BS: Blind Faith ?

Subject: Blind Faith ?
From: RichM
Date: 13 Mar 02 - 08:03 AM

Here's an article that appeared in today's Toronto Globe and Mail. What do YOU think?

Do we have a misplaced faith in religious belief?
By JOHN MACLACHLAN GRAY
Wednesday, March 13, 2002 – Page R3 Suffering through the unusually hideous world events of the past couple of weeks,
appalled by the role of religious belief in events as overwhelming as the atrocities in the
Middle East and India… I find myself becoming less sanguine about the place of religion
itself in public life.

For some reason, we don't read about mobs of atheists stoning and burning alive human
beings who do not share their non-beliefs. So far, no agnostics have blown themselves up
in discos, taking someone's children with them. No scientific determinists have been
kidnapped and murdered by supporters of chaos theory. Moral relativists are not
organizing militias for the purpose of putting people in jail for possession of the Ten
Commandments; nor are agnostics firing rockets at pantheists from helicopter gunships.

It makes you think: Given the events of the past half year, why do non-believers continue
on the defensive …? Why do relativism and secular humanism continue to have such
negative associations, especially in the conservative mind? Why does the word "liberal"
inevitably trail the words "elitist" and "hypocrite" in its wake? Who is an elitist, if not the
Taliban? Who is a hypocrite if not a Christian who shoots a gynecologist over the "right
to life"?

For some reason, despite all evidence to the contrary, we uphold a persistent conviction
that people who haven't found religion are more prone to do evil; that a secular family is
lacking in family values; that a pragmatic administration is a soulless machine.

True, up until a decade ago, one could point to godless communism as the dystopia to be
feared. And yet, looking back, it seems obvious that Stalin and Mao did not want to
eliminate religion so much as to become gods themselves; that Pol Pot had more in
common with the believer Adolf Hitler than with the atheist Karl Marx.

More to the point, confronted on an almost daily basis with the dangerous capacity of
religious belief to drive people off the deep end (to induce a woman to murder her
children, for example), why does belief continue to be encouraged, protected and
accorded a special place in North American society? Why is a given belief system worthy
of public support, simply because a given number of people believe it? Why, unlike the
arts -- which are similarly nonprofit, state-supported, non-materialistic activities -- are
religious institutions exempt from having to explain themselves to non-supporters, to
demonstrate that they are a benefit to the community with graphs and multiplier effects
and all the rest of it?

I'm not saying that believers could not make such a case for themselves to a public forum
or a jury of their peers (think of the music, not to mention Good Works). What puzzles
me is that they aren't called on to make it at all, before they achieve tax-exempt status,
before they start a school.

At minimum, when a believer runs for public office, is it unreasonable to expect him to
explain his convictions to people who don't share them? Should a candidate happen to
believe in a coming Apocalypse and final judgment, should she not explain to the rest of
us how this might tie in with her views on, say, crime and the environment? If you
believe in predestination, what are the implications for health care? If you believe in karma and reincarnation, what is the point of a social safety net?

After Sept. 11, can any political leader proclaim his beliefs to be "private"?

As North Americans muddle our way through the crises of terrorism and its aftermath, in
which religion and a belief in the afterlife are demonstrably part of the problem and not
part of the solution, isn't it a bit creepy to see the President of the United States spreading
a religiously freighted abstraction ("evil" -- as in "axis of") whose purpose is to marshal
support for an expansion of the war against terrorism to a level not unlike the Crusades?
Why does the Commander-in-Chief have himself photographed in prayer, and not in
discussion or thought?

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against belief. Even the atheist is a believer, being
unable to conclusively prove his position; even the scientific method becomes a form of
belief when it gets into quantum mechanics and string theory. Face it, we live in a
universe that is either finite or infinite or both (depending upon which astrophysicist you
talk to) -- only, all three alternatives are inconceivable to the human mind. As we dangle
between impossibilities, belief becomes unavoidable.

But it seems to me that there is a crucial difference between believing something and
believing it utterly. And regardless of his or her beliefs, it seems to me that in a
democracy, every citizen has an obligation to recognize that just because you believe
something doesn't make it so.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Mar 02 - 11:41 AM

what do I think?....I think it is an almost hopeless debate.

By the time a person HAS deeply ingrained 'beliefs', whether in religion or other things, it is VERY difficult to find common ground for discussion of the basic components OF belief.

