Why not work on finding some solid evidence that would support and perhaps take religions off of the fiction shelf, first and the if this can be done it would justify having as many long and serious discussions anyone could ever want.ippy, religion is part and parcel of what a human being is. It is what he or she believes. Whilst it has become associated with spiritual faith
According to Cicero derived from relegere "go through again" (in reading or in thought), from re- "again" (see re-) + legere "read" (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. In English, meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c. 1300; sense of "recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers" is from 1530s.(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?l=r&p=20&allowed_in_frame=0) that is only one understanding of the word. As such, this board would cease to exist if we didn't discuss 'reliogion' in its broadest sense.
If the solid evidence was found there would of course be the added bonus of no, often referred to as, atheists, all wondering how come these people allowed themselves to became so deluded?This is a claim that is very unlikely to pan out, ippy. Even within the naturalistic camp there are those who understand and interpret the same evidence in different ways. If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains.
These discussions about the, maybe not the best description, inns and outs of the bible, effectively the workshop manual, seem so meaningless and pointless when there is apparently no means proving any of it as factual.I suppose the same could be argued for the whole menagerie of ideas that surrounds the Big Bang theory at al, all of which are dependent on human interpretation of the same evidence. If we were to take your viewpoint, we could ask why debate and discuss that topic? I appreciate that you aren't too keen on seeing ideas that contradict your own but that is how we learn.
ippy
As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous timesMakes a change from somewhere else, I guess, though I doubt any of us will be any closer to seeing it were we naive enough to ask you to provide this alleged evidence.
If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains.Ah, the old begging the question fallacy - makes a change, I suppose.
I appreciate that you aren't too keen on seeing ideas that contradict your own but that is how we learn.Sounds just like you and the negative proof fallacy - you're incapable of learning about that.
In answer to your question, Ippy, there's a good deal of scholarly stuff to look at around religion, mostly blowing holes in it.
Blow a hole in this http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html your comments are twirpish :)
~TW~
As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times...
...but by its very nature that evidence hasn't always met the very stringent, I'd even go as far as to say narrow definition of those who want everything to be explicable in terms of a naturalistic understanding.
ippy, religion is part and parcel of what a human being is.
As for your very narrow sense, evidence has been placed on this board numerous times...
...but by its very nature that evidence hasn't always met the very stringent, I'd even go as far as to say narrow definition of those who want everything to be explicable in terms of a naturalistic understanding.
If God had wanted us all to accept everything 'sight unseen' he would have created us as robots with no brains.
I suppose the same could be argued for the whole menagerie of ideas that surrounds the Big Bang theory at al, all of which are dependent on human interpretation of the same evidence.
The entomology of the word is irrelevant to its usage in modern English.
Some,
"Entomology"? Have they found scarab beetles?
:) So? That there is 1st century archaeology that involves early Christians is no great surprise, so you'll need to tell us why else this is significant. 8)
Well according to your brain dead mates the information and tombs that are mentioned in an old book which according to these brain dead people simply is not true.
So what is significant,it proves your brain dead mates are brain dead :)
~TW~
Nope - nobody is arguing against there being archaeology that confirms that there were 1st century Christians, or even that these tombs might relate to these early Christians.So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
The point is why you think these artifacts were worth a mention here if nobody disputes that there were Christians in the 1st century, especially since some of them were responsible for the NT.
So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~
So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~
Don't be silly - agreeing with you that there were Christians in the 1st century is hardly back-pedalling, since there is copious evidence that there were such people.Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.
What is your point regarding these people?
So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.
~TW~
Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.
At least progress has been made.We have Christians.We have some names,We have the symbol of the cross.
We have this week a first Shaker telling us the world is about 7000 years old...
Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.
~TW~
At least progress has been made.We have Christians.We have some names,We have the symbol of the cross.
We have this week a first Shaker telling us the world is about 7000 years old
and we also have 2016 not bad.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
Gordon read Shaker ;D a bad case of slip up foot in mouth.
Anyway must go.
~TW~
:) Simple question - how do you know that what the NT states regarding what Jesus allegedly said and did doesn't involve mistakes, exaggeration or lies? ::)
Your question is a way of saying,----I am well and truly stuffed here.I will make out these people lied through their teeth and were stupid enough to die for it.
~TW~
At least progress has been made.We have Christians.We have some names,We have the symbol of the cross. We have this week a first Shaker telling us the world is about 7000 years oldWhy do you continue to lie about this? I said that according the Jewish calendar the year that we call 2016 is 5766 (or whatever it was). I am not Jewish and presumably neither are you, so neither of us are bound to accept the basis for that calendar.
I am not lying you mentioned the jewish calender as about 7000 years.
I am not lying you mentioned the jewish calender as about 7000 years.It's 5776 to be specific, but I did indeed mention the Jewish calendar to demonstrate the fact that there are many different calendrical systems across the world's societies and cultures and thus there's nothing intrinsically special about the Christian calendar. The lie comes from your suggestion that I think the planet is only 6000-ish years old. That's something that only the truly brainless believe. Sorry and all that; I know that we're all supposed to be respectful of others' beliefs (especially their deeply held and sincere beliefs, as though that makes a difference) to the point of polite acquiescence in the face of the most witless gibbering stupidity, but the most tactful way of putting it is that if you think the planet is 6000 years old you don't really understand anything at all about the world around us.
I know you would see it as 25 billion years or something daft like that.That would indeed be daft as that's about twice the age of the universe, nearly. The age of the Earth is around 4.5 billion years.
You need to take it up with the Jewish community if you disagree and you will need to provide EVIDENCE to them,as to why they are wrong.The evidence as to why the planet isn't 6000 years old is already abundant.
