LanDroid wrote: Again, given our religious freedoms, why didn't less superstitious forms of faith become stronger?

Could you give an example of a less superstitious form of faith?

DWill wrote:

LanDroid wrote: Again, given our religious freedoms, why didn't less superstitious forms of faith become stronger?

Could you give an example of a less superstitious form of faith?

Hi DWill. I think this is a great question. The common sceptical assumption is faith = superstition, based on the view that if it is true you don't need faith to believe it, so faith is reserved for propositions which are prima facie absurd. However, we do require non-superstitious faith for daily life, for example the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the future will somehow conform to the past, that people can be trusted, and that values such as goodness and mercy and love can be understood and promoted. All statements of value boil down to claims of faith, in that logically they cannot be derived from statements of fact. Whenever we need to make a leap in the dark, a judgment based on intuition, a confident guess based on partial information, we are applying faith.

Regarding LanDroid's point, I also think it is a mystery that dominant forms of religion are so irrational in such a smart and free place as the USA. It is possible to construct a rational story about why Jesus Christ can be viewed as 'Lord and Saviour' which does not rely on superstitious claims which have been debunked by science. If Jesus was simply the most spiritual person in human history, an avatar like the Buddha, all the good bits of Christianity remain equally valid. It is only the false rubbish, such as belief in heaven and the virgin birth, that needs to be junked. Christianity is in essence compatible with the atheism of Benedict Spinoza who equated God and nature. Such an atheist Christianity is much more moral than the superstitious foolishness we now see, as it demands that ethics of love and friendship be based on evidence rather than on empty and false threats of hellfire. I think an evidence based religion is what Jesus wanted, but the corruption of the church found that evidence did not serve its political interests so they turned instead to terrifying people with imaginary lies.

I agree, DWill, excellent question - and one still waiting to be answered.

Robert, are you saying that in order to be a good, decent human being, I must have faith? Faith in what? A higher power? My own abilities? What?

"Dominant forms of religion;" what are these? Catholics, Baptists, Methodists - these seem to be dominant forms of religion in the US, right? And "such a smart and free place as the USA." Well, I am a citizen of the US and I would argue that we are a lot freer than we are smart.

Ralph

ralphinlaos, We could contrast the faith of Thomas Jefferson which inspired him to write the Jefferson Bible with fundamentalism. We could also contrast fundamentalists on one hand with Unitarians and Liberal Quakers on the other. I've attended a Unitarian Church that had an atheist minister, half of the congregation was atheist and the other half a conglomeration of new agers, Wiccans, etc. Some Liberal Quakers believe that if following your inner light leads one to Buddhism, that's an acceptable form of Quakerism. I doubt these extreme wings existed during the time of the founding fathers, but still the question is why did fundamentalism thrive under our system of religious freedom? I can't find the quote, but Jacoby wonders why this happened when even Unitarianism was too restricting for R. W. Emerson.

Oh, LanDroid, you are way ahead of me. I didn't even know that Thomas Jefferson wrote a bible. He wrote one? Or translated one into English? Do you know of anywhere on-line where I could read a portion of Jefferson's bible?

I would enjoy comparing Jefferson's beliefs with today's fundamentalists. I'll wager there are more similarities than differences.

What did he really think about adultery? Theft? Has the "Sally Hemmings" story ever been proven or disproven? Is it a fact?

So, if someone asks me what religion am I and I reply, "Unitarian," it means nothing, right? Same with Quaker? I know that if I say "Methodist" or "Catholic," they'll have an idea of my beliefs.

My Buddhist friends here in Laos will be surprised to hear that they are practicing a form of Quakerism. Interesting!

Ralph

I think the question to ask, in order to answer the question of why such irrational forms of fundamentalist religion have taken hold in the world is, what human need is being satisfied? And next, what created the need or what had been meeting the need in the past? In other words, what opened the space for fundamentalism to flourish? I would suggest that it is a deep emotional need that is being satisfied by todays fundamentalism. Emotional needs trump rationalism and logic every time. I would go as far to say that trying to address, even answer the big questions of life is a basic human psychological need. The most rational and intelligent people will behave very irrationally to get their emotional needs met. I am sure that each of us can think of a dozen examples from our own lives or the people close to us, of a smart rational person acting totally irrationally and in conflict with their own wellbeing chasing after love or pursuing a parents approval.

