The Right Rev. Mark Sean Sisk has been Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, one of the Episcopal Church’s largest dioceses with over 200 congregations since 2001. Before returning to New York as Bishop Coadjutor in 1998, the "On Faith" panelist served for 14 years as President and Dean of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois. The bishop also worked as a parish priest for 10 years before his predecessor Bishop Paul Moore asked him to join his staff as Archdeacon of Westchester, Putnam and Rockland Counties in New York. Mission, worship and nurture are the three main focus areas of Sisk’s episcopacy. At the root of each is the promise of keeping our Lord and our faith centered in our lives while we work together to help the most vulnerable in our society. He believes that his and other moderate, socially conscious Christian viewpoints need to be heard. It is his hope to function as a bridge-builder in dealing with the important social issues confronting us as a nation. Sisk earned a degree in economics from the University of Maryland and a Masters of Divinity at General Theological Seminary in New York. He was ordained in 1967.
Close.
Mark Sisk
Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of New York
The Right Rev. Mark Sean Sisk has been Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, one of the Episcopal Church’s largest dioceses with over 200 congregations since 2001. Before returning to New York as Bishop Coadjutor in 1998, the "On Faith" panelist served for 14 years as President and Dean of Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois.
more »
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
Sorry a have raging migriane: "selfishlessly" should be selfishly.
Just a further elaboration. You are suspcious of atheists because you think they have no morality, think only of themselves and hence by extension could potentially harm you. But atheist's fear believers for much the same reason.
They see holy sanctions on all manner of bad things. An extreme example is of course the 9/11 hijackers and the children in Jesus camp being forced to pray to effigy's of Bush because he is supposedly 'born again'. How many wars have godly sanctions on both sides. Even slavery was justified through scripture (for those that endorsed it). The old and new testaments are collectively contradictory. The god of wrath and fear versus the god of love. I am not just blaming the bible here as all dogmas have the same issues.
You are right in a certain sense in that an atheist is not 'sure' his idea of 'good' or 'morality' is appropriate in all circumstances. The scary thing is that the believer is 'sure'.
The believer regards his dogma as absolute truth even though it is quite clearly contradictory on many issues. He cherry picks the dogma to make it seem in harmony with a positive view of himself, humanity and god. That choice is arbitrary and is based on his personality. You could argue that ther eligious flavour he chooses determines the emphasis but to choose the flavour at all means it suits his personality.
The piont being is that both the atheist and the believer will advance, with their moralities, into the world and act. They have no choice. But the atheist knows he can be wrong no matter how right he feels about his actions and ideas. The believer does not have that reserve or more plainly: the safety valve of doubt.
They know.
If their actions are challenged then it is not just a challenge to them but to the God they think they are aligned with. But God can't be wrong so they can't be wrong as along as they feel are following the tenets of that God.
Hence, both sides can produce evil without knowing it. The atheist has his doubt as a safety catch. To have a similar safety catch the Christian would have to emphasis another side of their dogma, but that requires changing the make up of their faith which may or may not be palatable to their personalitys. That requires a great deal of effort and self awareness.
But faith does not encourage a constant re-examination of what they believe. It make cause an examination of one's actions to see of they are still aligned with the faith but the faith itself is absolute truth and is expected to be immutable.
Behavioral motivations are the same. We are all humans motivated by the same drives. Individually we may emphasis one behavior over the other and thus appear to act differently.
I just do not believe the primary motivation for someone to align themselves with a God is because they have an apriori selfless attitude. Unless you to attend somewhat to the self you have nothing to offer anyone. It is a balancing act. Christian selflessness has a selfish purpose.
When you say "That sphere of importance grows and shrinks from individual to individual, but always contains the self", well, so does the christian one. The Christian never says forget about my soul and let me do this and that for humanity.
Also 'No God' does not mean no ideals or truth. You are just wrong there. An aethist is no different to a christian as they have parents, friends and grow up in civilisation just as a christian does. In fact they have (individual personalities aside) have exactly the same moral compass as the christian, simply because they are brought up in the same society and civilisation.
The christian does not go to the bible to garner his superiuor morality on specific issues, as the bible, says contradictory things on all most every issue. He just doesn't trust himself and needs some magic super authority to back up his actions.
The centre of theists is not an invisible God but their faith. That faith is personal and tied to the self. The worship asssociated with that faith is there to selfishlessly (not meant in a negative sense) get one's soul into heaven and to a lesser extent buttress their real life behaviors with godly sanction.
God is not humanity. You want to beleive your God has humanitys best interests involved because, well, would you believe in one that doesn't?
I did not say that atheists are necessarily selfish nor did I say that theists are necessarlity not selfish, in the pejorative sense of the word. I was merely attempting to point out that, stripping away outside conditions, the behavioral motivation is different.
You paint with a broad and clumsy brush when you say that a theist is motivated out of fear (also when you say that a theist necessarily believes in an afterlife, but I grant that the concept of afterlife is prevelant in most organized religion.) But whatever the motivation, the theist necessarily believes that God has the good of humanity in mind and that doing what he says, be it doing good deeds, doing bad deeds, or contemplating the lint in your navel, therefore, serves the good of humanity.
The atheist believes that there is no God, no overarching set of ideals, no Truth to strive for. There is nothing above us, there is only us, there is only me. The atheist constructs his moral compass for himself, based solely on what he believes to be right and wrong, and those judgements are not based on universal truths, but rather on the benefit to himself. When you say "His life is enriched by the lives around him: family, friends, co-workers, countrymen", that is the extent of it there is no more. That sphere of importance grows and shrinks from individual to individual, but always contains the self. When the atheist acts, be it good deeds, or bad deeds, he does things for himself.
This is not to say that an atheist does not have humanity's best interests in mind and will not act for the benefit of humanity, that has been proven over an over again to be false. It is merely to say that in the center of the atheists world is himself and humanity circles him. The center of the theists world is God and by extention humanity and he circles it.
The "god" of atheism is not self. Atheists have no need of a magic God. The atheist loves his real life but that does not mean he is automatically selfish. His life is enriched by the lives around him: family, friends, co-workers, countrymen.
The theist is selfish as he only acts out of a fear of God and the hope that his actions will garner favour with his God. Humanity is only the sandbox through which he earns brownie pionts in order to get his soul into heaven. His focus is always on the afterlife so its easy, for example, to fly planes into buildings, as his real life has been demeaned to a mere place to mark time before his much better afterlife begins.
Each day, if we are honest and intelligent in our treatment of all the life we see, all around us, I believe we are ALL then "born again" as "Right Reverend" persons.
After all, has anyone here ever met someone who is deserving of or entitled to your reverence? Even Mother Theresa would have shunned such a title.
There are many posts that speak of truth as if the individual believes they know what truth is. After 76 years I have come to the conclusion that there are very few (if any) Truths with a capital "T". My truths continue to change the more studying of religion and spirituality that I do. My truths stayed relatively constant when I was content with what I believed but started to be challenged as I became discontent with the dogma I was hearing in church. That discontent led to questioning which led to change. They still continue to change drastically as I continue exploring, even at 76.
So what is Truth with a capital "T"? Truth if it is to have meaning it should be obvious to everyone. I can't be Truth if it keeps changing for an individual, it can only be their truth - small "t". It likely not Truth if it continues to be debated by learned individuals after hundreds of years otherwise it would be obvious to all. Believing that my truths have only a small "t", it would be very foolish for me to try to get you to believe my truths or to think that laws should be passed or societal changes should be made based on those truths. Of course we all believe our truths to be right. And they are for us - until they change. Sure I can debate my truths with you but until you change your own mind I can never change it for you. So if there is to be a discussion of beliefs it can only be productive if all parties can recognize that they do not have the exclusive handle on what is Truth.
Earl
The "god" of atheism is self. The atheist acts primarily for the benefit of himself. The theist acts primarily for the benefit of humanity. Actions from both can have horrifying consequences.
Carl Sagan once mused whether or not the world would survive it's technological adolescence. It seems to me that the greater concern is whether or not it can survive it's theological adolescence. Considering the two together,there's not much hope.
As to laying waste of anything, I think Bruce Little's, "A Creation Order Theodicy" addresses this in a much clearer and detailed position than I certainly could. But I would agree with him and further suggest a fair size group of Christians incorrectly give God credit for things like hurricanes, tsunami's and other acts of nature. We no longer live in an Old Testament era, but the New.
Regarding fear of the afterlife as the motivator for "God," I would think that this is indeed true in a significant number of cases. I would also suggest that this, the fear of "hell," is why "Christians" as a group stands so poorly before the world, especially in the U.S. But the fact remains that the Bible says salvation is not available because of this fear, but because of an awareness and acceptance of the righteousness of God as revealed in scripture, man's total unrighteous standing through "sin," and a path of reconciliation through God's grace gift: Jesus. This is the "Gospel." This is also as "reality" as one can get. It's about right now. Afterlife is icing as a secondary benefit because Christianity, properly embraced and lived out, reaps benefits NOW. Ephesians clearly states that it's by grace we are saved, not because of works, otherwise you/me/anyone would be able to brag about how great we were.
Now I agree that a large percentage of "Christians" do not reflect this, but neither do most atheists "live life to the fullest," otherwise stated as "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." They can be some pretty miserable people from my experience. I am curious where and how the atheist establishes their moral ethic if this worldview is not nihilistic? Who gets to set the rules and how does this not result in disorder and uncertainty?
I must say that I got a good humored laugh from the comment that I draw a lot of solace from authority. Should you ask those who know, they will tell you my biggest struggle is with authority, even God's. I WANT to run the show myself and if I may interject the sin of pride here, I was professionally VERY successful at running the show. But I found that life was like Rockefeller once responded to the question, "How much is enough," with "Just a little bit more." I seemed to never be satisfied. Today I still struggle, but not nearly as bad (don't ask about my speeding), but am getting much better at letting God be God. Fear!? If God be for me, who can be against me? I live life without fear BECAUSE I have a promised afterlife.
BTW, I appreciate civil discussion and disagreement (my rebellious side again?) when it is free of ad hominen arguments.
My meaning is that is we do not see whole areas laid waste or individuls turned to dust except from real world causes. Nor do we see huge faces in the sky or deep voices commanding us to do things. What we do see is natural or man made consquences in the world that 'could' be attributed to a God's wrath or reward.
