Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason. She began her writing career as a reporter for The Washington Post, and has been a contributor to a wide range of periodicals and newspapers for more than 25 years on topics including law, religion, medicine, aging, women's rights, political dissent in the Soviet Union and Russian literature. Jacoby has been the recipient of grants from the Guggenheim, Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. In 2001-2002, she was named a fellow at the Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. Jacoby’s other books include Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (2004); Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge, a Pulitzer Prize finalist in 1984, and Half-Jew: A Daughter's Search for Her Family's Buried Past. She is working on a book about the relationship between American anti-intellectualism and political polarization, to be published by Pantheon in 2008. Her photo is by Chris Ramir.
Close.
Susan Jacoby
Author and reporter
Susan Jacoby is the author of The Age of American Unreason."more »
Freudianism and Marxism are both flawed up to a point, but their grounding is in a combination of metaphysical presuppositions AND real-world evidence. It is the !*interpretation of*! the evidence which is subject to question and debate, but it's not as if they did no investigative work whatsoever.
It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!
Concerned: You base your beliefs about Jesus on the Jesus seminarians and if they have a payroll, I would not be surprised to find you in it. You expect us to make fundamental existential decisions on the basis of polls taken within this group. Your tunnel vision does not permit you to see beyond US politics and US imperialistic interests.
If anything needs to be addressed it's your war mongering and hatred of Christians and Muslims, so I hope there are some out there praying for you, because you truly need it.
I suppose one thing about America, is you do hear a lot to your face, in one way or another. Being of the 'wrong' religion and sexuality for many, I hear a lot who presume I'm part of their club, ...I certainly hear plenty of straight white Christians trying to impress me with how much they can't stand queers, etc.
One thing about these 'favored' groups is, ...there's in a lot of ways, no such thing: among straight white Christians, well, they just start going at each other over which sect, what political affiliation, what ethnicity, what sports team, Ford or Chevy, etc, etc.
Ok, inserted some trivia there, but the point is, when you have these ideas of a monolithic model of 'perfection and divine favor' ...it gets into *everything* and it *never ends.*
In short, I think there's a psychology to these monolithic, rule-based models which encourage fear and judgement of what's considered to be 'other,' ...a fundamental inability to grasp that there's a diversity in the world which is a *good* thing, not a massive 'failure to abide by divine rules.'
One thing I forgot to mention above is that that 'You're going to Hell' thing is often a prelude to threats of a more mundane nature: the thought process seems to go through this idea that 'Anything I might do to you is 'righteous' cause of this Hell.'
Being unable, apparently to grasp that there's a goodness in people, even if not especially within the same 'tribes' being *different,* there's a certain drive to try and enforce 'sameness' even if it means trying to *obliterate* the different, in one way or another. These 'universal rulebooks,' in fact, seem to rob people of some ability to see the *difference* between *one person,* and "Everyone," thus, themselves. It feeds some kind of functional *inability* to tell the *difference* between onesself and someone else: instead of embracing the diversity, they decide for some reason it would be much easier to try and make everyone else the same as 'them.' Even if it means 'getting rid of' in some unarticulated way, those who don't fit.
(For instance, I don't know how often I hear people justifying homophobia based on the insane notion, "If everyone didn't breed, then the human race would end! Thus every single person must breed!" I mean, *come on.* The existence of queer people won't change the fact that most folks are straight, ...it seems that some, however, only seeing things in terms of 'all or nothing,' can't accept that someone might just be *different from themselves* ...and that this doesn't mean, the world's trying to 'make everyone gay.' If you wonder exactly *in what way straight marriage is so terrifyingly supposed to be 'diminished' by gay couples having equal protection under the law,* well, I think the answer lies in that dynamic: people think they're being 'saved from Hell' by 'obeying these laws that are for everyone.' Functionally-unable to tell themselves from anyone else, they try to enforce the untenable on others, whatever it takes, cause someone taught them to be unable to discern and even value this diversity in the manifest world.)
This doesn't tend to stop when people are the 'right' color and sex and religion and presumptive sexuality, as the endless internecine warfare *within* these categories demonstrates.
If one values the differences in others, among us as a human people, from the neighborhood level to the global, then we can appreciate them in ourselves, instead of perhaps acting in certain ways simply to avoid being, say, 'wimps and losers.' :)
Continuing to weave and bob around the issues is not helping. You can make a difference. Address the failings of contemporary religions especially Islam and Christianity. Put reality back into the lives of 2.5 billion members of humankind who are simply born and brainwashed to believe in the tragic errors of their religious foundations. A good start would be the formation of The Global Freedom of Religion Foundation.
I suppose, over the years, as a female (wrong gender for some), beige (wrong colour for some), Muslim (wrong religion for many), living in the developing world (third world for some as if I'm from another planet), I'm used to reading and hearing quite interesting and colourful remarks on my gender, race, region and religion.
Mind you, I have never heard anyone actually said them to my face. Bigotry is in the closet when face to face, but seems to be in full force in the facelessness and anoynimity of Cyberspace. That is why these On Faith threads are fascinating reading for me on what some people really think and feel.
I am grateful for our all our conversations here. The financial marketplace beckons and needs my full attention in the next few days. No place for wimps and losers.
"To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter."
This, J, is because with it comes a lot of *real-world* devaluation of people as humans, ...it's calling them bad people, ...implicit there from a lot of the language use is, 'You don't count.'
People are also frequently subjected to serious abuse on that basis, (which probably motivates a lot of the angrier atheists on a lot of psychological levels.)
It has to do with the dark side of these conditional promises of great reward, and frequent threats of horrible punishment. Not to mention how they're expressed in a real world, where we're all subject to a lot of decisions made by people who think only their beliefs count... while doing hideously-irresponsible things based on such beliefs. These things don't happen in a cultural and psychological vacuum, as religious manipulators well know.
I mean, I have my *own* faith, so these existential threats don't *scare* me as such, insulting as it is to have people walking around saying, 'Your soul is a criminal, and I'm imagining horrible things happening to you, cause you're such a lesser being that my opinion about you counts for more than your life...'
But apart from that, look at how 'sinners' and 'nonbelievers' are *treated* in these 'Hell-based' systems.
Are you *really surprised* it cheeses people off?
It's not about heavens or hells, it's about human dignity and what happens when people are treated that way.
The Jihadist is still weaving and bobbing through the commentaries and still not addressing the issues of her faith/questions about Islam.
Once again Jihadist, it is all about the foundations of contemporary religions.
Again, for two of the largest in synopsis form for your review and commentary:
1. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Jewish sects.
2. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
Yes you're both right. Anonymous did ask one to read the scriptures and to pray in spite of not believing, and in spite of Anonymous stating "faith is a gift and it cannot be willed".
It was rather confusing, but Anonymous came back with a subsequent clarification.
I see your point about damning others to hell for not believing in God or one's version of God and beliefs. So, the Muslims will go to hell for not accepting Christ as the Lord (according to some Christians). The Christians will go to hell for deification and idolatory of Jesus (according to some Muslims).
The classical Qur'anic commentators and interpretators of the Qur'an certainly let their imagination fly on who goes to heaven and hell too. The Qur'an itself is most specific that hypocrites will go to hell. The hypocrites refered to are those pretending to be believers of God, but are not. So, in the end, atheists will go to heaven. If they cared about it more than hell:)
To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter.
