@Jez but religious taboos can change, as well. usury (lending money at interest) used to be forbidden by the church, but eventually they got over that

the supporting texts don't

and they change a lot less easily

i fail to see any systematic difference between religious taboos, cultural taboos, and other kinds of group taboos

define "less easily"

for that matter, please tell me how you can tell whether a given taboo is a religious taboo or a cultural taboo

whether it's written down in some book? pfff

or this: is the taboo on pedophilia a religious taboo?

no, if anything it's endorsed by the Catholic church

not to mention the founder of Islam

I'd say a religious taboo is a kind of cultural taboo. It may be that religious taboos are on average less susceptible to change than others, but that is by no means an essential property.

@Jez that's just trash talk. anyhow, how do you prove that it's not religious? plenty of religious people subscribe to it. plenty of religious people are against pedophilia because of their religion.

for it to be religious it needs to be in their religious texts or traditions at least

"thou shalt not murder"

where's the religious prohibition on paedophilia? if it's there, fine.

so is murder also a religious taboo?

As I have mentioned before, I think it is essential that "religion" be defined first. It is one of the most difficult things to define. It seems Jez is taking it as a holy text, or perhaps a set of beliefs.

murder is a taboo in any society which has survived

for obvious reasons

no, it's clearly not religious.

(in the sense that religion invented it)

+1 to what @Cerb said

@Jez Capital punishment is still an option in many countries.

@Jez That is an important qualification.

and all cultures have some category of killing which isn't considered murder

you asked about murder, not killing

See, that's splitting hairs to me.

Yeah. Self-defense... though it depends on your definition of murder and how you translate the Hebrew word, whatever it is.

Whether I got killed or murdered, once I am dead, I am dead.

generally murder is killing which is seen by society as unjustified

capital punishment doesn't fall into that category, though I think we're best to do away with it

@Jez Okay, but that's Kosmonaut's gravatar, i.e. circular reasoning.

but i'm still waiting for a definition of a religious taboo. murder doesn't count because... more than one religion prohibits it?

before a few centuries ago and the advent of secularism, there was no such thing as a *non*-religious taboo

a religious taboo is a taboo invented and enshrined by religion

@JSBangs To be fair, murder is extremely hard to pin down.

@JSBangs I contest that.

if "invented by religion" is the definition, then ~100% of taboos are religious, barring those that were invented after the invention of secularism

including the taboo against murder

and incest, etc.

There were all kinds of taboos that weren't religious at all. Unless you use a narrow definition of taboo, i.e. "a religious prohibition"?

If so, circular argument.

@JSBangs how'd you work that out? you're asserting apparently that religion always existed as long as homo sapiens did. i think not.

Which is fine, but that must be clear.

religion is rather recent

monkeys don't have religion

@Jez I still think you need to define religion first.

unfounded belief in the supernatural

That seems to presuppose a rational mind?

@Jez then religion is as old as ritual burial, which is roughly as old as H. sapiens

@Jez Careful. Monkeys are not our ancestors. They and us are offspring of a common ancestor.

@RegDwight sure, but they're clsoe enough to the ancestor in terms of brain power

If so, it is by definition a human thing. But what about the awe wolves might feel as they are howling at the moon? Is that a religious experience?

@JSBangs ritual burial may simply have been pragmatic

stinking, decaying bodies out in the open aren't very nice

it took imagination to come up with the afterlife bullshit, i think

it took a while of thinking

@JSBangs I liked the argument our philosophy teacher presented to us in fifth grade. Imagine an australopitecus going to a hunt. He returns empty-handed. The next day, he goes hunting again. On his way, he notices a white stone he had never noticed before. And his hunt happens to be successful that day. And thus, a religion of The White Stone is born.

So what is your position, what are you defending now?

@Jez pure conjecture unrelated to any form of evidence.

Which is to say, you don't need much to get religious.

the evidence is how complex religious beliefs are

True.

that doesn't happen quickly

Who is defending or challenging which position?

i'm a person

please don't group me into that category

I don't pray?

@Jez You pray to Nuclear Power and the French Language. And don't tell us that you don't because we know you long enough.

Hey that warhead figurine he was just keeping for his brother.

And the Rousseau altar was just a project?

