Religion and free thinking

[egb_hibs]

It's quite common for people to describe those belonging to a religion as unthinking or indoctrinated.

While there's some like this, I don't think it's the majority or anywhere approaching it.

I'd argue that if anything encourages these qualities it's what is pervasive in society. So, for example, there'd be a lot more religious people that could be legitimately described this way when society was predominantly religious, whereas now, it's more easy to be unthinking in accepting the liberal consensus.

I think that if anything informs religious people swimming against the tide on issues these days it is that having exposure to a religion provides an alternative worldview; a sense that things are not automatically as they are drummed into one by society at large. To this extent I think it's a partial role reversal of the position that liberal freethinkers were in when religion was all powerful.

Take catholics and abortion and contraception for example. If they were unthinking indocrtinated, then presumably catholics would adhere to church teaching on both equally. However, in reality (in the west) hardly any adhere to contraception, but many take a position echoing the church's own on abortion. I think this is mostly for the reasons I describe; people are taking an informed but independent position on the rights and wrongs of each, and deciding that contraception is okay but abortion isn't - the key role of religion regards the latter being a bulwark against blindly accepting anti-scientific mumbo jumbo and inconsistent illogical moral arguments.

I'm not trying to sneak an abortion thread in the back door here, my interest is set out in the title; this is but an example.

Pervasive orthodoxy is what conditions. The most that occasionally glimpsed alternatives provide is a measure of defence against comprehensive conditioning in one direction. We have an ideological state without precedent, and with a fellow travelling media and educational establishment.

this is dangerous, and I would argue that today's free thinkers of any stripe must focus on the rolling back of the state. But I would further argue that this is less easy for non-religious free thinkers to achieve as certain lines of thought have almost total hegemony and i'm not sure what other reserves these folks will have to drawn on.

 

[Mrs Tatie]

It's quite common for people to describe those belonging to a religion as unthinking or indoctrinated.

While there's some like this, I don't think it's the majority or anywhere approaching it.

I'd argue that if anything encourages these qualities it's what is pervasive in society. So, for example, there'd be a lot more religious people that could be legitimately described this way when society was predominantly religious, whereas now, it's more easy to be unthinking in accepting the liberal consensus.

I think that if anything informs religious people swimming against the tide on issues these days it is that having exposure to a religion provides an alternative worldview; a sense that things are not automatically as they are drummed into one by society at large. To this extent I think it's a partial role reversal of the position that liberal freethinkers were in when religion was all powerful.

Take catholics and abortion and contraception for example. If they were unthinking indocrtinated, then presumably catholics would adhere to church teaching on both equally. However, in reality (in the west) hardly any adhere to contraception, but many take a position echoing the church's own on abortion. I think this is mostly for the reasons I describe; people are taking an informed but independent position on the rights and wrongs of each, and deciding that contraception is okay but abortion isn't - the key role of religion regards the latter being a bulwark against blindly accepting anti-scientific mumbo jumbo and inconsistent illogical moral arguments.

I'm not trying to sneak an abortion thread in the back door here, my interest is set out in the title; this is but an example.

Pervasive orthodoxy is what conditions. The most that occasionally glimpsed alternatives provide is a measure of defence against comprehensive conditioning in one direction. We have an ideological state without precedent, and with a fellow travelling media and educational establishment.

this is dangerous, and I would argue that today's free thinkers of any stripe must focus on the rolling back of the state. But I would further argue that this is less easy for non-religious free thinkers to achieve as certain lines of thought have almost total hegemony and i'm not sure what other reserves these folks will have to drawn on.

I don't mean to be rude by any means, and am sure you have a lot of points to make but if I could post something without coming across as horrible, ken what by the time I get to the end of your posts they are so long and wordy I have actually forgot what the fcuk you were on about in the first place.

If you could possibly condense it and summarise it then it would be much more easy to read and answer. Just a suggestion and I certainly don't mean any offence by it pal

 

[egb_hibs]

Free thinking: if you were brought up in Iran/Indonesia/Georgia USA do you think you could free think on religion?

Free thinkers only survive where they have access to the information required AND are prepared to question their indoctrination.

Believe me, I have personal and recent experience of how powerful the local conditions can be. How do you present things to people in a value-free environment, even at school age?

I recently taught history in Georgia USA and caused an uproar when I insisted that the earth was more than the age dictated by the OT bible. The school rector took me aside and asked me 'not to insist' on my understanding of pre-history.

Local conditions with religious involvement can blind people to the truth. It can in fact lay the basis for everything else in their belief system. I consider that the same situation possibly occurs in many schools in the muslim world.

It's all shit, and those of us who agree can only watch, wonder and deplore what will come of it all.

Well I think you are corresponding with my point; which is that free thinking is relative to the status quo; it's not the same in tehran as in london.

I don't mean to be rude by any means, and am sure you have a lot of points to make but if I could post something without coming across as horrible, ken what by the time I get to the end of your posts they are so long and wordy I have actually forgot what the fcuk you were on about in the first place.