Some et al,
Here's what Rational Wiki has to say about trolls:
"A troll usually has little or no interest in contributing to the development of the site in question and is interested in some or all of the following:
Deliberately angering people.
Breaking the normal flow of debate/discussion.
Disrupting the smooth operation of the site.
Deliberately being annoying for the sake of being obnoxious. For instance, using abusive names to refer to all the members on the site.
Pretending to be profoundly ignorant or stupid, gleaning some weird sense of having "won" when other users subsequently come to believe this.
Making itself the main topic of interest or discussion."
This seems to me to fit like a glove TW's behaviour here, and to a lesser but still still significant extent Sassy's behaviour too. These people have no interest in contributing to a rational, civilised, reason-based discussion but rather make themselves the centre of attention, misrepresent the posts they don't like, insult rather than engage, invent their own "facts", and generally make the place as dull and sterile as possible.
The only way to restore some health to the site is to ignore them - ie, not to feed the trolls - until they lose interest in despoiling their environment and wander off somewhere else. To varying degrees we've all been taken in because we naturally assume them to be amenable to reason and argument, whereas in fact they're susceptible to neither and so bring only bludgeoning nihilism instead.
Me, I'm bored with catering for trolls so will engage just with those who are engaging from now on I think - your good self included, and of course those with whom I disagree profoundly but who tick that box too.
Trolls though? Nah.
I do not think TW and Sass are comparable. Sass is at least consistent and, even if difficult to understand sometimes, is not cryptic. We know where we are with Sassy and we know what she believes. She is a Christian. TW is quite different, who knows what he or she believes? Sometimes Christian, sometimes not.
I always think of a troll as being something that lives under a bridge....
So you are now on your back pedalling bike well done.On that score, TW, that would mean the Aztec gods are real and true, because we have their structures and tombs.
~TW~
Well according to your brain dead mates the information{some of it} come from a daft old book which is simply un-true.So maybe you could call a meeting of your brain dead mates and explain{be gentle} they are wrong.Oh, you're talking about dubious interpretations!
~TW~
:) Simple question - how do you know that what the NT states regarding what Jesus allegedly said and did doesn't involve mistakes, exaggeration or lies? ::)Now we are on the "why did they die for something?" Well people have died and given up their lives for all manner of things, many had nothing to do with religion and God/gods.
Your question is a way of saying,----I am well and truly stuffed here.I will make out these people lied through their teeth and were stupid enough to die for it.
~TW~
Now we are on the "why did they die for something?"Ah yes, that perennial favourite.
Well people have died and given up their lives for all manner of things, many had nothing to do with religion and God/gods.I feel a Godwin coming on.
Continuing the thought, just as we now have the faith sharing corner maybe we should start a trolls corner too. Anything with TW's, Sassy's, Vlad's etc's moniker on it could be dumped straight there for those who like that kind of thing, and the rest of us would be restored to engaging reasonably.Dream on brother!
To be fair perhaps a mod would have to look in from time-to-time just in case one them managed to post something that wasn't abusive, dishonest, accusatory, threatening or condemning so as to transfer it back to an actual discussion board (much as my spam filter asks me "Do you really want to delete this?" before I do) but this place would be so much more interesting - and pleasant - that way.
Continuing the thought, just as we now have the faith sharing corner maybe we should start a trolls corner too. Anything with TW's, Sassy's, Vlad's etc's moniker on it could be dumped straight there for those who like that kind of thing, and the rest of us would be restored to engaging reasonably.Why don't you show us how that would work........by putting your own posts in a trial "A-holes corner" perhaps?
Why don't you show us how that would work........by putting your own posts in a trial "A-holes corner" perhaps?
How about a FEAR and DREAD CORNER lets look at the facts we go back 5 years,we could go back 10 and we see the same old names every day every week,every year,slapping each other on the back laughing at the bible telling each other how wrong it is,look at the mistakes in the bible,only nutters believe it.And thatProvide the evidence that backs up this ridiculous assertion.
really is your daily fix,but deep down you know it is true and you are in fear and dread as the seconds tick away doom laden seconds that bring you nearer to your maker.
How about a FEAR and DREAD CORNER lets look at the facts we go back 5 years,we could go back 10 and we see the same old names every day every week,every year,slapping each other on the back laughing at the bible telling each other how wrong it is,look at the mistakes in the bible,only nutters believe it.And thatI forgive you
really is your daily fix,but deep down you know it is true and you are in fear and dread as the seconds tick away doom laden seconds that bring you nearer to your maker.No escape as certain as breathing,And yet each day you kid each other it aint gonna happen. The fool in his heart says there is no God.
~TW~
Provide the evidence that backs up this ridiculous assertion.
No?
No evidence?
Oh well.
Demonstrating that being scholarly about the Sherlock Holmes books parallels the importance of being scholarly about the contents of the various religious manuals, not that importantt at all really, or that scholarly either.Not a scholarly set of contributions Ippy.
ippy
Blow a hole in this http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html your comments are twirpish :)
~TW~
Unfortunately for your myth, archaeology is no friend to the Bible.If YOU say so,but things you say are a bit not true.
You know archaeologists have found what's left of Troy in the ruins at Ilium?
Using your logic means that this is evidence that the whole pantheon of Greek gods are for real.
If YOU say so,but things you say are a bit not true.
~TW~
Not a scholarly set of contributions Ippy.
Where are your citations and you don't seem to move beyond assertion.
The writings in the bible and others are of depth psychological, moral, historical and anthropological value. That these great books span countries ,cultures and civilisation are the clue to our common humanity in a way that methodological materialist studies aren't. They show that the premise of humanism, is a religious discovery, since there is nothing in science to suggest human equality under anything.
Finally did you read what Sriram posted recently from the start of his holy book?
