NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts about Hinduism? Can anyone recommend me a good swami with a solid grasp of Reality, Atman, and all those nice things?

I have a soft spot for Hinduism. too bad all those hippies converting to it have ruined western perceptions of it.

I chose stupider than Christianity, because Hindus aren't allowed to kill or eat cows.

I have a soft spot for Hinduism. too bad all those hippies converting to it have ruined western perceptions of it.

That pretty much describes my view. But I also discovered Hare Krishnas are surprisingly orthodox and traditionalist which was a pleasant surprise.

I don't really know enough to comment on it.

I don't really know enough to comment on it.

And yet comment you did...

I've been to a temple a few times. Not my thing. Not personal enough for my tastes. But then I'm a selfish git, so...

And yet comment you did...

I've been to a temple a few times. Not my thing. Not personal enough for my tastes. But then I'm a selfish git, so...

which sect and cult was it.
some of the Vishnuites are very personal. Others not so much.
the problem when talking about Hinduism is there is really no one set of beliefs to define as Hinduism as.

Not as awesome as some of the more.....extinct polytheistic religions. I don't know much about it, other than the fact that some of the deities look like they belong in a fighting game, like Mortal Kombat. Do the Hindus blame the gods for wars and human behavior like many of the other polytheistic religions? I guess that's why the Abrahamic religions grew so popular. There's only one god and all he does is create life and keep an eye on stuff. He doesn't waste time making people go crazy (though the voices in their heads say otherwise) and throwing lightning at everyone who wears white after Labor Day. Plus, there's the whole reincarnation thing. Priests who are dicks and kick puppies all day long get a better next-life than step-above-untouchables that cured cancers and AIDS when they weren't busy saving orphans from fires and stopping supervillains from taking away all the pr0n from the internets.

which sect and cult was it.
some of the Vishnuites are very personal. Others not so much.
the problem when talking about Hinduism is there is really no one set of beliefs to define as Hinduism as.

That is a very good point. I'm going to be honest and fess up here: I can't remember which sect or cult. It was a long time ago. So I realise my opinion is probably worth very little in helping others get a knowledgeable account of Hinduism. Sorry guys.

Not as awesome as some of the more.....extinct polytheistic religions. I don't know much about it, other than the fact that some of the deities look like they belong in a fighting game, like Mortal Kombat. Do the Hindus blame the gods for wars and human behavior like many of the other polytheistic religions? I guess that's why the Abrahamic religions grew so popular. There's only one god and all he does is create life and keep an eye on stuff. He doesn't waste time making people go crazy (though the voices in their heads say otherwise) and throwing lightning at everyone who wears white after Labor Day. Plus, there's the whole reincarnation thing. Priests who are dicks and kick puppies all day long get a better next-life than step-above-untouchables that cured cancers and AIDS when they weren't busy saving orphans from fires and stopping supervillains from taking away all the pr0n from the internets.

Theoretically a dick priest can get his caste demoted even in this life. Also theoretically, an untouchable or even an insect could leapfrog their social superiors in terms of enlightenment and achieve enlightenment in an instant, not just in the next life but in the current one. But it'd be hard to prove that an insect just achieved enlightenment.

But that's all theory of course and deep seated cultural norms prevent these theories from being applied very often.

Where's "equally stupid"?

Some Hindu stories and teachings are interesting or poetic, but all religions amount to the same thing.

Some Hindo stories and teachings are interesting or poetic, but all religions amount to the same thing.

Hmm that may very well be an accurate paraphrase of Vedas...

Its weird and interesting.

Where's "equally stupid"?

Some Hindu stories and teachings are interesting or poetic, but all religions amount to the same thing.

I wouldn't say "all". Most faiths mutated from other faiths. Judaism begat Christianity and Islam, even though the more radical members of the latter two faiths will deny that to the death. I'm sure Judaism evolved from some older, polytheistic faiths once the Jews got this crazy idea that maybe some god isn't making them angry and another isn't making that volcano erupt just to spite Steve for failing to worship yet another god perfectly and on time. Still didn't abandon the idea of creationism, but at least they abandoned the crazier ideas.

Meanwhile, you have "religions", like Scientology, that existed, not to answer ancient Man's questions about why stuff happens somewhere at some particular time, but to exploit the weak and the needy for monetary and/or other gains, such as status or power.

My point is, there's a reason you shouldn't use absolutes too many times. It only takes one successful counterexample to prove an absolute false.

Any religion that can come up with the Karma Sutra is fine by me... Of course it dosen't hurt that the Hindu religion dose not condemn homosexuality.

Ok, also the fact that it is one of the world's (if not the)oldest religions; with gods like Hanuman, Ganesha, and the skilled artwork make it so fascinating.

Any religion that can come up with the Karma Sutra is fine by me... Of course it dosen't hurt that the Hindu religion dose not condemn homosexuality.

