And yet, here you go starting another anti-religion discussion.

Lots of people have acted on the sentiment you express. They have left. Moved on. Many of the departed are NOT religious--they've become "spiritual". Then there are those who might be "religious" but NOT spiritual. The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone?

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no. Like it or not, many people find it helpful. Whether they are Buddhists, Hindus talking about Vishnu, Moslems yelling Allah Akbar, Baptists ranting about Jesus, or WHATEVER the hell they are, people find religious activities personally useful. That rulers also find religion useful is a much less praiseworthy aspect of belief. That's another possible thread.

I'm no longer a believer and I'm not "spiritual" either--but protestant Christianity is the milieu in which I grew up. As an old adult, I might think I should have been raised in a secular humanist family in Boston or New York City, but I was instead raised in the very conventional rural midwest. There are a lot of things I don't like about the Midwest (or New York City, for that matter) but it is what it is.

In time, more and more people will have grown up in secular, non-religious communities. Maybe someday everyone will be secular. We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference.

“And yet” makes no sense.

Also, it’s not anti-religion. But thanks for your always-riveting comments. :yawn:

The Church is a useful institution; it's a place to maintain social contacts. A lot of clubs and bowling leagues have gone out of business. The church is still there on the corner. Potluck, anyone? — BC

True. I think the social aspect is important. From a philosophical point of view, however, these questions are — in my view — a waste of time. It’s not even philosophy of religion — They should be studying theology.

Is "religion" a waste of time? For some, yes; for others no. — BC

Sure. I don’t think religion is a waste of time.

We'll have to come back from the grave to see whether that makes all that much difference. — BC

I plan on living to 120, so maybe I’ll get to see it.

How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism?

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well.

Some say that it was a Christian society that brought about the enlightenment and the birth of science, and the very commitment to truth, and to not wasting time that you seem to espouse yourself. Should we not let go of those very Christian values too?

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum? Twitter would seem to be the better option, and 280 characters is more than enough to express such a simple sentiment.

For pernicious aspects, I’d try my best to educate them — but like any cult, that’s difficult once it’s been ingrained.

Tell me more about what I should let go of, and how you know its value so well. — unenlightened

I can make up a god right now. Now let’s endlessly argue about if it exists or not, what impacts it has on morality, etc etc. Odd that Vishnu doesn’t get brought up as much here — I wonder why?

Anyway— I don’t care about whether people are Christian or not; I care about what they do. But in terms of philosophical questioning on a philosophy forum, especially if you’re otherwise secular — yeah, people should move on from that. Either study theology or treat god like any other god. No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith.

Should we not let go of those very Christian values too? — unenlightened

I didn’t say anything about Christian values.

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, but given that your post contains no arguments and has no relation to philosophy, why post this sort of thing on a philosophy forum? — Leontiskos

It does have an argument. That you missed it is your business.

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture doesn’t afford special attention to one’s “questions” about God. Very easy to see if you replace “God” with “Wodin.”

I figured this post would be interpreted as simplistically as possible, so as to fit it in with arguing “Move on from Christianity.” But look again — that’s not the argument. I’m not against religion.

If one wants to study God, study theology. If one wants to raise philosophical questions about God— ask yourself why you’re so preoccupied with God and not Thor or Shiva. I think that’ll lead you to see that this obsession is a complete waste of time, and that your caring so much is based on a residue of upbringing. Move on from that. It’s not special.

From a psychological, anthropological, and historical point of view, it’s just one more worldview. — Mikie

No reason to give “god” special attention just because you happen to be raised in that faith. — Mikie

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised.

I didn’t say anything about Christian values. — Mikie

Like you, the Christian tradition makes much of the value of not wasting time, but working hard.

It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

I think it is at least interesting, and perhaps important, to recognise the source of such values.

On the contrary, one cannot understand oneself and one's potential biases without some study of the history of the culture in which one was raised. — unenlightened

Of course. You’re bound to care more about your own culture. But that’s the point. It’s a bias.

