Talking to a religious believer today will dispel this kind of thinking quickly. People really do believe in gods! Literally! And they'll die for those beliefs. It was even more true back when we didn't understand what the sun was or why it rose every morning and set every night.
I'd roughly put individual 'religion' of a person into one of two bags: cultural and faith (what you're talking about). The faith part by far not every member of a religion actually shares if they can talk openly (and the differences between the religion on this matter is quite vast).
Some examples: East Asian state religions are almost entirely a cultural thing outside of monk communities. Judaism I'd also expect to be majority cultural only. Christianity in Europe, again, mostly cultural. I think the US has a bit of a different viewpoint since the boundaries between Christians that have faith with those that don't, are much more extreme and seem to regularly cause interpersonal conflict.
Sure -- that's why I specified religious believer (i.e. someone with faith in their deity/religion, not a religiously-cultural agnostic/atheist). I myself am culturally Jewish, but don't believe in the religion or in any particular deity. But I grew up Orthodox, and for the most part they nearly all actually do believe in a God. It's not fake! And they're not stupid; plenty of them are extremely smart, hold advanced degrees, etc. The OP's belief that since ancient people were smart, they must not have actually believed in gods, just doesn't hold. It's a myopic viewpoint that can be dispelled simply by talking to people today who believe in gods and are perfectly smart too.
I suspect again that it comes from this religious-vs-atheist trench warfare that has developed along mostly political boundaries in the US. On the other side of the Atlantic, I'd claim religion is mostly just a private thing that people don't bother each other about much.
When a large part of the population vote based on their religion then separation of church and state doesn't really work. For example if a part of the population votes that all stores needs to be closed on Sundays because Sundays are holy days then it affects non-believers. That isn't a joke, that is what some countries in Europe looks like, how do you argue against that without arguing that their beliefs are nonsense?
why would understanding the sun's energy or orbits change your ideas about the Creator? The foundations of science come from studying nature to learn more about the truth of creation.
If you previously believed that the sun rose every morning because it was attached to Helios's chariot and he flew it across the sky, and then you discovered that actually the sun didn't rise at all and it only seemed to "rise" and "set" because the Earth was rotating on its axis, and also the sun was a giant perpetually-exploding hydrogen bomb that the Earth orbits and definitely can't be attached to someone's chariot and dragged around the Earth, you might stop believing that the people who told you it was because of Helios and his flying chariot had any idea what they were talking about.
I don't think the Greeks of Socrates/Plato/Aristotle's time were atheists, though they had some decently mechanistic views of astronomy, IIRC. Not totally sure your example holds up.
It's kind of obvious with how development of religion went overall.
As we understood more of the world, pantheons grew smaller and smaller. There are still religions around with many gods, but their roles have drastically changed away from being banally associated with natural phenomena and towards spiritual stuff or other things that most humans can't adequately explain (yet, or because they just lack the education).
There are practically no religions around anymore that have a god whose purpose is like "this guy brings the tides" or whatever, for good reason.
The practice started to help acclimate new converts from polytheism, so yah, originally that’s how it was thought about. But I think the current Catholic view on Saints is that they are like your specific causes lobby. They are more empathetic to your concerns, as they were humans that dealt with the issue you are seeking help with. And they have better access to the big guy. I’m sure some still consider them “lesser gods” with absolute weather control, but that isn’t what’s commonly taught.
Actually, in Ancient Greeks some people took that knowledge and actually became atheists. Some of the 'cool' young intellectual would walk into temples and say 'stick me down if you exist' and then were smug when it didn't happen. It also became a common believe that all gods are just historical figures and stories.
However the norm for most of history is to find some way to ratify the two believes even if they contradict.
Ancient Jewish writers like Philo simply wrote a whole bunch of stuff about how every part of the bible is to be interpreted as some Platonic way. He was very influential on Christianity. Ironically he had basically no influence on what became modern Judaism and his interpretation were all rejected.
And this is not just between science and religion. Even within religion this is a problem, because they are simply contradictory.
