 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mutual respect
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Mutual respect From: GUEST,PMB Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:18 AM I've got my own set of beliefs about most things, and I believe that I have very good reasons for having them. Other people have different beliefs, and I believe that they are wrong, but that they have their own reasons for those beliefs, which are good enough for them. So I respect those beliefs, as long as those others don't try to stop me acting in accordance with my own. And this is where it starts to get complicated. Some of my beliefs clash in serious ways with those of other people. We have many discussions, often fairly rancorous, about the the various expressions of these... Vin Garbutt and abortion was one recently. The problem is that certain beliefs seem to leave no middle ground. Some in the Catholic Church (it's the official line; many who style themselves Catholic do not follow it) believe that all abortion is a crime and an obscenity, regardless of the circumstances. Many others agree with me that to force a raped woman to carry the foetus to term is itself a crime and an obscenity. There are many other friction points like this; for example, the position of so- called "apostates" in Islamic communities, social customs like forced marriage, the status of science education where this clashes with revealed religion; and so on. Generally, the beliefs which I find it hard to respect involve people coercing someone to do something against their will, and it's easy to mount the moral high horse here. But hang on... there are many cases in which I am the one who wants to make someone do something they don't like, or stop them doing something they want to do. Radical genital mutilation? I'm against that- even when it seems to be undertaken voluntarily. Educate your child according to your beliefs? Not if that means indoctrinating the child that non- believers are hateful. So what I am waffling about, is that I want to have respect for other beliefs, but I also want that respect to be mutual, and that those with different outlooks must be prepared to consider "in the bowels of Christ" that they may be mistaken. We need to achieve this, if pluralistic societies are to survive. The question is, how do we go about it in the face of so much intransigence and hate? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:26 AM Sure...everyone wants respect to be mutual. So, how do we go about it? We do for others as we would like them to do for us....we do not inflict upon others what we would not want them to inflict upon us. We take the first positive step. And the next. And the next after that. We do not cast our negative judgement upon others. Matter of fact, all that is covered quite succinctly in the New Testament...and also in a great many other faiths than Christianity...but people conveniently put it all aside when their feelings get engaged and they focus on some other passage instead. One that seemingly gives them the right to judge, condemn, attack, and coerce. ;-) And so it goes. That's why new spiritual teachers have to keep coming forward, century after century, millennium after millennium and why they always will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Liz the Squeak Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:45 AM Trouble is... we're all human and humans aren't programmed for that sort of equal exchange. We can only hope to learn from others and try harder to give what we hope we would receive. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Aug 07 - 11:47 AM I want to have respect for other beliefs, but I also want that respect to be mutual Do you mean "respect" as a behavior, an inner feeling, a value, or what? When you think of your own attitude about it, are you thinking mostly of your feelings about others' beliefs or about how you expect yourself to behave toward the person holding bekliefs different from your own? My first reaction to your post was: It's hard to "respect" in an effective way if you put conditions on the respect you "offer." If a condition of your respect is that I (using myself as an example) must be prepared to question my "beliefs" if they vary from yours, how do you feel about my requiring you to do the same? Kinda icky, I bet. Me too. That's cross-proselytizing, actually, although usually that's a pejorative reserved for being aimed at Christians. A healthy respect-- I think of my friendship with Bill D here at Mudcat (hi Bill). We are at wide variance, yet I cannot think of a closer friendship in this environment. It's as close as the friendships I treasure with people who believe as I do, and closer than many of those-- and who knows why! I don't feel like we have conditions upon one another.... I dunno if Bill does. We associate, or we don't. We tend to associate, sometimes actually seeking one another out! :~) And consider this-- IMO people can't really know what others believe, on the detail level, since so many people (despite what they say) tend to have that nasty habit of thinking, learning, and changing. :~) Even the people you seem to think are so rigid.... many of whom I have known to be beset by a huge habit of doubt and/or curiosity, and learning. I think that actually, different beliefs are less a barrier between people than are reactivity and defensiveness. There's actually quite a large amount of territory between talk and action. Who cares if we disagree when we talk to one another? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:01 PM It (the concept of mutualrespect) is not something we just wave in front of people and expect them to say "Oh, sure...now I get it!" There are far too many who will say, "but look what 'they' did to my ancestors in 1437!", or "..but God TOLD us this is our land and that we SHOULD drive out all the heretics." Sadly, the ONLY way out of this morass is gradual, and I mean VERY gradual, education of the young in the very foundations of how to **THINK**, coupled with reduction of the stresses of overpopulation and struggle for food, water and resources which drive people to invent and exaggerate excuses for conflict with those who look, talk, worship and think differently. So...you say, "gee, Bill....that all sounds so vague and unapproachable!" Yep..it sure does. I suppose we could just yell at them, like Lucy Van Pelt in the Peanuts comic strip, and scream, "Change your minds! Change your minds, I say!"....or we could threaten to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't behave...but, wait...many of them live right next door - maybe armed conflict is not a good idea. So, again I say...we have a twofold problem, those in other countries who hate us, and those who live right among us who are certain that THEY have the answer, and want THEIR answer embodied in law and education....so the answer, hard as it is, MUST begin right here in our own schools, political & economicinstitutions and media which currently take the path of least resistance and refuse to face reality. Not very encouraging, am I? Sorry..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:12 PM well...cross posted with Susan. And we have very different responses, I see..... but Susan is right...we DO have that mutual respect, mostly BECAUSE we don't have "conditions upon on another"...except that neither of us is trying to 'convert' the other. What we DO have is some comprehension of what the other's viewpoint and outlook is; and somewhere we learned how to balance having differences with expressing differences. I did it in a very formal way, thru college and Philosophy classes, and applying rules of thinking & logic until it became very natural to evaluate other viewpoints in a reasonably fair way....and I suspect that this is how it MUST be done for a great many, as the tendency in local & family and religions groups is to retreat behind defenses and claims that "WE" are right. ......it ain't easy.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:31 PM ...we learned how to balance having differences with expressing differences... I think (am I wrong Bill?) that if you wanted to express yourself in my direction on a belief of yours, knowing that it differed from mine-- well, I like to think I'd listen to you, because you're a friend. I might even learn something, in gaining new info or in contrasting your idea with mine and thereby learning more about mine. Or both. But mostly we talk about other stuff. [Hm, that was hard to put into words] [more brightly-- easily] And I VALUE that Bill's ideas spring from/stand upon/involve ideas, beliefs, and processes that differ from mine, because I KNOW people can tend to miss stuff due to wearing blinders. I THINK Bill must realize that that may be true of himself as well... but if I say something that has years of "ministry" experience behind it, Bill uses his own tools to look at what I said, not mine. He may KNOW where it came from, but I don't bother to preface my thought with all that. And that's exactly what I would expect him to do.... In other words, we don't try to use our "beliefs" to prove any particular point. I think we must expect the points to stand on their own and to stand up regradless of the lens one may put on to get a closer look. Sh*t, Bill, we've become [shudders]....examples. [raucous laughter] What can I say-- I just like 'im as he is. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 12:52 PM I like Bill's post RE: gradual change. But I like it best with the western notion of democracy as arbitrator. I accept that we will always have extremes in belief. I believe that as long as those extremes don't infringe upon another's rights, then it's best to leave hands off of them. And I think that democracy is the best tool we've come up with so far to make sure that the extremes don't drive the machine. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Nickhere Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:05 PM Hi Guest! My tuppence for what it's worth - "Educate your child according to your beliefs? Not if that means indoctrinating the child that non- believers are hateful" I think everyone will educate their children according to their own beliefs - not only is it natural, it is inevitable. I don't think it's possible for anyone to tell children, "what I sincerely believe is this...but you must believe that..." Children - at least - would spot the contradiction immediately!! If you educate your children not to think non-believers are hateful, it is precisely becuase you believe that too. Then you don't see it as 'indoctrination' as it is simply what you believe and what makes sense to you. As Oscar Wilde might put it - "indoctrination is people teaching other people beliefs we do not hold ourselves" ;-)) "So I respect those beliefs, as long as those others don't try to stop me acting in accordance with my own" It depends on what you mean by 'trying to stop you acting in accordance with my own'. Of course we all have free will and Jesus (for example) never put a gun to anyone's head. It would have defeated His whole purpose of course if he had. But 'trying to stop you' could mean many things. If I saw you doing something that conflicted with my beliefs, or I thought was harmful to society, yourself or me (and that insight was inspired by my beliefs) I might try and reason with you, to stop you through the power of the word and my viewpoint. If you persisted, I could only let you go ahead, couldn't I? Then there are legislative means of 'stopping people'. If I believe something to be evil, I have to vote according to my conscience for politicians who will not legislate to allow that kind of action and to make my opinion publicly known through the press etc., when debate on the topic is aired. At the end of the day, I don't think pluralism should simply mean 'a free for all' where everyone does exactly what they like, as this is simply sociopathic as opposed to society building. Meaning and limits to freedom need to negotiated for any society to exist. This should be so obvious as to hardly need stating. For example we can't have a society where some people believe it's ok to murder because it's in accordance with their beliefs and refuse to accept any constraint on their behaviour. That obviously represents the extreme end of the spectrum, nor does it mean we should murder these people in turn. "Some in the Catholic Church (it's the official line; many who style themselves Catholic do not follow it) believe that all abortion is a crime and an obscenity, regardless of the circumstances. Many others agree with me that to force a raped woman to carry the foetus to term is itself a crime and an obscenity" This is a tricky one and a good example of what I'm talking about above. You believe abortion is OK in some cases, I believe it's wrong in most cases, so where do we go from there? Obviously it makes no sense if I were to try and stop people from committing abortion by bombing them etc., (as I understand has happened in the US at abortion clinics etc.,) as this simply perpetrates the very murder I am trying to stop. What I can do is take part in the debate on abortion to try and show other people why I believe it's generally wrong. I don not believe - as I often hear - that in this kind of instance our religious beliefs ought to eb something for private behind closed doors. If this were so I would no longer be 'acting in accordance with my beliefs'. [I should add at this point that there is a difference between judging a person and their actions. God has told us not to judge people and we will not be judged, but He does not expect us not to discriminate between what's good and evil either nor to keep our opinions to ourselves when the need arises. Unless we walk in someone's footsteps we can't know what drove a person to abortion or suicide or murder and so should be careful of condemning them. But we can know that abortion, suicide and murder as acts in themselves are wrong, and say so]. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Jerry Rasmussen Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:27 PM I could say that respect is earned, but that's not even true. You can't always earn respect. Respect me, Damn it!!!!!! I too have a great respect, but precious little agreement in matters of belief) for Bill D. In Bill's case, he earned it. I've long since bowed out of "religious" discussions, because they are rarely discussions. It's mostly a lot of people talking, and no one listening. The best that I can do in my life is to stop trying to remove a splinter from my neighbor's eye when I have a two by four in mine. Jerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:36 PM I could say that respect is earned, but that's not even true. For it to be mutual, both parties have to give it freely, and BUILD it. It takes time and it takes restraint and it takes a good amount of maturity, patience, detachment, self-respect and self-confidence. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Rapparee Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:38 PM Right-o, Jerry. Personally, I try to identify with the tax collector instead of the Pharisee in the temple. And I've stopped looking for Justice -- instead I'll settle for a little Mercy (and try to do the same for others when I can). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:52 PM "[Hm, that was hard to put into words]" oh, my....One of the biggest problems with sharing and debating ideas IS the difficulty of saying what we mean with clarity, and NOT 'coloring' it with language that raises red flags. Those who have one simplistic and hard-nosed viewpoint canusually say what they 'think' they mean succinctly, but usually these folks have little idea of the premises and implications of their positions. (even that little sentence took some careful wording, and I'm sure I could have said it better..[remember the old college saying..."I don't have time to write a short paper!"?]) I am struggling with writing **anything** on this subject, because I have hours of complex, interlocking thoughts about it and related subjects, and keeping to one point is almost painful. Susan & I are aware that we have different opinions about some basic premises in life...but we both value how a person lives more than the details of their theology, or lack thereof. Obviously, not everyone feels this way, and sadly, many feel that 'details of theology' IS the surpreme issue in life, and respect or despise others largely on that basis. I do submit that IF "... you wanted to express yourself in my direction on a belief of yours, knowing that it differed from mine--", it would need to be done carefully, because there truly are some thorny places to negotiate. I have some pretty rigid opinions about basic premises, and how these relate to reality that I cannot demand Susan (and others) accept, just as Susan has some basic opinions about religion and its relationship to life & reality the she knows *I* can't accept. What we do have is a formula (not explicit, but understood), for avoiding the harder parts of the debate, while exploring the aspects that ALL people need in order to live together. ...(which means in this complex WORLD, as well as next door). Told ya' it was hard to express!...You oughta see all the stuff I left out! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Amos Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:54 PM The keystone is continued communication. When beliefs are of such a nature that they shut out the exchange of ideas, the social contract gets completely thrown haywire; the beliefs that call for non-communication tend to, therefore, be anti-social beliefs to greater or lesser degree. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 01:56 PM *smile*...Jerry, you are smarter than I am in avoiding most of it.....but I appreciate your words more than you know! (I have met both Susan and Jerry RT, and they DO have genuine respect & tolerance for views other than their own....which makes it much easier to respect theirs!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Wesley S Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:15 PM I think that for our purposes it's not really important what someone believes but what actions they take.If I'm bleeding by the side of the road I don't really care what the motivations are of the person who comes to my aid. If they heard a sermon about the Good Samaritian - fine. If they didn't - that's fine too. Actions speak louder than thoughts? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Crazyhorse Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:34 PM Sorry to be a pooper but I don't believe it necessary to respect the beliefs of other people. Respect the people by all means but that doesn't require you to respect what they believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:34 PM Wesley, I just want you to know that if I ever saw you bleeding by the side of the road, I would surely come over to you and ask if your guitar was okay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Wesley S Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:37 PM And that folks - is a true friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: SINSULL Date: 20 Aug 07 - 02:51 PM "and that those with different outlooks must be prepared to consider "in the bowels of Christ" that they may be mistaken." How is this respectful? Or am I missing something? Respectful to me means allowing people to embrace their beliefs. There is no proviso that they must recognize that they may be wrong. Insisting that someone allow doubt into their firm beliefs is hardly respectful. I am amused at BillD's suggestion of teaching young people to think. My experience with organized religion is that that is exactly what some religions are trying to avoid. Faith in what can not be proved is basic to religious beliefs. I am not trying to provoke a debate or ridicule anyone's religion. This has been my experience. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:07 PM "Respectful to me means allowing people to embrace their beliefs. There is no proviso that they must recognize that they may be wrong. Insisting that someone allow doubt into their firm beliefs is hardly respectful" Well said! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:21 PM Hi, PMB - I think the people you're talking about are mostly those who are best labeled "hard-liners" or "extremists." You use the Catholic Church and abortion as an example. Yes, the "official" position is that all abortion is morally wrong - but you add some emotion-charged words that put a stronger "spin" on it. The "official" church also offers programs to reconcile, heal, and welcome back women who have have had abortions. Also, a longstanding teaching that is often misunderstood states that if a person firmly believes that what he or she has done is not wrong, there is no guilt even though an action is objectively wrong. Yes, the Catholic Church takes a strong stand against abortion - but it also tries not to exclude women who have had abortions. What you hear from the outside are the shrill voices of the extremists. What you would hear in a private counseling session would be quite different. I think you'd find the same in groups that practice some sort of "ritual mutilation," for lack of a better word. What we hear of are the extreme examples - most people in these groups, while they may have practices and beliefs that outsiders consider barbaric, are quite compassionate in the way they live out those beliefs and practices. Same goes for arranged marriages and rules about chastity. All groups have extremists who enforce beliefs in a barbaric way - but I find that the majority of people in almost every situation, have a strong preference for being loving and compassionate. Don't judge groups by the shrill, extremist voices that claim to represent the group - look deeper, into the hearts of the normal people who form the compassionate "silent majority" of most communities in our world. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: wysiwyg Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:39 PM Respect -- showing it, building it-- can also involve keeping commitments, remembering what's important to the other, and backing off when asked without going too far away. Absent that, relationship of any sort is not respectful, nor sustainable. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Rapparee Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:40 PM The media reports the "news" -- those who yell loudest. This has been true since AT LEAST the middle 1960s. As a result groups and people have learned to exploit the media, to turn it and twist it so that it reports what they want it to report. And you don't have to be a billionaire to do this. Abortion, gun control, immigration, airport security, gay marriage, and a host of other things have prompted "dialogues" in which one side simply castigates the other without listening to each other. A dialogue in the media has become two monologists talking to an audience. And the audience all too often is made up of people who believe as the speaker does, and who associate only with other such people, and so they believe that because all of their friends think so EVERYONE must think so. Eric Hoffer was right then and he's right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:42 PM Hi, Rapaire - What's the full quote from Hoffer? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:44 PM "I am amused at BillD's suggestion of teaching young people to think. My experience with organized religion is that that is exactly what some religions are trying to avoid." *grin*...well, yes...but what is the alternative...telling them it is OK to not think rationally? I never said it would be easy. With care, it IS possible to teach the basic principles of thinking without any specific references to any organized religion, so that other positions are at least understood...and it is even possible to BE a rational thinker and still be a member of a religion....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 03:56 PM I think Rapaire is referring to the entire thesis of Hoffer's "The True Believer" rather than a single quote.... perhaps he will correct me, but it's not something that one chops sound bytes out of. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:06 PM I shoulda known that there'd be an article on it in Wikipedia! read this...if you trust its outline..*grin*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:07 PM Schools, governments, societies, religions, parents...most of them teach a child what to think, then reward him or her for doing so and penalize them for demonstrating divergent thoughts. Thus is free thought discouraged by most entrenched power systems as they do what they primarily are in business to do...perpetuate themselves and extend their power. They do not teach HOW to think, they teach WHAT to think. They don't tell the child "don't think rationally", they tell the child "This is what you should be thinking, because it is rational, and it's right, and it's proven, and we all know it, and here's the rationality behind it. Just stay within our definitions of what is rational and what is not as you go through life, and you may be sure you are on safe ground." Accordingly everyone, and I do mean EVERYONE, is convinced that his own thinking is eminently rational...while it probably seems quite plain to him that the thinking of those who think differently from him is not. ;-) In such an environment mutual respect is not easily achieved. I agree with you, Bill, that "it is NOT possible to be a (truly) rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one." You might say the same about your form of goverment, philosophy, social customs, etc... They are all options, they are all possibilities, and not one of them is the ONLY correct and reasonable one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Joe Offer Date: 20 Aug 07 - 04:31 PM Yeah, it's true that many institutions, particularly religious ones, teach children what to think. I think that just as many teach people how to think - even Islam has sponsored great universities that have been homes for critical and creative thinkers. In my eight years in a Catholic seminary, the focus of my education was on critical thinking, not on indoctrination. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:04 PM Joe...I would assume that seminary would assume you WERE already 'indoctrinated', or you wouldn't be there. Am I incorrect? I can't imagine that they would teach critical thinking in such a way that it might interfere with Catholic theology....are seminaries that different? I am aware that you are pretty liberal, as Catholics go, but how did seminary contribute to this? I know many institutions that 'teach' "how to think" within the parameters of the credo, that is, how to creatively expound and defend and explain the institution itself. Some of this is indistinguishable from 'rhetoric' or its cousins. I am concerned, as you know, mostly with the most neutral form possible...although it does sometimes lead to non-neutral positions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Little Hawk Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:23 PM Everyone is already indoctrinated, Bill...just in what set of beliefs is the question? We are all as children indoctrinated by the collection of cultural assumptions that is all around us. Such indoctrination is, in fact, inescapable, regardless of whether you belong to an organized religion or not. Some cultures, of course, are more reasonable than others. ;-) But then it depends on what you think is "reasonable", doesn't it? I do recall being taught how to think...to some extent. It might have comprised 1 or 2% of what I was taught in school. The other 98% of it was being taught what to think. And I was well aware of that at the time. For a person of even moderate intelligence knowing how to think comes pretty naturally. You observe what is around you, and you deduce based on your observations. You form conclusions through reasoning, based on what you see, hear, and experience. But if the discipline of learning how to think is encouraged by good teachers, it can become stronger. That was certainly true in ancient Greece among those who attended philosophical schools. I think it is less true now, and that's mainly because the primary motives in this society are commercial ones, not philosophical ones. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:42 PM "....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that your form of religion is the only correct and 'reasonable' one. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting Same can be said... ....but I do claim that it is NOT possible to be a rational thinker and maintain that no form of religion can be correct enough to reflect truth or be 'reasonable'. Splitting hairs? maybe...but hairs sometimes need splitting. Being dogmatically non-religious and being dogmatically religious are equally irrational. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:44 PM Being a rational thinker is only very tenuously connected -- if at all -- to whether you are religious or non religious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: SINSULL Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:47 PM As strict as my Catholic education was, I can remember moments when I was challenged to think through the obvious and consider another conclusion. In a discussion about Jews and their failure to follow the "true" faith, I remember one nun pointing out that Jesus was a Jew and remained one until his death. His last act before his arrest was the celebration of Passover. Then she asked what that meant. I remember being dumbfounded. And I remember some children being angry - it wasn't in their power to think outside the box. But at another time I remember being screamed at because I had asked why the missions were so poor when the Pope and the Cathedrals had gold and silver and money available. Sister Blister did not encourage questioning the wisdom of priests and the Pope. $5 to adopt a little black baby did not make any sense to me. And when the half starved missionaries showed up for two weeks respite it made less sense. They were poor and ill fed and had that strange desperate look in their eyes. They even had to borrow the Church vestments because they had none of their own. Looking back I see that in high school I was encouraged by some nuns to read and think. They truly cherished the bright ones who showed promise - a little like being Miss Jean Brodie's favorite. I believe they knew what they were doing although I also think they firmly believed I would never lose my faith. My high school was run by the Jesuits which explains a lot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Nickhere Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:55 PM Bill D - I am no seminarian, and not any expert on theology, but as far as I know theology as taught in the seminary requires a good deal of critical thinking. It's not just a list of what to believe but also a study of how the various 'Church fathers' as they are known, came to those conclusions and where we can go from there. (Joe might correct me on that, if I'm off target). There seems to be an assumption that being a Christian means not having to think, to having all your thinking done for you through a list of rules and rituals. All I can say is that hasn't been my experience and it has thrown me into crisis many a time because it demanded that I re-evaluate my whole world view, often seeming to fly in the face of commonsense. But the pieces do fall together bit by bit and a larger picture emerges. I agree with LH though that often school etc., doesn't really teach critical thinking. But this is a malady across all human institutions, which often aim to reproduce their own ethos simply by rote and drill. If it were otherwise, the cops who ahng around with water cannon, dogs and video cameras at every peace march / anti-war protest might shake their heads and ask themselves "Hey, wait A minute, what are we doing here? These guys are on OUR side and the side of our children!!" and put down their batons. It has happened before in history when events pushed people to question the conventional 'wisdom'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: SINSULL Date: 20 Aug 07 - 05:59 PM Simply put: it is not possible to prove a negative. But it should be possible to prove a positive. No religion offers absolute proof of the existence of a god. Faith in what cannot be proved is critical. And it is not rational thinking to believe completely and exclusively in what cannot be proved. As to no form of religion reflecting truth or being reasonable - that is very different from declaring a religion or belief system the only true one. At least this is how I interpret BillD's statement. But he can speak for himself. I not only do not accept the teachings of any religion as absolutely true, I see no proof that we (humans) have any more worth on this earth than ants or worms or any other living thing. We have come and will go as do all life forms. Reality to me; a frightening concept to some; but it is what it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Rapparee Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:03 PM I was taught by the School Sister of Notre Dame (SSND), the Christian Brothers (FSC), and the Franciscans (OFM). While we memorized answers from the New Baltimore Cathecism in grade school, beyond the ninth grade (high school freshman) we were actively encouraged to ask, think, and draw conclusions which we then had to defend against other students and the teacher. Try defending your conclusion that the Bible is not divinely inspired, or the existence of a supreme creator, or the concept of a 'one true church' using ONLY logic and without reference to religious teachings. (E.g., you can't say, "The bible is divinely inspired because it says it is.") As my wife once said, "Overall, the Roman Catholic Church made a big mistake in the US. They taught us to think." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:33 PM "Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue" at the 1964 Republican Convention . That phrase worked against him, but many use similar logic in other areas, including religion. " ....this is not something I made up to make fun of 'True Believers'...it is essentially something I heard in various forms during my childhood in Kansas. There was a little place a few blocks from me which published those little 'tracts'....small, folded booklets with drawings that promised "eternal HellFire" if you didn't join _ _ _ _ church and/or accept Jesus.(space left for the church to stamp its own address)...at that time I was still a Methodist, but those booklets left a bad taste in my mouth. I was quite aware that there WERE other opinions, and I couldn't see why people had to be threatened into Heaven. In Wichita, they ran the "B.C." comic strip (widely known for Johnny Hart's Christian orientation) in the Eagle newspaper, until he published one in which one character asks B.C. "do you believe in God?".."Yes" was the reply..."Why?"..."Because there might be one!", replied B.C.....BOOM! The shit hit the fan! Very soon, the strip was cancelled in the paper due to protests from the conservative Christians, and remained so for about 2 years, until they were convinced that it was all just a misunderstanding, and that Hart DID love Jesus. Very little 'mutual respect' went on around there, but by that time, I was a Unitarian, where there was as much as I could hope for in any church-like institution. We had a Rabbi speak, we had long discussions...the minister was a former Baptist preacher who said he simply could not stand up and demand 'obedience' any longer....and by this time, I was also in college, beginning my formal education in 'how to think', in a Philosophy dept. which took a pretty dim view of 'orthodox' anything. We even had a Religion dept. which had a nice guy who was very 'ecumenical'. So, here I am 40 years later, the product of both a reasonably 'liberal' education and my own experiences, trying to make sense of a world which seems not to wish to get along and 'respect' others......and I just.....keep.....typing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 06:40 PM "And it is not rational thinking to believe completely and exclusively in what cannot be proved." And all I'm saying is that it, therefore, cannot be rational to believe completely and exclusively that there cannot be a god. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: SINSULL Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM Of course, that would depend on the your definition of "god". An all-seeing, all- knowing being? A natural order? Is the god oF the Christians the same as the god of the Jews and Moslems and...whatever but interpreted differently? Can god be interpreted? We will have to agree to disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: dick greenhaus Date: 20 Aug 07 - 07:59 PM Bill- Have you figured out how to respect the beliefs of folks that, in your opinion, are simply not thinking? I haven't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:16 PM Here's how I'd say it a little more clearly... Bill's assertion is flawed (in my opinion) in at least three ways: 1. He sets the foundation with the implication that religion gets in the way of rational thought -- and he does so by lumping all religion together in his statement, as though the differences between religions themselves is inconsequential in determining the rationality of their thought. This way, "religion" is now something that is no more rational -- no stronger -- that its weakest link -- its least capable apologist. 2. Then he graciously and patronizingly allows as how, against all probability, somehow some religious people are still capable of rational thought. 3. But he further qualifies point number two: It is based on a judgement on his part -- that the religious, in order to be able to think rationally, must not actually believe what they believe. I say that not all religions are equally reasonable or rational. And I say that the extent to which a particular religion is reasonable or rational will naturally dictate the extent to which they might influence a liberally educated, pluralistic, democratic society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: John Hardly Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:18 PM differences {....} are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:19 PM "And all I'm saying is that it, therefore, cannot be rational to believe completely and exclusively that there cannot be a god." I can agree with that, but it is what I would call a 'trivial' point, since most of the problems are with those who insist that there MUST be one...and that they 'know' what god wants. All I know is that most religious claims don't meet my standards for something that affects everything I do. (Dick...yeah, up to a point, I can...because.....since *I* think, I have some idea how those folks got that way, and how hard it is to break the habit of not thinking after one is an adult. This not to say I am comfortable with those folks, but I keep my interaction with them to "Please don't expect me to believe like you, and please don't bother me with exhortaions to change") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Amos Date: 20 Aug 07 - 08:39 PM I am inclined to believe (a) that all godhood is speculation, among humans, except possibly in very rare cases of transcendent experiences. And that (b) such experiences will not be accessible to linguistic representation because we have precious little vocabulary to even begin thinking about the nature of things outside of space-time. And so far, every metaphor, symbol, icon, or imaginary construction I have seen or head intended to represent divinity has just fallen flat on its face. As my friend William Jefferson used to say, "It kind of depends on what the definition of "is" is." A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Bill D Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:32 PM "...(b) such experiences will not be accessible to linguistic representation because we have precious little vocabulary to even begin thinking about the nature of things outside of space-time." Gee...that sounds good when you explain it like that, Amos...I wonder why it didn't sound quite so good when I said similar things about 'spirit' and 'essence' and other non-material things...*grin* (naawww...I'm not gonna go on a search for details right now...just baiting you.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Rapparee Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:42 PM Actually, I'm not going to worry about whether or not there is a god, God, or anything else. I'm going to try to live along the lines of "treat others as you want to be treated," as someone once expressed it, and if that isn't good enough, well, I tried. I suppose that I'll know for sure whether or not there is a Supreme Being and an afterlife soon enough, really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: Amos Date: 20 Aug 07 - 09:52 PM Bill: Obviously you are not a master Baiter. The answer should be obvious. While the majority of humans on earth have experience with the spiritual at least in some degree, no matter how muffled, expanding that experience to an actual experience of divinity is not something many claim, and very few have tried to describe, and most of them have not succeeded in my opinion. But in terms of individual experiences, of personal spiritual nature, it probably outnumbers (in # of individuals) those who have not had any such. The literature is full of bits and pieces of individual transcendent experiences -- NDEs, OOBEs, moments of telepathic or remote viewing, snatches of reincarnation memories, deja vues, and so on. Obviously there is a huge spectrum of quality of information and degrees of certainty involved, but I think you get the point. I believe that more people believe in their own spiritual nature, living lifetimes one after another, than believe in a single-body model. And even the latter have some sense of themselves as a "soul" in many cases, confused though it may be,. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mutual respect From: GUEST,PMB Date: 21 Aug 07 - 04:17 AM While the majority of humans on earth have experience with the spiritual at least in some degree That's not at all surprising- everyone has a "spirit". But don't make the assumption that the spirit is something independent of the physical body. I'm quite happy to talk about souls, even demons and possession- but to me the evidence is that they are, like the "mind" processes that occur solely within a physical structure, the brain. Also, be careful of a shift of the meaning of words in mid- sentence. "Spiritual" can have a technical meaning in theology- relating the animating, perhaps immortal aspect of a living human- but it also has the everyday meaning of relating to those aspects of human culture that are not directly related to everyday living. expanding that experience to an actual experience of divinity is not something many claim Again, beware of conflation of meanings. By "divinity" do you mean relating to a non- human intelligence of higher-thatn-human powers, or (merely?) a feeling of transcendescent insight? But I mustn't have explained myself very well. What I was driving at when I kicked off this discussion was to talk about, not the details of different people's beliefs, but the problems brought about by non- reciprocated tolerance- the feeling that some groups are exploiting this without attempting to do their part in return. Back in the 70s, we in the anti-racist movement mounted all- night vigils to prevent attacks by racist groups on Asian- owned businesses. Now the sons and daughters of those same Asians are telling us that our society is worthless and is to be rejected completely. Similarly, there is a growing anti- rational, anti- science movement in which people who have the leisure and health because of the advances of science and technology of the last 250 years, reject the very idea of evidence- based investigation and advocate (from the comfort of their homes, thanks to armies of public utilities workers, and via the electric internet) a return to the kind of life that kept so many millions in misery for so long. So what I'm trying to say is that I want a proper debate, which you can't have with someone who has decided that they know all the answers already. There are many problems with our society; Asians are entitled to reject and despise those who would attack them, environmentalists are right that the blind exploitation of science and technology has caused many new problems (nuclear weapons and waste, environmental degradation, uprooting of whole societies, and resistant bacteria just to name a few). But an abdication of rational thought is no way to overcome these. Religion is one way of framing thought, and has offered and delivered much over the years (as well as the opposite). But it can not replace rationality, it can only supplement it- and mutual respect is needed as much between disagreeing religions, as between the religious and non- religious. |
