) for the questions he asked not so for the answers he offered, however, I cannot find the exact quote. So instead let me quote from Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1961:

“Aquinas … is regarded as the greatest of scholastic philosophers” (p.444), and further “In his days he was considered a bold innovator; … He was even more remarkable for systematizing than for originality. Even if every of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice. (p. 452).

Of course, Russell is critical of Aquinas, however the objection “the finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading” (p. 453) would then, in my opinion, apply also to philosophers of science seeking an explanation of quantum physics effects, where the conclusion - namely that QM “works” - is also given in advance.

Anselm spoke of fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) to describe what Russell calls “finding arguments for a conclusion given in advance”. So maybe one could speak of “QM quaerens intellectum” as the task of philosophers of physics trying to find out how come the weird QM works.
Posted by George, Saturday, 16 January 2016 3:51:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Peter Sellick/Sells may possibly have, inadvertently, made a typing error when he wrote :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me »

Perhaps he meant to write :

« I will engage with you if you agree with me »

Or, more likely :

« I will not engage with you if you engage with me »

Or perhaps :

« I will agree with you if you agree with me »

Or alternatively :

« I will not engage with you if you do not agree with me »

Or, more to the point :

« I will not engage with you no matter what you do »

Yes, that sounds more like it. That’s probably what he meant to write.
.

But … (followed by a deep sigh) … when all is said and done, you can’t really blame a nice old blithering, blathering, gibbering, blabbering, drivelling, twaddling deacon of the Anglican Church for making silly typing errors, can you ?

Of course not !

(Sorry, but with Peter/Sells, I have to ask the questions and supply the answers too) :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 16 January 2016 10:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Thank you for the quote and I can definitely identify with both Barron and Aquinas.

I couldn't tell whether Moses was frustrated or what were his expectations, but had I received any lesser response in his place, then I would tell that voice to piss off.

Some (if not most) people need to designate God as "ens summum" and they should not be condemned for it, for that is the best they can by their mental capacity. From your quote it seems that Thomas Aquinas was very wise and beyond such notions that suit ordinary people.

I am very impressed with Aquinas' summary: "To be God, therefore is to be “to be”" - it is equivalent and has a place among the greatest utterances, the Mahavakhyas, of the Upanishads: http://www.swamij.com/mahavakyas.htm
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 16 January 2016 9:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

It just occurred to me that the explanation of Peter’s/Sells’ silence may be that he sees himself as an intermediary between God and the plebs (of which I am an evident example).

This function of the priest is attested by the Catholic Encyclopaedia :

« The priest is the minister of Divine worship, and especially of the highest act of worship, sacrifice. In this sense, every religion has its priests, exercising more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity (cf. Hebrews 5:1: "for every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins") »

It is clear that the so-called “intermediary” function of the priest is limited to passing on worship from man to God, “especially” in the form of “gifts and sacrifices”. There is no mention of him passing back anything from God to man in return - not even a simple word of acknowledgement of receipt - just absolute silence.

I must say that I, personally, have not heard of any priest ever having claimed to have received a reply from God while exercising his so-called “intermediary” function, or on any other occasion for that matter. Of course that does not mean that the odd priest has never “heard voices” or “a voice” as other people have, including Joan of Arc, Gandhi, Freud, Socrates and Zinedine Zidane (http://www.hearing-voices.org/about-voices/famous-people/).

But, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed to have heard the voice of God.

Perhaps in exercising his sacerdotal function here on OLO, Peter/Sells is simply relaying God’s reply to my comments, i.e., absolute silence. If that’s the case I can’t help but admire him. I have never known a priest as zealous as he is.

Unfortunately, there’s just one snag that bothers me with that hypothesis :

1 Timothy 2:5New King James Version (NKJV) :

« For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus »

Unless of course, Peter/Sells … (?)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 January 2016 12:51:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I appreciate your response. Aquinas, of course, is a classic. What I liked is the way Barron identifies - an identification where he is certainly not original - the mythical voice coming from the burning bush (I am who I am, i.e. do not confuse me with all sorts of gods, including those people might use to depict me) with the God of Aquinas’ “intellectual edifice”, as Russell put it. Including his philosophical distinction between essence and existence, a distinction applicable to everything, including all gods, but not to God.

>>but had I received any lesser response in his place, then I would tell that voice to piss off<<

Maybe so. Perhaps so would Aquinas, albeit without that piss. But Moses is seen as having lived at much earlier times, when neither the Summa nor the Upanishads were available to him. So he had to learn that this was not one of the gods of whom there are plenty, but God who just is - no “receptacle” as Barron puts it, to contain His existence.

>>people need to designate God as "ens summum" and they should not be condemned for it, for that is the best they can by their mental capacity<<

You are so right here! Also in physics, very few can grasp the concepts as they are understood by professional physicists. Others’ understandings are naive (e.g. without much mathematics) “for that is the best they can by their mental capacity”.

See also
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#256115.

Perhaps the God of all advanced religions, of the West as well as of the East, is jealous as far as WORSHIP is concerned, but magnanimous when you PRAY to (a personified depiction of) Him. At least this is how I see the Western religious tradition meeting the Eastern.
Posted by George, Sunday, 17 January 2016 1:04:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,
I should have paid more attention to detail concerning inhabitants of the Middle Eastern regions. Thanks for the correction.

Peter Sellick writes; "Given all, this my criticism of the rationalists, the humanists and the secularists is their desire for a society in which the sacred is no more."

This is not quite correct. While Hitchens makes a credible case for the extirpation of religious belief I feel that a majority of atheists are a tad more tolerant of our misguided bretheren in their exhultation over being members of a flock.

Humankind it seems to me is in the later throes of reacting against the awful excesses in brutality, cruelty and mass murder it was prompted to commit in religion's name up to and including the colonial expansionism of European powers. Humankind is also aware that atheism was never, as christianity was, a rallying call for any crusade, genocide, war or battle. Atheism was in fact a victim of those ghastly centuries of religious blood-letting and doctrinal purefication. Sellick's comparatively moderate admonishment sounds like a plea that atheism will not visit those christian excesses upon religious faith in revenge. As I see it he sees atheism as something of substance like another faith in competition against his own when atheism is in fact a repudiation of substance for a vacuum to be filled as we progress with the product of intellectual sinew and muscle. Like so many who choose to live in flocks Sellick is not endowed with the capacity to see atheism for what it truly is.....it's more of an attitude, an evaluation and rejection of a way of living that depends on the suspension of skepticism, logic and reason, a view that arouses in the atheist a heightened sense of the frivolous and the ridiculous when he/she ponders upon religious faith.

Atheism is more concerned TRUTH than with gods and demons, to see revealed what is closest to an ultimate truth as the scientific method is capable of reaching.
Posted by Pogi, Sunday, 17 January 2016 3:09:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Sellick writes: "The main problem with programmatic secularisation is that it is anti-cultural. The Catholic historian and philosopher Christopher Dawson wrote: "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture." And culture, as the biologists remind us, is life."

Sweeping statements like the above are grist to an RCC mill. Not only do they claim aegis over so many practises and behaviours in society but now their hubris carries their claim to the entirety of society's "culture" [whatever that means] and even further now over our entire lives. It truly gives one pause to wonder just how preposterous must the posturing paternalism be before the author himself becomes embarassed.

One could commit the error of feeling sorry for his suffering at the prospect of such a dire and faithless future. But it reveals a fear well hidden behind a stance of assumed authority, as if the RCC had emerged unscathed from decades of paedophilia and hebephilia scandals and that it was business as usual as if nothing at all had happened to the fabric of the church's mission and responsibility. The fear is that of losing that pervasive nebulous influence in high places and the halls of power, of enforced retreat to the cloisters and the pews while a godless society prospers mightily outside.
Posted by Pogi, Sunday, 17 January 2016 4:05:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Sellick writes: "The main problem with programmatic secularisation is that it is anti-cultural. The Catholic historian and philosopher Christopher Dawson wrote: "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture."

Peter Sellick and Christopher Dawson ignore history and are dead wrong.

Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages. After Christianity became the official religion of Rome the empire made a great effort to extirpate classical culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I tells of the official Christian persecution of paganism.

“The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign as co-emperor in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.

Between 389 and 391 he issued the "Theodosian decrees," which established a practical ban on paganism; visits to the temples were forbidden, remaining pagan holidays abolished, the sacred fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcrafting punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as requested by pagan Senators.

In 392 he became emperor of the whole empire (the last one to be so). From this moment until the end of his reign in 395, while pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration, he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire in actions by Christians against major pagan sites. He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public pagan ritual, and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans. He is likely to have suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration is from 393.”

Christianity not only was intolerant toward other religions but destroyed classical culture and brought on the Dark Ages.

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment rescued Europe from the oppressive grasp of Christianity.

Continued
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 January 2016 4:52:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued

The Renaissance reconnected Europe with its pre-Christian past and culture which Christianity had done its best to eliminate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

"The Renaissance's intellectual basis was its own invented version of humanism, derived from the rediscovery of classical Greek philosophy, such as that of Protagoras, who said, that "Man is the measure of all things." This new thinking became manifest in art, architecture, politics, science and literature. Early examples were the development of perspective in oil painting and the recycled knowledge of how to make concrete. Although the invention of metal movable type sped the dissemination of ideas from the later 15th century, the changes of the Renaissance were not uniformly experienced across Europe.