Certainly, as a Muslim, I have my share of "You will go to hell" from some of my more passionately literal fellow Muslims (for not agreeing with them on specific religious issues) and some non-Muslims, especially evangelical Christians, for not accepting Christ as the Lord and Savior.
Even in these On Faith threads, my favourite evangelist, Canyon Shearer, in his sweet and inimitable way, always tells me I will go to hell, am going to hell if I don't repent, accept and seek salvation through Christ in a way that I actually look forward to going to hell.
A Muslim is seldom intimidated by such threats of heaven or hell, as God is deem to be the final judge, not man. No Muslim, no matter how pious, can say for certain that s/he will go to heaven. So, let others damn one to hell. They have no power to do that, they are not God after all, but they can all they want - "Go to hell!" or "You will go to hell!"
I am sorry to hear, but not really surprised about how many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. In college, a Jewish college mate once told me that they are regarded as Christ-killers by some Christians.
I had laugh along with him and said Muslims are regarded as Christ deniers or the Anti-Christ. Fifteen years later, I still hear that, as others have heard for hundreds of years. Not funny, and was cause of persecutions, inquisitions, genocides, conflicts and wars, but I intend to die laughing at the absurdity of it all.
Yes, some believers can be and seem incredibly stupid to those within and outside their respective faiths. They regard what is seen as stupidity by others as singularity of mind for a purpose and mission. Nothing and no one can stop them for God is on their side, and all setbacks they encountered are challenges by God to test and strengthen their faith.
As a believer myself, I never under-estimate that in some passionate believers. While I may hesitate and ponder sometimes, they plunge ahead with absolute certainty and without fear. After all, God is on their side, they said. We can call it blind faith, or sheer stupidity for all we want, but for them, others who don't share their beliefs are in denial of the One Truth and will yet see it, yet believe in it.
Of course, there will be more taunting, harassments and/or quests to evangelize from passionate believers.
He, he. I lost the first spelling bee I was ever in spelling "among" that way.
I try not to insult people for believing. Some people, even brilliant people (see Karen Armstrong, _The Spiral Staircase_, e.g.), need to believe. Some people, says William James, in _The Varieties of the Religious Experience_, actually feel the presence of God all the time. And I sympathize, because science is leaving fewer and fewer gaps for God to hide in.
What bugs me is when people believe stupidly. There's no excuse for holding the Bible inerrant; there's no excuse for still believing in Adam and Eve; there's no excuse to dredge up ancient vileness from the Book of Leviticus and use it to destroy people's lives.
Come on, people. That's not belief. That's not a loving God. That's bone stupidity.
"Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?"
I grew up a Jew in mostly non-Jewish communities, and the only time I felt harassed was when I had a couple of KKK members after me. The school district and local police put an end to that right away! All these years later, I now also count myself amoung the Christian population.
As for questioning faith, I have always done so. Sometimes I think maybe it's a Jewish way of doing things. We were brought up to question everything, never to simply follow blindly. My whole life has been full of questioning, and I feel I have gotten much farther in life and faith this way.
Perhaps my suggestion to pray, visit the Holy Eucharist, etc, even if one doesn't believe, wasn´t understood as I would have wanted.
I realize there are many who are quite content without following any of my suggestions. I don't expect an all merciful God to condemn them or anyone forever just because they do not follow my suggestions or belong to any particular religion. I don't believe God's ultimate intent is to condemn anyone, not the God that reveals inexplicable joy and peace in the Eucharist.
However, there may be some I felt, who may want to know if there is really something to our faith in Christ and it is those that I address.
If our faith is true, if Jesus has resurrected from the dead, if he is thus present in the Holy Eucharist, then visiting the Eucharist is visiting with him, and he is fully aware of one's visit and of the relationship (or one's negation of one), whether one believes or not. If, as we believe, God, that is, the essence and living fullness of Being and Christ are one, then the visit is an encounter with that one, whether one believes or not, and the visit significant, regardless of sense appearances, or even belief.
Faith results from an encounter with the living God. Belief flows from that.
I don't perceive religious people as a threat to me, even though I am atheist.
I just think religion is often a burden to society. Look at the history of China and the history of the West. The West had much more of a burden of religion during much of our history.
Socialization, traditions, mythologies - there is nothing wrong with them, per se. But mythologies should not deny reality or create absolutes.
Regardless, religious people are not currently a threat to me. Christianity is not as powerful as it once was in the West. I don't live in an Islamic country, so I can't comment on Islam.
Jihadist, while I can't speak for E Favorite, I didn't read "activities usually limited to believers" as referring specifically to religious celebrations. Instead, I read it as a reasonable objection to evangelism, the notion that people have to be saved for their own good.
"It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?"
Valid point. I have criticized atheists who label all believers as delusional or ignorant.
However, it's much more wrong and noxious for Christian doctrine to damn all atheists and all other non-Christians to hell for not believing in Christ. Or for Islamic doctrine to damn all Christians to hell for believing in Christ. To say that someone is doomed to hell is to say that someone doesn't deserve to exist.
Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?
To the specific topic: Jihadist have you ever questioned Islam? If not, here are some items to consider. The hallucinations of Islam's founder, the illiteracy of said founder/fortune teller, the obvious plagiarism, the militaristic and anti-female passages, the call for world domination, the 72 virgins, the state of heaven (spiritual vs. physical), the chariot rides, the required belief in mythical angels, the many sects, the new "fortune tellers", the no-escape clauses?????????????????????
Lighten up, Jihadist, and don't build straw-men and then tear them down. When I mentioned activities limited to believers, I was referring to the ones Anon named: "Read[ing] scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray[ing], even if you don't believe. Visit[ing] Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe."
I never said or implied a word about spoiling believers' festivities or not celebrating Christmas. But I will now -- I enjoy Christmas a lot more now that I don't think of it as a religious holiday that's been overtaken by commercialism. Now, I just look forward to the extended vacation time to visit family and friends.
Thanks for that clarification and good to know you love Christmas too. No one goes to hell for loving Christmas, except when one maxed out on the credit cards.
I had thought that Thanksgiving is the one that all Americans celebrate, regardless of their religous or non-religious beliefs.
I suppose you're right about Christmas being a "secular" celebration nowadays. The Japanese celebrate Christmas in a way that would make North Americans and Europeans blush.
I think it's safe to say that, in America, at least, Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday; a modern version of Saturnalia, if you will. I'm a hardcase atheist, and I love Christmas. I don't pay any attention to Easter, however.
"Please consider that they're (non-believers) very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers."
Yes, since they gagged throught all the formalities and rites of organized religion when they were forced to be part of organized religion and religious traditions they don't believe in.
But sometimes, they (non-believers) do also like to celebrate the fun side of traditions in organized religion, such as Christmas, and love Christmas office parties, and the giving and receiving of gifts too.
Oh, for heavens sake! Admit that some atheists do like some traditions of organized religion. I have friends who don't fast all through Ramadan but come Aidil Fitr (the Festival celebrating the end of Ramadan) they are the ones who really celebrates the occassion with joyous feasting and visiting and giving.
We believers have no problems inviting and sharing with non-believers our religious festivities. It is up to y'all.
Surely not all believers wants to proselytize y'all or force y'all to believe. It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?
Lighten up E Favorite. Believers have their own fun and contentment too. I just don't know what non-believers of God and organized religion celebrate as a family and community activity and/or tradition:)
Anon - you make the assumption that people who don't believe, want to believe. Please consider that they're very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers.