If you could possibly condense it and summarise it then it would be much more easy to read and answer. Just a suggestion and I certainly don't mean any offence by it pal

don;t worry. I never take offence, i know what it's like trying to get a point across in a post and am often misread myself.

i agree with you btw; being concise is the manner of the gifted writer and indeed thinker. i'm just a blowhard on a football message board and it's sometimes beyond me.

 

[BurbankHibee]

Pervasive orthodoxy is what conditions.

But does it really ? Is not just the case that the @rseholes that somehow get into a position of authority dictate what that orthodoxy is ?

 

[egb_hibs]

But does it really ? Is not just the case that the @rseholes that somehow get into a position of authority dictate what that orthodoxy is ?

you're talking about how orthodoxy is set (i think). that's certainly partly how it happens in the statist model. but look at the influence of the liberal media (and i suppose in the US the conservative media) they don't have power per se; noone has to listen or adhere. there's all kinds of influencing factors.

for example i think gramsci and marcuse will come in time to be seen as more important than lenin. they have changed society from within.

 

[BurbankHibee]

you're talking about how orthodoxy is set (i think). that's certainly partly how it happens in the statist model. but look at the influence of the liberal media (and i suppose in the US the conservative media) they don't have power per se; noone has to listen or adhere. there's all kinds of influencing factors.

I'm saying that there is only a veneer of acceptance of the orthodox and scratch below the surface, there are few that buy into any orthodox view 100%. Anecdotal evidence I know but even the most regular of church/temple people I know don't believe much of what is put before them and yet will maintain their religious identity.

 

[Mrs Tatie]

don;t worry. I never take offence, i know what it's like trying to get a point across in a post and am often misread myself.

i agree with you btw; being concise is the manner of the gifted writer and indeed thinker. i'm just a blowhard on a football message board and it's sometimes beyond me.[/QUOTE]



Am glad you took my post in the way it was intended because everyone is entitled to their say in my opinion, but as I said your say seems to go on and on and it changes tack half way through the sentence then adds something else on at the end so that there are so many subjects and so many topics the poor fekcer readin has lost the will to live by the end. It kind of loses its worth and meaning.

We all have thoughts and views on a lot of things and wrapping them up in fancy paper doesn't make them better than anyone else's and that's the way you are comin across. Just say what you want to say or ask a question thats it, you will still get the same variety of answers cos we'll still no what you mean honest

 

[egb_hibs]

Religion precludes free thinking.

To think freely, you must lose your religion. It took the West 1000 years to get that far. Don't lose sight of that. All the progress in our awareness of life, the universe and everything has been achieved by brave and often martyred individuals who faced up their religious opponents, backed by the state.

Religion (and I mean religion of all faiths) is a barrier to learning. It is a force that favours discrimination, limitation, censorship, banning, banishment, excommunication, burning at the stake, and many other isms that many of us would shake their heads at.

Religion is a very poor business. It employs people to insist on morals divinely dictated whilst allowing them free access to the unguarded, totally entrusted bodies of our young children. It fires up young men to blow themselves up and create panic and despair. It creates pretexts for all kinds of war. Yet we cannot blame religion for all of that, for even without religious differences we have shown we can fight wars.

It is a poor business, but it is only one business. We fight wars because it is in human nature to do so. We love war. If no one picked a fight with us, we'd go out and find one.

naturally I disagree. i think this is a jaundiced account that includes valid points but to the exclusion of the wider picture. firstly; i will distinguish between the homogeneous lump of 'religion' even if you choose not to. religions are different in character.

but taking christianity; along with greek and roman inputs it is the formative influence of western culture which even gives meaning to our notions of free thinking. i don't buy the post 9/11 desperate seeking of common ground; averroes, for example, may have been muslim, but his ideas flourished in the christian world not in his own.

and western thought; even the way we fight existential wars, is still hugely influenced by Augustine, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and countless others.

and non religious thinking is often as dogmatically bounded as the worst of religious habits. common threads seem to recur; the tendency either to collectivist mush or brutal darwinian rationality. i'd argue that in the bigger picture, that sans the possibility of the transcendent, human thought is actually more fundamentally limited than it is with it.

 

[gun ainm]

It's quite common for people to describe those belonging to a religion as unthinking or indoctrinated.

While there's some like this, I don't think it's the majority or anywhere approaching it.

I'd argue that if anything encourages these qualities it's what is pervasive in society. So, for example, there'd be a lot more religious people that could be legitimately described this way when society was predominantly religious, whereas now, it's more easy to be unthinking in accepting the liberal consensus.

I think that if anything informs religious people swimming against the tide on issues these days it is that having exposure to a religion provides an alternative worldview; a sense that things are not automatically as they are drummed into one by society at large. To this extent I think it's a partial role reversal of the position that liberal freethinkers were in when religion was all powerful.

