Duped by dope?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Duped by dope? » Duped by dope?

Duped by dope?
Or, the origin of religion?

Page: 1 2 3

Duped by dope?

kris
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2007
Location: Indiana
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 163

Posted 03/08/08 - 05:30 AM:	#11
swstephe wrote: I didn't say religion depends on consensus Ok, but then you say For a religious experience to form a religion, there has to be some sort of implicit consensus that the common experience is authentic. I see contradiction in those two statements you have made. (Also see your other statement quoted below.) That's not mindless conformity, just the way that societies form. May be some societies or even most societies form that way, but by no means all. I claim it is a psychological phenomenon to project subjective experiences onto reality and claim it is something objective. I am not a psychologist, and it may be alright to project one's subjective experience onto reality, but claiming it as something objective is, I would say, problematic and probably indicative of mental disorder. ...... It only says that religions are big consensual social bodies. .... which is fine (except that it contradicts your first statement quoted above). The problem arises when religions try to impose themselves on those who are not participants in the consesus. Edited by kris on 03/08/08 - 10:52 AM
kris http://kris10846902.tripod.com/

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2105

Posted 03/08/08 - 09:43 PM:	#12
kris wrote: I see contradiction in those two statements you have made. (Also see your other statement quoted below.) Because I differentiate so-called "religious authority" and the subjective religious experience. By "religion", I'm thinking of a system of beliefs, not the structure of church authority or institutions. A system of beliefs can exist without consensus. A social institution, like a religious body expects implicit consensus. kris wrote: May be some societies or even most societies form that way, but by no means all. What kind of society forms without some kind of "social contract" for the way society operates? Even radical anarchists believe that everyone will consent to behave appropriately in order to preserve a society without authority. I'm including implicit consensus -- that idea that people who are part of a society are expected to follow that society's rules even if they don't recognize the authority, justifying the actions of those authority. I'm going by the current status quo rather than imagining some radical new social structure. kris wrote: I am not a psychologist, and it may be alright to project one's subjective experience onto reality, but claiming it as something objective is, I would say, problematic and probably indicative of mental disorder. We do it all the time. We objectify subjective experiences like "love" and "beauty" all the time. Nobody gets locked away because it is so instinctive and common to all humans. Perhaps it is the way that we try to deal with empathy. I see some painting which touches me emotionally, I expect others to react the same way. I assume that the painting possesses the quality of "beauty", but actually the concept doesn't leave my brain. It is just by chance that people around me have similar tastes and we all seem willing to fine tune our emotional reactions to match those of people around us. So, back to the topic -- if someone has a profound drug experience which is consensually agreed to be an authentic religious experience, how can you objectively claim that the experience is any more or less valid than a sober religious experience? kris wrote: .... which is fine (except that it contradicts your first statement quoted above). The problem arises when religions try to impose themselves on those who are not participants in the consesus. A religion can't impose their authority outside their group of consensus, (believers), unless they have joined up with a larger institution, (like Iran or Pakistan), or integrated themselves tightly into the social structure, (like India). Most national governments have laws to separate religious institutions from state social institutions. At least that is the concept. If, by "impose themselves", you mean proselytizing and pressuring state institutions to adopt religious trappings -- I agree and am probably more radical than any atheist. I'm not justifying it, but it by not doing anything about it, you are implicitly consenting to the practice.
"There are only two industries that refer to their customers as 'users'." -- Edward Tufte

Ruthless, for Reason
Psychologist of Logic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 07, 2008
Location: The moon and looking down.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 16

Posted 03/08/08 - 10:48 PM:	#13
This has little to do with any of the other responses to this subject. But if you knew anything about what came before MT. Sinai, you would realize that there is a great deal more to the story before then and that Sinai was after a great many miracles already done that have little to nothing to do with your mentioned side-effects. Also note, the Israelites considered themselves a "clean" people because God said "You are my chosen people and through you and your children I shall show my wonders." Of course this was said to them by a representative of God whom led them. This was a reason they weren't allowed to eat pork, or beef. Both at the time were held in rough pens and usually not bathed. Ironically, time has proven pork to be the most damaging meat we digest and its consumption has resulted in notable obesity and disease. Beef also, has held such effects but at roughly half the negative effect of pork. Lamb, however, has proven the most healthy meat… regardless of being high or not, the Israelites no doubt would have no ability to know this. Also, I doubt that a tribe or rather the tribes of Israel could’ve managed nearly as well as they did while being led by men whom were high. Also, this was a world in which lies or failure were not tolerated. People had failed in understanding God's message and stoned anyone for disobeying their laws. When I say stoned, I'm not talking about drugs. I'm saying they took the man/woman to the outskirts and pelted them with heavy stones till their death.
"There is no right or wrong. The only right is what we fight to create. We call 'evil' the things that oppose us."

Nick666
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/09/08 - 12:27 AM:	#14
Open a book of chemistry, physics, math. You will see the word of God, revealed to man .

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1824

Posted 03/09/08 - 12:31 AM:	#15
I guess I'm among the women, that it isn't "revealed" to then.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.