A jesuit priest once told us in the congregation of a man he knew who really wanted to have faith and though he prayed for it consistently, it did not happen until after many years.
Belief is a dimension of faith, but not faith itself. Faith is a gift and it cannot be willed. It is some sort of revelation that the object of one´s faith is quite real, independent, not contingent upon personal imagination.
When Jesus asked Peter who he thought he was, and Peter responded, "the messiah, the son of the living God", Jesus answered that this had not (could not have) been revealed to him by men, but by the Father.
So what can one do? Be truthful, even if it means being atheistic or agnostic. Be just to the best of your ability, even if you don't believe. Read scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray, even if you don't believe. Visit Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe.
I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.
I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.
With regard to God, Jesus, the ressurection, the trinity, and other things like this that are central to Christianity, I admit that I have few words. I do not think it should bother you that I have few words. Read what Spong had to say from this forum's panel entitled, "Question faith? Fear not." (I am sure you have already read it). I liked what he said. I agree with him.
I think that a big mistake that alot of people make, especially religious people, but also atheists too, is to claim a certainty of knowledge.
I do acknowlege that we, as human beings, experience impressions of order from the world in which we dwell. Observing these impressions of order is science. Science is no more than that. But I do wonder, contemplate, and speculate, on the nature of this order, which impresses itself upon us. That is philosophy and religion.
I also acknowledge that the beliefs that fill us up, (that impress themselves upon us) are contingent upon our interaction and intersection with the world, over which we have almost no control. That is why, when I begin to wonder and speculate about these impressions of order, which for the most part, I have never wondered about until recently, that I use the tools that I know best, that were handed to me by the contingency of my birth and experience upon the earth, which is Christianity. In that sense, I am a Christian.
All people believe as they will. If you could reach into a person's brain and alter their beliefs, you probably would not want to do that. And if you could kill off or imprison all the people with beliefs that you do not like, you probably would not want to do that either. So what is left? Everybody, just believe, each as he or she will. That is the way it has got to be.
TJ, etc.
All I can offer to your view of biblical inerrancy is to repeat that although divinely inspired, the Bible is a human creation. As such, the message from G-d has been filtered through the cultural, linguistic, institutional and personal assumptions of the well-meaning folks who wrote it down and copied it.
The Bible is contradictory, at best, confusing -- if read without a good measure of prayer and conscience. As my mother used to say: "Read the book, pray about it, and make good decisions."
Daniel - thanks - I can see you are trying to be responsive. It seems to me that as much as you are focused on your faith and willing to talk about it, you avoid aspects of it that might prove to be too challenging.
I agree that some minor difficulty stems from translation and the evolution of language. What I do know is that the languages that our oldest extant copies are written in are known entities. Hebrew and ancient Greek are what they are. It's not like our oldest copies are written in Linear A.
I think the lion's share of the difficulty stems from the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the work itself.
Of course, "literal" depends on translation and intended meaning. Words had different meanings when the Bible was written than they do now, and some translations are translations of supposed meaning rather than literal translations. It takes time and knowledgeable teachers to be able to study original translations to get to the truth of the Bible. I've been working at it for some time, and I will never be done...
The Vedas are ancient and report miracles. The Koran is very old and reports miracles. Do you believe in the events they describe as you do in the Christian Bible? I suspect the answer is no.
The fact is, with the except of their own particular faith tradition, religious people behave in exactly the same way you say only atheists behave. They discount claims that lack evidence. They don't believe in miracles just because some person claimed to have witnessed it or some ancient book describes it. Atheists are different in this regard; they're just more consistent.
Only if you believe that God would do absurd things. I think God leaves the absurd to humans; we tend to have that covered on our own just fine. All of the insanity that we call humanity on this planet is true absurdity, if you ask me.
Jim J, we agree on that. The twist, and where we may disagree, is my opinion of the value of a literal reading. When I read the bible, and yes I still do after 20 years of apostasy, I find that I must read it literally for the reasons we both have suggested. However, when I read it literally, I'm left with a horrible, snarled mess of contradiction and gobbledygook like the two conflicting flood stories, young earth creationism, and the like. No matter which I way I choose to read the bible, either liberally or literally, I'm still left with the same thing: nothing in the least bit useful.
Gerry, No, that's not my definition of god and I'm not presenting any philosophy. That's the definition of the word 'omnipotent' which is used to describe god in the bible. If the absurdity of creating the universe is within reason, and it obviously is for Christians, then so is the absurdity of keeping a boat that should sink afloat.
Anon
I'm not pointing a finger at you. The "you" I refer to is the you in general, christians. I didn't mean to call you, Anon, smug or looneytune, I was refering to people like tom, the mothership is coming guy. That is smug and looneytoon. And others who I hear on TV and read about. Plus you, anon, use anon for your name and I might be thinking of what another anon said and tie you both, or more, together. I am jwest you as anon could be any one of several. I am only discussing what I feel and have witnessed. I ask people too many questions about their religiousity and get some strange looks and answers. Plus understand that I don't like the current state of hostility coming from the christian community and want to stand as a voice against religious intrusion into my private life. we do not have an inherent right to impose ourselves on one another. I don't hate anyone on this post. I disagree with many though. No offense intended.
For about the past year, I have been corresponding with a blogger, someone whom I do not know and have never met. We go back and forth on these types of questions, and in writing my replies to him, I have worked out alot of the things which I have posted here. I have tried posting some of my ideas here, but my thoughts don't seem to be going over very well.
I don't care. I feel alot clearer in my mind now, than I did 5 years ago.
"Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frankly, indoctrination."
Jerry, I'm uncomfortable with labeling all religious leaders as power-hungry demagogues. I suspect most of them honestly believe they're doing the right thing, even when they push doctrines that many people find repugnant. Some of them almost certainly share the same fears and uncertainties as their flocks.
Robert Heinlein once wrote that “Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil”. Unfortunately there are many more good people in the World today than there are wise ones.
One of the things that the Bible, which I think is the word of God, tries to teach us is how to be good. But goodness if a far easier subject to teach than wisdom. It is possible to master some proficiency at being good and still fall short when it comes to being wise. That’s what separates good intentions from being good.
How do you know when goodness is best served by running, as God told Joseph to do with Mary and Jesus as Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem? How do you know when goodness is best served by staying and bearing a cross, as God asked Jesus at the Crucifixion? How do you know when God wants you to pick up a rock and a sling, like David, and fight for what is good? And how do you know when God wants you to turn the other cheek?
A wise man might know the answer. Just as likely, a wise man might be wise enough to admit that he didn’t know, because a wise man who doesn’t doubt his own wisdom is not wise at all. So we struggle through life trying to be good in the right ways and at the right times so that our goodness might make a difference. We read the examples of people who were thought wise and look for something we might apply to our own lives.
Because not knowing the right ways, the right times, and to what extremes we should express our goodness is the nature of religious doubt.
You are absolutely correct, which is why many Christians believe that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. If parts of it are not true, then which parts? Who is the authority on this? And yes, their disbelief diminishes God.
...and the belief in a "better" authority is contingent upon each person's origins, and the beliefs that formed in that person's head, which for the most part, were not chosen, freely.
I never specifically pointed a finger at you, did I? And yet, you seem to point one at me. I do not ignore science at all, and only became a Christian 3 years ago. You sure do seem to be pretty angry at me about something though.
