I only really engage with religion from a counter-apologetic point so it's interesting to see this topic from a religious perspective. Because on the one hand, they're arguing that these communal...
I only really engage with religion from a counter-apologetic point so it's interesting to see this topic from a religious perspective. Because on the one hand, they're arguing that these communal spaces encourages social cohesion and political moderation, but they also acknowledge that the inflexibility of religion drives out progressive, educated and moderate people. While its described as a Christian denominational issue in the discussion, I'm sure this phenomenon plays out with other religions as well.
And at the same time there's the growing trend of Cultural Christians. These people don't care for the theology, do not engage in the community components (attend church less than once a year and does not participate in social programs), but are fully supportive of the conservative beliefs and social prohibitions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a prominent atheist that now advocates for this and I think her reasons give a good snapshot of this view:
So, what changed? Why do I call myself a Christian now?
Part of the answer is global. Western civilisation is under threat from three different but related forces: the resurgence of great-power authoritarianism and expansionism in the forms of the Chinese Communist Party and Vladimir Putin’s Russia; the rise of global Islamism, which threatens to mobilise a vast population against the West; and the viral spread of woke ideology, which is eating into the moral fibre of the next generation.
It's telling when Woke Ideology (2) is mentioned more than Jesus (0) in the letter.
So in my mind, the issue is less about where people will go. They even made a point of it in the discussion. Sports clubs, volunteer work, community game store, libraries. These places are probably better options because there's healthier power dynamics, financial accountability and more cultural diversity. It's a matter of outreach and accessibility to bring people in. The question would be, why would anyone still go to a place of worship? Because it seems like the focus is less for social need or societal good or even to learn and preach theology. It's just another political tool to further policy goals and enforce social conservative values.
I'll never understand this idea that church or religion is somehow necessary or even important. People can still gather, talk to eachother, volunteer engage in hobbies etc etc, without an hour of...
I'll never understand this idea that church or religion is somehow necessary or even important. People can still gather, talk to eachother, volunteer engage in hobbies etc etc, without an hour of storytime before hand.
I know this comes off as disrectful, but honestly religion gets a lot more respect than it really deserves. People are weirdly unwilling to examine religious beliefs. If I said I had magic powers, saw a demon, got abducted by aliens or talked to a ghost, the vast majority of people would assume I was either lying or crazy. But the same people believe in all the supernatural elements of their religion? Or if they don't belive it, why go through thr charade of belief?
They can, but they often don't. How many topics have I seen just here on Tildes alone about people being ever more lonely, there's no 3rd places etc. and how hard it is as adults to make friends...
People can still gather, talk to eachother, volunteer engage in hobbies etc etc, without an hour of storytime before hand.
They can, but they often don't. How many topics have I seen just here on Tildes alone about people being ever more lonely, there's no 3rd places etc. and how hard it is as adults to make friends and so on? And that's not just a problem in this community either. Having a pretense to do something and meet with others is the foundation of much of our social connections, when we're younger it's school, and when we're older it's work. Yes those things take up a lot of our time that could possibly be used to do other things that would lead to social engagement, I'm not going to pretend like work is a great way to make friends, but for some people it might be because it compels them to a location or place where they interact and meet other people that they might not otherwise do on their own.
I also don't think that alone justifies churches or religion, but I just didn't find this argument that people 'can' do other things to be particularly compelling reason against churches because socializing can be challenging for some people and having some other way of bringing people together can help them overcome that. I also am not arguing that's the primary purpose of church or religion, but I do see it as an advantage in some of our current societies.
Wouldn't it be disrespectful of me to invalidate your experience if you told me you saw a demon? I mean, who am I to say that your lived experience is any more or less correct than my own?
Wouldn't it be disrespectful of me to invalidate your experience if you told me you saw a demon? I mean, who am I to say that your lived experience is any more or less correct than my own?
No, it wouldn't. It is neither disrespectful nor unreasonable to dismiss claims that someone saw a mythical being. The burden of proof is on the one claiming to see the demon, and I do not owe...
No, it wouldn't. It is neither disrespectful nor unreasonable to dismiss claims that someone saw a mythical being. The burden of proof is on the one claiming to see the demon, and I do not owe them the benefit of the doubt if they fail to prove it.
If I claim to have seen a demon, and that the demon told me that the world will end unless we all do some thing, then you are completely within your rights to refuse to do that thing. But if I...
If I claim to have seen a demon, and that the demon told me that the world will end unless we all do some thing, then you are completely within your rights to refuse to do that thing. But if I claim to have had an experience of seeing a demon, you are no more within your rights to claim I didn't have that experience or to demand proof of it than if I claim to have had an experience of being sad.
Interesting, I wouldn't want to claim that you didn't have that experience anyways - it sounds like it would have been an interesting one! What did you and Abraham Lincoln talk about?
Interesting, I wouldn't want to claim that you didn't have that experience anyways - it sounds like it would have been an interesting one! What did you and Abraham Lincoln talk about?
It is disrespectful. Spirituality is a subjective and unprovable aspect of life. If you consider yourself to be rational and scientifically minded, you must accept there are aspects of life which...
It is disrespectful. Spirituality is a subjective and unprovable aspect of life. If you consider yourself to be rational and scientifically minded, you must accept there are aspects of life which are both true and unprovable (see: Gödel). Whether you choose to pay attention to these things is your choice, but to deny their existence is quite simply naive.
The whole idea behind 'faith' and spiritual practice is belief in the face of uncertainty. These are systems that are built on unprovable truths, and as the above podcast mentioned - they actually do a pretty good job at making your life better.
As @Moonchild said, dismissing someone's spiritual beliefs would be like me saying "I feel anxious about the state of the world", and getting a response of "Oh yea? I don't believe you. Prove that you're anxious." So yea, I'd say that dismissing someone sharing their own personal experience with you is kind of a jerk move.
That sounds well and good until people start making laws and punishing people for not feeling anxious too. Thing is personally people can believe what they want, but we can't take action around...
That sounds well and good until people start making laws and punishing people for not feeling anxious too.
Thing is personally people can believe what they want, but we can't take action around unproveable claims or else we'll be in chaos.
I agree with both points made, nobody can claim to know another person's experience, sure, but this puts religion right along side every conspiracy theory out there as well, so it really should not be elevated to its current tax free virtuous state that we hold them to.
