If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

See no need for this god fellow....

"...all the best intentions in the world often lead to bad outcomes."

I don't doubt Peter Sellick's good intentions, but when we are told:

"This man, Jesus, through his teaching and trial and death and rumoured resurrection is indeed the creator of all things."

though the prior sentence says, "Clearly, this is a long way from the idea that a supernatural being with infinite power brought the universe into being."

So everything prior to Jesus was brought into being by Jesus, who didn't exist, but wasn't a supernatural being?

Sorry, don't get it. I wish I were younger so I could get away with saying WTF.

I think Chinese Philosophy nails this one:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters

Sellick wrote: "Your children who enter a science class, even though they may come from deeply Christian families will be seduced by this proposition. In fact all of secular education makes this assumption. That is why secular universities are so opposed to the teaching of theology, to do so would undermine all disciplines."

I agree. Superstition can undermine reason and often does.

Thank you, diver dan, the bit about the vinegar tasters was most interesting.

It is very clear to me that evolution does not involve everyone equally. My proof?

Well, there are those who are still desperately clinging to superstition and nonsensical primitive beliefs. Billions of them, in fact. They put their faith in what clerics tell them and the conflicting words of ancient manuscripts.

Others, who are obviously are more evolved, are realists who base their life on facts. Unfortunate for the believers, there are no facts which support the claims of any religion. None.

This difference is evolution is huge. The big question is: Will the 'believers' ever catch up?

It appears not, especially if Governments allow advocates of religion to keep bamboozling people in every nation with specious, absurd claims about some mythical world inhabited by spirits and angels!

It is time the whole religious fraud was stopped and religious institutions were closed down.

This is 2013 after all!

'Others, who are obviously are more evolved, are realists who base their life on facts.

David G

you are either naive or deceived.

.

Dear Peter,

.

I see you have written well over a hundred articles on Online Opinion, all more or less on the same theme but, apparently, you do not yet seem persuaded that you have managed to prove your point.

Judging from your perseverance I think most of us here would agree that you have definitely proven that you are convinced that you are right in believing what you believe.

Please rest assured that we all know what your opinion is, Peter. Any further articles you may write will not advance us much further on that score.

If, however, your objective is not so much to express the same opinion for the umpteenth time but rather to prove that you are right in holding that opinion, I understand the imperative necessity to continue your quest for the holy grail.

In that case, I am afraid there is little any of us here can do to help, save, perhaps, to wish you all the best in your eternal enterprise and suggest, as Lewis Carroll did in a similar situation in Alice in Wonderland:

“Be what you would seem to be- or, if you'd like it put more simply- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.”

And, as he wisely pointed out on another occasion:

“You're thinking about something, my dear, and that makes you forget to talk. I can't tell you just now what the moral of that is, but I shall remember it in a bit."

"Perhaps it hasn't one," Alice ventured to remark.

"Tut, tut, child!" said the Duchess. "Everything's got a moral, if only you can find it.”

And, for good measure, if, by chance, you are lost, like Alice, and are seeking direction, always remember those final words of advice of Lewis Carroll:

“If you don't know where you are going any road can take you there”

.

Commenting to David G runner comments;
"you are either naive or deceived."
I have heard all sorts of comments about theology but the best is probably by Robert Anton Wilson, "The function of Theology? The recitation of the incomprehensible by the unspeakable to pick the pockets of the unthinking."

Runner is always commenting about the evil that befalls a society without religion. I suggest that runner, and others with similar views, read Phil Zuckerman who concluded, after living in and studying the societies of two irreligious Scandinavian countries, concluded;
"The existence of this relatively irreligious society suggests that religious faith - while admittedly widespread - is not natural or innate to the human condition. Nor is religion a necessary ingredient for a healthy, peaceful, prosperous and deeply good society."

Dear Banjo,

<<If, however, your objective is not so much to express the same opinion for the umpteenth time but rather to prove that you are right in holding that opinion>>

Peter is a priest. His business is not to prove anything - his business is to guide his flock.

There are souls among the OLO readers (not necessarily the active commentators) who wish to follow and worship God, but are confused and hindered by the fact that the natural, physical world does not conform to religious teachings. It is for those that Peter writes, it is those whom he comforts, for those he explains that religion and nature/science are two different realms and one need not have anything to do with the other.

While I personally didn't have to face this particular problem to begin with (because I don't believe in the sacredness of the bible, hence in the biblical creation story as supposedly a "fact"), I commend Peter for his deep thinking and excellent shepherdly work.

There is a show on the History Channel on Foxtel called Ancient Aliens. It subscribes to pretty much the same view as intelligent design. The premise of the show is that 'aliens' invented the human race. However, the show is pure malarky and its creators probably know that, but it is entertaining and it does show up some fascinating things about ancient cultures. I think the writer of this opinion piece needs to think really deeply about the substance of the view that he is putting forward and where it places him on the spectrum of ideas. We evolved to be intelligent, some more than others, but its not useful if you waste it. We evolved and we are lucky to be the one species on this planet, of all the species that have existed here, who have intelligence and can perceive of our place in the cosmos. That is a rare thing. That is something that came from nature, it is not divine, but that is not to say that it is not wondrous.