I am very educated in the non-religious "side" of things, and I also spent many years studying a number of religions before becoming a Christian. My post above was meant to point out, as yours did about Christians, that there are many non-Christians who speak out without knowledge to base their words on. Just because someone can be loud or sound like they know what they're talking about, doesn't mean they're educated on the topic.
The reason there are so many different "brands" of Christianity is because people ultimately want things their way. You get arguments within churches because some person or group of people decides they don't like the way something is being done or said, and the decide they can do it better. It's happened this way for hundreds of years. Different "flavors" of Christianity like this is completely different than people leaving their faith in God completely.
And I can honestly say that I have never been accused of acting smug, or being a looneytoon.
Science is a utilitarian and pragmatic assignment of meaning to our impressions of order in the world. There is no philosophy of science, and there are no certain rules of nature nor unvarrying laws of Physics. This is an illusion. There is only the utility of the moment, in interpretting our impressions of order.
Science has such a good reputation because it has produced great utility. People don't believe "in science" because it is a good philosophy to believe in; they believe in it because it has produced such utility. When people believe in the truth of something, it is not because science says it is true; it is merely a coincidence that science tells people many useful things, which they believe.
By this way of thinking of science, you can see that even scientists can have "unscientifc" beliefs about things that are not directly under their area of scientific interest. Appealing to science to prove an argument won't work. The power of science to persude is in its reputation, alone, not in its philosophy; and if someone thinks they have a better authority for truth, then that is how they would make their judgement.
I was raised in a very religous family. But my parents were very intelligent, thoughtful and kind. I also had a Christian grandmother who was benevolent and kind. So, I don't have any particular bitterness against Christianity, that I observe in alot of other people.
When I grew up, I felt religious doubt; I gradually believed less and less. Gradually, I was practically an atheist. But then more lately, I have begun to have realizations which drive me back to being a Christian.
Instead of doubting religion and believing in the certainty of science, I gradully became to doubt also, the scientific characterizations of existence. Of course, I believe that evolution is true, but what does this discovery get us? it just inches us forward, but a tiny bit. The fact that it might conflict with the Bible is not really important to me. It is my experience that most Christians believe that evolution is true.
I started thinking "weird" things, such as "we are manufactured products" and "all that we can truely know of the world is that we get impressions of order from it." Where are these thoughts coming from? I never thought like this before. So, I cannot say.
But, then I move along to the next step, to wonder that we choose our thoughts and beliefs at all, but that they somehow form themselves, or are influenced to be formed by some means that we do not control.
And then I have the idea of "contingency;" that all that we know or believe depends on our tiny interaction with the world and with the culture, people, and families into which we were born, and that we each have our own local setting where we are delivered, to deal with all these questions and wonders.
I suppose there is alot more. It is not something that I can just say in a breath, or even a couple of sentences.
I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" (and by extesion, those who follow the teachings) to prosthyletize (spelling?).
I wish people would take you up on your proposition, but I'm guessing they won't. Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frakly, indoctrination. On the other hand, identical scientific knowledege was aquired independantly across vast distances, by people who never met or communicated. That SHOULD tell you something about the relative merits of the two approaches!!
You may maintain that if you like and we'll have to agree to disagree.
More interestingly, you've cast your lot with Daniel regarding biblical inerrancy. I'd like to address you both on this topic. I'm likely one of the few atheists that you'll meet that argues for biblical inerrancy.
Let's do consider the story of Noah. I agree that it is utterly absurd but I don't believe in the omnipotent god described in the bible so it's no skin off my back. For the cherry picking/liberal interpretation Christian though, things get interesting. I'll assume that you both believe that your god created the universe. Maybe he did it with a wave of his hand, maybe evolution is his tool, whatever. The method is of no consequence. What is of consequence is the magnificent result. And what a magnificent result it is! Seriously, wow!
Now, if your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping some silly boat full of animals afloat??
If your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping the bible true to his word and, therefore, in need of no cherry picking/liberal interpretation whatsoever??
The cherry picker/liberal interpreter constrains the ability of their own omnipotent god. It speaks volumes about the true nature of both the belief and of the god.
Anon
I was a christian. I read, and continue to, read the bible, listened to the stories and and try to discuss it all with my christian friends. Once again as I have stated before, they will not discuss it with me. ????. I seem to put them in a bit of a spot. If everyone was given a truth serum and asked how much they really believe in all of this you would find the ranks of atheism increase dramatically. Since I've been part of this forum I have found many of you out there to have varying degrees of belief or otherwise understanding of christianity. One might believe in infallablilty whereas the other not. That is why there is so many different brands of christianity, some 6500 as I'vecome to understand. Maybe more. Each brand has broken off from another and it is continuing to grow. Some of us grew out of it entirely. For those of you who continue to look down your nose at us non-believers, well better learn to get over it because in the future you just might be the minority. Ignore science all you want and believe in superstition to your hearts content just don't be so smug about it. After all some people think your the looneytoon.
I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" to prosthyletize (spelling?).
Otherwise I wish pepople would take you up on your proposition!!
TJ
The part that I found arrogant was the faith in one's own unmediated judgment. And I maintain that that faith is just as blind as my faith in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But it is certainly preferable to worshiping the words-on-paper that have come down to us from other humans. Biblical inerrancy is nonsensical, because even if you b
All Comments (171)
Freudianism and Marxism are both flawed up to a point, but their grounding is in a combination of metaphysical presuppositions AND real-world evidence. It is the !*interpretation of*! the evidence which is subject to question and debate, but it's not as if they did no investigative work whatsoever.
March 1, 2008 10:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 1, 2008 10:08
sdreuqvmc nbegzk qoifmvzse eihwfqbvp oguewjc mbnluaq dckewqris
December 2, 2007 4:27 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 2, 2007 04:27
iaohbv asngiuvyt slrxcizu bweykg geuvloyr seqdumlvh xlzoq
September 26, 2007 7:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 19:06
iaohbv asngiuvyt slrxcizu bweykg geuvloyr seqdumlvh xlzoq
September 26, 2007 7:05 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2007 19:05
If you want to explore the relationship between reason and religion you should investigate modern Deism. Here is a link to a good explanation of the basic philosophy: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2699
August 13, 2007 3:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 13, 2007 03:37
It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!
August 5, 2007 12:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 5, 2007 00:10
Concerned: You base your beliefs about Jesus on the Jesus seminarians and if they have a payroll, I would not be surprised to find you in it. You expect us to make fundamental existential decisions on the basis of polls taken within this group. Your tunnel vision does not permit you to see beyond US politics and US imperialistic interests.
If anything needs to be addressed it's your war mongering and hatred of Christians and Muslims, so I hope there are some out there praying for you, because you truly need it.
June 20, 2007 5:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 17:09
Well, good luck, I guess, J. :)
I suppose one thing about America, is you do hear a lot to your face, in one way or another. Being of the 'wrong' religion and sexuality for many, I hear a lot who presume I'm part of their club, ...I certainly hear plenty of straight white Christians trying to impress me with how much they can't stand queers, etc.
One thing about these 'favored' groups is, ...there's in a lot of ways, no such thing: among straight white Christians, well, they just start going at each other over which sect, what political affiliation, what ethnicity, what sports team, Ford or Chevy, etc, etc.
Ok, inserted some trivia there, but the point is, when you have these ideas of a monolithic model of 'perfection and divine favor' ...it gets into *everything* and it *never ends.*
In short, I think there's a psychology to these monolithic, rule-based models which encourage fear and judgement of what's considered to be 'other,' ...a fundamental inability to grasp that there's a diversity in the world which is a *good* thing, not a massive 'failure to abide by divine rules.'
