All Comments (200)

It is so nice to have Susan Jacoby espousing the rational basis for civil law trumping religious dogma. In America, countering fanatical, religious extremism is overdue. Thank you, Ms. Jacoby.

Tonio,

it is the simple fact that Moderate and his fellow religionists are too weak to even imagine a non-personal cause. The only possibility of thinking all religionists have at their disposal is the projection of their own personality into the universe. Therefore they had to invent gods.

The universe is much more than personal, and the invention of gods comes from a human aporia, or weakness of imagination.

We see the Moderate is not only an expert on all matters religious, but is equally adept as a first-rate (self-declared) historian. As such, it would be more instructive to provide historical insights rather that criticize our host columnist out of hand as the 'one with the dunce cap' and no understanding of history.

Moderate, we've seen your insights before, and they seem quite slanted toward conventional/conservative christian views and may we say, slightly skewed to the right in all things political. You clearly have no appreciation for the atheist view point and that much is never in doubt.

Moderate appears to be anything but........

Sorry, that sentence should read "Attributing any event in the physical universe to a god amounts to an intrusion by RELIGION onto SCIENCE."

"When one says the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method, that may be true, but that is only one method of discovery."

What other methods are there for discovering aspects of the physical universe? Wouldn't other methods apply only to the "mental" universe, meaning the nature of human existence?

"It's a big enough universe out there to contain both God and science, and I see no conflict between the two."

The only way to prevent such conflict is to postulate a god that has no role in the physical universe at all, not even in its creation. Attributing any event in the physical universe to a god amounts to an intrusion by science onto religion. Why can't religion simply focus on questions about the individual creating meaning and purpose for his life?

"God is not a magician. When He creates, natural forces are at work, some of which neither scientists nor religious persons comprehend."

What evidence do you have that there is a god behind natural forces? Would you explain how your belief any different from the fundamentalist belief about earthquates and hurricanes being punishments on non-believers? You are obviously not promoting the hatred that the fundamentalists promote, and I commend you for that. However, I seek to know why your belief would be right and the fundamentalist belief wrong. Wouldn't it be just as likely that you're wrong and the fundamentalists are right?

"Since God exists outside the time continuum"

Again, what evidence do you have for that? Wouldn't it be just as likely that a god exists in the time continuum?

"The Book of Genesis is allegorical and prophetic."

I also read Genesis allegorically, although I object to the negative spin that the book places on the development of human sentience and civilization. However, there are numerous denominations and believers who claim that their reading or interpretation is the "right" one and that all other readings or interpretations are "wrong." In fact, many of these claim that individual interpretation is forbidden. So how is one to know if an allegorical reading is the right one?

CHRIS EVERETT:
Your thesis is well reasoned. The only impasse between us, I think, would be if we're playing a zero sum game: only one of us is right. Right or wrong is not the issue. Understanding is prime.

If Jonas Salk were not looking for a cure for polio, he never would have found it. Similarly, if one does not look for God, one will not find Him. The methods of each search are disparate, but that fact invalidates neither.

When one says the existence of God cannot be proven by the scientific method, that may be true, but that is only one method of discovery.

As William Shakespeare said so eloquently, "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies."

It's a big enough universe out there to contain both God and science, and I see no conflict between the two. God is not a magician. When He creates, natural forces are at work, some of which neither scientists nor religious persons comprehend.

Now, I could talk until I am blue in the face and not lead another human to understand faith. And, you could talk until you are blue in the face and never lead me to understand how Jonas Salk did what he did. Scientists do things that I cannot wrap my head around. God does things that scientists cannot wrap their heads around.

Let's take for instance the debate over evolution. Since God exists outside the time continuum (time is a scientifically artifical way of marking the passage of eternity), He could conceivably pass a million years in a second. Science has determined that time is, in fact, relative, and the so-called "big bang" theory suggests a sudden event resulting in the universe as we know it, sort of in keeping with the command instant of "Let there be light." BANG!

The God that I know took great delight in creation, and I think it was a leisurely pastime. I think he enjoyed the big show. I think he delighted in the dinosaurs and all the extinct creatures that came and went in the ebb and flow of natural processes. Who knows what marvels exist throughout the universe? Doesn't current scientific theory say that when one reaches the edge of a black hole all scientific theories fail at the very brink? Look at all the discoveries just within the last decade that will lead to decades of scientific endeavor to understand.

If God actually were a magnificent Magician and simply said, SHAZAM! a chicken. SHAZAM! a duck, and so forth, he and I would both quickly become bored. The more science reveals about the wonders of the earth and the universe, the greater my awe at the powers of God.

The Book of Genesis is allegorical and prophetic. Adam and Eve were not the first humans on the earth. They were the first humans that God convenanted with or engaged with personally. Their sons married the daughters of men (gee, where did they come from?). Religious literalists, who lack understanding of most spiritual truths, take things like the six days of creation at face value. Actually, the six days refers prophetically to the six thousand years designated by God to His purposes from Adam to the end of the age of man.