Its literally possible to believe in all of the bible, because it contradicts itself. And trying to reason your way around all that nonsense requires tons of scholars coming up with elaborate explanations on why everything is actually not nonsense. Usually you have some elite set of priests who guard the interpretation.
Today, there are whole field of Christian fundamentalists apologists who have whole universities field with smart people who do nothing then trying to 'read' the bible in ways that is not contradicting even if it very clearly is.
The simply fact is, unless you view the bible purely allegorically and massively change the interpretation totally from what anybody who actually wrote the bible might have believed you can't have a modern scientific worldview and be a Christian. But at that point you can just base your worldview on Lord of the Rings or whatever you want because its your morals driving the interpretation, not the other way around.
So its easy and reasonably consistent to believe in a Prime Originator who started the universe and then just let laws of physics work, but that is very different basically all religion.
> The simply fact is, unless you view the bible purely allegorically and massively change the interpretation totally from what anybody who actually wrote the bible might have believed you can't have a modern scientific worldview and be a Christian.
How can you go around telling people what they can and can't believe? What does it mean, in your opinion, to "be a Christian"?
> But at that point you can just base your worldview on Lord of the Rings or whatever you want because its your morals driving the interpretation, not the other way around.
You say this like it's a bad thing, it isn't, but in any case religion doesn't work that way. A Church of Tolkien hasn't been around for hundreds of years to be passed down from generation to generation.
It might be logically consistent to mock one religion or another in this manner, but it isn't kind, and it certainly isn't going to change people's minds.
For many religious people, family is the most important aspect of their lives, and for better or worse religion has woven its way into the fabric of family bonds.
I appreciate the deep and sincere regard for rationality and science that atheist viewpoints bring to the table, but I think the more evangelistic expressions fail to appreciate the wildly interesting tapestry of traditions that are the religions of the world.
People will believe whatever they want, that's never going to change. Others might feel they don't have that freedom. Why waste time trying to change minds about something as immutable as religion, of all things? Better to build up than to tear down. We're all stuck on the same planet, might as well make some friends while we're here.
Those were metaphors and considered a more intellectual view than the previous animist religions by the pre-socratics. It’s clear you don’t understand this subject, so please don’t perpetuate a lie.
Ppl believe in silly stuff like gender ideology today, even tho we have an almost complete understanding of human biology, so let’s not throw stones at history
>gender is a psychological construct more than a biological one.
are you saying that psychology has something other than a biological basis?
>Are you confusing gender and sex?
American Heritage Dictionary usage note on this point:
Usage Note: Some people maintain that the word sex should be reserved for reference to the biological aspects of being male or female or to sexual activity, and that the word gender should be used only to refer to sociocultural roles. Accordingly, one would say The effectiveness of the treatment appears to depend on the sex of the patient and In society, gender roles are clearly defined. In some situations this distinction avoids ambiguity, as in gender research, which is clear in a way that sex research is not. The distinction can be problematic, however. Linguistically, there isn't any real difference between gender bias and sex bias, and it may seem contrived to insist that sex is incorrect in this instance.
> are you saying that psychology has something other than a biological basis
Yes, yes, psychology is applied neurology is applied biology is applied chemistry is applied physics. And yet we have psychologists and neurologists and biologists and chemists and physicists and they all seem to believe they have different jobs.
Your quoted usage note is stating that the word “gender“ can mean the same thing as “sex” in certain contexts. Not that it can’t mean something different. And the context is quite clear from the surrounding discussion.
Playing pointless semantic games doesn’t buy you any points.
We do have an almost complete understanding, and I actually think I was being too generous; but at least for the purpose of this convo, we certainly do know about X & Y chromosomes.
I don’t believe that gender is a psychological construct. I believe that gender & sex are synonymous & it’s a politically correct construct to differentiate them in any way.
Sure, why have two words to describe two separate but related concepts when we could just decide to pretend that one of those concepts doesn’t even exist?
“Someone’s physical reproductive bits” and “someone’s own internal perception of their sexual identity” are two separate concepts even if you believe they ought to be in sync with one another. And then when you acknowledge that there do exist people who seem quite certain that those values differ for themselves—even if you think they oughtn’t—isn’t it nice to have a word that allows us to describe this exact scenario?