One thing I forgot to mention above is that that 'You're going to Hell' thing is often a prelude to threats of a more mundane nature: the thought process seems to go through this idea that 'Anything I might do to you is 'righteous' cause of this Hell.'
Being unable, apparently to grasp that there's a goodness in people, even if not especially within the same 'tribes' being *different,* there's a certain drive to try and enforce 'sameness' even if it means trying to *obliterate* the different, in one way or another. These 'universal rulebooks,' in fact, seem to rob people of some ability to see the *difference* between *one person,* and "Everyone," thus, themselves. It feeds some kind of functional *inability* to tell the *difference* between onesself and someone else: instead of embracing the diversity, they decide for some reason it would be much easier to try and make everyone else the same as 'them.' Even if it means 'getting rid of' in some unarticulated way, those who don't fit.
(For instance, I don't know how often I hear people justifying homophobia based on the insane notion, "If everyone didn't breed, then the human race would end! Thus every single person must breed!" I mean, *come on.* The existence of queer people won't change the fact that most folks are straight, ...it seems that some, however, only seeing things in terms of 'all or nothing,' can't accept that someone might just be *different from themselves* ...and that this doesn't mean, the world's trying to 'make everyone gay.' If you wonder exactly *in what way straight marriage is so terrifyingly supposed to be 'diminished' by gay couples having equal protection under the law,* well, I think the answer lies in that dynamic: people think they're being 'saved from Hell' by 'obeying these laws that are for everyone.' Functionally-unable to tell themselves from anyone else, they try to enforce the untenable on others, whatever it takes, cause someone taught them to be unable to discern and even value this diversity in the manifest world.)
This doesn't tend to stop when people are the 'right' color and sex and religion and presumptive sexuality, as the endless internecine warfare *within* these categories demonstrates.
If one values the differences in others, among us as a human people, from the neighborhood level to the global, then we can appreciate them in ourselves, instead of perhaps acting in certain ways simply to avoid being, say, 'wimps and losers.' :)
Blessed be. :)
June 20, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 12:41
Jihadist and Sympathizers,
Continuing to weave and bob around the issues is not helping. You can make a difference. Address the failings of contemporary religions especially Islam and Christianity. Put reality back into the lives of 2.5 billion members of humankind who are simply born and brainwashed to believe in the tragic errors of their religious foundations. A good start would be the formation of The Global Freedom of Religion Foundation.
June 20, 2007 6:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 06:08
Paganplace,
Thank you for your post.
I suppose, over the years, as a female (wrong gender for some), beige (wrong colour for some), Muslim (wrong religion for many), living in the developing world (third world for some as if I'm from another planet), I'm used to reading and hearing quite interesting and colourful remarks on my gender, race, region and religion.
Mind you, I have never heard anyone actually said them to my face. Bigotry is in the closet when face to face, but seems to be in full force in the facelessness and anoynimity of Cyberspace. That is why these On Faith threads are fascinating reading for me on what some people really think and feel.
I am grateful for our all our conversations here. The financial marketplace beckons and needs my full attention in the next few days. No place for wimps and losers.
Best regards as always.
J
June 20, 2007 3:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 03:50
"To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter."
This, J, is because with it comes a lot of *real-world* devaluation of people as humans, ...it's calling them bad people, ...implicit there from a lot of the language use is, 'You don't count.'
People are also frequently subjected to serious abuse on that basis, (which probably motivates a lot of the angrier atheists on a lot of psychological levels.)
It has to do with the dark side of these conditional promises of great reward, and frequent threats of horrible punishment. Not to mention how they're expressed in a real world, where we're all subject to a lot of decisions made by people who think only their beliefs count... while doing hideously-irresponsible things based on such beliefs. These things don't happen in a cultural and psychological vacuum, as religious manipulators well know.
I mean, I have my *own* faith, so these existential threats don't *scare* me as such, insulting as it is to have people walking around saying, 'Your soul is a criminal, and I'm imagining horrible things happening to you, cause you're such a lesser being that my opinion about you counts for more than your life...'
But apart from that, look at how 'sinners' and 'nonbelievers' are *treated* in these 'Hell-based' systems.
Are you *really surprised* it cheeses people off?
It's not about heavens or hells, it's about human dignity and what happens when people are treated that way.
June 20, 2007 1:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 20, 2007 01:40
The Jihadist is still weaving and bobbing through the commentaries and still not addressing the issues of her faith/questions about Islam.
Once again Jihadist, it is all about the foundations of contemporary religions.
Again, for two of the largest in synopsis form for your review and commentary:
1. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian/Jewish sects.
2. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
June 19, 2007 11:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 23:43
E Favorite and Tonio,
Yes you're both right. Anonymous did ask one to read the scriptures and to pray in spite of not believing, and in spite of Anonymous stating "faith is a gift and it cannot be willed".
It was rather confusing, but Anonymous came back with a subsequent clarification.
I see your point about damning others to hell for not believing in God or one's version of God and beliefs. So, the Muslims will go to hell for not accepting Christ as the Lord (according to some Christians). The Christians will go to hell for deification and idolatory of Jesus (according to some Muslims).
The classical Qur'anic commentators and interpretators of the Qur'an certainly let their imagination fly on who goes to heaven and hell too. The Qur'an itself is most specific that hypocrites will go to hell. The hypocrites refered to are those pretending to be believers of God, but are not. So, in the end, atheists will go to heaven. If they cared about it more than hell:)
To be honest, I read in On Faith threads how some atheists do get irate responded to some posters' assertions that they will go to hell if they don't believe in God. I am puzzled for if one don't believe in heaven and hell, it should not matter.
Certainly, as a Muslim, I have my share of "You will go to hell" from some of my more passionately literal fellow Muslims (for not agreeing with them on specific religious issues) and some non-Muslims, especially evangelical Christians, for not accepting Christ as the Lord and Savior.
Even in these On Faith threads, my favourite evangelist, Canyon Shearer, in his sweet and inimitable way, always tells me I will go to hell, am going to hell if I don't repent, accept and seek salvation through Christ in a way that I actually look forward to going to hell.
A Muslim is seldom intimidated by such threats of heaven or hell, as God is deem to be the final judge, not man. No Muslim, no matter how pious, can say for certain that s/he will go to heaven. So, let others damn one to hell. They have no power to do that, they are not God after all, but they can all they want - "Go to hell!" or "You will go to hell!"
I am sorry to hear, but not really surprised about how many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. In college, a Jewish college mate once told me that they are regarded as Christ-killers by some Christians.
I had laugh along with him and said Muslims are regarded as Christ deniers or the Anti-Christ. Fifteen years later, I still hear that, as others have heard for hundreds of years. Not funny, and was cause of persecutions, inquisitions, genocides, conflicts and wars, but I intend to die laughing at the absurdity of it all.
Yes, some believers can be and seem incredibly stupid to those within and outside their respective faiths. They regard what is seen as stupidity by others as singularity of mind for a purpose and mission. Nothing and no one can stop them for God is on their side, and all setbacks they encountered are challenges by God to test and strengthen their faith.
As a believer myself, I never under-estimate that in some passionate believers. While I may hesitate and ponder sometimes, they plunge ahead with absolute certainty and without fear. After all, God is on their side, they said. We can call it blind faith, or sheer stupidity for all we want, but for them, others who don't share their beliefs are in denial of the One Truth and will yet see it, yet believe in it.
