Shooting Fish in Barrels

[cnorman18]

For some years now, I have observed a very great many threads that attempt to debate, or disprove, cast doubt upon, or otherwise dispute the beliefs or claims or value or morality or truth of religion. They have been popping up thick and fast of late, in several subforums, taking various tacks that all seem to center around the same assumptions. That is, virtually all of those threads appear to address fundamentalist Christianity of the Biblical-literalist variety, and for the most part seem cognizant of no other religious traditions at all.

When this is pointed out, the members who post these threads seem to me, after some ten years of posting on this forum and others, to fall into two groups:

Those in the first group say that they are quite consciously addressing ONLY fundamentalist Christianity of the most dogmatic and repressive kind, and that disputing that variety of religion is where their interest lies, and that they do not intend to consider or debate other approaches. This is said to be for various reasons; to wit, that that variety of religion is (a) the most pervasive, (b) the most influential, (c) the most pernicious, et cetera, and no other faiths are worthy of attention for those reasons; sometimes it is admitted that there are other iterations of religious belief or practice that are not so toxic and objectionable.

I think that's a reasonable approach; but in that case, I would think it would be a matter of clarity, if not simple intellectual honesty, to specify that one is only addressing dogmatic, fundamentalist Biblical literalism, and not religion without qualification.

I have also rather frequently dealt with members of the second group, on this forum and others; those who insist (ironically against both objective fact and logic) that any and all varieties of religious belief ARE equivalent to fundamentalist Christianity, and that there is no essential difference between any of them. Strangely, I have also seen the complete inverse of that claim, to wit, that any variety of religious expression that is NOT dogmatic, literalist, repressive, anti-science, etc., is not really religion at all, and that those of us who do not believe in those ways are either lying, closet atheists, or are on our way to becoming atheists.

Both of those claims are objectively and verifiably false, and in my experience those who insist on maintaining either (or, not infrequently, both) are just as dogmatic and doctrinaire in their own way as any Bible-thumping fundamentalist. There is only one correct way to think, and that is MY way -- even when one is thinking about religion. Even though I do not believe in it, I will make pronouncements which may not be questioned about how and what religionists must think and believe.

I have found it about as futile to attempt to debate the matter with them as it is to debate Young Earth Creationism with a Young Earth Creationist. The dogmatic mind is a closed mind, and theres little point in attempting to debate a person who assumes a priori that he knows the Truth, and ignores or dismisses everything you say in the firm and certain knowledge that you are either an obstinate sinner who clings to his sin, or an irrational fool who clings to his superstitious foolishness and is either lying about it or attempting to confuse the issue. Peace to both kinds of dogmatists; I have better things to do. Dogmatists, religious or antireligious, are not really interested in debate, only preaching, and I am not addressing them here.

But; For the first group, I propose that there is very frequently -- though not always -- another reason for concerning oneself exclusively with repressive, literalist fundamentalism in debate: It is the easiest kind of religion to argue against. The arguments in favor of it are easy to counter, and the arguments against it are easy to mount. Besides, its safe and fun -- the intellectual equivalent of beating up ten-year-olds.

Okay. But the way I learned it, shooting fish in barrels does not make you a master fisherman.

There are a number of enlightened liberal religious traditions and approaches, including some Christian ones, which teach and practice virtually none of the problematic dogmas and behaviors which one associates with literalist, fundamentalist Christianity; virtually none of those practices or teachings are found in modern Judaism, either. And yet, few are willing to extend their disputes with religion to these liberal and nonrepressive iterations of religious faith, without applying the transparently fallacious arguments outlined above -- and yet continue to insist that their argument is with RELIGION ITSELF and not only with the toxic varieties of it which they address and refer to in every post.

I have said here, many times, that there is no such thing as "religion." There are only religions, and there is not a single belief, practice or attitude that is common to them all. That FACT ought to have some bearing on this matter, in my opinion.

Question for debate:

Is it intellectually honest to claim to argue against "religion" when one is only arguing against certain varieties of religion -- and simultaneously refusing to engage with, or perhaps even admit the existence of, other varieties of religion which are not subject to one's complaints?

Is this tendency caused, at least in part, by the fact that repressive fundamentalist Biblical literalism is the easiest variety of religion to argue against?

[cnorman18]

Historically more philosophical discourses in atheism has focussed on the God of Classical theism:-
http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A1113445

There are five qualities that the God of classical theism is meant to have. These are:
1. Transcendence
2. Omnipotence
3. Omniscience
4. Omnipresence
5. Absolute Benevolence

I frequently speak of "assumptions" about the nature of God in terms of "claiming to know things that no one can know." This list is a pretty good example of that.

The Jewish religion has no teachings to this effect; in fact, it is formally said that God is "undefined." The great rabbi and physician Maimonides attempted such a set of definitions as part of his famous 13 Points of Faith, but they were disputed -- every one of them -- from the day they were published in the 12th century. All of those you give here did not even make that list, most especially the last.

Since Jews are said to be the first "ethical monotheists," it's hard for me to agree that the list given here constitutes "classical theism." Some academician's idea of it, perhaps.

...or on the classical arguments for or against God.

And Jews don't waste a lot of ink or thought on that either. "Belief," as in "intellectual assent to a set of statements about the supernatural or spiritual aspects of 'reality'," is of little if any importance in the Jewish religion; such an approach to belief is acceptable, but not required, and many Jews don't even bother to think about it very much. The concern of my religion is much more with what one DOES; what one "BELIEVES" is left up to the individual, and has no impact on the worth or "salvation" of that individual (the last concept, "salvation" in the Christian sense of "going to Heaven," is foreign to Judaism; there are no formal teachings on that subject either). There are some beliefs which are forbidden, but none which are required, which is, it seems to me, the definition of "dogma." Judaism has none.

