Hulver's site || Belief.

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Belief.

By blixco (Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:31:44 PM EST) (all tags)

Internal. First draft. More later.

Maybe it's the way chaos works. After today's discussions here and at work and after work, I should not have been surprised.

After all, chaos is funny.

I'm making dinner, a red sauce with bell peppers and garlic, sage, rosemary, onion, sun-dried tomato paste, canned organic tomatoes, wine, and summer squash. Oh, and ground bison. The pasta is fresh wheat pasta that I made this weekend.

Anyhow, I have the TV on in the background, one of the HBO channels. There are maybe a thousand. Larry David's show "Curb Your Enthusiasm" is on, and in this episode Richard Lewis's girlfriend is a Christian Scientist.

The people who can't take medicine because God will heal them, or not. If they die, it's because they lacked faith?

And all day I've been thinking: why do smart people, people who can do complex operations, people who know that the earth isn't several thousand years old, people who understand that science isn't a belief, why do they believe in God?

I know physicists who explain quantum mechanics to a point, then their eyes get all sorts of unfocused and they whisper "it's not rational, but it makes me think of God." I know people all over this country who believe. My wife, a communist, a doctor of hard science, believes that maybe God set the universe in motion, and we're all just living out His experiment, and He's a good scientist so He doesn't fuck with the results.

There's terms for these sorts. I forget the term. It's not them what causes worry (it's the pre-determinists who worry me), but it does make me ponder the very nature of belief.

I know, I know. Everyone's done it. Philosophies are based on it. Sociologists study it. Plenty of very smart people have put tons of words, time, and effort into it.

But I don't know those people.

I do know you.

Let me explain my own belief, because I can and hey, why not.

If people believe in God, does it matter if the God they believe in doesn't exist? If the forces of Good somehow convince the world that God does not exist, what does that do? I don't believe that God exists. But I do believe. I think faith in a thing makes the thing. More than any sort of physical evidence of God, the heartfelt belief creates a God that guides.

A schizophrenic sort of force that guides. I don't hear God in my head, and I don't deal with God. But I believe in faith. In people. And their limitless capacity for creating reality.

See, a Muslim extremist believes in God so ardently that he blows himself up in pursuit of divine action. Does it matter of God does not exist? If I could somehow convince him that Allah was a myth, a fiction, where would his fanaticism bind?

Sports?

Music?

Poetry?

Other myths?

< Suits | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Related Links

- husi
- blixco's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Belief. | 107 comments (107 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

I do my best by Gedvondur (4.00 / 3) #1 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:52:52 PM EST

To believe in my fellow man. He lets me down left and right, but I still try.

Everything else is kidding yourself. That being said, if belief in a God or multiples thereof is your thing, then good for you. I envy believers sometimes. It's a warm blanket I can't have.

To me secular humanism is the only way I can live.

Gedvondur
"Well, one of the two girls I'm friendly with out here is a Christian and she wouldn't do the things I want to do." --Sapphire

My beliefs are somewhat complex... by toxicfur (4.00 / 3) #2 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM EST

and certainly nothing like what many fanatics believe. I don't believe I have The Answer - I believe I have my answer, or one of my answers. I've experienced something I understand to be God. I believe in a God that encourages me to ask hard questions, and who doesn't expect the unquestioning sort of faith. I would like - but can't quite - believe in a God that really takes an interest in individuals' every day lives. Still, though, I light a candle every week for my mom, and I believe that God will, and does give her peace.

Just as an aside, I generally don't get involved in religious discussions. Belief is something intensely personal to me, so I'm more likely to talk about my sex life and past drug use than I am to talk about my religious beliefs. I find proselytism to be deeply offensive, though I'll talk to people who ask me about my faith, when I think they're sincere in their questions. People tend to find paths that work for them, and that, I think, is most important. Belief - in whatever form - feels more to me as a personal truth than a universal Truth. Many religious people will disagree with me about that.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco

Oh, and... by toxicfur (4.00 / 2) #3 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:57:20 PM EST

I'm on migraine medication, so I may not be making sense. It's sort of like that episode of The Facts of Life where Blaire smokes weed and thinks she writes something profound that turns out to be ridiculous. It was A Very Special Episode, as I recall.

Anyway. For context, I was raised a Southern Baptist. I left all forms of organized religion for about ten years, largely because I couldn't abide the sorts of hate and distrust and hellfire that was preached. I spent that decade reading about religions across the world, half-heartedly looking for something that made sense. Without some sort of spiritual path, I feel somewhat empty. I'm now an Anglo-Catholic/Episcopalian in a high church (incense, bells, genuflecting, the whole nine yards). That works. For me.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

: Makes total sense. by blixco (4.00 / 2) #10 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:40:34 PM EST

Give me a day or so.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

IAWTP. by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #4 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:03:48 PM EST

For me belief feels like one of the hardest things.

And why it's the right thing to do?

Because deep down, it feels that way.

And my metaphysics?

They kind of make sense. To me.

The God I believe in makes physics happen each and every time. He's not lazy. But I trivialise and oversimplify. The full explanation's always just out of reach of description. Even of my own grasp.

And I have the shoulders of giants to stand on to understand it. As and when. Mainly I just choose contemporary writers to help me out. And getting pissed off with pieticists. And gnostics.

But in the reductionist end, it's just a gut feeling.

[ Parent ]

Private belief. by blixco (4.00 / 1) #17 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:59:02 PM EST

Why do you think some people are so opposed to explaining their belief?

My grandfather talks a lot about God. At first it embarrassed me. But why? It's against his religion to not spread the gospel, so why was I so embarrassed?
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Not embarrassing for me. by toxicfur (4.00 / 2) #36 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 07:47:39 AM EST

Just intensely private. Part of that is, I'm sure, the fact that most of the people I spend time with are quite open about their atheism and, whether they intend it or not, come across as feeling superior to those who do have belief. So in some ways, it's self-protective.

Also, I don't feel I have any right to tell people what they should or shouldn't believe and, unfortunately, because of those religious people who proselytize ad nauseum, many people feel that any discussion of belief is intended to tell them they're going to hell for not believing X. No amount of explaining that I have no idea what the afterlife is like (or if there is one) - what happens to me after I'm dead is just not that important.