Only the hard of heart would fail to be moved by the poetry and philosophy in it.
Demonstrating that being scholarly about the Sherlock Holmes books parallels the importance of being scholarly about the contents of the various religious manuals, not that importantt at all really, or that scholarly either.
ippy
Studying anything can be scholarly, Shakespeare and Chaucer for example. Why not religious works? They are interesting (if you are interested), full of fascinating characters, lots of big words. Some bits are difficult to understand which necessitate a reasonable level of Comprehension. Plenty of 'compare and contrast' questions.
RE used to be a good extra 'O' level too ;).
Brownie,I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues where as your dragon (how is the old boy?) doesn't.
All of which is fine and dandy. The problem though comes when some also claim that the central tenets - ie, the divine bits - are also amenable to scholarly study.
If, say, I claimed to have a BMW on my drive and a dragon in the garage, no doubt some degree of study would confirm or otherwise the first part of the claim, but there's no scholarly way to discuss the latter. T(roll)W's "argument" re archaeology is essentially, "see, they've confirmed the BMW therefore the dragon bit must be true too", which is about as far as his reasoning ability extends.
Easy Vlad, there's no evidence that would support the god idea and that's about all I need to say.Morality and purpose since any humanist versions of those are arrant arse pull.
I'll have a read of Sriram's post Vlad Where is it?
ippy
I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues...
Morality and purpose since any humanist versions of those are arrant arse pull.
I disagree since God straddles issues of causation, morality, ontological necessity and a whole host of philosophical issues where as your dragon (how is the old boy?) doesn't.
And you base this shameful piece of smug gittery on what, exactly?
I like the idea of a dragon too, why shouldn't you have one? May I just say, I have a Porsche.
And you base this shameful piece of smug gittery on what, exactly?Less of the smug thank you.......
Brownie,No I'm just saying God pops up in lots of areas of philosophy which we all know troubles any old intellectual totalitarian.
Reminds me of the only time I saw the "My other car is a Porsche" bumper sticker and it was funny - because it was on a Porsche.
Trollboy incidentally has just blundered into the reification fallacy - just assume "God" to be real and then discuss what "He" has to say about morality etc. The point though remains: there's no scholarly way to examine the supposed divinity of gods. Ideas in a book about morality etc on the other hand stand or fall on their merit, as do ideas about morality in any other books.
Less of the smug thank you.......That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.
Er, only about 2500 years worf of filosofy, that's all.
That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.
That's a long time for people to add nothing to a discussion save their preferred form of Polyfilla.No Polyfilla is someone who couldn't get into a university in the seventies.
So shall we conclude God is the I AM 6 day creation is good and evolution case not proved.No.
~TW~
So shall we conclude God is the I AM 6 day creation is good and evolution case not proved.
~TW~
Shakes,No you're spinning it to exclude God from the discussion.After all it can be argued that anything less than a universal morality is made up arse pull.
It's also untrue - moral philosophy doesn't think it necessary for morality to be universally ordained to be valid (unless that is you're credulous enough actually to think William Lane Craig to be a moral philosopher).
I looked up William Lane Craig, never heard of him before.
Reasonable faith aye? I shall read further.
I looked up William Lane Craig, never heard of him before.
Reasonable faith aye? I shall read further.
After all it can be argued that anything less than a universal morality is made up arse pull.
No you're spinning it to exclude God from the discussion.After all it can be argued that anything less than a universal morality is made up arse pull.No, not really.
I wouldn't waste much time on it - check out eight seriously daft arguments for god here:-
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist
I wouldn't waste much time on it - check out eight seriously daft arguments for god here:-
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles-does-god-exist
No, not really.Yes but I'm afraid no one has really successfully edited God out of moral philosophy without laying themselves open to the charge of doing so arbitrarily for suspect reasons. So moral philosophers realise you cannot go far in the exploration of moral philosophy without coming across absolute morality but wannabes like Hillside want to make us think moral philosophy excludes talk of objective or absolute morality.
Excluding God from the discussion is a pretty straightforward application of Occam's Razor, for one thing - don't multiply entities unnecessarily, or in the contemporary idiom, keep it simple, stupid.
In just about anything you can think of - let's use bluey's example of morality - you can have the interesting but complex and diffuse discussion with no guaranteed firm answers, or you can have the radically uninteresting discussion-terminating non-discussion by ascribing everything to God, as though that wraps it all up neatly with ribbons and bows. You can look to primatology to see inchoate moral behaviour in our closest relatives, a sense of right and wrong, of altruism, of fairness and unfairness (at equal or unequal sharing, for example); you can look to psychologists who study children who exhibit these very same behaviours even while they're still toddling ...
... or you can in effect say "Goddunnit', as though that's an answer to anything at all. Polyfilla, as I said.
I know which I prefer.
Brownie,Crikey Hillside you've actually gone and put someone onto Lane Craig.
Well, he's come up a fair bit here in the past - Alan/Alien was/is in thrall to him. He's known in particular for pushing five arguments for god, all of which are bad arguments so I generally refer to them as the "flakey five" as a short hand. He's also morally contemptible re justifying some of the more gruesome bits of the OT by the way, though that's a separate matter to his reliance on broken logic.
Try him yourself if you have the stomach for it, but don't say you haven't been warned!
Less of the smug thank you.......
Er, only about 2500 years worf of filosofy, that's all.
"Reification (from Latin res (“thing”) and facere (“to make”), also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a “real thing” something which is merely an idea. For example: if the phrase “fighting for justice” is taken literally, justice would be reified."Hey what do you mean by real........and what do you mean by concrete.
http://fallacyaday.com/2011/10/reification/
Morality and purpose since any humanist versions of those are arrant arse pull.
I looked up William Lane Craig, never heard of him before.