Also, I’d encourage you to ask more or less any biologist whether or not they think we’re just about done wrapping up their field of expertise.
Some people of the same sex feel differently about their bodies and their sexuality. It seems useful to me to have words to describe that difference. I don't really see an "ideology" in that any more than I see "ideology" in other cultural phenomena, e.g. "surfer dudes", "skaters", or "weed aficionados". It's only made into an ideology by people who seek divisional talking points for political discourse.
Just imagine how quickly society would fall apart if we had people who don’t even surf calling themselves “surfer dudes” simply because all their friends surf, they dress and talk the part, and they participate enthusiastically in wider surfing culture.
Do you make a habit of collecting eggs and/or sperm from the people you meet for the purpose of determining their biological sex? How many of your friends’ and acquaintances’ gametes have you confirmed?
If this person[1] tells you that they are a man, what level of scrutiny should they be subject to in order to confirm this to your satisfaction? If you do not intend to reproduce with them, to what end is it important that you establish which type of gamete they produce?
If a future surgery allows a woman to produce sperm, is this what will qualify them as a man from your perspective?
Where do hermaphrodites fit into this picture? What about people that produce neither sperm nor ova?
Do you consider a tomato to be a vegetable or a fruit?
Biologically, a tomato is a fruit. This is inarguable fact. If you are a biologist breeding new strains, you will conceptualize a tomato as a fruit. And yet culinarily a tomato is a vegetable. Put a tomato in a fruit salad and people are going to look at you funny. Note that a biologist who eats food can and will consider a tomato both a fruit and a vegetable depending on the context.
If you can understand this, you can understand that someone’s biological sex—primarily relevant to reproduction and healthcare—can differ from their psychological sex (i.e., their gender), which is more relevant to social contexts. Both can be true simultaneously, but unless you’re a doctor caring for a trans person or intending to perform reproductive acts with them, someone’s psychological sex is almost certainly more relevant to your relationship with them than which gamete they happen excrete.
Sex is way more important in social context. If I am looking for sexual relationship I am interested only in females. For other social contexts I don't really care whether someone is male or female or thinks they are someone else. Gender is irrelevant.
What if you produce neither or both from birth? What if surgery changes which of those, if any, you produce?
What if I told you that none of this really matters to me? What if people discriminating against people who want to be one or the other now makes it matter because discrimination increases crime and reduces productivity?
> If a surgery changes their chromosome then they change sex too.
Now you've completely changed your definition in the course of a few minutes, but you still don't want to change your beliefs. Funny how that works. Imagining what your new definition will be, what if you have any of these sex chromosome anomalies, as more than 2 out of every thousand humans do? What if you use gene therapy to change your chromosomes but don't alter your anatomy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies
> What if I tell you I don't care what sex you are or you think you are.
Then why are you making a big deal of trying to define it for others and supporting those trying to legislate who can believe what?
> If someone believes for example, they are Apache Helicopter, good for them.
Certainly. That's no skin off my back, just like people believing in magical invisible beings and praying to them doesn't affect anybody else. Both groups can believe what they like.
Legislating who gets to identify as what when it's not hurting anybody does make society worse, just like the people who believe in magical invisible beings legislating what everyone else can do based on the voices they hear in their heads also make society worse. That is a problem worth fighting against.
It's massively complex once you start digging down into the details, and the bulk of it really is unknown. I used to work in biomedical research and the enormity of just how much we don't know became more apparent the more I learned about the topic.
That said, I agree with you on how nonsensical gender ideology is. I find it particularly irksome because of how unscientific the whole thing is, there is a huge amount of bullshit being passed off as facts.
There’s quite a variety of views when you’re talking about 5 billion people. Though I’m sure it’s true for a lot of them, there are also vast numbers of people who find that style or religion rather distasteful.
Can we please stop putting up with useless sarcasm on this site? Someone's point on a matter is simplistic and uninformed. Fine. But a fancy "you're stupid" as a response is even more devoid of content.
Like, I could've just said "Wow, that really deepened the discussion there, good job". But how about this instead:
Try actually specifying some of the complexities that have been missed. Try plainly demanding evidence and reasoning. Choose some goal posts and plant them firmly where they can be hit.