I tend to get very annoyed with those people who blame every bad thing in the world on religion, and so I disengage. The religion I follow, as opposed to, say, the abomination Fred Phelps follows, believes in caring for one's neighbor (there are programs in place, for instance, to feed homeless people, with no attempt made to convert them). The previous church I was in housed homeless families and helped people to find jobs and feed their children.

I'm wandering off-topic, but I wonder if your embarrassment stems from the idea that your grandfather's spreading of the Gospel was about talking rather than doing. There's nothing wrong with talking about the life of Christ, but that's not exactly the point, as far as I can tell. At least for me (and that's another thing - I feel that I always need to justify that this is what works for me, and YMMV, no guarantee or warranty, do not return product to the place of purchase, etc., etc.). Or your embarrassment may come from the idea that has been in our culture for a long time that people who believe in God or who express their belief in religion are seen as somewhat childlike, believing in magical thinking and all that.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

blaming bad things on religion by Merekat (4.00 / 3) #37 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:14:55 AM EST

Very lazy thing for an atheist to do imo. Not least because if you are working on the assumption that there is no god, the fault clearly lies with the humans who perpetrate the harm.

[ Parent ]

With my less-tactful hat on by Herring (4.00 / 1) #58 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:50:31 AM EST

I would've said that religions, Stalinism, Nazism etc. are all constructs created by people and all equally capable of causing great harm.

There is a difference though. Say you get a millitant group of people with another loopy idea - e.g. Linux is ready for the desktop. These people could get extreme and start saying that everybody should use Linux on the desktop and anybody who doesn't is evil and stupid. If people make fun of them and ridicule them and their ideas, then that's fair game. You could even draw mocking cartoons of Torvalds if you want.

For some reason, "religious" beliefs have to be respected. At the extreme end, FGM is not the systematic mutilation of young girls, it's a "culturally sensitive issue". I also don't see why I should have to respect someone else's belief that I am evil and will be tortured for an infinite amount of time.

I believe that bacon sandwiches are nice. Respect that belief.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

Bacooooon ! by Phage (4.00 / 1) #61 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:54:53 AM EST

This very morning I treated myself to a bacon and egg sarnie.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

With Brown Sauce of course by Herring (4.00 / 1) #68 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:04:46 AM EST

The Ketchupites shall be slain and burn in hell.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

Cuuurrsed HP-ite by Phage (4.00 / 1) #70 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:10:11 AM EST

The mighty red legions shall sweep all benighted brown-loving savages before them !

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

: I've been a Hamhockstic my entire adult life. by Horatio Hellpop (2.00 / 0) #87 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:41:37 PM EST

There is no way you can prove, or disprove, the existence of Ketchup.
"You can't really know something until you ruin it for everyone." -some guy who used to have an account here
[ Parent ]

what? sauce? by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #73 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:26:30 AM EST

Never!
White bread, butter, crispy real bacon.

[ Parent ]

cop-out answer by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #64 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:58:27 AM EST

Religious beliefs have to be accepted because people demand it. So, people again, fucking things up for themselves and others since the dawn of humanity.

Fortunately, the same genus also provides joy, happiness, compassion and bacon sarnies.

[ Parent ]

Comments like this... by toxicfur (4.00 / 2) #75 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:59:36 AM EST

are why I get really friggin' frustrated with conversations on the internet about religion. Religious beliefs are not like some group (no matter how much they love their computers) who think Linux is ready for desktop. It's like ana says below: religion is like falling in love. It's that personal and that intense, and yes, respecting cultures (religion is a part of culture) is preferred. However, respecting cultures does not entail complete moral relativism, which is irresponsible and lazy.

You've picked two extreme examples (hypothetical loopy computer group and FGM) to make your points, while I don't get the feeling that you've listened at all to what I've said. I know where you stand. I know much of why you feel the way you do. But I'm irritated by what I perceive as lack of respect of me - or at least a big part of who I am. I wouldn't put up with it if you showed lack of respect to queer people or to women or to whatever other part of me you may not like.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm being overly sensitive or not respecting your POV or whatever. I have a migraine, and the pain makes me short-tempered.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

I think by blixco (4.00 / 1) #76 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:27:10 PM EST

that a lot of people see Religion as Fanatics. Because they're the loudest, most mediapathic examples of how wrong belief can be.

I wonder if Muslims decry their more fanatic brothers for being so damned obstinate?

Anyhow, I like the analogy of religion (and finding it) as falling in love. That's a dense set of emotions that defy easy description, and that sounds right.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: The Muslims I know... by toxicfur (4.00 / 1) #77 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:33:31 PM EST

definitely speak against the more fanatic parts of their religion. Some I've known have actually suffered due to their (incredibly moderate) beliefs, something that, as a Christian in this country, I will never experience. Fanatics need to just shut up.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

Respect by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #88 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:10:56 PM EST

That's fine as far as it goes, but given that atheists belong to a group that most people would vote against if running against a woman or a homosexual, it's hard to give much sympathy.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly. by toxicfur (2.00 / 0) #89 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:00:37 PM EST

I'm very sorry if you feel that you're oppressed. I promise not to do any of the oppression myself, and that (and voting my conscience, which includes separation of church and state) is the best I can do.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

I'm not feeling oppressed by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #90 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:08:54 PM EST

And I don't intend to call you stupid.

It's just hard to work up the energy for people who feel that others are implying that they are stupid for their beliefs when people routinely imply that I'm evil for my beliefs.

That's where a lot of the "harshness" of people like Dawkins comes from. It is "I'm goddamn sick and tired of being polite and avoiding the slightest hint of negativity about people's beliefs when they routinely bash my belief's to loud huzzahs all round".

I'm not saying "I'm oppressed". I'm more saying "Why should you get to avoid any sort of negativity for your beliefs when I don't."