Neither does Christianity when you stop listening to other people and actually read the damn book with the intent of finding out what the hell it's trying to say. People just use it as an excuse to hate because they know that nobody really reads the bible.

Neither does Christianity when you stop listening to other people and actually read the damn book with the intent of finding out what the hell it's trying to say. People just use it as an excuse to hate because they know that nobody really reads the bible.

Hmm... I don't know about that; Leviticus is fairly damning, insane but damning.

Hmm... I don't know about that; Leviticus is fairly damning, insane but damning.

Leviticus is like a breath of fresh air.

Surely you mean "fresh Sulphur air." Sorry for the thread-jack. Back to the OP.

Where's "equally stupid"?

Some Hindu stories and teachings are interesting or poetic, but all religions amount to the same thing.
Hi there, interesting poster.
Agreed.

Leviticus is like a breath of fresh air.
Erm, "break of" ***** "air", yeah.

Surely you mean "fresh Sulphur air." Sorry for the thread-jack. Back to the OP.
I'm the OP, I'm not done yet :P
Leviticus is the most excellent expression of the sublime and primordial semitic religion and ritualism. The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights is what is insane and damning.

Que? I'm fairly sure the guy and his story is made up, almost entirely based on that no one else that early on in the old testiment and in that region has a Greek sounding name.

You may be fairly sure but I'm not fairly sure.

Oh come on; why didn't Saul mention the story to David?

I wouldn't say "all". Most faiths mutated from other faiths. Judaism begat Christianity and Islam, even though the more radical members of the latter two faiths will deny that to the death. I'm sure Judaism evolved from some older, polytheistic faiths once the Jews got this crazy idea that maybe some god isn't making them angry and another isn't making that volcano erupt just to spite Steve for failing to worship yet another god perfectly and on time. Still didn't abandon the idea of creationism, but at least they abandoned the crazier ideas.

For thousands of years the beliefs of the Hebrews were pretty much the same as all their neighbors. They believed that, like every other tribe, they had their god who picked them out to be his special bunch. Other gods existed, just not for them.

Adhering to this belief meant that if your tribe got conquered by a neighboring one then their god had to be stronger, so you may as well convert. But when the Hebrews got their asses kicked by the Babylonians, their priests got the bright idea that Yaheweh didn't get his ass kicked by Marduk, he just let the Hebrews lose as a test. He couldn't have lost to Marduk because he's just so awesome, and Marduk isn't even a real god anyway.

A pile of shit.

All I know about Hinduism I learnedfrom Apu Nahas...pasa...whatever.

All I know about Hinduism I learnedfrom Apu Nahas...pasa...whatever.

I just think of the way Lovejoy said it. Na-HAS-a-PEE-ma-PET-i-lon.

i think that it is so tied in with the local culture that it is difficult for an outsider to fit into it especially if they dont move to an area with lots of hindus in it.

otherwise it is as true/false, good/bad, right/wrong as any other big time religion.

Hinduism has cool stuff. I find some of the gods very useful. But like Ashmoria said, it's quite culture specific, so I don't practice it.

The caste system alone places it near the bottom of all religions.

What are your thoughts about Hinduism? Can anyone recommend me a good swami with a solid grasp of Reality, Atman, and all those nice things?

Eh, its okay. Good drinking buddies with his cousin Buddhism, but Islam, Judaism, and Christianity seem to avoid him. Not that they have something against him necessarily, they just never communicate, except Islam. He just does NOT like Hindu. But really, who does Islam like...


*takes a bow*

I started poking around a little but I have yet to get a feel for it but I would encourage reading Bhagavad Gita. The poetry is beautiful as well as the thought behind it. I am Christian and likely nothing will change that but some ideas can be adopted. I say the same about Buddha.

The caste system alone places it near the bottom of all religions.

Whether or not the caste system is part of Hinduism or just part of the surrounding culture is open to debate.

The caste system alone places it near the bottom of all religions.

Before the British took over the caste system was very malleable. Being born to untouchables didn't mean that you could never bee a warrior. Of course, you had to be good at it.

The current situation of caste as a form of oppression is a post-colonial legacy, not a religious one.

Before the British took over the caste system was very malleable. Being born to untouchables didn't mean that you could never bee a warrior. Of course, you had to be good at it.

The current situation of caste as a form of oppression is a post-colonial legacy, not a religious one.

It is what happens when someone with a traditional Feudal understanding of class tries to figure out the caste systems.

Theoretically a dick priest can get his caste demoted even in this life. Also theoretically, an untouchable or even an insect could leapfrog their social superiors in terms of enlightenment and achieve enlightenment in an instant, not just in the next life but in the current one. But it'd be hard to prove that an insect just achieved enlightenment.


That's Buddhism, not Hinduism.