In the absence of an after life the only way a God could affect us is through our real lives and through real world means. This shrinks his dominion somewhat and hence his seemingly primary importance is only a function of there being an after life.
As for the other issue: You cling to a God head because you personally draw a lot solace from authority generally. There is no nihilism without a belief in a God head. The atheist is still human, he still needs to breath, drink, eat, breed, think etc. To be able to do these things one needs (and wants) civilisation and the community of others including family, friends, co-workers, patriots, politicians (even), laws, codes of behavior, ethics and morals in their proper human centric context.
The focus of the atheist is the same as that of the believer in terms of what they want for their children's future. Their future is not like an imaginary after life but a reality yet to unfold. A reality he can have some influence on for the better. An atheist treasures every moment of his life and is not marking time waiting for his better after life to begin. He of course treasures his children's lives even more. As a result, he cant be nihilist.
The problem is you have chosen a faith which has a distinct set of behaviors you follow (or not and are forgiven for) and so you expect some pay off. You worship and obey to gain a leverage over your God in order to get your soul into heaven. Christianity helps to make that decision because it is a comic book choice between being an immortal in ecstasy or an immortal in agony.
And there is the problem. An immortal has all the time in the world and hence he cheapens his real life. His real life gets swamped with the fears and behaviors it takes to get one's soul into the after life (the good one of course). His real life is completely subservient to his lust for the after life. The focus of his real life becomes restricted to just the bits that get him to the after life. In that sense you can accuse religion of having a modicom of nihilism on real life.
The bottom line here is 'fear'. We don't want to die but we know we definately will. In our fear we mistakenly create after lives and Gods to run them in an effort to comfort ourselves. But the cure is worse than the problem because, as I have said before, to sneak around your own death means you must experience that death i.e. being ripped away from everything you know and love. That is frightening.
The atheist does not have that fear because he knows (not believes) he will not experience death as the only thing he will experience is the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear.
I was hanging with you until I got to this quote. Trying to guess what it might mean has been fruitless on my part, so maybe you will illuminate me further.
"And because God does not seem to act directly he can then only act through everyday reality,..."
As to death being the only common ground, I would tend to disagree. I see common ground of this type on several fronts, such as pain, happiness, greed, love and others, but htis is a minor point.
It would seem to me that life without a Godhead of some sort to provide some authoritative element over life generally, and yours and mine specifically, is nihilistic at its core and results in a chaotic existence that almost no one is willing to accept. It showed its inherent danger with Nietzsche (albeit an extreme but true example), when carried out to its logical conclusion.
In a more practical point of discussion however, I have always wondered why the Christian is berated for at least trying, however miserably they may fail, at living out there belief system, when the atheist almost never does. I point to the example of your ending statement that the atheist would live life to the fullest since there is no afterlife. Yet atheist after atheist buys life insurance to provide for their families upon the event of their death. Atheist fathers are "faithful" to their wives, hold down steady jobs, do financial planning to protect their legacy, and other such things that logically shouldn't matter in a no afterlife worldview. If we evolved from the primordial ooze due to freak cataclysmic events, and there is no creator, and their is no afterlife, then I would logically conclude a human environment of what we might call today, extreme self-indulgence. Why does the evolutionist atheist CARE about providing for anyone but themself?
As for me, I like the idea of a resolute God that never changes and is perfect in all respects, resulting in everything else being one-off, even if it means sending someone to hell. It gives a rule of life; boundaries that are clear from which to operate (to do life). Hell provides justice, which you and I would quickly demand if a man who robbed us was then caught.
My last point would be that, having worked with the elderly, if we live long enough most of us will get to a point we desire death, God or no God.
Recognising death and knowing you are mortal are two very different things.
Most mammals have the same range of emotions as we do. They also know what death is. If they are a carnivore then ascertaining when your prey is dead is very important lest it lashes out and harms them. They also have to be aware when their young die etc. I personally have seen dogs grieve their dead owners.
But all that is not the same as knowing that you were born to die. That requires an intellect to grasp. You have to be able to visualise the entire span of your life. It also requires advanced communication skills and probably a culture.
Animals don't live inside their heads like that they live in a continuous now. They can develop and retain skills and certain knowledge but they can't manipulate the abstract. Hence, no animal but Man is burdened with the one truth.
So, grasshopper! You expect St. Peter will be demanding you to pass a touch-typing test in order to enter the pearly gates?
Then keep 'em limber, bro'.
Loco-moco
noco-joco
hoco-poco
soco-doco
woco-zoco
no more
loco-moco
joco-joco
"How exhilarating, terrifying, invigorating, exhausting, challenging and tremendously rewarding it is to be a truth-seeker in this fearsome and fabulous age!"
"Cause and effect"! Indeed, if only it were so simple -- but we live in a multiverse made random by quantum chance, in which electrons really don't orbit their nuclei like dutiful itty-bitty planets, but hide somewhere in a cloud of probabilities until we go a-huntin' 'em. And yet, somehow, Chaos does not rule.
Knowing right from wrong, and always doing right instead of wrong, are two different propositions. In fact it is precisely the burdensome discrepancy between these two, that leads us to a slightly revised version of the old axiom: "The human is the only creature that asks for forgiveness -- or needs to."
(The good Bishop himself is speaking from the midst of this very issue, for our Episcopal Church in America is being accused of validating sinful conduct by blessing the unions of, and even ordaining to the ministry, gay people. More-conservative Anglican churches in other countries are insisting that we must repent and ask forgiveness, or be cast into outer darkness. Is that the gnashing of teeth I hear...?)
Welcome to Schoolhouse Earth, complete with a giant sandbox and an entire closet full of Legos! Where "reality" reveals itself to us gradually, as we learn how to perceive it -- and cause-and-effect is like the "Board of Education" that used to be wielded to remind us that our choices have consequences.
Where we can build our castles and space stations, knowing that they will be knocked down and taken apart at the end of the day, but the sand and Legos will be ready for us again tomorrow...
But we can't stay kindergartners forever. Don't we all want to graduate someday?
We fool ourselves (although we can certainly forgive ourselves for doing so - grin!) if we think our current concept of "reality" is any more comprehensive than trying to look at the Grand Canyon through a knothole in the fence, or the Milky Way through a toilet paper tube.
How exhilarating, terrifying, invigorating, exhausting, challenging and tremendously rewarding it is to be a truth-seeker in this fearsome and fabulous age!
Thank you Karen B for your explanation. I am more familiar with the management structure of the Catholic Church because it is in the news a lot what with the new Pope and all the child molesters within their ranks. I am am amazed at how much organization seems to be needed to keep religion functioning in the world as it is today. It is as if religion has evolved through the creative energies of man over centuries so as to control that evolution and what people think.
Maybe most people have such a hankering for being a part of a huge establishment and really derive no comfort from the one phrase I have always heard attributed to Jesus: God is love. If there is a God, that is the God I would want to follow and it doesn't seem like it would take such a huge organization to support that concept. Now I am learning even the existence of God is up for debate.
I must be one sheltered Bubba. Maybe I can blame (or thank?) my parents because they raised me without church or Jesus or any other God driven belief system and seemed to emphasize being able to think and talk through a given situation so as to do the right thing, learning from my mistakes as I go.
I am going to switch to the college sports news for a while.
An atheist can see the body and experience the mind but does not believe in a soul because there is no real world evidence of such a thing. Of course if there were evidence, belief would not be required. Any atheist who says otherwise is not an aethist. Dogmatic indeed but without dogma.
The idea of a soul is really just the bait that leads to the only religious issue: the After Life. If there is no after life then the idea of soul is pretty piontless since it would cease to exist when the body dies.
It is also more important than God, as, if there is no after life, then God could only reward you or harm you in your real life. Confined to your real life he was to compete with all other distracting aspects of reality.
Also since we don't see bad (or good) people being inexplicably turned to salt or cinders, the fear of God becomes far less when compared to the one lurking in your afterlife that can cast into an eternity of torture and burning. And because God does not seem to act directly he can then only act through everyday reality, hence he is further reduced to the status of a good luck charm. The fate of many ancient Gods.
As for common ground. Yes there is. As there is only one truth that unites every human, believer or otherwise. You will die and you know it.
No one wants to die and our brains (intelligence and emotion) are hardwired to keep us alive regardless of the situation. Hence, we invent after lives and religions to go around them in an attempt to get around this one truth. The problem is by doing so you make death something to truly fear. Believers in an after life are going to experience their deaths. That is feeling yourself being ripped away from everyone you love and everything you know. The only balancing thing that can protect you from that horror is a God that you have some leverage over through worship.
A true atheist on the other hand knows that death is the end. Stop. So the only thing he is going to experience is the last moments of his life and life is nothing to fear. His death like his birth is none of his business.
As a result, he has no choice but to live each moment to its fullest, because he, unlike the believer can't afford to mark time in his real life while waiting for his much better after life to occur. He doesn't believe. He knows he is alive, he knows that this is the only life he gets and he knows the clock is ticking.
Reverend, with all due respect, the proper use of "courage" would be to subject the holy texts of the three monotheistic religions to reasoned scrutiny, and then truthfully admit that the God in each of them is:
"...arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser: a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanaical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
"The difficulty of such conversations is that when a person is convinced that they, and they alone, possess the truth, they effectively isolate themselves."
Interesting. Might we begin the conversation with you proving the existence of the God you find absolutely true? I mean no offense, but please no poetry, no wive's tales, just get to the meat of it.
In response to Randy Ping:
"Quit wasting you time and your lives seeking these fairy tale simple answers to humanities problems. You want to make the world a better place? Then stop talking to your imaginmary dieties and stop telling your children that YOUR particular imaginary friend is real."
---
This battle is won at home. Although the TOPIC of this site is FAITH... the argument that you demonstrate above is exactly what needs to be cast aside. When you, I, and all the rest of the world can begin to THINK in terms of the "third person"... you'll have a very satisfying answer which will shield all beliefs... It's not a simple task, and likely not one that will be achieved in our lifetime, but hey - nothing is impossible... You just gotta beleive! in something
The Right Reverennd is completely wrong. Quit wasting you time and your lives seeking these fairy tale simple answers to humanities problems.
You want to make the world a better place?