Right, we're moving into different territory with this post. I'm not opposed to that, but I'd like to point out that what I'm advocating for here is not draconian enforcement of religious law. I'm...
Right, we're moving into different territory with this post. I'm not opposed to that, but I'd like to point out that what I'm advocating for here is not draconian enforcement of religious law. I'm advocating for recognition of spirituality as a valuable addition to personal life.
On your second point, I would argue that religion does deserve tax-free status as a non-profit organization. It's not perfect, but putting everything under the jurisdiction of state law is no less totalitarian than putting everything under the jurisdiction of religious law.
Right, that is a good point that I was moving the ball a bit farther off from the point you were making, indeed. Probably woke up a bit cranky this morning as my first post I read!
Right, that is a good point that I was moving the ball a bit farther off from the point you were making, indeed. Probably woke up a bit cranky this morning as my first post I read!
More or less the same way I square science with the Stanford prison experiment, Unit 731, etc. People will do awful things in the name of the 'greater good'.
More or less the same way I square science with the Stanford prison experiment, Unit 731, etc. People will do awful things in the name of the 'greater good'.
this is closer to the munchausen trilemma and perhaps the church-turing thesis than godel (which is saying something extremely specific which we should be careful about generalising), but under a...
If you consider yourself to be rational and scientifically minded, you must accept there are aspects of life which are both true and unprovable (see: Gödel)
this is closer to the munchausen trilemma and perhaps the church-turing thesis than godel (which is saying something extremely specific which we should be careful about generalising), but under a coherent metaphysics we should not rule out the possibility that there is a coherent, convincing explanation for everything simply because we have not come up with one yet
I think it is overly dismissive of theologians and critical scholars of the Bible to say that religious people are unwilling to examine their beliefs in depth. I do understand that the academic...
I think it is overly dismissive of theologians and critical scholars of the Bible to say that religious people are unwilling to examine their beliefs in depth. I do understand that the academic version of religion is quite different to how it is actually practiced, but still think it's worth mentioning.
Also, I do think it is possible to be a Christian without believing in much of the Bible being literal, one can believe that Jesus' miracles were just teachings like his parables, and that religion is just a way of transmitting morality and culture through non-literal stories.
I think you might be underestimating the number of people that would believe you. I'm religious. I also consider myself highly rational, to the point of always being considered the most level...
Exemplary
If I said I had magic powers, saw a demon, got abducted by aliens or talked to a ghost, the vast majority of people would assume I was either lying or crazy.
I think you might be underestimating the number of people that would believe you.
People are weirdly unwilling to examine religious beliefs.
I'm religious. I also consider myself highly rational, to the point of always being considered the most level headed, non-emotional person around. How do I fit those two things together? I purposefully put aside rationalism when it comes to my religion. I know that's a tough thing to understand, but it's the very definition of "faith" and is the bedrock of my religion (and most).
Why am I willing to put rationalism aside? Because I believe there are a ton of things that just can't be explained unless there is some higher power (a creator). Where did all the matter come from? The Big Bang expanded it all (and it keeps expanding), but where did it come from originally?
I totally understand (from the rational side of me) that a counter argument could be "Well, where did your creator come from?" I get it. I understand there's a hole there. Again, faith comes in, which, to me, is the putting aside of some rational thought.
But why jump to god? I don't know what came before the big bang. I assume there's some complicated quirk of time, space or string theory that makes it work, but it doesn't really matter to me in...
But why jump to god? I don't know what came before the big bang. I assume there's some complicated quirk of time, space or string theory that makes it work, but it doesn't really matter to me in the long run.
What I don't get is saying "I don't know what caused the big bang, I guess it was God." Not knowing something doesn't mean you have to jump to religion. Especially with all the baggage religion carries with it.
Important note: this would be considered a "God of the gaps" argument which fallaciously argues that God is anything that science cannot yet explain. However, Thomist and Aristotelian arguments...
What I don't get is saying "I don't know what caused the big bang, I guess it was God." Not knowing something doesn't mean you have to jump to religion.
Important note: this would be considered a "God of the gaps" argument which fallaciously argues that God is anything that science cannot yet explain. However, Thomist and Aristotelian arguments for God have held to the finitude of the past well before evidence confirmed this, and even when science seemingly disconfirmed this. For years, the dominant scientific cosmology was the steady-state cosmological model, a model that states that the universe is eternal and had no fixed beginning. In fact, the very term "Big Bang" originates from steady-state astronomer Fred Hoyle pejoratively using the term to describe what eventually became the modern model.
While I don't find any arguments for theism particularly convincing, I want to give credit where credit is due; Christian cosmology hasn't been merely God-of-the-gaps, and they even got aspects of cosmology correct when it ran counter to the dominant view of science at the time.
I'm an agnostic and former "angry atheist." After becoming familiar with the body of work in the philosophy of religion and natural theology I haven't become convinced of any of the claims...
I'm an agnostic and former "angry atheist." After becoming familiar with the body of work in the philosophy of religion and natural theology I haven't become convinced of any of the claims Christianity makes. I will say that it did thoroughly convince me that Christianity is completely compatible with what some are calling "rationalism."
I totally understand (from the rational side of me) that a counter argument could be "Well, where did your creator come from?" I get it. I understand there's a hole there.
Assuming you are referring to one of the arguments from Thomist/Aristotelian metaphysics, God is pure being, pure actuality; the base of reality. It doesn't really make sense to ask "well, what's the base of the base of reality?" There isn't some further primary cause that sustains both God and the universe. What we observe in the universe are contingent, secondary causes that must have a primary cause.
This is NOT like a father causing a son who causes a grandson. The son is not some secondary cause caused by the grandfather. This is more like a series of sticks, one pushing the other. Imagine this line extends out of view. We see a stick at the end near us moving, you might imagine this dialogue:
"What is causing this stick to move?"
"Well, the stick behind it!"
"And that one?"
"The one behind it"
"No, what causes all of them to move?"
"They go back forever, each one causing the one in front of it to move"
We can see why this is absurd, there must be a singular primary cause. Each stick is merely the secondary cause of the next stick moving. Now, subsequent Thomist arguments try to characterize certain attributes a primary cause of the universe must have. If you want to learn more, I recommend reading/watching Edward Faser's work.