Reasonable faith aye? I shall read further.
Of course you can look at the various religious manuals, if you want to study their version of moral and ethical ideas but there is really no special need to study them to learn about ethical and moral issues, there's plenty of much better, uncluttered with superstition, myth and magical information to be found elsewhere.Yes but I think you are arbitrarily ruling anything religion has to say on morality. I'll come back with the Sriram post.
Ever heard of the ancient Greek philosophers? And I've mentioned them just for starters.
ippy
Sriram's article Vlad I'd quite like to read it, bit busy today?
Yes but I'm afraid no one has really successfully edited God out of moral philosophy without laying themselves open to the charge of doing so arbitrarily for suspect reasons.
So moral philosophers realise you cannot go far in the exploration of moral philosophy without coming across absolute morality but wannabes like Hillside want to make us think moral philosophy excludes talk of objective or absolute morality.
You don't have to do it if you don't want to Ippy.
Studying anything can be scholarly, Shakespeare and Chaucer for example. Why not religious works? They are interesting (if you are interested), full of fascinating characters, lots of big words. Some bits are difficult to understand which necessitate a reasonable level of Comprehension. Plenty of 'compare and contrast' questions.
RE used to be a good extra 'O' level too ;).
Yes but I'm afraid no one has really successfully edited God out of moral philosophy without laying themselves open to the charge of doing so arbitrarily for suspect reasons.The reason has already been given and there's nothing suspect about it. Quite the opposite. Positing a thing which is in itself unexplained and tossed arbitrarily into the mix explains nothing and merely kicks the discussion back a further step.
So moral philosophers realise you cannot go far in the exploration of moral philosophy without coming across absolute morality but wannabes like Hillside want to make us think moral philosophy excludes talk of objective or absolute morality.... which conveniently overlooks the fact that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective.
Of course you can look at the various religious manuals, if you want to study their version of moral and ethical ideas but there is really no special need to study them to learn about ethical and moral issues, there's plenty of much better, uncluttered with superstition, myth and magical information to be found elsewhere.Ippy sriram so thread and the post in question is on the eastern religions board creation thread.
Ever heard of the ancient Greek philosophers? And I've mentioned them just for starters.
ippy
Sriram's article Vlad I'd quite like to read it, bit busy today?
Yes but I think you are arbitrarily ruling anything religion has to say on morality. I'll come back with the Sriram post.
Ever heard of the ancient Greek philosophers? And I've mentioned them just for starters.
ippy
Ippy sriram so thread and the post in question is on the eastern religions board creation thread.
You say you like to read it which is funny because you seem to have responded to it already.
Rather bad generalisation if you want them to support your case. Two of the most famous (Socrates and his promulgator Plato) believed in a spiritual realm of ideal forms, of which the items in the material world were only a representation. Plato in Timaeus also speaks quite directly of a divine demiurge. Not to mention that both of them believed in 'souls' - an idea which greatly influenced the development of Christianity.
Of course there were others who were purely materialist. They're all worth reading, and when you've read them, you can make up your mind.
Homer's Oddysey is also worth reading, even though it deals with myths and gods. It remains a classic of world literature. Honestly, you can get something out of it without wondering that you'll end up believing in the gods of ancient Greece. What are you afraid of?
It's also possible to read the bible without necessarily ending up a confirmed believer - after all, many types of literature are contained in it - some of it is even provable history (though not much about Jesus is so provable, nor most of the very early part of the OT).
And, by a staggering coincidence, nobody has included any gods in moral philosophy without laying themselves open to the charge of doing so arbitrarily for suspect reasons.
"Moral philosophers" eh? I hope you are not seriously claiming that all moral philosophers agree?
How about you ditch the argument from (unnamed) authority fallacy and make the case yourself? No doubt you will find it easy as you are so familiar with the works of all these moral philosophers, of which you speak...
.. which conveniently overlooks the fact that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective.WellIm glad we've moved from Universally ordained morality not being part of moral philosophy to it being so.
And I have never denied that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective. Indeed just as one can't go far in moral philosophy without coming across God one can't go far without coming across subjective morality.........but ultimately, what is that but arse pull?
An entertaining take-down of WLC's Awful Eight: https://goo.gl/z6xbSwI'm sure what you call a take down is so one merely putting an alternative view rather than a knock down argument.
I'm sure what you call a take down is so one merely putting an alternative view rather than a knock down argument.Read it and see for yourself.
That's not to say that this great thinker doesn't have off days.I'm sure Coel Hellier does indeed have the occasional off day - he's only human.
And I have never denied that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective. Indeed just as one can't go far in moral philosophy without coming across God one can't go far without coming across subjective morality.........but ultimately, what is that but arse pull?
Still not willing to make the argument for yourself, I see.The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.
There is, of course, a major problem with all this god-given morality malarkey in that there is no universal acceptance of which version of god(s) we should take notice of and, even if we could decide that, what it (or they) have actually said. Hence, instead of subjective morality, we end up with subjective opinions of what the right "god given morality" is.
And that's before we get into the knotty territory of asking if god is morally good or is something morally good just because it's what god says.
In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.
In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.
The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.
And that is my take. In other words relative or subjective morality is ultimately only pulled out of ones arse.
Read it and see for yourself.Coel Wholier ?
I'm sure Coel Hellier does indeed have the occasional off day - he's only human.
We, as humans, exhibit behaviours. We classify some of those behaviours as acceptable or unacceptable. That is what morality is.So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.
And it's not just humans who do this either.
The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.
But it quite obviously isn't objective because different people find different things morally acceptable. It might be that you or I find something or other absolutely wrong by our own moral judgement whereas somebody else will disagree. In fact, even one individual may change their moral stance on something over the course of their lives.See reply#113
Obviously there is a degree of consensus (because we are all humans) but there is no objectivity.