It is only recently that a lot of atheist discourse has shifted to the more fundamentalist religions as many has realized that that is where most believers exist. Also I guess the main area of conflict lies between atheism and more fundamental systems of religion and that's why the debate questions are mostly addresses there.

As a matter of historical accuracy, neither "atheism" nor "fundamentalism" existed until relatively recently; both are creations of the modern world. Atheism, in the modern sense, simply did not exist as a "belief option" before the Renaissance, and Christian fundamentalism did not exist prior to the late 19th century and was not "organized" until the 1920s. Similarly, Orthodox Judaism did not exist as a distinct and separate "branch" of Judaism till the early 19th century as a reaction to organized efforts at "reform"; before that time, Judaism was pluralistic, allowing many diverse approaches to the issues of belief and "theology." In the liberal branches, it still is.

Both fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews claim that they hold the "original" or "true" doctrines of their respective faiths; but those are modern, and anachronistic, claims in both cases, and generally false and self-serving ones. Pluralistic, nondogmatic, and generally "liberal" views are very much the historical norm in Judaism, and are not a modern development; and Christianity was similarly tolerant and pluralistic in its beginnings before it was more or less forcibly codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Even after that, it was and remained much more pluralistic, even before the Reformation (which was a pluralistic movement by definition), than "fundamentalist" Christian has been in only the last century or so.

Sorry about the history lesson, but the common assumption that "liberal religion" is a modern, and in fact recent, phenomenon, and that rigid dogmatism is the original and normative form, actually turns history on its head.

I am personally aware that liberal systems exists but I do not think there will be fundamental sources of conflicts with them that could start a debate. I cannot speak for others.

I have had any number of debates with both atheists and fundamentalists over whether "religion" requires or should require belief in a conventional concept of a supernatural, personal God, belief in the "supernatural" at all, and/or a literal reading of the Bible. It has always struck me as very strange that so many "hard atheists" and hardcore fundamentalists stand united in the conviction that "religion" by definition entails belief in all three of those dogmas, and often many more. My religion, modern Judaism, has no such dogmas, and is concerned with more important things -- like real life in THIS world. There's a topic for you.

To cut to the chase, so to speak, I personally think that the endless debate over "proving that God exists" is about as important as "proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." "God" is a mental construct with which we think, not unlike other mental constructs like "society" or "morality" or "good and evil." Whether or not any of those, including God, actually refers to a discrete entity or objectively, materially "real" aspect of reality is not, to my mind, going to be conclusively or verifiably determined anytime soon. Sometimes I think as if God were an Entity of some unknown kind; sometimes I think as if the word is pure metaphor, or symbol, or an undefined Force or Principle. I know of no rule or law that says I have to firmly define that mental construct in any of those ways, and I see no reason whatever why I should have to. In point of fact, I don't. Some may say that a hard-and-fast definition of God is somehow necessary or required, but I don't think that's true, either. We Jews have somehow managed without such a definition for three or four thousand years, thanks very much, and I don't think we're going to start jumping through those academic and theoretical hoops now.

[cnorman18]

When people are new to a topic, they tend to generalize about it. When people make incorrect generalizations, they ought to be corrected. And since your religion has pretty much nothing to do with the fundamentalist side of things, I don't see that you need to worry too much about hasty generalizations about "religion" that people make. It's just due to a lack of interest and awareness in such traditions as yours. It's like an introductory course for a subject, people are going to come in with a lot of popular misconceptions that will need to be addressed. All you can do is keep raising awareness where you can.

I agree. I don't "worry too much" about these generalizations; I'm just doing my bit to speak up and correct them in order to raise awareness of them, as you indicate here. I'm glad you see my point. Seriously.

I'm just saying it doesn't follow that because someone is interested in debating creationism they should care about religious perspectives on peace, justice, truth, etc.

And I never said that they should; my point was that there ARE things to talk about vis-a-vis "rational religion," though some may bristle at that term. I'm as opposed to "creationism" as anyone here, and have often compared it to the geocentric theory of the Solar System.

That's not what attracts most people's interest, most people are interested in discussing beliefs that they perceive to be irrational.

And that's the part I don't quite get. Of course it's satisfying to debate irrational people -- and as I said, it's also rather easy for those who appreciate actual, rational thought and actual science. But sometimes I think there is little point to it, other than sport. I suppose one could "debate" the geocentric theory too, but the pointlessness of that, I trust, is more clear.

It sucks if you're hanging around here and constantly seeing new people with the same stereotypes, and you're doing a service by correcting at least some of them. I think as long as religion keeps making headlines for all the wrong reasons this is going to be the state of things, though (unless there were more comprehensive religious education in schools).

I agree. I'm still here, aren't I?

I disagree that arguing with some religion is especially easier. It isn't like liberal religious beliefs have strong arguments or evidence supporting them that are difficult to address.

Oh? Are we once more assuming that the only thing to debate is whether or not the "claims of objective fact" on the part of liberal religion are true or false? Sure sounds like it.

Like I said, there are other things to talk about; but they will never be talked about as long as religions are assumed to be all the same.

They just make fewer claims and are less enthusiastic to force their beliefs on others.

Seems to me that those facts themselves are worth noting, and in a positive light, as opposed to being mere grounds for dismissal. Gosh, maybe they could even be discussed.

Isn't the existence of alternatives to fundamentalist beliefs other than atheism worth talking about from time to time? Or is atheism the only permissible choice?

If I'm going to debate bigfoot, I want to debate with people who think bigfoot is or might be real. I don't have the interest to debate against people who just think bigfoot is a really special metaphorical cultural phenomenon that we can all learn a lot from.