The human mind is very bad at dealing in unknowns and infinity. It is uncomfortable to not know or understand and finding comfort is an evolutionary advantage. But the universe has no incentive to...
The human mind is very bad at dealing in unknowns and infinity. It is uncomfortable to not know or understand and finding comfort is an evolutionary advantage. But the universe has no incentive to be comfortable. A deity is a creature comfort, a bag into which we shove everything that confuses us.
The rise of rationalism and empiricism has demonstrated that the confusing and unknowable can become understood. Is the rational theist position that science slowly pares away at god, "the great grab bag of unknows," until it is an infinitesimal, vestigal belief?
You bring up the concept of a first mover and provide an example of a infinitely long line of sticks. I don't want to take the analogy beyond its intent but this is how I approach such thought experiments.
There are mathematical constructions of such a space, we call it The Long Line (this is not the the real numbers, it's longer than that). It is a differentiable manifold so we can talk about wiggling. If we observe a wave traveling long the line we can trace the wave back, and we would observe it traveling back infinitely without an origin. Now the crux of the thought experiment is "why is this line moving." Proponents of the first mover principle would like there to be pre and post wiggle states. But I'd contend that it's completely possible that movement is the nature of the space. In this case we can ask the same question albeit from a different perspective: "what about this space makes it want to wiggle?" The difference being it is a question about the inherent nature rather than presupposing an external force.
I bring this up because it has an attached anecdote. My religious classmates in grad school really struggled with the Long Line. As PhD candidates in mathematics I think it's fair to call them "rational theists." But they wanted there to be a way to build longer versions of the line or ask questions like "how long is it though?" Some of them even dropped out because "the abstraction is too much."
And this gets to the why I think one can be "rational theist" but a rationalist cannot be a theist. Deities are an emergency exit when we get to the unknown. A lazy way to plug gaps. I never know when a theist is going to reach a challenging concept and just decide "god works in mysterious ways." I'd much rather say "I don't know what was before the big bang. I desperately want to know and maybe some day we will answer the question." God isn't necessary and I can't consider myself rational and believe in extraneous doodads. Maybe a universe is created every time an extradimensional being turns on their microwave. Maybe the universes is a wave traveling back and forth along space time, expanding, contracting, and big banging again.
My burden of proof is really low, which is the belief that one can be a rational theist, and I think it's trivially true. I personally am not persuaded that the origin of the universe or the...
My burden of proof is really low, which is the belief that one can be a rational theist, and I think it's trivially true. I personally am not persuaded that the origin of the universe or the ground of reality must follow Aristotelian metaphysics (lot's of counter-intuitive stuff happens at the quantum level now as far as I'm aware), but I can still easily affirm that you can rationally hold to this view of metaphysics, which (may?) entail a God who is pure actuality or pure being.
And this gets to the why I think one can be "rational theist" but a rationalist cannot be a theist.
This is quite literally incorrect. Some of the most famous rationalists have been theists. Descartes himself, one of the so-called founders of the rationalist tradition, was a theist and wrote rational arguments for God in his Meditations. I'm not sure what you'd make of Spinoza's pantheism. Empiricism, often treated as oppositional to rationalism, has had many famous atheists, namely David Hume.
Deities are an emergency exit when we get to the unknown. A lazy way to plug gaps.
This itself could rightfully be viewed as a lazy strawman argument. But it may just be that the totality of the theists who's ideas you've interacted with are anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists. I'd point you to the classics like Descartes and Spinoza, but also modern philosophers like Ed Faser. G
A lazy way to plug gaps. I never know when a theist is going to reach a challenging concept and just decide "god works in mysterious ways."
Christian academics do not (generally) make "God of the gaps" arguments (arguments from scientific ignorance) as they know they are fallacious. You'll know that a theist won't merely pull "mysterious ways" out of the hat if they are educated.
I bring this up because it has an attached anecdote. My religious classmates in grad school really struggled with the Long Line.
There are countless math concepts that we'd both agree are metaphysically impossible to instantiate in the real world, and would lead to metaphysical absurdities if we imagined that they did.
I'd be interested to know how you justify belief in scripture and a specific religion over another from a rational point of view. I have found arguments for an Aristotelian prime mover or even a...
I'd be interested to know how you justify belief in scripture and a specific religion over another from a rational point of view. I have found arguments for an Aristotelian prime mover or even a pandeist kind of thing plausible, but never heard convincing reasons why one specific religion with specific doctrines determined by humans should be followed, short of religious experience literally telling you what to follow. For instance, looking at Christianity, one can see an evolution of beliefs throughout the bible, which one would not expect if God was guiding the writing of scripture.
Thank you for sharing. I just listened to the podcast version and enjoyed it a lot. Towards the end, the host (?) made a comment about how they don’t actually think a lot or engage with politics...
Thank you for sharing. I just listened to the podcast version and enjoyed it a lot.
Towards the end, the host (?) made a comment about how they don’t actually think a lot or engage with politics when they’re away from the mic. That’s the kind of person I’d like to get political news and opinions from.
Re: church for atheists. Besides the lack of funding, the lack of rituals that exact a meaningful cost is another reason they would fail. I think vipassana group meditation would be a good replacement for prayer in this area. I would go to a church like that.
If MLK were alive today, do you think he'd have a regular podcast? If he did, I wonder if it'd detract from his activism. I often find myself wondering if we've actually integrated the internet...
Towards the end, the host (?) made a comment about how they don’t actually think a lot or engage with politics when they’re away from the mic. That’s the kind of person I’d like to get political news and opinions from.
If MLK were alive today, do you think he'd have a regular podcast? If he did, I wonder if it'd detract from his activism. I often find myself wondering if we've actually integrated the internet into productive use, or if it isn't just a black hole sucking away the hours of the people producing content for it, as well as the people consuming the content.
We're all sitting around talking, thinking and nodding, but is that how change is made?
There’s a certain amount of motivational energy that gets released when you tell others about your ideas or plans. In most cases, I think talking inhibits action, rather than encouraging it. For...
There’s a certain amount of motivational energy that gets released when you tell others about your ideas or plans. In most cases, I think talking inhibits action, rather than encouraging it.