If you believe in God, that's fine. But I'm here, I believe that religion is irrational. Get used to it.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Fair enough. by toxicfur (4.00 / 1) #91 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:45:40 AM EST

I guess what I'd like is, in a space like this, where we all tend to be friendly, if not actual friends, that we can have discussions on the meaning of belief without the conversation devolving into "atheists are evil; Christians (or other believers) are stupid." I do understand that in the larger cultural context that's pretty damn close to impossible, and I don't think we've gotten to that point in this thread. I also don't see people who believe on this site referring to people as atheists as deluded, or with pity. I think most of us, when we refer to religion at all, discuss it in terms of what it means to us personally, not as something everyone should believe.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

Sadly by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #93 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:25:55 PM EST

Whenever I have tried to have honest discussions about belief, I get accused of all sorts of negative stuff. Usually I discover that the person I'm trying to have an honest discussion with is more intent on proving my elitism/assholery/whatever.

I have, on this site, had people tell me that my beliefs were all about me being an elitist asshole who wants to feel superior. This was in a thread where I was only trying to express what I believe. Certain people took that personally, apparently, as if my beliefs themselves are offensive.

Not you, certainly, so I apologize a bit for this thread. But this hits my pet peeve. It is as hard for me to feel sorry for someone who shares the majority belief system as it likely is for a gay woman to hear about how hard it is to be a straight white male.

But really, the rub here is that as far as I can tell, I can't honestly express my beliefs without others taking it personally. If I say "I think that the belief in God is irrational", does that make you feel like I'm accusing Christians of stupidity? If so, then, well, we *can't* honestly discuss religion because my simple expression of my beliefs is what you find insulting.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

"...the belief in God is irrational." by toxicfur (2.00 / 0) #97 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 05:40:16 PM EST

I can understand how, for you, the belief in God is irrational. It's when the assumption is made that people who believe in God are irrational that it starts to get taken seriously. I don't think you're making that claim here, though people do, and that's where I have a problem.

Do believe me when I say that I understand that I'm speaking from a position of privilege in USian culture. However, USian culture is pluralistic, and it is hugely important to me that discussions of good will do happen among people of differing belief systems. I'm afraid that there is so much baggage on all sides, regardless of one's beliefs, that I'm afraid that many of the discussions are impossible. And that's a very sad thing for me, and it's why I generally don't get involved in these sorts of discussions.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

: Beliefs by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #99 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 07:09:15 PM EST

People who believe in God are irrational

In that they hold an irrational belief then yes, I believe they are irrational.
I'd note that no one acts a 100% rationally in everything. It's not the way people are made.
In any case, that *is* what I believe. I'm very sorry if that makes you feel stupid. That's not intended to. It's merely what I believe. I don't say it much because it tends to cause intelligent Christians to get upset. In general, I say nothing to avoid strife. But when I hear people complain about how my beliefs cause them to feel inferior when I live in a society that consistently attacks the reputation and morals of anyone with *my* belief system, I get irked. I have to live with that all the time. You can deal.

it is hugely important to me that discussions of good will do happen among people of differing belief systems.

Then you need to put aside what ever bad feelings others beliefs cause in you.
My beliefs cause you to feel that I feel that you are "stupid". (Your words, not mine.) Can you see how insignificant that seems next to the fact that there are people whose beliefs make them feel that I am a basic affront to human decency and not fit for many important positions in this society?
Part of dealing with people with other belief systems is understanding that those people necessarily think that you are at best wrong, and perhaps much worse.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

See by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #95 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:35:05 PM EST

this
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Y'know, by dark nowhere (4.00 / 2) #33 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:44:23 AM EST

I just wrote a big long thing that included stating that I don't believe in God, but I left something out (it was long enough, to be fair.) Anyway, what I didn't say, which is a bit more relevant here, is that I there is character I ascribe to the God I don't believe in, strictly speaking.

I use this particular characterization because it's something I could believe in. I couldn't accept any other supreme, and if there were a supreme with other traits, I'd probably rather have not existed in the first place. I'm a very righteous person at my core, but I'm not a jerk about it.

At the heart of it I'm agnostic (proper scientist). I don't expect or hope to find God, and when I die oblivion will be sufficient reward. (Having experienced it twice in life, as much as it can be experienced, is better than any afterlife I can imagine.)

How I use this characterization is usually to speak to people who have a religious bent to them. People who I can't properly reach in other ways. I have a habit of interacting by first establishing a sympathy, and sometimes I'll even sound more religious than the person I'm talking to. (If that's happening, then I'm getting my way.) But there are no lies in my heart. It's truly what I believe in that context. The parts of me that think that way are dominant and it's like I'm someone else almost.

I guess what I'd like to say is that your beliefs are for the right reasons. If it's not in your heart, why go looking? I think people usually proselytize because they feel the need to be assured in their ideal, and the flock that taught them don't count for support. I really hate that kind of insecurity, and especially the kind of mentality it takes to want to spread it.

I know it's not a conscious act, but there's a certain harshness to life, and a certain self-responsibility to go with it that is only displayed by people like yourself -- you've found what you need for yourself and you're not trying to push it on others. That's better by far than the various groups of atheists who form groups and try to convert people to atheism, and act exactly the way pushy religious types do. They're guilty of the same logical short-circuit, and though it might not be a bad thing to take this kind of thing on faith (or even not incorrect depending on where you stand), I think it's a terrible thing to mistreat someone and impinge on their senses by telling them what their particular articles of faith ought to be.

Um, in short: good for you.

I am not your dupe account.
[ Parent ]

I believe by ana (4.00 / 3) #5 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:04:24 PM EST

and I'm a scientist.

It's pretty simple, really; I believe in God because I met him once. Not face to face or anything. Just came to the end of my rope and there he was.

Having since read Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, I realize other people have very similar experiences and interpret them very differently. Still others have no religious experience at all.

As toxicfur said, I rarely talk about this, because it's a very personal thing. I think, like all other relationships, what you get out of it depends on who you are and how you feel about it that particular day.

I think it was Stephen Jay Gould who wrote an essay called "Nonoverlapping Magisteria", in which he argues that religion and science are each ways of getting at Truth, but their methods are not well suited to answering the same kinds of questions. If you want to know about electricity, do physics. If you want to know about sin and redemption, do theology.

Anyway, I'm sure this is not making a lot of sense (which is probably just as well). But I hope it's somewhat helpful.