David,
I too think it is wondrous and I do not wish to reduce the theory of evolution in any way. I do not believe in intelligent design and I do not believe that God is "out there". What I do believe is that the Christian tradition is a cultural artefact but nevertheless an artefact that speak the truth about who we are and what is our telos. That is, it enunciates the grain of the universe from a human point of view. Without this culture we are doomed to be reduced to the scientific description of us that is impoverished and limited. Most of the comments on my articles attribute far more to me that I claim. I guess I claim very little but that little has enormous importance to how we understand and live our lives. I am not a theist in the conventional sense. It is interesting that you notice that the TV show raises interesting things even though it is based on fictional. Likewise, much of Scripture.

Dear David,

What intelligent being would invest all it can in building sand castles?

This world, along with its stars and galaxies, all elementary particles and all our material and social efforts, is destined to disintegrate.

Our body's genetic make-up has evolved to make us think that we want to, that indeed we must, keep our body alive and multiplying. I don't know whether man is the only species to have the intelligent capacity to break loose of our slavery to the genes, but evidently we have that capacity, though with difficulty, to break the bondage of inert nature while most other species cannot.

What intelligent being would waste that rare capacity to become free of the fatal grip of the elements?

'Runner is always commenting about the evil that befalls a society without religion.

as usual a little twisted Foyle

you should of written

Runner is always commenting about the evil that befalls a society without or with religion.

Oh dear, Mr Sellick. You appear to have fallen into a logical wishing-well, and instead of recognizing that you are destined to land with a thump at its bottom, you insist on commenting on the shiny quality of the walls as you drop.

Here you go:

"To confuse the two [creation stories and modern cosmology] is to make a category mistake; they are not the same thing."

It is also the case that to confuse fiction and non-fiction - however you care to describe them individually - is also to make a "category mistake".

The headline would then be along the lines of "Fiction is a more fundamental notion than non-fiction". Or vice-versa, of course. Superb grist to the Year Ten debating team's mill, but ultimately just clever words.

Unfortunately, you go on to make the basic Year Ten debater's mistake of assuming your position is already agreed, within the evidence you present, thusly:

"There is a brokenness at the centre of our lives. Even the most well-intentioned and intelligent person will experience this".

This might well lend itself to an idea for next week's proposition "that this house believes there is a brokenness at the centre of our lives", but is equally unsupported.

But what is your point, exactly? I'll take a stab that it is this:

"The result is that the universe contains no meaning that we can find. It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God".

I absolutely agree with the first part, the universe contains no meaning that we can find. And frankly, the chances of finding any - even if there is any - are infinitesimal, given a) the size of our brains, b) the size of the universe and c) the cosmologically imminent heat-death of the sun.

But you are suggesting that the concept of God somehow provides that "meaning". Which, conveniently, turns the whole idea into a circular argument - the meaning of the universe is God, and God is the meaning of the universe.

It's all a bit... flimsy, ain't it.

Dear Pericles,

Some good points:

It is not that "THE RESULT IS that the universe contains no meaning", but the world in fact had no meaning all along, only now people are realising it. That is good: one should not ask people to "look at the universe and praise God", nor even to praise God because He provides a meaning to life, but rather one should simply praise God because "it is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to Your name O most high" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euatrO_3tDM).

I don't recall Peter claiming that "Fiction is a more fundamental notion than non-fiction", a more loyal rewording of his could be "Fiction type I is more fundamental than fiction type II". No words can describe reality anyway, so Peter chooses to call the reality where we live 'Creation', whereas others may perhaps use 'Now'. Whatever works, whatever inspires love of God and devotion to Him, should best be used. The specific advantage I can see in using the word 'Creation' in this day and age, is in the humility of reminding ourselves that we have not created ourselves.

Yuyutsu,

“one should simply praise God because "it is good to give thanks to the Lord”

This is a religious idea. It is meaningless to someone who is outside that delusion.

If humans built sentient mechanical beings, which maybe will happen sometime in the future, and supplied them with a planet terra-formed for their needs, it would be the height of arrogance to expect them to give praise to their ‘creators’. It would the ultimate in stupidity, fearfulness and gullibility if they did.

Most sensible humans would be appalled at the idea of being thanked by their creation for their creation.

It would only be humans with an ego problem that would get their rocks off with such adulation. What does that say about the god concept?

Sadly, I cannot carry on with this conversation as the internet speed here is so low as to use the name of a god combined with profanity quite often. I'll leave you with it.

David

The only improvement needed in Banjo Paterson's comment was rendering it in verse.

<In fact all of secular education makes this assumption. That is why secular universities are so opposed to the teaching of theology…>

The evidence for the premiss is? And why does the conclusion in the second follow? Perhaps theology does not meet the criteria for a knowledge discipline.

<At the bases of the provocation is a misunderstanding; that "creation" infers physical causality …> How can creation work deduce meaning? Perhaps "imply" was meant instead of "infer"?
< It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God.> Why is this something to be lamented?