For example, talking at length about your plans to write a book will certainly lead you to not start writing it.
Trigger warning:Another example is suicide. Suicide attempts often come seemingly without warning.
You don’t get motivated and inspired by telling things to others. You get motivated and inspired by listening to those who have something worthwhile to say.
(So, I don’t believe MLK Jr. having a podcast would have detracted from his activism. He probably would have been excited to have better communication technology.)
This is nothing more than personal anecdote, but I've long found I'm much more inclined to carry through with something when I don't talk about it. To the point that certain habits I try to keep...
This is nothing more than personal anecdote, but I've long found I'm much more inclined to carry through with something when I don't talk about it. To the point that certain habits I try to keep are more or less off limits discussion-wise.
I've always chalked it up to wanting to avoid feeling like Im giving people expectations about me that I then feel pressure to live up to (all in my head, I know..)
I've not heard about the idea of releasing motivational energy. Is that your observation? Or, an established social pattern? Just curious, it gives me something to think about in my own way of operating :)
I believe I got the concept from The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. I’ve observed it to be true for myself as well. It doesn’t seem like a binary, though. A few comments to friends and family...
I believe I got the concept from The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. I’ve observed it to be true for myself as well.
It doesn’t seem like a binary, though. A few comments to friends and family about what I’m doing doesn’t hurt my motivation. Talking at length about it might.
Oh for sure, things rarely are binary. Thanks for the book plug. Topic seems like it may have some relevance to my career, so I'll have to add it to my already-to-long list :,D
Oh for sure, things rarely are binary.
Thanks for the book plug. Topic seems like it may have some relevance to my career, so I'll have to add it to my already-to-long list :,D
It’s a short book. I found it extremely motivating and illuminating the first time I read it. Caveat: the more I revisit it, the less sure I am of the content. But there are certainly good nuggets...
It’s a short book. I found it extremely motivating and illuminating the first time I read it.
Caveat: the more I revisit it, the less sure I am of the content. But there are certainly good nuggets in there.
Carrying on my train of thought, two-way or many-to-many communication will then be much less effective for inducing action, compared to a one-way mode. Basically, radio and podcasts are superior...
Carrying on my train of thought, two-way or many-to-many communication will then be much less effective for inducing action, compared to a one-way mode.
Basically, radio and podcasts are superior to social media in this regard.
Another observation: over-specifying plans does the same thing as talking too much. Once I have written detailed notes on how to accomplish a thing, I feel as if I already accomplished it....
Another observation: over-specifying plans does the same thing as talking too much. Once I have written detailed notes on how to accomplish a thing, I feel as if I already accomplished it.
“Tomorrow” becomes “next week” becomes “after {x}” becomes “eventually”, at which point it is forgotten about.
I think I’ll try to underspecify from here on, only recording the barest amount of detail in my notes to get the ball rolling.
As an ex-Christian, I'm now free to commune anywhere I damn well please. What's the problem? More seriously, I just stopped going to church and then commenced to find other communities, generally...
As an ex-Christian, I'm now free to commune anywhere I damn well please. What's the problem? More seriously, I just stopped going to church and then commenced to find other communities, generally online. I mostly went to church not to fraternize as I didn't care so much about being around people, but to ask questions and find out more about this life, to which there were very few answers. I had better luck communing with people online and asking relevant questions. To me, the title just seems an alien and naive question but admittedly I'm not like most people, I go to people for information and rarely for any kind of friendship or communion. And has happened in the past, when one online interrogation place doesn't suit me, I just go on to another. It's not about the place, it's the information and the information creates this spiritual connection to the universe. If I feel my information syncs with the universe, I feel a spiritual connection. Spirituality for me is found in music, in hard work (testing myself and often in the end I find me and the universe are agreeable, aka, a spiritual connection), riding and working on my motorcycle, which makes me feel 'at one'. I'm so tired of this notion of people thinking organized religion has a monopoly on spirituality and communion.
Ex-Christian here. When I left Christianity, I left both the worst and the best parts of Christian community. IRL communities provide a human connection that interactions mediated by social media...
More seriously, I just stopped going to church and then commenced to find other communities, generally online.
Ex-Christian here. When I left Christianity, I left both the worst and the best parts of Christian community. IRL communities provide a human connection that interactions mediated by social media platforms can't. We don't have many secular places that provide the kind of communion you find at most churches which is a shame.
riding and working on my motorcycle, which makes me feel 'at one'.
I actually find that the spiritual and contemplative practices I still perform are often best performed while on my motorcycle as well!
Maybe I'm not qualified to comment here then because the social part isn't something I went for. My parents speculated I might be autistic and I may be, not sure, but there's many aspects of...
Maybe I'm not qualified to comment here then because the social part isn't something I went for. My parents speculated I might be autistic and I may be, not sure, but there's many aspects of social longing I just don't understand.
Simple answer- anywhere that isn't a church. I don't see the need for those of us that are ex-religious or non-religious to replicate the church experience. Having been in various churches for...
Simple answer- anywhere that isn't a church. I don't see the need for those of us that are ex-religious or non-religious to replicate the church experience. Having been in various churches for 20-25 years of my 38 year life, there really isn't anything particularly special about them, and the parts we find that could be useful outside of religion are already happening. Community meetings and organizations, queer town halls and spaces, libraries, events, online communities, mutual aid orgs, etc
I think assigning some unique and special quality to churches is presupposing something that causes you to ask the wrong questions in the first place.
In fact, I think most of the places I described are better than churches, as I don't find "sitting and listening to pastor for 90% of the time and socializing for 10 minutes beforehand" a worthy avenue for actual community.
This is a fairly long video, but I thought the question was interesting, and the panelists are great. Very interested to see tildes' thoughts on the subject!
This is a fairly long video, but I thought the question was interesting, and the panelists are great. Very interested to see tildes' thoughts on the subject!
I'll dive into the video later, but the answer is easy: The library They're such a great secular community hub that many other things can and do stem from it.
I'll dive into the video later, but the answer is easy:
The library
They're such a great secular community hub that many other things can and do stem from it.
Totally agree. Libraries are a lot more than just places to check out books. The library near me has a couple 3D printers you can use, along with some computers with Solidworks licenses. They...