So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.
If you thus take that line why not just be honest and behave like you want rather than ...what you .......(are now labelling as a phoney).......ought.
Astrophysicist. Name sounds like an illness. Actually that isn't a very nice thing to say, we don't name ourselves.Had a look at his blog. Says he's a defender of scientism so ploughed on with his definitions. Sounds like a dogmatic agnostic. Knew I'd find one.
There is, of course, a major problem with all this god-given morality malarkey in that there is no universal acceptance of which version of god(s) we should take notice of and, even if we could decide that, what it (or they) have actually said. Hence, instead of subjective morality, we end up with subjective opinions of what the right "god given morality" is.Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.
And that's before we get into the knotty territory of asking if god is morally good or is something morally good just because it's what god says.
In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.
Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant to its usage in modern English.Is it? English remains one of the few languages that officially has no male-gender marked pronouns. The fact that most people aren't aware of that, and use him/his/he as male-marked terms, it doesn't mean that the official position doesn't still stand. The same holds for other etymological issues.
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or godshttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion
Where?A number of threads over the last 5 or so years. The fact that you have missed them is regretable, but then the same could be said of many arguments on the other side of the debate that have been lost as a result of the necessary culling of the board's threads.
How many times are you going to repeat this, despite having been told that people will accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"?As many times as necessary until such people begin to accept objective evidence 'regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"'.
This continued assertion of yours is blatant dishonesty.You mean, like the dishonesty shown by those who claim that they will 'accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic";, but then ignore it whenit's produced?
So why is there no hint of a shred of objective evidence and no suggestion of any reasoned arguments to support the notion of this god?Simply because, as all on your side of the debate have said over the years, none of it fits their naturalistically restricted thinking.
I find it very telling that, rather than present any evidence or arguments for your position, you try to drag science down to the level of religion.Well, having provided plenty of evidence and arguments which are almost always dismissed by those whose opinions and ideas differ from mine, I decided that it would be just as worthwhile to point out the flaws that science exhibits - flaws that even scientists admit to.
Science is clear. It has conjecture, hypotheses and theories - the big bang theory is clear and accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It covers the origin of the observable universe in a hot, dense state approximately 13.5 billion years ago.Is that why there are a number of different interpretations of details and timings, etc.
Now, back to that evidence you claim you've presented - where is it?Probably on threads that you prefer not to read or remember reading. ;)
But it quite obviously isn't objective because different people find different things morally acceptable. It might be that you or I find something or other absolutely wrong by our own moral judgement whereas somebody else will disagree. In fact, even one individual may change their moral stance on something over the course of their lives.See reply#113
Obviously there is a degree of consensus (because we are all humans) but there is no objectivity.
So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.
If you thus take that line why not just be honest and behave like you want rather than ...what you .......(are now labelling as a phoney).......ought.
Is it? English remains one of the few languages that officially has no male-gender marked pronouns. The fact that most people aren't aware of that, and use him/his/he as male-marked terms, it doesn't mean that the official position doesn't still stand. The same holds for other etymological issues.
A number of threads over the last 5 or so years. The fact that you have missed them is regretable, but then the same could be said of many arguments on the other side of the debate that have been lost as a result of the necessary culling of the board's threads.
As many times as necessary until such people begin to accept objective evidence 'regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"'.
You mean, like the dishonesty shown by those who claim that they will 'accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic";, but then ignore it whenit's produced?
Simply because, as all on your side of the debate have said over the years, none of it fits their naturalistically restricted thinking.
Well, having provided plenty of evidence and arguments which are almost always dismissed by those whose opinions and ideas differ from mine, I decided that it would be just as worthwhile to point out the flaws that science exhibits - flaws that even scientists admit to.
Is that why there are a number of different interpretations of details and timings, etc.
why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.Fear of force? And yet elsewhere you or someone like you will be complaining that God allows bad things to happen.....so what is it you are scared of exactly?
Fear of force?Precisely.
And yet elsewhere you or someone like you will be complaining that God allows bad things to happen.....Only in the context of a discussion with those who believe in gods. Atheists don't.
so what is it you are scared of exactly?Nothing.
However I think your point could lead to fruitful discussion.Let's hope so.
Hope, Stephen Taylor came to this forum specifically to ask you for your evidence. There's a lovely shiny thread there just for you to give us all the evidence you want. Then all this arguing will cease as we'll all know where to go.
Why didn't you?
Precisely.No explanations Shaker so you cannot have anything to argue for.
No explanations Shaker so you cannot have anything to argue for.So much typing, so little sense.
So in you having nothing,I will say that fear of force is inappropriate in Christianity at least. When someone is convinced of their encounter with God they have the choice to follow or not.The choice to be regenerated or transformed is predicated on, as Isaiah puts it ,being undone. They are convinced of where they stand morally with God and they respond according to that position. That is not fear of force but a fear of missing the truth of their new reality.
What you propose is to choose to reject because for whatever reasons you hate God as he is preferring to roll out an alternative realty of your own without taking into account the fundamental dishonesty of that position.
And that IS something which should be feared.
Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.And where does argumentum ad baculum come into the teachings of Christ or any of the other New Testament writings, Shakes. I appreciate that history has shown certain national governments and denominations have felt it right to instruct their citizens/adherents to follow this or that way of thinking - and, of course, that isn't unique to the Church - but where does it appear in the underlying source material?
So much typing, so little sense.But you have still not explained where argumentum ad baculum fits into the picture. All you've done is thrown the concept into the mix, with no explanation or supporting evidence.
So much typing, so little sense.So little typing from Shaker, no sense whatsoever.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad. That isn't supposed to frighten us?... where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, allegedly.
