I asked upthread for a definition of holy, one wasn’t given. My point is if things are done in the name of a holy, supernatural entity, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for verification of those credentials. Of course I understand that Christians think some places are holy. But I believe their reasons for believing are based on things that aren’t real. And sometimes bad things are done in His name, so I’d like to know if he exists or if it’s just some asshole saying it. Your response is dismissive of my actual opinions.
I don’t mean to pick on HoneyBadger, but take his quote:
On the surface it seems so innocuous. But there’s more to it. The Crusaders weren’t simply giving thanks to the universe, the judges at the witch trials weren’t simply giving thanks to the universe, the Inquisitors weren’t simply giving thanks to the universe, Catholic church officials who covered up, hid, and excused child rape weren’t simply giving thanks to the universe.
I’m not saying that I don’t understand that people believe in a higher power, I’m saying it shouldn’t be too much for me to ask for proof of that power.
Yes, but that doesn’t make it “objectively true” that the place is holy; it makes it “objectively true” that Christians (well, Roman Catholics, anyway) believe it to be holy.
Certainly so, but that doesn’t make the Vatican “objectively holy.” It’s objectively a city-state in Italy. It’s objectively the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s objectively the site of the Sistine Chapel.
I don’t believe that something can be objectively holy, so the only way I’d use the term is “holy [to XXXX group]”.
Do you also feel the need to correct anyone who uses the term “Holy Roman Empire”, or specify Holy [to Catholics] Water, or to add “According to Greek Legend” before every story about Zeus?
The point is (I think) that if you are asked if something is (----) and you reply that is considered to be (----) by a significant number of people, then you have answered a question other than the one that was asked. Is “holiness” determined by a certain percentage of the populace (what percentage) or the deity/deities being honored (what deity/deities)? It seems to me that “considered to be holy by this group” is more accurate than “is holy” and that the latter should not be a shortcut for the former.
When I say “the Holy Roman Empire”, I’m not saying “the Holy (to some [but not all] Christians) Roman Empire”; my language is objective.
If you’re a zealous member of another faith, you might object to referring to the HRE as “Holy”. But if you’re not religious, I think the “…to a group of people” bit is implied, and that’s sufficient.
“Holy Roman Empire” is just a self-ascribed name, maybe a bit egotistical but understandable. It doesn’t claim to be the only holy group out there or deny others the use of the word.
So actually this brings up an interesting point: where is the cut off between philosophy and religion in this alternative reality? Most of the ancient Greek philosophers were religious thinkers (or would be called that today). Even philosophies we think of as secular like stoicism were actually treated more like religions in ancient times. Hell even Pythagoras ran a religious cult not a school of mathematics
If none of them exist I’d say the would make it objectively worse than our real life universe
Sure, we could ignore the supernatural aspect clearly implied in the OP and define “religion” so broadly as to make any conversation about it pretty much useless, but I’d rather we didn’t.
So where’s your cut off? I’m assuming all the abrahamic religions are out. Belief in the Olympian deities and similarly polytheistic pantheons, too I guess? But there are plenty of other religions with less explicit deism. Platonism? Buddism? Stoicism? Epicurianism?
Invisible self-aware entities that have the power to directly effect our lives laying down rules for us to follow, just to keep it simple…although I expect someone will find a hole in it somehow.
