I typed most of this twelve hours ago. When I tried to post it, Mudcat was shut down. Good thing I save it....or not.

I wanted to say something about the very thoughtful posts from Mrrzy and Slag (original post and others), but what I wanted to say has already been said. Posts like those are the reason I have so much respect for you.



But other people have other statements that I disagree with:

• Atheists question - believers accept without question.
  Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale.
  
• The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?
  
• Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct....

All of these statements view religion from what I would call an absolutist perspective of religious belief. This perspective assumes that religion is acceptance and adherence to of a code of religious "truths" (doctrines) and a moral code, and often involving obedience to some sort of religious authority. This may hold true as a definition of fundamentalist religious faith, but even fundamentalism is more complex than that. Interestingly, fundamentalists and anti-religious atheists seem to share this absolutist perspective of religious faith. This perspective is almost obsessed with dualism - what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's false, what's black and what's white, and so on.

But many deeply religious people are not like that at all. Even St. Paul allows for lack of certitude (and perhaps even doubt) in the famous "through a glass darkly" verse, 1 Corinthinans 13:12). For some people, religious faith is an exploration of the questions of life and of what is beyond, with hope of achieving perspectives without absolute answers. For others, religious faith is an expression of who they are and what is deep inside them, with very little emphasis on information or doctrine - Islam is a good example of this, and so are Polish Catholics and many other ethnic Catholic groups. Mystics go beyond doctrine and simply seek union with the divine.

Here at Mudcat, it is well-nigh impossible to carry on a discussion of religious issues because the anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is, never stopping to think that "right and wrong" may not be the question. That's what happened in the thread on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey - although I note that even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith.

So, anyhow, the question persists: how can we have the freedom to carry on a discussion of a religious topic without always getting bogged down in a "right-and-wrong" argument? Most other forums are dominated by the absolutists on both sides of any issue - isn't it possible for us to find a way do a more open discussion, rather than squabbling about right and wrong all the time?

Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith. Jim Carroll's comments are a good example, as are those of Fionn. What they say is the absolute truth - there is much that is evil that is done in the name of religion. But a good many religious people deplore that evil just as much as Jim and Fionn do. The trouble with religions groups, is that they are human institutions. In every human institution, we have to deal with some people who are evil, many who are mediocre, and some that are extraordinarily good. It is the good and the evil people who have the greatest effect. Now, we can dwell on the evil side of things and paralyze ourselves, or we can do our best to combat the evil while still carrying on with the good side of life. But Jim and Fionn, I think it's unfair of you to insist that vast numbers of religious people condone the evil that takes place in their churches - that just doesn't happen.

So, acknowledging the bad side of things, couldn't it be possible to carry on at least some religious discussions without dwelling on evil? There is evil everywhere, and it can stop us dead in our tracks if we let it. I prefer not to do that.

-Joe-