It's amazing how child-like some people are. They don't think too deeply.

It's amazing how child-like some people are. They don't think too deeply. — frank

I'm amazed you think children do not think deeply.

I'm with you on this to the extent the OT is clearly a compilation of at least 4 different works and the early religion was not monotheistic, but it's been monotheistic for well over 2000 to 3000 years, certainly since "modern" judaism. And by "modern," I'm referring to the post temple era (in the first century AD), which is the rabbinical era, when we Jews stopped offering sacrifices and whatnot.

IF you like. It does appear to be the link between Akhenaten, Zoroaster and modern monotheism.

Sound. And is this the way it's commonly read and thought about, in your experience? — Srap Tasmaner

Different traditions read it differently. An orthodox Jew would read it literally. A reform metaphorically.

In essence I'm not even judging Christians at this point, I'm judging us, as a secular society for holding such a religion in any esteem at all. — Isaac

You can't myth bust if you're opponent admits it's all myth to begin with. If you hold up the Bible and declare it's not what it presents itself to be, that the emperor wears no clothes, my snarky response would be to point out there is no emperor either. That whole story about an emperor with no clothes never happened. George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree and the native Americans didn't enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with the settlers.

I'm looking for existential meaning when I read the book. Stop pointing out the trees. I'm learning about the forest.

IF you like. It does appear to be the link between Akhenaten, Zoroaster and modern monotheism. — Banno

I think the argument from Akhenaten to modern day monotheism is weak. That was the belief of a single kingdom for a short period of time as opposed to Judaism's evolutionary advancement and long term acceptance. But anyway, such is ancient history. Much speculation.

It's a misconception that Zoroastrianism was monotheistic. That was propogated by some German guy who was intent on making Zoroastrianism attractive to his audience. They actually had tons of gods.

I'm amazed you think children do not think deeply. — unenlightened

Do they?

My understanding is that Zoroaster was a monotheist; that his religion died with him but was revved centuries later by a group of priests who improved its "saleability" to the common folk by allowing them to retain their own gods as demigods.

The Gathas praise a single god.

The Persians were like Hindus (to whom they were related), they always had a lot of gods.

If the Gathas only talk about one god, what about Angra Mainu, the evil god? Was he not in the original texts?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ahriman

So there were three deities originally.

If there were then Christianity is a polytheistic religion, too, Satan being the creation of the Lord.

Satan isn't a god. He's a fallen angel. This is from one of my books on Zoroastrianism:

"Such concerns were taken up by Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla (1875–1956), who came from a priestly family in Surat. By 1905, Dhalla had scraped together enough donations to travel to New York and study for a doctorate at Columbia University. His mentor for nearly four years was A.V. Williams Jackson, who held the Chair in Indo-Iranian Studies. Dhalla wrote his dissertation on the Nyayishn, the Avestan prayer songs to the yazatas. After his initiation as high priest in Karachi, Dastur Dhalla wrote several seminal works on the texts, history and evolution of the religion, in which he combined a rationalist ‘reformist’ approach with Western exegetical analysis, claiming that an original ethical monotheism revealed to Zarathushtra had been corrupted by polytheism and superstition. Dhalla is sometimes referred to as the ‘Protestant dastur’ because of his use of Western Christian terminology and rationalism, and his distrust of obsolete ritual, but as a high priest his devotion to his religion was also expressed through the ritual performance of the Yasna and the recitation of prayers to the yazatas, as well as compassionate concern for the welfare of his flock."

Some author I read said Zoroastrians always had a lot of gods. It's a living religion, so of course there's conflict. Need the academic view...

...an original ethical monotheism revealed to Zarathushtra had been corrupted by polytheism and superstition... — frank

Yep.

The mentality of good and evil were incarnated in later versions. The original was, so far as we can tell, monotheistic.

Is this the view of scholars? I wouldn't take the word of a religious reformer.

"Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, asking his followers to change their ways and beliefs but not to throw away all they had. Consequently, lesser divine beings or “gods” and many old rituals remained, to the dismay of modern European Christian scholars who were looking for a “pure” monotheism.". -- Mario Fererro

You can check it out for yourself. Yes, there is debate, but only one god is mentioned in the Gathas, the wise lord, "The very first and the last".