Power up your flaming yo-yos already! --StackyMcRacky

I guess... by ana (4.00 / 2) #6 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:18:17 PM EST

it's kind of like being in love. There's no objective test you can do for it. If you've been there, you understand. If you haven't, no amount of explaining will really tell you much.

Power up your flaming yo-yos already! --StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]

I actually by blixco (4.00 / 1) #8 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:39:23 PM EST

had formulated some sort of thought on that today, that Love is as irrational as anything else. What does Dawkins say for Love? It's not math. Phermones? The urge to merge?
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Rationality by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #94 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 12:34:28 PM EST

If we admit that love is "irrational", and that for certain people here, at least, belief in God is like "Love", then can we all agree that saying "Belief in God is 'irrational' is, in a certain sense correct in that belief in God is irrational in the sense that it is "beyond rationality" and saying "I am a rationalist and since belief in God is irrational and so I don't believe" is a true statement, and not equivalent to "believers are stupid". Instead, it merely means that believers in God are simply not rationalists.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

Loaded words. by ana (2.00 / 0) #96 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 05:27:50 PM EST

I'd say rather that belief is a rational response to an event outside your axiom system.

Power up your flaming yo-yos already! --StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]

You can say whatever you want by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #98 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 06:57:28 PM EST

And that's fine. But I disagree.

Now the question is...do you take personal offense at hearing my express my belief?
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

We do not share axioms, by ana (4.00 / 1) #101 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 07:21:08 PM EST

that much seems obvious. Calling each other, or each other's positions irrational is simply not logical. There's no disputing axioms.

Power up your flaming yo-yos already! --StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]

: I disagree by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #102 Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 08:05:35 PM EST

And you clearly find my beliefs insulting, so we should not discuss it.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

words by LoppEar (2.00 / 0) #106 Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:19:42 PM EST

Putting a different emphasis on ana's phrase that I think makes a different although not contradictory point more in line with yours:

I'd say rather that belief is a irrational response to any event inside your (ucb's) axiom system.

[ Parent ]

And... by ana (4.00 / 1) #7 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:36:14 PM EST

google is your friend: here is said essay.

Power up your flaming yo-yos already! --StackyMcRacky
[ Parent ]

It makes sense. by blixco (4.00 / 1) #9 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:39:44 PM EST

Gives me ponder.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Your wife's a Deist. by Arbeit Macht Pie (4.00 / 4) #11 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:03:18 PM EST

We now return you to pictures of funny animals, distributed via electronic networks.

God by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #12 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:06:55 PM EST

From what I can see, any God that fits with the observable universe would be a God that doesn't particular care what the fate or actions of something as insignificant as the human race. Hence, such a being has little impact on insignificant me.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}

But belief in him by blixco (4.00 / 1) #18 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:00:54 PM EST

(if not your belief, then the belief of others) directly impacts your life. Does that not at least give you pause?
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

For others, maybe by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #20 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:13:46 AM EST

It never did anything for me.

I hate to say, lest it degenerate into a flamewar, but in terms of the belief of others close to me, belief in "him" has generally had a negative impact on my life. It has, quite literally, broken up one side of my family.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

: I'm not at all surprised by dark nowhere (4.00 / 2) #35 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:54:38 AM EST

As much as I don't like shitting on people for what they believe, half of my family has gone stupid with religion and it's made half of my existing progenitors absolutely terrible parents. I can say the same or worse for a lot of people I know.
My biggest issue with religion is that people use it as an excuse not to behave like respectable human beings. God or no, we're all human and consequently I'll only give respect to humans that actually are respectable. Religious types that manage to pull of being respectable at the same time (which I don't think should be such a feat) have my respect.

I am not your dupe account.
[ Parent ]

I'll concede anyone's right to believe any stupid by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 3) #13 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:25:14 PM EST

thing they want to believe, though this is not the same thing as saying, "I'm willing to let people believe", because I'm not. I just can't kill them all. Regardless, violence done in the name of religion is no more or less reprehensible than ordinary violence or accidental violence, at least not from a perspective that rejects the normal importance humans place upon themselves. People are stupid. People are unbelievably stupid. There is no lower limit to human depravity, and no human force stronger than the human tendancy to fuck itself in the ass at every opportunity.

I know I say that a lot, but I mean it a lot. It's the one thing I believe, fanatically.

-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.

Let's say, by blixco (4.00 / 2) #16 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:56:33 PM EST

given my example, you have a guy who blows himself up in the name of McDonalds.

Then let's magically erase McDonalds. At that point, does he blow himself up? In this new parallel universe, does he kill?

It's academic, since I cannot remove McDonald's. But academic is why I'm here; I'm not a soldier.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

The answer seems obvious to me by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 2) #24 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:48:08 AM EST

So I can't help but think it's a trick question, but yeah. Of course he does. The reasons may change, but that's all just rationalization; every asshole is going to find some excuse to be the asshole he was destined to be[*]. If it's not one thing, it's another. Or it's two other things.

[*] - using the phrase "destined to be" as a colloquialism; I do not harbor any silly notions about "destiny" or other Victorian-era ideas.

-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

True for populations by Phage (4.00 / 3) #26 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:54:37 AM EST

Not necessarily for individuals. Populations will still go to war over weird and often stupid reasons (Franz Ferdinand, which end of a boiled egg to open), but individuals are harder to predict. What if his parents were non-believers in the ISG ? What if he/she fell in love at a critical moment ?

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Sure, a variety of factors will determine whether by MohammedNiyalSayeed (4.00 / 2) #55 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:34:36 AM EST

and individual ends up throwing their life away for an absurd belief system or not, but humans can still always be counted on to fuck up individually, in addition to their propensity for fucking up, culturally. Or, more precisely, about one block from where I type this, there is a park full of jobless, dirty, unkempt losers. The particular circumstances that each of them has to rationalize their loserness is of no importance to me; the universality of their loserdom is reflected in the fact that, 52 miles north of here, there is another park, with similar losers. In fact, every major city in the world has a number of these losers, and that is because losery is a habit practiced by individuals around the globe, without regard to the borders or customs of any given nation state.

