Religion and Culture - what comes first?

[meridian2]

The Nicene Creed is still used by many of the Christian Orthodox religions as well as the Christian religion practiced in the West.

Indeed. It's important people appreciate that within deistic beliefs there is a wide variety, and Christianity itself has differing views on scripture, dogma and tradition. The bible is a mixture of history, poetry, lists, prophecy from various sources, not a single book, and certainly not a Haynes manual or Bradshaw guide. I'm not a biblical literalist, if someone knocks on the door and says in chapter x verse y I should shun menstruating women who eat shellfish on a Thursday, and what am I going to do about it, I would not consider it as pressing as, say, being charitable to the homeless.

"I'm angry at the god I don't believe in and if you believe in him I'm angry at you too" type discussions necessitate an enquiry into exactly which deity has raised the individual's ire and whether we share the opprobrium. Religion is a belief system, a mythos constructed around known facts, virtues and vices which an individual subscribes to because he/she believes it represents a reflection of human existence in the round. If we're on the same page on all that, I'm happy to discuss the thread title.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't believe in magic or the supernatural. That does not mean that physical science has all the answers with a few loose ends to be tied up, nothing in the history of science can suggest such a thing. We may know almost nothing about the nature of reality, for example the role of mind is terra incognita. It's promissory to insist science will not only have all the answers given enough time, but the answers will emerge from exactly the same framework as the currently dominant paradigm.

At this moment in time, the very idea of a "god" requires a belief in the magic or supernatural as there is no evidence to support it.

And nowhere did I state science will ever have all the answers. Indeed the nature of the universe (and the short time the human race has in comparison) suggests that we won't ever know everything.

But that isn't a reason to start believing in a god. Science is about trying to find answers to questions we currently can't answer. If we just accepted everything we don't understand is because of a god then we would have no where near the level of scientific and technological understanding as we currently have (because we wouldn't have carried on looking for the real answers).

 

[meridian2]

At this moment in time, the very idea of a "god" requires a belief in the magic or supernatural as there is no evidence to support it.

And nowhere did I state science will ever have all the answers. Indeed the nature of the universe (and the short time the human race has in comparison) suggests that we won't ever know everything.

But that isn't a reason to start believing in a god. Science is about trying to find answers to questions we currently can't answer. If we just accepted everything we don't understand is because of a god then we would have no where near the level of scientific and technological understanding as we currently have (because we wouldn't have carried on looking for the real answers).

There are a sufficient number of philosophical questions that are not answered by material science, and concurrent lack of knowledge in the role of consciousness not to rule out mind as a primary ingredient in reality.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There are a sufficient number of philosophical questions that are not answered by material science, and concurrent lack of knowledge in the role of consciousness not to rule out mind as a primary ingredient in reality.

Once again though, because Science currently has not answered them does not suggest a god like being. All it means is that we should carry on studying, experimenting and observing.

 

[meridian2]

Once again though, because Science currently has not answered them does not suggest a god like being. All it means is that we should carry on studying, experimenting and observing.

Absolutely, but until science moves away from an exclusively materialistic view of reality into a wider experimental framework (which is beginning in tiny, underfunded and disapproved of areas), the discussion is an ideological one not a search for truth.

 

[miami]

PS why did he send his only son to earth to save us during the Roman period rather than, say, WW1?

Ahh yes, another contribution of religion. Personally I think this one lands on the "good" side of the balance, although some people hate Lloyd-Webber.

Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand.
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.
Why'd you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?
If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.

As religion (which has basically been mankind trying to explain things that it doesn't understand) has been around for so long -- christianity in the last 1500 years in the UK, it's obvious that culture has been influenced by religion. British culture has also been influenced by shakespere, and castles and the English Channel and Dickens.

 

[meridian2]

As religion (which has basically been mankind trying to explain things that it doesn't understand) has been around for so long -- christianity in the last 1500 years in the UK, it's obvious that culture has been influenced by religion. British culture has also been influenced by shakespere, and castles and the English Channel and Dickens.

Apart from the English Channel (arguably), all of those were influenced for better or worse by Christianity.

 

[miami]

Apart from the English Channel (arguably), all of those were influenced for better or worse by Christianity.

Of course they were, and Christianity was influenced by Judism, and Norse mythology, and various other pagan rituals, and of course local politics, which were themselves influenced by things like the coming of the tides and the rising of the sun, which also influenced evolution through the ages

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course they were, and Christianity was influenced by Judism, and Norse mythology, and various other pagan rituals, and of course local politics, which were themselves influenced by things like the coming of the tides and the rising of the sun, which also influenced evolution through the ages

Could you give an example that shows how the Christian religion was influenced by Norse mythology and the time period in which this was said to have occurred.

 

[miami]

Could you give an example that shows how the Christian religion was influenced by Norse mythology and the time period in which this was said to have occurred.

I was thinking of the origins of how we celebrate easter, specifically the easter bunny, which seems to stem from the Germanic Ēostre and the Norse Freyja

 

[meridian2]

Could you give an example that shows how the Christian religion was influenced by Norse mythology and the time period in which this was said to have occurred.

The Proppian (Vladimir Propp, Marxist) reading of narrative holds that there are a limited number of functions to any folk tale. So a magical gift can be an eagle, a gold ring, a secret, and each performs the same role, and this interchangeability holds good for any story. People have run with this idea in a number of ways, and it held sway in folklore and anthropology, and still does in some quarters. I don't think it holds up, and serious professional folklorists I've spoken to think the theory was of it's time.

It's especially popular in ascribing Zoroastrianist motifs to Christianity, again without much to hang it on.

 

[J-2739]

I was thinking of the origins of how we celebrate easter, specifically the easter bunny, which seems to stem from the Germanic Ēostre and the Norse Freyja

The Easter Bunny is hardly anything to do with the Christian faith.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was thinking of the origins of how we celebrate easter, specifically the easter bunny, which seems to stem from the Germanic Ēostre and the Norse Freyja

The Synod of Whitby in AD664 was convened to decide the date of Easter from the two dates which at that time were practised by those following the tradition of Iona and those who followed the tradition of Rome and that pre-dated any Norse incursion into Britain.

It then follows that the feast of Easter was already a known tradition that was one of the bulwarks of the conversion to Christianity.

 

[miami]

The Easter Bunny is hardly anything to do with the Christian faith.

As Paul says, there were many influences on we term christian culture as seen in the UK, just as Christianity has influenced culture. Culture didn't begin when Abrahamic religion started, nor has it died off as Abrahamic religion withers in importance, it's simply a part of the tapestry of human civilisation over the last 50,000 years.

As I'm sure you'll remember from your reading of Vendel period bracteates on Gotland : on the significance of Germanic art, a pair of figures in Schleswig Cathedral are thought to depict Freyja and Frigg, which of course leads into the name "Friday", which leads to "Good Friday".

 

[najaB]

I don't believe in magic or the supernatural.

I thought you professed to be a Christian?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This thread has made me think of human evolutionary processes of Homo Sapiens when appreciation of matters that could be the first understandings of what we term "culture" first surfaced.

 

[meridian2]

I thought you professed to be a Christian?

Supernatural is a loaded term, especially when used in contrast to materialism. Because something happens outside the billiard ball world view does not make it supernatural, or indeed magic. If something is true, surely it's natural?

 

[miami]

This thread has made me think of human evolutionary processes of Homo Sapiens when appreciation of matters that could be the first understandings of what we term "culture" first surfaced.

Ahh, how to define what culture is. Is it just "the following of a cult" - in which case you could define Christianity or Scientology or Pastafarianism as a culture in itself, that's fine, but we have a term already for those groupings. For the term culture itself, Cicero wrote about it, and of course he predated Christianity.

There's always been what we tend to term culture to mean nowadays, it's a common trait in animals for example. What we term 'British culture' is a growth of thousands of years of history.

If you were to come out with a truism like "Christianity is an essential part of the Christian cult", then yes, it's hard to argue with that. If you term culture as something more like 'worldview', then the interesting discussions of "what is british culture" come to the fore.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Absolutely, but until science moves away from an exclusively materialistic view of reality into a wider experimental framework (which is beginning in tiny, underfunded and disapproved of areas), the discussion is an ideological one not a search for truth.

But science IS a "exclusively materialistic view of reality" because it is about observing what happens, making predictions based on that then testing those predictions.

In any case, what evidence do you have that things like consciousness don't arise from something we can at some point in the future scientifically explain? We simply don't know, hence why we do science.

You seem to be under the assumption that science is this ideology that has a particular view. You are very mistaken. Science is the search for truth, because it is about observing behaviours, trying to explain them, then testing those explanations (and throwing them away if they are not proven to be true).

 

[backontrack]

What you're doing is attempting to frame the terms of the discussion, dictate what is and is not evidence, and say which colours are allowed on the canvas. I don't believe in the god you're offering therefore I can believe in none?! Who says? You've taken a vengeful Old Testament progenitor, and insist that archetype has to stand for all and any gods because no others are available? Tell me what triggered the Big Bang (a theory originated by a Catholic priest), how consciousness arises from unconscious matter and I'll trade my ontology with yours.

Agreed. Muslims don't believe in an Old Testament god, so why should clappers?

 

[NSEFAN]

But science IS a "exclusively materialistic view of reality" because it is about observing what happens, making predictions based on that then testing those predictions.

In any case, what evidence do you have that things like consciousness don't arise from? We simply don't know, hence why we do science.

You seem to be under the assumption that science is this ideology that has a particular view. You are very mistaken. Science is the search truth, because it is about observing behaviours, trying to explain them, then testing those explanations (and throwing them away if they are not proven to be true).

This. If something is not currently known about reality then it's because there's not enough information or understanding yet. Using a God-of-the-gaps in the meantime might satisfy the desire for an answer, but it's dishonest to try and pass it off as the correct answer.

 

[najaB]

Supernatural is a loaded term, especially when used in contrast to materialism. Because something happens outside the billiard ball world view does not make it supernatural, or indeed magic. If something is true, surely it's natural?

But surely God - by definition - must be supernatural. After all, He created the natural world so must be outside of and greater than it?

 

[meridian2]

But science IS a "exclusively materialistic view of reality" because it is about observing what happens, making predictions based on that then testing those predictions.

In any case, what evidence do you have that things like consciousness don't arise from? We simply don't know, hence why we do science.

You seem to be under the assumption that science is this ideology that has a particular view. You are very mistaken. Science is the search truth, because it is about observing behaviours, trying to explain them, then testing those explanations (and throwing them away if they are not proven to be true).

Science is a methodology. It used to be called natural philosophy, but as the philosophy of science has been abandoned in science courses, and disciplines are barely on speaking terms with one another, materialism has become the default ideology. Since the advent of quantum physics a century ago, which offered a new role for the conscious observer, materialism should have been more reticent regarding its claims, but a new ideological verve has taken hold and people claim, with a straight face that they "believe in science, not religion", as though the two were competing for the same ground.

There are indeed peer reviewed, published scientific experiments testing the nature of consciousness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY&t=8s

 

[meridian2]

But surely God - by definition - must be supernatural. After all, He created the natural world so must be outside of and greater than it?

Do you believe the progenitor of a natural world bound by apparently immutable laws would have to be beyond nature? If consciousness, not matter, is primary - and there are fascinating inferences that may well be the case - I would have thought creator and created would be the same stuff, rending the terms natural and supernatural redundant.

 

[najaB]

Do you believe the progenitor of a natural world bound by apparently immutable laws would have to be beyond nature?

By definition, yes. He existed prior to the natural world, therefore cannot be bound by its laws (except by choice). As an example - how could He be subject to the laws of causality if He existed before time itself?

 

[meridian2]

By definition, yes. He existed prior to the natural world, therefore cannot be bound by its laws (except by choice).

Which according to the Christian faith he was, of course. Bear in mind we're dealing with a religious belief system, and what those are. In the same way that a novel isn't a lie, and a poem isn't really bad prose, religious faith is not a fairy story. You can disbelieve in the tenets and premise, but it won't be based on its explanatory powers, unless the person is a literalist, and such people really do think novels are lies and poems are word salad. Perhaps the entire forum is inhabited by people who think the highest form of literary endeavour is a railway timetable, love is a series of electro-chemical reactions, and socialising is an evening of computer gaming? In which case an explanation of metaphysics is deeply offensive to their lifestyle and value system.

 

[najaB]

Which according to the Christian faith he was, of course.

Even if God chooses to follow the laws that he created, he isn't bound by them. Hence is superior to nature, or supernatural.

 

[meridian2]

Even if God chooses to follow the laws that he created, he isn't bound by them. Hence is superior to nature, or supernatural.

In the Christian tradition it's more complicated. As my interest in the forum is to offer an opinion, not to educate, I can only suggest you look the ideas up. It'll save me a heap of time, anyway.

 

[najaB]

In the Christian tradition it's more complicated. As my interest in the forum is to offer an opinion, not to educate, I can only suggest you look the ideas up. It'll save me a heap of time, anyway.

Which sounds like, but I'm sure isn't: "That's something that I don't have an answer to, so I'm going to wimp out of the discussion now."

 

[meridian2]

Which sounds like, but I'm sure isn't: "That's something that I don't have an answer to, so I'm going to wimp out of the discussion now."

While it's fascinating that you see internet discussion as a battle for intellectual ascendency, winners and wimps, I really don't have the time or motivation to discuss subjects on which we disagree over basic terminology. In a materialistic world any act of creative endeavour is inexplicable because consciousness is an illusory side effect of brain function and humans lack free will, so all creativity is miraculous, aka impossible. For people who believe consciousness is primary, terms like natural and supernatural do not have the same relationship. The difference is of scale, not type.

Not for the first time I'll say to you, whatever makes you stop is fine by me.