Zoroaster carried out a “reform” of Iranian polytheism, — frank

The reforms took place long after his life; he may have lived as far back at the tenth C. BC, hundreds of years prior to his becoming the dominant religion.

Is it important to you that monotheism only be traced to Judaism?

Is it important to you that monotheism only be traced to Judaism? — Banno

No. Zoroastrians and Greeks influenced Judaism. I just gave you a religion scholar saying Zoroaster, who was a priest of the polytheistic Mazdaism, allowed his followers to keep their lesser gods. ?

Am I supposed to conclude something from that? As I said,

My understanding is that Zoroaster was a monotheist; that his religion died with him but was revved centuries later by a group of priests who improved its "saleability" to the common folk by allowing them to retain their own gods as demigods.

The Gathas praise a single god. — Banno

If there were then Christianity is a polytheistic religion, too, Satan being the creation of the Lord. — Banno

If the father, the son, and the holy ghost are three separate entities, Christianity is a
Polytheistic religion.

Christians claim the trinity is three in one and therefore monotheistic. If you're not Christian, though, and reject the trinity as incoherent, I think the conclusion is that Christianity is polytheistic.

I would conted it is.

Um, yeah, if you worship chocolate, I guess. — Baden

Willy Wonka? Complete power within his domain, cruel and excessive punishments for fairly minor transgressions, being both the creator of temptation and the punisher for giving in to it... I think your avatar makes a good candidate God.

Well, yeah. How much more obvious can you make it that you need help? — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed.

My favorite but of wisdom about parenting:

Kids need your love most when they deserve it least. — Erma Bombeck — Srap Tasmaner

Very nice.

one does not think of permanent tooth loss as a cruel and disproportionate divine punishment for not brushing one's teeth. — unenlightened

But it is cruel and disproportionate for one who has it in their power to make it not the case. If my kids refused to brush their teeth, but I could slip some magic powder in their juice which prevented tooth decay anyway, it would definitely be cruel and disproportionate of me not to do so, and let their teeth rot, just so I could say "I told you so".

that's obviously not even close. — Srap Tasmaner

...yet...

The problem of hell is how to reconcile our ideas of it with the perfect goodness of God. Way out of my league here, but maybe one could imagine the jealous God of the Old Testament as a different sort of thing altogether, a god that can kick the ass of every other god, our guy, not necessarily the principle of goodness. (That local badass-god was long gone by the time the book was written, transmuted into something universal.) — Srap Tasmaner

...sounds exactly like what I described. Someone, only now, 2000 years later, still coming up with possible ways in which God isn't a dick. It's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. "Come back to us when you've finished working your religion out and we'll see if it's a useful moral guide then". what's of no use is claiming it's a moral guide, then when God's unarguably tyrannical behaviour is raised say "I'm sure that's all got a perfectly coherent explanation, give me a minute..."

I haven't been trying to give Christians any more deference than I would anyone else whose beliefs are quite foreign to me: — Srap Tasmaner

I wouldn't for a minute think you'd do so deliberately, but I think it's the result nonetheless. I see an admirable amount of trying to see things from other people's point of view, throughout much of the forum, but the special pleading, I'm targeting here is the assumption that they've probably got it worked out, that we'd be ham-fisted in our interference, that we (like a psychologist on a philosophy forum) would be out of our depth. That is not an assumption I see with other sets of beliefs. No-one is approaching (to use an apposite example) say, active inference views of perception with the assumption that any contribution they make would be nothing more than a clumsy, outsider, speaking out of turn about something they know nothing about. No. There's a most endearing enthusiasm to get stuck right in.

someone can claim to believe whatever they like, but that claim is only accurate when it summarises their actions. — fdrake

Yes. Maybe my old behaviourist commitments seeping through, but of the two choices (people believe just whatever they say they do -vs- people believe what they act as if they do) I'd choose the latter as the more pragmatic way for a community to proceed. The main reason being that we'd end up with a need to define and make use of that second parameter anyway. If we imposed the first as the definition of 'belief' it's role in any conversation would be relegated to a negation so that we could talk about 'the thing that's like a belief but not', which is of far more importance to us.

if the analysis was reframed to someone who really did believe that sinners ought to burn in hell forever, what would their conduct look like for that belief? Does it need to look like anything more than repeating the doctrines? — fdrake