-
You can build the most elegant fountain in the world, but eventually a winged rat will be using it as a drinking bowl.
[ Parent ]

Indeed by Phage (4.00 / 2) #59 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:50:54 AM EST

In every population there are will a number of individuals of 'L' type. As as well as groups of stockbrokers and muggers.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Going back to my village theory by Herring (2.00 / 0) #62 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:57:29 AM EST

possibly the origin of the Village Idiot? In those days, that might've been someone useless and unemployable (the majority of homless people are mentally ill). Remember, they didn't have marketing executives then.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

That's the thread I'm in with MNS by Phage (2.00 / 0) #67 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:01:57 AM EST

In any population you will get various types being produced from complete losers to genius. This variation is of course one of the principles of survival in the the evolutionary model.
You say you're not convinced of evolutionary psych, I say that it seems to be a damn good model for behaviour and therefore variation of people.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Evolutionary Psychology by Herring (2.00 / 0) #71 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:13:59 AM EST

Yes, I believe that behaviour has evolved - due to survival imperatives. As a science though it is pretty woolly because it can't easily be proved. Also I have heard some fairly way-out EP theories.

What I missed out in the Village Idiot post: in the Big City, the schizophrenic on the street corner, stinking of Tennants' Super and ranting about Jesus is a stranger. In the village, he's Bob the Blacksmith's brother who's a bit funny in the head but quite safe if you keep him away from the scrumpy.

BTW, I am not advocating a return to any mythical, utopian agrarian past here. Just sayin'.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

: I think you're spot on by Phage (2.00 / 0) #72 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:16:02 AM EST

I don't think any return is possible. But I can see how we got to here from there.
Like a lot Psych EP is best used in very broad-brush strokes. At that sort of level, it's fine.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Belief by me0w (4.00 / 2) #14 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:37:27 PM EST

I really don't think it matters if God truly exists; it's the idea that is important. It's the comfort that believing brings. I don't believe in God, but I can understand why so many do, and the need to believe in such an entity.

"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni

Yeah, by blixco (4.00 / 2) #15 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:53:05 PM EST

I'm starting to see belief in God as being bigger than God. I can't prove God, but the belief in God has shaped this country's policy. I can't prove God but I can point out where belief in Him has done damage. And where it has done good, great things. I can't find this God entity, but the fervent belief in God is what drives so much of the world that I cannot discount God.

Because the idea of it is so massively important to my life. I work in an industry that makes technology for war, a holy war. I live in a state that believes, dearly. I live among people whose belief guides their actions on every level.

And delusion or not, it is a powerful motivation that cannot be discounted.

It may be wrong. But what is "wrong" can so often be guidance.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: That I cannot discount belief in the thing by LoppEar (4.00 / 2) #22 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:16:51 AM EST

Maybe you said this recently, it's been in my mind, that we create reasons for what we just did or what we think we'll do rather more often than for what we are doing. Our mind predicts, predicts by explanation, creates a cause because we know effect requires one. At human scales our model of the world says cause before effect has worked as a better predictor ninety-nine times out of a hundred, and so we're ill-conditioned to recognize our momentary identity's post hoc existence.
At the ends though, we find ourselves unsure of our human experience, and can let ourselves roam with "belief creates the thing", "god is love", "i felt god when i could no longer feel anything else", "god set the universe in motion". But it's still this post hoc consciousness doing this thinking. And we're really utterly unable to be confident we'll still exist if it turns out we're reviewers not even actors. But that's still thinking like the belief creates the thing, and so the fence is indistinguishable from the pasture.
The thing never was and never will be, the belief is as real as any other thing, but if the ends are extended till they pervade the space we inhabit the belief must be one that abides such transplantation.
My father has decided it is time to write his book, a stake in the ground in the quest for shared discourse of religious experience. As long as the belief is the thing and the fence is the pasture, such efforts seem fated to miss for risk of being a stake in the heart of the thing, a stake in the heart of the belief.

[ Parent ]
: Enveloped by me0w (4.00 / 1) #74 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:26:59 AM EST

Beliefs have a tendency to grow larger than the initial seed that developed them - and at some point the belief may destroy or completely envelope the initial point. The belief in God and all the wrapping of that belief has destroyed God ... all that is left is the belief and dogma.
It is a powerful motivation .... but a motivation that needs be examined.

"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni
[ Parent ]

god and comfort by Merekat (4.00 / 3) #21 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:51:42 AM EST

I've never fully understood that one on a personal level, though I can see it in other people. Perhaps it is because I am a control freak and I find the idea of a supreme being terrifying and unpleasant, rather than comforting.

Random chaos and complex interactions of people and physics is much easier to handle.

[ Parent ]

: Comfort food by me0w (4.00 / 2) #66 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:01:56 AM EST

I think for many God means never being alone and always being loved. When at their darkest, they take comfort in knowing that there is someone/something always with them, and no matter how badly they've fucked things up - someone will always love them unconditionally. I can see the comfort in that ... however, I can also see that same sort of comfort come from other sources without the need for a God entity. But perhaps for some, that sort of comfort needs to come from something much larger than they are.

"There's really only one sexually related thing I'm good at: Producing incredibly volumous amounts of spooge on a regular basis." - ni
[ Parent ]

Most people are cogs. by atreides (4.00 / 4) #19 Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:22:20 PM EST

They want to believe they're in beautiful clocks. So they create the image of the beautiful clock and the equally beautiful clockmaker. Unfortunately, most of those cogs are in shitty watches or machines or bizarre human difference engines. But since most cogs don't know their function (they can't see the whole apparatus. They are cogs, after all), they dream of their clock and deny any attempt to tell them otherwise lest they allow themselves succumb to the grit that gathers in their gears.

How's that for a metaphor?

_{He sails from world to world in a flying tomb, serving gods who eat hope.}

: Heh by sgt york (2.00 / 0) #81 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 01:25:27 PM EST

I'm not sure if this argument is coming from an atheist or a theist.
The idea that we are simply insignificant interchangeable working parts of a greater whole is not unheard of in religion.
There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks
[ Parent ]

there was a time when i didn't believe in God by 256 (4.00 / 4) #23 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:30:46 AM EST

now i do.

but in truth, my beliefs have barely changed.

i believe there are forces much bigger than i that affect my life. i believe some of these forces are invisible and then among those that are visible some are beyond comprehension.

somewhere along the line, i stopped being difficult and started calling those forces "God".
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}

Fascinating captain. by Phage (4.00 / 2) #25 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:50:28 AM EST

I always wonder why in people who have much the same life experiences, one will draw the conclusion of ISG, and the other will not.
Why is this so ?