Well, the caste system is what ruins the religion for me. Saying that it is culture-specific and not religion-specific seems to make no sense. There is no mainly hinduistic culture without a caste system, is there?

That's Buddhism, not Hinduism.

Buddhism doesn't have a caste system.

Its just another turd in the toilet that is religion.

I am an atheist so I don't believe in any of them. That said if I did believe in God/s surely it makes sense to follow the world's oldest religion rather than some Johnny come lately like Christianity. If there is a true God you would expect people to have worshipped them from the start - not wait around for thousands of years to start a religion in their name.

Probably the best religion available, for what that is worth.

Probably the best religion available, for what that is worth.

Not a whole lot man, not a whole lot.

not a whole lot man, not a whole lot.

00000000.

I know a lot of Hindus who are, morally, better people then Christians.
However the crux of the Christian faith is that all people, even the best behaved, are desperately immoral and need Jesus to save them from their sins.

The same as every other religion; It's no substitute for faith.

I know a lot of Hindus who are, morally, better people then Christians.
However the crux of the Christian faith is that all people, even the best behaved, are desperately immoral and need Jesus to save them from their sins.

Well said.

I know a lot of Hindus who are, morally, better people then Christians.
However the crux of the Christian faith is that all people, even the best behaved, are desperately immoral and need Jesus to save them from their sins.

But unlike Hinduism it does not explain why the innocent suffer.

But unlike Hinduism it does not explain why the innocent suffer.
but hinuisms explanation sucks big time.

but hinuisms explanation sucks big time.

It is better than no explanation.

All religions are regressive and socially damaging, Hinduism is no more so than any other.


Having said that the term "Hinduism" is a very catch all term which encompasses a huge array of beliefs found in India and elsewhere. Just as there are significant differences between fundamentalist Christianity and Roman Catholicism and Nestorianism so there is a huge spectrum within Hinduism of different practices and doctrines.

Some of these doctrines and beliefs are more obnoxious than others.

In my opinion the least offensive religion from the Indian Subcontinent, and indeed possibly the least offensive religion in the world is Jainism.

All religions are regressive and socially damaging,

Durant, Bonaparte, and Machiavelli would care to differ.

It is better than no explanation.
i prefer "bad things happen to everyone at random" to "this bad thing happened to you for something someone else did a long time ago so you deserve it"

i prefer "bad things happen to everyone at random" to "this bad thing happened to you for something someone else did a long time ago so you deserve it"

The first explanation is fine for atheists, but if one is to worship an omnipotent entity, one wishes to know why it allows suffering.

Durant, Bonaparte, and Machiavelli would care to differ.

They might but I'm comfortable with the dissent of at least two of those, especially since they were some of the most socially regressive thinkers of their time. Autocrats and Monarchists are not the intellectual company I like to keep no matter how inspired they may appear.

It is interesting how supporters of autocracy down the ages have been assiduous in associating religious ideas or ideas analogous to religion to the cause though.

Divine kingship, which has existed everywhere, in India notably so, is an interesting social offshoot of the religious impulse. Clearly the subjection to god is translatable into subjection to temporal power.

And in Hinduism ( in common with many of the most ancient religions )temporal power was translatable into divine power. The Hindu pantheon is rich with examples of earthly kings who were deified.

All religions are regressive and socially damaging, Hinduism is no more so than any other.....

Yes. Martin Luther King Junior's particular brand of Christianity was horribly damaging to the plight of those struggling for recognition of civil rights, and to African Americans in particular.

Yes. Martin Luther King Junior's particular brand of Christianity was horribly damaging to the plight of those struggling for recognition of civil rights, and to African Americans in particular.

What else would one expect from a Republican?

It's a very interesting religion, or group of religions; the notion of it as a living tradition, and the variety of Hindu belief, is intriguing.

Also, the Bhagavad Gita is a fun read. But I don't see the point of ranking religions.

Yes. Martin Luther King Junior's particular brand of Christianity was horribly damaging to the plight of those struggling for recognition of civil rights, and to African Americans in particular.

I don't think it was Martin Luther King Junior's particular branch of Christianity which lent his work its force.

I think it was his association of humanistic ideas into his creed which lent it its power.

Buddhism doesn't have a caste system.

I was referring to the next life bit as well as enlightenment. The cycle of reincarnation, karma and enlightenment tends to be Buddhisms shtick.

What else would one expect from a Republican?


Hey I'm not a Republican, I'm a republican :p

I don't think it was Martin Luther King Junior's particular branch of Christianity which lent his work its force.

I think it was his association of humanistic ideas into his creed which lent it its power.

So, are you saying that a religious creed that is associated with humanistic ideas can be something other than regressive and scoially damaging?

Hey I'm not a Republican, I'm a republican :p

I was referring to Martin Luther King Jr.