As a cultural movement, it encompassed innovative flowering of Latin and vernacular literatures, beginning with the 14th century resurgence of learning based on classical sources, which contemporaries credited to Petrarch; the development of linear perspective and other techniques of rendering a more natural reality in painting; and gradual but widespread educational reform. In politics, the Renaissance contributed to the development of the customs and conventions of diplomacy, and in science to an increased reliance on observation and inductive reasoning. Although the Renaissance saw revolutions in many intellectual pursuits, as well as social and political upheaval, it is perhaps best known for its artistic developments and the contributions of such polymaths as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, who inspired the term "Renaissance man".

The Enlightenment directly questioned the tyranny of Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

“The Enlightenment, ... was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity, and ending the abuses of the church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.

The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 January 2016 4:57:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Sellick writes: "Secularisation would remove all of this and have us stand naked in the world armed only with autonomous reason and our own shallow desire and choice. They can expect that this will be enough because they underestimate the fragility of the human psyche, the way it grasps after itself, the way it trusts in false gods, the way it lives in fear and turmoil"

And the denouement is the blaming of a secular society for its misery because it is secular. But if we examine the century and a quarter 1850 to 1975, when christianity was weilding considerable power in the highest political and economic circles, we are presented with a melancholy vision of a Europe devastated by wars with global involvement and with very little surcease, if any, between them. Those of faith rejoice in dramatising sporadic physical and economic misery and Sellick does a masterful job in his final couple of paragraphs. It is not an easy tactic to counter and many people have been convinced by it. They see their place in a stratified society as unjustifiably imposed upon them by faceless power, while they themselves are bereft of power. Quite a few famous figures of the 20th century employed similar tactics and led their nations into war. It is not difficult to convince people of their deprived circumstances if they are promised prosperity in the near future. Sellick works it in reverse by dire predictions if we fall from the vast but mysterious riches of grace and surrender ourselves to one who is more accomplished at facing the vicissitudes of life than we are
Posted by Pogi, Sunday, 17 January 2016 6:20:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am liberal enough to not want to disturb Peter Sellick's devotion and the ritual he so admires and finds comfort in. I am not that liberal that he should have the oportunity to teach his supernatural, spiritual legends and fables to my children in their public school. His faith is subsidised to an obscene degree with public money and that is enough to raise my hackles. It's true that religion inspired great works by great geniuses. I can appreciate the majesty of Handel's Hallelujah Chorus, a Beethoven symphony with no less joy than he. But forcing religious symbols, oaths and artifacts upon the general public, evangelising in the public streets, insisting on proprietary rights over marriages, births and deaths and then charging a fee for the privilege of participating........that arouses my ire.

The constitution guarantees freedom of worship, it does not invest power in the faithful to insist that all citizens do so.
Posted by Pogi, Sunday, 17 January 2016 6:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Humankind is also aware that atheism was never, as christianity was, a rallying call for any crusade, genocide, war or battle."
There have been fascist religious empires in Americas and SE Asia. And Russia-east Europe and China, Vietnam etc have just completed their atheist ideologies of Scientific god-chairmen. A few commos fired in anger , some tortured, starved and lied occasionally and said rude things to religious citizens. But they were devoted to human well-being because their books say so.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 17 January 2016 6:31:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ambiguity. I meant the Aztec, Inca and Hindu SE Asian fascist religious systems.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 17 January 2016 6:33:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

The statement

>>A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture.<<

is compatible with the statement (I agree with both)

>Christianity not only was intolerant toward other religions but destroyed classical culture and brought on the Dark Ages (with its own culture - added by me).<<

I namely assume that Selick (and you?) used the term “culture” in its anthropological meaning - the ideas, customs, and social behaviour of a particular people or society - rather than normative - in the sense that if you have no culture you are barbaric, “uncivilised”. (For instance, in Russian culture in the first meanings is kul’tura in the second kul’turnost’).

Europe is loosing its Christian religion, hence also the culture associated with its Christendom (in its both pre- and post-Enlightenment) stages, which does not imply that it is loosing culture as such, becoming something like barbaric. (And, of course, there is a third meaning of cultures as civilisations, which I don't think either of you had in mind.)

>>The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.<<

Here you apparently use “culture, cultural” in the second, normative meaning of the word. Of course, there were times when it was Christians who regarded other religions, or no-religion, “anti-cultural”.
Posted by George, Sunday, 17 January 2016 6:56:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Greek, Norse and Christian mythologies have been largely incorporated into every aspect of Western civilisation. None of this will be lost as long as mankind exists.

Whether any, some or all of these narratives are true or not is of no importance.

That some of us place our faith in them, for whatever reason, is a personal matter. We are free to do so.

It is that freedom that we must cherish, preserve and defend. Without it, life is not worth living :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEVow6kr5nI

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 January 2016 11:00:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Nick,

I'm puzzled over your depiction of "Hindu SE Asian fascist religious systems".

South-East Asia: do you mean ancient Angkor or any of the various trading kingdoms across what is now Thailand or Burma or Indonesia or central Vietnam ? The people who built the Hindu temples in the Philippines, or the one in Canton, and traded with Korea and Japan ?

How far back are you going, one or two thousand years ?

In what way were they fascist ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 January 2016 11:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A few years back , Communists , Aboriginals and Catholics were in effect barred from public life ( although Aboriginals tolerated both Catholics and Communists). No-one else seemed to worry about this.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 17 January 2016 11:49:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Loudmouth
this is my 4th post so it's all over for 24 hours..
Yes I meant the god-kings of Angkor and Bali where the rigid ritualistic order of authority and social rank was a theocratic fascism in the Roman sense. It seems to have parallels in Aztec , Inca etc. As a workable regime it appears to have proven effective and in Bali was only destroyed by Christian Dutch massacres in 1906.
Hindu-Buddhist practice in SE Australia tribal order was like-wise destroyed 1788-2016.
( 24 hours to go...)
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 17 January 2016 12:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Nick,

Maybe the term 'fascist' is a bit out of time, anachronistic ? But you put your finger on the likelihood that pretty much all pre-capitalist (and some capitalist) societies were pretty brutal, usually absolutist without much of a shred of democracy and, in the case of enemies and rebels, exterminatory.

And to bring all that back to topic: those absolutist systems invariably used religion to sanctify their regimes. Religion and absolutism went together. Where it could, religion WAS absolutist, rigid, unquestioned: Islam is not the only backward force combining religion and absolutism.

The late Jack Goody wrote somewhere (I think in 'The Theft of History') about the growing tension between received wisdom, the word of the Book and its main beneficiaries, and the development of new, extra, contradicting knowledges which were unavoidably being developed in universities, through early capitalist trading systems and the demands of secular life, the circulation of billions of books in vernacular languages, and the independent observations and hypotheses of people like Kopernik and Galileo. Of course, Kopernik/Copernicus made a brilliant career move by dying on the day his book was published, so it was out there in its thousands while he was being safely tucked up in his grave.

I think Goody's point was that, for a host of reasons, the search for knowledge beyond sacred books was carried out across Europe in a multitude of settings and directions, so that, even if it had occurred to any European ruler or church to try to control all that unlicenced knowledge - it would have been far easier under single-empires such as the Ottomans or Moghuls or Chinese dynasties - it would have been like trying to catch fleas.

Another thing, Nick: fascists love architecture. Not that all amazing architecture is therefore fascist, but it's more than a coincidence.

See you in 24 hours.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 January 2016 1:08:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey, Peter! Why is Al Qaeda more compassionate than you?

The 9/11 hijackers got to die instantly.

Besides, the primary reason why religion is rapidly on the wane in Australia is the Internet. It's a great equaliser when everyone has access to a slew of facts at their fingertips.
Posted by AyameTan, Sunday, 17 January 2016 2:43:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I was responding to Sellick and using the word, culture, the way I think he was using it. Christianity is responsible for many things both good and bad. Sellick chooses to disregard the evil part and attack those as biased who mention it.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 January 2016 5:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

Worship is not limited to deliberate rituals and the objects of worship are not limited to deities: it is quite common to worship the idols of fame, power, money, beauty, sex, nation, ancestors, leaders, etc.

Religion aims to bring one's attention back on God and we typically kick and scream and throw tantrums because we want to go back to our old habits.

For some people, the authoritarian figure of a Father does the trick better. Add the attribute of jealousy to warn them against straying and so they will keep on the straight and narrow. For others, however, it works better to depict God as Mother (including Mary, Mother of God), ever patient, ever forgiving, ever forbearing, ever gracious, ever nurturing. Others still, relate to God as their child, their baby (including Baby Jesus), while for others even, God is their friend, their host, their guest and even their lover. Outstanding philosophers could worship God without any attributes, for indeed God has no attributes, but this is an extremely difficult, lonely and frustrating path, where many have gone mad (including the famous Jewish Rabbi, Ben Zoma).

So rather than attributing the apparent differences to East/West, we should view them as personal.

God as Mother and as a friend is described here: http://www.yogananda.com.au/pyr/pyr_devotion3.html

I was hesitating about the following link because it is a bit judgemental/snobbish, but it does provide too good an overview to miss: http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/relationship-with-divine.html
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 January 2016 5:35:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu,

As an atheist, I was very taken with your description:

"For others, however, it works better to depict God as Mother (including Mary, Mother of God), ever patient, ever forgiving, ever forbearing, ever gracious, ever nurturing. Others still, relate to God as their child, their baby (including Baby Jesus), while for others even, God is their friend, their host, their guest and even their lover."

After all, we create god in our own preferred image, how we would like people everywhere to be.