< Even though natural science has investigated sub-atomic particles and the almost limitless bounds of space, this is not the world we live in.> Isn't it? The non-nerds might be unable to engage in discussion with the nerds on the nature of sub-atomic particles but once those things have been shown to be part of our world, you can hardly say that we no longer live in a world that contains them. When people talk like this, or of non-overlapping magisteria, images arise of the rugby coach explaining away his team's thumping loss by saying that whereas they thought the game was about amassing, points we knew it was about avoiding penalties, at which we won.

< Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature because creation is where we truly live, where we find the source of life.> Insisting that creation is a more fundamental than nature falls short of establishing that creation was real. Just as right wing commentators frequently resort to calling their opponents names (latte sipping socialists, inner city luvvies) when they can't think of counter arguments, religionists frequently resort to the tactic of exporting the topic to a different domain in which the normal requirements for evidence and logic are said not to hold. And in those unimaginable domains, what things do hold? Whatever it takes?

Dear David (Atheist Foundation),

<<it would be the height of arrogance to expect them to give praise to their ‘creators’. It would the ultimate in stupidity, fearfulness and gullibility if they did.>>

Indeed what a poor reason for worship - I could not agree more!

<<It would only be humans with an ego problem that would get their rocks off with such adulation. What does that say about the god concept?>>

Just as you wrote, that humans have egos.

All concepts are flawed, but alas, some people still think that God is a concept.

---

Dear Glen,

<<<It is impossible for late modern people to look at the universe and praise God.> Why is this something to be lamented?>>

Good point: since it's best to praise God unconditionally, this deserves only a slight lamentation.

If one needs to look at the universe in order to praise God, then what if they get up in the morning on the wrong side, the sky is grey, the body aching, the future bleak, money lost, relationships ruined, should one stop praising God as a result? of course not!

The best religion is when one knows that God does not exist, yet unperturbed loves, praises and worships Him anyway. Otherwise, if one only praises God because one believes that He exists, then that's barter, not love!

Most of us, however, need some symbol like 'Creation' as a crutch, as we tend to find it difficult and too abstract to love God without it. This is but a useful tool, rather than something to be judged by logic, evidence and such criteria. At the same time, as Peter tells us, our chosen symbol must not be assumed a feature of nature.

Religious and scientific language should be kept separate. As Peter notes, it were fundamentalists who made a mess by mixing those up, so this needs to be corrected.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for your explanation of the prolixity of our dear friend, Peter Sells. I see he is an Anglican deacon and, no doubt, as you suggest, is simply exercising his profession on this not-for-profit e-journal.

The legal terms of use of this web site indicate as follows:

"No promotional materials:

You must not, without our prior written consent, up-load, post, transmit or otherwise make available through this site any material which contains promotional material, advertising or any solicitation (whether commercial or otherwise) for products or services."

Peter's activity here could be considered as "promotional" if, as you suggest, he is seeking to "guide his flock" and given that:

"There are souls among the OLO readers (not necessarily the active commentators) who wish to follow and worship God, but are confused and hindered by the fact that the natural, physical world does not conform to religious teachings."

Peter's "services" are free of charge but that does not alter their distinctive "promotional" nature. Also, the sustained rhythm of almost an article a month for the last ten years is a clear indication of the author's invasive intent. He is obviously pursuing an objective.

His objective seems to be what you describe as "shepherdly work" which you esteem "excellent".

This is a good case for considering Peter to be exercising his profession on this non-for-profit e-journal and indulging in "promotional" activity. However, I doubt there are many "lost sheep" here who require "guidance".

So, if, by chance, our esteemed editor and publisher, Graham Young, happens to read this post, I should add that while I recognize in Peter's prolixity a distinctive "promotional" character, I consider it is largely ineffective, assimilating it to John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness of Judaea (Matthew 3:1) or El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Qouijte de la Mancha making valorous onslaughts on inoffensive Spanish windmills.

No harm done, I say and, who knows, Peter may not be the only predator (shepherd) roaming these rich hunting grounds in an endeavour to track down the odd jumbuck to stuff into his tuckerbag.

So what?

.

Yuyutsu,

“…but alas, some people still think that God is a concept.”

It’s more the case and correct evidentially that, alas and alack, some people still think that gods aren't just a concept.

David

'No harm done, I say and, who knows, Peter may not be the only predator (shepherd) roaming these rich hunting grounds in an endeavour to track down the odd jumbuck to stuff into his tuckerbag.'

So opines Banjo. I disagree. Religion does a great deal of harm.

For a start it addles the thinking processes, confuses and frightens immature folk and children, leads to conflict between competing religions, leads people to accept what are fantasies as realities, seeks to control the behavior of members of the flock and encourages them to give generously to religious institutions, encourages weak-minded people to believe they need a crutch to lean on, makes promises it can't keep (living forever), and has always been in the forefront of militarism (see the U.S. Army)!

Religion is the world's greatest fraud and it's time it was put on the scrapheap along with goblins, witches, and vampires!

Like all threads which include something about the deity this one has quickly filled with people who hasten to demonstrate their intellectual superiority by mocking believers.

