Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Owlswing on November 15, 2015, 12:52:13 PM
-
The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.
Is this title meaningless?
In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none.
-
You can compare religions, certainly - you can compare the claims asserted by a Christian brand of theism with the claims asserted by a Muslim brand of theism, for instance. You can even compare and contrast Jewish theism and Buddhist non-theism in what their respective worldviews say about human nature and human destiny, for example.
I wouldn't take this forum as indicative of the failings of comparative religion ;)
-
Dear Owlswing,
Comparative religion, Karen Armstrong.
A little about the good lady.
http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/01/27/making-compassion-cool/
One way to compare or find something we all agree on is the Golden Rule.
Even secular societies discuss it.
http://www.humanismforschools.org.uk/pdfs/the%20golden%20rule.pdf
Although I have heard that the Wicca version is called the Silver Rule ( "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" ) any thoughts on that?
But it is classed as a golden rule on this link.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc3.htm
Gonnagle.
-
No harder, than a politics course to run. Shaker us right that this is not a forum to judge it as a course.
-
Dear Owlswing,
Although I have heard that the Wicca version is called the Silver Rule ( "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" ) any thoughts on that?
But it is classed as a golden rule on this link.
Gonnagle.
The way that I learnt it was - Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfil, an it harm none do what you will.
In view of the fact that embarrassment is considered harming, it has been, by some, amended to read "An it harm none do what you will, an it harm some, do what you must.
-
No harder, than a politics course to run. Shaker us right that this is not a forum to judge it as a course.
Sorry, I wasn't cammenting on the Uni Courses as such, mearly on what, from this forum at least, would appear to be an impossible job.
There would appear to be no give and take whatsoever, only hard and fast divisions.
-
Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.
-
I think there are those that view it as an us v them on variety of issues including religion, and I tend to avoid those, though on occasion my belief that there is something worthwhile in them encourages me to ask them for more.
Aside from that there are enough interesting posters not looking at a adversarial approach to get good threads such as the recent on on sacredness.
-
Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.
I suspect this might have a lot to do with it being an awful lot easier to treat all religious claims dispassionately and disinterestedly if you have no religious allegiance of your own. If you do have one, by definition you have a bias to that religious tradition otherwise you wouldn't stick to it; I would suspect that it's difficult for any Christian really to take the Martian's eye view of Christianity as opposed to, say, Shintoism. Not impossible but difficult, I would suggest, if you are committed to the view that religion X is true and all others in effect false.
-
One way to compare or find something we all agree on is the Golden Rule.
Even secular societies discuss it.
Yes but only in the context of whether it should be privatised.
-
The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.
Is this title meaningless?
In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none.
Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.
-
Dear Owlswing,
There would appear to be no give and take whatsoever, only hard and fast divisions.
One reason, time :P
Quite a lot of posters have been at each others throat for years, I don't think Bashers or Shaker will mind me using them as a example, but there are many more and sometimes they all kind of mingle, like a form of dance :) :)
Step back from the squabbles and watch, it can be very entertaining, oh and look out for the humour between old hands, sometimes you only get it from knowing they have been at it for years.
Also, watch out for posters that you think are constantly squabbling, when a poster has a problem you will find that it is generally the ones who they have been squabbling with are the first to help.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearest friend Matty,
"I don't need to go back over a load of rubbish (the holy bible)" MATTY
And that is your idea of comparative. Too funny you. Did I ever tell you that my favourite bird is the owl? It is matty, the burrowing owl, they're a HOOT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TL8pSFd-hQ
-
Comparative religion often appeals as a subject to the non religious.
I suspect this might have a lot to do with it being an awful lot easier to treat all religious claims dispassionately and disinterestedly if you have no religious allegiance of your own.
Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.
There is evidence that most of those who are vehemently antireligious have not bothered with it.
-
Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.
What's nonsense about it, exactly?
-
Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.
Any evidence of that?
There is evidence ...
Then provide it.
-
Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.
Any evidence of that?
There is evidence ...
Then provide it.
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists and the self celebrated ignorance of such matters by Richard Dawkins in particular.......and of course the ignorant scribblings of the antitheists here which are afterall the artless parrotings of artless New atheists.......
-
The are courses up to University level with Comparative Religion as their title.
Is this title meaningless?
In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way? It is quite obvious from the contents of this forum that any attempt to do so becomes lost in a miasma of special pleading by each religion and by none.
Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.
,,,,,,,,,,,,now that would be an ecumenical matter.
-
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists
P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?
and the self celebrated ignorance of such matters by Richard Dawkins in particular.......
Evidence needed.
and of course the ignorant scribblings of the antitheists here which are afterall the artless parrotings of artless New atheists.......
People who don't like what you like really get you spitting tacks, don't they?
-
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists
P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?
I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?
-
Find out, Vlad.
-
Find out, Vlad.
Found out.
Courtiers reply assumes God does not exist......Begging the question what.
It assumes that you don't need expertise
Also it depends on how good the analogy is. Myers thinks it is good but then he is an empiricist.
Most people, who are not New Atheists think it's not so good.
-
In what way can the various religions of the world be compared in a meaningful way?
They can probably be more easily compared when you look at the words and lives of the 'mystics' associated with each religion. There are similarities between Christian mystics, Muslim Sufis, Hindu yogis, Zen masters etc. However, when it comes to dogma, the similarities come to an end and you get at least comments like 'Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism' and at worst persecution or death penalty.
-
Find out, Vlad.
Found out.
Courtiers reply assumes God does not exist......Begging the question what.
No, it makes no such assumption. It's a refutation of the widely-held and oft-heard but groundless accusation that the "New Atheists" (whatever they might be) "observably lack religious knowledge" and especially that this knowledge they allegedly lack is crucial in determining if there's a God or not. (Terry Eagleton's spectacular point-missing review of The God Delusion is the exemplar of this kind of irrelevance). You'll find that that's the only assumption at work here.
I think you were looking at something else entirely, goodness only knows what. Try again.
-
Comparative religion is nonsense, another work of the devil much like modern ecumenism.
What's nonsense about it, exactly?
Lowest common denominator theology, relativism etc.
-
Not sure I understand how that explains that it's nonsense to compare the world's religions on an equal footing.
Simply saying "relativism" is surely a near-perfect vindication and illustration of the point I made in #8; if you adhere to one religious tradition as the only absolute truth and the rest in error, what are the chances you're going to treat it as even-handedly as all the others?
-
Find out, Vlad.
Found out.
Courtiers reply assumes God does not exist......Begging the question what.
No, it makes no such assumption. It's a refutation of the widely-held and oft-heard but groundless accusation that the "New Atheists" (whatever they might be) "observably lack religious knowledge" and especially that this knowledge they allegedly lack is crucial in determining if there's a God or not. (Terry Eagleton's spectacular point-missing review of The God Delusion is the exemplar of this kind of irrelevance). You'll find that that's the only assumption at work here.
I think you were looking at something else entirely, goodness only knows what. Try again.
Dawkins fails to shake of the picture of God as a huge kind of chap and relegates him to a force of nature...something about trillions of fingers manipulating individual protons. In fact that is crucial to the thesis. That is not the view held.
Feser refers to the courtier's reply as the Myers shuffle. constructed to defend Dawkins from any criticism in any case isn't it at best a warmed over accusation of argument from authority designed to promote the hagiography of New Atheism.
-
Dawkins fails to shake of the picture of God as a huge kind of chap and relegates him to a force of nature...something about trillions of fingers manipulating individual protons. In fact that is crucial to the thesis. That is not the view held.
Not held by whom? It seems to me fair to say that the concept of a personalistic god with human-like attributes - desires, likes and dislikes, who makes judgements, who has preferences and suchlike, a god capable of dialogue of some sort with human beings - is extremely widely held amongst theists. You need only listen to the way that theists talk about what they think their god is and does to pick up on this.
It's not universal, but it's extremely common. An impersonal, abstract sort of deity has only ever had limited appeal for a relatively small number of people, historically.
Feser refers to the courtier's reply as the Myers shuffle.
Better than than the Feser Five Knuckle Shuffle, at which he's obviously a master.
-
Dawkins fails to shake of the picture of God as a huge kind of chap and relegates him to a force of nature...something about trillions of fingers manipulating individual protons. In fact that is crucial to the thesis. That is not the view held.
Not held by whom? It seems to me fair to say that the concept of a personalistic god with human-like attributes - desires, likes and dislikes, who makes judgements, who has preferences and suchlike, a god capable of dialogue of some sort with human beings - is extremely widely held amongst theists.
But then a New Atheist who cannot think outside the materialist box concludes that since desire. liking, judgment and dialogue must be only traits of material for that is all that exists.....it must be OK to talk about God as a giant force within nature.
But monistic materialism is just one philosophical option and others are available e.g. dualism.
Dawkins has an unshakable belief in his monistic materialism. It is merely that which makes make God invisible. For the dualist God was never conceived as visible and had Dawkins done his homework.....Never presented as that.
You are trying to turn every believer into a fundamentalist literalist.
Feser and others argue that you guys use argumentum ad ridiculum a lot so I am probably being charitable about the self celebrated ignorance of the New atheists.
I agree with them though that in terms of five fingered shuffling the New Atheists definitely have expertise.
-
But monistic materialism is just one philosophical option and others are available e.g. dualism.
Oh, there are loads. The issue is, which ones are internally consistent and justified by the evidence.
If you care about such things, at any rate.
Dawkins has an unshakable belief in his monistic materialism.
News to me.
I think it would be incredibly easy to shake it. In fact, so does he.
You are trying to turn every believer into a fundamentalist literalist.
Nope.
-
But monistic materialism is just one philosophical option and others are available e.g. dualism.
Oh, there are loads. The issue is, which ones are internally consistent and justified by the evidence.
The big tragedy for monistic materialism is that it cannot be established by methodological materialism.
-
Lovely.
-
Comparative religion as something to get into for the non religious is a bit of a challenge because of the dangers of becoming religious.
Any evidence of that?
There is evidence ...
Then provide it.
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists and the self celebrated ignorance of such matters by Richard Dawkins in particular.
What observed lack of knowledge?
-
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists
P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?
I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?
It's what one courtier said when the small boy observed the emperor had no clothes. He criticised the boy's lack of knowledge of tailoring.
There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.
-
monistic materialism
Oh look, Vlad's learned a new phrase. Can you tell us what it means Vlad?
-
But monistic materialism is just one philosophical option and others are available e.g. dualism.
Oh, there are loads. The issue is, which ones are internally consistent and justified by the evidence.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/02/12/fsm/
-
The observed lack of religious knowledge in the New Atheists
P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?
I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?
It's what one courtier said when the small boy observed the emperor had no clothes. He criticised the boy's lack of knowledge of tailoring.
There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.
1: Then there is no point in the plays of Shakespeare if the characters don't exist.
2: If you haven't read theology then you've merely decided a priori that God doesn't exist.
3: The Boy in the story knew what a coat was supposed to be. Dawkins either doesn't have fundamental knowledge of theology or is trying to get down wiv. da kid's by pretending he doesn't.
4: The real courtiers reply situation is anyone who argues that the invisible pink unicorn in spite of it's logical collapse due to it's title is in the same category as God. Oh Jezzer...that's you.
-
monistic materialism
Oh look, Vlad's learned a new phrase. Can you tell us what it means Vlad?
Yes thanks.
-
If you haven't read theology then you've merely decided a priori that God doesn't exist.
Not necessarily, but if you are trying to answer the question of "is there a god", all the theology in the World isn't going to help because it is based on the a priori assumption that God does exist.
The Boy in the story knew what a coat was supposed to be. Dawkins either doesn't have fundamental knowledge of theology or is trying to get down wiv. da kid's by pretending he doesn't.
Richard Dawkins knows what a god is. You do not need to understand theology to know what a god is nor do you need to know how to weave to know what a coat is.
4: The real courtiers reply situation is anyone who argues that the invisible pink unicorn in spite of it's logical collapse due to it's title is in the same category as God. Oh Jezzer...that's you.
Try to keep it relevant Vlad.
-
monistic materialism
Oh look, Vlad's learned a new phrase. Can you tell us what it means Vlad?
Yes thanks.
So you don't know what it means.
-
Richard Dawkins knows what a god is.
He isn't exercising any differentiation between God or gods. Which kind of betrays any differentiation between arse or elbow.
Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.
We have a king, a crowd who know the king is bollock naked but are too frightened, a boy who doesn't realise the possible retribution that could be visited on them if they spill the beans.Pretty piss poor analogy.
Not only does Myers not understand the story he casts Dawkins as the antitheist equivalent of Private(stupid boy)Pike.
What a fucking disaster.
-
Richard Dawkins knows what a god is.
He isn't exercising any differentiation between God or gods.
From the perspective of somebody who hasn't bought into the mythology of a particular religion, they are very much the same. It's only because you have the arrogance of a believer that you think your particular god is special.
Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.
No, let's not. The minute details do not alter the basic facts:
Theology is all about what God is like and what he wants. It's a house of cards built on the unfounded assumption that God exists.
-
Richard Dawkins knows what a god is.
He isn't exercising any differentiation between God or gods.
From the perspective of somebody who hasn't bought into the mythology of a particular religion, they are very much the same. It's only because you have the arrogance of a believer that you think your particular god is special.
Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.
No, let's not. The minute details do not alter the basic facts:
Theology is all about what God is like and what he wants. It's a house of cards built on the unfounded assumption that God exists.
Nice try P but asking us to ignore the story and seeing it as a treatise by H. Christian Andersen on theology is stretching it a bit.
-
Nice try P but asking us to ignore the story and seeing it as a treatise by H. Christian Andersen on theology is stretching it a bit.
The story is a bit of imagery meant to illustrate the point, which you are ignoring as usual.
-
Not sure I understand how that explains that it's nonsense to compare the world's religions on an equal footing.
Simply saying "relativism" is surely a near-perfect vindication and illustration of the point I made in #8; if you adhere to one religious tradition as the only absolute truth and the rest in error, what are the chances you're going to treat it as even-handedly as all the others?
They can't all be true. Only one of them can or none.
-
Not sure I understand how that explains that it's nonsense to compare the world's religions on an equal footing.
Simply saying "relativism" is surely a near-perfect vindication and illustration of the point I made in #8; if you adhere to one religious tradition as the only absolute truth and the rest in error, what are the chances you're going to treat it as even-handedly as all the others?
They can't all be true. Only one of them can or none.
Not sure how you can dismiss the option that different religions are partially true, i.e. contain 'bits' of the truth.
Regardless, how does this bear on comparative religion?
-
He isn't exercising any differentiation between God or gods.
Basic set theory. There isn't any differentiation. The former is one of the set of the latter. As JeremyP has pointed out, those who buy into one specific brand of theism may think it's the only sort, but that's no more than brand loyalty. Nobody else is forced to think so.
-
He isn't exercising any differentiation between God or gods.
Basic set theory.
Obviously not a strength amongst New Atheists.
-
Obviously not a strength with you if you think that God isn't a single and solitary part of the general class of gods. Your approach is akin to saying that although Norway is a part of the much larger set of nations, in fact only one nation exists and that's Norway.
Ridiculous, isn't it?
-
Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.
We have a king, a crowd who know the king is bollock naked but are too frightened, a boy who doesn't realise the possible retribution that could be visited on them if they spill the beans.Pretty piss poor analogy.
Not only does Myers not understand the story he casts Dawkins as the antitheist equivalent of Private(stupid boy)Pike.
What a fucking disaster.
The only fucking disaster here is in your woeful misapprehension of the story and the calamitously inept analogy you've just used. In Dad's Army Pike was a likeable but simple soul, long on heart and short on nous, an amiable duffer. In Andersen's tale the small boy is the one with the courage to pipe up and speak the truth irrespective of consequences.
Sometimes it's almost as though you expend effort to get things as bollock-twistingly wrong as this.
-
Obviously not a strength with you if you think that God isn't a single and solitary part of the general class of gods. Your approach is akin to saying that although Norway is a part of the much larger set of nations, in fact only one nation exists and that's Norway.
Ridiculous, isn't it?
You have to decide whether you want gods to be cheeky wee chappies who fly about the universe(more like leprechauns or fairies) or whether you want them to be the One of Platonism, or the supreme reality sought by philosophy, The perfect being, the ground of being , the necessary being, etc, etc, etc.
Owlswing is quite clear his gods are more like humans and not at all like the Christian conception.
''They're all shit'' isn't a good start for basic set theory is it Shaker?
-
Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.
We have a king, a crowd who know the king is bollock naked but are too frightened, a boy who doesn't realise the possible retribution that could be visited on them if they spill the beans.Pretty piss poor analogy.
Not only does Myers not understand the story he casts Dawkins as the antitheist equivalent of Private(stupid boy)Pike.
What a fucking disaster.
The only fucking disaster here is in your woeful misapprehension of the story and the calamitously inept analogy you've just used. In Dad's Army Pike was a likeable but simple soul, long on heart and short on nous, an amiable duffer. In Andersen's tale the small boy is the one with the courage to pipe up and speak the truth irrespective of consequences.
Sometimes it's almost as though you expend effort to get things as bollock-twistingly wrong as this.
I think you are confusing the boy in the story with antitheist hagiography.
-
Obviously not a strength with you if you think that God isn't a single and solitary part of the general class of gods. Your approach is akin to saying that although Norway is a part of the much larger set of nations, in fact only one nation exists and that's Norway.
Ridiculous, isn't it?
You have to decide whether you want gods to be cheeky wee chappies who fly about the universe(more like leprechauns or fairies) or whether you want them to be the One of Platonism, or the supreme reality sought by philosophy, The perfect being, the ground of being , the necessary being, etc, etc, etc.
Owlswing is quite clear his gods are more like humans and not at all like the Christian conception.
No Vlad; I don't have to decide any such thing. Only those who purport to believe in such things have to decide exactly what they mean by it.
Something for us all to look forward to, eh Vlad ;)
-
Hi everyone,
Starting from a premise that life is accidental and a product of random gene variations and NS....religions will be seen as human constructs born out of fear and human imagination. In this situation, the subject of comparative religions will only be a matter of preparing a multi column chart with various religions and their respective teachings listed down side by side....to be committed to memory.
No one can make any sense of it all except perhaps in the respective social, political and cultural contexts.
On the other hand, if life is seen as a spiritual journey then the first requirement is to understand spirituality, its philosophy and its mechanisms....common to all humans and to all life. Once this is done, understanding religions is a cakewalk. All teachings from the Upanishads, to the Gita to Moses to Buddha to Jesus to Mohammad...and even modern day teachings can all be understood very clearly in a common context relevant to specific social & cultural differences. Everything will fall into place.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Dear World,
A quote from Jeremyp.
There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.
So Vlad wins this debate.
Nice.
Or, or, Shaker might want to argue that Jeremyp is wrong.
Gonnagle.
-
P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?
I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?
It's what one courtier said when the small boy observed the emperor had no clothes. He criticised the boy's lack of knowledge of tailoring.
There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.
This is the basis of most of the things I've posted on this forum.
ippy
-
This is the basis of most of the things I've posted on this forum.
ippy
Yes....we gathered that. But what we are waiting for is an explanation for your positive assertion that there is a God free reality.
-
Which is probably why you are unable to join in, in a meaningful way.
You have to believe in something before you can discuss it.
Well not everyone is like you.
A good point, Rose. I might add to your point, before you can discuss it with any credibility.
-
Not sure how you can dismiss the option that different religions are partially true, i.e. contain 'bits' of the truth.
Oh, even false religions can contain some truth. The devil is clever like that.
Regardless, how does this bear on comparative religion?
All religions are not equal, therefore they should not be treated equally.
-
Ad O
What a terrible view you have of other religions
As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.
-
As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.
All religions are false. The truth will set you free from them.
-
As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.
And the one FACT that you cannot change is that ypour religion is a Johnny-come-lately, paganism having existed at least 20,000 years before your Jesus was born or thought of!
And THAT sticks in your craw like a fishbone.
-
And the one FACT that you cannot change is that ypour religion is a Johnny-come-lately, paganism having existed at least 20,000 years before your Jesus was born or thought of!
And THAT sticks in your craw like a fishbone.
Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve. That humanity departed from that truth, except for a few righteous people, is neither here nor there.
-
Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve.
Didn't happen. No such people.
Now try not to be such a credulous gimp.
-
Didn't happen. No such people.
So you say.
-
So you say.
Not really.
So the scientific method which lets us 'know' anything reveals to us.
-
So you say.
I think you'll find it's a bit more than just me on this one.
-
Then the scientific method has serious flaws.
-
Does it? Go on then: let's hear what somebody who believes in Adam and Eve thinks these serious flaws are.
-
Then the scientific method has serious flaws.
Perhaps.
But you will need to show where it is wrong, rather than just assert.
-
Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve. That humanity departed from that truth, except for a few righteous people, is neither here nor there.
Adam and Eve are as much fiction as are Han Solo and the Gummi Bears!
-
There is a point, it helps you understand where other people are coming from, and how they see the world. Also it helps in your understanding of other subjects such as art, and history.
In the narrow context of "is there a god" there is no point in understanding (for example) what sin is.
I agree that if you want to understand a religion or a culture, their theology can provide a valuable insight. However, no theology is built on sure foundations because nobody has yet determined that there is a god.