Then stop talking to your imaginmary dieties and stop telling your children that YOUR particular imaginary friend is real.
Felix, you asked what a "Right Reverend" is. It's just another title for bishop (overseer of all the clergy and churches in a particular geographic area.) Mark Sisk happens to be the bishop of the Diocese of New York, including New York city and some of its suburbs, like Westchester County. There are also "very reverends" in ECUSA hierachy -- the very reverends are Cathedral deans. It does all seem a bit ridiculous looking at it from the outside sometimes.
I am an agnostic. I just do not know if God exists but, to paraphrase my compatriot Laplace (Yes, I am French, nobody's perfect !) "I have no need for this hypothesis."
So I live my life according to the values and principles I have learned to embrace over time, with the help of many philosophers and thinkers of the past. They are my values. I am not asking anybody else to share them with me. And this is my point.
Trying to debate the existence of God, the values of different religions, etc.. is useless at best, dangerous most of the times with the extremists.
So I have no problem with anybody's opinions and beliefs ...until they impact my way of life. And this is where I draw the line. There are many countries where there is no or little distinction between state and religion (you know them) and some countries where the distinction is very subtle. Well, in Iran, I doubt we could have this forum on faith. But I live in the USA which might not be the best country in the world (another unprovable statement) but is certainly one of the freer society in the world.
And in this country, religion has a very active role in our daily life. From the "In God we trust" on my dollar bank notes, the pledge of allegiance (Under God), the football games (God bless America), the Court (Help me God), etc..., I am reminded that I live in a very religious country, indeed. But, so far,even if it might be annoying at times, it does not impact my life too much. But when we go to the rules of Law, this is where the problems arise. I am a very "Libertarian type" ("It is forbidden to forbid !) and I believe that self-discipline should be used more than the abuse of the rules of law, which sometimes have strong religious influences. To name a few, some already mentioned in other comments: abortion (I am more pro-choice than pro-abortion), assisted suicide (Again more pro-choice than pro-suicide !) , drugs (I never add one, but again it should be a choice), Stems cells research, gay-marriage (Eh what's wrong with gay people feeling the same pain as heterosexuals !.
I think that the line in the sand should be only when harm is involved, and by harm, I mean harm to others, not harm to oneself. Because I do not see the difference between some obese person eating him(her)self to death and someone dying of overdose (One is legal, the other one not). Protecting the children, yes, by any means. But for the adults, the less the government interferes in our lifes, the better, unless, again, our beahavior harms the others.
I understand it is not that simple, especially abortion, since one could argue (and it is done !) that those "babies" are killed. This is a difficult grey are of defining life, I assume. So, yes, we can find common grounds. But not so much in an "intellectual" way (Is the Bible a common ground for Judeo-Christians ?), but on a pragmatic way, namely the rule of law, and how it is applied in the society we live. All the rest, the debates on who knows the "Truth", I am afraid, is just entertaining, at best, or fueling hatred, at worst.
Linda wrote: "it seems that athiests may be more dogmatic than I am"
I understand you. People can be dogmatic about anything. I think the thing to ask is whether there is anything about atheism itself that requires or promotes dogmatism.
All atheism is is the disbelief in deities. It's true that some atheists go further and positively claim certainty that there are no deities...and this does seem to me to rise to the level of "religious faith".
Lots of atheists tend to also subscribe to additional philosophical positions, such as materialism, naturalism, rationalism, agnosticism, etc. But this is a different matter. None of these are actually atheism.
You have some very thought provoking things to say. And if I am hearing you correctly, I may need to adjust my think... or maybe an adjustment in the English language might be in order.. ;)
Let me ask this: As an athiest, do you believe there is a body, mind and soul?
In my thinking, the "soul" (or you may name this component anything else you like) is where issues of the heart are determined. The "heart", as any mother knows, can accept many different ideas, while in her "mind" believe there is only "one right way".
Maybe faith could accept that God is the only One who could figure all of this out... however He (or She) wants to.
Maybe faith could involve an element of knowing that because we are not God, we are probably "wrong" in some of our thinking.
You see, I don't think I have ever talked with an athiests before. And from where I am right now, it seems that athiests may be more dogmatic than I am.
(Not a put down -- just telling you what I am observing.)
How are you defining faith at this time? Are you open to "tweeking" your definition?
And back to the original question: do you think we (those with many definitions and ideas about faith) can find common ground?
Godma said "...not obvious where our innate sense of morality comes from."
The GOLDEN RULE states "treat others as you would like to be treated." That sums up much of people's sense of morality. It doesn't come from a book. It comes from how they want others to treat them.
Mr. Sisk says that "any person who truly believes that they have a monopoly on the truth can be challenged to find the courage to share that truth with another, in respectful conversation" however practically this either results in an attitude of telling or learning.
In "telling" the unshakable person basically says "I'm right, you're wrong, let me tell you how to be right." The problem with this is the problem the topic addresses: if both parties have this attitude, there is no conversation, only talking AT each other.
In "learning" neither participant insists on an absolute hold on the truth and instead earnestly tries to learn the other's perspective as much as possible. Then, each participant helps the other come to fully appreciate the other's belief. This is true communication and true understanding-- each participant takes the risk that, for example, the Christian will believe in Gaia and the Wiccan will accept Jesus, but by taking that risk each participant will come to a fuller understanding of their own beliefs and their value.
I believe simply encouraging people to find the courage to share the truth is the first step. The second step is to find the courage to potentially accept another truth.
Lest someone misinterpret what I just said-- BOTH participants must risk COMPLETELY accepting the OTHER'S point of view, in order for BOTH participants to become more enlightened.
God granted you nothing you decided to have faith in a dogma for whatever reason. The voices in your head are you, your normal human duality. Faith is real but the object of your faith isn't unless you are going to tell me you actually saw some Godly reality.
And please do not tell me the Bible showed you the reality of God because for starters the Bible is not God. You did not start from an atheist piont of view, objectively read the Bible and then come to the conclusion that God is real. Your came with a apriori belief in God and hence it would not matter if you read the Bible or saw Jesus in your Taco.
That is one of the absurdities of religion in that you decide to believe and then you go to some dogma to find out what you believe.
Thanks for the response. I agree that it is not obvious where our innate sense of morality comes from. I would be tempted to interpret this innateness as some sort of absolute quality in the universe, but I feel like I have a more plausible explanation for it that is purely naturalistic.
Our current moral sense comes from two places:
1) Cultural conditioning, through lessons learned in childhood from our parents, school, society, and our own life experiences.
Historically, these were learned through experience by humanity and passed down through the generations by stories, fables, laws, etc.
2) Instincts that evolved in our ancestors and were inherited by us.
This is less intuitive, but there are actually good reasons why it would have been evolutionarily advantageous for our ancestors to have developed some kind of moral instinct. Our ancestors lived for a long time in small tribes. In those conditions, genes influencing people to be nice to one another tended to reproduce successfully, due to "kin selection" and "reciprocal altruism". Wikipedia has good articles on these theories.
Also, research has demonstrated that primates (and some other animals) also have a moral instinct. Look up "animal altruism" in Wikipedia.
Nowadays, we no longer live in those conditions, but the moral instinct persists.
But whatever the sources of our sense of morality might have been, we still are left with the question of how to best define laws for society today. In my opinion, to do this we should consider what laws will strike the best balance between minimizing suffering and enabling freedom. There is no reason why we can't work toward this goal using only science, not scripture. Once we start relying on religious scripture as the guide, we make it much harder to improve the laws predictably (since the dogma is fixed and doesn't change according to new evidence and reasoning). Also, we would lose common ground with those who don't subscribe to that scripture. The scientific method, however, does have common ground, since it is based on evidence that is available and self-evident to all of us.
So what is a 'Right' Reverend? Is is any different from a 'Left' Reverend? Or a 'Wrong' Reverend? I am seriously asking here and though I sound like it I am not mocking Episcopal hierarchy.
He sure does sound like a preacher-man, though. Not much 'there' there but lots of 'Right' there.
You are under the impression that an absence of a magic God means an absence of morals and ethics. It does not. It is fairly obvious why murder is a bad thing. As the the saying goes: "you take away everything a man has and everything he is going to have". You can also see the devastating effects it has of the victim's friends and family. You can also extrapolate that if we all murdered one another there would be no human race or at least a very miserable one. All of this is visible evidence.
But the issue here is the difference between why a religious person regards some action immoral and why an atheist does. The religious person will piont to their dogma first and tell you God is against it. The atheist will point to a reality tell you it is bad for Man.
The problem with the religious is that their dogma invariably will have stories about why murder is a good thing. The Bible and the Koran are rife with such stories (for starters look how many genocides Joshua carried out etc etc).
The piont being another religious person can come along and piont to another part of the same dogma and say God has no problem with murder. The good atheist can't be so morally relative.
This is why your contention that "Most laws... make some sort of value judgement the are ultimately rooted in some potentially arguable belief" is wrong. If your focus is on reality and Man then the evidence why some law or action is bad or good (or even conditionally so) is right in front of your eyes. No belief in unreal entities is required.
And don't think I am equivicating when I say "conditionally" because some ethics under some conditions must change. I do not see the believer or unbeliever say that the police or soldiers should not murder (we say 'defend' or some other positive term but it is murder nonetheless) under certain circumstances, even though both sides are vehemently against murder. That is not a weakened ethic but a strengthened one as it precisely frames the use of this serious action in the life of Man.
Carol
I think you have stated what I have thought for many years. Religion is the root of (almost) all evil in this world. It seems to me to be the mechanism used to control the village, then the town, the state in all civilizations since we have been making marks on walls. Humans have a need to control other humans and one tool has always been with religion and faith. Religion has to have a positive benefit or it never survives very long, therefore the good work it does. To try to have dialog with others of different faith threatens their control over their flock/people, threatens their control. Sure, individuals have faith and truly believe but it seems to be mostly delusional, I don't trust the leaders of religion to be truly faithful, to be more concerned by their control and power.
Is there an answer to this? I don't know. I don't have faith that there is. Not when there are those who think apocolypse hearalds some great event to be yearned for.
One of the issues re this particular blog is that no one religion has a monopoly on the truth. The overall idea being to bring people together by discussing the divergent views on God and religion. But the problem is that you have faith in only one thing at a time. You are an evangelical or jewish or Islamic etc.