Also I can't find any pictures, but I saw this scuplture a long time ago. This one speaks to me.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick

Read Dawkin's by Breaker (4.00 / 4) #27 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:25:44 AM EST

God Delusion (review).

Dawkins does make a good point - without the warm blanket of a benevolent God watching over you and taking you to his side when you die, it's a pretty bleak outlook for non believers. I can't get as excited as Dawkins does about a rainbow.

meh by Merekat (4.00 / 4) #28 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 05:45:48 AM EST

How is it bleaker than squandering now in the expectation of future reward?

Rainbows meh, though.

[ Parent ]

: That by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #31 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:34:47 AM EST

Is an excellent way of looking at it, thanks.

[ Parent ]

I agree by yicky yacky (4.00 / 3) #30 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:31:27 AM EST

with Dawkins to the extent that I get more of a "Wow" factor from {shorelines, mountains, stars, life etc.} with the addition of a little bit of extra knowledge than I did before I had that knowledge; but the inconstancy of science also implies that the knowledge which supplies that "25% Extra! Free!" may also be false to a certain extent -- if not entirely false (in the boolean sense), then certainly incomplete, or subject to modification.

This has the extra facet that a certain degree of extra "Pizzazz!" may (in any given perceiver) be being derived from fundamentally incorrect models, even if being considered by the perceiver to be the correct ones; but the extra "Ooomph!" is genuinely felt either way. I think almost anyone can see the epistemological problem with that: How does an extra sense of wonder / awe, informed by an incorrect understanding of the science, differ fundamentally from deriving equivalent sensation from "God" (whatever the fuck that word actually means)? One may argue that the one is still monist, while the other isn't, but does that matter if they're both potentially equally inaccurate?

Dawkins concedes that it's possible that we may end up knowing absolutely everything there is to know about this universe (in the sense of its internally-valid mechanics) without having a satisfactory answer of why it should be that way at all. I think eliding the issue of how people respond to that possibility (in future, at least; for the present it's an unavoidable fact) is in some senses a deferral: I find it generally unsatisfying yet am capable of entertaining the notion with little discomfort. I can understand why others don't, though.

----
Done.
[ Parent ]

Have you read God Delusion? by Breaker (4.00 / 3) #32 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:37:16 AM EST

There's an interesting chapter on love of God in there. Which I found interesting in that people may claim to love God | Jesus | whoever; even Dawkins says that rainbows etc are fascinating. Not loveable.

[ Parent ]

: Dawkins is the atheist Jesus by Herring (4.00 / 4) #34 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:49:45 AM EST

Both are attributed motives intentions by people who haven't read or understood their words. Also looking/sounding like a filthy Linux hippy or Professor Yaffle off bagpuss doesn't always help.
I've seen a (Sagan?) quote concerning the fact that many of these fundamentalist types consider the universe to be far younger, smaller and generally less impressive than it actually is. A plague of locusts is pretty unimpressive compared with a supernova.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

Maybe it's me, by blixco (4.00 / 2) #38 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:17:42 AM EST

but atheists seem obsessed with death. They revel in the fact that "there is nothing" after dying, they lay it out as the foundation for their discussions. Morbid bastards.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

The death thing... by toxicfur (4.00 / 3) #39 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 08:50:03 AM EST

That's one aspect of both religious and non-religious people that mystifies me. What happens to me after I die is kind of irrelevant to the life I'm living right now, and what I have right now is all I can really deal with. If nothing happens after I die, ok, and if there's some sort of afterlife, well, I'll deal with that when I get to it. I'm religious, but what happens after death is an incredibly small part of my religious beliefs. So atheists who claim that people are religious because they're afraid of death misses the point just as much as religious people who try to convert people by talking about eternal damnation.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

religion and fear of death by Merekat (4.00 / 3) #41 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:08:34 AM EST

I'm not familiar with that particular interpretation but I am familiar with people glorifying the idea of an afterlife to the point that it eclipses this one.

That this life is for suffering and the next for happiness is a message I find repugnant and wasteful. Even if you do believe in an afterlife, why waste this one?

[ Parent ]

: Why waste this one? by toxicfur (4.00 / 2) #42 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:18:20 AM EST

Indeed. Wasting this life by focusing too much on what might be after this one seems to me both silly and somewhat heretical.
-----
If you don't get a Bonnie, my universe will not make sense. --blixco
[ Parent ]

Probably because by ucblockhead (4.00 / 2) #48 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:55:46 AM EST

So many religious types are so damn sure we're afraid to die. Hearing "There's no athiests in the foxhole!" and "You'll repent on your deathbed!" is annoying. It's an attempt to head that off at the pass.
----
_{ウセーバラケダ}
[ Parent ]

: My wife sez by blixco (4.00 / 2) #63 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:57:52 AM EST

there's no heterosexuals in a foxhole.
I tend to believe that as well as the other.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

I love this topic by dark nowhere (4.00 / 1) #29 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 06:13:13 AM EST

largely because I one of my better run hobbies is figuring out how minds work. It's a difficult task, and not believing in some magic that makes it go, it obviously has to work.

Sorry, I can tell right now this is going to be a lengthy reply.

The Universe doesn't make sense. Either it sprials off into deeper levels of causation ad infinitum or it has a first cause, and uncaused cause. Or something equally absurd. Both contradict the attitudes of science, but that's ok, because we've entered into science and natural study of the universe with the early realization that a part of the universe cannot comprehend the whole (at least not with the given set of assumptions), so at least the law of exceptions holds properly.

But brains aren't the universe. They're limited in capacity, and this is where belief kicks in. I usually start with emotion, but there's a magical part of the brain that says "this is god talking" if you want to get to that point more quickly. I suspect that this same part has to do with coordinating certain time-critical decisions, but perhaps the amygdala can handle that on its own. I haven't really encountered it in the literature I've read.