These people are too clever to be "still desperately clinging to superstition and nonsensical primitive beliefs".They are way to smart to accept a "delusion". Not for them beliefs that addle thought or confuse these poor immature folk.

The underlying theme is that the believer is unsophisticated and unthinking, unlike the thoughtful and prescient unbeliever.

So let's look at a few examples of these thoughtless believers who probably also believe in vampires and goblins....Obama, Tony Blair, K Rudd. Poor deluded fools...if only they had given the whole thing some thought, they could join the ranks of the truly intelligent who just know there is no deity.

.

Dear GlenC,

.

I do not see which comment or post of mine you are referring to.

All the quotations you indicate appear to be from Peter Sellick's article. They certainly do not correspond to anything I wrote.

It seems you are confusing me with our dear friend, Peter Sells - which I find quite amusing.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” [Matthew 22:21 (21st Century King James Version)]

.

Dear mhaze,

Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief.

Dear Mhaze,

Yes, there are many haters of God, here and elsewhere. It all starts with people wanting to cling to their sins and have them justified - the rest are only excuses.

This is not to say that organised religion has no sins of its own and makes no mistakes: much of the misconceptions about religion are owed to them and should be placed on their doorstep, but beyond these, no amount of logic and common-sense is of use when facing pure hatred by those who are so attached to their sins they may do anything to justify them, libel being the least of those.

What can you say when despite the principle of non-violence (ahimsa) and despite Jesus' instructions to turn the other cheek, people equate religion with... militarism, no less?

For the convenience of haters of God, everyone belonging to a religious organisation (or an organisation that claims to be religious), is in fact religious, so according to them the crusaders, witch-burners, control-seekers, extortionists, the primitive and superstitious, false-promisers and child-frighteners were/are truly and perfectly religious, just as for Jew-haters it became a "fact" that the Jews used the blood of Christian babies for their Passover preparations (and indeed control America and all the banks). Nothing can move them out of that position because the justification of their sins depends on it.

This is what makes admitting that one is a sinner such a great step that opens one's path to God.

david f,

>>“Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief.”<<

That is a very insightful comment. And it is one backed up supposedly by the Roman Seneca but this quote is probably not his. It still has a ring of truth about it though.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.”

We can never know as you say what politicians believe if they don’t spell it out. Considering they are making social policy in many instances based on religion, it is an unacceptable situation that they don’t. They are elected with the expectation they will work for the informed wishes of the electorate, not for their imagined immortal souls. If they can’t do that, then the priesthood might be a better choice of occupation.

A fair position for a democracy would have all politicians stating their faith beliefs before an election and clearly explaining how those beliefs would influence their decisions if elected.

Giving politicians the power to override sensible social policy because of their secret religious beliefs is not the smartest part of our system of governance.

David

Dear David,

You wrote: "A fair position for a democracy would have all politicians stating their faith beliefs before an election and clearly explaining how those beliefs would influence their decisions if elected."

I think that is a bad idea. There is enough public posturing of politicians to show how one is more virtuous or more religious than another politician. I am turned off by the fact that Australian politicians bring in such irrelevant matters as the footy team they root for. What is important is the politicians record and position on issues.

Julia Gillard is an atheist. However, she truckles to the Australian Christian Lobby. She has pushed the National School Chaplaincy Program. I would rather vote for a religious believer such as Jimmy Carter who supported the separation of religion and state than an atheist like Gillard who has little or no regard for it. Billy Graham was a frequent visitor to the White House. Although Carter was a born again Christian he, like Harry Truman, were the two presidents during Graham's prominence who never had him in the White House.

It is divisive and harmful to democracy to vote for a politician on the basis of that politician's religious belief. The fundies in the US push people to vote for other fundies.

I regard religion or the lack of it as a private matter. I am more interested in what a person does than what a person believes.

I am an atheist. However, that is my business, and a politician's religion is his or her business.

Separation of religion and state is extremely important to me. The belief or lack of it in the citizenry should be no business of government.

david f,

I disagree. It is not the belief so much as what that brings to the political table that matters.

With Julia Gillard we know she is an atheist and therefore her views at variance with rationality are brought about by something else.

Religious beliefs are not a personal matter if they affect the common interest.

David

Dear David,

We disagree very much. I regard people by what they do not by what they state they believe.

Thomas Jefferson said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

That is my attitude.

david f,

I don't think you read my last post. Yes, it is what they do and a religious person is likely to do what the majority doesn't want them to do or won't do what they do want based on religious grounds against the majority wishes.

As a hypothetical and as opposition to voluntary euthanasia is nearly exclusively on religious grounds, would you vote for a politician who said their religion would prevent them from bringing such a system into law? I'd be interested to hear your answer.

This is the last thing each of us may potentially have to face. Such a politician should openly declare that stance. It may not happen to us personally but compassion for other people is what humans are all about.

Gone are the days, thank goodness, where people can hide in their religion because of undeserved respect for it.

I suggest you put your case on the AFA Forums and battle it out there.

If we are at an impasse then so be it.