@RegDwight lol

I am only half joking.

you have a bizarre definition of pray

You know exactly what I'm saying.

This discussion is too unstructured for me.

not really, no. i don't regard 'French' or 'nuclear power' in the same way as the religious do God or a Leader in remotely the same way.

All of us have superstitious beliefs and perception biases. All of us. Whether you label them religion or not is irrelevant to the fact that you have them.

i've lost track of what we're arguing. my original point is that there's no substantial difference between a religious and non-religious taboo

@Jez How would you know if you are not a religious person?

maybe, but how are the things you mentioned superstitious beliefs?

I'm going on what they say they feel

maybe they're all lying

You can't just say "me, I am different" and leave it at that.

@JSBangs Yeah, sorry for the intermezzo. I'm back to playing that game again.

@JSBangs non-religious taboos tend to be more challengeable with reason

@JSBangs you can't wheel the supernatural out as an absolute defence

@Jez huh?

i didn't wheel the supernatural out at all

i mean, one can't

(with non-religious taboos)

no, but you can, and often do, wheel out other non-empirical, pre-rational defenses

they're weaker

and exposeable as bullshit

religion technically isn't (well it is to people who realize it's bullshit)

to someone like Tony Blair, religion isn't exposable

Surprise, surprise.

yeah, i hate Blair.

How's that for circular reasoning.

"You only know it's bullshit if you know it's bullshit."

do you know what circular reasoning is?

that's a statement of fact

You get hung up on semantics once again.

But fair enough.

That's a vapid statement.

It's not an argument pro or contra.

contra religion?

you mean against its veracity?

it's quite hard to argue against its veracity on 2 accounts

I mean that "Religion is exposable as bullshit to those to whom it is exposable as bullshit" is a vapid statement.

1. to those who would listen with an open mind, it's unbelievably obvious how insane religion is that they don't need convincing

2. to those who wouldn't, they aren't listening with an open mind, which is a prerequisite to rejecting religion

there aren't very many in the middle

Haha, you're either with us or you are against us.

Sorry, that's laughable.

i didn't say that

"If you have an open mind, you agree; if you disagree, you don't have an open mind"

i said you're either open-minded or closed-minded

yes, pretty much. i consider religion to be that insane.

And you base you definition of open-minded on whether they agree that religion is insane,.

closed-minded / brainwashed

in terms of belief in the supernatural, yes

I would say any Muslim is closed-minded or brainwashed, even moderate ones, on this issue.

any real believer in a faith that claims the unknowable

I would say that you can't say that before you actually get to know every Muslim ever.

yes i can

they have to have a minimal set of beliefs

those beliefs are insane

to any open-minded person

Then it's you who is close-minded because you don't even look for evidence to the contrary.

i've taken quite an interest in religions

it is excruciatingly obvious that they are manmade

That no one is arguing about.

so how is that closed-minded?

Nuclear plants are manmade, too.

@Jez I am attacking your sweeping generalization that "any Muslim is brainwashed".

i'm happy to defend that statement

I can present not one, not two, but a dozen examples to the contrary.

That's how many open-minded Muslim friends I have.

well, i have to go, so no more arguing with people who are wrong on the internet

y'all have fun, though

Yeah, I gotta go too, actually.

do your examples believe that God revealed himself only to an illiterate man 1500 years ago?

Wife's calling. For the last fifteen minutes or so.

@Jez I don't think so.

shame, you were just starting to dig a hole :-)

See, how is that open-mindedness? You obviously know exactly how this discussion is going to end no matter what I say.

i know how it's going to end in the same way i know that if i jump out of a window i'll fall

that doesn't make me closed-minded

So you are actually calling my friends brainwashed without knowing them?

well, you've not described them in detail

They are Muslims.

You said every Muslim is brainwashed.

No matter how moderate.

Your words.

yes, but i'm not sure whether they're actually Muslims or just very confused

if they don't accept that God revealed himself only to Mohammed they're not Muslims

So you get to decide who's Muslim and who's not?

the Quran does

that's their rules

There are countless interpretations of the Quran, as you know.

there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger

Besides, we've been there already with our Bible discussion.

there's no 'interpretation' of Islam that avoids that assertion

Again, the lack of a definition of "religion" and "religion x" is breaking this discussion.

one quote before i go

> The moderns would hold that “religion” is a trans-cultural, trans-historical reality, a universal genus of which “Christianity,” “Hinduism,” and “Islam” are particular species. The problem is, any attempt to define this genus in such a way as to include what the moderns want to include and to exclude what they wish to exclude turns out to be contradictory.