There is no down side to finding out what the other religions are about or even what atheism is about. But as a result are you are really (for example) going to totally accept the tenets of the jewish faith and still be evangelical? The two faiths believe different things and especially, in this example, the status of Jesus Christ.
Piont being is that faith is fixed on one dogma as the absolute truth. Faith can't accept two opposing absolute truths. You either reject one or you have no fixed faith i.e. faith dies. Also faith by its very nature cannot be objective as that requires disbelief in both options i.e faith dies.
You could be diplomatic (the faithful rarely are) and say both religions reveal a different aspect of God but there are some articles of faith that are diametrically opposed, like, in this example, whether Jesus Christ is the son of God or a not.
The bottom line being that different faiths can never come together so religion is the opposite of a unifying force. It's essence is to clearly seperate groups of people: gentile from jew, fundamentalist from progressive, believer from non-believer. So in your terms, your God (what you really mean is your faith) is never going to be big enough to deal with other faiths and beliefs because to do so risks his existance.
I agree with what his basic point is, nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The truth is the truth no matter who says it.
My problem is that he actually believes that people make truth. And he is saying that that truth is religion. Which completely goes against what he was trying to argue for. Truth is not religion. If truth was religion than you would have so many different truths. You can not make truth. You can make religion.
As I get older (heading to 70) I question my religious belief more and more. That seems to buck the trend. When people get older, they seem to get deeper in their religious belief -- especially when their religion offers them life after death. Therefore, that belief is a comfort to someone who is headed to "their last reward." Today, in this world of religion against religion, I think more of a quote I read. Wish I could quote it exactly but....written by a Roman official in the very, very, early AD's: Goes something like this: "Religion is thought to be true by the common people, a myth by the intelligent, and very useful by leaders and government." Well, if you look at the common people, they are, most definitely, controlled by their governments and leaders.
I'm beginning to believe religion is a myth and is the root cause of so many deaths in this world. The common people are led to wars and killing because the government and religious leaders, of most - stress the word most -- nations and organized religions want more power and riches.
I am an agnostic christian. I am also an agnostic scientist.
I believe that we function as humans in two realities: an outer reality and an inner reality. The outer reality is ‘objective’ while the inner reality is ‘subjective’. In the outer reality I am the agnostic scientist and in the inner reality the agnostic christian.
Examples of outer reality are physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, astronomy, pain, reason, linear time, gravity, etc.
Examples of inner reality are suffering, intuition, eternal time, love, art, poetry, music.
From the human symbol making ability we developed language. With language and symbols we began to think about the outer and inner realities. We developed ‘models’ to describe the outer reality and ‘myths’ to describe the inner reality.
An example of a model in the outer reality is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle’s circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model’s utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons ‘do’. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a ‘hydrogen atom’ manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom ‘is’.
Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.
Myths refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. In the inner reality we create myths. An example of a myth is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call ‘wolf’ to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called ‘wolf’, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried ‘wolf’ but the villagers didn’t come. Why? They no longer had ‘trust’ in what he said. We don’t know the historical ‘truth’ of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how ‘trust’ can be lost by acting dishonestly.
Myths are descriptions of the way things never were, but always are
Models and myths have both real and imaginary components. In mathematics, real and imaginary numbers are essential for describing outer world reality using models. Imaginary numbers have essential applications in areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics. Without imaginary numbers modern science would be paralyzed. Likewise real and imaginary situations and persons are essential for describing inner world reality using myths. In common usage the word "myth" may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), yet "myth" does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions.
In the inner reality we have free will and in the outer reality we do not. In the outer reality the only option is to state “I accept” - what is, ‘is’. In the inner reality, however, we have the option “I choose”. For example, in the outer world we experience the sun’s heat on our face or hear the wind rustling the trees or suffer the consequences of an earthquake - we have no control over these observations – we can simply experience them through our perception. The physical experience regardless of how painful or how joyous can only be ‘accepted’.
In the inner world we might experience anger at something or someone. In this case we are not trapped with the single option of ‘acceptance’ for we can ‘choose’ to let the anger go. Pain, an outer reality, is not what makes us suffer. It is how we choose to deal with pain in the inner world that causes us suffering.
As an agnostic Christian can I rationalize the possible existence of God?
I would set up the following ‘model’:
Human beings are entities with about 80 thousands genes which gives them a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment (inner and outer). Humans are both spiritual and material, i.e. there is a mind and a body. Bacteria have fewer genes than humans, viruses even less, and prions (which cause mad cow disease) have even less if any. As we approach zero for the number of genes that an entity posesses one approaches the idea of ‘non’ life. For example, is a virus ‘living’, is it ‘spiritual’ or is it simply a material ‘thing’? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non-spiritual, completely material world and one can postulate from this particular model that such a world does indeed exist. Thus as a scientist I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a material world.
At the other end of the gene spectrum I remain agnostic as a scientist as to whether there exists an entity with an infinite number of genes. If there is such a ‘being’ then ‘it’ may be completely spiritual and non material and it may have a greater intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over my environment than I have – in other words it is a ‘Supreme Being’. Thus as a Christian I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a Supreme Spirit.
What I am opining is that we must be agnostic about our models and our myths. In the case of the model, the 'thing' that is being modeled might 'be' that way but usually we find in the outer reality - in the world of science - that further information will come along and the model will be dropped in favor of a new one i.e. the model might be that way but it usually never is.
Once we arrive in a state of complete knowledge about an outer or inner reality then we no longer have the need for a model or a myth we have arrived at truth i.e. something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.
Faith is something searched for, but never perfectly attained. But reason, "truth" in whatever form, knowledge, etc., are also things searched for but never fully attained.
I consider myself an agnostic christian, believing in God as best I can know God and Jesus as best I can understand him. But I know that what I believe and what I know is dim, usually weak and quite mutable.
Perhaps Pascal said it best when he said that it is the struggle that pleases us (and gives us strength/stamina), and not the victory.
Perhaps all of us, especially fundamentalists who are convinced they already "know the truth," need to remember that we will be in a learning mode until death and hopefully after that as well.
I very much appreciate what Rev. Sisk is saying here. If dialogue with religious persons who think they have a monopoly on the truth could occur, then there would be a strong possibility of a constructive result.
However, what the writer seems to understate is the "extremely" limited possibility of any such dialogue ever taking place. Impossiblity is not too strong a word. By their very closed nature, truth monopolizers are fundamentally incapable of having dialogue. To converse and have honest discourse, one has to at least be open to the idea that the other person knows something that they do not. Religious truth monopolizers cannot accept that idea. I know this personally because I was affiliated with a cult that literally placed themselves on the pinnacle of exclusive religious truth. They could not have meaningful discourse with anyone who did not agree with their doctrines in totality.
So while the ideas proposed by Rev Sisk are certainly attractive, I think the self-proclaimed purveyors of religious truth surely find it impossible to converse with others. The reason? They lack the courage. They might be found wrong.
I believe in Mother Nature. I see her around me every day. She is beautiful, powerful, ever present.
I believe "Stuff" happens. Whether it's good or bad - stuff happens. I don't believe if it's good, that god did it, and if it's bad that he didn't, or someone(thing) else did.
I believe in Rosanne Rosannadana (Gilda Radner) who said "It's Always Something".
"As you observe, any "faith" perspective is inherently dogmatic, in the precise technical sense of entailing a subsumption of particular cases under ostensibly universal interpretive schemata."
Don't you just hate this sort of jargon? "Faith" isn't some sort of special church word. "Faith" means that you've placed your confidence in some one or something. So, you may have faith in your wife, in the reliability of your Honda Civic, or in the theory of gravity. You can also place your faith in Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, which means you are confident they were who and what they said they were, knew what they were talking about, and that they were telling the truth.
Confidence in anything - from a Japanese car to the Buddha - is always based on something (e.g., I've carefully checked out the dependability ratings on every small car sold in this country; my boyfriend's cousin says they're good cars; Japanese is good, isn't it?). In any given case it may or may not be misplaced. Some of us are more careful about things than others; but it is based on something.
We should approach religious beliefs the same way we do anything else. Look for the reasons people think something is true, and why they place their confidence in it. Then decide.
I might have aggreed with you, but I fell asleep after the first sentence. Besides, I just asked God and he reminded me that I was right. Please ask him he'll tell you.
If you want to know the right answer, please ask me. I'm more than happy to tell you the truth.
I don't agree with you that once you have doubt, faith dies.
I see faith as something that grows.
If my ultimate faith is in God, why would I worry about getting to know Him (Her) better? Aren't we all learning new things about others all the time? Does learning something new wipe out everything we knew before?
Discussion and openness regarding our religious faith, IMNSHO, should not create fear, but an opportunity to know God better.
If "my God" is to small to stand up to questions, why would I worship Him (Her)?
All Comments (67)
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
January 21, 2007 2:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 21, 2007 14:35
Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP
January 21, 2007 9:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on January 21, 2007 09:42
Rob:
Sorry a have raging migriane: "selfishlessly" should be selfishly.
Just a further elaboration. You are suspcious of atheists because you think they have no morality, think only of themselves and hence by extension could potentially harm you. But atheist's fear believers for much the same reason.
They see holy sanctions on all manner of bad things. An extreme example is of course the 9/11 hijackers and the children in Jesus camp being forced to pray to effigy's of Bush because he is supposedly 'born again'. How many wars have godly sanctions on both sides. Even slavery was justified through scripture (for those that endorsed it). The old and new testaments are collectively contradictory. The god of wrath and fear versus the god of love. I am not just blaming the bible here as all dogmas have the same issues.
You are right in a certain sense in that an atheist is not 'sure' his idea of 'good' or 'morality' is appropriate in all circumstances. The scary thing is that the believer is 'sure'.
The believer regards his dogma as absolute truth even though it is quite clearly contradictory on many issues. He cherry picks the dogma to make it seem in harmony with a positive view of himself, humanity and god. That choice is arbitrary and is based on his personality. You could argue that ther eligious flavour he chooses determines the emphasis but to choose the flavour at all means it suits his personality.
The piont being is that both the atheist and the believer will advance, with their moralities, into the world and act. They have no choice. But the atheist knows he can be wrong no matter how right he feels about his actions and ideas. The believer does not have that reserve or more plainly: the safety valve of doubt.