Totally agree. Libraries are a lot more than just places to check out books. The library near me has a couple 3D printers you can use, along with some computers with Solidworks licenses. They often offer classes, offer space to MeetUp groups (a great social option, in my opinion), and can sometimes even be a local safe place for people in abusive domestic situations.
They really do make a fantastic third place, even if you only make use of one or two of the services they offer.
My local library in South Florida had a few little separate rooms that could be used for either extra quiet or extra noise, depending on your needs. You could use them to watch movies, listen to...
My local library in South Florida had a few little separate rooms that could be used for either extra quiet or extra noise, depending on your needs. You could use them to watch movies, listen to music, or play board games, all of which could be rented from the library. I never used these services so I'm not sure if you needed to contact them ahead of time to reserve a space, or if it would be possible to join a group of strangers already using one.
In small-town Sweden my local library is part of a much larger cultural building (there are a few theaters and conference spaces, there's a museum upstairs) and there are several places in that building where you could just hang out and talk as much as you please. I find that there are a lot more third places here in general, though, especially in the warmer months. We often have gatherings of roughly a dozen people, and the only reason we ever struggle to find a place that can comfortably accommodate all of us is if we're set on being in a place that serves alcohol.
I don't know about the US but nobody in the library service in the UK would agree that the "primary purpose" of a library requires quiet. My wife works in the library service and gets very angry...
I don't know about the US but nobody in the library service in the UK would agree that the "primary purpose" of a library requires quiet.
My wife works in the library service and gets very angry at the stereotypical "ssshh" attitude of library staff portrayed in films and TV. I certainly don't remember talking being discouraged in a public library this century, and I visit lots of libraries. Maybe in an academic library, but they're different.
Lots and lots of social events going on at libraries near me. Plenty of them not just chatty but actively noisy (Lego club gets pretty rowdy, but my kid loves it).
Okay- this thread has been around for a bit, but I didn’t see this view- I reject the premise. When it comes to matters of spiritual or religious matters, there should be no place for...
Okay- this thread has been around for a bit, but I didn’t see this view- I reject the premise. When it comes to matters of spiritual or religious matters, there should be no place for evangelizing. The only truly authentic way to approach it is via attraction, not promotion. Promoting anything in this matter has strings. Whether it’s an ideology or a product… and when the bottom of the discussion gets to faith, the only honest way to that is to have been asked.
Looked at this way, the church’s purpose I think becomes more pure and honest- tho admittedly I’m not a churchgoer.
There are innumerable “third spaces” for people to gather. It’s a non-issue and kind of a distraction from addressing the many symptoms of an unhealthy culture. It doesn’t matter if the helpful conversation comes from an old book lesson, over a pool table, or in a garage.
If you want religion, seek it out. You do you, but don’t try to convince me “we need it” - because then you’re selling an agenda.
This is kind of why those “he gets us” ads bug me. It kind of strikes me as a “go visit your local Christ dealer today!” kind of vibe. It feels like they are trying to display a progressive kind...
This is kind of why those “he gets us” ads bug me. It kind of strikes me as a “go visit your local Christ dealer today!” kind of vibe. It feels like they are trying to display a progressive kind of Christianity. To be fair, that kind of Christianity has grown considerably over the past two decades or so. But it’s far from the only kind of Christianity, so it feels very insincere. I feel this way almost every time that they lump all of Christianity into one group - a fairly common occurrence. The problem is, of course, that if a church wants to attract progressive or queer members, they need to be a place that welcomes them first and foremost. Advertisements will not help if they aren’t willing to be accommodating.
I’ll go one further- just based on my very limited information of what remains of “Jesus’s teachings” it seems highly likely he probably would not sign off on any of those sorts of ads promoting...
I’ll go one further- just based on my very limited information of what remains of “Jesus’s teachings” it seems highly likely he probably would not sign off on any of those sorts of ads promoting any of those churches.
I only really engage with religion from a counter-apologetic point so it's interesting to see this topic from a religious perspective. Because on the one hand, they're arguing that these communal spaces encourages social cohesion and political moderation, but they also acknowledge that the inflexibility of religion drives out progressive, educated and moderate people. While its described as a Christian denominational issue in the discussion, I'm sure this phenomenon plays out with other religions as well.
And at the same time there's the growing trend of Cultural Christians. These people don't care for the theology, do not engage in the community components (attend church less than once a year and does not participate in social programs), but are fully supportive of the conservative beliefs and social prohibitions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a prominent atheist that now advocates for this and I think her reasons give a good snapshot of this view:
It's telling when Woke Ideology (2) is mentioned more than Jesus (0) in the letter.
So in my mind, the issue is less about where people will go. They even made a point of it in the discussion. Sports clubs, volunteer work, community game store, libraries. These places are probably better options because there's healthier power dynamics, financial accountability and more cultural diversity. It's a matter of outreach and accessibility to bring people in. The question would be, why would anyone still go to a place of worship? Because it seems like the focus is less for social need or societal good or even to learn and preach theology. It's just another political tool to further policy goals and enforce social conservative values.
Edit: fix spelling
I'll never understand this idea that church or religion is somehow necessary or even important. People can still gather, talk to eachother, volunteer engage in hobbies etc etc, without an hour of storytime before hand.
I know this comes off as disrectful, but honestly religion gets a lot more respect than it really deserves. People are weirdly unwilling to examine religious beliefs. If I said I had magic powers, saw a demon, got abducted by aliens or talked to a ghost, the vast majority of people would assume I was either lying or crazy. But the same people believe in all the supernatural elements of their religion? Or if they don't belive it, why go through thr charade of belief?
They can, but they often don't. How many topics have I seen just here on Tildes alone about people being ever more lonely, there's no 3rd places etc. and how hard it is as adults to make friends and so on? And that's not just a problem in this community either. Having a pretense to do something and meet with others is the foundation of much of our social connections, when we're younger it's school, and when we're older it's work. Yes those things take up a lot of our time that could possibly be used to do other things that would lead to social engagement, I'm not going to pretend like work is a great way to make friends, but for some people it might be because it compels them to a location or place where they interact and meet other people that they might not otherwise do on their own.
I also don't think that alone justifies churches or religion, but I just didn't find this argument that people 'can' do other things to be particularly compelling reason against churches because socializing can be challenging for some people and having some other way of bringing people together can help them overcome that. I also am not arguing that's the primary purpose of church or religion, but I do see it as an advantage in some of our current societies.