But the reason that faith is an actual requirement, in my understanding, is that there has to be a cutoff. At some point, you've got to act. When speaking of emotions, they (or something like emotions) are required in order to get you doing anything. Emotions, in the sense of 'the motivating forces' in the mind, have their effect before being subject to scrutiny, veto, or further analysis. If we were to follow purely logically nothing would happen because logic is a motionless vacuum, it's just nihilism.

Nobody needs God in order to eat when they are hungry. Some Taoists need the Tao, or at least it sounds that way, but I'd never trust a vocal Taoist. The Belief you're talking about is something larger in scale, but I think it has a similar application. At some point we want to question the routine of eat sleep reproduce die, and intellectually this question can be answered with nihilism. We'll still suffer hunger and become tired and most of us will want to at least go through the motions of getting our seed out there (or collecting it, for the ladies), but maybe some of us get upset about it and circumvent the whole silly thing with a feat of self-deliverance.

Honestly, we might better be served by a short circuit that hands this question off to religious belief. This isn't selectively viable, because he who doesn't do that has the advantage, so long as he can live happily, which takes me to...

Because I don't believe in God, this is the part where I confess that I feel ripped off by life. I've lived enough to agree with the vocal Taoists (the pointing finger isn't the thing itself, I'm talking about the thing itself) which really boils down to the simple maxim that life is worth the journey, not the destination (buried or burned.) Sympathetic understanding will probably lead you to agree, or at least agree that it's a viable means of motivation. There's nothing like Joi de Vie, and on average I don't really have it. Religious people borrow it from a fiction. Whether or not the fiction is actually true, I think the statement still stands.

Forget for the moment why the capacity for belief happened, but look at what it's given us. We've the capacity to operate with confidence on working theories. We have a mechanism for short-cutting over-analysis. I've faith in my own theories, even though I know them to be incomplete, I believe them to be complete enough to go on at length to you guys about it, that they might add to the discussion in an interesting way. I have faith that food will be available whenever it's needed for the rest of my life. I have faith that I won't be bombed in my sleep for no good reason.

I could go on forever, but I'll just venture further off topic from here, so I'll leave it at that.

I am not your dupe account.

Nope by theboz (4.00 / 2) #40 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:04:02 AM EST

I have no beliefs in anything supernatural at all. No Yahweh, no Allah, no Zeus, no Quetzalcoatl (wow, I spelled that correctly without looking it up!), no Invisible Sky Giant. From my perspective, religion is a gigantic safety blanket that people use to comfort themselves at it's most benign, to mass-hysteria and group think at it's worst. I know someone here will take exception at me lumping "god" and religion into the same category, but it is. Belief in the supernatural is a form of religion, even if it's not organized religion.

You had mentioned in a comment about how the atheists focus too much on death. Well, the religious folks do, and it's important in understanding our outlook on life. However, that's not all there is to it. Religious people often look to guidance from the ISG on a daily basis. They pray to him at every meal, pray to him before making any important decision, and often try to give up responsibility for themselves to their "heavenly father" in order to absolve themselves in the event something bad happens. Then it's just "god had a reason" and they feel comforted.

This type of behavior also applies to death, which is why people focus on that. I share the atheistic view of death, that after we die, that's the end of who we are. However, rather than being something sad, it doesn't really bother me. Why should it? I'm alive now. I have fun now. It just means that I should not deny myself of living life how I want to just to try to get into a mythical afterlife where everything will be good. If there were a hell, I think most of the religious leaders would end up there for making their followers deny their dreams and conform with religion rather than doing what makes them happy and free. Religion is a form of oppression.

So there you have it, part of my religious beliefs. I've been to both ends of the spectrum, and the non-religious view is the superior one for me. Others can't deal with it, so it's ok if they need to believe in something, but I don't think it's optimal. You'd have a lot less poverty and war if people valued their lives because they didn't expect 70 virgins when they die.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

Out of curiosity, then, by blixco (4.00 / 1) #45 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:42:12 AM EST

what makes law? Law is a set of fictions intended to make society possible, but it is a set of fictions that prevent you and I from doing what we will.

It may be the threat of punitive action or good nature that keeps us on the side of the law, but why? I mean, why not extend that atheistic school of thinking to all of the rules of society, and not just the ones made holy?
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Law as a derivative of survival by Phage (4.00 / 1) #47 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:54:30 AM EST

I know that I read somewhere that most ethics and therefore laws have survival of the tribe/family at their base. It's all about the DNA.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Slightly O/T by Herring (4.00 / 1) #50 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:06:16 AM EST

I think it was Hitchens who said something like "Before Moses came back down the mountain with the 10 commandments, did the tribes of Israel really think that murder and theft were OK?"

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

Not OT by Phage (4.00 / 1) #51 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:17:59 AM EST

Other primates exhibit rules and behaviours that are aimed at survival of the group.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

I would be interested to know by Herring (4.00 / 2) #54 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:28:02 AM EST

whether other primates naturally exhibit behaviour that could be classified as ritualistic (with no practical purpose). Obviously it's possible in the lab to create this behaviour artificially but I wonder if it happens in the wild. Do mating rituals count?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

: There are certainly examples by Phage (4.00 / 2) #57 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:41:44 AM EST

Of chimps teaching youngsters how to use tools.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]

Religions by blixco (4.00 / 1) #65 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:59:12 AM EST

are sets of laws, hygiene and behavior and such, that enable survival.

Look at kosher laws. The heart of it is, food safety.

Stuff like that, secularized, is what we now call the state.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

: I'd broadly agree with that by Phage (4.00 / 1) #69 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 11:07:23 AM EST

My point was (now lost in the various threads) that ethics are linked to survival behaviours which we have turned into laws.