They know.
If their actions are challenged then it is not just a challenge to them but to the God they think they are aligned with. But God can't be wrong so they can't be wrong as along as they feel are following the tenets of that God.
Hence, both sides can produce evil without knowing it. The atheist has his doubt as a safety catch. To have a similar safety catch the Christian would have to emphasis another side of their dogma, but that requires changing the make up of their faith which may or may not be palatable to their personalitys. That requires a great deal of effort and self awareness.
But faith does not encourage a constant re-examination of what they believe. It make cause an examination of one's actions to see of they are still aligned with the faith but the faith itself is absolute truth and is expected to be immutable.
November 22, 2006 10:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 22:46
Rob:
Behavioral motivations are the same. We are all humans motivated by the same drives. Individually we may emphasis one behavior over the other and thus appear to act differently.
I just do not believe the primary motivation for someone to align themselves with a God is because they have an apriori selfless attitude. Unless you to attend somewhat to the self you have nothing to offer anyone. It is a balancing act. Christian selflessness has a selfish purpose.
When you say "That sphere of importance grows and shrinks from individual to individual, but always contains the self", well, so does the christian one. The Christian never says forget about my soul and let me do this and that for humanity.
Also 'No God' does not mean no ideals or truth. You are just wrong there. An aethist is no different to a christian as they have parents, friends and grow up in civilisation just as a christian does. In fact they have (individual personalities aside) have exactly the same moral compass as the christian, simply because they are brought up in the same society and civilisation.
The christian does not go to the bible to garner his superiuor morality on specific issues, as the bible, says contradictory things on all most every issue. He just doesn't trust himself and needs some magic super authority to back up his actions.
The centre of theists is not an invisible God but their faith. That faith is personal and tied to the self. The worship asssociated with that faith is there to selfishlessly (not meant in a negative sense) get one's soul into heaven and to a lesser extent buttress their real life behaviors with godly sanction.
God is not humanity. You want to beleive your God has humanitys best interests involved because, well, would you believe in one that doesn't?
November 22, 2006 9:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 21:07
Brett-
I did not say that atheists are necessarily selfish nor did I say that theists are necessarlity not selfish, in the pejorative sense of the word. I was merely attempting to point out that, stripping away outside conditions, the behavioral motivation is different.
You paint with a broad and clumsy brush when you say that a theist is motivated out of fear (also when you say that a theist necessarily believes in an afterlife, but I grant that the concept of afterlife is prevelant in most organized religion.) But whatever the motivation, the theist necessarily believes that God has the good of humanity in mind and that doing what he says, be it doing good deeds, doing bad deeds, or contemplating the lint in your navel, therefore, serves the good of humanity.
The atheist believes that there is no God, no overarching set of ideals, no Truth to strive for. There is nothing above us, there is only us, there is only me. The atheist constructs his moral compass for himself, based solely on what he believes to be right and wrong, and those judgements are not based on universal truths, but rather on the benefit to himself. When you say "His life is enriched by the lives around him: family, friends, co-workers, countrymen", that is the extent of it there is no more. That sphere of importance grows and shrinks from individual to individual, but always contains the self. When the atheist acts, be it good deeds, or bad deeds, he does things for himself.
This is not to say that an atheist does not have humanity's best interests in mind and will not act for the benefit of humanity, that has been proven over an over again to be false. It is merely to say that in the center of the atheists world is himself and humanity circles him. The center of the theists world is God and by extention humanity and he circles it.
November 22, 2006 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 22, 2006 13:44
Rob:
The "god" of atheism is not self. Atheists have no need of a magic God. The atheist loves his real life but that does not mean he is automatically selfish. His life is enriched by the lives around him: family, friends, co-workers, countrymen.
The theist is selfish as he only acts out of a fear of God and the hope that his actions will garner favour with his God. Humanity is only the sandbox through which he earns brownie pionts in order to get his soul into heaven. His focus is always on the afterlife so its easy, for example, to fly planes into buildings, as his real life has been demeaned to a mere place to mark time before his much better afterlife begins.
November 21, 2006 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 22:28
Each day, if we are honest and intelligent in our treatment of all the life we see, all around us, I believe we are ALL then "born again" as "Right Reverend" persons.
After all, has anyone here ever met someone who is deserving of or entitled to your reverence? Even Mother Theresa would have shunned such a title.
November 21, 2006 5:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 21, 2006 17:41
There are many posts that speak of truth as if the individual believes they know what truth is. After 76 years I have come to the conclusion that there are very few (if any) Truths with a capital "T". My truths continue to change the more studying of religion and spirituality that I do. My truths stayed relatively constant when I was content with what I believed but started to be challenged as I became discontent with the dogma I was hearing in church. That discontent led to questioning which led to change. They still continue to change drastically as I continue exploring, even at 76.
So what is Truth with a capital "T"? Truth if it is to have meaning it should be obvious to everyone. I can't be Truth if it keeps changing for an individual, it can only be their truth - small "t". It likely not Truth if it continues to be debated by learned individuals after hundreds of years otherwise it would be obvious to all. Believing that my truths have only a small "t", it would be very foolish for me to try to get you to believe my truths or to think that laws should be passed or societal changes should be made based on those truths. Of course we all believe our truths to be right. And they are for us - until they change. Sure I can debate my truths with you but until you change your own mind I can never change it for you. So if there is to be a discussion of beliefs it can only be productive if all parties can recognize that they do not have the exclusive handle on what is Truth.
Earl
November 20, 2006 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 13:19
The "god" of atheism is self. The atheist acts primarily for the benefit of himself. The theist acts primarily for the benefit of humanity. Actions from both can have horrifying consequences.
November 20, 2006 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 12:22
Carl Sagan once mused whether or not the world would survive it's technological adolescence. It seems to me that the greater concern is whether or not it can survive it's theological adolescence. Considering the two together,there's not much hope.
November 20, 2006 9:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 09:21
As to laying waste of anything, I think Bruce Little's, "A Creation Order Theodicy" addresses this in a much clearer and detailed position than I certainly could. But I would agree with him and further suggest a fair size group of Christians incorrectly give God credit for things like hurricanes, tsunami's and other acts of nature. We no longer live in an Old Testament era, but the New.
Regarding fear of the afterlife as the motivator for "God," I would think that this is indeed true in a significant number of cases. I would also suggest that this, the fear of "hell," is why "Christians" as a group stands so poorly before the world, especially in the U.S. But the fact remains that the Bible says salvation is not available because of this fear, but because of an awareness and acceptance of the righteousness of God as revealed in scripture, man's total unrighteous standing through "sin," and a path of reconciliation through God's grace gift: Jesus. This is the "Gospel." This is also as "reality" as one can get. It's about right now. Afterlife is icing as a secondary benefit because Christianity, properly embraced and lived out, reaps benefits NOW. Ephesians clearly states that it's by grace we are saved, not because of works, otherwise you/me/anyone would be able to brag about how great we were.
Now I agree that a large percentage of "Christians" do not reflect this, but neither do most atheists "live life to the fullest," otherwise stated as "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." They can be some pretty miserable people from my experience. I am curious where and how the atheist establishes their moral ethic if this worldview is not nihilistic? Who gets to set the rules and how does this not result in disorder and uncertainty?
I must say that I got a good humored laugh from the comment that I draw a lot of solace from authority. Should you ask those who know, they will tell you my biggest struggle is with authority, even God's. I WANT to run the show myself and if I may interject the sin of pride here, I was professionally VERY successful at running the show. But I found that life was like Rockefeller once responded to the question, "How much is enough," with "Just a little bit more." I seemed to never be satisfied. Today I still struggle, but not nearly as bad (don't ask about my speeding), but am getting much better at letting God be God. Fear!? If God be for me, who can be against me? I live life without fear BECAUSE I have a promised afterlife.
BTW, I appreciate civil discussion and disagreement (my rebellious side again?) when it is free of ad hominen arguments.
November 20, 2006 9:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2006 09:00
My meaning is that is we do not see whole areas laid waste or individuls turned to dust except from real world causes. Nor do we see huge faces in the sky or deep voices commanding us to do things. What we do see is natural or man made consquences in the world that 'could' be attributed to a God's wrath or reward.
In the absence of an after life the only way a God could affect us is through our real lives and through real world means. This shrinks his dominion somewhat and hence his seemingly primary importance is only a function of there being an after life.
As for the other issue: You cling to a God head because you personally draw a lot solace from authority generally. There is no nihilism without a belief in a God head. The atheist is still human, he still needs to breath, drink, eat, breed, think etc. To be able to do these things one needs (and wants) civilisation and the community of others including family, friends, co-workers, patriots, politicians (even), laws, codes of behavior, ethics and morals in their proper human centric context.
The focus of the atheist is the same as that of the believer in terms of what they want for their children's future. Their future is not like an imaginary after life but a reality yet to unfold. A reality he can have some influence on for the better. An atheist treasures every moment of his life and is not marking time waiting for his better after life to begin. He of course treasures his children's lives even more. As a result, he cant be nihilist.
The problem is you have chosen a faith which has a distinct set of behaviors you follow (or not and are forgiven for) and so you expect some pay off. You worship and obey to gain a leverage over your God in order to get your soul into heaven. Christianity helps to make that decision because it is a comic book choice between being an immortal in ecstasy or an immortal in agony.
And there is the problem. An immortal has all the time in the world and hence he cheapens his real life. His real life gets swamped with the fears and behaviors it takes to get one's soul into the after life (the good one of course). His real life is completely subservient to his lust for the after life. The focus of his real life becomes restricted to just the bits that get him to the after life. In that sense you can accuse religion of having a modicom of nihilism on real life.
The bottom line here is 'fear'. We don't want to die but we know we definately will. In our fear we mistakenly create after lives and Gods to run them in an effort to comfort ourselves. But the cure is worse than the problem because, as I have said before, to sneak around your own death means you must experience that death i.e. being ripped away from everything you know and love. That is frightening.
The atheist does not have that fear because he knows (not believes) he will not experience death as the only thing he will experience is the last moments of his life. And life is nothing to fear.
November 19, 2006 11:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 23:27
Brett
I was hanging with you until I got to this quote. Trying to guess what it might mean has been fruitless on my part, so maybe you will illuminate me further.