Hence our problem (well mine anyway). I can't see a way in which a priest, considering a little 'extra-curricular choir practice' with the boys would actually think "I'll be tortured in hell for eternity if I do this, but at least I'll get my rocks off for a five minuets - whatever, I'll do it". No-one's thinking that way. Which means either a) they don't really truly believe the punishment they claim they do, or b) they really do think it's all about doing the rites properly and not about sin at all (even worse), or c) they're super psyched for choirboys and are prepared to face an eternity of torment for the pleasure. Of the three, I think the former is the more likely. The idea of an eternity of torment for any transgression is just as implausible to them as it is to us (parsimony again, if I can explain their behaviour with beliefs we could share, rather than incommensurable ones, I'll do so).

But that leaves Lewis's argument in trouble. Because the best explanation is they don't even believe what they say they believe. They're not really worshipping a torturer. It's all just an act to get to wear a socially (or psychologically) useful badge. So does the moral argument still have any force?

I think it does, but perhaps in a way that diverges from Lewis. I think the moral argument is to ask "how far are we prepared to let such token badges go before we step in?" If people play at believing in eternal damnation whist actually being perfectly moral citizens, then maybe we can let that slide. But if people's play at believing in eternal damnation leads them to mistreat those who would fit into that category (to make the play all the more real), then we might want to put a stop to the game before it gets out of hand.

Just to clarify, since there's been a lot of generalisation in place of specifics here, I'm not saying that all religious belief is make believe, I'm specifically saying that for those beliefs which seem incongruous with a person's normal moral sentiment, the most parsimonious explanation is that they're not really beliefs at all, just tokens.

As I said before, I think most rationalisations are post hoc checks. We believe first, find out why later. I don't see any reason to make exceptions for the religious. I'm sure that "a benevolent God created the world" for some is quite a good post hoc explanation for why they feel so happy looking at a sunset. But "a vengeful God will punish minor transgressions with eternal torture" just isn't an explanation for any belief about they way the world is, so I doubt it plays such a role.

I'm looking for existential meaning when I read the book. Stop pointing out the trees. I'm learning about the forest. — Hanover

Can I ask why? Why would you search for existential meaning? Why there? The book opens with a vengeful God putting babies to the sword, advocating the stoning to death of just about anyone who has sex without his say so, demanding sacrifices etc. What is it, after reading all that, that makes you think "I bet there'll be some great existential nuggets in here, if only I can get past all the blatant misogyny and homophobia and see the bigger picture"?

There's a great 'big picture' message in the Lord of the Rings too, but very few babies being put to the sword by the main protagonist - and it's got fight scenes.

I haven't been trying to give Christians any more deference than I would anyone else whose beliefs are quite foreign to me:
— Srap Tasmaner

I wouldn't for a minute think you'd do so deliberately, but I think it's the result nonetheless. — Isaac

Maybe it’s this: Christianity has an outsize presence in the politics of my country, especially where I live, in the Bible belt. It’s been on my mind — a lot. (It’s entirely possible that what I’m concerned about isn’t even exactly Christianity anymore, but a heretical offshoot of Christianity. This is the Jesus and John Wayne idea, but I’ve heard a few variations at this point.)

For some generations now, young intellectuals have been cheerfully leaving religion behind as they went off to college — we had science and the arts and humanities and no need for religion, which we used to assume belonged to humanity’s infancy and would fade away. That didn’t work out. There are a lot of us who face no question about whether to be for or against Christianity and just about all religion; we’re against. But the world has changed, and we can’t just ignore it as we intended; now we need to understand it. I don’t have a problem with ‘external’ approaches, in general, with doing psychology or sociology of faith, that sort of thing; but that ought to include some phenomenology (at least as the term is used in qualitative social science) of the life of believers, else those theories might hook up to some fantasy of Christian life instead of the real thing.

Christian doctrine has no particular urgency for me, but how real Christians live does — they’re people, after all, and fellow citizens, and quite likely my political enemies. I think that might explain why I’ve approached this discussion as I have.