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it. If this were India, I suppose there would be endless debate about how many arms Shiva has or whatever — yet in terms of philosophy, I’d say the same thing: it’s boring, and the only reason we care in the first place is because we grew up in it.

But it’s really not special from a philosophical or scientific point of view, where the happenstance of one’s upbringing is removed. There’s a kind of ethnocentrism to it all.

I’m assuming, I guess, that most people here approach these issues without being hardcore believers. Perhaps I’m wrong, and they really do believe. In that case, it’s not really philosophy at all, is it?

If you really believe your culture is special, exceptional, deserving of privileged treatment, etc — fine, go study it. — Mikie

I have done so, and have no such belief because I have also studied something of Indian, Chinese, and African cultures. And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss. So what do you have that is better than stories?

Some say that it was a Christian society that brought about the enlightenment and the birth of science, and the very commitment to truth — unenlightened

While others say that the church tried to(and is still trying)to limit the knowledge available to the common people and to limit or control the research into certain fields that they consider to be the providence of their god. How many were condemned by the church for trying to explain the truth of the universe.
And as for truth about the churches themselves, I think that we will never know a lot of it unless we can find all of the old books that the leaders of religion stop us from seeing.

Zeus was prone to eating his children too. It's a god thing.

Zeus was prone to eating his children too. It's a god thing. — unenlightened

From what I remember of reading about the ancient gods, they ate them in more ways than one.

And I have found much of value in all those stories that you seem to want me to dismiss. — unenlightened

I never once argued that should be dismissed. I’m arguing we shouldn’t raise one particular story for special treatment on the basis of the sheer chance we were raised being told it.

So what do you have that is better than stories? — unenlightened

Questions. Questions that aren’t limited to one special story.

I don't concur. I agree that debates about religion are often irksome but trivialising or dismissing it is not helpful. 'It's just a bunch of old myths, there's nothing in it, forget about it'. To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life. There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake.

One of the best books in the history of ideas that I've read since joining forums was The Theological Origins of Modernity, by M A Gillespie. 'Exposing the religious roots of our ostensibly godless age, Michael Allen Gillespie reveals in this landmark study that modernity is much less secular than conventional wisdom suggests. Taking as his starting point the collapse of the medieval world, Gillespie argues that from the very beginning moderns sought not to eliminate religion but to support a new view of religion and its place in human life.' And that mainly manifests as the religion of technology and science.

The argument is simple: because one happens to be raised in a Christian culture... — Mikie

That's not an argument, it's a cliché, just like your Santa Klaus cliché and your fairytale cliché. If your intent was to bring an end to boring religious discussions, then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect.

To a lot of people it's the most important fact about life. — Quixodian

To a lot of Hindus it’s an important fact about life. For those who are capable, I think stepping outside one’s upbringing and enculturation and questioning things philosophically is possible. I think that ultimately leads to “Why am I privileging the stories of my youth?”

If talk about the god Xhadima, as an outsider, is kind of absurd, then perhaps that’s worth examining.

This is not a statement about theology— study God or Christianity all you like. When it comes to philosophy, I don’t see it that way anymore. I see it as boring as I see the “philosophical” obsessions about Xhadima. Like, move on already. Your particular childhood stories don’t carry social weight.

There's an asymettry - you don't see it as anything other than myth, whereas for those who believe it, there is something real - and vastly important - at stake. — Quixodian

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it.

It’s like privileging the NFL. Yes, because I grew up with it I give it more personal importance— but the rest of the world doesn’t care, and to assume they do is utter arrogance. From an anthropological view, it’s one sport of many and, if questioned at all, should be questioned with that in mind.

then you should be informed that bundling together a bunch of anti-religious clichés in an anti-religious OP will certainly have the opposite effect. — Leontiskos

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing. See the quote below. You’re clearly not one of them, so it really doesn’t apply to you. You should study theology. I see philosophy as different in many ways from that— and, with this being a philosophy forum, I figured I would voice my opinion about it.

