My conversation starter for Atheists : comments [benlehman]

Organized religion is about a lot more than faith. I haven't talked to Ben about this post, but it seems to me he's talking about the practices of certain organized religions, like meditation, prayer (for yourself or someone else), regular church/temple/mosque/whatever attendance, etc. Meditation and prayer are supposed to benefit ones physical, mental, and spiritual health, and regular attendance at religious events, aside from promised health benefits, can bring social benefits. Including, in one study, having an embedded (in this case Buddhist or local diety) religion in small Chinese villages was demonstrated to benefit the town. Why? Because the village leaders participated in the religious life of the town, and thus had greater social accountability. The study's author found that this did not work for organizations that were Christian (because Christianity is generally outlawed and thus the leaders can't participate), or organizations that were not perceived as having moral authority (lineage societies, etc.). She didn't ask whether anyone believed in the religion. And one party official commented that she had joined the local temple not out of faith, but to get to know her village. Of course, she would have to say that, because communist party members have to promise to be atheists. Anyway, it's an interesting study, and while not perfect, is certainly intriguing.

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

Organized religion is about a lot more than faith.

Yes, but faith is necessary to a religion. In other words, if you don't have faith, you don't have a religion.

That's the main problem with all of this. Under Ben's model, it's a religion with tangible, verifiable reproducable evidence.

That's not faith, it's fact. And because it's not faith, it's not religion.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think I have to contest your definition of "religion" here, and I suspect the difference in definition is why you think Ben's question is pointless.

There's an awful lot of Christians and Jews out there* who regularly attend services and participate in any number of other religious rituals (Bat Mitzvah, etc), and would consider themselves members of that relgion, but have no actual faith whatsoever. Rather, they do it because it is a cultural thing or socially What You Do or because they were brought up in the religion and it's just What They've Always Done. I would say those people have religion but not faith, and those people do generally identify as being those religions when asked for censuses and such. Sure, *someone* having faith is necessary to a religion *existing*, but there are a lot of people *in* those existing religions who don't.

* I'm sure this happens in other religions too, especially in areas where they are particularly common, but I've seen it most frequently in these two. Christianity because it's socially dominant here in the US; Judaism because it's simultaneously a religion and an ethnicity.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Would you consider such a person "religious?"

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, in so far as we say someone who always does something does it "religiously", I suppose I'd kinda have to. But I'd probably pick "observant" if I were actually going to pick a word for it. *shakes fist at dictionary.* curse you, confusing English words!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Dictionaries don't define words, they provide common usage.

They aren't religious. They don't believe. You can be a part of a religion and not be religious, but you can't be religious without faith.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Isn't that up to them to decide?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Actual trained Religion Expert (tm) here. Faith is a concept that has almost nothing whatsoever to do with actually existing religions for most of human history. It is really, really important to *theology* (for certain values thereof, mostly having to do with the Christian religious traditions), but religion, for most people, in most societies, for most of history, has been all about praxis and not belief.

Faith has got zero to do with this conversation.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Being a "religion expert" is kind of like being an expert in unicorns, isn't it?

Can you demonstrate a religion that doesn't require belief in something that can't be demonstrated to be true.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Really, really not going to get into it with you here in Ben's space. I'll answer one post worth of direct questions, but that's it.

Gods, I make no representations about. Kind of impossible by definition. Religions? They're real. People have them and do them. And therefore they can be studied and facts known about them. That's the kind of "expert" I am.

Arguable that most Buddhism is at worst no less "rational and empirical" than psychology or political science. Majority of traditional religious practices are more "folk science" than statements about abstract, unprovable concepts - they're often *wrong* factually, but they're not falsifiable within the arsenal of techniques their practitioners have/had available.

Nothing can be demonstrated to be true. Basic principle of scientific method: things are falsifiable, not provable.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The fact that you call Buddhism a religion says a lot.

And using the "nothing is true" argument is bad form.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14 1	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

benlehman

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

Re: Also, Placebo

May