So, are you saying that a religious creed that is associated with humanistic ideas can be something other than regressive and scoially damaging?


Well I certainly believe that certain forms of religion, ones which have strong humanistic impulses ( such as Jainism, which I mentioned before ) can be less socially regressive than other forms.

In the context of mid to late twentieth century America, Martin Luther King Junior's humanistic form of Christianity was indeed less socially regressive than the generality of christian belief and was therefore capable of positive social development. But this is analogous to the European Reformation in which protestant beliefs, which were directly influenced by Humanism, were capable of improving society.


However after the initial phase of social change has been effected by these beliefs they ultimately become socially regressive again as the passing of time sees the introduction of more direct non-religiously inspired ideas.

This is because in the background of these Religious/Humanist hybrids the primitivism of magical thinking remains, holding back true development of human consciousness and freedom.

I was referring to Martin Luther King Jr.

Oh, well my apologies :)

Well I certainly believe that certain forms of religion, ones which have strong humanistic impulses ( such as Jainism, which I mentioned before ) can be less socially regressive than other forms.

In the context of mid to late twentieth century America, Martin Luther King Junior's humanistic form of Christianity was indeed less socially regressive than the generality of christian belief and was therefore capable of positive social development. But this is analogous to the European Reformation in which protestant beliefs, which were directly influenced by Humanism, were capable of improving society.


However after the initial phase of social change has been effected by these beliefs they ultimately become socially regressive again as the passing of time sees the introduction of more direct non-religiously inspired ideas.

This is because in the background of these Religious/Humanist hybrids the primitivism of magical thinking remains, holding back true development of human consciousness and freedom.

This only makes sense if you assume that religions stay unchanging while the rest of society moves on. This may be true of some of the most conservative religions, but it is by no means a general rule.

Anything that stays unchanging while the rest of society progresses will eventually be seen as regressive. This behaviour is not particular to religion, nor is it decriptive of religious behaviour in general.

This only makes sense if you assume that religions stay unchanging while the rest of society moves on. This may be true of some of the most conservative religions, but it is by no means a general rule.

Anything that stays unchanging while the rest of society progresses will eventually be seen as regressive. This behaviour is not particular to religion, nor is it decriptive of religious behaviour in general.

It's not that religions don't adapt to the social conditions around them, they do, but they are normally behind the over all rate of social change unless they directly link themselves to those forces which are the engines of social change.

I agree this kind of thing certainly isn't unique to religion, and nor are religions they only regressive forces in society.

But the essential underlying impulse of superstition and magical thinking which is common to all religion and is part of its defining character is socially regressive.

It's not that religions don't adapt to the social conditions around them, they do, but they are normally behind the over all rate of social change unless they directly link themselves to those forces which are the engines of social change.

I agree this kind of thing certainly isn't unique to religion, and nor are religions they only regressive forces in society.

But the essential underlying impulse of superstition and magical thinking which is common to all religion and is part of its defining character is socially regressive.

Okay, so it's not that religion is socially regressive, but that 'superstition and magical thinking' is socially regressive?

Can you define what that is, please?

Okay, so it's not that religion is socially regressive, but that 'superstition and magical thinking' is socially regressive?

Can you define what that is, please?


Superstition and magical thinking, of which religions are the elaboration, are ways of explaining reality which do not look for rational causes, they also seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Ultimately magical thinking leads to an abdication of human responsibility or involvement in life, since God or the spirits e.t.c. are responsible for creation and its management and therefore humanity has no power to influence or investigate or defy the supernatural. All that becomes paramount is satisfying the demands of the supernatural, propitiating it in order to curry favour and insure imagined beneficial outcomes which are illusory since they do not exist.

These beliefs are socially regressive because they imply that man is not responsible for society, rather that the imagined divine/supernatural is and that they only way to effect change of any kind is to satisfy the demands of the divine/supernatural.

If these demands are influenced by a rational agenda ( such as humanism or scientific or rational concerns ) then this propitiation may be made to be socially beneficial, but left alone magical thinking has no need to include such rationalisms in its practices and need only endlessly satisfy its own imaginary demands.

Superstition and magical thinking, of which religions are the elaboration, are ways of explaining reality which do not look for rational causes, they also seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Ultimately magical thinking leads to an abdecation of human responsibility or involvement in life, since God or the spirits e.t.c. are responsible for creation and its management and therefore humanity has no power to influence or investigate or defy the supernatural. All that becomes paramount is satisfying the demands of the supernatural, propitiating it in order to curry favour and insure imagined beneficial outcomes which are illusory since they do not exist.

These beliefs are socially regressive because they imply that man is not responsible for society, rather that the imagined divine/supernatural is and that they only way to effect change of any kind is to satisfy the demands of the divine/supernatural.