Of course, there will be more taunting, harassments and/or quests to evangelize from passionate believers.
Best regards
June 19, 2007 6:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 18:35
" I now also count myself amoung..."
He, he. I lost the first spelling bee I was ever in spelling "among" that way.
I try not to insult people for believing. Some people, even brilliant people (see Karen Armstrong, _The Spiral Staircase_, e.g.), need to believe. Some people, says William James, in _The Varieties of the Religious Experience_, actually feel the presence of God all the time. And I sympathize, because science is leaving fewer and fewer gaps for God to hide in.
What bugs me is when people believe stupidly. There's no excuse for holding the Bible inerrant; there's no excuse for still believing in Adam and Eve; there's no excuse to dredge up ancient vileness from the Book of Leviticus and use it to destroy people's lives.
Come on, people. That's not belief. That's not a loving God. That's bone stupidity.
June 19, 2007 5:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 17:54
Tonio wrote:
"Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?"
I grew up a Jew in mostly non-Jewish communities, and the only time I felt harassed was when I had a couple of KKK members after me. The school district and local police put an end to that right away! All these years later, I now also count myself amoung the Christian population.
As for questioning faith, I have always done so. Sometimes I think maybe it's a Jewish way of doing things. We were brought up to question everything, never to simply follow blindly. My whole life has been full of questioning, and I feel I have gotten much farther in life and faith this way.
June 19, 2007 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 14:14
Perhaps my suggestion to pray, visit the Holy Eucharist, etc, even if one doesn't believe, wasn´t understood as I would have wanted.
I realize there are many who are quite content without following any of my suggestions. I don't expect an all merciful God to condemn them or anyone forever just because they do not follow my suggestions or belong to any particular religion. I don't believe God's ultimate intent is to condemn anyone, not the God that reveals inexplicable joy and peace in the Eucharist.
However, there may be some I felt, who may want to know if there is really something to our faith in Christ and it is those that I address.
If our faith is true, if Jesus has resurrected from the dead, if he is thus present in the Holy Eucharist, then visiting the Eucharist is visiting with him, and he is fully aware of one's visit and of the relationship (or one's negation of one), whether one believes or not. If, as we believe, God, that is, the essence and living fullness of Being and Christ are one, then the visit is an encounter with that one, whether one believes or not, and the visit significant, regardless of sense appearances, or even belief.
Faith results from an encounter with the living God. Belief flows from that.
June 19, 2007 1:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 13:33
I like Christmas.
I don't perceive religious people as a threat to me, even though I am atheist.
I just think religion is often a burden to society. Look at the history of China and the history of the West. The West had much more of a burden of religion during much of our history.
Socialization, traditions, mythologies - there is nothing wrong with them, per se. But mythologies should not deny reality or create absolutes.
Regardless, religious people are not currently a threat to me. Christianity is not as powerful as it once was in the West. I don't live in an Islamic country, so I can't comment on Islam.
June 19, 2007 1:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 13:11
Jihadist, while I can't speak for E Favorite, I didn't read "activities usually limited to believers" as referring specifically to religious celebrations. Instead, I read it as a reasonable objection to evangelism, the notion that people have to be saved for their own good.
"It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?"
Valid point. I have criticized atheists who label all believers as delusional or ignorant.
However, it's much more wrong and noxious for Christian doctrine to damn all atheists and all other non-Christians to hell for not believing in Christ. Or for Islamic doctrine to damn all Christians to hell for believing in Christ. To say that someone is doomed to hell is to say that someone doesn't deserve to exist.
Just as an example, many Jews who grow up in mostly non-Jewish communities go through school being harassed over their alleged guilt for Christ's death and over their allegedly being doomed to hell from birth. Do you really expect them to have any sympathy for Christians who complain about being called stupid by a few atheists?
June 19, 2007 10:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 10:48
I see the Jihadist is back at work.
To the specific topic: Jihadist have you ever questioned Islam? If not, here are some items to consider. The hallucinations of Islam's founder, the illiteracy of said founder/fortune teller, the obvious plagiarism, the militaristic and anti-female passages, the call for world domination, the 72 virgins, the state of heaven (spiritual vs. physical), the chariot rides, the required belief in mythical angels, the many sects, the new "fortune tellers", the no-escape clauses?????????????????????
June 19, 2007 3:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 19, 2007 03:43
Lighten up, Jihadist, and don't build straw-men and then tear them down. When I mentioned activities limited to believers, I was referring to the ones Anon named: "Read[ing] scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray[ing], even if you don't believe. Visit[ing] Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe."
I never said or implied a word about spoiling believers' festivities or not celebrating Christmas. But I will now -- I enjoy Christmas a lot more now that I don't think of it as a religious holiday that's been overtaken by commercialism. Now, I just look forward to the extended vacation time to visit family and friends.
June 18, 2007 11:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 23:37
Godfrey
Thanks for that clarification and good to know you love Christmas too. No one goes to hell for loving Christmas, except when one maxed out on the credit cards.
I had thought that Thanksgiving is the one that all Americans celebrate, regardless of their religous or non-religious beliefs.
I suppose you're right about Christmas being a "secular" celebration nowadays. The Japanese celebrate Christmas in a way that would make North Americans and Europeans blush.
Regards
June 18, 2007 10:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 22:51
I think it's safe to say that, in America, at least, Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday; a modern version of Saturnalia, if you will. I'm a hardcase atheist, and I love Christmas. I don't pay any attention to Easter, however.
June 18, 2007 9:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 21:16
E Favorite:)
"Please consider that they're (non-believers) very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers."
Yes, since they gagged throught all the formalities and rites of organized religion when they were forced to be part of organized religion and religious traditions they don't believe in.
But sometimes, they (non-believers) do also like to celebrate the fun side of traditions in organized religion, such as Christmas, and love Christmas office parties, and the giving and receiving of gifts too.
Oh, for heavens sake! Admit that some atheists do like some traditions of organized religion. I have friends who don't fast all through Ramadan but come Aidil Fitr (the Festival celebrating the end of Ramadan) they are the ones who really celebrates the occassion with joyous feasting and visiting and giving.
We believers have no problems inviting and sharing with non-believers our religious festivities. It is up to y'all.
Surely not all believers wants to proselytize y'all or force y'all to believe. It would spoil the festivities' celebrations and have someone partaking in our feasts saying we are all delusionals, no?
Lighten up E Favorite. Believers have their own fun and contentment too. I just don't know what non-believers of God and organized religion celebrate as a family and community activity and/or tradition:)
June 18, 2007 7:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 18, 2007 19:10
Anon - you make the assumption that people who don't believe, want to believe. Please consider that they're very content in their non-belief and don't want to spend time engaged in activities usually limited to believers.
June 16, 2007 4:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2007 16:50
...oh...and be merciful, not just just, even if you don't believe.
June 16, 2007 4:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2007 16:13
A jesuit priest once told us in the congregation of a man he knew who really wanted to have faith and though he prayed for it consistently, it did not happen until after many years.
Belief is a dimension of faith, but not faith itself. Faith is a gift and it cannot be willed. It is some sort of revelation that the object of one´s faith is quite real, independent, not contingent upon personal imagination.
When Jesus asked Peter who he thought he was, and Peter responded, "the messiah, the son of the living God", Jesus answered that this had not (could not have) been revealed to him by men, but by the Father.