Wouldn't it be disrespectful of me to invalidate your experience if you told me you saw a demon? I mean, who am I to say that your lived experience is any more or less correct than my own?
No, it wouldn't. It is neither disrespectful nor unreasonable to dismiss claims that someone saw a mythical being. The burden of proof is on the one claiming to see the demon, and I do not owe them the benefit of the doubt if they fail to prove it.
If I claim to have seen a demon, and that the demon told me that the world will end unless we all do some thing, then you are completely within your rights to refuse to do that thing. But if I claim to have had an experience of seeing a demon, you are no more within your rights to claim I didn't have that experience or to demand proof of it than if I claim to have had an experience of being sad.
If you truly believe that claims of seeing a demon and experiencing sadness should be treated the same, then we will just have to agree to disagree.
I spoke with Abraham Lincoln yesterday. You're not within your rights to claim I didn't have that experience, and you can't demand proof.
?????
Interesting, I wouldn't want to claim that you didn't have that experience anyways - it sounds like it would have been an interesting one! What did you and Abraham Lincoln talk about?
It is disrespectful. Spirituality is a subjective and unprovable aspect of life. If you consider yourself to be rational and scientifically minded, you must accept there are aspects of life which are both true and unprovable (see: Gödel). Whether you choose to pay attention to these things is your choice, but to deny their existence is quite simply naive.
The whole idea behind 'faith' and spiritual practice is belief in the face of uncertainty. These are systems that are built on unprovable truths, and as the above podcast mentioned - they actually do a pretty good job at making your life better.
As @Moonchild said, dismissing someone's spiritual beliefs would be like me saying "I feel anxious about the state of the world", and getting a response of "Oh yea? I don't believe you. Prove that you're anxious." So yea, I'd say that dismissing someone sharing their own personal experience with you is kind of a jerk move.
That sounds well and good until people start making laws and punishing people for not feeling anxious too.
Thing is personally people can believe what they want, but we can't take action around unproveable claims or else we'll be in chaos.
I agree with both points made, nobody can claim to know another person's experience, sure, but this puts religion right along side every conspiracy theory out there as well, so it really should not be elevated to its current tax free virtuous state that we hold them to.
Right, we're moving into different territory with this post. I'm not opposed to that, but I'd like to point out that what I'm advocating for here is not draconian enforcement of religious law. I'm advocating for recognition of spirituality as a valuable addition to personal life.
On your second point, I would argue that religion does deserve tax-free status as a non-profit organization. It's not perfect, but putting everything under the jurisdiction of state law is no less totalitarian than putting everything under the jurisdiction of religious law.
Right, that is a good point that I was moving the ball a bit farther off from the point you were making, indeed. Probably woke up a bit cranky this morning as my first post I read!
How do you square this with all the horrible things that have been committed in the name of various religions?
More or less the same way I square science with the Stanford prison experiment, Unit 731, etc. People will do awful things in the name of the 'greater good'.
this is closer to the munchausen trilemma and perhaps the church-turing thesis than godel (which is saying something extremely specific which we should be careful about generalising), but under a coherent metaphysics we should not rule out the possibility that there is a coherent, convincing explanation for everything simply because we have not come up with one yet
I think it is overly dismissive of theologians and critical scholars of the Bible to say that religious people are unwilling to examine their beliefs in depth. I do understand that the academic version of religion is quite different to how it is actually practiced, but still think it's worth mentioning.
Also, I do think it is possible to be a Christian without believing in much of the Bible being literal, one can believe that Jesus' miracles were just teachings like his parables, and that religion is just a way of transmitting morality and culture through non-literal stories.
I think you might be underestimating the number of people that would believe you.
I'm religious. I also consider myself highly rational, to the point of always being considered the most level headed, non-emotional person around. How do I fit those two things together? I purposefully put aside rationalism when it comes to my religion. I know that's a tough thing to understand, but it's the very definition of "faith" and is the bedrock of my religion (and most).
Why am I willing to put rationalism aside? Because I believe there are a ton of things that just can't be explained unless there is some higher power (a creator). Where did all the matter come from? The Big Bang expanded it all (and it keeps expanding), but where did it come from originally?
I totally understand (from the rational side of me) that a counter argument could be "Well, where did your creator come from?" I get it. I understand there's a hole there. Again, faith comes in, which, to me, is the putting aside of some rational thought.
But why jump to god? I don't know what came before the big bang. I assume there's some complicated quirk of time, space or string theory that makes it work, but it doesn't really matter to me in the long run.
What I don't get is saying "I don't know what caused the big bang, I guess it was God." Not knowing something doesn't mean you have to jump to religion. Especially with all the baggage religion carries with it.
Important note: this would be considered a "God of the gaps" argument which fallaciously argues that God is anything that science cannot yet explain. However, Thomist and Aristotelian arguments for God have held to the finitude of the past well before evidence confirmed this, and even when science seemingly disconfirmed this. For years, the dominant scientific cosmology was the steady-state cosmological model, a model that states that the universe is eternal and had no fixed beginning. In fact, the very term "Big Bang" originates from steady-state astronomer Fred Hoyle pejoratively using the term to describe what eventually became the modern model.
While I don't find any arguments for theism particularly convincing, I want to give credit where credit is due; Christian cosmology hasn't been merely God-of-the-gaps, and they even got aspects of cosmology correct when it ran counter to the dominant view of science at the time.
I'm an agnostic and former "angry atheist." After becoming familiar with the body of work in the philosophy of religion and natural theology I haven't become convinced of any of the claims Christianity makes. I will say that it did thoroughly convince me that Christianity is completely compatible with what some are calling "rationalism."
Assuming you are referring to one of the arguments from Thomist/Aristotelian metaphysics, God is pure being, pure actuality; the base of reality. It doesn't really make sense to ask "well, what's the base of the base of reality?" There isn't some further primary cause that sustains both God and the universe. What we observe in the universe are contingent, secondary causes that must have a primary cause.
This is NOT like a father causing a son who causes a grandson. The son is not some secondary cause caused by the grandfather. This is more like a series of sticks, one pushing the other. Imagine this line extends out of view. We see a stick at the end near us moving, you might imagine this dialogue:
"What is causing this stick to move?"