If these demands are influenced by a rational agenda ( such as humanism or scientific or rational concerns ) then this propitiation may be made to be socially beneficial, but left alone magical thinking has no need to include such rationalisms in its practices and need only endlessly satisfy its own imaginary demands.

The problem with science is that it does not enforce morality, and while we, the intellectual elitist liberals, can guide ourselves ethically without the threat of Hell, most persons cannot.

The problem with science is that it does not enforce morality, and while we, the intellectual elitist liberals, can guide ourselves ethically without the threat of Hell, most persons cannot.


That implies that Morality is something which is alien to human nature, something which must be enforced from without, or by enlightened elites.

Morality, of one kind or another, has existed in all human societies and frequently in spite of the prevailing religious or political fashions, this suggests that a base morality of some kind is in fact innate.

Indeed certain and evolutionary factors would force a kind of natural or genetic moral code on humans in order to make our species predilection for complex social organisation even possible.

Superstition and magical thinking, of which religions are the elaboration, are ways of explaining reality which do not look for rational causes, they also seek supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

You really enjoy adjectives.

Now, you suggest that magical thinking looks for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Do you think all religions assume that there are supernatural explanations for natural phenomena?

Ultimately magical thinking leads to an abdecation of human responsibility or involvement in life, since God or the spirits e.t.c. are responsible for creation and its management and therefore humanity has no power to influence or investigate or defy the supernatural. All that becomes paramount is satisfying the demands of the supernatural, propitiating it in order to curry favour and insure imagined beneficial outcomes which are illusory since they do not exist.

There was this theologian, you see. It was very important for him that everyone would be able to see God's hand in creation. So he went and looked for all sorts of evidence in the natural world that indicated to him that this was true. His magical thinking led him to find out all sorts of things about the world. His name, by the way, was Isaac Newton. Now, do you think that he led a life that abdicated his involvement or sense of investigation?

These beliefs are socially regressive because they imply that man is not responsible for society, rather that the imagined divine/supernatural is and that they only way to effect change of any kind is to satisfy the demands of the divine/supernatural.

Again, I will use a historical example that directly contradicts your hypothesis. You may not have heard of Archbishop Oscar Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero). He believed that in order to satisfy the demands of the supernatural, it was required for humanity to be responsible for the ills of scoiety. Liberation theology also has beliefs that are diametrically opposed to what you claim.

Now, either Newton, Romero, and liberation theologists are somehow being religious without doing this magical thinking of yours, or religion and magical thinking are far less inseparable than you think.

If these demands are influenced by a rational agenda ( such as humanism or scientific or rational concerns ) then this propitiation may be made to be socially beneficial, but left alone magical thinking has no need to include such rationalisms in its practices and need only endlessly satisfy its own imaginary demands.

Can you please define 'socially regressive' and 'socially beneficial'?

That implies that Morality is something which is alien to human nature, something which must be enforced from without, or by enlightened elites.

Morality, of one kind or another, has existed in all human societies and frequently in spite of the prevailing religious or political fashions, this suggests that a base morality of some kind is in fact innate.

Indeed certain and evolutionary factors would force a kind of natural or genetic moral code on humans in order to make our species predilection for complex social organisation even possible.

Most persons have a remarkably undeveloped moral code (which you call a "base morality") if fairy tales are not provided them; your faith in your fellow humans is as touching as it is unrealistic.

If these demands are influenced by a rational agenda ( such as humanism or scientific or rational concerns ) then this propitiation may be made to be socially beneficial, but left alone magical thinking has no need to include such rationalisms in its practices and need only endlessly satisfy its own imaginary demands.You have no idea what science and the scientific method are, do you?

Allow me to simply state that these things tell nothing of what you should do, but how it works. If a nuke simply release a vast amount of energy, no freaking science is gonna tell you NOT to drop it on a city. And for good reasons, because if you put science into social problems you'll ultimately forget what it's about, a tool (yes, "political science" or other such "sciences" are responsible for the shitty notion of science people have today which degraded it into absurdity).

And please define "socially beneficial" as I have understood it, it is simply another form of religion adopted by humanists or the majority who thinks it's beneficial... if by religion, we mean the fancy social stuff and morals it has, not the "faith" part.

Kill 1 to save a city? Is that socially beneficial? Is that absolutely "scientifically" good? Where's the experiment to prove this? Or that we don't need to drop a nuke on a city? I thought the experiments only told us that the fission reaction (and fusion) releases a lot of energy... that's all.

You really enjoy adjectives.

Only when they are appropriate.

Now, you suggest that magical thinking looks for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Do you think all religions assume that there are supernatural explanations for natural phenomena?

Yes I do. If a system of thinking doesn't look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, then it is philosophical in nature and not religious.



