When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?

[Greatest I am]

When you reach the age of reason, will you reject supernatural religion?

Or will you seek a moral religion to replace the immoral one you now follow, if you happen to be Christian or Muslim?

Or will you let your faith hide the truth of the immorality of your God?

Martin Luther.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

Regards
DL

[Jamie in Chile]

Reason and faith, rather than reason and religion, would seem to be opposites. Reason and religion may be compatible, at least in theory, for example if strong evidence of a God were produced. However in practice I do think reason and religion tend to be mostly opposed.

It is a bit harsh to describe Christianity and Muslim as immoral. There is a lot of flat out immoral nonsense in them if taken literally, but at their core they are more characterized in my opinion, by silliness, backwardness, ignorance, stubborness and refusal to change, and not exactly evil or immoral at their core.

Religion is 1000 year old morality being judged by present day standards. The holy books haven't changed much in say 1000 years, but human morality has. They look immoral to us because morals improve over time. In 1000 years people may judge us as quite immoral for our treatment of animals and the environment, or some other thing we are doing without even realizing it.

I think your Martin Luther quotes are from the dude from the middle ages, not Martin Luther King 20th century civil rights activist. Just incase anyone wasn't sure.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think for the most part the scale is probably tipped toward the immoral; but it's a clumsy and inconsistent immorality, since there's good and bad mixed together. It's not a very devoted immorality, because it's not trying to be immoral.

I agree with Sam Harris in that what demonstrates this overall trend is those who practice the faith (of the largest denominations anyway) with the most fervency/extremism (not necessarily the ones who cherry pick or barely practice).
Islamic (Sunni or Shia) or Christian flavored Deists who interpret things metaphorically or in modern context are a very different kind of thing, but there's a strong argument to be made that these are cases of having less of the substance in question present (the dogma/religion).

Compared to Extremist Christians and Muslims who both can tend to terrorism and violence, extremist Jains sweep the ground in front of them to avoid crushing insects. More Jainism doesn't create more violence, but more fundamentalist religions of other sort tend to.

Of course, Islam is not one thing; there are many different sects and offshoots, and they can't all be measured by the same implications of extremist Shia and Sunni practices.
For example, there are strong historical arguments to be made that, in truth, Ibadi is the most authentic Islam, and it isn't associated with terrorism at all.
And then there are very strong theological and esoteric arguments to be made for Sufism being the most authentic Islam, it's leaders being almost radically anti-terrorism.

I think our best argument against radical Islam is theological support of alternative branches that don't have such inherent problems with terrorism and violent extremism. Recognizing these as the True Islam™ rather than referencing Sunni and Shia traditions as Harris does and lending them more credibility is probably the path of least resistance.
Or just leave everybody to be Qur'anists in a new protestant revolution and find a way to end reliance on Hadith.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Did Martin Luther actually say that?!

[ModVegan]

Did Martin Luther actually say that?!

Martin Luther said a bunch of things that would make your hair stand on end. But he also said that to go against the dictates of one's conscience is "neither right nor safe." I think he should have stuck with that one. MY conscience tells me that worshipping a bloodthirsty ancient desert bogeyman who tells me to stone disobedient children just so he won't burn me in hell is a pile of horse manure.

[Greatest I am]

Reason and faith, rather than reason and religion, would seem to be opposites. Reason and religion may be compatible, at least in theory, for example if strong evidence of a God were produced. However in practice I do think reason and religion tend to be mostly opposed.

It is a bit harsh to describe Christianity and Muslim as immoral. There is a lot of flat out immoral nonsense in them if taken literally, but at their core they are more characterized in my opinion, by silliness, backwardness, ignorance, stubborness and refusal to change, and not exactly evil or immoral at their core.

Religion is 1000 year old morality being judged by present day standards. The holy books haven't changed much in say 1000 years, but human morality has. They look immoral to us because morals improve over time. In 1000 years people may judge us as quite immoral for our treatment of animals and the environment, or some other thing we are doing without even realizing it.

I think your Martin Luther quotes are from the dude from the middle ages, not Martin Luther King 20th century civil rights activist. Just incase anyone wasn't sure.

A good read. Thanks.

To your ---- "However in practice I do think reason and religion tend to be mostly opposed."