You were taught these stories as a child. Anyone who thinks them through, if they’re strong enough, will just let them go as cultural fairytales — on par with Santa Klaus and caring about the National Football League — Mikie

Again— this doesn’t apply to you. So be happy with what you believe. I’m just not interested in theology. I’m talking about those who wish to engage in philosophical questioning.

It’s not anti-religious. I’m speaking to those capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing. — Mikie

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious polemic. This should be obvious.

The idea that only a select few are "capable of recognizing their own religion as a product of their upbringing" is anti-religious. This is obvious. — Leontiskos

How? It’s either a select few or it’s not. In this forum, I think it’s quite a few people.

Most people don’t really question their beliefs. Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: move on from it. Don’t get stuck with those questions alone, because there’s nothing special about your particular religion.

...because there’s nothing special about your particular religion. — Mikie

More personal insults, then, just like the OP.

More personal insults, then, just like the OP. — Leontiskos

Your defensiveness is clouding your reading comprehension:

Of those who do— and there are a sizable number — I think it’s worth giving the advice I did: — Mikie

It has nothing to do with insults. I realize YOU’RE very clearly insulted. But I’ve now told you repeatedly this advice doesn’t apply to you. So if you choose to feel insulted, that’s your own business.

I’m assuming people who do philosophy assume it’s myth as well. Nothing wrong with myth and stories — they’re important. But let’s acknowledge our privileging it over many others simply because we were raised in it. — Mikie

You misunderstand the role of myth in culture. There are any number of myths active in cultural narratives. A lot of it is now pop culture rubbish about cartoon heroes, instead of morally edifying narratives. Furthermore the fact that ‘millions of people don’t believe in religion’ is no more an argument against religion, than ‘millions of people do’ is for it. There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. Ideas have consequences. The case can be made that Western culture provided fertile grounds for the scientific revolution due to the kind of metaphysics it had (per Stanley Jaki, a polymath Catholic monk.)

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. — Quixodian

I’m not sure about that. This is where I think the disagreement perhaps stems from. There are important religious questions entailed by religious beliefs. But I wouldn’t call them philosophical. The question “Does Xenoghi allow bad things to happen?” is not really philosophical, although it may very well be important to those who believe in Xenoghi.

How do you suggest we help those who continue to be manipulated by any pernicious uses of theism? — universeness

Anti-religion and its concerns are as much a distraction from what really matters as religion and its concerns. You don't need to worry about saving anyone.

There are substantive philosophical questions entailed by religious belief. — Quixodian

People do say that, and yet they never seem to be able to say just what those substantive philosophical questions are. I don't see why religion has anything more to do with philosophy than any other cultural phenomenon.

There are important religious questions entailed by religious beliefs. But I wouldn’t call them philosophical. — Mikie

But that itself is tendentious. You're asking others to question their beliefs, but taking your own for granted. 'Science' didn't even become separated from 'philosophy' until the 1830's.

Here's a brief analytical statement of what is important about the religious idea. That essentially the human being is not only or simply a physical phenomenon. That the human embodies or is directly related to the governing intelligence of the Cosmos (whether concieved of in personalistic terms as God or as a principle such as Dharma or Tao). Something like this was believed by a great many of the philosophers of the Western canon, and it is of high philosophical significance.

I don’t think religion is a waste of time — Mikie

It’s a waste of time. — Mikie

The question of whether there is a "governing intelligence of the Cosmos" is answerable only by faith. There can be no evidence of such a thing, which means that, absent any personal feeling that there is such a thing, there could be no reason to believe it. Personal feelings may satisfy the criterion of evidence for the individual with the feeling but cannot constitute evidence for anyone else.

The question of whether there is a "governing intelligence of the Cosmos" is answerable only by faith. — Janus

There's an interesting internet anecdote about a well-known atheist philosopher, now deceased, by the name of Antony Flew, who's convictions were changed towards the end of his life by this very observation. There are large numbers of respected scientists who share the conviction. It's not empirically demonstrable, but then, it's not an empirical question (although of course for positivism, if it's not an empirical question, then it's nonsensical.)

There can be no evidence of such a thing — Janus

From the theistic perspective, the Universe is the evidence.