David

Dear David,

You have suggested that politicians state their religious preferences and how it would affect their acts. I think it is a very bad thing as it would bring discussions regarding religion into election campaigns and lead to a closer union of religion and state. I am for their separation.

It is more important what public officials or anybody else do than what they say. We can look at the actions of Bush 2 and Obama. Dubya made displays of public piety and initiated the Faith Based Initiatives programs. Obama kept the Faith Based Initiatives programs for which I have criticised him. However, I was wrong. Rather than getting rid of the Faith Based Initiatives programs or making public pronouncements Obama has appointed a woman as head of the program. She previously headed an organisation devoted to furthering the separation of church and state. By his act Obama has furthered the separation without making public pronouncements or getting into argument. It is important to work for the separation. It is not important to justify my positions to you or the AFA.

Taking my cue from Obama I shall continue to do what I can to further the separation without arguing with the AFA as you suggested or anybody else.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725&page=0 and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790&page=0 refer you to two articles I have written on the separation for olo. I am supporting Ron Williams’ suit, writing a history of the separation and an article on the subject which will go into a magazine.

What people do is more important than what they say.

"Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief."

Oh, so these people aren't really believers, they're just lying to get ahead? So a nice piece of logic you've got going there fellas. Anyone who is a beleiver in "sky fairies" is, according to you, an unthinking simpleton and if they obviously aren't an unthinking simpleton, then they are just lying.

given that Aust has had two avowed atheist PMs, I wonder why Rudd would need to lie about this...but I'm sure you'll have some rationalisation.

Let's take a few non-political examples....Rustum Roy, Henry F. Schaefer, III, Francis Collins, Georges Lemaître. All just fibbing for personal gain?

I have just one point to make. This view that atheists are more logical, more intelligent, more evolved (struth, what conceit!) than those who believe in the deity is demonstrably wrong. Belief is an issue of faith, not logic.

This running around, beating your chest and asserting that those who don't agree with you are somehow unthinking simpletons, is infantile.

The new term for creation is intelligent design; this is an attempt to conceal an outdated concept which allowed humans to cope with things they did not understand. With better science and knowledge surely we can put creation behind us. A serious downside to the concept of creation is that it closes the inquisitive minds of the young. The simple “God made it all in six days” should never be used to explain complex physics or science generally.

I'm not sure that you are on solid ground with this argument, mhaze.

>>This view that atheists are more logical, more intelligent, more evolved (struth, what conceit!) than those who believe in the deity is demonstrably wrong. Belief is an issue of faith, not logic.<<

If faith equals belief, not logic, then the field is wide open for atheists to demonstrate - with logic - that they are altogether smarter and more evolved.

All that you have available to you as a defence, by your own admission, is that you believe they are wrong. A position that you are completely unable to support with evidence, having hobbled your own arguments by claiming that faith is superior to evidence and logic.

I suspect that you need to find a rationale that supports your contention a little more strongly. Right now, all you can say is that "I believe..." is equally intelligent an approach as "logically speaking...".

Otherwise, your contention that atheists are "demonstrably wrong" is merely vacuous bravado.

I must write a long essay on the failure of reason in defining ethics, meaning and telos. Sure it is good with the physical world but when it comes to the existential questions it is wanting. The English Enlightenment produced theology based on reason alone. Its failure produced any kind of result except naive biblicism produced the reaction of relativism and perspectivism. That is, the failure of reason to produce an adequate description of what it means to be human resulted in the abandonment of the search for truth and its substitution by consensus. Now we do not talk about truth, we talk about stakeholders and attempt a democratic solution to pressing problems. The inadequacy of such an approach may be seen in the interminable discussion with no resolution to such problems as abortion. Without a concept of God that is associated with truth we flounder in a sea of perspectives. Read MacIntyre. The attempt to separate church and state and to sequester the religious into the realm of the private robs public debate of the only method of deciding crucial questions. This is not just a matter of obedience to biblical rules, an absurd idea, but a matter of engaging in a tradition that has worked its way through errors and falsehood to produce a rationality fitted to the job.

All of these accusations against the religious of being naive is superfluous, you refuse to engage in the topic at hand.

Peter Sellick

.

Dear David G,

.

"Religion does a great deal of harm ..."
.

That's a fairly comprehensive list of the negative aspects of religion. Of course, it also has a positive side.

Nobody can deny it offers valuable alternative services to those provided by the state in such essential areas as public education and health.

The active involvement of religious groups in social and charity work is also widely appreciated.

The term "religion" derives from the Latin "religare" which means to tie, fasten or bind. Religion links people together. It acts as a catalyst in engendering and maintaining social and political cohesion.

But "religion" means much more than that. It embodies a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, considered as the creation of a superhuman agency, involving devotional and ritual observances, and containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Its appeal to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow his or their teachings and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Faith is the strategy of survival primitive man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It served him well when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena of which he understood nothing and had no warning. He invented gods and worshiped them in exchange for their pacification.

Faith continues to save lives in insupportable and hopeless situations during natural catastrophes. It remains a powerful arm in the face of adversity.

But faith in what? For those of us who have had the privilege of understanding that it was primitive man who invented deity and passed it down as a lasting legacy to successive generations, the concept has completely lost its credibility.

