truthie

For the minority/science-minded, yes.

All right, though you have not answered me, “what should the replacement be?�?
That is, if you have any ideas.

Oh really? Where? (I know I don't do that but many others do.)
Look, I really like science, but the supernatural is more respected and revered than science by most people, like it or not.
Well, “Why People believe Weird Things�? and other books that attack pseudo-science deal with that issue.
Usually, the situation gets worse each time there is a world catastrophe, like 9/11.
New Age is sacrosanct in western industrialized countries and in third world countries; there are people who still go to the curanderas in order to get their problems solved.
Science may defeat superstitions/supernatural, however people have the mindset of falling for the latter.
Example: “The doctor was the person who saved the woman from dying, however she does not think that the doctor saved her, but god(s), a prayer or the spell that she cast."
Logically, the doctor was the savior, but an irrational/superstitious mindset is not going to accept that.

"When science fails to explain, myth reigns."
What I meant is that when science can’t explain the unexplainable, people choose myth. For some reason, people tend to think that the unexplainable is a synonym for the supernatural. Many folk prefer to jump into silly conclusions instead of accepting that “we still do not know�?.

It is a ritual joke for some of us, but not by the majority.

Thanks,

T.

Anitra

Science fiction functions in the role of myth for many people. Each cultural group has its own myth/legends/cultural heroes and their stories. A number of people have adopted versions of indigenous religions or paganism or Eastern mysticism as their personal myth/story. Poets and artists create their own.

Myth is story, not history. The power of Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings or Heart of Darkness or Moby Dick is not as historical text or directive morality. Reading, daydreaming, telling stories, is all a function of the same imagination with which we envision goals and solve problems. Living out stories in our heads, we clarify our own values, play out many more alternatives in action and consequences than we could physically, develop more self-awareness and more empathy. We develop that human creativity with which we make our own lives instead of buying one off the rack.

Religious stories do not serve this function when they stop being living and changing myth and start being literalist history and rigid certainty. Directed to picture God as Father Son and Holy Ghost Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent Uncreated Eternal Transcendent and Imminent, and in no other way or you burn, does not provide the uses of myth and imagination in the exploration of self and Other. Feeling free to picture God as a singing bird or a maternal Earth Mother or a Coyote or a small child or a wise man with whom you walk and talk -- depending on the needs of the moment -- does. One of my friends experiences Jesus as a guy who plays pool with him, drinking beer and smoking cigarettes and sharing jokes. That is making the story his own, using the mythical image in the development of his own subjective life.

My husband spent his early years in Hawaii, where a couple of native maintenance workers became his mentors and his refuge from abuse at home. Hawaiian and Polynesian myth and culture became a central part of his subjective life, the images and stories that he made his own. His friends told him several creation stories, and they were all different. When Wes aksed "Which one is the true one?" he was told, "They all are, of course." He realized, as young as four, that mythical story is not factual history.

This is an attitude that poets, fantasy writers, and people of pre-industrial cultures seem to find much easier to understand than citizens of high-tech, consumer-media societies. Scientific reason, which values precise measurement and accurate description of observable phenomenon, is immensely advantageous to us. So is imagination and myth. At some point in the development of Western culture, we confused the two. Religious story had to either be factual cosmology and history, or nothing. Religious story is not factual history and cosmology. Scientific reason works much better in description and management of material phenomena. So religious story became nothing for those who valued science, and for those who valued religious story, science became the enemy.

A culture that values only factual observation and description of what is, however, ends up devaluing the imagination of what may be. The rejection of the power of story is also the rejection of subjective individuality. The materialist, consumerist culture in which we are spectators to the productions of the popular media and buy what we are told to buy is also a culture in which we believe what we are told is true, value what we are told is valuable, aspire to what we are told is desirable. It encourages individual freedom of thought not much more than a culture of religious dogma does.

We do not need new myths to tell us how to live. We certainly do not need to reject the scientific reason that has proved so successful in amassing knowledge of the material universe and technology for manipulating it. It seems to me that what we need is to appreciate both the value of reason and the value of imagination, and give ourselves permission to use both. We need to develop our own myths, to explore how to live.

Anitra

I've never experienced any attacks from you, Sharon. I haven't been attacked by many atheists, and even those that do attack (the fundamatheists) are not anywhere as abusive as a fundamentalist Christian who is convinced that I am leading souls to Hell can be. At least someone who does not believe in Satan or the Antichrist can't call me one!

Ideological extremism, however, in which opponents are the very Menace to All Civilization and supporters are Humanity's Last Hope, is a matter of personality and emotional attitude, and can be found in any philosophy or religion. It offers a cheap heroism that is seductive to the ego. You get to be a Heroic Defender of the Good just for insulting the Bad Guys. You can even do it anonymously and at long distance, and still be a Hero. A fundamentalist Christian raving against the Unbelievers or a fundamatheist raving against the Believers are both playing the same game.

I do not find that kind of game either intellectually or morally credible, in whatever ideology it is played. Ideas are important. Ideology in the sense of a theoretical structure for a set of ideas is important. Ideology as Game sucks. It is destructive of free thought, dialogue, and ethics. I defend freethinking, period. I oppose emotional intimidation of ANYONE, whether it is in the name of God or in the name of Reason.

I also get really ticked off when what I say is misrepresented. I also do not take being told, "You must believe this and this and this and do that and that and that, or you cannot call yourself a Christian." I do not do that to anyone, and if you ever catch me doing it, please call me on it. I do not take it from anyone, either.

