"Religulous".....comments? (ducks and covers)

I've got to have another dig here, however, as I teach in a multi-cultural and multi-faith establishment and must personally respect all beliefs.

Sadly I oblige as I need my job, but it frustrates me incredibly as I view such belief with disdain as it is SO IRRATIONAL.

On top of that I have students and parents dismissing the beautiful elegance of evolution by natural selection and this I feel is the most wonderful explanation in science.

Jon

You see elegance in natural selection? I find that slightly morbid!

I agree with you about evolution and natural selection Jon. An idea of breathtaking simplicity, but with an astonishing range of applications.

Just cos I'm a religious nutter (haha) doesn't mean I can't appreciate the beauty of scientific thought (I know you've never suggested otherwise, btw).

On your other point about NOMA etc - yes, familiar with the concept. Not sure how I feel about it - sometimes I'm tempted to say that religion answers no questions whatsoever - but is merely a necessary insistence that certain questions about value not be dismissed or forgotten.

I think I agree that none of the trasditional monotheistic religions has a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil (which your second point exemplifies). As I say, I'm hardly a traditional believer.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

I feel "ineffable" comes closest as none of the words you have used bring me any closer to getting what you are trying to describe.

I like the (existentialist?) enthusiasm for commitment but don't see why this cannot be relative or arbitrary.

Indeed - and the proper response may have been for me to say nothing at all ("whereof one cannot speak..." and all that). I just find it hard to see faith rubbished - especially when Dawkins is invoked as an authority - when I know there is a lot more to be said on both sides of the argument. Part of what I'm saying is that faith is more of an art than a science; hence the difficulty (i.e. impossibility) of applying traditional techniques of rational proof and evidenced based inquiry. But this need not signal a retreat into subjectivity, as long as we see art as, in some way, "answerable" to the world, as well as to the imagination. Religion is personal, like art, but also shareable - and there are better and worse ways of sharing it.

Your second point gave me pause - in my earlier post I almost wrote that the important thing about religion is the commitment to a notion of absolute value, and the object of it mattered less than the cultivation of the attitude itself. But I'm not sure I'd want to go as far as to say that the object is entirely arbitrary, so I need to think about this some more.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
Your second point gave me pause - in my earlier post I almost wrote that the important thing about religion is the commitment to a notion of absolute value, and the object of it mattered less than the cultivation of the attitude itself. But I'm not sure I'd want to go as far as to say that the object is entirely arbitrary, so I need to think about this some more.

Thank you for reading what I wrote and giving it consideration. Within your idea (if I understand it at all) idea of faith or religion the moment you make a disputable statement is when you invoke "absolute".

For many - them's fighting words and surely have consequences which should apply to all people.

quote:

For many - them's fighting words and surely have consequences which should apply to all people.

Sorry Adam, I don't understand what your driving at - please could you say a little more.

quote:

Sorry Adam, I don'y understand what your driving at - please could you say a little more.

It's usually clearer if he says less.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
please could you say a little more.

I'm saying - if you say faith involves "commitment to some notion of absolute value" that value, being absolute, must be applicable (or true) to all mankind. Those who do not accept it are wrong.

Hence "fightin' talk".

Or is it relative, personal or arbitrary? Or is it a vague phrase with no meaning or, at least, no content?

It always amazes me how people such as some on here who are so capable of good rational thought can have the temerity to ascribe human traits and foibles to a being defined as supernatural and otherwordly.

I would never expect God to act rationally, simply because what is rational in my part of the universe may not be so in His. You just don't know.

As for evidence, considering the scale of the task of creation and evolution (both of which I believe in, if not necessarily in the classical sense), the very idea of the likes of human kind being able to prove the existence of such that is so beyond us is beyond comprehension - and hence I have faith.

hence?

I don't think there is any "hence" here.

Surely (and I know your name is Frank) you have faith entirely independent of proof or lack thereof? Or do you mean that the only "thing" you can have is "faith" as the possibility of a rational justification is (you claim) zero.