There was this theologian, you see. It was very important for him that everyone would be able to see God's hand in creation. So he went and looked for all sorts of evidence in the natural world that indicated to him that this was true. His magical thinking led him to find out all sorts of things about the world. His name, by the way, was Isaac Newton. Now, do you think that he led a life that abdicated his involvement or sense of investigation?

OK you don't have to patronise me. I'm aware of who Newton is. The point is that individuals may be influenced by many kinds of thinking simultaneously, Newton was influenced by the humanistic beliefs current during his lifetime, these coloured his religious thinking. The impulse to investigate was not instilled by religion, Newton as you said sought to bring rational ideas to bear upon the world around him and earned much reproach from his more devoutly superstitious colleagues for doing so.



Again, I will use a historical example that directly contradicts your hypothesis. You may not have heard of Archbishop Oscar Romero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero). He believed that in order to satisfy the demands of the supernatural, it was required for humanity to be responsible for the ills of scoiety. Liberation theology also has beliefs that are diametrically opposed to what you claim.

Liberation theology was directly influenced by the human centred politics of the day. The fact that it was suppressed as vaguely heretical by the Roman Church and was held in deep suspicion by it for being too rationalist should tell you all you need to know.

Now, either Newton, Romero, and liberation theologists are somehow being religious without doing this magical thinking of yours, or religion and magical thinking are far less inseparable than you think.

They were applying humanist and rational ideas to their religious practices, as I said before, if the propitiatory practices of a religion become influenced by a rational or humanist agenda then they may become socially progressive, if they are not then the magical thinking asserts itself without the catalyst of inquiring thought.



Can you please define 'socially regressive' and 'socially beneficial'?


I could, but we might end up having to start a new thread. To put it simply "socially beneficial" would describe anything which has the most positive outcomes of a practical nature for the greatest portion of society. "Socially regressive" describes anything which has a tendency to retard the progress of society or which causes an actual regression of society.

Most persons have a remarkably undeveloped moral code (which you call a "base morality") if fairy tales are not provided them; your faith in your fellow humans is as touching as it is unrealistic.



I'm not judging the quality of natural morality, I'm just saying that a base level of what might be called morality exists, purely as a form of grease to make the complex social groups humans live in work.

I must say that I've never felt any urge to force my personal morality on anyone else and therefore feel no need to patronise my fellow human being with fairy tales and nonsense which would persuade them to behave as I want them to.

To put it simply "socially beneficial" would describe anything which has the most positive outcomes of a practical nature for the greatest portion of society.The amount of subjectivity here is astonishing. I am ashamed you can even compare this to science or "scientific".

1) "positive outcomes for the society" -- means either for society as a whole through YOUR eyes, or through each individual's eyes. And if we go by the latter, the amount of subjectivity is multiplied by more than 6 billion.

2) "practical nature" falls short of any objectivity too. If you go by
engineering, then here is a nice quote: Science is pure and holy, it's only the engineers that fuck it up and its meaning.

3) the entire sentence is subjective, hence not above any religious morals. Mind you there are PHILOSOPHERS who think like you, and obviously others who disagree. If you ask me making "science" out of philosophy (but only "selected" philosophies, not all, since some disagree) is what makes it disgraceful and full of shit -- not "holy" and "pure" anymore. :p

You have no idea what science and the scientific method are, do you?

Allow me to simply state that these things tell nothing of what you should do, but how it works. If a nuke simply release a vast amount of energy, no freaking science is gonna tell you NOT to drop it on a city. And for good reasons, because if you put science into social problems you'll ultimately forget what it's about, a tool (yes, "political science" or other such "sciences" are responsible for the shitty notion of science people have today which degraded it into absurdity).

And please define "socially beneficial" as I have understood it, it is simply another form of religion adopted by humanists or the majority who thinks it's beneficial... if by religion, we mean the fancy social stuff and morals it has, not the "faith" part.

Kill 1 to save a city? Is that socially beneficial? Is that absolutely "scientifically" good? Where's the experiment to prove this? Or that we don't need to drop a nuke on a city? I thought the experiments only told us that the fission reaction (and fusion) releases a lot of energy... that's all.


Calm down, and please read what I wrote. I never said that "Science" has any particular insights to divulge on what we "should do".

In fact I never mentioned what we "should do".

And yes in this case I am defining religion by the aspect of it that requires faith.

I don't know why you felt the need to tell me I knew nothing about science or its method, I suspect it's because you didn't read what I wrote and simply jumped on a single phrase. In any event there is no need to descend to that level of debate, have I insulted you ? Called you ignorant about anything ? No.


I'm not opposing science and religion you are. I'm talking about how humanism and rationality influence religion in a positive way.

Calm down, and please read what I wrote.I did, here's what you wrote:If these demands are influenced by a rational agenda ( such as humanism or scientific or rational concerns )I even bolded the thing before :p

In fact I never mentioned what we "should do".Isn't that like the whole point here? I mean of morals and such?

