 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Another View of Religion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 11 - 12:11 PM John MacKenzie said something that really made me think. He said:
The key word here, I think, is "allow." It's not a word I use very often, because it doesn't fit into my view of the scheme of things. "Control" is another word that is very foreign to me. I am very much a believer in individual responsibility and individual creativity, and I don't believe that I have the right or the ability or the responsibility to control the actions of others to any significant extent. I am what I am and I do what I do. The world around me is mostly beyond my control, and I see much of my surroundings as a matter of serendipity. I can have a profound effect on the world around me by who I am and what I do, but I cannot control that world. And conversely, I cannot be controlled to any significant extent. Through the twenty-five years I worked for the government, I had several bosses who found that out. If they left me alone, I did outstanding work; and I had a national reputation for the quality of my work. If the bosses tried to control me, there was trouble; and I suppose I also had a national reputation for obstreperousness. I spend a lot of time picking up garbage in an alley in the poor section of Sacramento where I do volunteer work, because I think it makes the alley look better. I don't do it to make myself look good or to earn credit or pay – I simply do it because I think it ought to be done. People stop in the alley and ask me how they could get somebody to clean this mess up, and they say something should be done to stop people from making such a mess of the alley. I tell them that I tried for six months to get the city or the apartment owners or somebody to clean it up, and I got nowhere. So, one day about five years ago, I spent four hours cleaning the alley, and it looked pretty good after that. Ever since, I've spent about an hour a week cleaning that alley, and it looks pretty good. Some kids stopped by and asked if I was doing "community service" and I said that I was – but I think they thought I was doing it because the court ordered me to do community service. Nope – it just makes the world look better. It also gives me a chance to chat with the neighbors as they go by in the alley. Cleaning the alley is a horrible job. I pick up all sorts of disgusting things – used condoms, animal bones and once a skull, feces (human and otherwise), diapers and sanitary napkins, all sorts of rotted food, and those fricking plastic bags that are everywhere in our universe nowadays. It's such a disgusting job that I wouldn't ask or hire anybody to do it – but I have to admit that the neighborhood looks better when I'm done, and I like it that way. I also clean the bathrooms in church between Masses – simply because I like them to be clean. I do these things as an experiment – to see what effect my efforts can have on the world that surrounds me. I've found I can have quite a profound effect on my world – and besides, the alley looks pretty good nowadays. So, to tie in with all this, my idea of God has to do with serendipity and wonder and joy and beauty and freedom – not control, not judgment, not oppression. I see church as a framework through which I can encounter this God. I see Jesus Christ as a man of complete integrity who did all he could to bring justice and compassion to this world, and that led him to his death. And through that integrity and through that death, he redeemed the world and inspired others to bring justice and compassion. And through all that, he conquered death. I see Jesus as divine, and others don't; and that's OK with me. Now, this is my belief – I don't really expect anybody to believe the same thing. I just want them to allow me to be who I am and believe what I believe. Now, other people see the world through different eyes, and their perspective is every bit as valid as mine. For them, the word "control" has much more meaning. They see chaos in the world, and a need for someone to take control of that chaos and bring order to the world. They look to God and church and government to bring control and order to that chaos. They also look to themselves to bring order and control. Sometimes their God and church and government and their own efforts have very good results – but when God and church and government and their own efforts fail, they lose heart. They may stop believing in God, church, government – and finally themselves. These two perspectives (Weltanschauungen?) are mutually exclusive, and people with one perspective find it nearly impossible to understand the other – or even to coexist with those with the opposite perspective. But coexist they must. I certainly find both perspectives in my surroundings, and even in my own Catholic church – and it's not an easy coexistence. But somehow, we have to find a way to coexist and work together. I believe it can be done - and I believe the tension between these two perspectives, can be a very healthy and creative thing. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: olddude Date: 19 Mar 11 - 09:21 AM Faith cannot be defined it is only felt. Some like myself it is Christ, others it is Allah, Budda, the great spirit. They have all one message, forgive others, what you do to others you do to yourself. Once that message is lost then it becomes religion, and political. A good man no matter of faith or without faith will follow such a path. Atheists are good moral people and some are bad, Religious people are good moral people and some are bad. It is all in how we view life and how we conduct or own actions. Faith is not a flag to be waved or forced on others. That is probably the worst thing one can do. Free will is what defines life. For a faith based person actions speak a lot louder I think. But again that is only my path, each must have their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,John MacKenzie Date: 19 Mar 11 - 09:13 AM So creation can be defined as GIGO then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 11 - 09:00 AM Well, Michael, it depends how you define God - and my contention is that God defies definition. Your wish for a less-imperfect body posits a God who writes a script according to an "intelligent design" model. But I think you and I would agree that we came to be though a complex intermingling of coincidences and accidents and logical consequences, following the laws of Nature - we evolved. Our parents may have made a conscious decision to conceive us - or we may have had more serendipitous beginnings. Some people see a divinity underlying that process, and some don't. Whatever the case, the way we came to be is the same, whether we see divinity in the process or not. So, if the force that created you was an "Intelligent Designer," then the fact that you are imperfect may be an indication that your Designer was less than perfect - but only if that's the way the process worked, but some Designer pulling strings. But I think you and I would agree the we are more the product of accidents and coincidences that somehow came together to make us what we are. I rather like being accidental, but I'd agree that there are a lot of aches and pains and sorrows and imperfections that I'd rather not have. But rather than seeing the Divinity as being the Causer of the process by which we came to be, I see divinity in the essence of the process. Or, at least that's how I would define it from today's perspective. My perspective is likely to change tomorrow. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 11 - 08:25 AM === Ah, but Michael, if you were a smooth-operating, perfect automaton, would your life be worth living? === Can't see where I ever expressed such a desire, Joe. The wish that, just maybe, I could get on with something without the constant interruptions of such irrelevancies as needing to pee or wishing I didn't have quite such a headache, is hardly an ambition to be any sort of automaton. What I complain of is that the Almighty, if he really did make me, could have done so much more efficient a job of it — if he actually was as "Almighty" as such a designation suggests. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 19 Mar 11 - 05:44 AM I think it's quite different from the stereotype that Suibhne has imposed upon me. In all all fairness, Joe, you impose the stereotype on yourself - that of the anguished folk-liberal who is also a confirmed Roman Catholic, and, therefore at odds with much of the history & theology of their faith and its teachings. I know plenty of Gay Catholics who are utterly devoted to their mother church despite its teachings on such things - some of them seem to get off on it; and I know divorced Catholic couples who are effectively non-communicant but would be lost without weekly mass. Times it seems that the Official Church is way of line with the Pastoral Reality, but the relationship of individuals to a monolithic theology evolved over the last 2,000 years is bound be be a bit off to say the least. You've already stated your beliefs on abortion, but what of Limbo and Purgatory, which still haunt the nightmares of two lapsed Catholics of my acquaintance who were both ill-treated by priests in their childhood. I know many devout Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge the present pope, and many others who attend Mass as if it was some grim penance. As an old priest friend of mine once said: You never see anything fill so slowly as a church before Holy Mass; just as you never see anything empty so quickly afterwards! The phenomenon of the Enlightened Catholic still clinging onto their very unenlightened faith is maybe not recent, but I would think a lot of Catholics out there would find much to sympathise with in the your opening post. One fellow of my acquaintance is forever telling me that the Bible is pretty much 100% wrong, but he never misses Mass. But then again, I know a lot of normal unenlightened Roman Catholics who just get on with their lives without questioning any of it. They are the simple & unthinking pro-life anti-Gay Rosary chanters who go on pilgrimages to Lourdes and Walsingham and might even check the latest wisdom of the BVM from Medjugorje where they gather in their thousands. A dying breed? Let's hope so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,John MacKenzie Date: 19 Mar 11 - 05:03 AM Now let me ask about religion and morality, as to many people they seem to go hand in hand. As a non believer, I consider my moral standards to be somewhat Calvinist, due to my Scots upbringing. Yet I find the morals of many God Botherers to be a very moveable feast. I don't mean sexual morals here, I mean moral principles in general. For instance Joe as an avowed Christian, allows some things to pass on here, that I would expect him to find abhorrent, and if for no other reason than that, I could never be a believer, as turning the other cheek where I come from, just invites another slap. I know there is a line to be drawn, and sometimes it amazes my how much people's lines differ. The attitude of different religions to sexual behaviour is a case in point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 11 - 03:27 AM Ah, but Michael, if you were a smooth-operating, perfect automaton, would your life be worth living? Would there be any challenge in your life? Would there be any opportunity for growth or creativity? I don't see God as some sort of all-powerful script-writer that controls all that happens. I suppose some religious people see God that way, but I don't. Part of what I see as God is the Creative Force - and many people call that same force Evolution. Another aspect of my view of God, is as being the Center of Love. A third aspect is a common essence that draws all existence into unity - whatever it is that draws us into oneness. These are the three aspects of God that are most relevant to me at the present time. The idea of sin and redemption? I think we all have a temptation to turn away from our higher selves, and move into selfishness. I also believe in the power of redemption - that somehow, we have been give the strength to return to our higher selves. Is Adam one man, or is he Everyman? I don't like to describe this stuff because it's hard to convey in words, the impact this has on me. That's why people use myth and ritual and poetry and allegory - to describe that which cannot be described. But at least that's a general idea. I think it's quite different from the stereotype that Suibhne has imposed upon me. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Mar 11 - 02:39 AM Steamin' Willie says:
But does the fact that I belong to a religion that has some bad people, mean that I have no right to speak out against other injustices when I see them? I think my country's immigration policies are unjust; and I think there is unjust treatment of homeless people in Sacramento, where I do volunteer work in a center that serves poor women. I think capital punishment is immoral, and I am a pacifist and don't believe in warfare. If I belong to a church which has priests who abuse children, does that mean I forfeit my right to seek justice for people who are mistreated by my society? And does it also mean that I have no right to object when people make generalizations about my church that simply are not accurate? We're all flawed. Not one of us is perfect. Nonetheless, I think we're all obligated to speak out against injustice and to do what we can to stop it. But I don't call homosexual marriage and most aspects of sexual behavior an injustice, so I don't think churches should interfere with that sort of thing. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: MGM·Lion Date: 19 Mar 11 - 02:18 AM My atheism is based on less profound bases than, say, Aquinas's paradox as to the Problem of Evil: ~~ a God supposed to be both omnipotent and all-loving; but, as there is evil, either he could stop it if he wanted but doesn't, in which case he is not all-loving, or he would stop it if he could but can't, in which case he is not omnipotent. (I have always considered Aquinas a very lucky man ~~ if he had lived three centuries later they would certainly have burnt him instead of making him a saint, wouldn't they?) But I find the concept of a God as postulated incredible for much more mundane reasons. Surely, if we are the summit of his creation, he could have designed us a hell of a lot better ~~ not having this peculiarly inconvenient necessity for constantly pissing & shitting, for instance. Or all the piddling, petty little disabilities that plague us incessantly. Never mind the problem of Serious Evil ~~ why headaches and toothaches? - that's what I want to know. Not to mention the agony of childbirth, to which I am grateful that I have never had to be subject. One of the few sensible aspects of the religion in which I was brought up ~~ not that it's particularly less sensible than the rest of them ~~ is that it requires men of certain orthodoxies within it to thank God daily "that I was not born a woman". The reason given in Genesis for this excessive disadvantage to which half of us are subject, that it is a punishment for Man's First Disobedience and Eve's Original Sin, seems, within the parameters of all these beliefs that we over this side just can't accept, the best possible explanation ~~ which, returning to my original postulation that it is the smaller things rather than the greater that seem to me to make the concept of an Intelligently Designing Being (as some of them over there tried to put it recently), to be, to express it with all possible moderation, so excessively unlikely as to be for all practical purposes entirely incredible. And, indeed, undesirable ~~ why would anyone want to believe in such a vengeful, vindictive entity as the source of all being! Intelligent Design, forsooth. Unintelligent Design, more like... Now, I ask you, who can seriously believe in a deity so crassly inefficient? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Little Hawk Date: 19 Mar 11 - 12:46 AM "What does "believe" really mean anyway?" Good question! And it's one that people should ask themselves more often instead of just assuming they know what it means and fighting with other people about what they do or do not believe. There are a few things I know (from my own direct experience). Those things I can definitely rely upon. There are a great many things I don't know, therefore they are hypothetical, but I may consider them on a range from very probable...to fairly probable...to rather improbable....to very unlikely. Nevertheless, I don't know them, and I KNOW that I don't know them, so I'm not interested in either denying them out of hand (as so many do)...or in "believing" them (as many others do). It's not a question of belief or disbelief. I'll leave the assertion of belief and disbelief alike to those who like to think they already have the answer to everything. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: andrew e Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:41 PM My father was a Church Of England minister. I was sent to boarding school to sing in a major English cathedral choir. I used to daydream I was Superman during the sermons! I never "believed" or "not believed" any of it, and now I don't use the word "belief". I talk about how I "feel". What does "believe" really mean anyway? It doesn't feel logical to me that everything here is just random chance. But then that's just maybe the way my mind works. I feel there's something, but I have no idea what it is. For me, music is a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms-uOoDj2fQ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:47 PM One closing note, perhaps a bit on the negative side: I'm very dismayed that anyone would feel "insulted" by a troubled fellow-Mudcatter's request for prayers. If you are truly able to accept that other folks may hold beliefs different from your own, you should be able to accept such a message in the spirit in which it is offered. In other words: Get over yourself! Just as you expect others to realize that our community includes significant numbers of unbelievers, you need to recognize that there are believers among us as well. Yes, I accept that others have beliefs at variance with mine and I don't see mine as any better or worse than theirs. We all have our own way of getting through the rocky roads of life. Fine. If I come on here and prattle on about my atheism I fully expect to have to defend my notions against vigorous challenges from believers. In just the same way I expect believers who put themselves about to have to face challenges from me. We've had thousands of years of religion being protected from criticism, and I think that is unhealthy and plain wrong. If you come on to a mixed forum of this nature and publicly ask for prayers you should not be too surprised if someone comes back at you and says, "I don't do your bloody prayers, it's a shame you had to put it that way because I really do wish you well." It's not me who has to get over myself, it's the thoughtless and smug people of faith who put up these invidious messages when, as I said, it is an absolute piece of cake to word your message in a far friendlier and more inclusive way. I mean, why wouldn't you? Good question, that, huh? Now you've pushed me into defending what I said and I must say it's all a bit over the top. I regard messages of the kind I'm objecting to as no more than minor irritations from people who really should know better. Believe me, I lose no sleep and there is very little for me to "get over." So be less rude, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Bill D Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:57 PM As many know, I have commented in various threads about religion for 8-10 years. I seem to walk a slightly different path than most because I tend to analyze the arguments and reasoning involved rather than state specifically 'my' position... Of course, it is easy to see that my position is that of a non-religious person. I came to it FROM religion, having been raised a Methodist...so I remember when I just matter-of-factly accepted what I was told. I didn't really ask much till I was about 15 or so....then I got interested in the 'why's of how people think & believe, and this led to a major in Philosophy in college. So... because I remember 'believing', I see why people DO believe, and why articles like that linked above tell us something. It said: "Religion 'linked to happy life' Belief may make us more contented A belief in God could lead to a more contented life, research suggests." Nothing surprising about that! Of course sincere "belief" in God and afterlife is comforting.....which says nothing about whether there IS in fact either one....and I would NOT wish to take that comfort away from those who are simply not psychologically configured to deal with DISbelief. There are sayings to the effect that "religion is a crutch"....well, maybe....and sometimes some people need a crutch, simply because.... because... Now... there is a reason we use the word "believe". If God parted the clouds everyday and wrote instructions in flaming letters in the sky, we might not need 'belief'... even more so if lightning occasionally struck someone who was obviously ignoring those Heavenly instructions! Since that does NOT seem to happen, it is easy for some to question "whether". Here is what concerns me: **because** a strong belief in religion also often includes a mandate to tell others about one's belief, ("Go, and become fishers of men"), it leads to conflict. Joe Offer makes the point that he and other moderate Christians are quite willing to go about their religion and not bother those who are not religiously inclined. If that were the universal way of doing it, the debates would be much 'easier'. But those who accept the mandate to live their religion publicly and preach or 'witness' it to others are numerous enough and vocal enough that it IS an issue. Right now there are attempts to insert religious doctrines into politics and various candidates and legislators are USING appeals to conservative Christianity to get elected. Well...gee... if they are 'right', as they 'believe' they are, it even makes sense...from their point of view. It is even strange that moderate Christians do NOT proselytize! You see....there is a fundamental problem when some simply do not accept the tenets that others consider obvious and compelling. Issues like abortion become serious, in that some feel their belief system requires them to oppose it....some in radical ways, while others (like me and various others here) cannot comprehend why ANY systems that, by definition, is optional and based on 'belief' should have ANY control over our lives! We say things like: "If YOU don't believe abortion is right...don't do it!" and "If YOU don't believe in shopping on Sunday...stay home!" and "...but leave ME alone!" It is really, really upsetting to atheists and agnostics when we see schoolbooks with statements directly contradicting science...simply because some believe that their 'interpretation' of some book assembled in myriad ways by anonymous clerics thousands of years ago leads them to 'believe' that Jesus...whoever he was.. MUST have known dinosaurs....or some equally interesting concept. When you add deceptive education to attempts to force religion on others...and see people being killed in wars and assassinations because of religious differences... you WILL have continuous conflicts and arguments. Now... that STILL doesn't mean that non-believers should gratuitously insult those who are **merely** expressing an opinion. There is no way of 'proving' them wrong, so it is a good idea to limit complaints to serious matters...like the aforementioned proselytizing and meddling in what should be personal affairs. Can I say more? Sure... I could go off on 43 tangents on any of my points! But, sheesh! All I can hope for is restraint ...from both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Mar 11 - 06:12 PM "If you encounter a "spiritual" phenomenon--whatever it may be--and discuss it with someone hard over on material science, they will seek to disprove it or reject it ..." The assumption there is that "discussion" is about disproving or rejecting the other person's way of thinking. It can be more about trying to understand the other person and identifying where there is disagreement and where there are things held in common. That seems to me a more fruitful kind of discussion. This thread has largely been an example of this kind of discussion, which makes a pleasant change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST Date: 18 Mar 11 - 05:07 PM Amos: "If you encounter a "spiritual" phenomenon--whatever it may be-- and discuss it with someone hard over on material science, they will seek to disprove it or reject it on the grounds of statistical science, or physics-based methodology which draws only from the repeatable patterns of physical realms for its evidentiary data. This of course sets up two opposed intolerable logic loops." YES! Or as I'd put it, the two individuals arguments are based on different premises. One needs a rational/material basis for their beliefs, the other requires a religious/faith based premise, one party expecting the other to debate their belief in the terms of the other, is not too far from saying "I think you expressing your freedom of thought is great, with the tiny caveat that you think freely in the same way that I think".
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: PoppaGator Date: 18 Mar 11 - 04:54 PM Very eloquent opening post by Joe, followed by a remarkably good-spirited discussion. After too many years of Catholic education, often but not always uncomfortably oppressive, I stopped participating in the Church well over forty years ago. I've always believed, absolutely, in a spiritual dimension beyond what's visible here in the world of finite time and space, while at the same time maintaining a strong agnosticism as regards the exact nature of whatever that might be. Unlike the popular proponents of rationalist atheism, I can't accept the proposition that, because something's existence cannot be proven, it necessary cannot exist. On the contrary, I believe quite firmly that something far beyond human understanding certainly must exist. That does not, however, entail acceptance of all the doctrines put forward by any church. All the organized religions are human institutions and have shown themselves to be subject to human imperfection. Very much so. I grow tired of all the accusations that "religion" is to blame for all the various injustices and cruelties of human history. All these ills have been endemic to society as a whole and enforced by the various ruling elites; that religious leaders have usually been part of every society's privileged classes is a fact that demonstrates the human imperfection of the churches, but has nothing to do with the true message of Christ or Buddha or whoever, nor with the faith of the vast majority of believers. In a nutshell, I would propose the argument that the only real spiritual truths promulgated by any religion are those very few tenets shared by all religions: to value truth and goodness (i.e., to "love God"), and to transcend the limitations of self (to love one's neighbor as oneself). This is the key to achieving higher consciousness. Beyond such abstract philosophical considerations, we also need to consider the function of church congregations as communities. In the aftermath of Katrina, I was deeply affected by the kindness of strangers, groups of folks from faraway towns arriving at my home to help with the hard labor of cleanup and reconstruction. Some of the groups were quite explicit, even perhaps a little loud, in proclaiming their faith, often a very simplistic form of faith that I couldn't possibly share. But no one ever prosylitized, tried to convert me, or whatever; everyone was always helpful and humble and personable. FWIW, I never observed a single bus-full of secular humanists on a "mission" trip to help us flood victims try to put our lives back together. Every bunch that showed up with chain saws, haz-mat suits, hammers and saws, etc., was affiliated with some church or synagogue. (I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few mosques ~ Muslim groups ~ in addition to the many Christian and Jewish communities; I just didn't see any.) For whatever reason, only communities organized around some explicitly religious principle seemed able to muster the organizational strength and resolve to actually make such a trip. One closing note, perhaps a bit on the negative side: I'm very dismayed that anyone would feel "insulted" by a troubled fellow-Mudcatter's request for prayers. If you are truly able to accept that other folks may hold beliefs different from your own, you should be able to accept such a message in the spirit in which it is offered. In other words: Get over yourself! Just as you expect others to realize that our community includes significant numbers of unbelievers, you need to recognize that there are believers among us as well. I have serious doubts of my own about petitional prayer; I tend towards the belief of "non-theistic" Buddhists, that the spiritual laws of karma, etc., are hard and fast, and that none of us can expect special treatment because we "ask" for favoritism on behalf of the Divine. My idea of the value of prayer ~ or, more precisely, of meditation ~ lies in its role in transforming oneself, placing oneself in closer harmony with the creative force of the universe and thereby with greater hope of experiencing favorable outcomes. In other words ~ in words well-known in the context of "old time religion" ~ we pray/meditate in order to "get right with God." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:54 PM Where I get lost is when people claim that to believe in something unseen is irrational- we believe in unseen things every day. This is not the claim that atheists make. I believe that there is an Oort Cloud outwith the solar system that feeds comets in our direction, though I have never seen it. Neither has anyone else. But the evidence for its existence, though not conclusive, is reasonable. It's quite rational to believe that it exists, leaving some room for doubt. You can either accept the word of all the astronomers who have postulated it (rational enough if you agree that most astronomers abide by the generally-accepted tenets for the conduct of scientific enquiry, in other words, if you trust them) or you can examine the evidence for yourself (possibly even more rational). Equating God with other "unseens" is slightly disingenuous, for the simple reason that, unlike with, say, the Oort Cloud, evidence (from our knowledge of the laws of nature) and reason (reaching conclusions from that evidence) points overwhelmingly to the strong probability that God, as commonly defined as a supernatural entity, does not exist. You have to skip over evidence and reason, in other words rationality, to believe in God. You literally have to suspend disbelief. Which is what faith is all about. Of course, a lot of the argument we have here revolves around what constitutes "evidence." Personally, I don't accept tendentious ancient writings, ceremony, tradition, hearsay, theological texts or witness as evidence. Which is why I'm an atheist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:25 PM I should add that, in addition to my own personal creed, my civil life - like everyone else's - is regulated by the laws of the land which, if I obey them to the best of my ability, regulates my place in society and punishes me if I break them. That's quite enough regulation for me without a further religious dimension based on propositions which I firmly disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:20 PM Well, I wouldn't care for a streak either - but I might like a steak. :-) Seriously though, my answer to that would be that the meat-eater hadn't followed the rule: he hadn't himself considered how he - as a dedicated meat-eater - would feel if he was offered a totally vegetarian meal by the vegetarian. See what I mean? If the deliberate offering of meat to a vegetarian was meant as an insult - rather than a genuine mistake - then the proposition wasn't followed. It's called thinking carefully and having consideration for how you deal with people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:11 PM How about the case of a meat-eating gourmet who invites a vegetarian to dinner and generously puts a streak in front of them, Will? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Amos Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:09 PM Another interesting loop that gets set up in these discussions is something you could call "wrong map" syndrome. If you encounter a "spiritual" phenomenon--whatever it may be--and discuss it with someone hard over on material science, they will seek to disprove it or reject it on the grounds of statistical science, or physics-based methodology which draws only from the repeatable patterns of physical realms for its evidentiary data. This of course sets up two opposed intolerable logic loops. In some ways it is like trying to find your way around Boston with a map of Seattle. Unlikely to resolve. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:04 PM It's a bit more complicated than "Treat others as you want to be treated yourself" (Will Fly - 18 Mar 11 - 06:43 AM) Is it? For a general rule of conduct, it's actually quite reasonable - requests for prayers or otherwise - and includes addressing people with the same tolerance and respect as you yourself would wish to be addressed. And, of course, like any other rules of conduct, it can be ignored by those who choose to do so - which doesn't invalidate the general proposition in the first place. If someone does consider a prayer request as an incitement to fighting talk, then that person is simply ignoring the rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,lively Date: 18 Mar 11 - 01:01 PM "when that spirituality is part of a multi-national hoo-hah machine with a long and bloody history of wholesale murder, persecution, execution, and the propagation of deathly compliance then is it not proper to question that? After all, religion is about actively choosing to believe in something, often agressively adminstered when we're too young to know any better. At the heart of the Catholic Mythos is the The Fall of humanity from some state of happy perfection into that of miserable sin. Then comes The Passion of the Christ which somehow redeems anyone who believes humanity is worthless enough to have justified such pornography. Then comes the Roman Catholic Church persecuting anyone who disagrees with them in the name of a mythological suffering." Well, you've got me there Suibne.. I have a problem with the abuse of our fellow beings in any form. But it especially stings when those doing the abusing perversely assert some kind of religiously informed superiority over those they abuse as a means to justify their own morally corrupt behaviour. Of course this happens all the time. But it appears to be a particularly fond default for the tribes of Abraham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Dave MacKenzie Date: 18 Mar 11 - 12:53 PM "we just don't need the extraneous fairy-tale hoo-hah" Isn't that a raison d'etre of a folklore site? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Mar 11 - 12:47 PM It's a bit more complicated than "Treat others as you want to be treated yourself" (Will Fly - 18 Mar 11 - 06:43 AM) After all, they might not want to be treated in the way you want to be treated yourself. As demonstrated by those who would see a request for prayers, or a promise to pray for another, as fighting talk. ........................... A pretty level-headed and open-minded thread on the whole, which is unusual in a thread touching on religion here. That's thanks to Joe for the way he launched it. Interesting that the occasional posts that seem to tend to break the harmony appear to aspire to a tolerance that in practice they do not demonstrate in their selection of language... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Ebbie Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:48 AM Guest/lively, you misunderstand me, I believe. I agree that religion, per se, has been the source and conduit of much violence, abuse and exploitation in its history. However, condemning it on that basis is like condemning the instutution of marriage. Marriage, too, has frequently been revealed as violent, abusive and exploitative. We still engage in it. Because there is much good in it too. Where I get lost is when people claim that to believe in something unseen is irrational- we believe in unseen things every day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:42 AM I'd be more likely to argue how normal Catholics (and other religious people) are. People are people the world over, Joe - we just don't need the extraneous fairy-tale hoo-hah which tends to obscure that fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,lively Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:38 AM re: "a god" v's "god" - there are many people with many faiths with many gods in this world. Some faiths claim ownership of the one and only, while others do not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:37 AM the more tolerant we would all be towards others who believe differently to us How is it possible to tolerate intollerance? It's like being tolerant of criminals and paedophiles. If all the religious were concerned with was their individual relationship to spirituality then fair enough, but when that spirituality is part of a multi-national hoo-hah machine with a long and bloody history of wholesale murder, persecution, execution, and the propagation of deathly compliance then is it not proper to question that? After all, religion is about actively choosing to believe in something, often agressively adminstered when we're too young to know any better. At the heart of the Catholic Mythos is the The Fall of humanity from some state of happy perfection into that of miserable sin. Then comes The Passion of the Christ which somehow redeems anyone who believes humanity is worthless enough to have justified such pornography. Then comes the Roman Catholic Church persecuting anyone who disagrees with them in the name of a mythological suffering. On any level it doesn't make sense and yet this is what's being fed into the brains of millions of innocent children everyday, many of whom will eventually have the guts to reject it as being the utter nonsense it is, but many of whom won't. And they'll go on believing it, and passing it on like some defective genetic curse from one generation to to the next. And the RCC is just one of thousands of religions, all of whom make about as much sense as the next, and all of whom claim to be true. I've a long pesonal interest in Human Spirituality and the Wondrous Cultural Manifestations thereof, but I don't see any of that happening today; it's a thing of History and Heritage, long replaced by a modern enlightenment which is common to all - unlike religious belief, which is a hangover from the medieval shadows when, a mere 800 years ago, the RC Church were implementing the merry masacre of countless thousands. And they're still at it - only these days they do it by lobotomising their kids by filling their heads with stuff they'll be having nightmares about all their lives. It's like people who read the lies in the British Press and get so depressed about the state of the nation that they're afraid to go out of the house... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Ebbie Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:24 AM Hmmmmm. After remarking upon - and appreciating - Steve Shaw's show of respect in capitalizing names that are important to others, I now will remark upon other posters that say 'god' rather than "a god". Subtle or not, there is a difference. Discussing whether someone believes in 'a god' is quite different from discussing whether someone believes in 'god'. The usage of one is meant to be insulting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Mar 11 - 11:08 AM Suibhne asks: Is that why Joe's forever telling us how good Catholics are Don't think I'd argue that, Suib. I'd be more likely to argue how normal Catholics (and other religious people) are. They span the spectrum. They don't fit into little boxes that other people designate for them. For the most part, their opinions are their own, not necessarily the opinion of some leader who controls them. Some were brought up by parents and teachers who used religion as a tool of oppression, and most were not subjected to that oppression. "Mind control" was a hot topic in the 1950s, and people were told how the Soviets were going to bring us all under their godless mind control. I've never believed that. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:45 AM a *request* that someone consider their spiritual beliefs in the same way that you prefer to, isn't the same as believing someone 'should' do so. "I doubt, therefore so should believers". This isn't very clear, but anyway. Your last sentence misrepresents what I am saying (I'm beginning to think that this is what you want to do). I am not suggesting that you should doubt because I doubt. I am suggesting that it is rational for someone on either side of this particular issue to harbour at least a modicum of doubt. God is neither provable nor disprovable in any rational sense. As for 'exclusivity', if you choose to exclude yourself, that is a choice you make. If you feel offended by it, grow a thicker skin. That is a typical example of religious imperialism! I believe that others should believe in god if that pleases them and request prayers from fellow believers if that pleases them likewise. Their belief in their god, is none of my business, so long as they don't try to make it my business, which is another matter. Agreed, right up to the last bit. By posting for prayers they are making their belief public, and in that sense making it everyone's business. Your private belief is your business, but once you make it public... This is not a religious website. One reason, among many, I seldom go to religious sites is so as to avoid reading stuff like that. It's a small thing, but it is so easy to avoid by choosing a more inclusive form of words. I think that would be quite nice. The uk is perhaps the most secular state in the world, it should be far moreso. The more secular a state, arguably the more tolerant we would all be towards others who believe differently to us. Hmm. I suppose you could say that Stalin and Mao ran secular states. Like with everything else, tolerance will come through knowledge and understanding, and that means education. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: olddude Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:20 AM the great beauty in the mystery of life is that each person has the free will and the right to choose whatever path works for them. That includes people of faith and those without. In the end, it is how we treat each other. When the dirt is thrown on ones grave, it is all about what difference we made in the lives of others, who will remember and why. Sometimes on mudcat it is heart warningly well, and at other times is is sad indeed .. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,lively Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:13 AM a *request* that someone consider their spiritual beliefs in the same way that you prefer to, isn't the same as believing someone 'should' do so. "I doubt, therefore so should believers". As for 'exclusivity', if you choose to exclude yourself, that is a choice you make. If you feel offended by it, grow a thicker skin. I believe that others should believe in god if that pleases them and request prayers from fellow believers if that pleases them likewise. Their belief in their god, is none of my business, so long as they don't try to make it my business, which is another matter. The uk is perhaps the most secular state in the world, it should be far moreso. The more secular a state, arguably the more tolerant we would all be towards others who believe differently to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Greg F. Date: 18 Mar 11 - 10:00 AM Hear, Hear, John, Steve & Will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:19 AM What is Mudcat doing? Has a previous post gone and shifted everything up one step? I've just gone back through my browser history and the post above - which was 51 - is now no. 50! Apologies for the consequent double-posting.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:16 AM What happened to this post - which was originally No. 51 at the top of this page? ===================== From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:51 AM Excellent post from Will, above (the one before last). One path of less resistance would be for no-one ever to discuss religion. That would leave everyone in their little comfort zone and would be a complete copout. It might work a little better in a world in which religion was not in any way organised, and in which worship, or not, was a completely free and private matter. But it isn't. As Will points out, that accident of birth thing determines what religion most religious people "belong to" and therein lies the seeds of much trouble on this planet, and it's absurd when you really think about it. Religious extremism - which is more usually the topic which sets Mudcat on fire - is the ultimate expression of the desire to control and impose conformity. I abhor it. That is a statement few people, bar the nutters, would ever disagree with. But where does moderation end and extremism begin? If you define it as above, then you are including all religious instruction in schools and you are including christenings and other induction ceremonies. My view is that these things are utterly wrong, but they are endemic and I'm not going to get anywhere by calling millions of parents "extremists" for sending their kids to Catholic schools or whatever. The argument has to be put, but it's next to impossible to put it without ruffling feathers. Believers see all the indoctrination as part of the religious community thing whereas atheists may see it as an instrument of control and a ploy to get people in young to keep up the numbers. If you can see a way of discussing that without it getting all inflamed you're a better man than I am, but that is no reason for the argument to be not put. ================== |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:10 AM 'i feel that believers should also accept that there is no certainty' steve shaw. Thats an interesting position to take, because it demands the rejection of a fundamental premise held my many / most? believers of certainty in god through 'faith'. Its not too far from saying that you feel that believers shouldn't believe what they believe but they should believe what you believe. I have no wish to lower the tone of the discussion but that is quite annoying. Suggesting to someone that it is irrational not to harbour at least a scintilla of doubt (which I'm sure nearly all believers do) is not the same as saying you should believe what I believe. I've already said that any atheist worth his or her salt will not tell you that God certainly does not exist. Any fellow atheist of mine who said such a thing would be taken to task. Asking you to adopt a similarly thoughtful and rational standard is not telling you to believe what I do, is it? 'when someone starts a thread asking for prayers... That is an insult' steve shaw. If a person believes in the power of prayer, and that is what they want, then they are entitled to ask for it. If as an atheist you are unable to provide what has been requested, then you can offer what you are able to provide. I think there have been requests for financial support on this forum, should people unable to offer any financial support feel insulted by the request? The equation between material goods, which I may or may not possess through good or bad fortune, and prayers as something "I am unable to provide" is entirely false. A poor person may well see the giving of money by those who can afford it as entirely appropriate. Asking for prayers on a forum which is well known to have a goodly proportion of non-believers is simply out of order. There is a very easy alternative, which is to ask for kind thoughts and good wishes. Otherwise there is that smack of arrogant exclusivity, which may be taken that way whether intended or not, and your "unable to provide" remark seems to add to that impression. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 09:08 AM Just read it, Keith. The number of unanswerable questions it raises - particularly around the style, number and content of the household surveys, data collection methods, questionnaire bias, etc. (I used to do some work for the BBC Audience Research Department and its analyses of survey accuracy and bias) - is legion. I personally can't count it as credible evidence on its own, I'm afraid. Define 'happiness' and how we measure it - and that's just for starters! The survey mentions that religion acts as a "buffer" against life's disappointments. Although I'm not religious, I think that's somewhat demeaning to religion. I think we'll have to beg to differ. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:53 AM Will Fly, I was thinking of studies like this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7302609.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Steve Shaw Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:51 AM Excellent post from Will, above (the one before last). One path of less resistance would be for no-one ever to discuss religion. That would leave everyone in their little comfort zone and would be a complete copout. It might work a little better in a world in which religion was not in any way organised, and in which worship, or not, was a completely free and private matter. But it isn't. As Will points out, that accident of birth thing determines what religion most religious people "belong to" and therein lies the seeds of much trouble on this planet, and it's absurd when you really think about it. Religious extremism - which is more usually the topic which sets Mudcat on fire - is the ultimate expression of the desire to control and impose conformity. I abhor it. That is a statement few people, bar the nutters, would ever disagree with. But where does moderation end and extremism begin? If you define it as above, then you are including all religious instruction in schools and you are including christenings and other induction ceremonies. My view is that these things are utterly wrong, but they are endemic and I'm not going to get anywhere by calling millions of parents "extremists" for sending their kids to Catholic schools or whatever. The argument has to be put, but it's next to impossible to put it without ruffling feathers. Believers see all the indoctrination as part of the religious community thing whereas atheists may see it as an instrument of control and a ploy to get people in young to keep up the numbers. If you can see a way of discussing that without it getting all inflamed you're a better man than I am, but that is no reason for the argument to be not put. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:35 AM Yeah, well - I do care as it happens, just can't hack the institutionalised bullshit which passes as Religion. Remember, they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray Date: 18 Mar 11 - 08:27 AM Reading this how grateful I am for my secular upbringing! I meet a lot of desprately Liberal Catholics - decent folk messed up by faith and superstition, still fearful of the lies, threats & fairy tales they were fed in childhood. Is that the problem here? Is that why Joe's forever telling us how good Catholics are whilst coming out with guff such as I don't see abortion as a good thing. I think that the loss of a fetus is a cause for mourning, even if that loss was necessary. In the UK (and elsewhere) the RCC is offering easy conversion to reactionary / sexist / homophobic Anglicans who want to get back to good old intollerance. Maybe in looking at the vile history and ongoing horrors of the RCC what Joe really wants to shout is: Wait! I'm a decent human being but I can't seem to tear myself away from my conditioning so I'm locked in this endless cycle of apology and self-justification which seems to get worse as I get older... Like anyone really cares anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,lively Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:30 AM sorry, repeating myself |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,lively Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:26 AM mcgrath: yes, as said your statement that 'my faith is not inconsistant with my doubt' is a different statement to saying 'your faith is dishonest, because you lack my doubt'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:25 AM In spite of having very bitter memories of a Catholic upbringing which included frequent beatings by Jesuit brothers at my Catholic Grammar School, I am inclined to agree with almost everything you say Joe. It doesn't bother me that other people have different experience and different ideas. I find myself in the exact centre of these arguments, being a believer in a deity, but not a believer in any religious organisation or cult. I think the biggest stumbling blocks to discussion and tolerance are the oft repeated conflation of "Faith" with "Religion", which are IMO two entirely different things, and the fact that some of the debaters are so firmly entrenched at the extremes of the argument that they are not aware that a middle ground exists. It's rather like two strangers shouting threats at each other across a wide gorge, not realising that if they take the bridge and meet in the middle they can discuss the situation quietly, or even shake hands. It's the kind of thinking which leads to grown men terrifying primary school children in the street, because those children of a different faith have to cross their territory to get to school. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:22 AM A well thought through post Joe, thank you for sharing your creed with us. The bit I thought most useful was your take on abortion. You said you mourn when an abortion is carried out, however necessary. That is a take on the subject that I only wish others could follow. To mourn is neither to condemn or condone. None of us want our loved ones to die but we either accept that they do and mourn their passing or have problems coming to terms with the fact that they do and still mourn. Your take on that particular emotive subject is one that people on either side of the debate could (or in my opinion should) accommodate. I guess I am firmly in the camp that will find fault in organised religion and especially those who seek to influence others on the basis of their belief. However, there is a huge difference between opposing the rise of religious interpretations of society's future and opposing people who believe in their God. I have friends and family who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc. If I were to debate their take on life with them, I am sure we would end up arguing, hence I don't tend to do so. Mudcat does occasionally give people the opportunity to, namely or anonymously, air their deep thoughts with no sense of having to hold back in case close friends are offended. That makes these posts somewhat cathartic and I for one welcome the opportunity. I am irreligious, I resent Bishops sitting in our upper house (Lords) by dint of their superstition and I genuinely cannot see belief as being anything beyond superstition. It can be a power for good and is often used wrongly as an excuse for performing bad deeds. In fact I accept that if we didn't have religions, we would probably invent them again anyway. At the risk of sounding elitist, I cannot help thinking that as we evolve, religion will become less useful and that activists are fighting a rear guard action. I am convinced that the tradition rather than the rationale is the reason most people still identify with religions. But you know Joe, if awful deeds were being committed in the name of my religion and I felt strongly that my religion was still relevant, my anger would be inward looking rather than pointing out the shortcomings of we heathens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Will Fly Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:20 AM Studies have shown that people with faith are happier people. That is my experience too. Keith - with respect - that's the kind of statement that usually drives me away from Mudcat discussions. And it does so because my immediate reactions to it includes multiple questions like: What studies? What evidence? Studies from all faiths? Studies from all parts of the world? What studies have measured the happiness of people without faith? And - most importantly - how is "happiness" defined? As far as your own experience is concerned, who am I to doubt your state of mind? I accept it at face value but would still ask - was there a time when you were without faith - a time to which you can compare your present happiness. A bit of a tongue-in-cheek question, I admit, but you get my point, I'm sure. I consider myself a very happy person. My family are all around me; I'm able to live modestly; I enjoy my formal work retirement and the music which has permeated my whole life; I live in a pleasant part of Sussex in a small but comfortable house. Life hasn't always been easy - why should it be - but religion has never played a part in the happiness or lack of it. What does my experience count as a statistic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Another View of Religion From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Mar 11 - 07:07 AM You would not need faith if there were rational, logical or scientific reasons for belief. I have some faith but the doubts persist. I find no conflict with science, cosmology and my faith. Studies have shown that people with faith are happier people. That is my experience too. What a nice thankyou for believing. |