Ergo, religious fundamentalists defame science.

Trust me, I spend far more time taking religion to task than rational thinkers.

Many of us on these threads such as Arminius (All hail, and well met!) and Jihadist (May God's face shine down on thee, and give thee peace!) are not trying to proselytize, but rather to attain mutual understanding.

Paramount, in my opinion, is for those of us who seek peace with all men draw as many men of all faiths and convictions to the side of peace. If we cannot come to terms with one another here and now, how can any come to terms anywhere at any time?

If you wish to dismiss me as a lunatic, but a nice lunatic and quite harmless, I can live with that. I only aspire to call you friend.

Jihadist,

Thank you so much for giving a fast, and comprehensible, response. This sounds akin to "socially responsible" or "green" funds; investors want to make a profit but not at the expense or pain of others. You take it further, applying your principles to all aspects of banking. Keep charging right ahead, it sounds like you're on the right track. :-)

Dear Arminius:

"To all - don't miss this article by Susan Jacoby here in WaPo. America is so ignorant that it is frightening."

Was that Susan in the corner with the dunce cap? It should have been. Her knowledge of history is so weak that she of all people has no place complaining about ignorance in others.

Hello Wiccan,

You have to ask : "May I ask you, what are the basic differences between financial dealings as guided by the Qu'ran and and how they are handled in the West? What is most important to you?"

Islamic banking? Do I have to talk about my line of work here? : )

No one is asking or forcing the British to adopt Islamic banking and financial services, or to ask it to be the "gateway" and global centre of Islamic finance.

What is important to me is:

- get Muslims who are leery of conventional finance to make better use of their money

- let there be parallel financial systems to cushion the negative impact of another, and offer options and recourses (the Islamic finance is relatively sheltered from sub-prime problems and thus offered recources for rescue funds and options for investments)

- let the marketplace be more competitive for consumers on choices of what is best for them.

In gist, Islamic banking and financial services is just a financial service that is in compliance with Muslims values as codified in the Shariah, and now forcing Muslims to be adaptive and innovative on the Shariah while maintaining certain basic Islamic principles on specific less desirable and productive human activities. Thus, there be no investments in arms, alcohol, gambling establishments, pornography, pork products. Also, the principle that all business and financial transactions be just.

Shariah is the key pillar of Islamic finance from which Islamic finance derives its unique characteristics. Shariah injunctions require that Islamic financial transactions be accompanied by an underlying productive activity.

Under the risk sharing principle required, Islamic financial institutions will share the profit or the loss incurred by the entrepreneur, an explicit sharing of risk by the financier and the borrower. This arrangement entails the appropriate due diligence and the integrating of the risks associated with the real investment activity into the financial transaction.

Conventional instruments generally separate such risks from the underlying assets. As a result, risk management and wealth creation may, at times, move in different or even opposite directions.

Conventional financial instruments also allow for the commoditisation of risks. This has led to its proliferation through multiple layers of leveraging and disproportionate distribution, in turn, which could result in higher systemic risks, thus, increasing the potential for instability in the financial system.

Transparency represents a basic tenet underlying all Islamic financial transactions. There is an inherent obligation on Islamic financial services providers to meet the appropriate standards of transparency. It is from the profit-sharing feature of Islamic financial transactions that imposes a high level of disclosure in the financial contract. The accountabilities of the respective parties involved in the transaction are clearly defined in the contract.

This transparency also provides a strong incentive for Islamic financial institutions to appropriately manage risks. This disclosure allows the market to assign the appropriate risk premiums to the respective companies and thus the potential for the enhanced role of market discipline to take effect. These inherent features as required by the Shariah injunctions, provides inbuilt checks and balances which serves to ensure financial stability in the Islamic financial system.

The sukuk market is emerging as the most significant form of Islamic financing for fund raising and investment. Strong demand for sukuk have also been spurred by the high levels of surplus savings and reserves in Asia and the Middle East. The sukuk is also an attractive instrument to assist Islamic financial institutions in managing our liquidity requirements. It is also an instrument used by corporations, institutions and sovereigns in tapping funds at competitive rates to finance long term funding needs.

In Malaysia, a comprehensive Islamic financial system was developed that operates in parallel to the conventional banking system. The supporting legal framework includes a dedicated legislation that takes into account the unique principles of Islamic contracts.

The legal infrastructure also includes the court system and arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes to ensure that contracts relating to Islamic financial transactions are effectively enforced. The Islamic financial system is supported by a significant number of diverse players in the banking, takaful (insurance) and capital market.

Tax reforms have been undertaken to accord neutrality in treatment between conventional and Islamic financial products. The establishment of a National Shariah Advisory Council has been important to ensure harmonisation of Shariah decisions in the Islamic financial services industry.

The Islamic financial industry in Malaysia has now expanded into residential mortgage backed securities, commodity based financing, as well as investment and equity linked product based on musharakah, mudarabah and ijarah.