I did, here's what you wrote:I even bolded the thing before :p

Isn't that like the whole point here? I mean of morals and such?


So you read one sentence and one word to the exclusion of the rest of the post and made presumptions about what I was trying to say from that.


"Morals and such" may be your point, but I was trying to discuss something else. But we can discuss morals in a more detailed way, if your prepared to be civil about such a discussion.

Mind you I think we'd have to take that conversation to another thread.

I'm not judging the quality of natural morality, I'm just saying that a base level of what might be called morality exists, purely as a form of grease to make the complex social groups humans live in work.

I must say that I've never felt any urge to force my personal morality on anyone else and therefore feel no need to patronise my fellow human being with fairy tales and nonsense which would persuade them to behave as I want them to.

It is more effective than laws.

No actually I don't really want to discuss that, and I of course understood your point, but in the end what I'm saying is that all these "advances in social changes" are subjective. Like religion of course -- but then again it's why I didn't quote your whole post. Forcing religious people, telling them that other social changes are "better" is like telling, in a very elaborate way and if it was truly serious, why orange is better than purple.

I don't think I can really get into a new thread discussing morals here, since I lack mostly time. This isn't the only forum I post in, and then again my time is limited further these days, probably that thread would rot unless others posted (and by what I've seen in this forum, it's very hot, I mean active lol :p).

Carry on with the thread then :D

I'm not judging the quality of natural morality, I'm just saying that a base level of what might be called morality exists, purely as a form of grease to make the complex social groups humans live in work.
I believe something similar; that, at the least, the biological capacity to contemplate morality and moral situations is obviously a part of humans. From this, we can see that it must have been evolutionary advantageous for a moral sense to develop; and the close proximity of human social life is an obvious reason.

I believe something similar; that, at the least, the biological capacity to contemplate morality and moral situations is obviously a part of humans. From this, we can see that it must have been evolutionary advantageous for a moral sense to develop; and the close proximity of human social life is an obvious reason.

Yes, but the moral sense would not be any more advanced than that possessed by the characters of The Iliad (Greek religion did not concern itself with morality very much).

Yes, but the moral sense would not be any more advanced than that possessed by the characters of The Iliad (Greek religion did not concern itself with morality very much).
Yes; perhaps 'sense' is too strong a phrase.

'Moral capacity' is better.

Yes; perhaps 'sense' is too strong a phrase.

'Moral capacity' is better.


There is a word for it in Evolutionary theory but it escapes me right now. What's interesting about that is that because humans first began to live in successful complex social groups before any evidence for a religious culture can be found it seems that contrary to the old prevailing wisdom, religion has nothing to do with the transmission, development and elaboration of morality.

Yes I do. If a system of thinking doesn't look for supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, then it is philosophical in nature and not religious.

What about animist religions, where god is nature? Are those then philosophical rather than religious systems?

OK you don't have to patronise me. I'm aware of who Newton is. The point is that individuals may be influenced by many kinds of thinking simultaneously, Newton was influenced by the humanistic beliefs current during his lifetime, these coloured his religious thinking. The impulse to investigate was not instilled by religion, Newton as you said sought to bring rational ideas to bear upon the world around him and earned much reproach from his more devoutly superstitious colleagues for doing so.

Noted historians and scholars who have actually studied Newton (http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43808) in depth disagree with you:

Newton’s theological views related to his natural philosophical work at several levels. ... First, Newton was stimulated by his religious beliefs to study nature. ... Newton likely saw himself as a sort of high priest of nature. This religious stimulus to work in natural philosophy, which can be termed an example of a weak relationship between science and religion, did not directly shape the specifics of the content of his natural philosophy. ...
Newton was an advocate of natural theology and thus saw the study of nature as revealing the creative hand of God.

By the way, his theological musings were kept quiet by his friends because he was antitrinitarian, which could get you killed at the time.

Liberation theology was directly influenced by the human centred politics of the day. The fact that it was suppressed as vaguely heretical by the Roman Church and was held in deep suspicion by it for being too rationalist should tell you all you need to know.

Actually, the main theoretical criticism that the Vatican has with it is that it's too Marxist. Are you claiming that Marxism is too rational and vaguely heretical?

And the real criticism is that it was and is supplanting traditional Catholic hierarchy through direct action in the form of Christian base communities.

They were applying humanist and rational ideas to their religious practices, as I said before, if the propitiatory practices of a religion become influenced by a rational or humanist agenda then they may become socially progressive, if they are not then the magical thinking asserts itself without the catalyst of inquiring thought.

Oh, I know what you said. You don't have to repeat yourself.

I'm just trying to figure out if it's true or not. It seems that if we assume that magical thinking exists, and that it is inherently socially regressive, it may be true, but you have yet to provide evidence for any of this.