As for evidence, considering the scale of the task of creation and evolution (both of which I believe in, if not necessarily in the classical sense), the very idea of the likes of human kind being able to prove the existence of such that is so beyond us is beyond comprehension

I'm just not sure why one, ill- or un- defined focus of belief should claim any more serious respect than any other - or none.

Some of us have faith that there is a "creator" (lets call this God). Whether we have the same faith is unclear, but we talk about it nevertheless. Many of us haven't got a clue what we really mean when we use that word "creator".

Some of us are also interested in developing an understanding of what makes the universe tick, what its origins were and what its destination might be. Some of us turn to scientists to fullfil this interest - and as a means of survival in this world. I don't have a lot of faith in scientists, especially ones like Dawkins and jon, who see themselves as infalable - based on "evidence".

When scientists can't find any "evidence" of a "creator" they conclude (prematurely IMHO) that there is no such thing as a "creator".

Those scientists who base the concept of a "creator" upon the words in the Bible (or Koran or whatever) are IMHO, unworthy of the title "scientist" - its a pretty pathetic scientist that stands up and effectively states "the bible says that God created the heavens and earth in six days, c10,000 years ago. We (ie scientists -and I accept this btw) know that the universe is more like 15 billion years old and the earth is 5 billion years old and modern man is c150,000 old. QED God doesn't exist."

Jon needs to be careful that he doesn't become the scientific equivalent of a religous nut-case "creationist", ie a "Dork" which is my terminology based on a derisory diminutive of "Dawkins".

Cheers

Don

I find much of the writings on religion by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc. "protest too much". A fundamentalist atheism, just as dogmatic as fundy religion.

Among other things, does anyone really think that if you eliminated religion from the world, that there'd be less conflict and oppression? Evil behaviour is part of human nature; without religion there'd just be some other excuse.

As for the current desire by some here in the U.S. to have Intelligent Design taught alongside Darwin or whatever in school - I'm alright with that, as long as Darwin is mandated to be taught alongside the Bible in sunday school.

quote:

Originally posted by bhazen:

Among other things, does anyone really think that if you eliminated religion from the world, that there'd be less conflict and oppression? Evil behaviour is part of human nature; without religion there'd just be some other excuse.

Cannot diagree with that, although I might substitute 'bad' for 'evil' which I think has a judgmental quality.

We are animals. Highly evolved maybe (discuss) but animals all the same.

Bruce

PS I think intelligent design should be taught-but in religous education not science.

Adam,

There is a 'hence'. What I'm saying is that proof is overrated. I am at peace with the idea of God, and so I have faith. It matters little whether I have a rational justification for that belief or not.

Others have a problem with this, and that's only human since we're all human. Even Thomas wouldn't believe the rest of the apostles that Christ had returned (if you believe that sort of thing) until he saw Him with his own eyes, so the Bible takes into account man's own limitations, but at least the story of Thomas gives those who need proof hope, whether they want it or not.

As for "ill- or un-defined focus of belief", well, the whole point of God is the fact that we cannot define Him, since He is beyond our ken, which is why - if you wish to be part of whichever doctrine you're in - you must have faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Adam Meredith:

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:
please could you say a little more.

I'm saying - if you say faith involves "commitment to some notion of absolute value" that value, being absolute, must be applicable (or true) to all mankind. Those who do not accept it are wrong.

Hence "fightin' talk".

Or is it relative, personal or arbitrary? Or is it a vague phrase with no meaning or, at least, no content?

Thanks Adam, I get what you're saying now - and why it matters. If it's any comfort, I draw the line at fighting, even if many others don't. I'm bowing out of this thread now, as I think I've said everything I can usefully say without going on at much greater length.

Regards
Nigel

Hi,

I am a firm believer against rational thought and to me, faith not based on evidence is totally irrational. I therefore want to pose all believers the following questions. I started some of these off in my earlier post, but please consider the following:

I firstly question why the chief Jesuit Pope John Paul II developed Parkinson’s disease?

Anyway, is it not likely that had you been born in Cairo, you would be a Muslim and, as 1 billion people do, would believe that there is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet?