Yes, I do feel awkward in a society that claims to separate church & state, yet puts "In God We Trust" on our money, etc....but it took several thousand years to arrive at the place we are now, and at least I am not being (directly) persecuted for NOT believing in a certain way. Though, if I were to run for public office, one of the first questions I'd be asked is which church I attend...not whether. (If I remember correctly, Dwight Eisenhower had to look about for a convenient church when he decided to run for president)

The article makes a point...that 'belief' is just that...belief; and even non-belief is a sort of 'belief'. The thing is, some 'believers' would, if they could, impose their particular beliefs...and off we go!

I can defend ('explain' might be a better word) my beliefs, but I try not to these days, unless asked or pushed, as it makes little difference to those whose minds have different beliefs. Peaceful co-existance seems a much better path.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: JulieF
Date: 13 Mar 02 - 11:44 AM

I must admit that I have often found that people's attitudes to me have been - You can't possibly be an athiest because you have "Christian" moral values. This is more that a little irritating considering what moral values some "Christians" have. Conversely, I have friends whoes religion is so part of their being that it is impossible to tell if they would be a different moral person without their religion.

In terms of the raging mobs etc described above. I think we athiests can't claim the higher ground. There are many religionists who have no part in these activities and there are many non-believers who simply vent their rage, bad behaviour in other groupings. If there was no religion there would still be groups of people behaving badly based on Nationality, race or the size of their little toes.

Julie

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Mar 02 - 11:38 PM

Check out "Christians at War" in DigiTrad

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: GUEST,Just me
Date: 14 Mar 02 - 11:21 PM

Religion is the enemy of God.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Mar 02 - 01:08 AM

Rich:

I urge you to differentiate between the very vital and positive human sensitivity we call "Faith", and the bizarre dramatization of forms and figures which usually passes for religion, actually a piss-poor country cousin at best.

Conviction which draws on -- what to call it -- "sentient certainty" of a seep and spiritua; kind does not only not encourage dramatization and psychosis, it renbders it highly improbable. If in its place you substitute fixed ideas, dogmas, doctrine as a defense screen against feeling and being in the world in a genuine way, you get the kind of melodrama that spills blood.

But why confuse that with the spiritual power that actually informs compassion, breakthrough insight, genius and deep love? Just because people steal the labels off a Ferrari and paste them onto a Pinto doesn't mean its horsepower goes up.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: RichM
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 01:17 AM

Amos, thanks for your good advice;I am aware of that:) I do practice personal spirituality.
The confusion of religion vs. spirituality ain't the point. Many religious people are excellent spiritual people. It's that religionists have to take some responsibility for their co-believers, and work to change the toxic elements of their common belief systems.

If one is a good christian/buddhist/muslim/pagan--ie you strongly believe in and PRACTICE the COMMON tenets of your belief system, you share some responsibility for your fellow believers' wrong actions that result from that belief.
At least one should condemn these actions, and work to change the aspects that lead to these perceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Les Jones
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 03:11 AM

It seems to me that anybody can create or declare a religion. Isn't that what L Ron Hubbard did? Isn't that what individuals and collections of individuals have done across the ages. Some seem to help people do somethings sometime. Relgions don't need to be coherent to survive.

Science is based on our experience of natural phenomena and what we think it means. Over time a concensus is arrived at that is the best bet at that time. All systems of accademic understanding work pretty well like this. Religion seems not to.

If I want a phone number I go to the phone book. If I want to study rocks or natural history I choose other books. People who choose the bible to understand natural history don't look in the bible for phone numbers. Now, why is that?

Some teachers in Gateshead, England and various states of America, are telling lies to children and they will be burning books if we do nothing

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 03:27 AM

On NPR, today, they reported that the National Associations of Christian Broadcasters (i think that is the corect title) ousted their new preseidnt because he made remarks which seemed to indicate he thought too many Christians were being identified with a politicl party, namely the GOP, and that maybe they all ought to get back to the business of "saving souls" and not do so much politicking. Outrageous of him as far as some of them were concerned.

I heard some chilling words, not new, but still chilling, from one of the conservatives who wanted him out, as to how important it was for all Christians to be out there, in politics, and in every place else available, working on saving souls, yes, BUT more so, working through politics and the media to "bring the country back to its Christians roots" etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it. Reminds me of one of my favourite bumper stickers: "God protect me from your followers."

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 11:10 AM

The problem is the combination of cynicism (on the part of leaders) and fanaticism (on the part of followers). Stalin didn't need any religious system to justify his massacres (unless you want to generalize "religion" to include communism.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 02:46 PM

I think we are all subject to blind spots, whether we allow ourselves to acknowledge it or not.

And simple wisdon seems to indicate we should adopt a kind of tolerance for diverse poitns of view to accomodate that part of our natures.

But tolerating intolerance gets intolerable after a while!!

Kat, I'll take a dozern of those bumperstickers! Trade ya for ones that say "Sorry, Mister, but my karma just ran over your dogma!" (old, now, but still beautiful).

A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 04:08 PM

This discussion could (and has) gone on forever, but simply put, where the article presented is concerned, the flaw in its logic is in the assumption that atheist and agnostics would aggregate in order to have their crimes against humanity properly attributed.

There is no count on the toll of human hopelessness.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: RichM
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 06:19 PM

This wasn't a call to just atheists or agnostics,(who in my opinion, can be almost immune to logical discussion of THEIR belief systems).

It's a call to all of us to recognize the tragic results of false perceptions by establishment churches,religions, when they use violent solutions. No one is above the law--or should be.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Mar 02 - 07:00 PM

Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. There are alot of folks hiding behind religion to justify and rationalize very bad behavior and thoughts.

Guest, just me says: Religion in the enemy of God.

Kat refers to the bumper sticker that reads, "God protect me from your followers."

Now I don't know that much about other religions, but speaking as a follower of Christ there are way too many so called Christains that never made it past the Old Testament. Yet these people call themselves Christain. If they are not asking themselves in their daily lives, "What would Jesus do?" as they go about making decisions then they are not Christains. Unfortunately, this applies to way to many folks who are in a position to make the decisions which effect the tuture of the planet and its inhabitants.

Lord, forgive me, for the judgement of Faith is for you to decide but we have had this talk before, Lord.

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: Les Jones
Date: 17 Mar 02 - 04:14 AM

It seems to me that most people have the potential to do bad things, especially when nobody is looking. The law and democracy, not perfect but the best bet, can protect us sometimes.

People believe and say all kinds if things which to many of us appear simply wrong. They only matter when the impinge on the lives of others.

Creationists are not using the bible to look up phone numbers oe mend the car but they are teaching children that the bible can explain geology and biology. What ever the bible is and what ever it is good for, teaching natural history is not one of them.

Creationists often say evoltion is just a theory. Well, what does that mean. Some European languages, French, Spanish, Portugese etc. seem to be related to Italian. The THEORY is these languages developed after the Roman invasions of those countries a long time ago. The evidence is compelling, the THEORY is supported. In the same way the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Do we want people who don't understand what a theory is and are confused about the purpose of non-fiction teaching anybody?

What's that strange smell? Is it a book, burning? Now, at what temperature do books burn?

If you fancy some real 'Ore and wonder' read anything by Stephen Jay Gould Cheers

Les Jones

Subject: RE: BS: Blind Faith ?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 17 Mar 02 - 08:55 AM

Ah, but Rich, looking at what others are doing from the viewpoint of what they "should" be doing... is another age-old problem. All we can really do, I think, is look at what we ourselves should be doing, and do it, and work out whatever gets in the way of that. It might include encouraging others or inspiring others or helping others do what youo think might make sense for them to do... but it never works from the stance of judging them.

Example: I read a FABULOUS account of a fella who was VERY leftie and VERY worried about the conservatives in his area and their activities. He took this to his counseling sessions. His counselor said, "Why don't you work like the dickens to get him elected?" This novel approach struck a chord, so the fella tried it. To reach that goal, he had to get so close to the candidate, to understand his views and promote them, that he started to really understand the guy and see how he got so rigid. He enountered his own rigidities too, and worked through them more effectively than he had ever been able to. Several years later, he is still a staffer for the guy. But guess whcih one of them is influencing the other? Yup. It's the "leftie" who everyone in the guy's "cabinet" listens to. Because he makes sense and his communication is free of his own rigidities. The politician's rhetoric may be just as rightie, but the ACTION... has been creeping steadily left. This one man has had more impact for his effort than he would have by parading with signs proclaiming the awfulness of the guy's platform. Because his effort is placed where it CAN have the most impact.

~Susan