As you said above, our morality has evolved and I think it will express itself in churches that are envisioned by this fine female thinker. More of a social church than an idol worshiping cults like Christianity and Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRtJPSmI9pY

Keep up the good thinking.

You are worthy of being a Gnostic Christian if you are ready to be hated.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I think for the most part the scale is probably tipped toward the immoral; but it's a clumsy and inconsistent immorality, since there's good and bad mixed together. It's not a very devoted immorality, because it's not trying to be immoral.

I agree with Sam Harris in that what demonstrates this overall trend is those who practice the faith (of the largest denominations anyway) with the most fervency/extremism (not necessarily the ones who cherry pick or barely practice).
Islamic (Sunni or Shia) or Christian flavored Deists who interpret things metaphorically or in modern context are a very different kind of thing, but there's a strong argument to be made that these are cases of having less of the substance in question present (the dogma/religion).

Compared to Extremist Christians and Muslims who both can tend to terrorism and violence, extremist Jains sweep the ground in front of them to avoid crushing insects. More Jainism doesn't create more violence, but more fundamentalist religions of other sort tend to.

Of course, Islam is not one thing; there are many different sects and offshoots, and they can't all be measured by the same implications of extremist Shia and Sunni practices.
For example, there are strong historical arguments to be made that, in truth, Ibadi is the most authentic Islam, and it isn't associated with terrorism at all.
And then there are very strong theological and esoteric arguments to be made for Sufism being the most authentic Islam, it's leaders being almost radically anti-terrorism.

I think our best argument against radical Islam is theological support of alternative branches that don't have such inherent problems with terrorism and violent extremism. Recognizing these as the True Islam™ rather than referencing Sunni and Shia traditions as Harris does and lending them more credibility is probably the path of least resistance.
Or just leave everybody to be Qur'anists in a new protestant revolution and find a way to end reliance on Hadith.

I hear you on divisions, but this lady says the majority do not really matter and that is why, if they fly the star and crescent, they are all facilitating the existence of the bad ones.

It is not for outsiders to divide the good Muslims from the bad ones. It is to good Muslims to denounce Islam all together and stop flying their flag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Did Martin Luther actually say that?!

Google will tell you that he did.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Did Martin Luther actually say that?!

Martin Luther said a bunch of things that would make your hair stand on end. But he also said that to go against the dictates of one's conscience is "neither right nor safe." I think he should have stuck with that one. MY conscience tells me that worshipping a bloodthirsty ancient desert bogeyman who tells me to stone disobedient children just so he won't burn me in hell is a pile of horse manure.

The old word in Gnostic Christianity for what you describe is demiurge. Not that we believed in anything supernatural, but we wanted to shame Christians for following an immoral genocidal son murdering God.

There is no shaming Christians though. They have chosen a God of war and their fear of the other won't let them let that immoral demiurge.

Regards
DL

[brimstoneSalad]

The reference you gave is from a fundamentalist Christian organization leader. They want Islam annihilated for their own theological reasons; they aren't particularly interested in pragmatic peace.

I hear you on divisions, but this lady says the majority do not really matter and that is why, if they fly the star and crescent, they are all facilitating the existence of the bad ones.

Quite a claim. 1. That they're all flying that symbol (they aren't), and 2. That doing so when in radical opposition to violence and terrorism isn't actually in competition with the bad ones but supporting them (WTF?).
Most people killed by violent Jihadists ARE Muslims of other sects or practices. Sufis get a lot of hate and violence from other sects. Sectarian violence comes from the understanding that there IS competition with respect to which ideologies hold title to the True Islam. The extremists know this.

It is not for outsiders to divide the good Muslims from the bad ones. It is to good Muslims to denounce Islam all together and stop flying their flag.

This is like the difference in fighting an infection with antibiotics vs probiotics.
Were Islam a small enough movement that it could just be crushed and eliminated in any practical way, you might make the argument that they need to reform themselves or have their faith annihilated. But that's not the world we live in; Islam is huge and closely tied into the culture of billions.
Inserting and promoting better memes is probably a more viable way to fight extremism and violence. Particularly when those memes already exist as a substantive portion of followers.
It's potentially much easier to convert somebody to Ibadi or Sufi Islam, or Qur'anism, than to convert them to atheism.