So what can one do? Be truthful, even if it means being atheistic or agnostic. Be just to the best of your ability, even if you don't believe. Read scripture, even if you don't believe. Pray, even if you don't believe. Visit Jesus in the blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, even if you don't believe.
Faith is something more then just belief.
June 16, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 16, 2007 16:12
I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.
June 15, 2007 7:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 19:54
I am 60. I lost my "faith" at about 14, but the seeds of doubt were cast much earlier - when I found out, much to my shock and disgust - that my parents had lied to me for years about Santa Claus. The event that really got me to thinking about it was my baptism into the Baptist Church. For that solemn occasion, I insisted on wearing my only suit. It shrank. Sign from God? No, I decided it was just physics.
June 15, 2007 7:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 19:53
to e favorite, again
With regard to God, Jesus, the ressurection, the trinity, and other things like this that are central to Christianity, I admit that I have few words. I do not think it should bother you that I have few words. Read what Spong had to say from this forum's panel entitled, "Question faith? Fear not." (I am sure you have already read it). I liked what he said. I agree with him.
June 15, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 12:17
to E Favorite
I think that a big mistake that alot of people make, especially religious people, but also atheists too, is to claim a certainty of knowledge.
I do acknowlege that we, as human beings, experience impressions of order from the world in which we dwell. Observing these impressions of order is science. Science is no more than that. But I do wonder, contemplate, and speculate, on the nature of this order, which impresses itself upon us. That is philosophy and religion.
I also acknowledge that the beliefs that fill us up, (that impress themselves upon us) are contingent upon our interaction and intersection with the world, over which we have almost no control. That is why, when I begin to wonder and speculate about these impressions of order, which for the most part, I have never wondered about until recently, that I use the tools that I know best, that were handed to me by the contingency of my birth and experience upon the earth, which is Christianity. In that sense, I am a Christian.
All people believe as they will. If you could reach into a person's brain and alter their beliefs, you probably would not want to do that. And if you could kill off or imprison all the people with beliefs that you do not like, you probably would not want to do that either. So what is left? Everybody, just believe, each as he or she will. That is the way it has got to be.
June 15, 2007 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 12:02
TJ, etc.
All I can offer to your view of biblical inerrancy is to repeat that although divinely inspired, the Bible is a human creation. As such, the message from G-d has been filtered through the cultural, linguistic, institutional and personal assumptions of the well-meaning folks who wrote it down and copied it.
The Bible is contradictory, at best, confusing -- if read without a good measure of prayer and conscience. As my mother used to say: "Read the book, pray about it, and make good decisions."
June 15, 2007 12:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 15, 2007 00:45
Daniel - thanks - I can see you are trying to be responsive. It seems to me that as much as you are focused on your faith and willing to talk about it, you avoid aspects of it that might prove to be too challenging.
June 14, 2007 9:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 21:47
Yes, Jwest - I checked out I ching - but think I saw a bad book - it seemed sort of like tarot.
I'll go to another book store.
June 14, 2007 9:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 21:35
Jim J,
I agree that some minor difficulty stems from translation and the evolution of language. What I do know is that the languages that our oldest extant copies are written in are known entities. Hebrew and ancient Greek are what they are. It's not like our oldest copies are written in Linear A.
I think the lion's share of the difficulty stems from the contradictory and ambiguous nature of the work itself.
June 14, 2007 7:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 19:44
E-Favorite, Have you checked out I CHING yet??
June 14, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 17:55
Of the hundreds of gods spoken of, atheists believe in one less god than christians.
June 14, 2007 5:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 17:49
TJ:
Of course, "literal" depends on translation and intended meaning. Words had different meanings when the Bible was written than they do now, and some translations are translations of supposed meaning rather than literal translations. It takes time and knowledgeable teachers to be able to study original translations to get to the truth of the Bible. I've been working at it for some time, and I will never be done...
June 14, 2007 5:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 17:11
Reasonable and not hateful,
The Vedas are ancient and report miracles. The Koran is very old and reports miracles. Do you believe in the events they describe as you do in the Christian Bible? I suspect the answer is no.
The fact is, with the except of their own particular faith tradition, religious people behave in exactly the same way you say only atheists behave. They discount claims that lack evidence. They don't believe in miracles just because some person claimed to have witnessed it or some ancient book describes it. Atheists are different in this regard; they're just more consistent.
June 14, 2007 4:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 16:54
Gerry:
Only if you believe that God would do absurd things. I think God leaves the absurd to humans; we tend to have that covered on our own just fine. All of the insanity that we call humanity on this planet is true absurdity, if you ask me.
June 14, 2007 4:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 16:42
Jim J, we agree on that. The twist, and where we may disagree, is my opinion of the value of a literal reading. When I read the bible, and yes I still do after 20 years of apostasy, I find that I must read it literally for the reasons we both have suggested. However, when I read it literally, I'm left with a horrible, snarled mess of contradiction and gobbledygook like the two conflicting flood stories, young earth creationism, and the like. No matter which I way I choose to read the bible, either liberally or literally, I'm still left with the same thing: nothing in the least bit useful.
Gerry, No, that's not my definition of god and I'm not presenting any philosophy. That's the definition of the word 'omnipotent' which is used to describe god in the bible. If the absurdity of creating the universe is within reason, and it obviously is for Christians, then so is the absurdity of keeping a boat that should sink afloat.
June 14, 2007 4:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 16:38
Tj
With your philosophy:
Anything goes! Any ever imaginable absurdity is covered by your definition of god.
June 14, 2007 4:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 16:10
Anon
I'm not pointing a finger at you. The "you" I refer to is the you in general, christians. I didn't mean to call you, Anon, smug or looneytune, I was refering to people like tom, the mothership is coming guy. That is smug and looneytoon. And others who I hear on TV and read about. Plus you, anon, use anon for your name and I might be thinking of what another anon said and tie you both, or more, together. I am jwest you as anon could be any one of several. I am only discussing what I feel and have witnessed. I ask people too many questions about their religiousity and get some strange looks and answers. Plus understand that I don't like the current state of hostility coming from the christian community and want to stand as a voice against religious intrusion into my private life. we do not have an inherent right to impose ourselves on one another. I don't hate anyone on this post. I disagree with many though. No offense intended.
June 14, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 15:52
Good discussion.
It is interesting how we subjectively generalize, label and categorize individuals by their stated belief systems.
June 14, 2007 3:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 15:32
To: E Favorite
For about the past year, I have been corresponding with a blogger, someone whom I do not know and have never met. We go back and forth on these types of questions, and in writing my replies to him, I have worked out alot of the things which I have posted here. I have tried posting some of my ideas here, but my thoughts don't seem to be going over very well.
I don't care. I feel alot clearer in my mind now, than I did 5 years ago.
June 14, 2007 3:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 15:18
"Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frankly, indoctrination."
Jerry, I'm uncomfortable with labeling all religious leaders as power-hungry demagogues. I suspect most of them honestly believe they're doing the right thing, even when they push doctrines that many people find repugnant. Some of them almost certainly share the same fears and uncertainties as their flocks.
June 14, 2007 3:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 15:09
What is the nature of religious doubt?
Robert Heinlein once wrote that “Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil”. Unfortunately there are many more good people in the World today than there are wise ones.
One of the things that the Bible, which I think is the word of God, tries to teach us is how to be good. But goodness if a far easier subject to teach than wisdom. It is possible to master some proficiency at being good and still fall short when it comes to being wise. That’s what separates good intentions from being good.
How do you know when goodness is best served by running, as God told Joseph to do with Mary and Jesus as Herod sent his soldiers to Bethlehem? How do you know when goodness is best served by staying and bearing a cross, as God asked Jesus at the Crucifixion? How do you know when God wants you to pick up a rock and a sling, like David, and fight for what is good? And how do you know when God wants you to turn the other cheek?
A wise man might know the answer. Just as likely, a wise man might be wise enough to admit that he didn’t know, because a wise man who doesn’t doubt his own wisdom is not wise at all. So we struggle through life trying to be good in the right ways and at the right times so that our goodness might make a difference. We read the examples of people who were thought wise and look for something we might apply to our own lives.
Because not knowing the right ways, the right times, and to what extremes we should express our goodness is the nature of religious doubt.
June 14, 2007 2:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:51
TJ:
You are absolutely correct, which is why many Christians believe that you cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe. If parts of it are not true, then which parts? Who is the authority on this? And yes, their disbelief diminishes God.
June 14, 2007 2:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:43
...and the belief in a "better" authority is contingent upon each person's origins, and the beliefs that formed in that person's head, which for the most part, were not chosen, freely.
June 14, 2007 2:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:28
Jwest:
I never specifically pointed a finger at you, did I? And yet, you seem to point one at me. I do not ignore science at all, and only became a Christian 3 years ago. You sure do seem to be pretty angry at me about something though.
I am very educated in the non-religious "side" of things, and I also spent many years studying a number of religions before becoming a Christian. My post above was meant to point out, as yours did about Christians, that there are many non-Christians who speak out without knowledge to base their words on. Just because someone can be loud or sound like they know what they're talking about, doesn't mean they're educated on the topic.
The reason there are so many different "brands" of Christianity is because people ultimately want things their way. You get arguments within churches because some person or group of people decides they don't like the way something is being done or said, and the decide they can do it better. It's happened this way for hundreds of years. Different "flavors" of Christianity like this is completely different than people leaving their faith in God completely.
And I can honestly say that I have never been accused of acting smug, or being a looneytoon.
June 14, 2007 2:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:25
Science is a utilitarian and pragmatic assignment of meaning to our impressions of order in the world. There is no philosophy of science, and there are no certain rules of nature nor unvarrying laws of Physics. This is an illusion. There is only the utility of the moment, in interpretting our impressions of order.
Science has such a good reputation because it has produced great utility. People don't believe "in science" because it is a good philosophy to believe in; they believe in it because it has produced such utility. When people believe in the truth of something, it is not because science says it is true; it is merely a coincidence that science tells people many useful things, which they believe.
By this way of thinking of science, you can see that even scientists can have "unscientifc" beliefs about things that are not directly under their area of scientific interest. Appealing to science to prove an argument won't work. The power of science to persude is in its reputation, alone, not in its philosophy; and if someone thinks they have a better authority for truth, then that is how they would make their judgement.
June 14, 2007 2:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:25
To: E favorite
Religious doubt in my life:
I was raised in a very religous family. But my parents were very intelligent, thoughtful and kind. I also had a Christian grandmother who was benevolent and kind. So, I don't have any particular bitterness against Christianity, that I observe in alot of other people.
When I grew up, I felt religious doubt; I gradually believed less and less. Gradually, I was practically an atheist. But then more lately, I have begun to have realizations which drive me back to being a Christian.
Instead of doubting religion and believing in the certainty of science, I gradully became to doubt also, the scientific characterizations of existence. Of course, I believe that evolution is true, but what does this discovery get us? it just inches us forward, but a tiny bit. The fact that it might conflict with the Bible is not really important to me. It is my experience that most Christians believe that evolution is true.
I started thinking "weird" things, such as "we are manufactured products" and "all that we can truely know of the world is that we get impressions of order from it." Where are these thoughts coming from? I never thought like this before. So, I cannot say.
But, then I move along to the next step, to wonder that we choose our thoughts and beliefs at all, but that they somehow form themselves, or are influenced to be formed by some means that we do not control.
And then I have the idea of "contingency;" that all that we know or believe depends on our tiny interaction with the world and with the culture, people, and families into which we were born, and that we each have our own local setting where we are delivered, to deal with all these questions and wonders.
I suppose there is alot more. It is not something that I can just say in a breath, or even a couple of sentences.
June 14, 2007 2:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:10
TONIO:
I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" (and by extesion, those who follow the teachings) to prosthyletize (spelling?).
I wish people would take you up on your proposition, but I'm guessing they won't. Also, religious leaders aren't stupid. They know that nobody is going to share their beliefs without instruction and, quite frakly, indoctrination. On the other hand, identical scientific knowledege was aquired independantly across vast distances, by people who never met or communicated. That SHOULD tell you something about the relative merits of the two approaches!!
June 14, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 14:09
Viejita del oeste,
You may maintain that if you like and we'll have to agree to disagree.
More interestingly, you've cast your lot with Daniel regarding biblical inerrancy. I'd like to address you both on this topic. I'm likely one of the few atheists that you'll meet that argues for biblical inerrancy.
Let's do consider the story of Noah. I agree that it is utterly absurd but I don't believe in the omnipotent god described in the bible so it's no skin off my back. For the cherry picking/liberal interpretation Christian though, things get interesting. I'll assume that you both believe that your god created the universe. Maybe he did it with a wave of his hand, maybe evolution is his tool, whatever. The method is of no consequence. What is of consequence is the magnificent result. And what a magnificent result it is! Seriously, wow!
Now, if your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping some silly boat full of animals afloat??
If your god is capable of doing this, why wouldn't he be capable of miraculously keeping the bible true to his word and, therefore, in need of no cherry picking/liberal interpretation whatsoever??
The cherry picker/liberal interpreter constrains the ability of their own omnipotent god. It speaks volumes about the true nature of both the belief and of the god.
June 14, 2007 1:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 13:53
Anon
I was a christian. I read, and continue to, read the bible, listened to the stories and and try to discuss it all with my christian friends. Once again as I have stated before, they will not discuss it with me. ????. I seem to put them in a bit of a spot. If everyone was given a truth serum and asked how much they really believe in all of this you would find the ranks of atheism increase dramatically. Since I've been part of this forum I have found many of you out there to have varying degrees of belief or otherwise understanding of christianity. One might believe in infallablilty whereas the other not. That is why there is so many different brands of christianity, some 6500 as I'vecome to understand. Maybe more. Each brand has broken off from another and it is continuing to grow. Some of us grew out of it entirely. For those of you who continue to look down your nose at us non-believers, well better learn to get over it because in the future you just might be the minority. Ignore science all you want and believe in superstition to your hearts content just don't be so smug about it. After all some people think your the looneytoon.
June 14, 2007 1:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 13:43
TONIO:
I completely agree, but unfortunately, if I understand this correctly, many of the personal revelations in the Bible compel the "reciever" to prosthyletize (spelling?).
Otherwise I wish pepople would take you up on your proposition!!
June 14, 2007 1:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 14, 2007 13:27
TJ
The part that I found arrogant was the faith in one's own unmediated judgment. And I maintain that that faith is just as blind as my faith in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
But it is certainly preferable to worshiping the words-on-paper that have come down to us from other humans. Biblical inerrancy is nonsensical, because even if you b