In reality, the global Islamic finance industry has evolved from a faith-based initiative to a business driven industry for all communities. Conventional financial institutions have entered into alliances with Islamic financial institutions to be co-arrangers, to structure sukuk or other Islamic products based on Shariah compliant assets.

Shariah issues relating to risk mitigation, liquidity management and hedging are being broached, researched, argued, disputed, deliberated and determined. Islamic experts and scholars do have differences on aspects of Islamic banking and financial services and do make widely reported statements on their reservations on the whether some aspects of Islamic banking and financial services is Shariah-compliant.

As like classical Muslims who formulated schools of thoughts/jurisprudence on the Shariah for implementation, current Muslim scholars have varying views and interpretations on Islamic banking and financial services. It has become competitive as for experts/scholars to give reasons why they think this or that aspect of Islamic banking and financial services is not Shariah-compliant.

But then, formulators and implementers like me in this field just charge right ahead until and unless the state/National Shariah Advirory Council, in their deliberations and assessments of our proposals and activities say, “Hey, wait a minute! Is what you are doing fair and just and would not cause economic, political and social problems? ”

Thanks and best regards
“J”

Sorry - wrong thread!

A few of us are beating the idea of any religious law / rules becoming law of the land on the Susan Jacoby thread.

Here’s my short n’ sweet version.

We can not include religious doctrine in our laws. Because once God is the supreme law of the land there is no one to conscientiously object to anything. We will be giving the power of God to man and that is a very, very dangerous thing.

I read the article “The Dumbing of America.”

There are some good points in the article. I wonder how much of it comes down to people not feeling empowered to change the course of their country or even their own lives. We can’t control the big picture so we look to control the little picture which is what affects me right now. I check out of the real world and create my own little sanctuary of self gratification.

As for politics and the media since when is a newspaper endorsing a candidate make any sense? What ever happened to the objectivity of reporting. Editorials are fine but saying that the newspaper itself endorses a candidate send the wrong message.

Chris Everett

I believe that even very relgious, fundamentalist people experience a great deal of doubt. It is how they react to it that is the mark of their type of belief; they react with fear, and then with an aggressive counter-strike to stamp out what they may presume is the source of their doubt. I feel, with a great deal of certainty and assurance, that this is behind the extreme hostility of Christians and Muslims towards atheitst; atheists remind them of their own doubts, and are therefore most hated.

One of the marking characteristics of very relgious people is the need and insistence to impress their own belifs upon others, to the point of degradation, and even physical abuse. To me, this is incredible, and absurd, that no one's inner will can be changed by any exterior force, and the most that can be gained is outward pretense of belief.

But this insistence that one is right and everyone else is wrong is a sort of childish denial of doubt, that to act against it aggressively can make it go away. But nothing can make your doubts go away; they are beyond our conscious control; and therefore, very religious and fundamentalist people lurch from one emotional drama to the next, as they slip up in their faith, repent, are born anew, and then slip-up once again, in an endless cycle of emotional turmoil. Many of the very religious people who post on these threads, are just such people, emotionally unstable, passive-aggressive, just generally mixed-up, as they seek to defeat their doubt, by yelling louder than anyone else.

In fact, this dramatic struggle against doubt, if not moderated by some other worldly and secular interests and activities, can rapidly devolve into a weird sort of nihilism, in which everything causing a doubt can be a legitimate target of destruction, even the twin towers, in New York City, on 9/11/2001.

Arminius has provided a valuable link just above to Susan's article, 'The Dumbing of America' - read it and weep. A most cogent observation with no countertrend in sight. Our current political campaigns prove it in spades - no substance, plenty of religion and lots of media spin...but no real information worth a damn upon which to base voting decisions. Is this just the way political marketing strategies are these days, or are there more sinister ulterior motives - and especially as regards media coverage??

As Altermann's column in Media Matters has pointed out on many occasions, the mainstream media has an ongoing love affair with John McCain, of all people. Factually speaking he's an inferior to mediocre candidate with both dangerous and unpredictable tendencies, and yet well within striking distance of the presidency.

News coverage seems overwhelmingly positive regarding McCain's presidential run. Despite the monumental GOP/Bush fiasco which has been building momentum over the last decade, this man has a better than even chance of being next POTUS. A pitiful historical development indeed, if not such an imminently real possibility.

With an intelligent,educated electorate Bush World would never have happened to begin with.

Anyone other than a starry-eyed political day-dreamer knows this because the 'body politic'
cannot be counted on to make intelligent, informed decisions in it's own best interest.....look no further than the popularity of the right-wing talk radio hacks e.g. Limbaugh, Hannity, et al for an object lesson.

Main stream columnists that I occasionally glance at are hardly better. Even NPR has been decidedly neutral during the Bush years - there are powerful forces keeping things just the way they are media-wise, and our Congress continues to support media monopolies (on both sides of the aisle). Business as usual - the 'dumbing down' process can be expected to continue unabated.