I could, but we might end up having to start a new thread. To put it simply "socially beneficial" would describe anything which has the most positive outcomes of a practical nature for the greatest portion of society. "Socially regressive" describes anything which has a tendency to retard the progress of society or which causes an actual regression of society.

Is there some way of quantifying this? Can we say, perhaps that the invention of Gutenberg's press was more socially beneficial than say, the suffragette movement?

Or do we base it solely on opinion?

There is a word for it in Evolutionary theory but it escapes me right now. What's interesting about that is that because humans first began to live in successful complex social groups before any evidence for a religious culture can be found it seems that contrary to the old prevailing wisdom, religion has nothing to do with the transmission, development and elaboration of morality.

Successful as in wives were slaves, and war and rape were the main sources of recreation?

What about animist religions, where god is nature? Are those then philosophical rather than religious systems?

Pantheisms like Animism are often described as natural philosophies. Though this depends on how nature is conceived of and whether ancestor worship is involved and whether the specific animism in question is deist or theist e.t.c.



Noted historians and scholars who have actually studied Newton (http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43808) in depth disagree with you:



By the way, his theological musings were kept quiet by his friends because he was antitrinitarian, which could get you killed at the time.

I have read other historians and thinkers who's assessment is different, I don't have a link to them on me, so you'll have to trust me ( or not dependent on how trustworthy you wish to perceive me as )



Actually, the main theoretical criticism that the Vatican has with it is that it's too Marxist. Are you claiming that Marxism is too rational and vaguely heretical?

And the real criticism is that it was and is supplanting traditional Catholic hierarchy through direct action in the form of Christian base communities.

Yes Socialism is a form of rationalism, since it endeavours to approach human life on the basis of observable facts and not supernatural presumptions. One may disagree with its conclusions but they aren't come to by supernatural leaps of faith.

Indeed the Roman Catholic Church objected to the fact that the clergy in Latin America had noticed the defection of millions of young people to rationalistic philosophies and had tried to incorporate them into doctrine. Putting human concerns above those of the Roman catholic god and replacing priests and other clergy who retained the orthodox conception with those with the new human centred ideas.



Oh, I know what you said. You don't have to repeat yourself.

I'm just trying to figure out if it's true or not. It seems that if we assume that magical thinking exists, and that it is inherently socially regressive, it may be true, but you have yet to provide evidence for any of this.



Is there some way of quantifying this? Can we say, perhaps that the invention of Gutenberg's press was more socially beneficial than say, the suffragette movement?

Or do we base it solely on opinion?


The question of whether humanistic ideas have been more socially beneficial than religious ones must be judged on a whole panoply of evidences, some clearly subjective and others observable and objective.

There is little enough need to compare forms of success, but more need to compare examples of failure in order to find out how not to repeat them.

Successful as in wives were slaves, and war and rape were the main sources of recreation?

Surprisingly enough primitive human societies were far less unequal than more developed ones, the need for cooperation for survival is a great leveler, and violence is a last resort since it wastes the most precious resource a primitive society has, namely a human being.

Surprisingly enough primitive human societies were far less unequal than more developed ones, the need for cooperation for survival is a great leveler, and violence is a last resort since it wastes the most precious resource a primitive society has, namely a human being.

Perhaps that is the way you think it works, but you are wrong. Wars were frequently fought for supplies, slaves, or sport. If you read the oldest surviving texts, you will find man's main interest was war. Of course, wars have gotten more destructive over the years, but that is not religion's fault; even the so-called "religious-wars" were political in nature; many saints and even the Pope asked the Crusaders to be more humane, though the Crusaders would not oblige; Cardinal Richelieu fought for the "Protestant" cause in The Thirty Years War.

As for primitive societies being unequal: except for a handful of enlighten groups, such as the Egyptians, I guarantee you most primitives treated women as slaves, often forcing isolation during menstruation, and buying daughters when desired.

I dont exactly have one......uh...Dont they have the chick with the bunch of Arms?

Perhaps that is the way you think it works, but you are wrong. Wars were frequently fought for supplies, slaves, or sport. If you read the oldest surviving texts, you will find man's main interest was war. Of course, wars have gotten more destructive over the years, but that is not religion's fault; even the so-called "religious-wars" were political in nature; many saints and even the Pope asked the Crusaders to be more humane, though the Crusaders would not oblige; Cardinal Richelieu fought for the "Protestant" cause in The Thirty Years War.

As for primitive societies being unequal: except for a handful of enlighten groups, such as the Egyptians, I guarantee you most primitives treated women as slaves, often forcing isolation during menstruation, and buying daughters when desired.



We are at cross purposes, when I refer to primitive societies, I mean ones which existed long before civilisation.


Historical civilisations, are not primitive in the sense I am using the word.


I mean middle and old stone age cultures and before.