Deity is dispensable. Faith is not. We cannot afford to do without faith. It remains a precious arm for survival. We must find a new, credible safe haven for our faith, each and every one of us.

.

Pericles,

I think you've misunderstood what I'm on about here. I'm NOT saying that atheists are wrong in their beliefs. Indeed, I'm agnostic on the question of whether there is a deity.

Where I'm saying they are wrong is their view that believers unthinkingly accept what they've been taught, that believers are less evolved, that the beliefs of theists are illogical. If, as I've done, I can show that there are myriad theists who are demonstrably intelligent, logical and scientific then the claims of those atheists here must fail.

Within the names I've mentioned we have the leader of the genome project and the man who first proposed the big bang theory. To claim they are less evolved, less logical than those here is arrant and arrogant nonsense.

Belief in the deity is not logical. It is faith based. It therefore cannot be disproven with logic. The assertions that we know how the universe works sans a deity misunderstands where we are at the moment. For example, our current understanding is that we need to postulate a 'dark matter' that dwarfs all other visible matter. We can't see 'dark matter', we don't know where it is, what it is, how it exists, how it works. We just know, or think we know, that the universe doesn't work without it. So, given our scientific understanding of the universe, we have faith that 'dark matter' exists. In that regard it is in precisely the same category as the deity.

Indeed if we renamed 'dark matter' to Jehovah, we could end all disputes....(grin).

BTW, give my best to Aspasia.

david f,

American politics is not comparable to the Australian brand when it comes to religion. The USA has become trapped by its own religious fantasy and Australia is not there nor ever will be.

I am not only opposed to politicians not revealing how they would vote if they follow a religion, I am strong opposed to that notion.

It is a deceit on the public not to declare the outcome of beliefs by politicians if those beliefs will impact on legislation against the wishes of the population. It would be a very similar case if a politician held the belief that powerful intelligent aliens would save humanity from itself so there is need to worry about pollution, the environment, the starving etc. Such a belief would impact on everyone against their wishes.

The quasi-magical thinking in that politician’s mind is little different than the magical thinking in the minds of some religious politicians. The point is not what the politician believes so much, it is the outcome of those beliefs and the electorate should have full knowledge of them.

In one instance, the politician is the only one who believes the nonsense about space-entities putting things right and in the other; many people believe it with religion. That is only an argument about numbers, not about truth.

I wouldn’t vote for such a politician, would you?

And here is a sub-question. Should the public have knowledge of the alien-believing politician’s fanciful ideas?

And you didn’t answer my previous hypothetical.

Of course there should be a separation of church and state. No sensible person not trying to gain advantage for a particular ideology would argue otherwise. But religion, like any ideology can be so insidiously incorporated in the mind of some ideologues, they believe decisions made which are against the wishes of the population have a basis in fact and are justified when they are not. Religion is one ideology that can do that.

This is not a proof of anything but few atheists within my knowledge-base believe that religion should be a private matter with politicians.

David

As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”

eg Lysenkoism, new age gaianism, communism, nazism, eugenics, Heaven's Gate,

Many will argue that environmentalism carries many of the traits of religion including a belief in an idyllic past, Armageddon, original sin.

Every human society that has existed has had a religion of some sort or other. Humans need it. If its not a belief in a deity its a belief in something which is often worse.

I think it is about time we declared a moratorium on using etymology as evidence. This one - thank you Banjo Paterson - rears its ugly head from time to time, and is a classic case in point.

>>The term "religion" derives from the Latin "religare" which means to tie, fasten or bind.<<

Not necessarily.

Everybody is agreed that the English word religion derives from the Latin noun religio, which was used as a label for an interesting range of conditions - "scrupulousness", "pious misgivings", "superstition", "conscientiousness", "sanctity", "an object of veneration", "cult-observance" and "reverence".

However, taking the next analytical step, not everyone agrees on the root of that Latin word. Cicero, for example, declared that it came from re + legere, to read, or go over a text. Reflecting, presumably, the need to study the customs and strictures before committing oneself. Judaism may well have been the model he had in mind, for example.

Nor, perhaps more interestingly, does Augustine agree, adding the possibility that it derived from re + eligere, to choose, select, collect, gather. That he made this pitch at roughly the same time in the fourth century that the Christian writer Lactantius fixed upon re + ligare, to bind, make fast, gives an idea of the fluidity of the scholarship involved.

I'm not making a case for any of these, simply pointing out that to choose the meaning of a word based upon a contested etymology doesn't actually achieve anything of value, in terms of understanding.

The fact that we are all fully aware of what the word religion means to us in the twentyfirst century should be enough, surely.

Dear Pericles,

<<The fact that we are all fully aware of what the word religion means to us in the twentyfirst century should be enough, surely.>>

Apparently not!

As far as I am concerned, religion is whatever re-binds us with God (not with other people, as mentioned by Banjo). This is what 'religion' means to me, whether in this or in any other century: whenever I mention 'religion', this is what I mean and I have no interest in any later meanings attached to this word over the years like the beard growing on a ship's hull.

One implication, relating to the David-David discussion, is that some politicians could be religious without knowing it while others might claim to be religious, but are not. Loyalty and adherence to the teachings of an organisation which claims to be 'a religion' is a separate matter; and while occasionally useful, is neither a requisite of religion, nor a proof thereof.

Also, heavily discussed here is the topic of belief: One who believes in God (or gods) is not necessarily religious while one who does not believe is not necessarily irreligious. While belief is often used as a religious method, it is certainly neither a requisite for religious life, nor a proof thereof.

Understandably from a psychological point of view, people who hate God and wish to stay away from Him are delighted in attaching the word 'religion' to some of the darkest institutions that routinely abuse His holy name. That they wish everyone to believe that this is what 'religion' means, is no big surprise either.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

G.K. Chesterton was a brilliant mind. He was known as "the prince of paradox". He was invested by Pope Pius XI as Knight Commander with Star of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great.

Often accused of anti-Semitism, the Chesterton Society has proposed that he be beatified.

.

Dear Pericles,
.

" ... to choose the meaning of a word based upon a contested etymology doesn't actually achieve anything of value ..."

Point well taken and I admire your erudition. Thank you for your analysis.

I confess to having taken a shortcut (OLO word limit oblige) to highlight the "unpublicised" reality of the close cooperation and mutual complicity of political rule and religion, whose mutual interest is, and has always been, to cultivate social cohesion within the "flock" in order to inseminate order and control of mind, body and "soul" so innocuously that it is imperceptible except to the odd "lost sheep".

Throughout history, rulers have imposed conversion of their subjects and conquests to their own religion for this very reason. Others guaranteed freedom of religion, as in later democracies, some separating church and state, for exactly the same reason. Different method but same objective by more indirect, more intelligent and, for that reason, perhaps more effective means.

.

Dear Yuutsyu,
.

"As far as I am concerned, religion is whatever re-binds us with God (not with other people, as mentioned by Banjo). This is what 'religion' means to me, ..."

Your understanding is as good as mine.

May I suggest that you see yourself as a lonesome cowboy riding across life's plains from dawn to dusk, whereas from my perspective, you are sitting on a bandwagon among the rest of the "flock", with religion up front, holding the reigns and the State riding shotgun beside it.

Ghost riders in the sky? Sort of. From where I am sitting, I can see them. But from where you are sitting, you can't.

Quite frankly, it does not make much difference. We'll all reach sunset before dawn - hopefully.

.

.

Dear Peter Sells,

.

"I must write a long essay on the failure of reason in defining ethics, meaning and telos."

A short one will do.

But, no hurry. April will be fine.

.

Dear Banjo,

<<May I suggest that you see yourself as a lonesome cowboy riding across life's plains from dawn to dusk, whereas from my perspective, you are sitting on a bandwagon among the rest of the "flock", with religion up front, holding the reigns and the State riding shotgun beside it.>>

Very interesting!

Whenever two orthogonal rays move their perpendicular way, there always is a line (or plane) of perspective from where they seem together (or in-line in 3D).

Thank you for this perspective. I am sure the government itself sees me rather as nuisance, not interested in either following or breaking their laws, not recognising their worldly authority (enforced as you say by their shotgun), instead recognising God as my only true and eternal authority. True they occasionally rub shoulders with institutional-religion, but not with me.

Yuyutsu,

>>” there are many haters of God”<<
>>” For the convenience of haters of God”<<
>>” people who hate God”<<

Oxford Concise Dictionary – Hate: Strong aversion to or dislike of

You see how this is a conscious act and the conscious part is vital in hatred.

Who are these people that hate your ‘God’? It can’t be atheists as they don’t acknowledge the existence of any of the 3,000 gods purported to have existed. That would be like hating bugs bunny which would be nonsense as well as a waste of time.

It can’t be anyone who actually considers your ‘God’ does exist as that would be really stupid because of the imagined known dire consequences.

And please don’t use the height of ignorance and arrogance and say it is those who don’t acknowledge its existence because by doing so they are automatically placed in the list of god-haters. That would be a really dumb thing to say as no conscious effort is expended as needed by the definition of hate.

It can’t be those in your judgemental mind who you consider are ‘sinning’ against your particular ‘God’ if they don’t accept it exists as they do not consciously hate your particular ‘God’ and are not intentionally ‘sinning’ against it. It can’t be people of other religions as they have their own ‘God(s)’ and don’t believe your god exists. There is no conscious part of their thinking that hates your god.

Even those who accept your imaginary god exists don’t hate it even if they are ‘sinning’ against it. Moments of weakness cannot be classed as hatred if not intentional hatred.

Accusing any of the above groups of hating your particular ‘God’ only demonstrates you are deluded. Sorry to be the one to let you know.

So, if you would like to use the language we use on planet earth in sensible communication in an effort to procure a reasonable outcome, how about hop down from your slightly elevated pony and let us know who hates your particular illusory ‘God’? I’m sure it needs you defending it.

David

Nup. That's just plain inconsistent, Yuyutsu.

