Thank you!

After reading your comment three times, I'm trying to grasp what would be the punchline.

I would love to hear him speak, or read something he has written, if anything is available. Maybe things are starting to shift a bit in that direction. I hope so anyway.

I was going to say wish my twin could hear him. Then you said his wife is Wiccan. Our younger sister is Wiccan and I think it freaks my twin out. It is not easy communicating with someone who thinks Oan and Fox are reliable news sources, Christianity is under attack, everything could be solved if prayer were allowed in school and all elected officials said the Pledge of Allience at the start of every session.

@ChurchLess I guess the punchline is Christians and atheists can be very good friends. And wiccans Christians and atheist can as well. When he was the priest in the local church before he moved to Sand Springs I often met them socially. Many of the church members were always surprised that she acted like she liked me because everyone else felt like she didn't like anyone. I think it was because she knew I didn't judge.

It does make an appearance now and then.

@skado without it theres really no point in wisdom at all. just imagine all the waste we'd have in wasted effort.

@hankster
now that’s totally Zen, man

recognizing the necessity and perfection of “what is”

@skado lol....the unified nature of dirty underwear and supernovas, the redundancy of the universe.

I’m not suggesting redefining truth to fit religion. I’m suggesting translating the truth that exists in religion into scientific language.

It is the tendency of modern people to view figurative language with literalist eyes that makes religion look false. In fact it is a profoundly true story told in archaic, symbolic language. It can be translated incorrectly or correctly, but a translation exists which is completely harmonious with modern science.

When I say God is like that, what I’m expressing is that the metaphorical God is exactly like the metaphorical Mother Nature. That is to say, an anthropomorphized image of a natural phenomenon.

The equivalent of science, in this type of comparison would be theology, not God.

@skado What would be one or two profound 'religious' truths that should be translated into scientific language?

@racocn8
Super question - thanks.

Since I was raised in a Christian home, in a predominately Christian culture, I am more familiar with the Christian stories than those of other religions, but from a cursory glance, I can see some universal patterns emerge.

One pattern is that all religions are "inviting" us to modify some of our instinctual impulses to serve the need of group cohesion in the context of agricultural societies. It is no mere coincidence that these modern, "organized" religions all sprang up after or alongside the development of agriculture in the late Neolithic period, as the earliest civilizations struggled to learn how to fit slowly evolved instincts into a rapidly changing environment.

The most common cause of extinction is evolutionary mismatch - when the environment changes faster than evolution can keep up, and traits that were earlier adaptive become maladaptive. But humans, with their unusually large brains figured out a workaround. They used the one unique trait they had that could adapt faster - their capacity for complex culture. They invented religion (as we know it today. Anything we call religion before this time was a very different kind of behavior - mostly just animism and burial rituals).

These stories used both carrot & stick motivations to get people to interact cooperatively with multitudes of strangers toward common goals - a thing that their biology alone had not prepared them for. In this way, religion, pretty much single-handedly, saved (salvation) our hunter/gatherer butts from the fate the Neanderthals and Denisovans were not able to avoid. To me, that in itself is pretty profound.

But all of that is in the general realm. To move to the specific... let's take the story of the Garden of Eden. The episode of Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the garden and being condemned to "toil... all the days of your life" for the sin of eating from the tree of knowledge... is a near verbatim telling of the actual history of H.sapiens transitioning from nomadic, hunting and gathering (God supplies your food) to learning (tree of knowledge) how to grow the damn stuff yourself. Oops, but that entails long days of labor (toil) from that point forward, instead of the leisurely three to four hours of effort per day that were required to forage for food. What's profound about this to me is that the telling of that story, once it is translated from allegory, is not only true as far as modern science can tell, but that it survived intact for four or five thousand years being transmitted verbally, before writing was finally invented.

But a story more profound regarding its direct potential impact on our lives today, is the story of the crucifixion - the central story around which the Christian faith is built. Jesus said "I am the way". So if we take him as a role model in this story, we must realize that the crucifixion and resurrection is not something some ancient Palestinian dude actually did, but an allegory about potential redemption for anyone who hears the story.