"Well, the stick behind it!"
"And that one?"
"The one behind it"
"No, what causes all of them to move?"
"They go back forever, each one causing the one in front of it to move"
We can see why this is absurd, there must be a singular primary cause. Each stick is merely the secondary cause of the next stick moving. Now, subsequent Thomist arguments try to characterize certain attributes a primary cause of the universe must have. If you want to learn more, I recommend reading/watching Edward Faser's work.
The human mind is very bad at dealing in unknowns and infinity. It is uncomfortable to not know or understand and finding comfort is an evolutionary advantage. But the universe has no incentive to be comfortable. A deity is a creature comfort, a bag into which we shove everything that confuses us.
The rise of rationalism and empiricism has demonstrated that the confusing and unknowable can become understood. Is the rational theist position that science slowly pares away at god, "the great grab bag of unknows," until it is an infinitesimal, vestigal belief?
You bring up the concept of a first mover and provide an example of a infinitely long line of sticks. I don't want to take the analogy beyond its intent but this is how I approach such thought experiments.
There are mathematical constructions of such a space, we call it The Long Line (this is not the the real numbers, it's longer than that). It is a differentiable manifold so we can talk about wiggling. If we observe a wave traveling long the line we can trace the wave back, and we would observe it traveling back infinitely without an origin. Now the crux of the thought experiment is "why is this line moving." Proponents of the first mover principle would like there to be pre and post wiggle states. But I'd contend that it's completely possible that movement is the nature of the space. In this case we can ask the same question albeit from a different perspective: "what about this space makes it want to wiggle?" The difference being it is a question about the inherent nature rather than presupposing an external force.
I bring this up because it has an attached anecdote. My religious classmates in grad school really struggled with the Long Line. As PhD candidates in mathematics I think it's fair to call them "rational theists." But they wanted there to be a way to build longer versions of the line or ask questions like "how long is it though?" Some of them even dropped out because "the abstraction is too much."
And this gets to the why I think one can be "rational theist" but a rationalist cannot be a theist. Deities are an emergency exit when we get to the unknown. A lazy way to plug gaps. I never know when a theist is going to reach a challenging concept and just decide "god works in mysterious ways." I'd much rather say "I don't know what was before the big bang. I desperately want to know and maybe some day we will answer the question." God isn't necessary and I can't consider myself rational and believe in extraneous doodads. Maybe a universe is created every time an extradimensional being turns on their microwave. Maybe the universes is a wave traveling back and forth along space time, expanding, contracting, and big banging again.
My burden of proof is really low, which is the belief that one can be a rational theist, and I think it's trivially true. I personally am not persuaded that the origin of the universe or the ground of reality must follow Aristotelian metaphysics (lot's of counter-intuitive stuff happens at the quantum level now as far as I'm aware), but I can still easily affirm that you can rationally hold to this view of metaphysics, which (may?) entail a God who is pure actuality or pure being.
This is quite literally incorrect. Some of the most famous rationalists have been theists. Descartes himself, one of the so-called founders of the rationalist tradition, was a theist and wrote rational arguments for God in his Meditations. I'm not sure what you'd make of Spinoza's pantheism. Empiricism, often treated as oppositional to rationalism, has had many famous atheists, namely David Hume.
This itself could rightfully be viewed as a lazy strawman argument. But it may just be that the totality of the theists who's ideas you've interacted with are anti-intellectual religious fundamentalists. I'd point you to the classics like Descartes and Spinoza, but also modern philosophers like Ed Faser. G
Christian academics do not (generally) make "God of the gaps" arguments (arguments from scientific ignorance) as they know they are fallacious. You'll know that a theist won't merely pull "mysterious ways" out of the hat if they are educated.
There are countless math concepts that we'd both agree are metaphysically impossible to instantiate in the real world, and would lead to metaphysical absurdities if we imagined that they did.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll own that there is some conflation of rationalism and empiricism in my post.
I'd be interested to know how you justify belief in scripture and a specific religion over another from a rational point of view. I have found arguments for an Aristotelian prime mover or even a pandeist kind of thing plausible, but never heard convincing reasons why one specific religion with specific doctrines determined by humans should be followed, short of religious experience literally telling you what to follow. For instance, looking at Christianity, one can see an evolution of beliefs throughout the bible, which one would not expect if God was guiding the writing of scripture.
Thank you for sharing. I just listened to the podcast version and enjoyed it a lot.
Towards the end, the host (?) made a comment about how they don’t actually think a lot or engage with politics when they’re away from the mic. That’s the kind of person I’d like to get political news and opinions from.
Re: church for atheists. Besides the lack of funding, the lack of rituals that exact a meaningful cost is another reason they would fail. I think vipassana group meditation would be a good replacement for prayer in this area. I would go to a church like that.
If MLK were alive today, do you think he'd have a regular podcast? If he did, I wonder if it'd detract from his activism. I often find myself wondering if we've actually integrated the internet into productive use, or if it isn't just a black hole sucking away the hours of the people producing content for it, as well as the people consuming the content.
We're all sitting around talking, thinking and nodding, but is that how change is made?
There’s a certain amount of motivational energy that gets released when you tell others about your ideas or plans. In most cases, I think talking inhibits action, rather than encouraging it.
For example, talking at length about your plans to write a book will certainly lead you to not start writing it.
You don’t get motivated and inspired by telling things to others. You get motivated and inspired by listening to those who have something worthwhile to say.
(So, I don’t believe MLK Jr. having a podcast would have detracted from his activism. He probably would have been excited to have better communication technology.)
This is nothing more than personal anecdote, but I've long found I'm much more inclined to carry through with something when I don't talk about it. To the point that certain habits I try to keep are more or less off limits discussion-wise.
I've always chalked it up to wanting to avoid feeling like Im giving people expectations about me that I then feel pressure to live up to (all in my head, I know..)
I've not heard about the idea of releasing motivational energy. Is that your observation? Or, an established social pattern? Just curious, it gives me something to think about in my own way of operating :)
I believe I got the concept from The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. I’ve observed it to be true for myself as well.
It doesn’t seem like a binary, though. A few comments to friends and family about what I’m doing doesn’t hurt my motivation. Talking at length about it might.