Source?

> Nationalism is no less a cult than Catholicism. Including a belief in God would exclude many major “religions.” One might attempt to limit religion to the “transcendent,” but ideas such as “the nation” or “liberty” are transcendent ideas, as are all values.

for the purposes of this argument i might as well limit 'religion' to Judeo-Christian religion

wtf it keeps telling me it's too long :)

That's what she said.

> Hence, there is no coherent way to distinguish “religious” from “secular” violence. What counts as “religious” or “secular” in any given society always depends on the configuration of power within that society. Indeed, the demarcation of the “religious” sphere is itself an expression of secular power, a political act.

Exactly my views, @JSB.

Src: frontporchrepublic.com/2010/06/…

thanks. now i'm out

Thanks to you. So am I.

Religion is nothing. It is a word. What does it mean? We think we have an intuitive grasp of what it is, but, when we think deeper, it turns out that we are left with air in our hands.

Okay, and what is supernatural?

that which can't be explained by nature as experienced by human senses

Okay, well, let us suppose a certain guy next door called Mohammed. He goes to the Mosque a few times every year. He says certain prayers. But he doesn't care that much, and he doesn't even think about such metaphysical questions as whether God exists. He just does some rituals because everybody else does them and he runs his shop. Is he religious according to your definition? No. And yet he will vehemently assert that he should be called a Muslim.

correct.

i do indeed say that people who call themselves religious without really believing are pseudo-religious

Okay. The probably most "religious" people in the world aren't. The same may apply to any time in the past. Is this a satisfactory definition?

well im not sure about that

there are unfortunately a lot of true believers

it depends on the country

How do you know?

i don't know anything beyond cogito ergo sum

i can be reasonably sure, because they say they think about it and believe it

Who say that? Are you referring to opinion polls?

yeah, pretty much

Those are utterly unreliable, due to cultural taboos and misunderstandings. Poll them about homosexuality.

so you're saying that most people aren't religious? again it depends completely on country

but most people in many countries, such as the USA, middle eastern ones, african ones, india, pakistan, bangladesh, etc. are true believers, in all probability

I'm saying that your definition of religion is a bit limited. I don't think it is very useful, because you have to know what people really believe, whereas the cultural aspects of religion should be quite important.

when push comes to shove, those cultural aspects are backed up by the core belief in the supernatural

that's the difference between religious taboo and non-religious

@RegDwight back by popular demand!

Yay!!

You have been missed.

hi @Fx

@Cerberus and they say long-distance relationships don't work :)

@Jez How important are certain beliefs about the supernatural that may or may not be truly and deeply be contemplated by the majority, v. the various dynamics of a community and shared values, traditions?

@Fx Hehe... yeah, he did beam you up all the way from there.

I worked really hard for some weeks, conferences across Europe, this kind of stuff

@Cerberus very important in some respects. would pork still be prohibited if not for religious doctrine? homosexuality? adultery?

yuck, the chat was talking about religion last time I was here, and it is still now

with Islam, there's frequently the strong undertone of disapproval of unbelievers, which reflects the same undertone throughout their religious texts

@Fx Ah, I see... good conferences, boring ones, or both?

@Fx you missed the baby pics for today

haven't you solved this thing yet? either you have a good reason and abolish all religions right now, or you found yours and gain followers, or you don't know enough to talk about it :)

@Jez The dislike of outsiders is very common in non-religious groups as well.

@Cerberus I can stand up and argue against it though, and many do.

@Jez I miss my own kids more that EL&U baby pics…

How many Muslims stand up and argue for tolerance of unbelievers?

@Fx Jez and Vitaly feel strongly about the subject, and the rest of us just like fuelling discussions...

@Jez You will stiff be scoffed and ignored, and disadvantaged, depending on the group and the situation.

@Cerberus both, but that's why God invented wireless and got it installed in auditoria (see how I'm trying to stay within the theme of the chat)

@Jez There are plenty who do.