Now THAT is "trivializing." I think there might be a BIT more to learn from rational religious perspectives than from belief of whatever kind in Bigfoot, and I think that those perspectives might have just a bit more rationality and serious thought behind them. Once again; equating religious belief of any and all kinds with belief in Bigfoot, or leprechauns, or flying pink unicorns, is both begging the question (i.e. assuming that ALL religious beliefs are both false and worthless), and, not incidentally, rather insulting.

Sorry. I have no intention of folding my hands and keeping my "trivial" complaints to myself. I can understand how you might regard my observations here as "trivial"; stereotyping is typically not regarded as a problem except by those who are being stereotyped and dismissed.

If people want to talk about these aspects of religion, that's fine. People can and should bring religious perspectives to discussions of peace, justice, truth, etc. so long as they are not given any special consideration simply because they are religious.

And I've never requested, even by implication, anything resembling that either. ALL ideas have to stand the test of open debate and critical questioning. My objections are to assumptions about "religion" that are rather often subjected to neither.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

That's not what attracts most people's interest, most people are interested in discussing beliefs that they perceive to be irrational.

And that's the part I don't quite get. Of course it's satisfying to debate irrational people -- and as I said, it's also rather easy for those who appreciate actual, rational thought and actual science. But sometimes I think there is little point to it, other than sport. I suppose one could "debate" the heliocentric theory too, but the pointlessness of that, I trust, is more clear.

To be completely honest, I am attracted to religious debate forums for the exact same reason that I have been attracted to forums on general supernatural beliefs like ghosts and psychics, and conspiracy theorists and the like. I want to understand how people go about rationalizing what seems so irrational to me.

Also I think you should recognize by now that people see a real utility in arguing against vocal and influential religious opinions that have a negative influence in society. Especially in places where religion is still a dominant factor in political discourse.

I am personally aware that liberal systems exists but I do not think there will be fundamental sources of conflicts with them that could start a debate. I cannot speak for others.

I have had any number of debates with both atheists and fundamentalists over whether "religion" requires or should require belief in a conventional concept of a supernatural, personal God, belief in the "supernatural" at all, and/or a literal reading of the Bible. It has always struck me as very strange that so many "hard atheists" and hardcore fundamentalists stand united in the conviction that "religion" by definition entails belief in all three of those dogmas, and often many more. My religion, modern Judaism, has no such dogmas, and is concerned with more important things -- like real life in THIS world. There's a topic for you.

To cut to the chase, so to speak, I personally think that the endless debate over "proving that God exists" is about as important as "proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." "God" is a mental construct with which we think, not unlike other mental constructs like "society" or "morality" or "good and evil." Whether or not any of those, including God, actually refers to a discrete entity or objectively, materially "real" aspect of reality is not, to my mind, going to be conclusively or verifiably determined anytime soon. Sometimes I think as if God were an Entity of some unknown kind; sometimes I think as if the word is pure metaphor, or symbol, or an undefined Force or Principle. I know of no rule or law that says I have to firmly define that mental construct in any of those ways, and I see no reason whatever why I should have to. In point of fact, I don't. Some may say that a hard-and-fast definition of God is somehow necessary or required, but I don't think that's true, either. We Jews have somehow managed without such a definition for three or four thousand years, thanks very much, and I don't think we're going to start jumping through those academic and theoretical hoops now.

If your religion isn't concerned with the existence of gods or anything supernatural, then yes, your religion is barely a religion at all the way most people think of the term. Why be concerned with the religion label? Perhaps it would be better for your purposes to distance yourself from it. When your beliefs lie in the area where people are debating where religion stops and philosophy begins, this is what happens.

Although I don't really understand the way you talk about god, to be honest. "God" isn't like "society", "morality", and "good and evil". God isn't something in the world that we can point to and frame and discuss in different ways. If you want to discuss society with someone, you're going to have to agree upon what is meant by "society." "God" seems different from these, usually we agree whether or not something exists and what it is before we bother with discussing it in any practical detail.

And I've never requested, even by implication, anything resembling that either. ALL ideas have to stand the test of open debate and critical questioning. My objections are to assumptions about "religion" that are rather often subjected to neither.

Yet there's this implication you're making that people are arguing against these positions because they're easy and they're too scared to take on your own. But it's just that people don't know about your position because it's not popular, and if they did they probably wouldn't be interested in talking about it because there's nothing especially objectionable about it.

[cnorman18]

That's not what attracts most people's interest, most people are interested in discussing beliefs that they perceive to be irrational.

And that's the part I don't quite get. Of course it's satisfying to debate irrational people -- and as I said, it's also rather easy for those who appreciate actual, rational thought and actual science. But sometimes I think there is little point to it, other than sport. I suppose one could "debate" the heliocentric theory too, but the pointlessness of that, I trust, is more clear.

To be completely honest, I am attracted to religious debate forums for the exact same reason that I have been attracted to forums on general supernatural beliefs like ghosts and psychics, and conspiracy theorists and the like. I want to understand how people go about rationalizing what seems so irrational to me.

See, that holds no interest for me at all. Since I have spent some time as a fundamentalist myself -- a few weeks or months, I couldn't make it work for me -- I don't wonder. From what I have experienced and seen, it's all about the comfort and security of having simple, pat answers for everything and never having to actually THINK. That goes for conspiracy theories, too; the Bad Guys, whoever they are, are responsible for all kinds of ills and troubles. Beats having to actually work it out.

Also I think you should recognize by now that people see a real utility in arguing against vocal and influential religious opinions that have a negative influence in society. Especially in places where religion is still a dominant factor in political discourse.

Of course, and as I say, I have done my bit in arguing against that too, especially (as a former teacher) where religion is being smuggled into public-school classrooms under the guise of "Creationism," which is pseudo-science at best. Not to mention gay marriage, government-funded and sponsored religion, and much more.

I am personally aware that liberal systems exists but I do not think there will be fundamental sources of conflicts with them that could start a debate. I cannot speak for others.

I have had any number of debates with both atheists and fundamentalists over whether "religion" requires or should require belief in a conventional concept of a supernatural, personal God, belief in the "supernatural" at all, and/or a literal reading of the Bible. It has always struck me as very strange that so many "hard atheists" and hardcore fundamentalists stand united in the conviction that "religion" by definition entails belief in all three of those dogmas, and often many more. My religion, modern Judaism, has no such dogmas, and is concerned with more important things -- like real life in THIS world. There's a topic for you.

To cut to the chase, so to speak, I personally think that the endless debate over "proving that God exists" is about as important as "proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." "God" is a mental construct with which we think, not unlike other mental constructs like "society" or "morality" or "good and evil." Whether or not any of those, including God, actually refers to a discrete entity or objectively, materially "real" aspect of reality is not, to my mind, going to be conclusively or verifiably determined anytime soon. Sometimes I think as if God were an Entity of some unknown kind; sometimes I think as if the word is pure metaphor, or symbol, or an undefined Force or Principle. I know of no rule or law that says I have to firmly define that mental construct in any of those ways, and I see no reason whatever why I should have to. In point of fact, I don't. Some may say that a hard-and-fast definition of God is somehow necessary or required, but I don't think that's true, either. We Jews have somehow managed without such a definition for three or four thousand years, thanks very much, and I don't think we're going to start jumping through those academic and theoretical hoops now.

If your religion isn't concerned with the existence of gods or anything supernatural, then yes, your religion is barely a religion at all the way most people think of the term.

Precisely. And from where I sit, that means that the "way most people think of the term" is objectively and inarguably wrong. Reality takes precedence for me, not words; words are not things. My people have considered Judaism a religion for millennia, since more than a thousand years before Jesus was a gleam in (whoever's) eye, and a religion it therefore is. If others who came to the party late want the term to exclude what we believe and practice, I see no reason why we should roll over and agree.

Why be concerned with the religion label? Perhaps it would be better for your purposes to distance yourself from it. When your beliefs lie in the area where people are debating where religion stops and philosophy begins, this is what happens.

Because it IS a religion, one of the first. I'm not afraid of the word, nor am I ashamed of it. I think and talk about God with my fellow Jews without bothering to precisely define the term; it's part of our language, our heritage and culture, and so is the vagueness of the concept, because a strictly-defined concept of God isn't central to our religion. I see no reason to abandon the term and call Judaism "philosophy," because it isn't, not even for me.

You see, a Jew is allowed to think supernaturally and conventionally if he or she chooses; if the guy next to me at the Seder thinks of God in the most primitive and superstitious Bearded Sky Fairy way imaginable, it still doesn't matter. The God-concept is not what our religion is all about, and of course we don't press our beliefs on anyone. We don't generally consider "evangelism" or "witnessing" wrong or immoral or whatever; it's just rude. How one thinks of God isn't anyone's business but one's own, and it isn't relevant to the practice of our religion.

Although I don't really understand the way you talk about god, to be honest. "God" isn't like "society", "morality", and "good and evil". God isn't something in the world that we can point to and frame and discuss in different ways.

Of course "it" is, and we do it here, every day. "In the world" might be an issue, but I have no particular view on that either way; like virtually all other aspects of God, I don't profess to know.

In Jewish belief -- if this helps -- it's rather common to "define" God negatively, as what He is NOT; and the bottom line there is that God is the totally other, qualitatively different from anything we know or anything in this Universe (which is the real meaning of "He created it," as opposed to some scientific or objective statement of fact, which it is not). And that is the "God-concept" as understood by Jews, and has been so for literally thousands of years. The "metaphor" usage begins in the Bible itself; how many times are the "mighty hand and outstretched arm" of God mentioned, e.g., when it has been a tenet of Judaism since the beginning that God has no physical form nor body?
If you want to discuss society with someone, you're going to have to agree upon what is meant by "society." "God" seems different from these, usually we agree whether or not something exists and what it is before we bother with discussing it in any practical detail.
[/quote]
And that, you see, is the point, for Jews. We DON'T discuss God much, not directly. It has been said that God is the center of the Jewish religion, but not the focus of it. We can talk about ethics, and tradition, and the history of our people as presented in that tradition (again, without prejudice as to whether it "really happened"), without any kind of detailed definition of God and His attributes and qualities. That just isn't necessary, and we have seen how members of other faiths get lost in that sort of thing and allow it to take over their religion entirely. Again, that is what "dogma" means, and that is what it does. The same goes for the "life after death" issue. We don't have a teaching on that, and it isn't a good thing when a religion or a people gets obsessed with it. In our tradition, that is one of the things we learned in Egypt.

More to the point -- from where would such a definition come? From an ancient collection of the literary works of our people? Even if one attempts to read the Bible literally in an effort to find out what kind of Being God is -- the Bible doesn't say.

And I've never requested, even by implication, anything resembling that either. ALL ideas have to stand the test of open debate and critical questioning. My objections are to assumptions about "religion" that are rather often subjected to neither.

Yet there's this implication you're making that people are arguing against these positions because they're easy and they're too scared to take on your own.

Whoops. Hold on there; I never said, nor implied, "scared." Unconcerned, indifferent, that sort of thing, maybe; but not "scared." One plays table tennis because it is easier than real tennis, but that doesn't mean one is "scared" of it.
[/quote]
But it's just that people don't know about your position because it's not popular, and if they did they probably wouldn't be interested in talking about it because there's nothing especially objectionable about it.
[/quote]
And I quite agree with that; but even so, that is something which people OUGHT to know, is it not?

And as for "not popular" -- again, I don't think there's any evidence for that, especially among Jews. We just don't often talk about these issues, which are so important to atheists -- definitions and proofs and evidences and attributes of God -- because they are NOT important to US. When I have investigated, I find that views like my own are very common, and it's also very common for Jews not to have thought about them at all. "Who can say?" is a typical answer when asked about the nature of God or the afterlife -- and like it or not, it's a very sensible and realistic one.

[99percentatheism]

Historically more philosophical discourses in atheism has focussed on the God of Classical theism:-
http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A1113445

There are five qualities that the God of classical theism is meant to have. These are:
1. Transcendence
2. Omnipotence
3. Omniscience
4. Omnipresence
5. Absolute Benevolence

I frequently speak of "assumptions" about the nature of God in terms of "claiming to know things that no one can know." This list is a pretty good example of that.

The Jewish religion has no teachings to this effect; in fact, it is formally said that God is "undefined."

The great rabbi and physician Maimonides attempted such a set of definitions as part of his famous 13 Points of Faith, but they were disputed -- every one of them -- from the day they were published in the 12th century. All of those you give here did not even make that list, most especially the last.

Since Jews are said to be the first "ethical monotheists," it's hard for me to agree that the list given here constitutes "classical theism." Some academician's idea of it, perhaps.

...or on the classical arguments for or against God.

And Jews don't waste a lot of ink or thought on that either. "Belief," as in "intellectual assent to a set of statements about the supernatural or spiritual aspects of 'reality'," is of little if any importance in the Jewish religion; such an approach to belief is acceptable, but not required, and many Jews don't even bother to think about it very much. The concern of my religion is much more with what one DOES; what one "BELIEVES" is left up to the individual, and has no impact on the worth or "salvation" of that individual (the last concept, "salvation" in the Christian sense of "going to Heaven," is foreign to Judaism; there are no formal teachings on that subject either). There are some beliefs which are forbidden, but none which are required, which is, it seems to me, the definition of "dogma." Judaism has none.

It is only recently that a lot of atheist discourse has shifted to the more fundamentalist religions as many has realized that that is where most believers exist. Also I guess the main area of conflict lies between atheism and more fundamental systems of religion and that's why the debate questions are mostly addresses there.

As a matter of historical accuracy, neither "atheism" nor "fundamentalism" existed until relatively recently; both are creations of the modern world. Atheism, in the modern sense, simply did not exist as a "belief option" before the Renaissance, and Christian fundamentalism did not exist prior to the late 19th century and was not "organized" until the 1920s. Similarly, Orthodox Judaism did not exist as a distinct and separate "branch" of Judaism till the early 19th century as a reaction to organized efforts at "reform"; before that time, Judaism was pluralistic, allowing many diverse approaches to the issues of belief and "theology." In the liberal branches, it still is.

Both fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews claim that they hold the "original" or "true" doctrines of their respective faiths; but those are modern, and anachronistic, claims in both cases, and generally false and self-serving ones. Pluralistic, nondogmatic, and generally "liberal" views are very much the historical norm in Judaism, and are not a modern development; and Christianity was similarly tolerant and pluralistic in its beginnings before it was more or less forcibly codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325. Even after that, it was and remained much more pluralistic, even before the Reformation (which was a pluralistic movement by definition), than "fundamentalist" Christian has been in only the last century or so.

Sorry about the history lesson, but the common assumption that "liberal religion" is a modern, and in fact recent, phenomenon, and that rigid dogmatism is the original and normative form, actually turns history on its head.

I am personally aware that liberal systems exists but I do not think there will be fundamental sources of conflicts with them that could start a debate. I cannot speak for others.

I have had any number of debates with both atheists and fundamentalists over whether "religion" requires or should require belief in a conventional concept of a supernatural, personal God, belief in the "supernatural" at all, and/or a literal reading of the Bible. It has always struck me as very strange that so many "hard atheists" and hardcore fundamentalists stand united in the conviction that "religion" by definition entails belief in all three of those dogmas, and often many more. My religion, modern Judaism, has no such dogmas, and is concerned with more important things -- like real life in THIS world. There's a topic for you.

To cut to the chase, so to speak, I personally think that the endless debate over "proving that God exists" is about as important as "proving how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." "God" is a mental construct with which we think, not unlike other mental constructs like "society" or "morality" or "good and evil." Whether or not any of those, including God, actually refers to a discrete entity or objectively, materially "real" aspect of reality is not, to my mind, going to be conclusively or verifiably determined anytime soon. Sometimes I think as if God were an Entity of some unknown kind; sometimes I think as if the word is pure metaphor, or symbol, or an undefined Force or Principle. I know of no rule or law that says I have to firmly define that mental construct in any of those ways, and I see no reason whatever why I should have to. In point of fact, I don't. Some may say that a hard-and-fast definition of God is somehow necessary or required, but I don't think that's true, either. We Jews have somehow managed without such a definition for three or four thousand years, thanks very much, and I don't think we're going to start jumping through those academic and theoretical hoops now.

The following looks pretty much like a definition:

The Tanakh (JPS):

Exodus 33

7 Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp, afar off from the camp; and he called it The tent of meeting. And it came to pass, that every one that sought the LORD went out unto the tent of meeting, which was without this camp. 8 And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the Tent, that all the people rose up, and stood, every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the Tent. 9 And it came to pass, when Moses entered into the Tent, the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the Tent; and [the LORD] spoke with Moses. 10 And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud stand at the door of the Tent, all the people rose up and worshipped, every man at his tent door. 11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he would return into the camp; but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent.

12 And Moses said unto the LORD: 'See, Thou sayest unto me: Bring up this people; and Thou hast not let me know whom Thou wilt send with me. Yet Thou hast said: I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in My sight. 13 Now therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thy ways, that I may know Thee, to the end that I may find grace in Thy sight; and consider that this nation is Thy people.' 14 And He said: 'My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.' 15 And he said unto Him: 'If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence. 16 For wherein now shall it be known that I have found p. 107 grace in Thy sight, I and Thy people? is it not in that Thou goest with us, so that we are distinguished, I and Thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth?'

17 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken, for thou hast found grace in My sight, and I know thee by name.' 18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.' 19 And He said: 'I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.' 20 And He said: 'Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.' 21 And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock. 22 And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by. 23 And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen.'

If everything is a metaphor, and not an actual incident, then how in the world can anything be defined?

[cnorman18]

The following looks pretty much like a definition:

The Tanakh (JPS):

Exodus 33

... 11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

...20 And He said: 'Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'

...23 And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen.'

You don't see a contradiction there?

If everything is a metaphor, and not an actual incident, then how in the world can anything be defined?

I never said that everything is a metaphor; but this is literature, not objective scientific reporting. You can believe as you like, but there is no "definition" of God in the Bible in that sense.

What kind of Being is God? Is He made of matter, or energy, or both? Since He created them, that doesn't seem likely. Spirit, okay. Can anyone define spirit? Is God's shape that of a gigantic human figure, as this passage seems to indicate? Or is His shape that of a man of normal size, as other passages indicate? Or is He without body or form, as has been the belief among both Jews and Christians for centuries on end?

I believe in God. But I am not arrogant or pontifical enough that I can claim to know His essential nature and put Him in a neat little human-made box called a "definition." "I AM THAT I AM" has always been enough for me.

You have the right, of course, to believe as you like; but then so do I.

[Jax Agnesson]

I agree strongly that those atheists who think they are combatting 'religion' when they try to disprove the existence of God, or to demonstrate the logical absurdity of Scripture, etc, are really oversimplifying religion; generalising, extrapolating from the noisiest examples, tarring all believers wth the same brush, etc.
That kind of[strike] discussion[/strike] diatribe achieves very little, apart from giving absolute beginners some experience.
The same thing applies when, (as happens frequently, including in this thread) religious people speak of 'atheists' as though we were all committed to blindly attacking religion, or trying to prove that we are right and you are wrong about everything..
There is a significant difference between 'militant atheism' and secularism.
A little more thought all round would be useful.

[cnorman18]

I agree strongly that those atheists who think they are combatting 'religion' when they try to disprove the existence of God, or to demonstrate the logical absurdity of Scripture, etc, are really oversimplifying religion; generalising, extrapolating from the noisiest examples, tarring all believers wth the same brush, etc.
That kind of[strike] discussion[/strike] diatribe achieves very little, apart from giving absolute beginners some experience.
The same thing applies when, (as happens frequently, including in this thread) religious people speak of 'atheists' as though we were all committed to blindly attacking religion, or trying to prove that we are right and you are wrong about everything..
There is a significant difference between 'militant atheism' and secularism.
A little more thought all round would be useful.

Very well said indeed.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

To be completely honest, I am attracted to religious debate forums for the exact same reason that I have been attracted to forums on general supernatural beliefs like ghosts and psychics, and conspiracy theorists and the like. I want to understand how people go about rationalizing what seems so irrational to me.

See, that holds no interest for me at all. Since I have spent some time as a fundamentalist myself -- a few weeks or months, I couldn't make it work for me -- I don't wonder. From what I have experienced and seen, it's all about the comfort and security of having simple, pat answers for everything and never having to actually THINK. That goes for conspiracy theories, too; the Bad Guys, whoever they are, are responsible for all kinds of ills and troubles. Beats having to actually work it out.

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. Even in liberal religion, people still cling to what seem to me to be irrational notions. I have seen you use religion to justify the circumcision of infants, for example, and that still fascinates me (just an example, I am not intending to start a debate on that in this thread at all). And beyond the most liberal of traditions such as yours and Christian Atheism, many liberals sill do believe in and argue for the existence of gods.

If your religion isn't concerned with the existence of gods or anything supernatural, then yes, your religion is barely a religion at all the way most people think of the term.

Precisely. And from where I sit, that means that the "way most people think of the term" is objectively and inarguably wrong. Reality takes precedence for me, not words; words are not things. My people have considered Judaism a religion for millennia, since more than a thousand years before Jesus was a gleam in (whoever's) eye, and a religion it therefore is. If others who came to the party late want the term to exclude what we believe and practice, I see no reason why we should roll over and agree.

Why be concerned with the religion label? Perhaps it would be better for your purposes to distance yourself from it. When your beliefs lie in the area where people are debating where religion stops and philosophy begins, this is what happens.

Because it IS a religion, one of the first. I'm not afraid of the word, nor am I ashamed of it. I think and talk about God with my fellow Jews without bothering to precisely define the term; it's part of our language, our heritage and culture, and so is the vagueness of the concept, because a strictly-defined concept of God isn't central to our religion. I see no reason to abandon the term and call Judaism "philosophy," because it isn't, not even for me.

You see, a Jew is allowed to think supernaturally and conventionally if he or she chooses; if the guy next to me at the Seder thinks of God in the most primitive and superstitious Bearded Sky Fairy way imaginable, it still doesn't matter. The God-concept is not what our religion is all about, and of course we don't press our beliefs on anyone. We don't generally consider "evangelism" or "witnessing" wrong or immoral or whatever; it's just rude. How one thinks of God isn't anyone's business but one's own, and it isn't relevant to the practice of our religion.

What is your definition of religion and why do you consider what you do to be a religion?

Although I don't really understand the way you talk about god, to be honest. "God" isn't like "society", "morality", and "good and evil". God isn't something in the world that we can point to and frame and discuss in different ways.

Of course "it" is, and we do it here, every day. "In the world" might be an issue, but I have no particular view on that either way; like virtually all other aspects of God, I don't profess to know.