But you have still not explained where argumentum ad baculum fits into the picture. All you've done is thrown the concept into the mix, with no explanation or supporting evidence.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad..................as there would be if one had a winning ticket to the lottery and then thrown the ticket away.
Should have been Tony Soprano, bluey - Tony Angelino was the singing dustman with a speech impediment in Only Fools and Horses :D
Should have been Tony Soprano, bluey - Tony Angelino was the singing dustman with a speech impediment in Only Fools and Horses :D
So there'll be cwying and gnashing of teeth then.Pwecisely cowwect.
So there'll be cwying and gnashing of teeth then.You plonker, Wodney.
There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, Vlad. That isn't supposed to frighten us?I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment. Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?
I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment. Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?And where's the evidence of this 'is' in 'telling it like it is', exactly?
I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment. Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?
Hope,Except that the 'shtick here isn't "these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you". It's "these are my rules, you break my rules and this is what you will lead yourself into'.
Romans 13:1-4:
"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil."
And guess who gets to decide what constitutes "good" and "evil". The schtick here is this: these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you.
Now substitute "God" for "Fat Tony Angelino", "Pete "Sleeps wit' da fishes" deCiccio" or similar and you'll see the model.Except that you don't see the model, as it is a false analogy.
What would the disappointment be?Not being in relationship with one's creator. Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. ;)
What happens if you are old and have lost all your teeth?Quite agree - and it doesn't have to be about old-age. There are plenty of youngsters who have lost many of their teeth through poor diet, over-exuberant playing and fighting, etc. I haven't been able to gnash my teeth for donkey's years!!
Not being in relationship with one's creator. Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. ;)
I believe that these can be normal reactions to severe disappointment. Is 'telling something as it is' really a fright tactic?
Not being in relationship with one's creator. Since you don't believe in the concept, I'm not sure that it would apply to you. ;)
then whatever that second decision leads to is not the fault of the person who created the path.
Except that the 'shtick here isn't "these are my rules, you break my rules and I'll break you". It's "these are my rules, you break my rules and this is what you will lead yourself into'.
Notice also that Romans, like all the other New Testament epistles - regardless of author, is written to Christians. None of them were written to non-believers. As I'm sure you can appreciate, if one has freely chosen to follow a certain path (which is likely what the vast majority of the readers of the epistles would have done), and then choose to leave that path or allow yourself to be led off it, then whatever that second decision leads to is not the fault of the person who created the path.
Technically, as Paul points out earlier in Romans 'There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through him Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death'. Romans 8: 1,2
If, having once chosen to live under the Spirit, one returns in whatever way to living under the law then that law controls your life and the consequences of the law control your future. Remember that, unless there is a law against a given behaviour, it is not illegal - it is the law that defines what is right and wrong.
Except that you don't see the model, as it is a false analogy.
So, I am still awaiting an explanation of how the idea of argumentum ad baculum fits the picture.
Oh don't, that is the stuff of nightmares Rhi.
Plenty of people 'go through Hell' whilst still on earth, for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes they seem to have drawn the short straw but there are plenty who suffer because of something they did wrong years ago and can't forgive themselves. They are having their punishment in the here and now, God isn't going to punish them again. My view of course, I'm sure no-one agrees with me.
Do you deny your own responsibility which exists whether there is a God or not?
If there is a God of the tri-Omni nature then everything that happens is ultimately his responsibility.
Do you deny your own responsibility which exists whether there is a God or not?
Actually, it doesn't: free will is a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient god.Well then one of your omnis is wrong.
Well then one of your omnis is wrong.
And to prove it...........the inevitable absence of you justifying what you have just claimed.
Everything that happens, including our decisions, is either the result of deterministic processes or (possibly) randomness (or a combination). Logically, there is nothing else; to the extent something isn't determined, it is random (not determined being what random means).A complete denial of agency.......of cause and effect.
Our consciousness is clearly intractably complex and, for all practical purposes (from the human point of view) we have freedom to do as we wish. From an omni-god's point of view, however, the whole process would not only be clear and visible but, since it would have designed everything that influences our choices, entirely under its control. It might be, of course, that god has introduced some genuinely random element, but that wouldn't our responsibility either.
The whole idea of an omni god judging us is illogical drivel.
A complete denial of agency.......of cause and effect.
You suggest an omnipotent God who cannot create something which can act independently of him and therefore deny him omnipotence.
Particularly where there is no obvious contradiction between omnipotence and independent creations.
I would question also if ultimate cosmic responsibility equates to and replaces human responsibility and agency.
Too right! If it's not objective, it must be phony. Just like art, literature, beauty, music, love, friendship, happiness and so on; all that phony crap, eh?
What happens if you are old and have lost all your teeth?
Superb response!
Dicky,The trouble though is if morality is an ought then subjective morality finally resolves into there being nothing that really ought to be done and nothing that really ought not to be done and that rather puts an end to morality.
I agree. It always seems odd to me when those who argue for objective morality also arbitrarily hive off that aspect of human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards from other aspects of the human experience that we intuit and reason our way towards. What's so special about the way we determine the morality of, say, capital punishment that puts it in a different epistemological category from the way we determine whether a painting or a symphony is good or bad?
It's also of course a pretty egregious use of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy: non-objectively set morality morality isn't real morality, therefore - um - it must be objectively set!
You suggest an omnipotent God who cannot create something which can act independently of him and therefore deny him omnipotence.
No, if the tri-Omni God exists an initialises the universe then all actions in that universe subsequently occur are his responsibility. Whether those beings can act independently of him or not is irrelevant, he set the whole thing in motion.So what you are saying is they aren't independent of him.
So what you are saying is they aren't independent of him.