Redemption from what, you ask? Well redemption from evolutionary mismatch of course. That thing that threatens to send you and your fellow humans to eternal damnation (permanent extinction). And how might it do that?

Pages could be written about the details, but I'll try to hit the high spots for the sake of brevity. Jesus is you, the listener. Crucifixion was the most painful and humiliating torture known to story listeners at the time. It represents the most terrifying experience a human can have in any time - the dissolution of the sense of self, or ego. The resurrection represents life after death, but not life after the death of the body - life after the death of ego identity.

We are born with ego identity. Without it we would not survive in nature. But we are no longer in "nature" as far as our environmental fittedness (not fitness but fittedness) is concerned. We are living in an artificial environment of our own making. This is called our "fallen nature" in the story. In order to survive with our evolved nature no longer fitting our environment, we must be "redeemed" (ego trimmed). Otherwise we will all just kill each other, because we were not evolved to live and cooperate with thousands of strangers - we were evolved to be suspicious of strangers and be ready to... kill them at a moment's notice.

We have no biological impulse (individuals vary, but as a group) to "turn the other cheek" or to "do good to those who harm you". We can accomplish these unnatural feats (which are daily required of us in civilization) only through training and enculturation. Up until now religion has served as a training institution for these and related vitally necessary social skills. Yes, religion is desperately overdue for modernization to comply with established science and the post-Enlightenment appetite for literalism instead of figuratism. But we should not carelessly tear down that institution before we learn how to sustain in some other way the cultural counterbalance to evolutionary mismatch that keeps us from following Homo neanderthalensis.

@skado Updating religion cannot come fast enough. Already, in the US, we have seen Christians adopt a political personality cult to supplement, and potentially replace, their values (as described by Eric Hoffer's True Believer).

You have done a fair job of describing the generalized beliefs and how they translate to scientific parlance. I would take issue with your interpretations, but another time. Suffice to say that Christian dogma does believe in a literal rather than metaphorical crucifixion.

I believe there is an innate biological impulse to go good in the sense that people have intrinsic revulsion in contemplating bad acts - - better to turn the other cheek than witness horror of ones own making. Revulsion, a visceral nausea, is viewed by some philosophies as a significant basis for moral imperatives.

How to constructively update Christianity? Hard to do when only a low level of education reveals a myriad of problems. Should one try to avoid throwing out the whole thing? The big problem with that proposition is that science, wonderful thing that it is, is badly lacking in the social and moral fabric religion has too much of. Voltaire worried that without Christianity, people would behave badly. Hard to tell if help to give it up is available, even by an expert system. Anyway, thanks for your reply.

@racocn8
Definitely hard to know the best path forward from here. Christianity did start calcifying into a perverted state almost before it had fully formed, so yes, the dogma has almost always been taught as literal, by the established church, but I see no evidence that the actual words of the character called Jesus (whoever he was or wasn’t) were necessarily intended to be taken literally. He was famous after all for teaching in parables. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.

@skado Sure wish my Dad was still alive, I think you two would have had some wonderful chats.

Indeed she didn’t. You can lead a horse to water...

@skado I use her as my "proof" that most religious people are mentally impaired and that impairment can go to the extreme. Lori and Chad Daybell are similar beings and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

@DenoPenno
Then how do you explain non-religious people who do similarly heinous things? They don’t even have a scapegoat to blame their insanity on.

And have you done a methodical study to compare how many religious people do such things to how many don’t, or how many religious vs non-religious do such things?

It’s easy to use a few outstanding examples and assume everyone who is religious is the same, but that would be like refusing to ride in cars because Hitler rode in cars. There is no substantive connection.

The “proof” that you have only illustrates that she was mentally impaired, and none of that proof is transferrable to others who just happen to also be religious or ride in cars.

@skado I operate on the belief that almost all of us had a religious background at one time. This would hold true unless your family was atheist. Most were not, and even if you did not believe in or follow your religious background you were exposed to it. This is the fact of the only study I have done on the subject. Religion is sick and asks you to believe sick things. Sometimes people go off the deep end and use that religious crutch. It can happen to the very devout as well as the Baptists who never went to church.