The more intellectual defenders of religion usually argue in favor of its usefulness, its acceptability ("eligibility" comes to mind!) social or moral (which both is very debatable!), its tradition, or even, ridiculously, its majority of followers or enemies and not on the ground of the evidence of its content, to avoid the word "truth".

Simple everyday honesty demands that arguments must be about evidence, not acceptibility. A lot of strange things, errors, superstitions, lies, genocides have had their "acceptability" across history. (Just take a look into the OT!)

Tonio.

I agree that trying to uphold a belief as fact would not be the correct. As far as holding a proposition up without “hard evidence” I think there is still merit.

The human consciousness I am talking about is the work done by the Monroe institute. Robert Monroe, now deceased could leave his body at will. His book Far Journeys details many of his experiences.

They studied his brain waves at the times he left his body and were able to map the changes in his brain waves. They then developed hemi sync technology which allows people to simulate those brain waves by place different tones ion each ear.

They identified numerous levels of consciousness. The scientific research was able to identify similar and repeatable experiences at each level of consciousness with hundreds of test subjects. I haven’t been on the site in years but when I was signed up as a member you had access to transcripts of a number of the sessions as well as the published results. I found it extremely interesting.

I do agree on the moral authority issue. That has always seemed to me to be man imposing his concepts of what should be right and wrong onto their version of God. Right and wrong are relative terms given your position in the world. And here is where I side with the atheist.

If life is so precious where do we draw the line on preserving it? Do we go as far as killing in order to preserve life?

The esoteric teachings of our religions don’t help us much with the modern day issues. If our enemies are threatening our lives then are we ok to go to war and kill them. Considering we are a “Christian nation” we sure have been in a lot of wars. If Christ was commander and chief I don’t see him order people to kill other people. People don’t even follow the most basic tenets of their religion. If a gunman is rampaging across a campus shooting people do we use lethal force to stop him? No – Thou shall not kill. The commandment does not shall not kill unless the person is evil. That is because evil is a relative term.

Looking at any religion; if we are allowed to fight against evil in God’s name then what are the rules.

Is it ok to kill one to save 1,000,000 – 1,000 - 10, another? Is it OK to nuke a few hundred thousand to save a million? Should we wipe out an entire ethnic group to make sure the evil does not return? I don’t recall seeing these guidelines anywhere in scripture.

Is it okay to stand by and watch Hitler wipe out an entire group of people? Yes – thou shall not kill. Who wants to step forward in peaceful protest a la Gandhi to stop Hitler?

Gandhi against Hitler would have been an interesting stand off. I admire Gandhi perhaps more than any other person in the 20th century. Would he or his cause have defeated Hitler? Perhaps eventually, I like to think that he would have. They may have been wiped out and we would all be living under Nazi rule. Do you become like the enemy to defeat them or do you stand with your principles?

Tonio you said “I just don’t see the possibility of God as relevant”. Here’s why I disagree with that.

I said earlier that it is not God that drives us apart, but the idea that we are separate from one another that drives us apart. This concept can be use regardless of religion or the lack there of. For the believers out there many of the contemporary spiritual teachers (both religious and non religious) talk about the idea of inclusiveness. This was the original intent of the great teachers; Christ, Buddha, Lao-Tsu; Gandhi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Walsch , Tolle, Dyer and many others including John Lennon according to this thread (loosen up people, that’s funny). Even look at Brian McLaren who catches grief from conservatives. Perhaps my not being a Christian invalidates my take (yes I have read the Bible) but I think he gets it.

Those who use religion to divide are missing the point and they are the ones we can not let put religion into law.

I spoke of going down the road of killing to protect life. This is why we can not include religious doctrine in our laws. Because once God is the supreme law of the land there is no one to conscientiously object to anything. We will be giving the power of God to man and that is a very, very dangerous thing.

This makes the possibility of God extremely relevant.

To all - don't miss this article by Susan Jacoby here in WaPo. America is so ignorant that it is frightening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502901.html

Ms. Jacoby,

I saw you on the Bill Moyers show today, and I must say you made a fine presentation. More dangerous, perhaps, than secularists or religionists are the ignorant rabble of the uneducated and undereducated, many of whom are well represented on these threads.

"I would say that belief does play a part in the physical universe. If I believe that additives to the food supply are responsible for a number of ailments; allergies, cancers etc then one sets out on a quest to prove that theory. Belief, thought and contemplation is what pushes science onward."

Sounds like you and I are using different definitions of "belief." I use the word to mean the classifying of a proposition as fact independent of evidence for or against that proposition. If a proposition is upheld by evidence, then it isn't a belief, and if it isn't upheld by evidence, then there's no reason to hold the proposition in the first place.

Using your example of additives, my own position is similar to yours, except that I describe my position as a suspicion rather than a belief. My suspicion is grounded in such things as the history of artificial sweeteners and the history of cancer rates. I cannot say as a fact that additives are responsible for those ailments, because I don't have evidence or proof. You're absolutely right that we should investigate further, and that such a suspicion is reasonable grounds for personally abstaining from additives. I'm saying that it is not reasonable grounds for deeming the unsafeness as fact.