"And because God does not seem to act directly he can then only act through everyday reality,..."
As to death being the only common ground, I would tend to disagree. I see common ground of this type on several fronts, such as pain, happiness, greed, love and others, but htis is a minor point.
It would seem to me that life without a Godhead of some sort to provide some authoritative element over life generally, and yours and mine specifically, is nihilistic at its core and results in a chaotic existence that almost no one is willing to accept. It showed its inherent danger with Nietzsche (albeit an extreme but true example), when carried out to its logical conclusion.
In a more practical point of discussion however, I have always wondered why the Christian is berated for at least trying, however miserably they may fail, at living out there belief system, when the atheist almost never does. I point to the example of your ending statement that the atheist would live life to the fullest since there is no afterlife. Yet atheist after atheist buys life insurance to provide for their families upon the event of their death. Atheist fathers are "faithful" to their wives, hold down steady jobs, do financial planning to protect their legacy, and other such things that logically shouldn't matter in a no afterlife worldview. If we evolved from the primordial ooze due to freak cataclysmic events, and there is no creator, and their is no afterlife, then I would logically conclude a human environment of what we might call today, extreme self-indulgence. Why does the evolutionist atheist CARE about providing for anyone but themself?
As for me, I like the idea of a resolute God that never changes and is perfect in all respects, resulting in everything else being one-off, even if it means sending someone to hell. It gives a rule of life; boundaries that are clear from which to operate (to do life). Hell provides justice, which you and I would quickly demand if a man who robbed us was then caught.
My last point would be that, having worked with the elderly, if we live long enough most of us will get to a point we desire death, God or no God.
November 19, 2006 9:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 21:48
Recognising death and knowing you are mortal are two very different things.
Most mammals have the same range of emotions as we do. They also know what death is. If they are a carnivore then ascertaining when your prey is dead is very important lest it lashes out and harms them. They also have to be aware when their young die etc. I personally have seen dogs grieve their dead owners.
But all that is not the same as knowing that you were born to die. That requires an intellect to grasp. You have to be able to visualise the entire span of your life. It also requires advanced communication skills and probably a culture.
Animals don't live inside their heads like that they live in a continuous now. They can develop and retain skills and certain knowledge but they can't manipulate the abstract. Hence, no animal but Man is burdened with the one truth.
November 19, 2006 8:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 20:04
So, grasshopper! You expect St. Peter will be demanding you to pass a touch-typing test in order to enter the pearly gates?
Then keep 'em limber, bro'.
November 19, 2006 5:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 17:51
Loco-moco
noco-joco
hoco-poco
soco-doco
woco-zoco
no more
loco-moco
joco-joco
"How exhilarating, terrifying, invigorating, exhausting, challenging and tremendously rewarding it is to be a truth-seeker in this fearsome and fabulous age!"
woco-joco!
November 19, 2006 2:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 14:12
"Cause and effect"! Indeed, if only it were so simple -- but we live in a multiverse made random by quantum chance, in which electrons really don't orbit their nuclei like dutiful itty-bitty planets, but hide somewhere in a cloud of probabilities until we go a-huntin' 'em. And yet, somehow, Chaos does not rule.
Knowing right from wrong, and always doing right instead of wrong, are two different propositions. In fact it is precisely the burdensome discrepancy between these two, that leads us to a slightly revised version of the old axiom: "The human is the only creature that asks for forgiveness -- or needs to."
(The good Bishop himself is speaking from the midst of this very issue, for our Episcopal Church in America is being accused of validating sinful conduct by blessing the unions of, and even ordaining to the ministry, gay people. More-conservative Anglican churches in other countries are insisting that we must repent and ask forgiveness, or be cast into outer darkness. Is that the gnashing of teeth I hear...?)
Welcome to Schoolhouse Earth, complete with a giant sandbox and an entire closet full of Legos! Where "reality" reveals itself to us gradually, as we learn how to perceive it -- and cause-and-effect is like the "Board of Education" that used to be wielded to remind us that our choices have consequences.
Where we can build our castles and space stations, knowing that they will be knocked down and taken apart at the end of the day, but the sand and Legos will be ready for us again tomorrow...
But we can't stay kindergartners forever. Don't we all want to graduate someday?
We fool ourselves (although we can certainly forgive ourselves for doing so - grin!) if we think our current concept of "reality" is any more comprehensive than trying to look at the Grand Canyon through a knothole in the fence, or the Milky Way through a toilet paper tube.
How exhilarating, terrifying, invigorating, exhausting, challenging and tremendously rewarding it is to be a truth-seeker in this fearsome and fabulous age!
November 19, 2006 12:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 12:05
Why do so many people feel they need to be forgiven? I was brought up to know right from wrong without the approval of a supernatural being.
Reality is the biggest "truth" there is and if you are too afraid to face reality you do need religion.
I know of 'cause and effect' and there is nothing making me do anything I don't want to do.
November 19, 2006 9:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 09:04
Thank you Karen B for your explanation. I am more familiar with the management structure of the Catholic Church because it is in the news a lot what with the new Pope and all the child molesters within their ranks. I am am amazed at how much organization seems to be needed to keep religion functioning in the world as it is today. It is as if religion has evolved through the creative energies of man over centuries so as to control that evolution and what people think.
Maybe most people have such a hankering for being a part of a huge establishment and really derive no comfort from the one phrase I have always heard attributed to Jesus: God is love. If there is a God, that is the God I would want to follow and it doesn't seem like it would take such a huge organization to support that concept. Now I am learning even the existence of God is up for debate.
I must be one sheltered Bubba. Maybe I can blame (or thank?) my parents because they raised me without church or Jesus or any other God driven belief system and seemed to emphasize being able to think and talk through a given situation so as to do the right thing, learning from my mistakes as I go.
I am going to switch to the college sports news for a while.
November 19, 2006 1:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2006 01:05
linda marie:
An atheist can see the body and experience the mind but does not believe in a soul because there is no real world evidence of such a thing. Of course if there were evidence, belief would not be required. Any atheist who says otherwise is not an aethist. Dogmatic indeed but without dogma.
The idea of a soul is really just the bait that leads to the only religious issue: the After Life. If there is no after life then the idea of soul is pretty piontless since it would cease to exist when the body dies.
It is also more important than God, as, if there is no after life, then God could only reward you or harm you in your real life. Confined to your real life he was to compete with all other distracting aspects of reality.
Also since we don't see bad (or good) people being inexplicably turned to salt or cinders, the fear of God becomes far less when compared to the one lurking in your afterlife that can cast into an eternity of torture and burning. And because God does not seem to act directly he can then only act through everyday reality, hence he is further reduced to the status of a good luck charm. The fate of many ancient Gods.
As for common ground. Yes there is. As there is only one truth that unites every human, believer or otherwise. You will die and you know it.
No one wants to die and our brains (intelligence and emotion) are hardwired to keep us alive regardless of the situation. Hence, we invent after lives and religions to go around them in an attempt to get around this one truth. The problem is by doing so you make death something to truly fear. Believers in an after life are going to experience their deaths. That is feeling yourself being ripped away from everyone you love and everything you know. The only balancing thing that can protect you from that horror is a God that you have some leverage over through worship.
A true atheist on the other hand knows that death is the end. Stop. So the only thing he is going to experience is the last moments of his life and life is nothing to fear. His death like his birth is none of his business.
As a result, he has no choice but to live each moment to its fullest, because he, unlike the believer can't afford to mark time in his real life while waiting for his much better after life to occur. He doesn't believe. He knows he is alive, he knows that this is the only life he gets and he knows the clock is ticking.
November 18, 2006 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 23:43
Reverend, with all due respect, the proper use of "courage" would be to subject the holy texts of the three monotheistic religions to reasoned scrutiny, and then truthfully admit that the God in each of them is:
"...arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser: a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanaical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
(Richard Dawkins, from The God Delusion)
November 18, 2006 9:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 21:35
"The difficulty of such conversations is that when a person is convinced that they, and they alone, possess the truth, they effectively isolate themselves."
Interesting. Might we begin the conversation with you proving the existence of the God you find absolutely true? I mean no offense, but please no poetry, no wive's tales, just get to the meat of it.
Thank you,
Bob
November 18, 2006 9:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 21:11
In response to Randy Ping:
"Quit wasting you time and your lives seeking these fairy tale simple answers to humanities problems. You want to make the world a better place? Then stop talking to your imaginmary dieties and stop telling your children that YOUR particular imaginary friend is real."
---
This battle is won at home. Although the TOPIC of this site is FAITH... the argument that you demonstrate above is exactly what needs to be cast aside. When you, I, and all the rest of the world can begin to THINK in terms of the "third person"... you'll have a very satisfying answer which will shield all beliefs... It's not a simple task, and likely not one that will be achieved in our lifetime, but hey - nothing is impossible... You just gotta beleive! in something
November 18, 2006 8:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 20:29
The Right Reverennd is completely wrong. Quit wasting you time and your lives seeking these fairy tale simple answers to humanities problems.
You want to make the world a better place?
Then stop talking to your imaginmary dieties and stop telling your children that YOUR particular imaginary friend is real.
November 18, 2006 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 16:12
Felix, you asked what a "Right Reverend" is. It's just another title for bishop (overseer of all the clergy and churches in a particular geographic area.) Mark Sisk happens to be the bishop of the Diocese of New York, including New York city and some of its suburbs, like Westchester County. There are also "very reverends" in ECUSA hierachy -- the very reverends are Cathedral deans. It does all seem a bit ridiculous looking at it from the outside sometimes.
November 18, 2006 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 14:44
I am an agnostic. I just do not know if God exists but, to paraphrase my compatriot Laplace (Yes, I am French, nobody's perfect !) "I have no need for this hypothesis."
So I live my life according to the values and principles I have learned to embrace over time, with the help of many philosophers and thinkers of the past. They are my values. I am not asking anybody else to share them with me. And this is my point.
Trying to debate the existence of God, the values of different religions, etc.. is useless at best, dangerous most of the times with the extremists.
So I have no problem with anybody's opinions and beliefs ...until they impact my way of life. And this is where I draw the line. There are many countries where there is no or little distinction between state and religion (you know them) and some countries where the distinction is very subtle. Well, in Iran, I doubt we could have this forum on faith. But I live in the USA which might not be the best country in the world (another unprovable statement) but is certainly one of the freer society in the world.