@Cerberus they are always fighting their own religion.

that's a pretty big impediment

@Fx Very smooth transition. That is rather cool. So it isn't taboo to play with your phone during a conference?

@Cerberus I could play the role of the very socially-progressive Christian if you need one, but that's not such a great entertainment :)

Hehe.

@Cerberus phone? 17" MacBook Pro!

You would be a useful case.

I can't run no big calculations on a phone

Ah! Even that is allowed these days... taking "notes", I suppose...

@Cerberus for 500+ participant conferences, yes, it is deemed socially acceptable in the community I work with; it's a recent change, though (2-3 years)

@Jez How come many Muslims in Turkey are very secular and ignoring most of the commands of the Q'uran (as in fact most Muslims do, since it is self-contradictory in many respects, as is the Bible)?

@Fx Very useful change. I often wonder how productive lectures and conferences with many participants are.

good question. they are not fit to call themselves a Muslim nation (i'm not being sarcastic)

if i were a Saudi I'd probably think the Turks were a bunch of infidels.

@Cerberus three good things:

Is it not better to read the book and discuss it in a small group?

@Jez So are they Muslims or not?

not.

the vast majority

1. for a week, everyone in the field is in the same place; you can make appointments with everyone, and have direct conversations/work with people who usually live on the other face of the planet

they believe in secular, liberal, democracy, and equality.

@Fx Hmm, okay, that would seem a tangible advantage.

2. 500 posters is a lot to go through, but you can select the ones you want to see and then spend time with ~10 persons of particular interest to you, and get a chance to discover what they do (you might eventually read an article of theirs at some point, but it's easier the other way)

@Jez And yet they would be insulted by your calling them infidels.

3. I can't think of a #3

@Fx Posters?

@Cerberus so?

@Fx I always have that!

@Jez Then you have a definition that deviates from certain norms.

@Cerberus poster sessions: two hours, 200 posters aligned in one or two huge rooms, the presenting author of each poster is standing before it and people go see whom they want

@Cerberus norms? the ones that define 'religious' as being 'people who say they are'?

Oh, an actual wallpaper! But... why? What is the use of making a poster?

A0-size paper posters

wallpapers

@Cerberus what's the use compared to what?

everyone receives a list of poster titles (and authors for each poster), numbered

@Jez Those norms are very common. There will be a billion people who might challenge you. And the Atlas.

you check: Wednesday session, I think I'll go see #12, 78, 126, 197 (actually, I have more like 20 to see usually)

@Fx Why not make a one-page summary on A4 and send it it to everyone by e-mail or post it on some site?

@Cerberus those norms are just silly definitions. they're not relevant to the conversation, which wants a useful definition for religious: true believer.

@Cerberus this would duplicate existing publishing circuits (papers, short letters, etc.)

posters mean you can directly interact, ask questions, etc.

plus, it's a great way for students and younger researchers (but not only them) to get noticed, to discuss with other people

@Jez My point is that that definition is not always the one that people have in mind. Certainly not in the conversation that was going on here.

I hate doing them (and standing besides them), but it's an efficient form of exchanging ideas

But if you have a summary in your hand, can't you go to those people just as well? Does it help that you can see the summary from a distance? Or is the poster of a special genre?

@Cerberus if you're gonna just define religion as people who say they are, you probably are getting quite close to the same thing as cultural

@Cerberus in a crowd of 500 persons, how do I find Dr. XXX? it's easier if I know he's standing at a given place (say, in front of poster #176)

it's really the main problem of these big events: try to catch someone can be difficult

no, i think it only makes sense, when debating religious v cultural taboos, to interpret 'religious' as those which are there because of real belief in religion

and it's nice to have some support (figures) for discussion

but I know it's not a format common to all research communities

in chemistry (and physics, I think), it's really the standard

@Fx Hmm... big numbers might work? With names?

@Jez But that makes it very difficult to say whether a certain taboo is because of some belief or just because people were taught to do it by their parents when they were young.

@Cerberus I'm not trying to convince you, so I'll stop here :)

@Fx Hehe... as you can see, I am in a discussy mood.

@Cerberus well there's an easy way to find out: ask them why they hold the taboo

the other reason posters are cool is I came back from a 500-poster conference with one of the 5 prizes for best poster :)

once you hit "god says so", you've gotten through the soil and hit the rock

if you don't hit the rock they'll probably be reasonable if you have a good argument

the latter is what i'd call a cultural taboo

@Jez They will just say that because that is what there were taught to say. Doesn't mean they have real metaphysical positions.

@Fx Congrats!

Then that is a very tangible advantage. Unless the prize is crap...

@Cerberus if they're saying that, i'd say they do

i mean if they keep saying that after you challenge them on how much of the stuff they really believe

I am not saying that is absurd; but can you see why I find it problematic?

For me, that kind of stuff is just one of the aspects of religion.

For me, it is more complex.

ok, gotta run

see you later!

@Cerberus the whole discussion was basically about how people justify their taboos

religion may be more complex but the justification part of it isn't

@Fx Au revoir!

@Jez Well, okay. So what was your position again that was challenged?

basically

What was the context of your equation?

the prohibition on ham by Islam, Judaism

which is just one example

Well, I think you could defend both calling it religious and cultural.

Very blurred.

defend both what?

oh sorry i misread

no i dont think you can call it cultural and be intellectually honest.

if it were cultural i could have a sensible discussion as to why you do it

and i would either win, or turn you into a 100% vegetarian

Who says you cannot?

a prohibition on ham is so senselessly arbitrary that its only defence is the supernatural assertion

well, orthodox Jews, and Muslims

There are many other senselessly arbitrary prohibitions. Such as against eating half-eaten hamburgers that someone else left at the tabel in McDonals at 4 am.

And yet you couldn't convince and persuade most people to eat it.

Unclean, they say.

there's a lot of sense in that, and it's not even a prohibition

There isn't much sense in it at all.

it might be dirty, it might not taste very nice

it will probably be cold

My friend is a nurse and he eats those hamburgers. Says there is hardly any disease you could get from it that you won't get elsewhere, etc.

leaving it alone is sensible to me

and if i had no other food source i would probably eat them

nevertheless, it's not prohibited

I fully recognize that I am too irrational to eat it. I would love to, but the intuition that it is unclean is too strong to resist.

so the example is irrelevant

I think it is very relevant. Muslims eat pig too when they have no other choice, as do vegetarians.

They even eat people.

Consider people washing their vegetables.

I have told them countless times that it is nonsense. But they keep doing it.

do Muslims eat pigs when they have no other choice?

Hygiene is one of the greatest superstitions of our age.

bear in mind they think it results in eternal hellfire

Sure, most do.

i honestly doubt it

Nah, they don't believe that so much.

the true believers, not the pseudos

You are all seeing this from a decidedly Calvinist point of view.

You think like a Calvinist, which is understandable, because northern European culture in drenched with it.

Calvinists focus on conscience, rules, rigid beliefs. Other religions/cultures aren't quite like that. Some are, not all.

Islam isn't focused on that stuff?

or Judaism?

i'm simply wanting to hold them to the rules they claim to hold more important than anything else

if they selectively ignore them, they're hypocritical and have no right to lecture anyone on anything

Islam and Judaism are far less focused on conscience etc. than Calvinism.

they're focused on rules

Still quite different.

even less flexible

i mean come on, elevators that you don't have to press a button to operate on the Sabbath "so as not to start a fire on the Sabbath by closing an electrical circuit potentially causing a spark"

this is following rules to an utterly ludicrous extreme

Yes: they are more focused on external rituals than on inner beliefs. Mustn't throw those categories on one heap.

why would you pay attention to those rituals if you didn't have the inner beliefs? the inner beliefs are the foundation.

otherwise, it would just be silly to obsess over a rule in a book written so long ago electricity wasn't conceived of, much less discovered

@Jez Who says they aren't silly?

orthodox Jews and Muslims

Just as silly as it is that we don't say ain't and wash our vegetables.

@Jez Well, I don't care what they say.

irrelevant to the discussion

the discussion is whether religion makes it harder to challenge taboos with reason

Oh, is that the discussion!

Well, on average, probably yes.

what was your discussion topic?

I had none! I wasn't sure what you guys were discussing exactly.

well that sounds about right for this room

bedtime; night.

Hehe.

OK, good night!

Be assured that I am no fan of religion either.

I just think it is a very complex phenomenon.