"If you look at the science of human consciousness then it strongly suggests beings on a plane other than this one. That doesn’t prove God, just that these other beings seem to exist and perhaps we should spend some time looking at the scenario."

I know of no aspect of human consciousness that would suggest such beings. Would you please describe what you mean? That sounds like the questionable claim that one's conscience is a voice in one's head. It isn't - it's merely a feeling.

"I don’t see the theory of a God being any crazier than time travel or parallel universes. What I will grant you is we don’t create laws based on the theory of quantum physics. That is a good thing."

No disagreement there. The whole issue is that religions claim that their gods are moral authorities. The likely alternative is that the religions themselves are simply claiming divine endorsements for their own ideas about morality.

"It seems hasty on both sides to come to a firm conclusion that something exists or doesn’t exist when the theory is yet to be proven."

I don't rule out the possibility of gods. I just don't see the possibility as relevant. We can imagine the possibility of anything that might exist beyond our senses, but all such imaginings are equal as to the lack of evidence. The existence of the Abrahamic god or the Buddhist god is just as likely as the existence of a race of gods that enjoys John Irving novels.

Tonio.

I am a theist I do I agree with you on one point.

“We would certainly need much more than some men's word for it”. I agree 100% with this statement.

I would say that belief does play a part in the physical universe. If I believe that additives to the food supply are responsible for a number of ailments; allergies, cancers etc then one sets out on a quest to prove that theory. Belief, thought and contemplation is what pushes science onward.

If we take the nature of the physical universe in the limited concept of only the physical universe then you points are very strong indeed. You said “such beings cannot be detected with the senses, and then what basis do people have for claiming that the beings exist?” A fair question.

At one point we thought we knew everything about the physical universe then we discovered the molecule, the smallest particle the building block of the universe. Then came the atom, the proton, the electron and a host of other particles.

Quantum theory and mathematics talk about the possibility of other realities and other time lines and parallel universes.

If you look at the science of human consciousness then it strongly suggests beings on a plane other than this one. That doesn’t prove God, just that these other beings seem to exist and perhaps we should spend some time looking at the scenario. (See Monroe Institute).

It seems to me that the physical universe is only a part of the puzzle. I don’t see the theory of a God being any crazier than time travel or parallel universes. What I will grant you is we don’t create laws based on the theory of quantum physics. That is a good thing.

It seems hasty on both sides to come to a firm conclusion that something exists or doesn’t exist when the theory is yet to be proven.

Wiccan!

Well met! YEE-HAH! Where you been?

Yes, harm none. I freely admit there is a lot of Pagan in me.

And, oh, hell, it will be cloudy here on Wednesday. I will howl at the moon anyway! The so-called 'primal scream' has nothing on howling at the moon. The shrinks should get in touch with true nature.

Keep in touch, friend.

Arminius

Merry Meet, my friends!

Arminius,

"The problem is not the core of what I believe, but how I pursue it, how it affects me and those around me. And those around me include all of mankind."

Bail ó Dhia ort, Arminius. You truly understand "Harm none." There will be a full moon this Wednesday; the Lady will be in Virgo, a most auspicious time for business and employment. May I? I laughed when I read about your baying at the moon; it brought back memories of a barbeque on the North Shore (Long Island) under the full moon. I don't know who starting howling, but we all joined in, even the toddlers. When we finally hushed we could hear people down the beach baying back, answering our calls. Very primal, and great fun.

Jihadist, I'm so glad you didn't desert this forum. I learn so much when reading your posts. May I ask you, what are the basic differences between financial dealings as guided by the Qu'ran and and how they are handled in the West? What is most important to you?

"Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not."

That doesn't qualify as evidence because of the concept of falsifiability. Those men might be honestly mistaken, or they may be lying. There is no independent way to verify their claim. Any claim about a god or gods is a claim about the physical universe and thus subject to scientific scrutiny. Objects and phenomena in the physical universe are not matters of "belief," since those things would still exist if humanity didn't exist.
While I cannot rule out the possibility of gods, the burden of proof is on any claim that such beings exist. We would certainly need much more than some men's word for it.

"It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality."

You're right in the technical sense. However, it's still valid to ask why believers who otherwise have a deep respect for science make an exception when it comes to the idea of supernatural beings. (If such beings cannot be detected with the senses, then what basis do people have for claiming that the beings exist?) In my experience, most believers argue the existence of gods on philosophical grounds instead of scientific grounds. Creationism is merely this concept taken to its logical conclusion - the devising of explanations about the origin of life and the universe according to theological ideas instead of scientific ones. I regard this as a mistake because, as I said before, belief is simply not applicable to the physical universe. Again, believers who make this mistake are not irrational for doing so. They simply need to understand that questions about the nature of human existence are entirely separate from questions about the nature of the physical universe.

