Sophomoria

Post Reply New Topic

or, if you prefer the Gallic to the Hellenic, naiveté will be my topic.

Philalogon - my younger self, possibly still out there in the ether, I'm thinkin Modern Greek but you can read it as Classical if you prefer - would not be a great nominee in terms of stridency, but he was a tee-whistling atheist. He held [and in an alternative world likely holds still] the following to be self evident:

Religion is a set of beliefs prevalent among primitive peoples, the unlearned, the unscientific, and others who buy into the assrtions of others without examination.

Religion can be a positive force, promoting a certain peace in the face of a troubled world, but is available only to the unthinking.

Examination of the myths and scriptures of religions from different times and traditions shows that most are basically folktales with superpowers added to the protagonists, or historical accounts embellished with invented supernatural occurrences.

Other scriptures are clearly fictions imposed on the gullible by power-seeking charlatans.

Nonetheless there are some good stories and useful precepts in these scriptures, but no different in kind or density from what we might find in Homer or Shakespeare.

Some religious people, like some non religious activists, seek to persuade and recruit others, in direct violation of the Prime Directive learned at my mother's knee, "Thou shalt NOT interfere with the beliefs of others."

Some religious people, like some non religious fanatics, will use force to convert or eliminate others.

Some religious people seem to have access to a knowledge to which I have not attained, but they are unwilling or unable to communicate it or point me toward evidence.

There is nothing in the universe so far known to me that would lead me to postulate a god or even a dryad.

The gods postulated by various religions are for the most part bickering humans as seen in Soap Opera. The monotheists give a better picture, but Jesus as recorded in the gospels is very inconsistent and contradictory in words and actions.

Given what I have seen of the operation of the universe, if I excepted the existence of a god I would have to assume either a divine committee or a mad god.

I have seen no evidence for "life after death" or reincarnation and sincerely hope there is no such thing - once is quite enough.

----------------

That is PRETTY much where I stood - the thought of Philalogon. It covers AT LEAST firty years of my life, so if sophomoric it is not only the naiveté of youth.

That's a good list, including some questions which I still hold or are in the process of discovering.

That same outlook covers 2 years of my life, a short venture into atheism before rediscovering theism at the age of 20. Prior to that I was a deeply troubled agnostic practicing Christianity for 15 years, and my first five years of life I don't mind calling Christian.

I actually remember nothing from my first five years except two or three small clips, one rolling down a slope that I have since decided must have been my grandparent's front yard at a house I do not recall.

Given the way my family was - and is, what's left of us - I very much doubt I could be counted as Christian that I was baptised - I have the certificate.

Yeah, pretty much how I felt for most of my youth.

I agree with some, but not all, of that list.

1, there is a negative correlation between Scientific Knowledge and Religiosity, so yeah, the data seems to support that idea. Whether it's causative is arguable. Of course, a predisposition isn't a curse, and not every theist is inescapably unthinking. I actually think that if Religion wasn't taught to kids, there would just be a tonne of unthinking Atheists instead. People who don't think stay with the default position, I guess.

2, In the same sense that someone can extrapolate good from Mein Kampf, if they try hard enough. The compassion is harsh for the New Testament, but apt for the Old Testament, and the Koran.

5, Nothing's wrong with evangelising to those willing to listen. No-one has a right to impose their beliefs, but that is the status quo in most countries.

7, I see no evidence for anything more than a rationalised "funny feeling", instilled from birth. I think the fact that Religion correlates so well to geography pretty much lays to rest the idea that "faith" is anything more than a set of prejudices instilled by culture, for the most part.

10, I see Religion in general as a case of the "who dunnits". In Polytheism is obvious, how things like thunder and rain are credited to Gods. In Monotheism, it's a mix of certain events needing an executing agent (even when they don't), and the strange notion a Man is responsible for the strangeness of Nature. Would anyone here find it annoying if I asked "what Frog did it?" anytime someone mentions an event that is new to me?

I hope that I grow more naive by the day (so long as it justified by empir..../disclaimer)

Ryan -

I cannot believe I did not number, letter, or bullet that list. How often do I just list stuff? maybe because I was harking back to earlier thought patterns.

As for "what frog did it" there is an internal logic. Rain, lightning creation, eclipses [to the extent that is involved; it is indubitably part of it, but clearly NOT the whole motivation for the spirit thing] are clearly things I cannot do, not can Ostimu. Any postulated agent will have to be bigger, smarter, more powerful than I am.

It does not have to be a humanoid. I can go with the Great Frog sitting on the sun and pulling in with her tongue the planets; the stars are her spawn and comets the tadpoles. [of course if the gods are people they will be easier to deal with than Ibises or giant frogs] I can let leprechauns do minor effects, let lesser beings curdle the milk and all.

But not regular frogs. Too small, too easy to squish.