Oh for sure, things rarely are binary.
Thanks for the book plug. Topic seems like it may have some relevance to my career, so I'll have to add it to my already-to-long list :,D
It’s a short book. I found it extremely motivating and illuminating the first time I read it.
Caveat: the more I revisit it, the less sure I am of the content. But there are certainly good nuggets in there.
Carrying on my train of thought, two-way or many-to-many communication will then be much less effective for inducing action, compared to a one-way mode.
Basically, radio and podcasts are superior to social media in this regard.
Another observation: over-specifying plans does the same thing as talking too much. Once I have written detailed notes on how to accomplish a thing, I feel as if I already accomplished it.
“Tomorrow” becomes “next week” becomes “after {x}” becomes “eventually”, at which point it is forgotten about.
I think I’ll try to underspecify from here on, only recording the barest amount of detail in my notes to get the ball rolling.
As an ex-Christian, I'm now free to commune anywhere I damn well please. What's the problem? More seriously, I just stopped going to church and then commenced to find other communities, generally online. I mostly went to church not to fraternize as I didn't care so much about being around people, but to ask questions and find out more about this life, to which there were very few answers. I had better luck communing with people online and asking relevant questions. To me, the title just seems an alien and naive question but admittedly I'm not like most people, I go to people for information and rarely for any kind of friendship or communion. And has happened in the past, when one online interrogation place doesn't suit me, I just go on to another. It's not about the place, it's the information and the information creates this spiritual connection to the universe. If I feel my information syncs with the universe, I feel a spiritual connection. Spirituality for me is found in music, in hard work (testing myself and often in the end I find me and the universe are agreeable, aka, a spiritual connection), riding and working on my motorcycle, which makes me feel 'at one'. I'm so tired of this notion of people thinking organized religion has a monopoly on spirituality and communion.
Ex-Christian here. When I left Christianity, I left both the worst and the best parts of Christian community. IRL communities provide a human connection that interactions mediated by social media platforms can't. We don't have many secular places that provide the kind of communion you find at most churches which is a shame.
I actually find that the spiritual and contemplative practices I still perform are often best performed while on my motorcycle as well!
Maybe I'm not qualified to comment here then because the social part isn't something I went for. My parents speculated I might be autistic and I may be, not sure, but there's many aspects of social longing I just don't understand.
Simple answer- anywhere that isn't a church. I don't see the need for those of us that are ex-religious or non-religious to replicate the church experience. Having been in various churches for 20-25 years of my 38 year life, there really isn't anything particularly special about them, and the parts we find that could be useful outside of religion are already happening. Community meetings and organizations, queer town halls and spaces, libraries, events, online communities, mutual aid orgs, etc
I think assigning some unique and special quality to churches is presupposing something that causes you to ask the wrong questions in the first place.
In fact, I think most of the places I described are better than churches, as I don't find "sitting and listening to pastor for 90% of the time and socializing for 10 minutes beforehand" a worthy avenue for actual community.
This is a fairly long video, but I thought the question was interesting, and the panelists are great. Very interested to see tildes' thoughts on the subject!
I'll dive into the video later, but the answer is easy:
The library
They're such a great secular community hub that many other things can and do stem from it.
Totally agree. Libraries are a lot more than just places to check out books. The library near me has a couple 3D printers you can use, along with some computers with Solidworks licenses. They often offer classes, offer space to MeetUp groups (a great social option, in my opinion), and can sometimes even be a local safe place for people in abusive domestic situations.
They really do make a fantastic third place, even if you only make use of one or two of the services they offer.
My local library in South Florida had a few little separate rooms that could be used for either extra quiet or extra noise, depending on your needs. You could use them to watch movies, listen to music, or play board games, all of which could be rented from the library. I never used these services so I'm not sure if you needed to contact them ahead of time to reserve a space, or if it would be possible to join a group of strangers already using one.
In small-town Sweden my local library is part of a much larger cultural building (there are a few theaters and conference spaces, there's a museum upstairs) and there are several places in that building where you could just hang out and talk as much as you please. I find that there are a lot more third places here in general, though, especially in the warmer months. We often have gatherings of roughly a dozen people, and the only reason we ever struggle to find a place that can comfortably accommodate all of us is if we're set on being in a place that serves alcohol.
I don't know about the US but nobody in the library service in the UK would agree that the "primary purpose" of a library requires quiet.
My wife works in the library service and gets very angry at the stereotypical "ssshh" attitude of library staff portrayed in films and TV. I certainly don't remember talking being discouraged in a public library this century, and I visit lots of libraries. Maybe in an academic library, but they're different.
Lots and lots of social events going on at libraries near me. Plenty of them not just chatty but actively noisy (Lego club gets pretty rowdy, but my kid loves it).
Okay- this thread has been around for a bit, but I didn’t see this view- I reject the premise. When it comes to matters of spiritual or religious matters, there should be no place for evangelizing. The only truly authentic way to approach it is via attraction, not promotion. Promoting anything in this matter has strings. Whether it’s an ideology or a product… and when the bottom of the discussion gets to faith, the only honest way to that is to have been asked.
Looked at this way, the church’s purpose I think becomes more pure and honest- tho admittedly I’m not a churchgoer.
There are innumerable “third spaces” for people to gather. It’s a non-issue and kind of a distraction from addressing the many symptoms of an unhealthy culture. It doesn’t matter if the helpful conversation comes from an old book lesson, over a pool table, or in a garage.
If you want religion, seek it out. You do you, but don’t try to convince me “we need it” - because then you’re selling an agenda.
This is kind of why those “he gets us” ads bug me. It kind of strikes me as a “go visit your local Christ dealer today!” kind of vibe. It feels like they are trying to display a progressive kind of Christianity. To be fair, that kind of Christianity has grown considerably over the past two decades or so. But it’s far from the only kind of Christianity, so it feels very insincere. I feel this way almost every time that they lump all of Christianity into one group - a fairly common occurrence. The problem is, of course, that if a church wants to attract progressive or queer members, they need to be a place that welcomes them first and foremost. Advertisements will not help if they aren’t willing to be accommodating.
I’ll go one further- just based on my very limited information of what remains of “Jesus’s teachings” it seems highly likely he probably would not sign off on any of those sorts of ads promoting any of those churches.