Tonio,

You said, "...what I'm trying to understand is how belief in an all-powerful deity is compatible with separation of church and state in the first place. Doesn't belief in such a deity automatically mean that one must follow the dictates of such a deity in every area of life?"

My answer: No. There was this guy, name of Jesus, who said something about render unto Caesar what is his, and render unto God what is His. Thus, separation of church and state. Further, the God of love is a God of peace, not dominion. A true Christian does not pine for rule, but walks the true walk of compassion towards all. Repeat, all.

Arminius

Neal,

"I suspect the same could be true for other minority religions and sects which had experienced persecution at the hands of state-sanctioned religions and sects."

Thanks for the information. While you have an excellent point about the Anabaptists, what I'm trying to understand is how belief in an all-powerful deity is compatible with separation of church and state in the first place. Doesn't belief in such a deity automatically mean that one must follow the dictates of such a deity in every area of life? Wouldn't the believer inevitably subvert the Constitution out of an honest belief that he is doing right by his deity?

Jihadist,

Yes everyone, including atheists, would likely be best served by continuing to evaluate beliefs. That’s how we evolve. Our beliefs control our actions and if we want to create a different world we need to change some of our beliefs.

I had not seen the lyrics to Imagine until today. Google; Imagine Lennon Lyrics and you get the whole song. Yes the song is a little dated but the message is fabulous.

How dare you try and paint me as a baby boomer :o

Always a pleasure Jihadist.

Oh, Obfuscating Jihadist,

If you could only come to terms with the flaws of Islam!!!! Apparently coming to terms with the flaws of other religions is no problem for you. Very strange!!!!!! But then there is all that breeding, birthing, brainwashing and fear in Islam for the last 1400 years.

Jihadist,

And that is the finest and warmest compliment I have ever received here. Thank you, from my heart, and best wishes forever, friend.

Arminius

Hello Arminius,

What you said above is the most spiritual thing anyone of any faith said here in On Faith threads that I read of. It moved me.

Thank you and warmest regards

Julia

Hi, Jihadist, and well met,

The core of my belief is not a struggle: God IS, and He is with me. All else flows from that, and it is a struggle. As in your faith, it is an internal jihad - a struggle with myself and God, trying to find the path, trying to find out what it all means. The problem is not the core of what I believe, but how I pursue it, how it affects me and those around me. And those around me include all of mankind.

Arminius

Hello Chris Everett,

Does "doubt" covers believers doubting some of the premises put forth by atheists on religion in state and society?

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Arminius,

You stated: "Faith, at least to me, is by no means stagnant. It is a constant struggle and learning process. It is not a stopping point, it is a doorway, an endless journey."

I agree. But, being a simpler person, faith is not quite the struggle for me - either I have faith in something, anything or I don't. Either I believe in something or I don't.

I don't have a lot of faith in many of our political masters and religious leaders nor do I believe all they think and do is well considered and just. But then, they are only human.

I have lots of doubts on religious and secular related laws in place because they are interpreted, formulated and implemented by man. I should know.

--------------------------------------------------

Hello Spiritual Mongrel,

You stated : "I have posted before on this site that it be ironic if it was the atheists that shows the theists the way to God by making us continually evaluate our beliefs."

Well, believers hope to continue to evaluate what atheists posts as a return favour. If atheists can judge believers to a certain standards they set for believers, so can believers judged them on what they say and do, and by their own self-set standards of reason, logic and rationalism.

After all, atheists calls on believers to think for himself or herself as an exercise of free will. We are just doing that. So, don't be upset or frustrated or exasperated if believers don't agree with everything atheists said and do on faith, beliefs and everything else.

After all, atheists call on believers to be "open" to criticisms, observations, premises, theses, theories, facts on their faith and beliefs.

And what is this with that John Lennon song again? Musical stagnation? Stuck in the Sixties? Is everyone here of my parents' generation - the Baby Boomers?

Thanks and regards
"J"

Chris (and Arminius).

Thanks for the Lennon lyrics I looked up the whole song (I am not a big Beatles fan).

I don’t know that you could write a better anthem for world peace.

“My” God doesn’t require belief in God, simply a belief in life. In my world God is the creator and the created so a belief in life is a belief in God, you just might not know it. God, Life, Love, Change are all interchangeable but that is a conversation for another day.

God certainly could play a role in the world John Lennon wrote of, but he would need to behave himself :)

I have posted before on this site that it be ironic if it was the atheists that shows the theists the way to God by making us continually evaluate our beliefs.

As Arminius said, keep the journey and the dialogue going.

Chris,

'Imagine', by John Lennon. Considered one of the greatest songs of all time. President Carter said that he heard it in his travels about as often as he heard national anthems played.

Arminius

Gerry,

Thanks! I am very aware that only a few centuries ago, I would have been burned at the stake by howling stagnant 'believers'. And, yes, if I should ever go to certain Islamic countries, I would be very careful to keep my mouth shut. It would be difficult - I have no patience or respect for anyone who thinks he has all the necessary answers.