And in this country, religion has a very active role in our daily life. From the "In God we trust" on my dollar bank notes, the pledge of allegiance (Under God), the football games (God bless America), the Court (Help me God), etc..., I am reminded that I live in a very religious country, indeed. But, so far,even if it might be annoying at times, it does not impact my life too much. But when we go to the rules of Law, this is where the problems arise. I am a very "Libertarian type" ("It is forbidden to forbid !) and I believe that self-discipline should be used more than the abuse of the rules of law, which sometimes have strong religious influences. To name a few, some already mentioned in other comments: abortion (I am more pro-choice than pro-abortion), assisted suicide (Again more pro-choice than pro-suicide !) , drugs (I never add one, but again it should be a choice), Stems cells research, gay-marriage (Eh what's wrong with gay people feeling the same pain as heterosexuals !.
I think that the line in the sand should be only when harm is involved, and by harm, I mean harm to others, not harm to oneself. Because I do not see the difference between some obese person eating him(her)self to death and someone dying of overdose (One is legal, the other one not). Protecting the children, yes, by any means. But for the adults, the less the government interferes in our lifes, the better, unless, again, our beahavior harms the others.
I understand it is not that simple, especially abortion, since one could argue (and it is done !) that those "babies" are killed. This is a difficult grey are of defining life, I assume. So, yes, we can find common grounds. But not so much in an "intellectual" way (Is the Bible a common ground for Judeo-Christians ?), but on a pragmatic way, namely the rule of law, and how it is applied in the society we live. All the rest, the debates on who knows the "Truth", I am afraid, is just entertaining, at best, or fueling hatred, at worst.
November 18, 2006 1:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 13:34
Linda wrote: "it seems that athiests may be more dogmatic than I am"
I understand you. People can be dogmatic about anything. I think the thing to ask is whether there is anything about atheism itself that requires or promotes dogmatism.
All atheism is is the disbelief in deities. It's true that some atheists go further and positively claim certainty that there are no deities...and this does seem to me to rise to the level of "religious faith".
Lots of atheists tend to also subscribe to additional philosophical positions, such as materialism, naturalism, rationalism, agnosticism, etc. But this is a different matter. None of these are actually atheism.
November 18, 2006 1:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 13:08
Brett,
You have some very thought provoking things to say. And if I am hearing you correctly, I may need to adjust my think... or maybe an adjustment in the English language might be in order.. ;)
Let me ask this: As an athiest, do you believe there is a body, mind and soul?
In my thinking, the "soul" (or you may name this component anything else you like) is where issues of the heart are determined. The "heart", as any mother knows, can accept many different ideas, while in her "mind" believe there is only "one right way".
Maybe faith could accept that God is the only One who could figure all of this out... however He (or She) wants to.
Maybe faith could involve an element of knowing that because we are not God, we are probably "wrong" in some of our thinking.
You see, I don't think I have ever talked with an athiests before. And from where I am right now, it seems that athiests may be more dogmatic than I am.
(Not a put down -- just telling you what I am observing.)
How are you defining faith at this time? Are you open to "tweeking" your definition?
And back to the original question: do you think we (those with many definitions and ideas about faith) can find common ground?
linda marie
November 18, 2006 10:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 10:37
Godma said "...not obvious where our innate sense of morality comes from."
The GOLDEN RULE states "treat others as you would like to be treated." That sums up much of people's sense of morality. It doesn't come from a book. It comes from how they want others to treat them.
November 18, 2006 5:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 05:17
This is a beautiful sentiment towards empathy, compassion, and ultimately understanding in others... I fully agree with this approach, as well.
November 18, 2006 1:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 01:51
Mr. Sisk says that "any person who truly believes that they have a monopoly on the truth can be challenged to find the courage to share that truth with another, in respectful conversation" however practically this either results in an attitude of telling or learning.
In "telling" the unshakable person basically says "I'm right, you're wrong, let me tell you how to be right." The problem with this is the problem the topic addresses: if both parties have this attitude, there is no conversation, only talking AT each other.
In "learning" neither participant insists on an absolute hold on the truth and instead earnestly tries to learn the other's perspective as much as possible. Then, each participant helps the other come to fully appreciate the other's belief. This is true communication and true understanding-- each participant takes the risk that, for example, the Christian will believe in Gaia and the Wiccan will accept Jesus, but by taking that risk each participant will come to a fuller understanding of their own beliefs and their value.
I believe simply encouraging people to find the courage to share the truth is the first step. The second step is to find the courage to potentially accept another truth.
Lest someone misinterpret what I just said-- BOTH participants must risk COMPLETELY accepting the OTHER'S point of view, in order for BOTH participants to become more enlightened.
November 18, 2006 1:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 01:09
Jeff:
God granted you nothing you decided to have faith in a dogma for whatever reason. The voices in your head are you, your normal human duality. Faith is real but the object of your faith isn't unless you are going to tell me you actually saw some Godly reality.
And please do not tell me the Bible showed you the reality of God because for starters the Bible is not God. You did not start from an atheist piont of view, objectively read the Bible and then come to the conclusion that God is real. Your came with a apriori belief in God and hence it would not matter if you read the Bible or saw Jesus in your Taco.
That is one of the absurdities of religion in that you decide to believe and then you go to some dogma to find out what you believe.
November 18, 2006 12:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:58
Britton,
Thanks for the response. I agree that it is not obvious where our innate sense of morality comes from. I would be tempted to interpret this innateness as some sort of absolute quality in the universe, but I feel like I have a more plausible explanation for it that is purely naturalistic.
Our current moral sense comes from two places:
1) Cultural conditioning, through lessons learned in childhood from our parents, school, society, and our own life experiences.
Historically, these were learned through experience by humanity and passed down through the generations by stories, fables, laws, etc.
2) Instincts that evolved in our ancestors and were inherited by us.
This is less intuitive, but there are actually good reasons why it would have been evolutionarily advantageous for our ancestors to have developed some kind of moral instinct. Our ancestors lived for a long time in small tribes. In those conditions, genes influencing people to be nice to one another tended to reproduce successfully, due to "kin selection" and "reciprocal altruism". Wikipedia has good articles on these theories.
Also, research has demonstrated that primates (and some other animals) also have a moral instinct. Look up "animal altruism" in Wikipedia.
Nowadays, we no longer live in those conditions, but the moral instinct persists.
But whatever the sources of our sense of morality might have been, we still are left with the question of how to best define laws for society today. In my opinion, to do this we should consider what laws will strike the best balance between minimizing suffering and enabling freedom. There is no reason why we can't work toward this goal using only science, not scripture. Once we start relying on religious scripture as the guide, we make it much harder to improve the laws predictably (since the dogma is fixed and doesn't change according to new evidence and reasoning). Also, we would lose common ground with those who don't subscribe to that scripture. The scientific method, however, does have common ground, since it is based on evidence that is available and self-evident to all of us.
November 18, 2006 12:49 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:49
So what is a 'Right' Reverend? Is is any different from a 'Left' Reverend? Or a 'Wrong' Reverend? I am seriously asking here and though I sound like it I am not mocking Episcopal hierarchy.
He sure does sound like a preacher-man, though. Not much 'there' there but lots of 'Right' there.
November 18, 2006 12:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:38
Britton:
You are under the impression that an absence of a magic God means an absence of morals and ethics. It does not. It is fairly obvious why murder is a bad thing. As the the saying goes: "you take away everything a man has and everything he is going to have". You can also see the devastating effects it has of the victim's friends and family. You can also extrapolate that if we all murdered one another there would be no human race or at least a very miserable one. All of this is visible evidence.
But the issue here is the difference between why a religious person regards some action immoral and why an atheist does. The religious person will piont to their dogma first and tell you God is against it. The atheist will point to a reality tell you it is bad for Man.
The problem with the religious is that their dogma invariably will have stories about why murder is a good thing. The Bible and the Koran are rife with such stories (for starters look how many genocides Joshua carried out etc etc).
The piont being another religious person can come along and piont to another part of the same dogma and say God has no problem with murder. The good atheist can't be so morally relative.
This is why your contention that "Most laws... make some sort of value judgement the are ultimately rooted in some potentially arguable belief" is wrong. If your focus is on reality and Man then the evidence why some law or action is bad or good (or even conditionally so) is right in front of your eyes. No belief in unreal entities is required.
And don't think I am equivicating when I say "conditionally" because some ethics under some conditions must change. I do not see the believer or unbeliever say that the police or soldiers should not murder (we say 'defend' or some other positive term but it is murder nonetheless) under certain circumstances, even though both sides are vehemently against murder. That is not a weakened ethic but a strengthened one as it precisely frames the use of this serious action in the life of Man.
November 18, 2006 12:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:37
Jeff:
On Sherman Jackson's Article you posted the same crappola as your 1:45 PM post above.
(Posted November 17, 2006 1:47 PM - Sherman Jackson)
The Republican Right Wing Christian 'machine' may think they control our government but they do not control honest blogs from real people.
Quit spamming these discussions and stay out until you have something honest to say, you piece of sh*t.
Sorry for the namecalling but in this case you deserve it.
November 18, 2006 12:23 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:23
Carol
I think you have stated what I have thought for many years. Religion is the root of (almost) all evil in this world. It seems to me to be the mechanism used to control the village, then the town, the state in all civilizations since we have been making marks on walls. Humans have a need to control other humans and one tool has always been with religion and faith. Religion has to have a positive benefit or it never survives very long, therefore the good work it does. To try to have dialog with others of different faith threatens their control over their flock/people, threatens their control. Sure, individuals have faith and truly believe but it seems to be mostly delusional, I don't trust the leaders of religion to be truly faithful, to be more concerned by their control and power.
Is there an answer to this? I don't know. I don't have faith that there is. Not when there are those who think apocolypse hearalds some great event to be yearned for.
November 18, 2006 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 18, 2006 00:01
Linda marie:
One of the issues re this particular blog is that no one religion has a monopoly on the truth. The overall idea being to bring people together by discussing the divergent views on God and religion. But the problem is that you have faith in only one thing at a time. You are an evangelical or jewish or Islamic etc.