If you had been born in Calcutta would you not be a Hindu and, as 700 million people do, accept the Vedas as sacred scriptures?

Is it not probable that if you had been born in Jerusalem, you would be a Jew and, as some 14 million people do, believe that Yahweh is God
and that the Torah is God’s word?

Is it not likely that if you were born in Peking, you would be one of the millions who accept the teachings of the Buddha or Confucius and strive to follow their teachings?

If there is a loving God, why does he permit earthquakes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, and other natural disasters which kill thousands of
innocent men, women, and children every year?

How can a loving, omnipotent God permit encephalitis, cerebral palsy, brain cancer, leprosy, Alzheimer’s to millions of men, women, children, most of whom are decent people?

Why are there literally hundreds of Christian denominations, all of them basing their beliefs on the Bible, and most of them convinced that
all the others are wrong?

Is it possible to believe that the Creator of the universe would personally impregnate a Palestinian virgin in order to get his Son into
the world as man?

The bible says that “the Lord thy God is a jealous God” but if you are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal, and the creator of all that exists, of whom could you possibly be jealous?!!

Why, in a world filled with suffering and starvation, do Christians spend millions on cathedrals and sanctuaries and relatively little on aid to the poor and needy?

Why does the omnipotent God, knowing that there are tens of thousands of men, women, and children starving to death in a ‘parched’ land,
simply let them waste away and die when all that is needed is rain?

Jesus’ last words to his followers were “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature. And lo, I am with you always.”
But, despite this and to this date (which is 2000 years later), billions of men and women have never so much as heard the Christian
Gospel. Why?!!!

Regards,

Jon

Let me correct my typo before anyone comments. I meant:

I am a firm believer in rational thought......

Please amend the words and read the rest. I am keen on your responses!!!

Jon

<<hides>>

LOL, Rod, although I am a believer, I have to say that made me laugh out loud and hard. I just hope God has a sense of humour - and considering all the world is having to cope with methinks he does.

Jon, your questions are all valid and considerable. Some have the simple response "because the church is run by men" or "because men are involved", or "because life wasn't designed to be easy - it's a test". Some are unanswerable. In the end, though, it matters little what the question is provided one has faith because then one can simply hope and pray that one day it'll make sense, though one accepts that it won't likely be during this life.

It is certainly worth pondering the questions you pose because then perhaps we can answer some of the more difficult ones and perhaps achieve some measure of enlightenment. Unfortunately, true enlightenment only comes after departing this mortal coil (we hope). Earthbound 'enlightenment' usually has the unfortunate effect of causing wars...

So long as you allow me the right to my unreasoning, irrational, incomprehensible, baseless adherence to this overhyped folklore, I have no problem with leaving you to your quest to achieve enlightenment through rational thought. Unfotunately there are too many who insist on applying their beliefs (whether rational or not) as dogma.

Frank,

I have to say that I respect totally your right to believe. I grant it that belief per se offers a lot to individuals who possess it and that can indirectly bring aabout health and well-being. Perhaps that is one hypothesis why religion has become an adaptive trait? I know Dennett in Breaking the Spell formulates a lovely explanation as to why faith and superstition have evolved.

Of course whether something 'feels right' doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not, but as I said in my first paragraph I have respect for your views and these are magnified because you are also respectful.

Can I lead on and ask you, however, how you define 'God'?

Further to this, can I ask you how you define the 'soul'?

I look forward to your reply.

Jon

Good Lord, Jon, ask me an easy one why don't you?

In response to your first question, I can't, by definition, since defining God would mean understanding Him. I guess if you wanted my concept of Him, I'd say 'He' is a being of great and powerful means with a vested interest in Creation (meaning our universe and all that's in it). In some ways I think the latter part is merely a forlorn hope that He really IS interested in me and my kind, but I have faith so that's alright then! (I can hear you laughing now because I am!)