Spiritual Mongrel (love the name!) said something very important: you non-believers keep us believers more honest because you keep us searching.

The journey continues. So does the dialog, thank God.

Arminius

Spiritual Mongrel,

You write, "Think of what the world would be like if we indeed treated each other as if we were all one."

Someone wrote a song about that once. "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try. No hell below us, above us only sky..."

DITLD,

Your description of belief seems right on.

You say, "Then your own doubts and thoughts go to work, sculpting this inherited scheme of belief." That's true, as long as religion hasn't crippled your ability to doubt effectively, which is one thing it seems to do very well.

Arminius,

congratulations to your wonderful honest heretical inclination! (No irony!) Such openness would already have meant death for you a few centuries ago, and even today in Islam, depending where you lived....

Important first steps.

Gerry.

Thanks for the reply.

I should be clear on my scientific evidence. I was talking more about being more than our body, versus scientific evidence of a God.

BTW I did love the world is flat analogy. It is perfect.

I agree some faith is eternal, stagnant and immobile. Currently one of the biggest disservices to humanity and ones self right now is Spiritual stagnation. If it weren’t for atheists the stagnation would be more prevalent. For the record I am against tying civil law to any religious doctrine. First how do you pick the “right” one and second it would lead to further stagnation.

However some theists / pantheist / people of faith believe, as the saying goes, the only constant is change. It is demonstrated in the universe around us. A new definition or better stated a new theory on God is needed let us evolve.

I don’t believe the divide between science and spirituality needs to be so great. Like a Ying and Yang of cosmology they should drive each other to learn more. I believe scientific exploration of human consciousness like at the Monroe Institute is one of the next great frontiers. It should indicate more evidence of the nature of who/what we really are. If God is at the core, then it should move us closer to that realization. If God is not then we are at least closer to understanding who/what we are.

It is not God that drives us apart but the idea that we are separate from one another, that anyone of us are better, more worthy, more deserving than another. Whether God joins us at the core is almost irrelevant.

Think of what the world would be like if we indeed treated each other as if we were all one.

Gerry,

Faith, at least to me, is by no means stagnant. It is a constant struggle and learning process. It is not a stopping point, it is a doorway, an endless journey.

Arminius

Belief is not formed by reviewing all the evidence, and formulating theories, and seeing this way adds up better than that way, and that way makes more sense than this way.

This is how belief is formed:

You inherit all that has been built up before, by your parents or care-givers. The original thoughts on God were probably when people were afraid of death, and not intellectual fear of death, but imminent fear, fear when the lightening strikes, then whe thunder thunders, when the hungry beasts roam near, when the cold winds blow, when the river floods, when the earth shakes. people sought a great movivator, God, and then, we're off!

You inherit all of this from your parents, teachers, care-givers. Then your own doubts and thoughts go to work, sculpting this inherited scheme of belief; you cannot control these thoughts, or these doubts, they just set to work, changing and sculpting your inherited beliefs, until they change into something else, something that you call your own beliefs, arrived at and excercied, by the mystery of your own inner will, and resisitent to the coersion of other people's arguments or beliefs.

Spiritual mongrel,

"My belief or let’s say my theory on God’s existence is based on research of numerous religions, scientific evidence, theory and on personal contemplation and experience."

Granted with the exception of "... scientific evidence".

"Religious scientific evidence" is an oxymoron, if there ever was one. Even the believers will admit this. (It would destroy their concept of "faith".)

Of course life and mind is more than our body! We are a part of the whole, in time, in space, in evolution, in thought. Agreed wholeheartedly, without having to resort to split brain thinking, that is, to being forced to thinking and agreeing to something together with its logical negation!

And the fact that billions of people thought the earth is flat did not make it flat.

Science is never finished. Every door opened leads to other doors still closed: Development, life, movement.

Faith is finished, "eternal", immobile, stagnation, dead. Not for me.

Using logic and experience:

With the "pwtfft" i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "holey not holy hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping and suicide bombers.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, the sin of myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", water purification, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Hell, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

Chris Everett.

You said that religion “can only be "understood" through by irrational means, such as faith.”

As a generalization I might agree with you. However there are people, both religious and spiritual who apply logic and experience to help determined their understanding. I am a very spiritual person with no religious affiliation.

Johnny B Goode said “In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not”. I agree with that. I wouldn’t go as far to say it is a slur to all persons of faith need to be rational, but I would consider that an inaccurate statement. Granted there are numerous people who take an irrational approach, but that is a mighty big brush to coat anyone who believes in God as irrational.

My belief or let’s say my theory on God’s existence is based on research of numerous religions, scientific evidence, theory and on personal contemplation and experience. I started with I am more than my body of which there is some evidence that suggests this is true. I add in my personal experience and I have developed my theory.

A theory is “A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or -- phenomena --, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.” It is also defined as “Abstract reasoning; speculation:”

Science comes up with theories all the time and some are proven and some are discarded and some remain as theories; time travel, the unified theory etc.

My theory indicates there is reason to believe there is more than the body and more than an individual consciousness.

Does that mean the universe is conscious and we are just part of it? God is like the wizard of OZ running the universe from behind the curtain, God is a separate omnipresent being, we are part of God or are we just cogs in the machine; randomly generated life forms with a finite beginning and end.

These are all wonderful theories but none of them provable at this point in time. Does that mean we stand pat and wait for something to happen? Or do we continue to explore the possibilities?

I will side with you that absolutes are troublesome, especially when we do not know absolutely for sure that the absolute is correct.

What theory or theories work for you? Figure that out and run with it. Worse case is you find out you are wrong and you move on to the next theory. Some religious doctrine has place a constraint on human thought. I don’t find that to be of use to me. Believe what “others” have said is giving up personal freedom. We all need to choose for ourselves what works for us. I have found numerous concepts from various schools of spiritual thought that have proven to be very effective in life.

I don’t believe any religion has it completely right. This doesn’t mean that everything spoken about in religion is wrong. There is a wonderful little book called Oneness that cites the same concepts from numerous religions. While it is possible that billions up billions of people over time have been 100% wrong, I find that unlikely. Where there is smoke there is fire. In my mind there is “something” to this idea of more than your body. Once you start down that path the possibilities are endless.

Peace

Gerry,

I couldn't agree more. Deference to superstition has to end. Naturalistic, humanistic institutions dedicated to the cultivation of meaningful human experience have to be fostered. The prison walls of mankind's cultural infancy must fall.

I simply don't have the slightest reason to believe in anything above nature. Nature is all, and it is as exhilarating and inscrutable as anything I could possibly imagine, without me having to pervert my thinking and my perception to the "absurd" of the church father Tertullian. "Credo quia absurdum" means. "I believe because it is absurd". Well, I think believing in the absurd, logically, is absurd. Why then should I believe in impossibilities? Only because Luther said that reason is of the devil? Reason is what differentiates us from animals. Reaction to stimuli we have in common with animals.

Why are so many honest atheists so afraid to be called atheists, even on these threads? If you don't believe in any religious creed somebody tries to push down your throat, the only honest and dignified behavior is to stick to it and say so, instead of pretending to believe in the unbelievable for fear of damaging your career.

If this degree of honesty would prevail, a lot of people would be surprised about the percentage of enlightened atheists even in the US population.

Johnny B. Goode,

I did not mean to imply that nothing associated with religion has value. There is a lot to commend some religious traditions, particularly eastern introspective traditions like Buddhism. But L. Kurt Engelhart was asserting that the principles required for civilization were fundamentally religious, which I disagree with. That was the distinction I was focusing on. More than anything, religion implies supernatural origin or agency, and since it IS supernatural, it can only be "understood" through by irrational means, such as faith. Perhaps it is a bit of a generalization to go from there to the idea of divinely-provided ABSOLUTE moral truths, but in practice that seems to be what is usually done. And wherever it IS done, there is an insurmountable barrier between civilizations, because each claims their own as absolute, and neither will submit to the other. On a personal level it is also alienating because it replaces personal conscience with an externally-provided rule book, along with the demand that wherever one's conscience conflicts with the rule book, it is the duty of the believer to beat his conscience into submission.

Subjective experience exists, but there is no ABSOLUTE basis for extending one person's personal foundational beliefs to another. Yet this is precisely what religions tend to do, and the authority they claim for doing so is that they have the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. So I continue to maintain that the claim of absolute truth is the eternal enemy of civilization. It's true that absolute claims are not necessarily religious (which I conceded, with examples), and it's true that not all religions claim absolute truth (particularly humanistic "religions" such as Ethical Culture), but it would be absurd to deny the historical track record, which is not good.

You say, "In short, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because you have not seen God does not mean other men have not; just because you have not heard God does not mean other men have not. It is a slur to consign all persons with faith in God to irrationality. It is intellectual laziness to dismiss out of hand those things and persons you fail to comprehend."

I couldn't disagree more. First, my disbelief in God isn't just because I haven't seen him/it, it's because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that such a thing exists, and those who attempt to demonstrate its existence invariably spin off into obscurantism, logical fallacy, emotional bribery and fear mongering. Also, what is intellectual RIGOR if not a requirement that ideas about objective truth have some basis in reality, as well as logical coherence. Of what use is the intellect AT ALL if its job is to believe anything anyone says? What intellectual activity is it that I'm failing to perform, choosing laziness instead? I'd really like to know.

Tonio:--"Having said that, I don't understand why most believers value that principle in the first place."

According to Wikipedia, "The Anabaptists were early promoters of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes associated with separation of church and state)."

I suspect the same could be true for other minority religions and sects which had experienced persecution at the hands of state-sanctioned religions and sects.