There is no down side to finding out what the other religions are about or even what atheism is about. But as a result are you are really (for example) going to totally accept the tenets of the jewish faith and still be evangelical? The two faiths believe different things and especially, in this example, the status of Jesus Christ.
Piont being is that faith is fixed on one dogma as the absolute truth. Faith can't accept two opposing absolute truths. You either reject one or you have no fixed faith i.e. faith dies. Also faith by its very nature cannot be objective as that requires disbelief in both options i.e faith dies.
You could be diplomatic (the faithful rarely are) and say both religions reveal a different aspect of God but there are some articles of faith that are diametrically opposed, like, in this example, whether Jesus Christ is the son of God or a not.
The bottom line being that different faiths can never come together so religion is the opposite of a unifying force. It's essence is to clearly seperate groups of people: gentile from jew, fundamentalist from progressive, believer from non-believer. So in your terms, your God (what you really mean is your faith) is never going to be big enough to deal with other faiths and beliefs because to do so risks his existance.
November 17, 2006 11:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 23:49
I agree with what his basic point is, nobody has a monopoly on the truth. The truth is the truth no matter who says it.
My problem is that he actually believes that people make truth. And he is saying that that truth is religion. Which completely goes against what he was trying to argue for. Truth is not religion. If truth was religion than you would have so many different truths. You can not make truth. You can make religion.
November 17, 2006 11:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 23:21
As I get older (heading to 70) I question my religious belief more and more. That seems to buck the trend. When people get older, they seem to get deeper in their religious belief -- especially when their religion offers them life after death. Therefore, that belief is a comfort to someone who is headed to "their last reward." Today, in this world of religion against religion, I think more of a quote I read. Wish I could quote it exactly but....written by a Roman official in the very, very, early AD's: Goes something like this: "Religion is thought to be true by the common people, a myth by the intelligent, and very useful by leaders and government." Well, if you look at the common people, they are, most definitely, controlled by their governments and leaders.
I'm beginning to believe religion is a myth and is the root cause of so many deaths in this world. The common people are led to wars and killing because the government and religious leaders, of most - stress the word most -- nations and organized religions want more power and riches.
November 17, 2006 8:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 20:49
I am an agnostic christian. I am also an agnostic scientist.
I believe that we function as humans in two realities: an outer reality and an inner reality. The outer reality is ‘objective’ while the inner reality is ‘subjective’. In the outer reality I am the agnostic scientist and in the inner reality the agnostic christian.
Examples of outer reality are physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, astronomy, pain, reason, linear time, gravity, etc.
Examples of inner reality are suffering, intuition, eternal time, love, art, poetry, music.
From the human symbol making ability we developed language. With language and symbols we began to think about the outer and inner realities. We developed ‘models’ to describe the outer reality and ‘myths’ to describe the inner reality.
An example of a model in the outer reality is the symbol we use for the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is modeled as a point in the center of a circle to symbolize a proton with another point on the circle’s circumference to represent an electron. We use language (in this case mathematical language) to deepen this model’s utility by writing equations to describe things protons and electrons ‘do’. With the use of the model we have an understanding of how a ‘hydrogen atom’ manifests itself but we still do not know what a hydrogen atom ‘is’.
Models are descriptions of the way things might be, but never are.
Myths refer to stories that, while they may or may not be strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of archetypes. In the inner reality we create myths. An example of a myth is the story of the boy who was asked to guard the sheep against the wolves and to call ‘wolf’ to the villagers if they were threatened. As a joke on the villagers he called ‘wolf’, they came and found no wolf, same thing the second time. The third time the wolf actually came and the boy cried ‘wolf’ but the villagers didn’t come. Why? They no longer had ‘trust’ in what he said. We don’t know the historical ‘truth’ of this story i.e. did it physically happen at some place and at some time? But that is of no consequence because we have an intrinsic truth in the story of how ‘trust’ can be lost by acting dishonestly.
Myths are descriptions of the way things never were, but always are
Models and myths have both real and imaginary components. In mathematics, real and imaginary numbers are essential for describing outer world reality using models. Imaginary numbers have essential applications in areas such as signal processing, control theory, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics. Without imaginary numbers modern science would be paralyzed. Likewise real and imaginary situations and persons are essential for describing inner world reality using myths. In common usage the word "myth" may indicate a fiction, or half-truth (and nearly all dictionaries include this definition), yet "myth" does not imply that a story is either objectively false or true, it rather refers to a spiritual, psychological or symbolical notion of truth unrelated to materialist or objectivist notions.
In the inner reality we have free will and in the outer reality we do not. In the outer reality the only option is to state “I accept” - what is, ‘is’. In the inner reality, however, we have the option “I choose”. For example, in the outer world we experience the sun’s heat on our face or hear the wind rustling the trees or suffer the consequences of an earthquake - we have no control over these observations – we can simply experience them through our perception. The physical experience regardless of how painful or how joyous can only be ‘accepted’.
In the inner world we might experience anger at something or someone. In this case we are not trapped with the single option of ‘acceptance’ for we can ‘choose’ to let the anger go. Pain, an outer reality, is not what makes us suffer. It is how we choose to deal with pain in the inner world that causes us suffering.
As an agnostic Christian can I rationalize the possible existence of God?
I would set up the following ‘model’:
Human beings are entities with about 80 thousands genes which gives them a certain intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over their environment (inner and outer). Humans are both spiritual and material, i.e. there is a mind and a body. Bacteria have fewer genes than humans, viruses even less, and prions (which cause mad cow disease) have even less if any. As we approach zero for the number of genes that an entity posesses one approaches the idea of ‘non’ life. For example, is a virus ‘living’, is it ‘spiritual’ or is it simply a material ‘thing’? At zero genes one might argue that one has entered the non-spiritual, completely material world and one can postulate from this particular model that such a world does indeed exist. Thus as a scientist I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a material world.
At the other end of the gene spectrum I remain agnostic as a scientist as to whether there exists an entity with an infinite number of genes. If there is such a ‘being’ then ‘it’ may be completely spiritual and non material and it may have a greater intellectual capacity, understanding, and control over my environment than I have – in other words it is a ‘Supreme Being’. Thus as a Christian I can say that I have an agnostic belief in the existence of a Supreme Spirit.
What I am opining is that we must be agnostic about our models and our myths. In the case of the model, the 'thing' that is being modeled might 'be' that way but usually we find in the outer reality - in the world of science - that further information will come along and the model will be dropped in favor of a new one i.e. the model might be that way but it usually never is.
Once we arrive in a state of complete knowledge about an outer or inner reality then we no longer have the need for a model or a myth we have arrived at truth i.e. something that is the same for everyone, everywhere, and for eternity.
November 17, 2006 8:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 20:40
Faith is something searched for, but never perfectly attained. But reason, "truth" in whatever form, knowledge, etc., are also things searched for but never fully attained.
I consider myself an agnostic christian, believing in God as best I can know God and Jesus as best I can understand him. But I know that what I believe and what I know is dim, usually weak and quite mutable.
Perhaps Pascal said it best when he said that it is the struggle that pleases us (and gives us strength/stamina), and not the victory.
Perhaps all of us, especially fundamentalists who are convinced they already "know the truth," need to remember that we will be in a learning mode until death and hopefully after that as well.
November 17, 2006 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 18:06
I very much appreciate what Rev. Sisk is saying here. If dialogue with religious persons who think they have a monopoly on the truth could occur, then there would be a strong possibility of a constructive result.
However, what the writer seems to understate is the "extremely" limited possibility of any such dialogue ever taking place. Impossiblity is not too strong a word. By their very closed nature, truth monopolizers are fundamentally incapable of having dialogue. To converse and have honest discourse, one has to at least be open to the idea that the other person knows something that they do not. Religious truth monopolizers cannot accept that idea. I know this personally because I was affiliated with a cult that literally placed themselves on the pinnacle of exclusive religious truth. They could not have meaningful discourse with anyone who did not agree with their doctrines in totality.
So while the ideas proposed by Rev Sisk are certainly attractive, I think the self-proclaimed purveyors of religious truth surely find it impossible to converse with others. The reason? They lack the courage. They might be found wrong.
November 17, 2006 4:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 16:28
I believe in Mother Nature. I see her around me every day. She is beautiful, powerful, ever present.
I believe "Stuff" happens. Whether it's good or bad - stuff happens. I don't believe if it's good, that god did it, and if it's bad that he didn't, or someone(thing) else did.
I believe in Rosanne Rosannadana (Gilda Radner) who said "It's Always Something".
November 17, 2006 4:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 16:25
"As you observe, any "faith" perspective is inherently dogmatic, in the precise technical sense of entailing a subsumption of particular cases under ostensibly universal interpretive schemata."
Don't you just hate this sort of jargon? "Faith" isn't some sort of special church word. "Faith" means that you've placed your confidence in some one or something. So, you may have faith in your wife, in the reliability of your Honda Civic, or in the theory of gravity. You can also place your faith in Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, which means you are confident they were who and what they said they were, knew what they were talking about, and that they were telling the truth.
Confidence in anything - from a Japanese car to the Buddha - is always based on something (e.g., I've carefully checked out the dependability ratings on every small car sold in this country; my boyfriend's cousin says they're good cars; Japanese is good, isn't it?). In any given case it may or may not be misplaced. Some of us are more careful about things than others; but it is based on something.
We should approach religious beliefs the same way we do anything else. Look for the reasons people think something is true, and why they place their confidence in it. Then decide.
November 17, 2006 3:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 15:06
Dear Mr Jenner,
I might have aggreed with you, but I fell asleep after the first sentence. Besides, I just asked God and he reminded me that I was right. Please ask him he'll tell you.
If you want to know the right answer, please ask me. I'm more than happy to tell you the truth.
November 17, 2006 2:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 17, 2006 14:40
Brett,
I don't agree with you that once you have doubt, faith dies.
I see faith as something that grows.
If my ultimate faith is in God, why would I worry about getting to know Him (Her) better? Aren't we all learning new things about others all the time? Does learning something new wipe out everything we knew before?
Discussion and openness regarding our religious faith, IMNSHO, should not create fear, but an opportunity to know God better.
If "my God" is to small to stand up to questions, why would I worship Him (Her)?
linda marie
November 17, 2006 2:22 PM |