No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.Ok humanity is an out of control intelligence.....check.
If you created some AI robot and released it into the community, you would be resposible for any harm it did regardless of whether it could act independently of you or not. You might receive some sympathy/mitigation as a human being but if you were blessed of the three Omnis I would suggest you would end up eating a lot of porridge.
Ok humanity is an out of control intelligence.....check.
Who has been harmed? What community was humanity unleashed on?
Why is mankind now harmful? Choice and acting to it's autonomy rather than it's mission.
No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.
No, whether or not they are independent or not he is still responsible. We don't have to trouble ourselves about the distinction.
If you created some AI robot and released it into the community, you would be resposible for any harm it did regardless of whether it could act independently of you or not. You might receive some sympathy/mitigation as a human being but if you were blessed of the three Omnis I would suggest you would end up eating a lot of porridge.
Should we trouble ourselves with the consequences?
In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism. I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through. They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either. Why not?
In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd. I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school. Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think.
So God is not really really omnipotent. Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.
Far better put than I could ever manage.
Oh monsignor, you make me blush. But there is another point - what is the consequence of a shift to Christian deism? I would suggest, that it represents a slow-motion collapse, including for example, an intellectual defeat. However, of course, the evangelicals are fighting a rear-guard action against this.
Which is surely, while shaking one's head in unbelief, one has to admire the Calvinists and their logically consistent position?
Yes, it does seem quite a heroic position, although doomed really. As on the other thread, consistency spells The End.Indeed Logic is a cold god, slowly laughing at its followers, as they crawl in the wake of its foul excreta.
In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism. I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through. They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either. Why not?
In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd. I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school. Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think.
So God is not really really omnipotent. Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.
In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism. I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through. They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either. Why not?Wait a cotton picking moment.
In fact, those Christians who do claim this seem quite odd. I got a leaflet through my door from a local church arguing that 9/11 happened because the American people had stopped prayer in school. Possibly in the US, this is quite a common view, but less so in the UK, I think.
So God is not really really omnipotent. Or he could be, but he chooses not to be, or some formulation like that.
Wiggs,Oh dear.....You've just eliminated yourself from any 'proofs' of naturalism which depend on cause and effect.
Quite so. One of the less-often noted weaknesses of the "nothing comes from nothing" nonsense
In fact, it strikes me that quite a lot of Christians are shifting, or have shifted, towards deism. I mean, that while they pay lip-service to the 3 Os, or 4 Os, or however many there are, they don't follow it through. They don't claim that God causes earthquakes or the ebola virus, or should stop either. Why not?I think it is because facts and knowledge of them are sufficiently well established and clear enough to have replaced unevidenced faith in a god-did-it explanation.
Oh dear.....You've just eliminated yourself from any 'proofs' of naturalism which depend on cause and effect.
These were never in dispute.
Citation needed.
God created an old world like he created a mature adult at a day old.
[blah, blah, blah]
Creation itself is proof of God because you have absolutely NO OTHER ANSWER for it...
Creation itself is proof of God because you have absolutely NO OTHER ANSWER for it...
God created an old world like he created a mature adult at a day old.
How do we know... We would not have survived had he made two babies.
Why not work on finding some solid evidence that would support and perhaps take religions off of the fiction shelf, first and the if this can be done it would justify having as many long and serious discussions anyone could ever want.
If the solid evidence was found there would of course be the added bonus of no, often referred to as, atheists, all wondering how come these people allowed themselves to became so deluded?
These discussions about the, maybe not the best description, inns and outs of the bible, effectively the workshop manual, seem so meaningless and pointless when there is apparently no means proving any of it as factual.
ippy
Ippy
One doesn't have to be in a religion or believe any religion to read and learn about it.
What makes it scholarly isn't whether it's true or not, but just having enough of a subject to study.
There is some fascinating anthropological research into the various functions of religions in different societies. The guy who is well known on this is Scott Atran, and his book 'In Gods We Trust'.
One of the interesting ideas about tribal religions and rituals, is that they often encode crucial aspects of life for that tribe, e.g. hunting methods, agricultural practises, fertility of land and humans, knowledge about animals and plants, and so on.
You could argue that industrial society reduces this to a minimum, and there are now only vestiges of it in Western religion, e.g Harvest Festival.
However, somewhere like the US shows how religion is a community practice, or I should really say, praxis, in order to sound posh.
Anyway, I think it is certainly scholarly to look at stuff like this.
There is some fascinating anthropological research into the various functions of religions in different societies. The guy who is well known on this is Scott Atran, and his book 'In Gods We Trust'.
One of the interesting ideas about tribal religions and rituals, is that they often encode crucial aspects of life for that tribe, e.g. hunting methods, agricultural practises, fertility of land and humans, knowledge about animals and plants, and so on.
May I return to the thread title and point out to ippy the nature of scholarly discussion. It almost always involves differences of opinion and, where it doesn't, it often introduces and/or revisits oher ideas that have been forgotten or recently discovered. On the occasions neither of these occur, the discussion can be tedious and unchallenging.
Wiggs,
Couldn't agree more - I've always thought that religions (plural) have done best where their functionality in terms of ritual, cohesion, explanation (in the absence of better answers) etc is most useful. It answers too the charge of, "so if (insert name of religion here) isn't true, how come it's survived then?" - they survive for readily identifiable reasons that need have nothing whatever to do with the truth or otherwise of their claimed facts.