The Czar of Accounting. No Nit Too Small To Pick
[ Parent ]
: secularization by LoppEar (4.00 / 1) #107 Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:04:33 AM EST

then you'd agree that the point (indeed, of this post & thread) is on the fine layer of difference that's contained in religion's addition of "belief in the supernatural". Or more succinctly, in your need in the parent comment to add "secularized" -> the removal of "belief in the supernatural" from society's justification.
The ucblockhead / toxicfur thread in this post is a little painful, but ultimately is the central point that cannot be avoided for a multi-belief dialog unless atheists are to be excluded (exclusion for classes of individuals could make sense for some discussion scopes). And my inclination is to say this rift is the same when two of differing beliefs dialog just to have the same form of disagreement on other irreconcilable differences between the beliefs.
Perhaps one approach is to avoid the rifts, and talk openly about deeply personal religious experience, agreeing as we go along on a list of words to avoid for this interaction - my atheist side accepts this because it's acknowledging the biases and conditioning of our minds (individually and collectively) that give words and concepts meaning (and where that side says we'll find the explanation for belief). That is, we'd have to accept (for the purposes of smoother communion) that in the case of broad religion it's just not going to work to assume that "you see red as I see red".
This worked reasonably well this summer talking with my dad, and I would say is somewhat the approach taken in the book we had both read in preparation for discussion "After the ecstasy, the laundry" by Jack Kornfield. Leads to a very positive experience of relating things broadly spiritual and asking "anything that my description of the experience reminds you of in your words?"
That book is pretty good (Dad recommended it, he's friends with the author's sister or something), but its categorization points to the current downside to the approach - Jack's personal language for religious experience is buddhism (although the book is mostly quotes from long-term religious of many faiths), and so it will be found amongst so many positivist new age-y books that slip into just creating easy equivalences between religions. At a time (like presumably all others of religious confrontation) when the differences are what seem to need defusing and smoothing.
Secularization has been the approach to that difference-smoothing on societal scales, it's hard to think of another feasible approach (er, the other obvious common approach is genocide, so maybe feasible isn't the word I want), but it's also an explicitly/intentionally poor approach (er, as is genocide) for sharing and understanding others belief-experiences.

[ Parent ]

I agree with Phage by theboz (4.00 / 1) #78 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:34:11 PM EST

Law is based on survival and what seems to be the optimum rules for survival and reproduction of the fittest. It's all natural, which seems to be in line with what the founding fathers of the U.S. envisioned.

Also, atheistic thinking does not equate to immoral thinking. For example, I don't need to fear the ISG's wrath to know that murder is wrong. Why? It just is. More specifically, I don't want to be killed, nor do I want my friends and family to be killed, and to go further (since empathy is a powerful emotion humans have) I don't want anyone to be murdered. So in this case, the 6th(?) commandment follows with nature. On the other hand, the 1st commandment says that we should only view Yahweh as our god. I see no reason to believe that or follow it, because it doesn't actually pertain to me. Basically, the first half of the 10 commandments are of a religious nature, and the second half (really the last six) are of a social/natural standpoint to keep society functioning for the good of all.

The reason there is so much debate and change to laws is that 1) situations, society, and culture changes and laws should reflect that, and 2) we are constantly trying to balance our laws to the optimal configuration. The rights of the individual vs. the rights of society is a balance that is usually a problem. Individual rights to an extreme is anarchy, society's rights to an extreme is authoritarianism. We are constantly trying to find a balance where individuals are free, but still benefit from sharing and working together within society as a whole.

I think I went off on too much of a tangent, but basically I feel that some laws are based off of natural strategies that came about through evolution and learned behavior.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

Good points, by blixco (4.00 / 1) #79 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 12:46:51 PM EST

and I think the most important thing is, we need law that is evolutionary, or at least change-able.

By the way, that first commandment? That sets up the environment variable for the instructions underneath. If you don't have Cmd1, you don't have 2 thru 10. Imagine being in the society that wrote those laws.

But that society is well and gone, and though it was a foundation for our current models, it is ancient. Does that model still hold up under the light of modern day?
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

That's a place religion and law differ by theboz (2.00 / 0) #83 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 02:49:35 PM EST

I think the most important thing is, we need law that is evolutionary, or at least change-able.

That's where there is a big difference between religion and law or science. Religion focuses on a "truth" that is given and everything must conform with it. Religion is strict and opposes change to the death.

A legal system like we have in the U.S. is set up to amend and modify laws, as well as to provide a means for groups of people to decide what is right rather than doing it from the top down. Our system is not working as designed right now, but that's how it is supposed to be set up. Our legal system is derived more from Greece than Israel, despite the attempts to convert us otherwise.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n
[ Parent ]

: I know of a number by blixco (2.00 / 0) #84 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 03:21:44 PM EST

of religions that are not opposed to change. They do require a set of core tenets, obviously, but law does as well.
Look at the Catholic Church. They resist change to doctrine, but the mechanics of running a church in the modern day require a certain flexibility.
It would be foolish to lump all religions together as some reactionary version of Catholicism or some stubborn atavistic Baptist cult. Some are very progressive in both thought and action.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

PETA by spacejack (4.00 / 2) #43 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:34:03 AM EST

Actually, I think there's a good case to be made for communism but I doubt I'm articulate enough to write it down. Let's just say that people seem to have an intense need to feel righteous about themselves. If they don't have faith in God, it'll get channelled into something else. Otherwise, the only rational choice left is to become a hedonist.

If no God, by blixco (4.00 / 4) #44 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:38:18 AM EST

then community. That was the design, if not the specific intent. No God, no delusion of life beyond, meant pull together now and make life wonderful, now, for yourself and each other.

It's a fine plan on paper.
---------------------------------
"You bring the weasel, I'll bring the whiskey." - kellnerin
[ Parent ]

Exactly. by spacejack (4.00 / 2) #46 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 09:44:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]

That would be the ideal by Herring (4.00 / 2) #49 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:03:36 AM EST

It all (capitalism, communism, religion, humanism etc.) fails it due to people being stupid/selfish/greedy. In the larger, looser communities we live in these days there isn't such a sense of community - the threat of damnation or incarceration doesn't deter people in the way that the opprobrium of the entire village would have.

[probably more to say, but stalled here]

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge - Charles Darwin
[ Parent ]

: IAWTSentiment by Phage (4.00 / 2) #53 Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 10:22:19 AM EST

In a way I feel sad that the experiment in Communism failed. I would have liked to have seen a real community. Perhaps in a kibbutz or similar it does still exist.

The Czar of Accounting.


Make a new account
Username:
Password: