Purpose of Religion

[Alcon]

I'm not saying it's a strong argument against it, merely that it's not a good argument for it. The fact that people in different places coming from different cultures can adopt the same religion does not strike me as the most compelling evidence in favour of the idea that religions are products of specific cultural contexts. I'm not stupid, so I realize there are perfectly good explanations for it, etc. I'm not even arguing a point. I just thought it was odd for the Mikado to jump on that of all things.

I disagree that it's not a good argument.  It is unless you look at a very superficial level.  The theory is that religion spreads via social interaction and pressures.  Thus religions spreading due to contact between societies (in this case, traders adopted Islam - we think) is more corroborative than anything.  If the theory were, religion spreads via a doppler effect from a central geography, then it would be bad evidence.

I think one of the best examples is the lack of change from the advent of the Internet - I think that pretty much conclusively proves that there are sociological, linguistic, etc., barriers, instead of most people arriving at their religious beliefs free of societal pressure and "taint."

I'll try and think of an equivalent example...if I said that Keynesian economics are bad, but then concede "though it did do well in America during the 30s" and you'd reply by saying "no, the American economy was actually hurt by the Keynesian policies" it would be sort of odd to use this as a point in favour of Keynesian economics, even though any theory would have to account for all occurrences and can if it's any good. I was giving an example of how a person would argue YOUR point and saying that this argument is faulty while repeating the same position just strikes me as odd, that's all.

I don't really understand any of this, tbh but today is a dumb day for me.

[Gustaf]

I'm not saying it's a strong argument against it, merely that it's not a good argument for it. The fact that people in different places coming from different cultures can adopt the same religion does not strike me as the most compelling evidence in favour of the idea that religions are products of specific cultural contexts. I'm not stupid, so I realize there are perfectly good explanations for it, etc. I'm not even arguing a point. I just thought it was odd for the Mikado to jump on that of all things.

I disagree that it's not a good argument.  It is unless you look at a very superficial level.  The theory is that religion spreads via social interaction and pressures.  Thus religions spreading due to contact between societies (in this case, traders adopted Islam - we think) is more corroborative than anything.  If the theory were, religion spreads via a doppler effect from a central geography, then it would be bad evidence.

I think one of the best examples is the lack of change from the advent of the Internet - I think that pretty much conclusively proves that there are sociological, linguistic, etc., barriers, instead of most people arriving at their religious beliefs free of societal pressure and "taint."

I'll try and think of an equivalent example...if I said that Keynesian economics are bad, but then concede "though it did do well in America during the 30s" and you'd reply by saying "no, the American economy was actually hurt by the Keynesian policies" it would be sort of odd to use this as a point in favour of Keynesian economics, even though any theory would have to account for all occurrences and can if it's any good. I was giving an example of how a person would argue YOUR point and saying that this argument is faulty while repeating the same position just strikes me as odd, that's all.

I don't really understand any of this, tbh but today is a dumb day for me.

I said that the fact that religion follows geographical patterns is an argument for or a sympthom of religion being a social instution. The Mikado then said that religion does not follow geographical patterns. You both seemed to view this as a strengthening of the argument that religion is a cultural instution. In the context I thought that sounded a bit odd, that's all.

Again, I'm not even arguing a point here. I'll give a more clear example. I could say "Ok, I see how you could argue for global warming, after all winters ARE becoming a lot milder" and someone would say "no way, the last winter was really cold. That shows why global warming is real". I mean sure, the theory of global warming does indeed predict a more volatile climate which could include periods of severe cold. But in the context it still seems like a pretty odd comment to make.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

That's a good point.  And just look at the evolution of Christianity in South Korea after the Korean War...

I think it's hard to secularly argue that religion transcends the most basic social rules of man.

Need to note here how much religions like Christianity and Buddhism have only vaguely defined principles (for the most part) which means they can be more easily assilimated into already existing local customs.

Certainly there is huge difference in the faith and worldview of Catholics in South America and Catholics in the Phillippines despite the joint Spanish history and whatever the Vatican may say.

[Alcon]

I said that the fact that religion follows geographical patterns is an argument for or a sympthom of religion being a social instution. The Mikado then said that religion does not follow geographical patterns. You both seemed to view this as a strengthening of the argument that religion is a cultural instution. In the context I thought that sounded a bit odd, that's all.

Religion does follow geographic patterns in the same way that human population follows geographic patterns - with mobility.  I'm not saying that this mobility is stronger proof for the following of geographical patterns.  Rather, I was saying that it demonstrates that religion spreads as many social customs do, so it's proof that it's a sociocultural institution.  I may have miscommunicated that; sorry.

Again, I'm not even arguing a point here. I'll give a more clear example. I could say "Ok, I see how you could argue for global warming, after all winters ARE becoming a lot milder" and someone would say "no way, the last winter was really cold. That shows why global warming is real". I mean sure, the theory of global warming does indeed predict a more volatile climate which could include periods of severe cold. But in the context it still seems like a pretty odd comment to make.

I'm not following your analogy.  Are you saying you're disagreeing with a fact, but still coming to the same conclusion?  Or I am?

Need to note here how much religions like Christianity and Buddhism have only vaguely defined principles (for the most part) which means they can be more easily assilimated into already existing local customs.

Certainly there is huge difference in the faith and worldview of Catholics in South America and Catholics in the Phillippines despite the joint Spanish history and whatever the Vatican may say.

True, and I'd argue that helps explain the spread of Buddhism, a religion with a little less, err, conversion pressure than Christianity, Islam, etc.

[Gustaf]

I said that the fact that religion follows geographical patterns is an argument for or a sympthom of religion being a social instution. The Mikado then said that religion does not follow geographical patterns. You both seemed to view this as a strengthening of the argument that religion is a cultural instution. In the context I thought that sounded a bit odd, that's all.

Religion does follow geographic patterns in the same way that human population follows geographic patterns - with mobility.  I'm not saying that this mobility is stronger proof for the following of geographical patterns.  Rather, I was saying that it demonstrates that religion spreads as many social customs do, so it's proof that it's a sociocultural institution.  I may have miscommunicated that; sorry.

Again, I'm not even arguing a point here. I'll give a more clear example. I could say "Ok, I see how you could argue for global warming, after all winters ARE becoming a lot milder" and someone would say "no way, the last winter was really cold. That shows why global warming is real". I mean sure, the theory of global warming does indeed predict a more volatile climate which could include periods of severe cold. But in the context it still seems like a pretty odd comment to make.

I'm not following your analogy.  Are you saying you're disagreeing with a fact, but still coming to the same conclusion?  Or I am?

Need to note here how much religions like Christianity and Buddhism have only vaguely defined principles (for the most part) which means they can be more easily assilimated into already existing local customs.

Certainly there is huge difference in the faith and worldview of Catholics in South America and Catholics in the Phillippines despite the joint Spanish history and whatever the Vatican may say.

True, and I'd argue that helps explain the spread of Buddhism, a religion with a little less, err, conversion pressure than Christianity, Islam, etc.

Well, I gave an example of something that favoured your point of view. To undermine your own argument as an attack on my position was something I thought of as a bit strange.

[Alcon]

Well, I gave an example of something that favoured your point of view. To undermine your own argument as an attack on my position was something I thought of as a bit strange.

I don't see what argument of yours I've attacked in that way.  I think you may be misunderstanding me, because I really don't see how I've undermined my position.  Could you be more specific?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

[Gustaf]

Well, I gave an example of something that favoured your point of view. To undermine your own argument as an attack on my position was something I thought of as a bit strange.

I don't see what argument of yours I've attacked in that way.  I think you may be misunderstanding me, because I really don't see how I've undermined my position.  Could you be more specific?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

The statement I made about religion being somewhat geographically concentrated was something that supported your opinion. Attacking that for being false was a bit strange to me, that's all.