@DenoPenno
I would say, what is sick is fundamentalism and religious literalism. They are, in my estimation, nearly the diametric opposite, or a deep perversion of, the greater scope of authentic religion. It is indeed a terrible thing to be crippled but the last thing a cripple needs is to have their crutches kicked out from under them. What they need is healing.

All the more reason for the better informed people to step forward and help direct “religion”.

@skado - How do these better informed people get to "step forward"? In our society and culture, doesn't the "marketplace of ideas" determine who gets the spotlight? If a majority rejects the better informed in place of the Pat Robertson's, Joyce Meyers', Jerry Falwell's, et al, doesn't that say something of the religious Christians in America? And doesn't this set up a re-enforcing dynamic for other like minded (or perhaps even more severe in their dogmatism) to follow after them?

@skado It always appears that it's the charismatic, rather than the better informed, that dominate the spotlight and have the influence. It also often appears that the spotlight hoggers seem to be more motivated by greed than altruism.

@RussRAB

Great questions all.

The short answer is... it’s not easy.

“How do these better informed people get to "step forward"?”

Maybe a useful plan can be found in the old phrase “think globally - act locally”. I think the first step is to realize what’s at stake. We are creatures who are biologically designed with the capacity to think and communicate in symbols. For better or worse, we live our lives by the light of the stories we tell.

If those stories are interpreted incorrectly, the weight of the majority will drive us right over the cliff of extinction.

If this assessment is accurate, and it appears to be, then the most urgent task on Earth is helping to shoulder the work of bringing our stories in line with reality.

This work can be joined by anyone, anywhere, of any station in life, who is willing to learn the facts and learn how to share them without creating more enmity. Having a broad-ranging understanding of the principles of evolution, and the history of culture are helpful, but can be obtained informally.

No one individual can make it happen. But now, with the internet and social media, news can travel fast. Cultural change happens one person at a time, until a critical mass is achieved.

“...doesn't the "marketplace of ideas" determine who gets the spotlight?”

Yeah, but as suggested above, spotlight positions are probably not the most important positions. Simply being a well-informed citizen, if nothing else, is 90% of what anyone can do.

“If a majority rejects the better informed... doesn't that say something of the religious Christians in America?”

Yes. It says they are Homo sapiens, somewhere midway in the journey of their species, doing the best they know how, given the circumstances of their respective lives, and are in critical need of wise guidance, lest that midpoint become an endpoint.

“And doesn't this set up a re-enforcing dynamic for other like minded (or perhaps even more severe in their dogmatism) to follow after them?”

Yes it does. And that is why we so desperately need to get things exactly right. Uninformed or undereducated or even unbright people are not, as so often characterized, mentally ill. The mentally ill do exist of course, but they don’t constitute a serious problem, relative to this issue.

The general public are not, for the most part, stupid or evil. They are busy, distracted, lazy maybe. But not incompetent.

When self-important atheists like R. Dawkins go on the offensive, people of average (majority) understanding will naturally react negatively against what feels to them like a repudiation of everything they hold sacred.

If we can see, and help clarify, the truth in their sacred stories, we will at least have a better chance of influencing their understanding of their own stories for the better. And because they are not stupid, when the truth is presented to them accurately, and compassionately, they will, as they have for over two hundred thousand years... adopt it begrudgingly.

I appreciate your thoughtful questions, thanks.

@Deb57
That assessment is spot on, and exactly why it needs to be given ample competition by people who are more sincere and altruistic.

@skado - Thanks for the complement, and thank-you for your thoughtful answers. Perhaps a place to start is in the polarizing efforts many spotlighted Christian leaders appear to promote - the us vs. them black and white thinking that is the False Dychotomy logical fallacy. We are in fact, all in this together. I doubt we will ever be able to erase it completely, but lessening it sigificantly would go a long way. The Bible does have Jesus say that the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself; the problem is that he first said that the first commandment was to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Why then would they listen to their neighbor who they believe doesn't or can't keep the first commandment because they don't believe in a God, much less their same God? That will be a tough huddle to clear, and especially when the "spotlight hoggers ... more motivated by greed" @Deb57 mentioned set about protecting their source of wealth.

