charley63

Here's my two bits.

Religion will be with us for at least the next century or two, barring a massive extinction event. What nontheists need to support are those religious reformers within the mainstream traditions who are working to create and inspire more civil forms of religious belief. I have been reading _Jesus for the Non-Religious_ by John Shelby Spong and his theology is almost entirely naturalistic and could be affirmed by most nontheists. It also has half a chance to persuade some Christians to leave their dogmatism behind.

No new concept of God has to be invented by nontheists, that is being done in seminaries as we speak.

peace! Charley

wordy

Charley, isn't Spong too much into post-modern relativism or social constructionism.

I agree with you that religion with be with us for hudnreds of years as far as we know now. Unless we make some innovation in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

We need to cooperate with the religious reformers but they fail to come up with good alternatives, as far as I know the Fundies are better at promiting their literal style faith. Communists was good at promoting their fundy style too. A greater part of our youth around year 1966 to 1973 or so was totally taken over by it. The anti-globalists and Animal Rights Movement and Vegans and Radical Feminists are our contempory same fundy style.

So maybe we need something similar secular but harmless.

RAFH

You seem to have a mistaken concept about science. Science doesn't look about and noticing there are dull folks who need mythologies to keep them in line, creates a mythology for them. Science is based first and foremost on empirical observation, not social or political need, though those may give urgency to the observation and prioritization of resources.

So what empirical observations is there to base a scientific inquiry on?

Assuming there were such observations made, then the next step would be to synthesize a principle which forms the basis of a theory and provides the substance for various hypotheses which can be experimentally tested. The observations resulting from such will validate or invalidate the hypotheses and so the theory and its underlying principle.

Science is not done to seek power or control. Though it has been used for such throughout history. As soon as one seeks to validate a concept regardless of its truth or the evidence available, one is no longer doing science. one is doing religion.

RAFH

So stated by figuer. And he should know. Shouldn't he?

khalimirov

Is religion a disorder?

Well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps atheism is the 'good alternative' you are looking for? How would you determine what a good alternative is?

wordy

Thanks for reading Pascal Boyer. He is just one researcher so hopefully others will come along and do even better experiments. His is too much dependent on "simulated" experiments.

We need "real" experiments but they would be un-ethical to do in University so we have to wait until religious people do them out of their own motivation.

Or as atheists and secular humanists we could start on ourselves.

What kind of religion or God could be ok for us.

To me maybe a Jungian God would not work. I see some merit in their views but it has things in it that I think is untenable but I woudl preferwe don't take that up here in thread. Too OT.

So what God could work for me as a very aggressive atheist?

Dawkins told us to change to "Super Niceness" and that we started "Atheist for Jesus. " They already exists and I am skeptical to them.

So we could start

God Loves Atheist Movement. GLAM.

GLAM believes in a God that loves us atheists cause we are more true to him than the fundies. We treat him as he would want us to if he existed outside of our heads.

But I am also skeptic to this difference between God and the Concept of God.

We would create a "painted into a metaphysical corner".

I hit upon that one in the Hard Problem of Consciousness thread.

We have to suppose or propose a God that is not a metaphysical claim.

We could try a functional emotional relational God. Would not that be attractive?

Pascal Boyer seems to have tested what he name counter-intuitive gods.

To be attractive and successful gods need to be "mildly" counter-intuitive.

So a secular God could be an altruistic cooperator conspiracy and we all of us have committed to hold a downloaded part of God in our brain and that all of us communicate our part of God through the Web. A community thing. Like the Game community them all playing the most popular games together?

We play the GLAM. God Loves Atheist Movement game.

Would not that work?

wordy

Suppose I agree with you. I told Fiquer something similar, you grasp it even better than I did.

What is the solution then. I mean instead of giving it all up. Suggest a solution, just for the sake of argument at least!

Fiquer says ""What god can empirical science and secular humanism, without contradicting their principles, proclaim to exist"?
Mageth would prefer "What concept of god can empirical science and secular humanism, without contradicting their principles, proclaim to exist"?

That Fiquer did that switch could indicate that it isn't the concept that works it is what the concept is supposed to refer to?

This is also the criticism in other threads. The believers don't believe in the concept, they believe in the "live" God.

If God are only a concept then that isn't the God they relate to they would say.

Universe would not work as a substitute, Earth would not work either, "Life" maybe would but then we would already have a lot of such religions being effective, we haven't as far as I know.

So what would work?

wordy

khalimirov you started Naturalistic Christianity but when I tried to reach you in that thread you didn't answer me. AFAIK. Looked through it now.

So not sure of how you think of me. How do I know you read me now?

Wow you started "a false belief leading to good" thread too an I responded to you there too only to be ignored by you.
No good track record. Why should I trust you here in this thread?


I get back to you maybe depending on your next move.

khalimirov, maybe I am harsh on you. But go for the OP, what Fiquer has suggested. I'm a minor player here. Fiquer is the central person ok!

charley63

I don't think so based on this latest book. His critique of supernaturalism is pretty thorough, if not exactly scientifically rigorous.

I don't think anything secular will win mass support in the near future. What might win it is a progressive theology that allows symbolic use of Christian and Islamic doctrines, but displaces supernaturalism.

peace! Charley

khalimirov

Correct, I don't respond to everything. So many threads, so many things to respond to, so little time. Sometimes responding seems pointless (I'm not saying that's the case with your posts; I can't even remember them). You really want to dig up those old threads? If so, I'd be glad to do so.