[Alcon]

Well, I gave an example of something that favoured your point of view. To undermine your own argument as an attack on my position was something I thought of as a bit strange.

I don't see what argument of yours I've attacked in that way.  I think you may be misunderstanding me, because I really don't see how I've undermined my position.  Could you be more specific?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

The statement I made about religion being somewhat geographically concentrated was something that supported your opinion. Attacking that for being false was a bit strange to me, that's all.

You said, "the spread of a religion is also not really a good argument for the notion that it is a sociocultural institution, imo, but rather for the opposite."  I interpreted that as a disagreement with my point, not agreement.  I wasn't attacking the idea that religion is geographically concentrated at all.  It is, as far as human culture is; they both spread in similar ways.  That just re-enforces what I was saying, not attacks it.

So, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

[Gustaf]

Well, I gave an example of something that favoured your point of view. To undermine your own argument as an attack on my position was something I thought of as a bit strange.

I don't see what argument of yours I've attacked in that way.  I think you may be misunderstanding me, because I really don't see how I've undermined my position.  Could you be more specific?

Sorry if I'm being dense.

The statement I made about religion being somewhat geographically concentrated was something that supported your opinion. Attacking that for being false was a bit strange to me, that's all.

You said, "the spread of a religion is also not really a good argument for the notion that it is a sociocultural institution, imo, but rather for the opposite."  I interpreted that as a disagreement with my point, not agreement.  I wasn't attacking the idea that religion is geographically concentrated at all.  It is, as far as human culture is; they both spread in similar ways.  That just re-enforces what I was saying, not attacks it.

So, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

Well, the Mikado said that there were Muslims in Indonesia which is further from Mecca than Sweden, i.e. he suggested that religion was not as geographically concentrated as my example may have implied. You seemed to build on that. I was just pointing out that my example was supposed to support you, not go against you, which made the attacks on it superfluous.

But I've never debated this much on something so trivial.

[Friz]

It exists to exploit the ignorant.

[Alcon]

Ugh, God is sending me expired session cookies.  This must be the eQuivilant of the old lightning bolt to the skull.

Well, the Mikado said that there were Muslims in Indonesia which is further from Mecca than Sweden, i.e. he suggested that religion was not as geographically concentrated as my example may have implied. You seemed to build on that. I was just pointing out that my example was supposed to support you, not go against you, which made the attacks on it superfluous.

But I've never debated this much on something so trivial.

Oh, I get you.  I didn't really see what he said as contracting your point.  I think it was he that was attacking it for some reason ("you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than...") than me.  I wasn't attacking you at all.  I was just taking his addition and adding it as support of my hypothesis, not echoing the first sentence, which I kind of blew off.

Sorry if that wasn't clearer.

[Gustaf]

Ugh, God is sending me expired session cookies.  This must be the eQuivilant of the old lightning bolt to the skull.

Well, the Mikado said that there were Muslims in Indonesia which is further from Mecca than Sweden, i.e. he suggested that religion was not as geographically concentrated as my example may have implied. You seemed to build on that. I was just pointing out that my example was supposed to support you, not go against you, which made the attacks on it superfluous.

But I've never debated this much on something so trivial.

Oh, I get you.  I didn't really see what he said as contracting your point.  I think it was he that was attacking it for some reason ("you're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than...") than me.  I wasn't attacking you at all.  I was just taking his addition and adding it as support of my hypothesis, not echoing the first sentence, which I kind of blew off.

Sorry if that wasn't clearer.

Well, let's just not think about what this discussion achieved since it would only serve to depress us both.

[Alcon]

Isn't that what discussions of religion are always about?!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is Relgion anyway

[Tonberry]

The purpose of religion is to find your personal truth, especially in matters that cannot be measured objectively. Religion is a comfort for those who choose to follow it and is most often a very rewarding and healthy practice. I don't really feel like expanding on that, but I might if others wish me to.

[specific_name]

What is Relgion anyway

very funny. kick a man when he's down and forgets his "i"'s