Hence our problem (well mine anyway). I can't see a way in which a priest, considering a little 'extra-curricular choir practice' with the boys would actually think "I'll be tortured in hell for eternity if I do this, but at least I'll get my rocks off for a five minuets - whatever, I'll do it". No-one's thinking that way. Which means either a) they don't really truly believe the punishment they claim they do, or b) they really do think it's all about doing the rites properly and not about sin at all (even worse), or c) they're super psyched for choirboys and are prepared to face an eternity of torment for the pleasure. Of the three, I think the former is the more likely. The idea of an eternity of torment for any transgression is just as implausible to them as it is to us (parsimony again, if I can explain their behaviour with beliefs we could share, rather than incommensurable ones, I'll do so). — Isaac

Why is the former more likely? It strikes me as equally plausible that either they accept the doctrine that one is justified by faith (and so belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation regardless of what evils one has engaged in, including child abuse) and so they don't believe they are risking eternal punishment by engaging in child abuse/rape, or that their decision to engage in child abuse simply isn't a rational one involving any calculation of the relevant risks (either of legal repercussions, or eternal punishment) at all.

And there certainly appear to be plenty of Christians who do behave as if they genuinely believe that unbelief can/will result in eternal punishment, going to great lengths to try to convert friends and loved ones and displaying apparently genuine concern over the fate of non-believer's eternal souls.

Hence our problem (well mine anyway). I can't see a way in which a priest, considering a little 'extra-curricular choir practice' with the boys would actually think "I'll be tortured in hell for eternity if I do this, but at least I'll get my rocks off for a five minuets - whatever, I'll do it". No-one's thinking that way. Which means either a) they don't really truly believe the punishment they claim they do, or b) they really do think it's all about doing the rites properly and not about sin at all (even worse), or c) they're super psyched for choirboys and are prepared to face an eternity of torment for the pleasure. Of the three, I think the former is the more likely. The idea of an eternity of torment for any transgression is just as implausible to them as it is to us (parsimony again, if I can explain their behaviour with beliefs we could share, rather than incommensurable ones, I'll do so). — Isaac

What role do you think cognitive dissonance plays in all this? I think maybe you've missed a fourth option that the expressed beliefs are put by the wayside contextually, no matter how hard one's current conduct contradicts the suppressed belief. I don't think there's anything about belief that requires such a contradiction to be felt without also feeling the connection between one's horrible actions and one's noble beliefs - suppressing the connection between the two seems precisely a form of dissonance.

The role I think that possibility plays is that it actually seems to block the direct transfer of a moral Black Spot from believing in the horrible crap in the bible to conduct, since someone very well could have the expression of of belief in the horrible crap occur in completely different contexts than it would be acted upon. The commitment to the belief is manifested in worship, rather than doing something tractably horrible.

But that still doesn't address the relationship that @Banno seemed to be gesturing towards regarding holding a belief and that belief imbuing a propensity for action to someone. Albeit a downgrade from 'believing in Hell is a sin' to 'believing in Hell is a little sus'.

Take a look at Religious Credence is not Factual Belief

The argument here is that religious belief is more make-believe than factual belief.

factual beliefs are practical setting independent, cognitively govern other attitudes, and are evidentially vulnerable. By way of contrast, religious credences have perceived normative orientation, are susceptible to free elaboration, and are vulnerable to special authority. This theory provides a framework for future research in the epistemology and psychology of religious credence

This theory explains why religious belief is inured to rational discourse.

Your mooted paedophilic priest (as if that would ever happen) keeps his religious beliefs and his beliefs about little boys in different boxes in his mind.

What role do you think cognitive dissonance plays in all this? — fdrake

The dissonance would only be exposed when the priest is held accountable by others.

Anyway, the article is interesting in itself, providing further analysis of differing sorts of belief.

Taking that back to the OP, the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief. The result is that belief in eternal damnation is not a factual belief so much as an imaginative act. As such belief in hell does not appeal or respond to truth or evidence.

Taking that back to the OP, the upshot is that religious belief is categorically distinct from factual belief — Banno

Very true. But their contents are interchangeable. The religious belief of one can be factual belief for others, and the other way round.

God(s) can be fact and facts can be god(s).

By the time someone does something that could be problematic, it's often already too late. Such as discovering only a few years into your marriage that your spouse is a thief, or serial killer. — baker

You can't lock someone up on the suspicion that they might do something "problematic". Would you want to live in a society where that was common practice?

So we agreed that a child molester doesn't deserve eternal torture. What does he deserve? How do you calculate that? I kind of doubt you have an answer. What does that suggest?