Humans come in infinite variety, but we are all the same kind of animal. With the exception of some major disasters where biological wiring went wrong, we have much the same emotional, cognitive, perceptive, and physical structure. With all surface variety in culture and social mores, there are universals in our social patterns and ethics, because we all came down through the same evolutionary history. Some form of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is encoded in the wisdom traditions of every culture. Values of honesty, equity, courage and compassion are honored in every culture that survives very long, even when they aren't always observed. Atheist and theists have more in common than we have different. We both have the same ethical obligations to each other, as members of the same species, whatever our disagreements are. No disagreement justifies a violation of those ethics.

blink

"A culture that values only factual observation and description of what is, however, ends up devaluing the imagination of what may be. The rejection of the power of story is also the rejection of subjective individuality. The materialist, consumerist culture in which we are spectators to the productions of the popular media and buy what we are told to buy is also a culture in which we believe what we are told is true, value what we are told is valuable, aspire to what we are told is desirable. It encourages individual freedom of thought not much more than a culture of religious dogma does.

We do not need new myths to tell us how to live. We certainly do not need to reject the scientific reason that has proved so successful in amassing knowledge of the material universe and technology for manipulating it. It seems to me that what we need is to appreciate both the value of reason and the value of imagination, and give ourselves permission to use both. We need to develop our own myths, to explore how to live." - Anitra

I think those are excellent thoughts and if you write a book, I want to read it. It would be nice if people of certainty would know that they are using their imaginations, yet to say so to them would be offensive.

Starboy

I agree that concepts of the supernatural are running rampant through our culture but when it comes to something that matters, life and death matters, people just do not rely on it unless there are no other choices.

No ideas for replacement, but I have been thinking about it. As I see it there are three possibilities:

1) Create a new religion from the ground up with no nonsense in it.
2) Find an existing religion with little to no nonsense in it.
3) Convert an existing supernatural religion to a no nonsense religion.

The first option appears too difficult to me. Perhaps there are people that could pull it off but I don't know any. If you are willing to use foolery then sure, I think it could be done since there are plenty of examples.

The second option is a matter of taste, since it would all depend on what the threshold of 'little to no nonsense' is. Of the religions I am aware of, for my take on the threshold, there are sects of Buddhism that might qualify. And some claim that Universal Unitarianism would also qualify, but I am not sure it would. I agree that some congregations would fit the bill but I suspect that they represent a minority of UUs. But I don't know. I am not aware of any research in that specific property. But examination of various UU websites indicates that there is still a good amount of nonsense present.

The third option seems to me to be also a difficult one since it is not obvious how you could force such a thing.

In the long run it could be that approaching the problem by finding a replacement is going about it all wrong. I would always want people to have the freedom to choose what they wish to believe. The problem is ignorance and magical thinking. I would advocate educating people in critical thinking and then have them study many religions. Religious study in any country is a joke. They only study one religion. I also think that such a study would have the added benefit that people would learn a lot about people by examining what they believe in a systematic fashion. This would also make people educated consumers of religion and I think it would have the effect of getting religion on its own to stop the nonsense. If people understood the more dastardly practices and tactics they would react to them appropriately and they would soon stop. From my perspective there are many positive and important roles that religion provides to society, I don't want it destroyed, I want it reformed.

As long as people think magically you are right. If the world doesn't concentrate on educating its population, for most people in the world the best that can be done is to get people to swap superstition in the supernatural for superstition in science. Something I would not want to happen. If the respect is based on superstition I would rather they believe in the supernatural. It is a matter of education, but it can be taught just as magical thinking is taught. If we ever get the population to the point were critical thinking is so ingrained that it is taught by mamma to her children at crib side instead of magical thinking as they grow up then the tide will be turned. Even in the US I think this will be a daunting task, forget about third world countries.

Yes, this is a matter of magical thinking vs. critical thinking.

Starboy

Kassiana

I do not say that atheism is a delusion that you must be rescued from. I do not believe that atheism is a delusion that you must be rescued from. I recognize that my understanding of reality is not the same thing as reality, and there are other viewpoints. I consider it valuable to have a variety of viewpoints in society.
--Ditto. Good points, Anitra!

I think that all we need is to remember that our understanding of reality is not reality-itself.
--Indeed. The fact that I like broccoli doesn't mean everyone else does. All it means is that I like broccoli.

Biff the unclean

What baloney.
The fact that someone does not like broccoli does not make it disappear. The reality of broccoli is never at issue. You can demonstrate it's existence. People who make their living selling you broccoli can produce it.
People who make their livings selling you God cannot.
The standard of proof used for a belief in broccoli is suspended for a belief in God. It's also suspended for a belief that you own the Brooklyn Bridge.

The reason God doesn't stand up to our understanding of reality is not because there is something wrong with us. It's because God isn't real.
That's what makes the selling of God, just like the selling of anything else that doesn't exist, a con job.

Kassiana

The point isn't the reality or non-reality of broccoli, but the reality of personal preferences (like mine for theism over atheism, books over television, baked potatoes over veal) and the danger of pushing them on others in the mistaken belief that because I like (x) or dislike (x), everyone else must like or dislike (x) as I do.

And yes, again, I refrain from pushing all my personal preferences on others, from my theism to my liking of broccoli.

The AntiChris

So theism isn't about about beliefs, it's about preferences!

Preferences for what?

Chris

truthie

Well, the ideas for a replacement were interesting, though, as you implied, they have barriers to face and ay, I would not like another religion in this world.

Definitely. Though, why would you prefer people to believe in superstition rather than the supernatural? Superstition is so supernaturalistic and not based on reason at all.

T.