Because if I wanted to read useless sniping I'd be on reddit.
I did not use ad hominem, I clearly and unequivocaly reflected on the post's brievity and unearned assertivity as being of little value in the context of a discussion. Maybe I'm doing a bit of sniping, but so are you, and I have the same feeling that if I wanted to read "religious is bad end of discussion" post I'd go on reddit.
I know plenty of those religious people who don't care if people have sex outside of marriage or practice sodomy, wore mismatched textiles and probably offend their god in multiple ways.
You can be religious and not a believer, and the original comment only talk about believers.
We're not "putting up" with it, we're downvoting it and ignoring it. That's how you get it to stop or at least be filtered out.
It's better to shun and ignore an unwanted post than to try to berate, punish and ban or delete it, IMO. Let people shout into the void if they choose to. You gave them the validation - there is no such thing as bad attention.
It is hard to put yourself in other's people state of mind, and to reason that it's because they must be idiots is not really the proper way to go. I don't have any advice to give on religion, if it's not your thing fine, but painting people with too broad a brush may lead to misuderstandings, conflicting exchanges, and ultimately animosity for no good reason.
So my only point is: you probably have something that you hold dear to your heart and you would not liked to be judged or criticized for that, in some ways it's not even anyone's business but yours. Religion, spirituality, or weird new age practices are the same for a lot of people, and it doesn't presuppose that any of this is good or bad, it just is, and mounting a file against all of that at once is bound to be fruitless, and hurtful for the people involved.
It is hard to put yourself in other's people state of mind, and to reason that it's because they must be idiots is not really the proper way to go. I don't have any advice to give on religion, if it's not your thing fine, but painting people with too broad a brush may lead to misuderstandings, conflicting exchanges, and ultimately animosity for no good reason
I can't believe something that isn't true. It's not about them being idiots, it's about the sheer lack of evidence.
> in some ways it's not even anyone's business but yours
If religionists ever, ever, ever behaved that way then there would be no problem, but the fact is that for thousands of years they have imposed their beliefs on the rest of us with violence.
And that's fair, nobody's telling you you should. I think.
I don't believe myself, but I can recognize the comfort that people get from faith, either faith in a higher power or a belief in what happens after death. My GF is pagan, she says she can see spirits leaving the body; for her, it makes dealing with death a lot easier. Like when our dog died, she just got on with dealing with the body because it was just an empty meatsack to her. Likewise, she said she doesn't care what happens with her body after death, because empty meatsack. If that gives her comfort, who am I to tell her she's wrong? I don't know either.
Personally I'm more of a nihilist and think there's nothing after death, so there's no reason to fear it or care much about it, I won't be around. I've always theorised that life-after-death religions are at least in part based on fear - fear of nothingness, or fear of being judged and punished for things done (or not done) in life. I don't want to live in fear like that myself, but if others are more fearful and find comfort in faith that's good for them.
I think there was likely always a small percentage of the ruling class or philosopher kings who knew it was bogus but needed a "noble lie" to make their society work. Not much has changed.
I think hierarchy of needs comes into play here. You may not spend all that much time thinking about philosophy if you're foraging or farming, and busy with physical labor.
Also, messages get lost, and misinterpreted. Quickly. I do believe that most [non explicit cult] religious texts shouldn't be interpreted literally, but instead take them the lessons they teach, or are interpreted to be.
It’s an interesting discussion, really. A lot of wisdom literature outside of academic discourse emphasizes the philosophy of the common man. This gets lost at higher levels of study. Zen Buddhism emphasizes the mundane ("chop wood, carry water"), while some Christian sects embody their philosophy through work and service to others. I agree with what you say about not interpreting texts literally, but we have a real problem in the US with angry, vocal, and frankly violent religious people who defend inerrant scriptural readings of the text. Outside of the US, I think it would be difficult to have a discussion in, let’s say, a predominantly Muslim county, where I held a debate about how the Quran should not be interpreted literally. So while I agree completely with the spirit of what you say, the practical reality is very different.