In Burkina Faso, two wonderful people - in their eighties - have been kidnapped by followers of a different religion. The Elliotts have been working as doctors for forty years; they built the hospital they work in, and clearly want to stay there until they die.

I've known only a couple of missionaries well, and they were both really good, kind people, they never shoved religion down anyone's throats.

On the other hand, I wonder if there are many on the 'left' , or amongst the Greens, who would do anything like that - to go to a poverty-stricken part of the world and spend the rest of their lives there.

Correction: I wonder if there are ANY on the 'left' or amongst the Greens who would do that.

And the Elliotts are not the only ones: Dr Catherina Hamlyn and her husband went to Ethiopia in the early sixties and set up a hospital there to repair the terrible damage done to girls and young women during childbirth. Catherine Hamlyn is still there, still going, as far as I know, although she must be ninety by now. I could mention Mother Teresa as well.

Regardless of their religion, some people are just really good people.

I nominate the Elliotts and Dr Hamlyn as Australians of the Year for 2016.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 17 January 2016 7:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever our beliefs may be, we usually learn them from
other people through civilisation into a
particular faith or from converting from one faith to
another. The religious convictions that anyone holds
(or not) are thus influenced by the historical and social
context in which that person happens to live.

We are not the passive prisoners of our upbringing.
Of course, but even people who decide to convert
from one belief to another must almost inevitably select
their new belief from the unique range of options that
their particular culture happens to offer at a particular
point in its history.

Of course there are a large number of religions, many of
whose members are convinced that theirs is the one true
faith and that all others are misguided, superstitious,
even wicked. However I don't believe that any of us are
really competent to investigate the supernatural or to
play umpire between competing beliefs. One may be personally
committed to a religious viewpoint or a viewpoint directed
at the social. One thing appears to be clear however, and
that is that regardless of whether or not a supernatural
power exists, religion, like any other institution,
does have social characteristics that can be studied by the
methods of social science. We can study the relationship
between society and religion.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 17 January 2016 8:18:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I just wanted to point out the difference between the two meanings of “culture/cultural” (that cannot be distinguished in English as they can in the Slavic languages) as I thought you used both the meanings without making the difference explicit.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree that the object of worship can be anything. You mention some examples - ideology, patriotism, politics or some self made idols may be other examples - that the jealous God of the Abrahamic religions warns against being worshiped as gods. On the Eucharistic Congress Melbourne 1972 the sociologist Andrew Greeley put it this way: The question is not so much whether god exists; the question is who is your god.

As there are different representations of e.g. gravitation (pre-scientific, Newtonian, Einsteinian, through graviton particles), there are also different representations (depictions) of a much more abstract notion of God that depend on culture, personal education and disposition.

For e.g. a Christian the Father figure is the preferred way of seeing God, a preference rooted in their religion that begot their culture. The Catholic and Orthodox veneration of Mary corresponds also to the psychological yin complement of the yang-worship of God as the Father. Feminists or Yogananda or Wickam worshipers, that you linked to, might prefer the Mother representation of God.

>>So rather than attributing the apparent differences to East/West, we should view them as personal.<<

I think the one does not exclude the other: You might have a personal preference for spaghetti but it is still true that spaghetti are representative of the Italian cuisine.
Posted by George, Sunday, 17 January 2016 8:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George:

I used the word, culture, in the three following sentences:

“Christianity not only was intolerant toward other religions but destroyed classical culture and brought on the Dark Ages.”

“The Renaissance reconnected Europe with its pre-Christian past and culture which Christianity had done its best to eliminate.”

“The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.”

The adjective, classical, makes it clear that the culture was the art, philosophy and religion of pagan Greece and Rome.

The second and third use of the word was derived from the first.

Let’s look at Dawson’s statement again. Christopher Dawson wrote: "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture."

If we consider that the religion of the classical word was mainly the worship of the classical polytheistic, pantheon Christianity destroyed that religion and in so doing destroyed the culture. What neither Sellick nor Dawson probably considered was that the peoples of Greece and Rome had a religion. The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire destroyed that religion along with its culture. The Renaissance reconnected with the pre-Christian culture but did not restore the pre-Christian religion which was the base of that culture. The Enlightenment in part questioned the intolerant and authoritarian nature of Christianity which made it so destructive of classical culture and religion.

What missionaries of any kind generally do not take into consideration is that they are destroyers of the religion they are trying to displace. Dawson's statement "A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture." probably did not refer to the destructive nature of Christianity, but the missionary thrust of Christianity is destructive to religion.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 17 January 2016 9:34:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Are you talking about the same Mr Abbott who
stated that living in the outback for the
Indigenous People was a "Lifestyle Choice?"'

David f is obviously ignorant to the fact that in Australia since the secular missionaries (highly paid suckers of the public purse) took over missions for our Indigenous it has led to untold misery for a couple of generations.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 17 January 2016 10:24:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//it is still true that spaghetti are representative of the Italian cuisine.//

As a chef, I can confidently state that is unequivocally not the case.

There is a legend that Marco Polo imported it after his travels to the east. This is probably not true, but there is good historical evidence to suggest that Asians invented noodles before Europeans did - and ample contemporary evidence to suggest that they might even love their noodles a bit more than Italians.

//You might have a personal preference for spaghetti//

I do, but that because he is the one true god, maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

And not because he is made of spaghetti.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 17 January 2016 10:32:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Oops ! … in my previous post I wrote : « Greek, Norse and Christian mythologies ». I should have written: « Greek, Norse and Judeo-Christian mythologies ».

Sorry about that.

Here is the corrected post :
.

Greek, Norse and Judeo-Christian mythologies have been largely incorporated into every aspect of Western civilisation. None of this will be lost as long as mankind exists.

Whether any, some or all of these narratives are true or not is of no importance.

That some of us place our faith in them, for whatever reason, is a personal matter. We are free to do so.

It is that freedom that we must cherish, preserve and defend. Without it, life is not worth living :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEVow6kr5nI

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 January 2016 10:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Thank you for your kind comment.

I take it that you do not mean it literally when you state: "After all, we create god in our own preferred image, how we would like people everywhere to be."

Rather, what we create are useful (or less useful as the case may be) images and concepts of God to suit our limited mental capacity, that in turn can be used in the course of our worship in order to help us refine our character and purify ourselves so we are ready to experience God directly rather than a physical or mental image.

---

Dear Foxy,

<<I don't believe that any of us are really competent to investigate the supernatural or to play umpire between competing beliefs.>>

Deciding which belief is "better" is like deciding which dish is better, which is unnecessary. The menu is there and what remains is a matter of personal taste.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 January 2016 1:58:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nicknamenick writes: "There have been fascist religious empires in Americas and SE Asia. And Russia-east Europe and China, Vietnam etc have just completed their atheist ideologies of Scientific god-chairmen. A few commos fired in anger , some tortured, starved and lied occasionally and said rude things to religious citizens. But they were devoted to human well-being because their books say so."

I confess I cannot quite grasp the thrust of your argument. Are you implying that atheism and communism are interchangeable words and that one can replace the other in a socio-political context? I'd like to confirm this before engagement. I will record here though that if you are claiming that atheism, through the agency of Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao tze-Tung and Ho Chi Min and a few others, was a major contributor to any conflict during the period in question then you are wrong. Orthodox and other conservative religious authorities clung tenaciously to the power, privilege and influence they enjoyed under the old aristocratic and colonial regimes that were under attack by revolutionary [largely communist] forces. Karl Marx knew such a conflict would arise. When religion became a factor in allegiances and alliances it was inevitable that the revolutionary movements, the leaders and the followers, were branded atheist. Sometimes this worked in favour of the revolutions because of repressive colonial administration by the catholic church in particular in China, Japan, French Indo-China and the Dutch christian church in Indonesia. Vast estates had been bestowed upon these churches by old regimes under seige from their colonial masters to support the spread of christianity. In the rural areas they were not popular, often being even more oppressive in their administration than the old regime provincial governor.

If you would like to make a case for a conflicting view, then I invite you to do so but caution you that I have dealt with this subject many times in the past. I hope though, that we can conduct this debate in a frank and polite manner
Posted by Pogi, Monday, 18 January 2016 4:26:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>I used the word, culture, in the three following sentences:

“Christianity not only was intolerant toward other religions but destroyed classical culture and brought on the Dark Ages.”

“The Renaissance reconnected Europe with its pre-Christian past and culture which Christianity had done its best to eliminate.”

“The greatest anti-cultural force in European history was Christianity.”<<

As I wrote, the first sentence is compatible with the Dawson sentence (without me saying it was right or wrong), so is the second - in both cases, as you confirm, one has the anthropological meaning of culture, “good” or “bad”, in mind. However, the third sentence makes sense only when “anti-cultural” refers to culture in the normative sense, (perhaps with the pre-Christendom - or even post-Christendom - Western culture as THE norm?), since obviously you did not mean that it was anti- the culture of Christendom.

There is a term “inculturation” to distinguih

(a) attempts to impose Christendom on other cultures, hence destroying them (as was done throughout most of missionary activities)
from
(b) attempts to present Christianity as an option “on top of” the other culture, perhaps amending but not destroying it, as a more “fair play” way of spreading the Christian faith.

Of course, you might like neither of them - and it is indeed a question whether Abrahamic religions, and their derivative, atheist (secular) humanism, are all able to engage in a fair play competition of world views.