So, why do so many Americans need a rigid, clearly defined good and evil, no question left unanswered, hell and brimstone, with the promise of heaven religion? Why is it unthinkable/unbearable for so many to live without solid answers?

Just for starters, We live in a commodity focused, convenience demanding, economy driven society. When I go to the bank, as a way of closing the interaction, the teller asks, "Can I provide any other products for you today?" What the hell does that mean? All I wanted was to cash a check! Since when is cashing a check a product??? Getting back to the question of why fundamentalism. I think it is much easier to let someone else fold up all the answers in a bright yellow wrapper and hand it to you at the drive up window. You don't even need to get our of your car!

Response to ralphinlaos

You said:

My Buddhist friends here in Laos will be surprised to hear that they are practicing a form of Quakerism. Interesting!

I think you sort of have it backwards. The practice of Quakerism is to create a silent space, to listen, so that you might hear the whispering of your soul or God (if you believe), to be guided toward right action or something akin tothe way of Taoism. It is each person's duty to figure out how best to live. The Society of Friends, the name Quakers gave themselves, is there to support and nurture each other in their seeking. So, if a Quaker feels lead to practice Buddhism there is no conflict. The individual would simple be practicing both. Where as a Buddhist by practicing Buddhism is not actually practicing Quakerism.

Saffron, I absolutely loved what you wrote in the "McReligion" posting.

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to gather information about the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists. In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.
- Wikipedia

I doubt you'll find much common ground between that and fundmentalistm. Another interesting aspect of the Jefferson Bible is it's in four columns because he used four languages: Greek, Latin, French, and English. And yes, the Sally Hemmings story has been proved through DNA.

Saffron is correct about the relationship between Liberal Quakers and Buddhism. Keep in mind that conservative Quakers disagree with that concept, they are a very diverse group.

Saffron is also correct about one of the main reasons why fundamentalism became popular.

It seems more likely that poorly educated settlers on the frontier were drawn to religious creeds and preachers who provided emotional comfort without making the intellectual demands of older, more intellectually rigorous Protestant denominations - whether liberal Quakerism and Unitarianism or conservative Episcopalian and Congregationalism. The more harsh the circumstances of daily life, the more potent are the simple and universal emotional themes of struggle, sin, repentance, forgiveness, and redemption that form the core of evangelical fundamentalist religion. p. 45

Could you give an example of a less superstitious form of faith?[/quote]

The responses to this question were somewhat more than I expected--so deep--given my reason for asking it! I was wondering how, at the historical moment, a non-superstitious form of faith could have been possible. This was right around 1800. Jeffferson is Jefferson, after all, one of a kind, entirely unorthodox even though a theist. Faith, in whatever country we might be talking about, involved what we might now view as superstition (i.e., supernatural causation). I just couldn't see how the situation in America was exceptional, in its choice of pretty much orthodox Christianity, compared to Europe at this time. Take England, for example. Don't we see even a parallel there, in waves of religious fervor also catching on here in the Great Awakenings?

I don't question the accuracy of the statement that over time the U.S. developed into a society where what we now call fundamentalist faiths were more widespread than in Europe.

Whether we share some of the beliefs of an established religion, or whether we go by a personally-tailored philosophy, does rationality ever have a large role? I mean, sure, we can repudiate the specific supernatural-based events and beliefs in Christianity, but does that mean that in the religion/philosophy that we adopt as an alternative, we are in the realm of rationality as opposed, I guess, to spirituality? I don't think I want to make rationality the gold standard for living, not quite. I'd like to keep the limitations of rationality in mind as well as the strengths.

I didn't refer to specific posts, but I admired and bounced off the ideas of RobertTulip, LanDroid, Saffron, and ralphalinos.