I am interested in your ideas and would like to take it farther. I think we need more thoughtful and well informed people supported in making decisions and policy. Not just where religion is concearned either. But greed appears to me to be a powerful force at play these days. There was a Facebook meme recently that said "Poverty exists not because we can't feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich." It has become as true within religion as other endeavors. Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard once said something along the line of the easiest way to become rich is to start a religion.

I think I am starting to ramble. I will wrap up by asking if you might suggest how to implement your suggestions into practice. I am I terested and I like your ideas.

@skado - If It's a skill, it should be able to be taught or practiced. Starting here perhaps?

"Conspiracy theorists lack critical thinking skills: New study"
"[thenewdaily.com.au]

@RussRAB

"Perhaps a place to start is... the us vs. them black and white thinking... We are in fact, all in this together."

Agreed 100%. And, while we're at it, to understand that this does not constitute a moral judgment against these people, but is most likely an evolved trait that served us well in the ancestral environment. Which is, ironically, the very type of thing that authentic, modern religion (IMO) was developed to counterbalance.

Biological traits are, by nature, more persistent than cultural ones. So, of course, the very minute culture tries to correct biology, biology will try to infiltrate, rise to the top of the establishment, and rewrite all the rules it doesn't like, then pose as the authority on culture. It's not. It's an imposter. Many or most of the spotlighters would not be recognized by Jesus (were he a real person alive today) as being "of the right spirit".

"I doubt we will ever be able to erase it completely..."

That's right. Biology takes hundreds of thousands of years to correct, give or take. So expecting to change it in a single lifetime is a recipe for disappointment. It is best viewed as an ongoing maintenance task.

"Why then would they listen to their neighbor who they believe doesn't or can't keep the first commandment because they don't believe in a God, much less their same God?'

Since I see God as a spiritual (metaphorical) creature instead of a material (literal) creature, and I view that metaphor as a representation of the totality of reality conceived as a single unit, and I believe (until I learn better) that reality does exist... I don't identify as an atheist. I do believe in God.

As for which God... there is only one reality as far as I know. Many religions have cautions against characterizing God, because, as is the case with reality, it is nothing but hubris to think we know God's nature. What all of modern science knows about reality is surely not a drop in the ocean of the universe we are such a minuscule part of. In some religious traditions it is even forbidden to speak God's name.

When it comes to arguments between two humans about the nature of God, the person who believes in belief will eventually lose to the person who believes in reality, even when that person realizes he doesn't know much about the nature of reality. Reality must be allowed to speak for itself, no one can legitimately claim to speak for reality. Instead of allowing myself to be chased from my own nest by imposters, I will always claim the high ground. And there is no higher ground than reality. It doesn't matter what I or anyone else believes - reality is reality. I am prepared to talk "God" with the best of them. To set a higher standard, that the imposter can't match. Somewhere in the dark recesses of the greedy hogger's subconscious he knows he's a greedy hogger, and that is his Achilles' Heel.

Greed is definitely a powerful force, and we should expect to see it everywhere, and be prepared to accept it as a permanent part of our own nature, because... we are most certainly all in this together. For the last ten thousand years or so we have launched our species off onto a bold experiment. We are no longer "natural" animals, but partially self-modified animals. And there is no going back - there is no "back" to go to. From now on we will need to maintain a regular practice (more on practice later) that daily mends the gap between nature and artifice, or to suffer terribly for lack of it. Call it religion - call it philosophy - call it peanut butter - doesn't matter what we call it - we need it.

Happy to talk with you any time. Thanks for your interest.

@RussRAB

Yes indeed it is a skill that can be learned, and yes, that is the perfect place to start. Just remember to pace yourself - it won't be done in a day... or a decade. But steady, careful progress is the goal.

Over the years, I have developed a fairly specific practice for myself (which I really think is the best thing to do - that is... to develop your own practice, because nobody knows better than you what you need next). But if it is of any use - maybe as just an example, or starting point from which to develop your own - I would be happy to share anything you are interested in. Might be best done through private message so as to not flood the threads, but either way.

Developing those critical thinking skills is really the core of it. Having a good foundation in the philosophy of science (not a PhD - just a working understanding) is also a must. Then from that point, the most helpful thing (to me - YMMV) is to learn more than you thought you ever wanted to know about the various processes of evolution. That is what made us. Some of the most ancient and time-tested wisdom is "Know Thyself" and there is no more profound way to know thyself than to know what made you and how it works. When you deeply understand the mechanisms that created you... it can lead to an epiphany of sorts, that can be maximally liberating.

@skado You said, “All the more reason for the better informed people to step forward and help direct “religion”. “ I say, logically, yes; practically, no. Christianity has evolved to a place where this is not possible. No Divinity School would incorporate this into their curriculum and no minister would agree to alter the belief system that is in place, mostly because their revenue would greatly decrease.

@MsKathleen
I guess I’m a Democrat at heart. I believe healthy change comes from the bottom up, not the top down. How others live is their business, but when it comes to “philosophy” I can’t live in the box called practicality. To me, the most practical thing in the long run is to set my sights on the ideal, and then let the chips fall where they may. But then, I’m not out to change the world. I’m just trying to preserve what little sanity I might have left!

But they aren’t “just” made up stories. They are symbolic representations of the most useful and most profound wisdom our species has labored and died to collect and preserve. They are genuinely sacred. It is “people” who make themselves “general” by failing to see what so many others fail to see.

@skado

Sacred to whom? Not me. I have always been an atheist.

@LiterateHiker

Then you fit my generalization perfectly.

@skado

Nope. You are WAY off base.

@LiterateHiker

Ok. Please help me understand how. I’m here to learn.

@skado

I don't have to explain myself to you.

@LiterateHiker

Of course.

No one has an obligation to support the claims they make.

But claims do live or die, in the public eye, by the support that follows them.

@skado No. "They are symbolic representations" yes, and sometimes of, "useful and most profound wisdom" but for the greater part by far, they are symbolic metaphorical representations of humanities collective folly, misunderstandings, lies and political propaganda. And the sad part is that religion does not make any distinction between what is true and good, and what is neither, which is why it, including its symbolism is increacingly only the resort of the anti social, and their most useful tool. Sorry but the world has moved on, and just because it is expressed indirectly by metaphor and symbolism, does not make it any less twadle than if it is expresssed directly.

Saying that Adolph Hitler painted some rather nice landscapes, (they were pretty poor really) does not justify becoming a Nazi.

@Fernapple
That may be your religion but it’s not mine.

@LiterateHiker Kathleen, I think you misinterpret the post.

@Skado IS that “preacher”…he is constantly trying to move the conversation away from “theism vs atheism” to “understanding the evolution of theism and how it represents the underpinnings of our humanity”. In this post, and responses, he asks us to recognize the dangerous turn theism has taken of late and to start to work to correct it. Personally, I do not think it is currently possible to alter the course of “theism coupled with politics”, but I do try to understand his intent when he posts. I think it will take an extreme event to make humans, Americans especially, understand…perhaps a dictator in our own country will demonstrate the danger of that coupling…and I believe that WILL happen sometime not too long after my death, as the momentum is growing.

@MsKathleen

Careful with that name-calling. Are you trying to get me tarred and feathered?!?

@skado you understood my intent. And since you didn’t disagree with my post, I am happy.

@MsKathleen Just teasing. You seem to understand my intent pretty well. But my approach is not so much to change the established system, as to describe a possible attitude toward it that could bring some peace to those who must live in it. The system will be what it will be. I’m too old to go crusading.

@skado if I implied anything other than your intent, I apologize.

@MsKathleen
Oh, no apologies due. I’m just clarifying.