The Soul - hmmm - I think I have a very personal view on this. My soul is the essence of who I am in spirit form. It's the child within me that makes me want to do or think of things irrationally; it's my mature self too, bending my will to whatever I do. It also provides a mirror to evaluate my actions in the sense of good and bad. My actions have an effect on my soul though, so as I grow it grows with me, and how it grows depends on the battle of good and evil within. In many ways it's more than I am and at the same time less, but as a whole I believe I would be much less without it - I would lose my moral compass. (Yes, I have been described as having a strong but impossible belief system).

I've just played Otis Redding's Blue (Sundazed LP). Here's a recording of a man captured. I have no idea what he's singing about (I almost never hear lyrics), but I feel the most amazing bond, my souljoins in the feeling captured in those grooves and rises in a sea of emotion with the expression of this long dead man, the expression of his soul...how can it not exist?

I appreciate that you and all the others who have contributed herein have a respect for the my irrational beliefs, otherwise the discussion would have been much less interesting and civil. If you had not shown respect I'd never have contributed since I know it's so unfashionable to have views like mine and in the end my beliefs are my own, so I'm alright Jack!

I must also admit I'm nowhere near as well read as you and others here. I haven't heard of most of the authors mentioned herein, and have no intention of looking them up - life's too short and I'm too simple - though I am surprised not to see Teilhard de Chardin mentioned yet.

The very fact that you have done some reading and discussing pleases me. It shows that you're asking questions about yourself and your state - and that's the important thing as far as I'm concerned. Far worse are the unreasoning aggressive ramblings of the naysayers or the religious fanatics, neither of whom appreciate the true nature of the subject in my view.

I hope I've explained myself a bit. I'm not used to discussing these things to be honest. That said, I have a question for you Jon:

How do you define love?

I would contend that people (individually) do not naturally tend towards organised religion. The evidence is that organised religions need very aggressive policies to survive:

1) Indoctrination of the very young (absolutely esential to the reproduction of an illogical and irrational meme),

2) Alleged horrific consequences of failing to adhere to the faith (burn in hell and all that stuff),

3) Real consequences of failing to adhere to the faith(social ostracism, murder, murder of your loved ones),

4) Contempt for, and aggression towards competing religions (this one has true humankind-ending potential these days which should concern us all),

5) Aggressive marketing in the form missionaries and evangelists,

6) Policies insisting upon unfettered and extrodinary reproduction rates designed to feed the pool of young brainwashees needed to perpetuate the hoax etc.

It is the latter that really scares me. When I see and hear serially pregnant fundies like Seera Peelin I get a shiver down my spine. She seems to genuinely believe that the planet is here for christians to eventually overpopulate and destroy - because (pray) "that is god's plan". She has now popped out another 5 consumers who are being brainwashed into believing the same thing. This type of exponential growth (it's admittedly not unique to christianity, but is well correlated with organised religion in general) has only one conclusion should it be allowed to continue. And it's not pretty.

On the bright side - number (4) may just cancel out number (6).

PS The problem with playing Blue is this: How do you follow that?!

Winky,

As you have stated, your concern is with religion. This is completely different to the concept of God.

It is surprising how many people seem to get these confused.

Its a bit like complaining that scientists should be obliterated because they produced the atomic bomb and allowed it to be used in Japan

Science, per-se, isn't the problem. Its what people do with it that causes the problems.

IMHO, its the same with God.

Cheers

Don

Yes, I intentionally referred specifically to organised religion. As you say, this is definitely NOT the same thing as faith or belief in a creator.

What happens though, is that people use faith to justify their behaviour. The actions of religions are really only allowed to occur in secular societies because the rest of us "cut them some slack" out a misguided notion that because their activities are "faith-based" the usual rules don't apply. Consider the brainwashing of the young by way of bible (or koranic - whatever) studies. If a group were to undertake this type of thing without the fallback to the "but it's our faith" unassailable, universal, nonsensical justification, reasonable people just wouldn't stand for it.

The argument that organised religion should be allowed to continue to exist because the vast majority of proponents are "moderate" and because it is "based on faith" just doesn't cut it with me. I think it's dangerous and the activities of those religions underly nearly every serious threat to the long-term existence of mankind.