Dear nicknamenick ,

>> And Russia-east Europe and China, Vietnam etc have just completed their atheist ideologies of Scientific god-chairmen.<<

I do not know what was your personal experience with Communism but I can confirm that during the Stalinist 1950s (in Czecholovakia) we had a compulsory subject called “scientiifc atheism” at school, taught as a replacement of RE before we could grasp the economic theories of Marx and Lenin.

This, of course, does not imply that every form of what is called atheism necessarily agrees with the rest of the the tenets of dialectical materialism or even marx-leninism as such.
Posted by George, Monday, 18 January 2016 8:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Loudmouth
.. fascists love architecture. Not that all amazing architecture is therefore fascist, but it's more than a coincidence.
Yes the megalomania of Angkor resembles the pyramids and had similar motives it seems. Bali also has overwhelmimg gates probably meaning life /death. These are candi bentar , the split gates of temples.

In Java, kuti means Buddhist temple and tanda is the world-order.
The Tamil plural of kuti is kutayo . In south Australia , Kata Thanda is meeting place of bosses , the name of Lake Eyre. It has Kadimarkara , the crocodile monster and tree-trunks and water-spring mounds. This odd grouping matches the makara of Java, monster crocodile, pillars of temple sand water-spouts. ( Ske khadi is ocean so, salt-water crocodile.)
Hence Lake Eyre is a gigantic Buddhist temple, fascist world-order on a huge scale......(just joking..
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 18 January 2016 2:52:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Nick,

God, you learn so much on OLO, you really do. I blame Wikipedia.

In all of those Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms across South-East Asia, with the tens and hundreds of thousands of temples and pagodas and stupas, a huge class of priests was supported by the product of the labour of millions of people and a bountiful Nature, to which they must have devoted so much fervent prayer.

I wouldn't call any of those systems 'fascist' - like everywhere in the world, they would have been pretty absolutist, but perhaps in those societies, everybody knew their place and did what was decreed by the rulers and priests. And the religious world was shaped in the image of the ruling classes: gods seen to be acting just like rulers, with hordes of angels acting like priests. And you and me out in the heavenly padis.

So how did people - perhaps individually - mentally break away from that tight 'God-says-do-as-you're-told' mind-set and think for themselves, to (as they necessarily had to frame it) communicate with god directly ? And from there, contemplate the possibility that there actually wasn't a god at al: no punisher but also no heaven, no eternal life ?

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 18 January 2016 4:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pogo and George
I wrote a special topic for you in General as me and Joe got somefink goin. Hope the lord above OLO will allow it past his rubber stamp with imprimatur.
Loudmouth , Joe , Hi,
I read a book once when Wiki got dull . Negara . C Geertz. Princeton. General presumptions about yeah , old mate king, his crony priests , blah blah, don't do it.That's why I said the fas-ist word. Bali was a government that existed for ritual. The Dutch did a genocide, regicide, sacrocide, and what the tourists pay $ for today in the beautiful , balmy delights is a shadow of the past weird and delightful dreamland. All life was acting out the Hindu harmony of Persian paradise where everyone was in the geometry.
In Java , nagarane gita means countrys song, where Sanskrit nagara meant a city , the temple . Ngurungaeta means the tribal headman of Melbourne. Ngurampaa is the tribal elders campsite as the country reference point in west NSW and Ngarampa means the highest degree in Tantric Buddhism
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 18 January 2016 4:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I think we agree that the union of church and state promoted by Constantine and Theodosius was harmful to Christianity since it made Christianity an instrument of state power. In filling such a role the message of Jesus often disappeared as supporting the state took precedence. Would Christianity have survived if it had not become the official religion of the Roman Empire? We cannot know the answer to that, but we can assume that if it had survived it would be a very different religion from what it has become with its history of being an instrument of temporal power.

You wrote: There is a term “inculturation” to distinguish

(a) attempts to impose Christendom on other cultures, hence destroying them (as was done throughout most of missionary activities)
from
(b) attempts to present Christianity as an option “on top of” the other culture, perhaps amending but not destroying it, as a more “fair play” way of spreading the Christian faith.

We agree that most but not all missionary activities destroy indigenous cultures. However, I question that (b) is possible in most cases. Most people in the world have a religion even though a growing percentage of people no longer have a connection with any religion. (b) is not possible where power relationships are unequal. When the adoption of Christianity is a passport to a world of greater opportunity as was the case with Mahler, the Indian civil service under the British Raj or as a means to get an education in countries without a good public school system people do not adopt Christianity because of its compelling message. (b) was possible in the ancient classical world before it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. It is impossible to present Christianity as option “on top of” another culture where the culture is based on Islam or Judaism because the fundamentals of those cultures contradict Christianity.

I have no opinion on “scientific atheism” since I do not know what it is. I have a very negative opinion toward Marxism.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 points you to my article on that subject.
Posted by david f, Monday, 18 January 2016 6:00:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>>Would Christianity have survived if it had not become the official religion of the Roman Empire? <<

“I wish Constantine interpreted differently the In Hoc Signo Vinces of his dream”, as Tomas Halik, - a Czech priest, psychotherapist and psychology professor (who grew up as an atheist) - put it, and today many Catholics see it the same way.

My post was about pointing out the two different meanings of culture, not to disagree with you.

I agree that Christianity (or any other religion) cannot be put “on top” of a culture that is firmly connected to another religion - it can only destroy it, i.e. (a).

What I had in mind was the case of Matteo Ricci, a Jesuit missionary in 16th century China who was very successful in trying to convert the Chinese but ultimately failed because of pressure from Rome that insisted on e.g. the Latin liturgies, which are more connnected with the European Christendom culture than with Christianity as a religion with universality ambitions.

Another possible scenario for (b), albeit in a distant future, would be the contemporary European stage with

(i) secular humanists who pushed through in the EU constitution any reference not only to its Christian past but also to God as suc is omittedh. This is the dominant “religion", in the sense that they speak of "Western values", a somewhat fluid term. Wertengemenschaft (community of values) being the official German name of this quasi-religion that all newcommers must respect;
(ii) Christianity the dominant religion of the past;
(iii) Islam perhaps the dominant of the future (?).

Future generations will see where it shall lead but I am convinced that Christianity has no chances of survival unless they stop confusing Christianity in its aesthetic, rational and ethical dimensions with what belonged to the Christendom stage of its development: in particular wealth and other external leftovers from times bygone.

Of course, this, change of (the hierarchy’s) mind, as much as the Pope is pressing it, cannot happen overnight.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 8:32:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dvid,

If you want to find out whether or not missionaries tried to destroy traditional culture, you could check out the Jurnals of the rev. George Taplin, at Point Mcleay, on the lower Murray Lakes, 1859-1879, followed up by the Letter-Books of the Superintendents there up to 1900 - forty years of detailed material. It's there all on my web-site, about 2000 pages: www.firstsources.info , as well as other material from other mission societies.

Taplin came down hard on a couple of practices, such as the rubbing of juices from drying [i.e. rotting] bodies - the juice was regarded as sacred - including nursing mothers, following which their kids died of gastro. Taplin ordered the drying of such bodies to be done a couple of miles away from the mission, as he did with a couple of other customs - the freedom of young men undergoing initiation to have access to any women they liked; and the custom [ngangaiampi] of fathers sending the dried umbilical string of new-borns to men of neighbouring groups (I don't know why he opposed that custom, it sounds sensible to me) as a sort of guarantor of safe travel for each man through each others' countries.

Apart from that, I don't think Taplin opposed any other customs all that strongly, even very early marriage. [My wife's great-grandmother married by him when she was eleven]. He learnt the language as soon as he was appointed, tried to teach in it, but found quickly that many kids couldn't speak it, so he had to go back to English, which they all could speak.

Absolutely fascinating !

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 8:56:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

One reason Matteo Ricci was successful in converting the Chinese was in the different attitudes Chinese and Japanese have to religion in contrast to the attitudes of westerners. In the west religion is regarding as exclusive. You cannot belong to more than one religion at a time. Chinese and Japanese have a different attitude.

Most Japanese express their religious feelings by a synthesis of Shinto and Buddhism. The area of Australia where I live is a popular destination for honeymooning Japanese. The honeymoon package often includes a wedding ceremony in a Christian chapel. This is found romantic. They then go back to Japan and probably never have anything more to do with Christianity.

Apparently Catholic missionaries are less prone to impose non-religious elements of their culture than are Protestants. This may be due to the fact that priests are celibate, and Protestant male missionaries often come with families. The wives are horrified by the non-Christian (actually non-western) behavior of the indigenous peoples, put them in mother hubbards and impose other western practices on the indigenous peoples. These 'western' practices are Christian in the view of the missionaries.

http://englishclasses.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/wsmaugham-sixty-five-short-stories_0905712692.pdf includes the story "Rain" which is a fictional treatment of a Protestant missionary in the South Pacific. Great story.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 9:10:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

Not missionaries but government. My mother was a teacher at the St. Regis Indian reservation in the United States in the early 1920s. Indian children caught speaking their language on the school grounds were punished.

Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters the Dreaming" tells about the first Aborigine in Australia converted to Christianity.

The pre-Darwin scientific consensus was that Aborigines were not human but another species so killing them was not the same as killing humans. Missionaries taking their cue from the Bible thought that Aborigines were descended from Adam and Eve and were fully human. Missionaries were able to save some Aborigines from slaughter.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:28:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

You are right but I still think that Ricci would not have settled for Christianity becoming just one of the many religions - for instance he incorporated Confucianism into it - but even so was stopped from Rome, intrigues etc.

Thanks for the Somerset-Maugham stories: it might be true that women were more prone to being scandalized by strange customs, notably concerning “indecent” clothing, than men.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 10:30:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

I'm a bit sceptical about oral accounts of people being stopped from speaking their languages: I suspect that these are retro-explanations for people not using their languages, explanations which satisfy the present-day narrative.

Your suggestion: "The pre-Darwin scientific consensus was that Aborigines were not human but another species so killing them was not the same as killing humans. Missionaries taking their cue from the Bible thought that Aborigines were descended from Adam and Eve and were fully human. Missionaries were able to save some Aborigines from slaughter.... "

is perhaps not accurate: the rights of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers to use the land as they always had done was recognised from the outset: " .... the right to occupy or enjoy ..... " and was written into pastoral leases, at least in South Australia, from 1851. The law still stands. Aboriginal people were declared to be British subjects from the outset, although clearly this was difficult to apply for people out beyond settlement. If anything, courts were pretty lenient towards Aboriginal offences, for example, wife-killing: no Aboriginal man was hanged (the automatic penalty for whites) for killing their wives - it was conceded that this was a cultural practice: so men usually did five or six years instead, sometimes much less. The last Aboriginal executed in SA was hanged in 1862; the last white in 1964.

When voting was available for any male over 21, that right was extended to Aboriginal men, at least here in South Australia. When the vote was extended to women in South Australia over 21 in 1894, Aboriginal women could vote as well.

So the story is much more complex than a simple 'perception of non-human status etc.' Colonial authorities were caught in a morass of differing cultural practices, impractical policies and unexpected realities on the ground. The

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:04:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

one-man 'Department', the 'Aborigines' Department' here in SA, i.e. the Protector, was going flat out to get rations to up to 75 depots, to give out boats and guns and oversee land leases to Aboriginal people, escorting Aboriginal people to hospital and hostels when they came to town, getting people out of jail and issuing free passes to people on public transport. They weren't angels, I suppose, but they didn't spend their waking hours plotting how to destroy Aboriginal people, quite the reverse.

And the missionaries - those most practical of people - were in the forefront of innovation, by the way.

Cheers,

Joe

PS. I think that's my fourth post :(
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:07:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Joe,

You wrote: " the rights of Aboriginal hunter-gatherers to use the land as they always had done was recognised from the outset: " .... the right to occupy or enjoy ..... " and was written into pastoral leases, at least in South Australia, from 1851. The law still stands."

You are right. It has been written into the law. However, being written into law means little unless the law is enforced. In general pastoral leases were pretty much the same as ownership since local authorities almost invariably followed the wishes of the leaseholder. In most cases the Aborigines were kept off the leaseholder's land unless they were working as stockmen or in other functions.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 19 January 2016 11:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David,

Pastoralists have needed, and used, Aboriginal labour from the beginning. This is one reason why, so often, they offered to host ration stations: able-bodied men (women were usually looking after children) couldn't get rations, so they had to either hunt or fish or gather food, OR work for the local pastoralist. One pastoralist kept a ration depot going for nearly forty years.

If anything, the ration system 'drove' people off the land, from the earliest days: they could still use the land as customary, but preferred getting rations. So what happens to land on which nobody has hunted or gathered for decades ? It gets turned from pastoral land to farm land.

As for being driven off pastoral properties, apart from the note in the first paragraph, there do not seem to be verifiable records of that happening, at least in SA. Of course, out beyond the remit of the government (and missionaries), who knows what was happening ? But asseritur gratis, negatur gratis: assertions need evidence. Perhaps the Protector knew more than only what turned up in his correspondence, but again: assertion needs evidence.

There was one case in 1876 when a missionary complained that a new pastoralist was going to drive Aboriginal people off his property, Cowarie. The Protector reminded that bloke of the section in his lease document and a little while later, Cowarie was hosting a ration station.

That was SA. Queensland didn't have anything like a ration system for many decades - during droughts, people used to come across the border to ration depots in SA. The SA Protector complained to the Queensland Chief Protector about the cost of it, in about 1897 during that eight-year drought.

Someone should write a paper about the impact of ration depots during droughts on Aboriginal population.

And of course, Queensland seems to have had a far more violent history than SA. What went on out beyond government control needs renewed documentation and forensic explorations, to support assertions of massacres and brutality.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Wednesday, 20 January 2016 12:08:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Religion and Myth

.

In « The Oxford Companion to World Mythology » (2005), David Leeming, who holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from New York University, writes :

« All cultures and religions have sacred stories that the common sense of people in other cultures and religions recognize as myths … All of these stories are definable as myths because they contain events that contradict both our intellectual and physical experience of reality. But since stories of the ancient Hebrews and Jesus are central to “our” monotheistic religions, we tend to resist labelling them as myths. Religious people have always assumed that their sacred stories are both unique and different from myths. Not only the rabbi, the imam, and the priest, but the Hindu holy man, the Navajo shaman, and the Dogon animist will invariably say that the stories of his or her religion are in many cases historical and certainly the vessels of eternal truth …

Twentieth-century Western totalitarianism in its various forms owed much to the messianic and utopian aspects central to the Judeo-Christian tradition and created de facto religious systems, complete with ritual and dogma to support the artificially created myths in question. Communism, dominated by the “trinity” of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, promised a utopia based on a communal bonding that would not have surprised or offended early Christians. Military parades before the assembled leaders on the balcony above Red Square took on the aura of religious ritual. In China the cult of Mao included myths of leader’s almost superhuman intellectual and physical power. In Hitler’s Germany, too, the Führer was glorified as a culture hero, and the justification for German dominance owed much to ancient myths such as those contained in the “Niebelungenlied” and the operas of Wagner. In mass meetings surrounded by the mythic symbols of national symbolism the Hitler Youth expressed devotion to their hero in a style that suggested religious fanaticism rather than political loyalty. »

That some of us place our faith in these myths, for whatever reason, is a personal matter. We are free to do so.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 21 January 2016 12:33:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you see - as I do - religion as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven) , who all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but have no idea what it actually is, what is its purpose or why it is there at all, then you can add the comparative literalist David Leeming as the eighth “blind man”.
Posted by George, Thursday, 21 January 2016 1:43:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, George,

If I may add, when blind people touch an elephant, at least they feel some part of its nude body, but when there is a ship that is to carry you across the sea, people might instead consider it to be the corals and sea-weeds which attached themselves to its hull over the long years it has been in the water.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 January 2016 7:27:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George, Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Various people have various definitions of what constitutes a religion. I should be interested to learn what each of you mean by “religion” – apart from your metaphoric “elephant” (for George) and “corals and seaweeds” (for Yuyutsu).

The courts of justice have had to judge which organisations qualify as religions for tax and other statutory and legal purposes over the years. It is interesting to see what they have to say on the subject.

Religion is widely construed by the courts as follows (cf. Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax [1983] 1 VR 97 (SC) at 136) :

« … the criteria of religion are twofold: first, belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and second, the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief, though canons of conduct which offend against the ordinary laws are outside the area of any immunity, privilege or right conferred on the grounds of religion. Those criteria may vary in their comparative importance, and there may be a different intensity of belief or of acceptance of canons of conduct among religions or among the adherents to a religion. The tenets of religion may give primacy to one particular belief or to one particular canon of conduct. Variations in emphasis may distinguish one religion from other religions, but they are irrelevant to the determination of an individual's or a group's freedom to profess and exercise the religion of his, or their, choice. »

Therefore courts will not distinguish between religions (cf. Thornton v Howe (1862) 31 Beav 14, 54 ER 1042 (Ch) at 1044). As Gino Dal Pont and DRC Chalmers explain, the “question of whether or not something is a religion turns on its beliefs, practices and observations, not on the verity or meaning of its writings” (cf. Gino Dal Pont and DRC Chalmers Equity and Trusts in Australia (4th ed, Thomson Reuters, New South Wales, 2007) at 757).

I too am blindly groping George’s “elephant” and struggling against monstrous waves on “Der Fliegende Hollander” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzC7HFixzfo

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 21 January 2016 10:50:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

<<I should be interested to learn what each of you mean by “religion”>>

In the broadest sense, religion is any process that leads one closer to God.

In that ultimate sense, everyone and everything, including atheists spiders and rocks, have a religion, because everything that exists is on a path that will eventually bring it back to God.

But in a practical sense, we usually only refer to conscious, systematic or structured methods that help us to accelerate our progress toward God and often therefore to such organisations which teach such methods and support and enable their practice.

One implication is that we should not confuse organisations that claim to help bringing us closer to God with those that actually do so. The same organisation even could have been teaching and supporting religion at some time in history, but not any longer.

The prevailing notion as if religion has to do with belief, is because some religious methods happen to include the belief in certain contents. The importance of those contents is that believing in them is part of a package that helps one to come closer to God. Any correlation (or lack thereof) between that content and the objective world is of no consequence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 January 2016 9:59:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

You can define a concept - in a way understood and accepted equally by everybody - only on the basis of other concepts
(i) whose definition is known,
and/or on the basis of concepts
(ii) that are basic like, time, mathematics, God, love etc that have been understood and accepted without having a clear-cut definition.

In mathematics it is simple, in “real life” you have books written about such “undefinable” concepts that different people understand differently. Sometimes a metaphor conveys more than attempts at an “objective definition”.

As for religion - allegedly there are about 300 serious "definitions" of it, in addition to scores of unserious ones - my favourite is Cliford Geertz’s anthropological, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645.

Also there is a difference between religion and religions, (like there is between water and waters). Your last paragraph refers to a legal definition of the latter.
Posted by George, Thursday, 21 January 2016 10:21:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu, Dear George,

.

Yuyitsu wrote :

« In the broadest sense, religion is any process that leads one closer to God.

In that ultimate sense, everyone and everything, including atheists spiders and rocks, have a religion, because everything that exists is on a path that will eventually bring it back to God »
.

In other words, religion = the cycle of nature with its supernatural creator
.

George wrote :

« As for religion - allegedly there are about 300 serious "definitions" of it, in addition to scores of unserious ones - my favourite is Cliford Geertz’s anthropological :

[“(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic]
.

In other words, religion = the irresistible symbolic conditioning of “men” via the emotions
.

I hope I have correctly interpreted your definitions. Both describe religion as a process. They appear to be more complementary than different.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 22 January 2016 10:38:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

«In other words, religion = the cycle of nature with its supernatural creator»

Let me use a metaphor: rocks lose weight and men lose weight.

Rocks can only lie there and eventually water will run over them and chip away at their surface until they are lighter, but man in contrast is possibly unique in being able to use deliberate discipline, dieting and exercising in order to lose their excess weight faster.

So while religion is natural, man can deliberately and systematically accelerate its progress. We could discuss the religion of frogs if we wanted, but I suspect it would not be as versatile and interesting as the religions of man, which is the aspect of religion that we most commonly refer to.

Now I haven't mentioned a "creator", that was your own addition. Depicting God as Creator is one of those useful beliefs that I mentioned in my previous post as religious methods. But as we now talk ABOUT religion in general rather than within the framework of a particular religion, there is no sense in referring to that attribute.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 22 January 2016 12:55:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

There is no sense in talking about God in relation to religion as that creation of the human imagination is not necessary for religion.
Posted by david f, Friday, 22 January 2016 1:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

God is not a creation of human imagination.

Any creation of human imagination is born at some point in time and is eventually forgotten at some later point in time. In other words, it is mortal, not God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 22 January 2016 3:20:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

God was created by the human imagination at one point in time and will be discarded when humanity is grown up enough to discard it.
Posted by david f, Friday, 22 January 2016 3:33:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

What you are referring to are human ideas ABOUT God, of which there are many and which, unlike God, do born and die.

You can tell those humans ideas apart from God because they attempt to describe God and assign to Him all sorts of attributes - whereas God Himself has none and cannot be described.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 22 January 2016 4:28:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

God only exists in the human mind. When humans discard the concept or treat it as myth as they do the Roman, Greek, Norse and other myths that will be the end of God.

There is no evidence that God exists. God is nothing but a human idea.

You apparently want to believe in a creation of the human imagination as children believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. God has no more reality than the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
Posted by david f, Friday, 22 January 2016 4:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Rocks can only lie there and eventually water will run over them and chip away at their surface until they are lighter, but man in contrast is possibly unique in being able to use deliberate discipline, dieting and exercising in order to lose their excess weight faster.

So while religion is natural, man can deliberately and systematically accelerate its progress … »
.

That’s true but both rocks and man are part of nature. Is there any way that either of them can change that and no longer be part of nature? Whatever man does, that rocks cannot do – deliberately accelerate the process of losing weight, for example – isn’t that just as natural as rocks becoming lighter “as water eventually runs over them”, even though the process is different?

Is it possible for man to do anything that is not natural? Can anything in the universe be anything other than natural, whatever the circumstances and however its different composants interact with each other, constructively, neutrally, or destructively?

Did the rocks decide to make themselves as they are? Did man decide to make himself as he is? Is man responsible for what he is and what he can do that the rocks can’t do?
.

You also wrote :

« Now I haven't mentioned a "creator", that was your own addition »
.

That’s true. As you indicated: “ … everything that exists is on a path that will eventually bring it back to God ”, I understood this to mean that as everything emanates from “God” and returns to “God” that “everything” and “God” were two different entities. If you meant that everything and “God” were one and the same entity, then “everything” would not need to return to “God” because it would already be “God” and would not need to return anywhere.

Therefore, as “everything” is different from “God”, I presumed that it must have been created by God and not the contrary.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 22 January 2016 9:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It has been interesting, even entertaining, to follow the intellectual acrobatics of Banjo and Yuyutsu as they search for a
cosmically-satisfying definition of "god" while each has a concept that has a universe dividing them. It never brings out the best aspects of the faithful in the eyes of non-believers for it so frequently raises the spectre of the artifice and contrivance that underpin religions, the renaming and redefining of attitudes and beliefs. In the case we see in their current posts re "god" the sins of hubris and conceit are wrought into the divine attributes of humility and respect.

I beg your patience Yuyutsu and seek not to condemn or humiliate but to demonstrate a glaring fault when you desperately try to insulate your god from unrighteous and unholy approach. You wrote: "You can tell those humans ideas apart from God because they attempt to describe God and assign to Him all sorts of attributes - whereas God Himself has none and cannot be described." While critical, even slightly contemptuous, of those whose presumption leads them to assume certain attributes of god, you, with an especially bestowed divine insight declare you are an authority on godly attributes to a degree that renders their opinions into blasphemy. It's as if you are proclaiming; "God has no attributes and cannot be described.........well, he did have an attribute that enabled him to communicate with some of his flock, to confer with me and my sect about attributes and description and THEN he gave them up. Only god, I and my colleague co-religionists are privy to this knowledge. So you'll all have to trust us with the only divine truth about him henceforward."

All monotheist religious protagonists face this sectarian dilemma. You hold atheists to an impossibly high standard of evidence yet you exempt yourself and your colleagues from that same standard. Special pleading for such exemption will not be countenanced. In the rare possibility of a second coming, at whose table will Jesus sit for the first supper? Who will be invited? let us hope that all Middle-eastern nuclear powers are included
Posted by Pogi, Friday, 22 January 2016 11:10:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>>I hope I have correctly interpreted your definitions. Both describe religion as a process. <<

I am not sure which definitions of mine you mean. Beside the elephant metaphor, I quoted only the classical anthropological definion by Clifford Geertz. Religion as an “irresistible symbolic conditioning of “men” via the emotions” that you prefer, might be another of the 300 definitions.

I am not an anthropologist nor psychologist to comment further. I only know that some people can accept a definition of religion only if it implicitly assumes that the divine most religions refer to does not exist. Others can accept only definitions that implicitly ackonowledge the existence of the divine. My understranding of Geertz's definition was that it did neither, hence my preference for it.

Dear david f,

>> God was created by the human imagination at one point in time and will be discarded when humanity is grown up enough to discard it.<<

If you replace here "God" by "aether" or "electromagnetic field" then this sentence would make sense, although its second half would today apply with certainty only to aether.

When speaking about God, love, and many other concepts that cannot be subject to scientific observation you can only try to understand them, using mythological, metaphorical, speculatively-rational etc descriptions or ignore them. The latter is how I came to understand open minded atheists in distinction to my marx-leninist teachers - who tried to convince me that God did not exist, belief in Him was childish, superceded by science, etc - who then should be called anti-theists.
Posted by George, Saturday, 23 January 2016 12:47:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I am arguing with Yuyutsu not you.

Yuyutsu wrote: "What you are referring to are human ideas ABOUT God, of which there are many and which, unlike God, do born and die.

You can tell those humans ideas apart from God because they attempt to describe God and assign to Him all sorts of attributes - whereas God Himself has none and cannot be described."

In the above Yuyutsu is making a claim about the lack of attributes of God.

I am not arguing with you about whether God does or does not exist. You have not made any claims about God one way or another. I agree with your last paragraph and was not challenging your belief. You have not made any claims about God the way Yuyutsu has. He has also made claims about religion. He claims religion is a search for God. That ignores the fact there are non-theistic religions. You have made no statements about God's existence, attributes or lack of them. To claim knowledge of the unknowable is arrogant. I do not think your belief is childish. I think Yuyutsu's belief is childish.

You contrasted open-minded and closed-minded atheists. I contrast open-minded and closed-minded theists.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 23 January 2016 2:38:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I am not sure which definitions of mine you mean … »
.

Sorry, I was referring to Cliford Geertz’s definition of religion which you indicated was your favourite (among the 300 definitions you considered to be serious).
.

You then added :

« Religion as an “irresistible symbolic conditioning of “men” via the emotions” that you prefer, might be another of the 300 definitions »
.

Once again, I’m sorry for the confusion. You will recall that in my previous post I quoted Clifford Geertz’s definition “in extenso” (exactly as you had indicated it yourself) and then summarised it as follows :

« In other words, religion = the irresistible symbolic conditioning of “men” via the emotions »

[by “conditioning” I mean “inducing a particular state of mind”]
.

So this is not a definition of religion which I prefer (as you indicate). It is my summary of Geertz’s definition which you say you prefer. It is what I consider to be the essence of his definition.

Having studied it carefully and extracted its essence, It seems highly likely to me that it has been inspired by the ideas of the English mathematician and philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) who developed a theory of symbolism ("Symbolism, its Meaning and Effect", 1927) and whose “opus maximus” was “Process and Reality, an Essay in Cosmology” (1929) – in addition, of course, to the three-volume “Principia Mathematica” (1910–13), which he co-wrote with former student Bertrand Russell.

That said, I note that Geertz’s definition, apart from applying to religion, could have a multitude of applications as a “brainwashing” technique. The implementation of the process of five steps could not only induce particularly vulnerable people to espouse all sorts of weird and wonderful ideologies including (why not?) Islamic Extremism, perhaps it could even persuade an impressionable young person he is guilty of some terrible crime he has not committed.

It is certainly not limited to religion. There is no mention in the definition of any deity or other supernatural entity of any sort.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 23 January 2016 8:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

Sorry, neither did I want to argue with you. I only wanted to point out that a sentence could be right or wrong when it concerns concepts that science has access to, but when applied to philosophical concepts that do not have their representation in science its validity might not be that easy to decide.

One reason for this is, I think, that in science, at least in physics, there is a clear distinction between the subject (observer, experimenter, etc) and the object seen as belonging to the world independent of the subject (in spite of Copenhagen).

I agree that to argue about the existence of God is as futile as to argue about e.g. the existence of time, since God, existence and time are all primitive (basic) concepts that I referred to above in my post to Banjo. As I wrote in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464, Dawkins’ “reality is everything that exists” is a good definition of reality if we can agree on the meaning of “exists”, and a good definition of what is meant by saying that something exists if we can agree on what is understood by “reality”.

I also agree that there are people - theists as well as atheists - with philosophically rather naive understandings of what religion and/or science are all about who nevertheless like to argue with those from the opposite “world view camp” holding similarly simple understandings of these things. And there are those, again in both camps, who welcome contacts with those from the different or even opposing camp in order to enrich, broaden, their own position (hence also better formulate its verbal expression).
Posted by George, Saturday, 23 January 2016 9:28:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

David’s last post reminds me that I have observed over the years that some of the commentators on OLO qualify atheism as a religion (mistakenly or by provocation?).

That inspires the following reflection (taking inspiration from Bertrand Russell) :

The fact that there is no evidence of a herd of elephants circling around in space blowing their trumpets, and having no reason to think that there is one, therefore, believing that there is no such thing, does not qualify as an ideology or a religion. It is simply common sense (i.e., good sense and sound judgement in practical matters - OED definition).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQzV_p8fJ9U

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 23 January 2016 9:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

So you did not present your own definition only your own view about what is the essence of Geertz’s definition. As said above, since I am not an anthropologist I cannot offer arguments for or against this, although I doubt Geertz meant it as something that could have a multitude of applications as a “brainwashing” technique.

So you have to take the “definition” as you can understand it, the same as I do. The “300 definitions” are not mutually exclusive - as it would be in case of mathematics - but rather they mutually enhance our understanding of the complex phenomenon.
Posted by George, Saturday, 23 January 2016 9:31:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

« I doubt Geertz meant it as something that could have a multitude of applications as a “brainwashing” technique »

I’m sure he didn’t.
.

« So you have to take the “definition” as you can understand it, the same as I do. The “300 definitions” are not mutually exclusive - as it would be in case of mathematics - but rather they mutually enhance our understanding of the complex phenomenon »

Agreed.

I imagine that it is just another instance of the antagonistic effect of well-meant ideology producing an unintentional result.

A classical example of this phenomenon is the campaign which was organised in Hanoi under French colonial rule, prior to the Second World War. The campaign was launched to eradicate rats whose numbers had reached plaque proportions. People were paid a bounty for each rat pelt handed in but instead of eradicating rats it prompted the Vietnamese to farm them.

And so I hear the following words of wisdom ringing in my ears :

« … forgive them; for they know not what they do …»

.

It also brings to mind that wonderful story of Hans Christian Andersen: “The Emperor’s New Clothes”. It’s worth reflecting upon.

Here is a remarkable, modern rendition, that even the most brilliant anthropologist would be capable of seeing :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CX1Dx-5k1k

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 23 January 2016 11:13:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is no definition of religion we can all agree on. We can’t even agree on whether a particular phenomenon is a religion. Germany does not regard Scientology as a religion. Australia does. I seem to remember Yuyutsu denying that Judaism is a religion. Most people would disagree.

Popper’s “The Open Society and Its Enemies” mentions a study of the effect of shifting dunes on a seaside village. The study referred to ‘mounds of sand between certain heights’. This made it unnecessary to define a dune. Avoid unnecessary definitions.

Sells found it objectionable when I mentioned the Crusades, the Inquisition and other deleterious effects of religion. He only wanted to consider the good features. However, I do not feel a sense of the sacred is a good feature. I feel nothing should be regarded as sacred. Seeing something as sacred makes it immune to question. IMHO everything should be subject to question.

There is an Irish prayer about Sellick’s religion:

“Fág uaim do eaglais ghallda
Is do chreideamh gan bonn gan bhrí
Mar gurb é is cloch bonn dóibh
Magairle Anraoi Rí."

The Irish quatrain is by Antoine O Reachtabhra and can be translated as:

Away with your foreign religion
And your baseless meaningless faith
For the only rock it is built upon
Is the bollocks of King Henry the Eighth.

Apparently the Irish sense of what is sacred does not correspond to that of Sellick. Not only does one religion differ from another, the sacred of one religion differs from the sacred of another.

Wittgenstein said, “For a truly religious man nothing is tragic.”

Religion can give one the strength to bear the vicissitudes of life.

He also said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

That’s why I can’t define religion.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 23 January 2016 8:10:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

One has to distinguish between religion (no plurals) and a religion (e.g. Christianity or Islam).

In order to speak of the former you have to “define” it: as I pointed out above, unlike in mathematics, there can be more than one “definition” of the abstract concept studied differently, but not mutually exclusively, by the “six (or more) blind men”. If you can’t define it - or can’t accept any or more of the many available “definitions” - then indeed Wittgenstein's maxim “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” applies.

On the other hand, you can usually speak about a particular religion, e.g. Christianity, without having to say what you mean by the word.
Posted by George, Saturday, 23 January 2016 8:36:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

It is even difficult to speak of a particular religion. Religions change with time and circumstance. Christianity differs one sect to another. Catholicism is far from a monolith. In reading the history of Christianity one becomes aware of the many schisms, the effects of political accidents on the acceptance of doctrine and, unfortunately, the lack of knowledge of many Christians of that history. The 'eternal truths' may be only opinion of religionists at a particular time and place.

Religion has supported and opposed slavery. God is claimed to support a nation's armies while the opposing forces make the same claim.

One of the worst effects of religion is the certainty which one feels in justification of a wrong act.

Yeats says it well:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 23 January 2016 8:53:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I believe that you have read my posts here long enough to know that I reject the idea as if God exists. It is therefore not for me to answer for those who claim that He does. Since God does not exist, it follows that He does not exist anywhere, including in the human mind. Since you claim that he does exist there, it is you who actually claim that God exists.

---

Dear Banjo,

Yes, man is part of nature, but within nature, man has the hardware which supports a combination of certain faculties (i.e. rationality, emotionality, ingenuity and will-power) that other bodies seem to lack and by the use of those faculties one can accelerate one's progress toward God.

Neither rocks nor man can un-become part of nature and neither rocks nor man are responsible for anything - yet WE are responsible, for identifying ourselves as rocks, plants, animals, or humans as the case may be. Though we seem to be IN this world, we are not OF this world.

Nothing is different from God, although that's how it appears: the apparent separation is merely an illusion, hence the very concept of "creation" is illusory. An (imperfect) analogy is the dream-state: nothing in our dreams is real, it's all in our minds and even the existence of a dream is an illusion. Within a dream, one could speak of some "creator" who made all this, but in fact that "creator" is YOU, the dreamer! Similarly, though even this analogy is imperfect, you would be closer to the truth by conceiving the world as [one of] God's dream[s], which is in fact YOUR dream.

---

Dear Pogi,

I am not contemptuous at all towards those who believe that God has attributes. Believing so is a common and valid religious-method which I respect greatly and has lead billions closer to God. One needn't study physics and understand the sun's thermonuclear reactions in order to enjoy its light and warmth.

---

Apologies, I'll be travelling in the next few days, so it may be difficult for me to respond.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 24 January 2016 12:18:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

Please note the “usually” in my last sentence.

The difference between a definition (that you simply accept or ignore) and a statement (theorem) that you can agree with or ask for a proof of, is clear-cut only in mathematics. However, even outside maths one ought to be able to distinguish between a “definition” of e.g. religion, and a statement about it (where instead of proof one speaks of arguments for or against what the statement claims).

I know that for many people it is hard to make that distinction. They offer their own world view preferences (beliefs) when only a “definition”, that reflects what is known about the phenomenon, is sought. Admittedly, this knowledge is also subjective, hence the “six blind men”.

My last couple of posts here were about clarity of language not about defending or condemning this or that religion or religion as such, whichever "definition" one prefers.
Posted by George, Sunday, 24 January 2016 9:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word religion means : « the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods ».

In “Of the Nature of the Gods”, Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), considered to be a model of Classic Latin, had this to say (book 2, section 28, page 71) :

« … for our ancestors, as well as the philosophers, have separated superstition from religion. They have prayed whole days and sacrificed, that their children might survive them (ut superstites essent,) were called superstitious, which word became afterwards more general; but they who diligently perused, and, as we may say, read or practised over again, all the duties relating to the worship of the Gods, were called religiosi, religious, from relegendo “reading over again, or practising;” as elegantes, elegant, ex eligendo, “from choosing, making a good choice;” diligentes, diligent, ex diligendo, “from attending on what we love;” intelligentes, intelligent, from understanding, for the signification is derived in the same manner. Thus are the words superstitious and religious understood; the one being a term of reproach, the other of commendation. »

There is no consensus among scholars on the etymology of the word religion. Some of the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and some modern writers trace its etymology to religare "to bind fast". In this sense, religion links people together. It acts as a catalyst in engendering and maintaining social and political cohesion.

Hence its importance for political leaders who have promoted and exploited it from time immemorial and continue to do so, within the limits of applicable secular law and in so far as it is applied.

In his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University in 2014, Tim Wilson, the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, observed that :

« Freedom of religion is a close ally and friend of the absolute freedoms of thought and conscience ... Equally, it is closely allied to freedom of expression »

Though he did not press the point, religion is also closely associated with intolerance and bigotry.

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 24 January 2016 12:51:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

Religious discrimination, persecution and war are by no means things of the past and there is no end in sight. In fact, they seem to be getting worse.

The overall balance sheet of religion on the planetary level is clearly negative. The world would be better off without it. But there is no unified global organisation of religion on the planetary level, no code of ethics common to all, no provision for mediation of inter-religious conflicts and no effective disciplinary mechanisms. Religion as a profession has made no attempt to implement any form of autoregulation.

Not only is there very little or no coordination, exchange of information or communication between religions, the situation is often not much better within individual religions. They are poorly organised and operate in a shroud of secrecy.

Nevertheless, the appeal of religion to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow the teachings of your religion and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Faith was the strategy that primeval man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It brought him hope and comfort when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena that he neither understand nor controlled. He invented gods, worshiped them and offered them sacrifices in exchange for their pacification and benevolence.

That was the rock on which our modern-day religion was built but despite its subsequent development and refinement, the basic concept no longer holds true. It has been invalidated by the knowledge we have acquired of the workings of nature.

The initial religious concept can be discarded but many would have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of daily life without some form of faith. A new, credible safe haven must be found for faith.

That is the challenge facing humanity today. Religion will have to rise to the occasion if it wants to continue to serve humanity (and continue to be served by humanity).

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 24 January 2016 1:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

The reason I brought in the example of the study of the dunes cited by Popper is that I think neither definitions nor proofs are the important descriptors of religion. Religion is a complex phenomenon existing in many forms in many societies. In this case the Bible’s recipe for evaluation I think cannot be improved on.

Matthew 7:16 In the King James Version of the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

What do religions do? What they do defines them.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 24 January 2016 4:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

The reason I brought in the example of the study of the dunes cited by Popper is that I think neither definitions nor proofs are the important descriptors of religion. Religion is a complex phenomenon existing in many forms in many societies. In this case the biblical recipe for evaluation I think cannot be improved on.

Matthew 7:16 In the King James Version of the Bible: Ye shall know them by their fruits.

What do religions do? That defines them.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 24 January 2016 4:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

>> What do religions do? That defines them.<<

Yes, this refers to one group among the “300” possible “definitions” (Emile Durkheim?).
[I also think that Mt 7:16 is about judgement not definition.]
Posted by George, Monday, 25 January 2016 12:46:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I agree. Matthew 7:16 is about judgment not definition. I should not have said that it defines religion. I have made a judgment without making a definition and have felt I don't need a definition to make the judgment.

Have you read Durkheim? I have his book but have not read it. It's on my 'to read' list. The next book I am going to read about religion is &#8203;"Society against the State" by Pierre Clastres.

It includes material about the tension between religion and government.
Posted by david f, Monday, 25 January 2016 5:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yuyutsu writes: "I am not contemptuous at all towards those who believe that God has attributes. Believing so is a common and valid religious-method which I respect greatly and has lead billions closer to God. One needn't study physics and understand the sun's thermonuclear reactions in order to enjoy its light and warmth."

When you wrote: "What you are referring to are human ideas ABOUT God, of which there are many and which, unlike God, do born and die. You can tell those humans ideas apart from God because they attempt to describe God and assign to Him all sorts of attributes - whereas God Himself has none and cannot be described."......you expressed yourself with a certain conviction fashioned, as I interpreted it, to set you apart from and above the smelly masses. And in doing so you engaged in the very same heresy with which you burdened your interlocutors. You are human and you have ideas about your god and you accorded him/her/it with the attribute of indescribability.

Whence came your knowledge of your god? From the same source as your interlocutors? Are its attributes the main bone of contention between you?

In general, I'm in agreement with David on the broader issue of whether there is a god. The numinous doesn't require a supernatural or spiritual aspect in order to legitimise it.

I subscribe to the view of a godless Universe, might I express it as a 100% god-free Universe? [to use a currently popular turn of phrase.]

As to the natural world, humans are a feature of it and are ineluctably contained within its boundaries. Thus humans can do nothing that is not natural. Thus religion and the entire gamut of human imagination is likewise natural.
Posted by Pogi, Tuesday, 26 January 2016 7:24:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pogi,

Ladies often complain: "Don't treat me like an object - if you are to love me, then love me for myself, not for this-or-that body-part".

If only they fully understood the depth of what they just said!

Some would compromise: "Don't love me for my body - love me for my brains, love me for my ingenuity", or "love me for my charm, courage and kindness", etc., but then they are still off the mark. When someone asks: "Love me for what I am", they ask for the highest, for love that is unconditional of any attributes, because attributes all come and go.

Body changes and becomes unattractive in old age, mind can also deteriorate, character corrupted and wealth lost, yet if you can love someone just for what they are, then you love everyone and everything the same, not even for that final attribute of existence - which is also fleeting.

Only objects have attributes and attributes are limiting. If something is limited, then surely you wouldn't call it 'God'. Take for example the attribute "creator": its bearer is limited because s/he cannot be always the same. Before creating this universe they would be "the one about the create" but afterward they would be "the one who have created".

It is a limitation of mind, not of God, that nothing can be positively described except by its attributes: no attribute - no description.

As for the "smelly masses", they do nothing wrong when they mentally dress God with attributes in order to be better able to worship Him. Perhaps objectively/scientifically-wrong, but neither practically nor morally wrong. How many of us can honestly claim to be able to love anyone unconditionally rather than for this or that combination of attributes? If not, then why not use this aid of assigning God attributes that we love as to attract us and help us love Him?

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 January 2016 11:23:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...continued)

If for example you are attracted to nature, then you could worship God as "Nature" and be as devout and religious as any Christian. Strictly speaking, the human will is part of nature, but in ordinary language, especially in the Christian culture (probably due to the memory of Adam and Eve's original sin), we tend to use 'natural' as the opposite of 'wilful'. However, if human wilfulness attracts and inspires you, then you are welcome to include it in your worship of God as Nature.

Whence came my knowledge?

This wisdom which I am graced with is not mine. I could have preferred the gifts of simple and humble devotion and the spirit of sacrifice, but I have been given this theoretical understanding instead.

I humbly prostrate myself before the Goddess Saraswati. Let what is Hers remain Hers.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 26 January 2016 11:24:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,
I'm impressed by the reasoning and the analogical representation in your response. Nevertheless, I remain puzzled by the selectivity demonstrated therein.

You wrote: "Some would compromise: "Don't love me for my body - love me for my brains, love me for my ingenuity", or "love me for my charm, courage and kindness", etc., but then they are still off the mark. When someone asks: "Love me for what I am", they ask for the highest, for love that is unconditional of any attributes, because attributes all come and go." It is a broad observation and like so many of its ilk is self-serving and untrue. We might say that there are two basic categories of human attributes, [1] physical attributes and [2] non-physical or personality attributes. Fifteen minutes of Googling will reveal there are quite a few of both that we carry all our life. Attributes do not "all come and go". For many of us some of these attributes define us all our lives and are deciding factors in our education, qualification and work. A talent, a natural expertise can be with us all our lives.......[cont.]
Posted by Pogi, Thursday, 28 January 2016 1:11:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It can be fairly stated that not all attributes are welcome or beneficial. But when you declare that: "Only objects have attributes and attributes are limiting. If something is limited, then surely you wouldn't call it'God'".

"Saraswati is the Hindu goddess of knowledge, music, arts, wisdom and learning. She is part of the trinity of Saraswati, Lakshmi and Parvati. All three forms help the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to create, maintain and regenerate-recycle the universe respectively."[paraphrasing Google].

If, for the sake of this argument and in this context, we take Saraswati to represent all gods and goddesses I make the following observations and ask the following questions: Is our goddess an object also [the only thing that can have attributes] or are her "attributes" not in fact attributes? If they are not, then what can they be? What is Saraswati without those things that describe her? If she must be "limited" by being describable then how can it be called 'God'? Here, I remind you of your incursion into this discussion with your: "Take for example the attribute "creator":....." Note well that you branded the descriptive "creator" as an attribute. In similar vein might we treat knowledge, music, arts, wisdom and learning as attributes of one who is expected to be infinitely erudite in them. One who has been DESCRIBED as such, anyway.

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry." H.L.Mencken
Posted by Pogi, Thursday, 28 January 2016 1:47:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pogi,

Is there even a question that Goddess Saraswati is an object?
Having that many attributes as to easily fill a large Wikipedia page and much more, of course she is - an object of worship!

Saraswati is not only meant to represent all gods and goddesses - but to represent God Himself for us of weak mind who find it too difficult and abstract to worship Him directly.

Attributes, including personality-attributes may be long-lived, but are not forever: they were not there before one's body is conceived nor after it perishes.

Note the etymology of 'person': from Latin persona = ‘actor's mask, character in a play'. Once we drop that mask of a human, not only the physical attributes but the personality-attributes as well, all fall off.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 28 January 2016 5:54:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 18
  7. 19
  8. 20
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy