Religious belief

[Rusty Edge]

Good for you!

Pumpkin chocolate chip cookies actually sound pretty delicious. Well, not really on my diet, either. Oh well.

[Buster's Uncle]

Bumping, because great thread.

[Unorthodox]

I'm actually rather curious as to how Covid is going to impact the LDS church going forward. 

It's hard to explain the impact of Covid without getting into specifics of how the church operates and things, but I'll try. 

Rewind to last year.  TEH Church reorganizes how it holds it's meeting entirely.  Moving to a new learning model focused more on parents teaching their kids in the home rather than mega blocks of time being required on Sunday.  (services cut to just 1 hour of 'sunday school' instead of 2)

Come February, the first rustles begin to spread in the church as they began to announce alterations to General Conference.  (these are every April and October, and are THE opportunity for members to hear directly from their prophet.)

Sometime in May it was announced that it will be entirely streamed, no in person attendance for the first time since WWII.  Services were entirely canceled.  They recalled the missionaries in the field, and gave every indication of taking this very seriously.  Members took to facebook to protest how wonderful it was that a surgeon was leading this church during a pandemic and how it was clearly prophetic vision to modify the sunday school services so that learning was in place for home school months before it was required. 

End of May, they called for a global fast to contain the virus ahead of general conference.  IMO this was a calculated risk.  A common narrative at the time was that we were going to quarantine for a few weeks and things would be under control after... 

During conference, the prophet called for a second global fast to occur on good friday and stated how wonderful the future would be...essentially doubling down on the first fast. 

To explain to those outside mormonville, fasting is kind of the silver bullet for any illnesses in the church.  Your family, or sometimes even your ward will fast for your well being, and like magic you get better for your illness (or in the case that you dont, it was just your time).  Calling for a GLOBAL fast for a pandemic...it was either going to be a huge affirmation or.... 

Shortly after, quarantine is over and things begin to open up.  Bear in mind, numbers are still climbing, but to the average person things are getting better.  People flock to praise the effectiveness of the fast...

Early May, the prophet issues a video message expressing for members to be cautious with re-openings and that we are generally not out of the woods.  It's very measured in how it puts things.  I think he knew at the time things were going to get worse...but he also couldn't just say that with the general feeling being expressed by membership the fast had worked. 

June.  The church begins re-opening temples (this is where good mormons get married)  Local services are up to the local leadership how to handle.  Guidelines are pretty generic to guide them, but include making sure an online option is available. 

Many members now having not been TO church on Sunday for months...

End of June, the church adds it's name to a multi-religion announcement encouraging face covering compliance. 

Cases continue to rise. 

Mid July, the church issues it's own statement to members to wear your masks....or did they?  And this is where everything starts to unravel.  Allow me to explain the church structure. 

Your local leader is the Bishop.  About 150 families or so he oversees. 
Above him is the stake president.  About 10 bishops he oversees. 
Above him is the 70...THIS is the department the church chose to release the mask statement. 
Above them is the 12.  These are the people seen as leaders of the church, the prophet is the highest among them. 

And the justifications begin with members not following the mask requests, as clearly it wasn't REALLY important as it was just the 70...that means they are free to follow it or not. 

By waiting so long, and releasing from that level department, the church lost control over the mask narrative. 

And it continues from there.  They KNEW they lost control. 

August, more business as usual reopening more temples and returning missionaries to the field despite numbers growing.

Sept - more business as usual.  The prophet posts about covid...specifically mentioning how the worst part is how it making it difficult for family to be present for births...

October General conference...the only talk speaking about covid was how it is a trial that will surely pass and better days are ahead.  Most talks focused on politics and specifically protest and how we should all be kind to one another instead of letting politics divide us. 

This mix of people able to be home on sunday, confused and inconsistent messages about covid is resulting in sharply declining numbers from what info is available. 

I've seen posts by lifelong members myself about how the mask letter is clearly indicating church leaders have been deceived.  Other about how covid does not even exist.  Yet others claiming incorrectly that the church has told members that they will be fine if they follow the word of wisdom (this one I was particularly fond of as they mention a bunch of stuff not even in the word of wisdom)  This with confirmed cases of people getting Covid AT CHURCH, which is now openly ignoring the state mandates of no more than 10 people to a meeting. 

People are at a breaking point in many ways.  The church is among them for some.   

[Buster's Uncle]

Not like LDS to apply only one buttock to a pragmatic survival-time issue.


I am mystified, BTW, how church people have been able to motivated reason their way into supporting the most blatant possible sleazy trash in their politics - like yo, Reagan didn't make any sense, and the Pig makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers for personal life and Reagan look like Jimmy Carter for reactionary mob boss hate politics.  I've always fancied I spoke fairly fluent Republican, having long struggled to understand --- and I don't understand.  I really don't.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Unorthodox]

Not like LDS to apply only one buttock to a pragmatic survival-time issue.

No, not at all.  If there was EVER a time for leadership to come out and more or less hey, we've been preparing for [poop] just like this people, time to hole up and wait it out, THIS WAS IT. 

I am mystified, BTW, how church people have been able to motivated reason their way into supporting the most blatant possible sleazy trash in their politics - like yo, Reagan didn't make any sense, and the Pig makes Bill Clinton look like Mr. Rogers for personal life and Reagan look like Jimmy Carter for reactionary mob boss hate politics.  I've always fancied I spoke fairly fluent Republican, having long struggled to understand --- and I don't understand.  I really don't.

Thoughts, anyone?

It's really not that confusing. 

Last election, you had someone we KNEW was dirty.  Plus a WOMAN, plus a CLINTON.  Churchy folk had a clear cut choice to vote against her.  NOW, you're faced with having to admit you were wrong, or overlook things that are bad and just focus on the 'good' he has done.  From a churchy perspective, the judges are good, and the whole Jerusalem thing is good, plus a constant war against THEM is good (and by and large, [Sleezebag] is a master at leaving THEM vague, letting people insert whatever group they want).  People are THAT averse to admitting they were wrong.   

[Elok]

It's perfectly straightforward, dunno if you'll get it.  Nobody thinks [Sleezebag] is Christian or anything like it.  That would be a perfectly stupid thing to believe.  But this is what one right-wing blogger called "prison-gang politics."  When you're inside prison, you don't side with a gang because you believe in their ideals, you side with the gang because if you don't the other gang will beat the tar out of you.

Traditional Christians (or whatever you want to call this group) have been losing cultural ground for decades, since the sixties at least.  The country is nominally Christian but abortion and pornography are pretty well unrestricted, it's impossible to collectively pray or teach creationism in public schools, and now gay marriage is a civil right.  It would be difficult for cultural conservatism to lose harder than it has in the last few generations.

Even in Reagan's time they recognized the need to retrench; now [Sleezebag] is simply the only shelter in the storm.  [Sleezebag] is a useless liar who nominates conservatives to SCOTUS where they can have a lasting influence even in the face of further cultural change.  This opens them up to further charges of hypocrisy but they have no other option beyond caving to the new cultural consensus.

[Buster's Uncle]

I am the one who predicted the Pig would be laughed out of the first primary debate last time, as the sad joke he is.  Then I predicted that people would stop playing with their own poop at the polls in the general.

It may have become plain by now that none of this was because of me liking Mrs. Clinton.

I grew up among these idiots, I know them, and I still don't get it after they've all but revived cross-burning...

Not like LDS to apply only one buttock to a pragmatic survival-time issue.

No, not at all.  If there was EVER a time for leadership to come out and more or less hey, we've been preparing for [poop] just like this people, time to hole up and wait it out, THIS WAS IT.

-For those who don't know, everybody's supposed to have a year's worth of supplies in the basement - Mormons totally remember the tough times they came from...

[E_T]

plus a constant war against THEM is good (and by and large, [Sleezebag] is a master at leaving THEM vague, letting people insert whatever group they want).  People are THAT averse to admitting they were wrong.   

"Yes THEM, A Lot of THEM, Mostly THEM and not many of US.  That's way We're here and THEY'RE there..." Firesign Theater

[Buster's Uncle]

And, y'know, the scapegoating -a Klux Party practice well-established by the time Reagan was done- is straight out of the Hitler playbook ---and they've certainly gotten their mileage from that evil practice--- but it's sorta GROWN on them to include slightly over half of everyone, and that's just not gonna work for long.

(I tend strongly to think punching Nazis is wrong, but I SO wanna.)

[Unorthodox]

I was having a political discussion with my son last night on why the election was so tight, but it fits here as well when you really dive down into the demographics.  This really was boiled down to Rural vs City America. 

Rural America is HUGELY, heavily Christian of varying flavors, but CITY America has been a melting pot for years, and you're seeing the democrats lean into those city values of tolerance for both various faiths and various lifestyles and recognizing the need for protections for the various different lifestyle choices. 

Meanwhile, you have the rural Christians who have been fed the whole insert belief/lifestyle choice is going to hell their entire lives.  They see these laws being passed protecting lgbt groups.  They see other faiths being represented in govt for the first time.  They see Christian monuments being removed from the public buildings in city centers, and it's not really surprising that they would feel the democrats supporting this have lost their faith/become corrupted and that America is losing it's way.  They cannot even comprehend 'in God we Trust' does not necessarily = Jesus.  So along comes [Sleezebag], who REALLY is the first person to just really ROLL with that sentiment.  Drive that message as a political platform.  And yeah, it's not that they don't recognize he's a deplorable person.  They know he's an evil bullying [progeny of unmarried parents]...but he's THEIR evil bullying [progeny of unmarried parents].  Add in radio and television to reinforce those feelings and here is where we are today. 

Really, it is simultaneously admirable what [Sleezebag] managed to do with mobilizing this group who has felt disenfranchised for so long, and rather scary that he was able to push them so far into fanaticism at the same time.  And this was [Sleezebag] that managed this, acting largely despotic.  Imagine what an actual competent person could do. 

I don't know how to reach these people, really, or make them understand the actual Christian principle of tolerance and love, since it's the preachers as much at fault here...but then, at the end of the day, preachers get paid by telling the people what they want to hear, and this has clearly been what people wanted to hear.  (sorry to be so cynical about a preacher's role, and there are truly many who are in it legitimately for the faith, but also many corrupt ones.) 

[Elok]

The only actual data I've read about distinguishing factors of voting groups this time, beyond the urban-rural divide which has been true (to some extent) of every race since 2000 at least:

1. Voters who prioritized the economy voted [Sleezebag].  Voters who prioritized Covid or racial justice stuff voted Biden.  In all three, the divide was enormous, around 80-20.

2. [Sleezebag] did better among minorities than any Republican candidate in a very long time.  I think it said since 1960 or so.  This includes LGBTetc.  The only group with which he did significantly worse than he did in 2016, per exit polls, was white men.  Note that he didn't win any minority group, he just did better than is usual for GOPers.

No doubt we'll get more facts to work with over the coming weeks, but I suspect 1 is a big part of it.  Biden had a number of economic albatrosses, some of which he tried to but simply couldn't shake off due to association with his party: black bloc looters and rioters, shutdowns, and ocialism-say.  It's at least speculated that he lost Florida because [Sleezebag] scared the Cubans with talk of communist sympathies.  As for fear and anger, I get a fair amount of exposure to bleeding-edge Red rants (all the rebel YouTubers) and they've long since stopped being angry about gay stuff.  Mostly it's ranting about wokeness and its authoritarian tendencies.  Plus the riots and various conspiracy theories.

[E_T]

I agree about the Socialist tag that they used against them.  That and a few other things.  The comments during the Debate about Oil mostly killed Texas going blue.  The Dems arre going to have to do some major soul searching if they want to get the mid terms

[Unorthodox]

Huh. 

So driving to work today, I noticed the Southern Baptist church apparently erected a new cross over the weekend. 

It was purple and oddly shaped and that confused me.  So I went googling to see what the hell the cross is and discovered it's no longer a baptist church.  No more washington heights baptist church, just washington heights.  I think it's the same pastor, but can't be sure and don't really care so much. 

http://whc.faith/

I think that's a creative take on a nail cross, but they are running with it? 



So, yeah, they got a 15-20' one of those out front now. 

[pcangler]

Alright, so I read the question at the top of the thread, and I'm going to put in my two cents in this matter: is atheism a religion, or not?

Well, I think this question depends on what you mean by "religion" and what you mean by "atheism". For transparency's sake, my perspective is that of someone who says: "I don't believe there's a deity the same amount I don't believe in any other mythological being. However, both are possible in theory." To use terminology (explained below), I'm a weak, explicit atheist.

DEFINITIONS

Starting off with "atheism", there are three main definitions that I see getting used:

Sense 1: This one I see getting used casually more than academically, but it's also used to mean what is technically referred to as "positive atheism" or "hard atheism", that is, the claim that deities don't exist FOR SURE. Only includes "Deities do not exist. This is a fact".
Sense 2: Disbelief in deities; unlike sense 1, also includes "I don't believe in deities, but they might exist, theoretically".
Sense 3: Lack of belief in deities; unlike sense 2, also includes "I have no idea what to think about deities".

To expand on this a bit, these can be understood as concentric circles. Sense 3 is broadest, and sense 1 is the smallest circle. Senses 2 and 3 include both "negative", "weak" or "soft" atheism, AND "positive", "strong", or "hard" atheism; the difference being that sense 1 only includes those that are positive atheists. Sense 2 and sense 3 are different because sense 3 includes "implicit atheism", and sense 2, like sense 1, only includes "explicit atheism". Implicit atheism includes those who are too young, mentally deficient, or culturally detached to know or consider deity-concepts, as well as those who don't explicitly make a statement either way. The latter might say that there's a 50/50 chance, or that there's no way to know the odds, or that odds don't apply. Sometimes, this group is referred to as simply "agnostics", causing confusion because many people see agnosticism as incompatible with atheism (as a result of using sense 1 or 2).

Agnosticism can refer to those who say that they don't know and by that token lack belief in deities, or anyone who is a "weak" atheist--or even a "weak" theist (I believe God exists, but not for sure).

Now, how can religion be defined?

Well, this one is a lot more of a jumble. There are also a few ideas in common with various definitions here, though. I see these as the two extremes we have to work with:

Sense 4 (4 for clarity): Religion is only that which involves a belief in supernatural or superhuman controlling powers and involves organized worship/ritual.
Sense 5: Religion is just anything that involves a belief or belief system about supernatural or superhuman controlling powers.

Now, it is my opinion that using sense 4 would imply that none of the above atheisms are religions. None of them are a form of worshipful organization or ritual, and atheism has no definitional aspect implying belief in supernatural controlling power. However, sense 5 is where is begins to get a little complicated. By this definition, some of the above forms of atheist are religions, some aren't. Allow me to explain.

I've essentially marked three types of atheist: the implicit atheist, the weak explicit atheist, and the strong explicit atheist. Starting with the strong explicit ones, this is clearly a stated view which tries to advance deities' non-existence, a view on supernatural powers, as an objective fact. So by sense 5, this is a religion. Non-controversial enough, I think.

The weak explicit atheist advances the same view, but admits that there is some margin for error between absolute certainty. They still assert that the proposition that deities exist is false. This group therefore is a religion by sense 5, holding a belief about supernatural controlling powers.

As for weak implicit atheists, sense 5 doesn't apply to them; they aren't religious by virtue of being implicit atheists. At first, I thought that because some implicit atheists assert that they can't know, they are religious because this implies something about the supernatural. However, unless the individual connects this assertion to a claim about a supernatural force (something found nowhere in the definition of this category), this is a belief about their knowledge, not supernaturalism.

CONCLUSION

Okay, so is the jury out on whether atheists are religious/atheism is a religion? In my view, no. My argument lies in a criticism of sense 5, and of this debate as a whole. When someone asks, "is atheism a religion?", everyone clearly understands that they are not asking whether atheists hold a view about the supernatural. This is because that information is obvious; by most common definitions (in my experience sense 1 or 2) they do; if one is using the uncommon sense 3 they still do, except for the purely undecided.

 An anthropologist observing an atheistic society wouldn't call this tendency religion (in the anthropological sense 4). They'd call it a belief about the supernatural, a religion like sense 5. Another way to demonstrate that the debate is not about sense 5 is that asking "Does atheism include a belief about the supernatural?" is silly to ask. Whereas "Is atheism a religion?" makes more sense to wonder. This is why sense 5 sucks, because the term "religion" is vapid and lends itself to be distorted, but saying "belief about the supernatural" is much more accurate, and this accuracy very easily would make the debate more clear. Another reason sense 5 is bad is because it's rarely used outside of debates about definitions. Most thoughts about religion imply a belief in deities. Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary includes this provision. "Irreligious" is a common catch-all term that includes atheists. It fits well, one must admit. So sense 5 sucks in this case.

So the debate is more specifically concerning whether atheists share religious traits, such as worship, a common basic doctrine, and importantly, including and requiring faith. Essentially, it's "Is atheism religious in nature?"

I don't know exactly why people ask this. The answer is no, it's not religious in nature. But I strongly suspect it has something to do with the perceived victim status of religious groups in the US (sorry to be US-centric, but it's all I know). It's a way of leveling the playing field. Atheists often claim to base their beliefs on science and reason and not on faith, an idea which may make people feel as though atheists are taking some kind of "epistemological high ground". Religious people want to assert that there's nothing special about atheism as being especially rooted in rationalism, so they classify it as religion. Hence the debate.

Some atheists may require faith beyond natural inquiry (science) to believe that there aren't any deities. Positive atheists in particular may be this way. If this is true, it still isn't a good reason to call something religious in nature. One may have faith beyond science in metaphysical dualism, or another philosophical concept, like Platonic idealism or physicalism. This person couldn't ever be reasonably called religious by the token that they have faith past science in these things; nor is dualism a religion. In order to be religious, one must also commit to organized worship and common doctrine.

Atheism's definition does explicitly include some who adhere to a doctrine: that there are no deities. However, atheism is not defined to imply organized worship or ritual. Importantly, it's also not defined to include faith, nor is faith mentioned in any of the above senses of atheism. This is because, although atheists may have faith in certain things, it's simply too broad of a category to call the whole thing related strongly to faith.

So atheism isn't a religion, in the common sense. It is a belief about supernatural controlling powers. But this sort of specificity damages what some religious people want by calling atheism a religion (belief about supernatural controlling powers), which is to change the perception of atheism in society, namely by making it another in the line of faiths to choose from. Some atheists (in the broadest sense) go along with this, probably in hopes of creating a more egalitarian space where people feel equal to one another. They don't want anybody saying out loud that they have an epistemological high ground, such as science or empiricism. The perception of militant atheism is another fear, as we unbelievers understandably hate the trope of atheists as intolerant, ignorant, hateful fools who are just fed up with life or something. See the God's Not Dead series. Popular atheist figures such as Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens may add to the problem, since the widespread criticism they receive from the offended religious means some atheists try to distance themselves.

So here's my message to fellow atheists: please don't lend credibility to the view of atheism as a religion. This permits distortion of what atheism is and isn't. I've said that I think this debate is about religious people disliking how atheists carry themselves, as having an epistemological advantage or holding a belief in some way better than religion. So here's what I don't get: if you are an atheist, you definitionally believe that religious people are mistaken to a significant extent. You'd most likely agree that there is a categorical difference between faith-based belief and scientific belief, and that scientific belief is more reasoned. This is why you should also agree that atheism does have an epistemological advantage. In other words, an atheist should say that there is something special about atheism: that it's the accurate or correct position. Therefore, you shouldn't be okay with categorizing atheists as religious people, since it's:

a) an imprecise use of language, and
b) a (well-meaning) attempt to misrepresent atheists, if you'd agree that atheism has an epistemological advantage

If you're not an atheist, I can't appeal to your belief that atheism is a better belief. Rather, I can simply request that you go about this debate--which I see as essentially asking whether atheism has certain epistemologically relevant hallmarks of religious belief--more accurately. You could say that it's not a religion if atheists don't knowingly use faith, but that it necessitates a use of faith to be consistent. This, to me, is much more productive than semantic arguments about definitions. We could then discuss why atheism requires faith, or why not.

Referring to atheism as a religion can also be a bludgeon for certain creationist causes in the US--for example, if atheism is religious, what about Darwinism, or the age of the earth? We all know the implications for education and science. Whether religious or not, it makes sense that preventing this from being used as a tool to damage the standing and influence of so-called "atheist religious doctrines", namely, scientific doctrines (to be clear, they are not inherently atheistic) would appeal to both the religious and not. To me, that's the big reason why this debate matters--because politicians and school boards have and will use this classification to harm rationality in our society.

I hope this will be unnecessary, but do understand that I have no less respect for the religious, even if I have the gall to tell you I think they're wrong.

People who are of religious faith and not--please tell me what you think about this.

[Elok]

I don't think I have anything to add that I didn't say ... what, six years ago?  Whenever the OP was posted.  Defining religion in terms everyone agrees on, inclusive of everything, is a pain in the rear, and it's just not a productive angle of conversation to pursue.  A lot of the time it's just trolling.