Take catholics and abortion and contraception for example. If they were unthinking indocrtinated, then presumably catholics would adhere to church teaching on both equally. However, in reality (in the west) hardly any adhere to contraception, but many take a position echoing the church's own on abortion. I think this is mostly for the reasons I describe; people are taking an informed but independent position on the rights and wrongs of each, and deciding that contraception is okay but abortion isn't - the key role of religion regards the latter being a bulwark against blindly accepting anti-scientific mumbo jumbo and inconsistent illogical moral arguments.

I'm not trying to sneak an abortion thread in the back door here, my interest is set out in the title; this is but an example.

Pervasive orthodoxy is what conditions. The most that occasionally glimpsed alternatives provide is a measure of defence against comprehensive conditioning in one direction. We have an ideological state without precedent, and with a fellow travelling media and educational establishment.

this is dangerous, and I would argue that today's free thinkers of any stripe must focus on the rolling back of the state. But I would further argue that this is less easy for non-religious free thinkers to achieve as certain lines of thought have almost total hegemony and i'm not sure what other reserves these folks will have to drawn on.

to encourage free thought we primarily need challenges and then we need the where-with-all to find information and exchange opinion.

I dont think that religion has ever provided anything other than the challenges in the history of western europe. I do not see how it is encouraging free thought now at the very best its peddling a mythology that offers escapism and comfort. Theres nothing wrong with this imo as long as it remains a personal choice. I am not religious as you know but i am in no doubt that i have my own beliefs that perform a similar function. I dont think religious people are brainwashed or unthinking (well not all of them) they are just generally finding a way to help them survive - freedom of thought is a scary prospect because you have to confront real fears.

People today are lazy, docile and willing to be lead because they are comfortable (materially) - that is the circumstance which inhibits free thought - a lack of motivation - whether thats because you believe in a deterministic religious existence or the futility of life without religion its much the same.

 

[egb_hibs]

You are struggling already, and I don't think you have made a single point above that hits home to a 21st century westerner who isn't restricted by the religious indoctrination of his/her upbringing.

How am I struggling; you haven't landed a blow on anything I've said, you're just unleashing the rhetoric.

My point vis a vis the here and now is that free thinking is as it has always been; a difficult swim against the tide. But today the tide rolls in from a different direction.

Free thinking in classical culture, Roman and Greek (and incidentally, all the other cultures unrecorded) was certainly established before the hegemony of the medieval church drove it out in Europe in the middle ages.

I'm impressed by your knowledge of unrecorded cultures. As for the Romans and Greeks, I credited them.

The repressive Christian church so lapsed into state power-worship and lay dictatorship that a revolution displaced and discredited it. So much for free thinking.

the Church is now France?

The likes of Galileo had a lot to thank the Church for, poor sod, and there were a thousand like him.

Yes,Galileo. And oft cited example, usually without any detail of what happened to him and the situation that landed him in trouble.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that at time the church hasn't done what you complain about; just that it's a one dimensional take. Anyone would think that europe, with it's emphasis on reason, enquiry and the dignity of the individual had emerged in a vacuum, without reference to, indeed in contradiction with it's history.

Free thinking? There was scarcely time when the church (in this country and even more so in others) allowed a person to question anything. I can't see how the church, or religion more generally, could be seen as anything other than a comprehensive brake on learning and understanding.

have you had a couple of schweppes last evening fella

As I say I think this in one dimensional and over stated. Anyway, in the here and now; the flower of liberal free thinking has proved to be a chimera - and has led us much as anything you charge religion with, to dogmatic and formulaic thinking; and it's the prevailing formula in our society today. With reference to another thread, one of your closed minded, Dostoevksy, was lampooning all this in the 19th century and so it has come to pass. Perhaps even he did not foresee however that when everything would be permitted, everything turned out to be so small.

 

[egb_hibs]

to encourage free thought we primarily need challenges and then we need the where-with-all to find information and exchange opinion.

I dont think that religion has ever provided anything other than the challenges in the history of western europe.

Interesting opening. I need to think about what you mean here/

I do not see how it is encouraging free thought now at the very best its peddling a mythology that offers escapism and comfort. Theres nothing wrong with this imo as long as it remains a personal choice. I am not religious as you know

I know you believe yourself to not be religious but I know you adhere to mythological worldviews

but i am in no doubt that i have my own beliefs that perform a similar function. I dont think religious people are brainwashed or unthinking (well not all of them) they are just generally finding a way to help them survive - freedom of thought is a scary prospect because you have to confront real fears.

Mmmm. I'm not sure I now know what you mean by free thinking but I think you're correct in your last sentence, which is perhaps why liberal thought has ossified into the most rigid, fragile self censoring thing.

People today are lazy, docile and willing to be lead because they are comfortable (materially) - that is the circumstance which inhibits free thought - a lack of motivation - whether thats because you believe in a deterministic religious existence or the futility of life without religion its much the same.

I think there's a lot of truth in this.