In Jewish belief -- if this helps -- it's rather common to "define" God negatively, as what He is NOT; and the bottom line there is that God is the totally other, qualitatively different from anything we know or anything in this Universe (which is the real meaning of "He created it," as opposed to some scientific or objective statement of fact, which it is not). And that is the "God-concept" as understood by Jews, and has been so for literally thousands of years. The "metaphor" usage begins in the Bible itself; how many times are the "mighty hand and outstretched arm" of God mentioned, e.g., when it has been a tenet of Judaism since the beginning that God has no physical form nor body?

If you want to discuss society with someone, you're going to have to agree upon what is meant by "society." "God" seems different from these, usually we agree whether or not something exists and what it is before we bother with discussing it in any practical detail.

And that, you see, is the point, for Jews. We DON'T discuss God much, not directly. It has been said that God is the center of the Jewish religion, but not the focus of it. We can talk about ethics, and tradition, and the history of our people as presented in that tradition (again, without prejudice as to whether it "really happened"), without any kind of detailed definition of God and His attributes and qualities. That just isn't necessary, and we have seen how members of other faiths get lost in that sort of thing and allow it to take over their religion entirely. Again, that is what "dogma" means, and that is what it does. The same goes for the "life after death" issue. We don't have a teaching on that, and it isn't a good thing when a religion or a people gets obsessed with it. In our tradition, that is one of the things we learned in Egypt.

I'll reiterate my request for your definition.

Would you say atheism was always acceptable in Jewish religion? Or how far back does this go?

More to the point -- from where would such a definition come? From an ancient collection of the literary works of our people? Even if one attempts to read the Bible literally in an effort to find out what kind of Being God is -- the Bible doesn't say.

So the value of the bible is what? Only literary?

And I quite agree with that; but even so, that is something which people OUGHT to know, is it not?

If we're talking about the context of correcting blanket statements about religion, then yes.

And as for "not popular" -- again, I don't think there's any evidence for that, especially among Jews. We just don't often talk about these issues, which are so important to atheists -- definitions and proofs and evidences and attributes of God -- because they are NOT important to US. When I have investigated, I find that views like my own are very common, and it's also very common for Jews not to have thought about them at all. "Who can say?" is a typical answer when asked about the nature of God or the afterlife -- and like it or not, it's a very sensible and realistic one.

And Jews make up less than 1% of the world population. A version of the religion held by a fraction of those Jews that the adherents aren't especially interested in talking about is not going to be popular.

[cnorman18]

To be completely honest, I am attracted to religious debate forums for the exact same reason that I have been attracted to forums on general supernatural beliefs like ghosts and psychics, and conspiracy theorists and the like. I want to understand how people go about rationalizing what seems so irrational to me.

See, that holds no interest for me at all. Since I have spent some time as a fundamentalist myself -- a few weeks or months, I couldn't make it work for me -- I don't wonder. From what I have experienced and seen, it's all about the comfort and security of having simple, pat answers for everything and never having to actually THINK. That goes for conspiracy theories, too; the Bad Guys, whoever they are, are responsible for all kinds of ills and troubles. Beats having to actually work it out.

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. Even in liberal religion, people still cling to what seem to me to be irrational notions. I have seen you use religion to justify the circumcision of infants, for example, and that still fascinates me (just an example, I am not intending to start a debate on that in this thread at all).

Only if you define "religion" very loosely indeed; if you mean something like "belief in the supernatural" -- no, I have not. Not ever. Fidelity to an ancient tradition and heritage, perhaps; membership in an ancient community (without which one would, in times past, been an outcast in that community) -- plus evidence that it does no harm, and that it is actually beneficial in many ways -- but none of those are ipso facto "irrational," as you seem to imply. That just isn't a given, and debates on the subject that begin with begging that question are no longer of interest to me.

And beyond the most liberal of traditions such as yours and Christian Atheism, many liberals still do believe in and argue for the existence of gods.

Of course, and so do many liberal Jews. From my perspective, that does no harm at all where it does not interfere with rational thought or the freedom of others to believe as they choose -- or not to. Belief in gods itself is not ipso facto "irrational," either.

If your religion isn't concerned with the existence of gods or anything supernatural, then yes, your religion is barely a religion at all the way most people think of the term.

Precisely. And from where I sit, that means that the "way most people think of the term" is objectively and inarguably wrong. Reality takes precedence for me, not words; words are not things. My people have considered Judaism a religion for millennia, since more than a thousand years before Jesus was a gleam in (whoever's) eye, and a religion it therefore is. If others who came to the party late want the term to exclude what we believe and practice, I see no reason why we should roll over and agree.

Why be concerned with the religion label? Perhaps it would be better for your purposes to distance yourself from it. When your beliefs lie in the area where people are debating where religion stops and philosophy begins, this is what happens.

Because it IS a religion, one of the first. I'm not afraid of the word, nor am I ashamed of it. I think and talk about God with my fellow Jews without bothering to precisely define the term; it's part of our language, our heritage and culture, and so is the vagueness of the concept, because a strictly-defined concept of God isn't central to our religion. I see no reason to abandon the term and call Judaism "philosophy," because it isn't, not even for me.

You see, a Jew is allowed to think supernaturally and conventionally if he or she chooses; if the guy next to me at the Seder thinks of God in the most primitive and superstitious Bearded Sky Fairy way imaginable, it still doesn't matter. The God-concept is not what our religion is all about, and of course we don't press our beliefs on anyone. We don't generally consider "evangelism" or "witnessing" wrong or immoral or whatever; it's just rude. How one thinks of God isn't anyone's business but one's own, and it isn't relevant to the practice of our religion.

What is your definition of religion and why do you consider what you do to be a religion?

I don't think there IS a hard-and-fast definition of "religion." As I say, there is no single characteristic that is common to all religions, including a belief in a supernatural God, or any kind of God, for that matter.

There is a book I have, but have not yet read, only skimmed, entitled How Judaism Became a Religion, by one Leora Batnitzski, subtitled "An Introduction to Modern Jewish Thought." The thesis seems to be that before the Enlightenment, a period which coincided with what Jews call the Emancipation -- when we were finally allowed to take our place in Gentile society as equals and actual citizens of the nations in which we lived -- Judaism was more of a separate culture and civilization, a way of life that had little contact with the outside world (not by OUR choice, I hasten to add, but by the edicts of the Church and the Gentile authorities and Gentile society). It is itself, and only when it began to be compared with other "religions" did it too fall under that classification. It certainly contains many of the elements of other religions, not least a belief in God, never mind the definition of that word; and my own belief is well within the acceptable spectrum of Jewish belief, and in fact is a rather common approach. I see no need to separate myself from the rest of my community (since Judaism is, truly, more about community than belief anyway) and renounce the term.

Whether or not the term "religion" applies to my own beliefs or those of others is a question for others. I'm comfortable with it, and if others have a different approach or understanding, that is their affair. One can call it a "philosophy" if one chooses, but I do talk about God rather a lot, even if I am cognizant of "God" being -- perhaps -- a metaphor or symbol, as well as perhaps an existent entity of some unknown kind. I don't claim to know, and I have no reason to pretend that I do.

Although I don't really understand the way you talk about god, to be honest. "God" isn't like "society", "morality", and "good and evil". God isn't something in the world that we can point to and frame and discuss in different ways.

Of course "it" is, and we do it here, every day. "In the world" might be an issue, but I have no particular view on that either way; like virtually all other aspects of God, I don't profess to know.

In Jewish belief -- if this helps -- it's rather common to "define" God negatively, as what He is NOT; and the bottom line there is that God is the totally other, qualitatively different from anything we know or anything in this Universe (which is the real meaning of "He created it," as opposed to some scientific or objective statement of fact, which it is not). And that is the "God-concept" as understood by Jews, and has been so for literally thousands of years. The "metaphor" usage begins in the Bible itself; how many times are the "mighty hand and outstretched arm" of God mentioned, e.g., when it has been a tenet of Judaism since the beginning that God has no physical form nor body?

If you want to discuss society with someone, you're going to have to agree upon what is meant by "society." "God" seems different from these, usually we agree whether or not something exists and what it is before we bother with discussing it in any practical detail.

And that, you see, is the point, for Jews. We DON'T discuss God much, not directly. It has been said that God is the center of the Jewish religion, but not the focus of it. We can talk about ethics, and tradition, and the history of our people as presented in that tradition (again, without prejudice as to whether it "really happened"), without any kind of detailed definition of God and His attributes and qualities. That just isn't necessary, and we have seen how members of other faiths get lost in that sort of thing and allow it to take over their religion entirely. Again, that is what "dogma" means, and that is what it does. The same goes for the "life after death" issue. We don't have a teaching on that, and it isn't a good thing when a religion or a people gets obsessed with it. In our tradition, that is one of the things we learned in Egypt.

I'll reiterate my request for your definition.

The above is about as close as I am going to get. If it's not precise enough, that isn't my problem. It works for me, and I'm not trying to sell it to anybody. The beliefs of others are their business until they impact my life, and the same ought to hold for mine, I think.

Would you say atheism was always acceptable in Jewish religion? Or how far back does this go?

As I noted in a post above, "atheism" in the modern sense did not exist until after the Renaissance; but belief was never the focus of the Jewish religion. Action was always the point. There is a rather striking remark in a commentary on a verse in Jeremiah which says "[They] have forsaken me and have not kept my Torah" (16:11). The commentator remarks that God is saying, among other things, "If only they had forsaken me and kept my Torah." That was no modern academic; the remark came from Pesikta D'Rav Kahana, who lived at some time between the fifth and seventh century of the common era.

More to the point -- from where would such a definition come? From an ancient collection of the literary works of our people? Even if one attempts to read the Bible literally in an effort to find out what kind of Being God is -- the Bible doesn't say.

So the value of the bible is what? Only literary?

Surely you're not saying that the only possible reason to read the Bible is to find a definition of God.

This topic is too extensive for me to discuss here, but take a look at my old thread, "The Bible as it IS," in the Tolerant, Respectful and Civil subforum and you'll get an idea of what real, nonliteral, non dogmatic Biblical scholarship looks like.

And I quite agree with that; but even so, that is something which people OUGHT to know, is it not?

If we're talking about the context of correcting blanket statements about religion, then yes.

Precisely, and that is not a trivial matter. As Will Rogers once said, "It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."

And as for "not popular" -- again, I don't think there's any evidence for that, especially among Jews. We just don't often talk about these issues, which are so important to atheists -- definitions and proofs and evidences and attributes of God -- because they are NOT important to US. When I have investigated, I find that views like my own are very common, and it's also very common for Jews not to have thought about them at all. "Who can say?" is a typical answer when asked about the nature of God or the afterlife -- and like it or not, it's a very sensible and realistic one.

And Jews make up less than 1% of the world population. A version of the religion held by a fraction of those Jews that the adherents aren't especially interested in talking about is not going to be popular.

Granted. But "not popular" isn't exactly a synonym for "not important," now is it? Also, there are very many people, as I've said previously, who are not affiliated with any particular religion or denomination at all and who hold similar ideas -- that is, belief in a God which they do not feel is compatible with the various dogmatic doctrinal pronouncements that are so common, and belief in moral ideals, values and priorities which don't fit with those of "organized religion" either. Dismissing rather sensible and rational ideas on these subjects and considering them not worth noting doesn't strike me as a very rational thing to do.