Yes but some people think it's scholarly to discuss religion as though it's not fiction
If by 'their claimed facts' you mean their assertions about God, souls, Resurrection(s) etc, then I largely agree with you. It's interesting to compare the survival of Christianity with Mithraism. The latter seemed quite a rival to Christianity in the development of the Roman Empire, and though we don't know too much about Mithraism's mystical beliefs, we can be pretty sure it offered some eternal 'rewards' for its participants (most of the other mystery religions did). However, Mithraism was an extraordinarily blokey religion - no females allowed in its places of worship. Christianity - at least in its earliest manifestation - gave great importance to women (even if they were considered to be a bit risky where sex was concerned). And of course Christianity did stress practical altruism.
Hi Dicky,
Yes, those are the kind of claimed facts I had in mind. I'm a bit surprised at how relaxed you are about the attitude of Christianity to women though. It - and the other Abrahamic faiths - are deeply misogynistic in beliefs and practice it seems to me, and it's trivially easy to demonstrate that. Possibly early Christianity was a bit different, but I'd have thought the fear/hatred/anger about women goes back to Eve doesn't it?
Interestingly, so far as I'm aware the earlier religions from which Christianity took so many of its narratives - the Greek, the Egyptian etc - don't so far as I'm aware have that, preferring instead to see women as symbolic of the fecundity of the land and similar and therefore worthy of reverence.
If that's right, what is it with the Abrahamic religions specifically and their treatment of women that so disfigures them to this day?
I think you should be more precise in your use of language. You seem to be using the word "religion" as a synonym for "belief in the supernatural or spiritual". Such beliefs of course can't be proved - they may be the most important part of religion for some people, particularly those who are hung up on the idea of 'heavenly rewards', but as wiggi has pointed out, many religions have a much more complex function than this. I've known some people who choose the kind of Christian church they go to, not because they have any fervent belief, but because they like the kind of rituals offered in the services, and they like the social life.
Dear ippy,
This is post 205, and we are on to page 9, quite a nice discussion we are having, some might call it, rather scholarly ;)
Gonnagle.
#202 I'm not an expert on ancient pagan religion by any means, Dicky; Owlswing might be a better ask. But there's certainly a suggestion that pagan religions were generally more favourable to women - not always. For example, Peter Beresford Ellis makes the point that women enjoyed near equal status in both Irish pagan religion and society and in the Celtic Christianity that succeeded it and it was only when Rome took over the Celtic church that the equality ended. And Bettany Hughes covered in the Seven Ages of Britain how pagan Anglo-Saxon women enjoyed a status and protection in law that was lost to their Christian descendants until the late nineteenth century.
One interesting idea I've also heard (from Hughes again among others) is that the very ancient cults of the Goddess as a fecund, voluptuous representative of the bounty of the earth was replaced by warrior sky gods as we moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian one; as we became increasingly tribal and had land to fight over we wanted gods that would be on our side in battle.
All that said, there's so much we don't know and it's naive to think we recreate an ancient equal faith in neo-paganism any more than modern Christianity resembles the early church. Gender, equality and rights are human concepts and like all human concepts they very often end up in a bloody mess. For example, you have the refusal by Z Budapest to allow trans women to take part in a women-only ritual; some agreed with her, most didn't. And I personally feel the symbolism of the cup and athame in Wicca to belong with notions about male and female that I don't find particularly equal or indeed helpful.
Much as you probably don't agree with me I can't see belief in the magical, mythical and superstition based parts of their beliefs as anything more than bullshit, as in that old well known wise old army saying bullshit baffles brains.
ippy
I've had this before about using the word religion as a cover for all, I think the context of the words conveyed by the poster is usually enough to make most posts understandable, without having to write a near thesis about exactly which minute detail of religion, belief or faith one is referring to?
ippy
But there's certainly a suggestion that pagan religions were generally more favourable to women - not always. For example, Peter Beresford Ellis makes the point that women enjoyed near equal status in both Irish pagan religion and society and in the Celtic Christianity that succeeded it and it was only when Rome took over the Celtic church that the equality ended.It is interesting how you have had to move from the general to the specific to make this point, Rhi. As most of the Christians here have said themselves, the Roman Church has a lot to answer for in regard to a whole host of issues - but note that Augustine was sent to Britain specifically to combat what the Roman church saw as heresy, even though the Celtic version you refer to had probably been around for as long as the Roman one anyway.
And Bettany Hughes covered in the Seven Ages of Britain how pagan Anglo-Saxon women enjoyed a status and protection in law that was lost to their Christian descendants until the late nineteenth century.Unfortunately, the Anglo-Saxons arrived in Britian (England) long after Augustine arrived and established the Roman version. They therefore assimilated the version that they met - thus overriding their own 'Celtic-like' attitudes to women.
One interesting idea I've also heard (from Hughes again among others) is that the very ancient cults of the Goddess as a fecund, voluptuous representative of the bounty of the earth was replaced by warrior sky gods as we moved from a hunter gatherer society to an agrarian one; as we became increasingly tribal and had land to fight over we wanted gods that would be on our side in battle.I've heard that too, but I'd suggest that the naturew of the Hindu pantheon tends to suggest otherwise. From what I understand, the two styles of divinity run parallel to each other there, and predate many European religious ideas by some millennia.
None of which seems remotely relevant, Hope.
No - as I keep pointing out - that is where I largely do agree with you (except that the function of myth in the scholarly sense is a bit more subtle than 'something that is untrue'). The trouble is, there is a tendency for you to try to reduce everything in religion to this (though I see that you've tried a bit more of a balanced approach above).
No doubt the 'spiritual' side of things is the peg on which everything else hangs for most people, and if you were to take away the peg then the whole apparatus would eventually collapse - in the meantime, the social manifestations of religion remain, and are likely so to do for a very long time.
It's quite simple - when you're referring to the unprovable, invisible, and probably nonsensical aspects of a religion, use words like 'supernatural' or 'spiritual'. If you're talking about the way religion works in society - something that can be seen and proved - you could say something like 'religion in its social aspect'.