>>...I have no interest in any later meanings attached to this word over the years like the beard growing on a ship's hull<<

In your excitement, you may not have noticed that you have chosen one of those "later meanings" yourself. Cicero had the first words on the subject , five hundred years before Lactantius came along with a brand new, entirely self-serving suggestion.

What you really mean is that you have rejected the earliest assessment of its Latin root, as well as the later suggestion of St Augustine of Hippo, in favour of the version proposed - with absolutely no scholarship to back it up - by a zealous convert who relied on the patronage of Constantine.

Entirely nothing wrong with that, of course. You are absolutely free to choose any version that serves your own purposes. It just helps your credibility a little if you acknowledge these little things along the way.

Of course, because your version is only one of a number, you will also understand how it tends to weaken your generalizations about what religion "is" or "isn't".

You can still explain what religion means to you, of course, which is interesting in its own way. But because you have tied your explanation to one particular interpretation, out of a number of equally plausible etymologies, it detracts more than a little from your argument.

>>That they wish everyone to believe that this is what 'religion' means, is no big surprise either.<<

Are you now able to see the irony in that sentence?

Religions should be forced to prove their claims and be able to be sued if they can't provide evidence.

If I sold an elixir that I claimed would enable people to live forever I would soon be put out of business and/or put in jail! It's called fraud.

Religions promise all manner of things, yet they can't substantiate any one of them.

It should be a case of no proof, no Xmas pudding.

David wrote :"Who are these people that hate your ‘God’".

I think you'll find that when Yuyutsu refereed to " people who hate God"
he was talking about those who hate the notion of God as well as those who hate all the institutions and ramifications of theism.

You shouldn't take things so literally...maybe that's why you don't understand Genesis. :)

mhaze,

I understand Genesis quite well enough to know it can’t be a literal description of reality. But, if you think otherwise, talk to someone else about it.

You are mistaken about ‘hating’ the notion of a god. It’s just a notion to dwell on. Dwelling soon shows the absurdity of people’s interpretation of the notion though. And speaking of dwelling, it would be great to have a sane god running things instead of the monster depicted. And no, I don’t hate the monster depicted because it is make-believe. But dwelling won’t make it true.

Hating the institutions and ramifications of theism is counterproductive. Most atheists are more inclined to point out the irrelevancies, inadequacies and absurdities involved.

No hate there as you can see, just observation. But, religion needs to be hated in good old martyr style. It supports a self-righteous attitude.

And let’s wait for Yuyutsu’s explanation, shall we. Let’s shall.

David

mhaze,

<<Where I'm saying [atheists] are wrong is their view that believers unthinkingly accept what they've been taught, that believers are less evolved, that the beliefs of theists are illogical.>>

That’s a pretty big generalisation given that the only thing atheists have in common is the absence of a belief in any deities. I suspect you’re actually talking about anti-theists (with anti-theism being a subset of atheism) and even then, that’s still a pretty bold generalisation. As an anti-theist myself, I don’t think theists are “less evolved” (WTF?!) and as someone who is very interested in counter-apologetics, I can’t remember the last time I heard someone refer to theistic beliefs as “illogical”, more that they’re irrational or that they go against reason.

<<If, as I've done, I can show that there are myriad theists who are demonstrably intelligent, logical and scientific then the claims of those atheists here must fail.>>

So who are these atheists, anyway? They sound like real blowhards. Anyone can make an off-the-cuff remark that they don't actually mean from time-to-time, but I've never seen an atheist seriously claim that theists can't be intelligent, logical or scientific.

<<To claim they are less evolved, less logical than those here is arrant and arrogant nonsense.>>

It certainly would be! Just as arrogant as elitist agnostics who attempt to take the moral high ground by inventing their own definition of "atheist" and pretending to know what all these atheists think.

<<Belief in the deity is not logical. It is faith based.>>

I could think of many believers who disagree with you there. Either way, though, that doesn’t make faith immune from criticism. Faith is simply a belief held without good reason; it’s not a magical position that cannot, by fiat, be criticised.

Can you explain what on earth you think it is about faith that grants it such a unique privilege that no other mode of thought in this world is afforded?

<<It therefore cannot be disproven with logic.>>

Quite the non sequitur here.

Continued…

…Continued

My suspicions - on any given topic - may not be “logical” (or based on logic, as I presume you actually meant), but that doesn’t mean logic can’t disprove them.

<<The assertions that we know how the universe works sans a deity misunderstands where we are at the moment.>>

No, some just realise that to insert a deity into the gaps in our knowledge is to commit the argument from ignorance fallacy, and that “I don’t know” is a more honest and constructive approach.

<<For example, our current understanding is that we need to postulate a 'dark matter' that dwarfs all other visible matter. We can't see 'dark matter', we don't know where it is, what it is, how it exists, how it works. We just know, or think we know, that the universe doesn't work without it.>>

I’ve already discredited your dark matter analogy… http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#152488

<<So, given our scientific understanding of the universe, we have faith that 'dark matter' exists. In that regard it is in precisely the same category as the deity.>>

No, faith is belief without good reason. We have good reason to believe dark matter exists.

<<As Chesterton said, “He who does not believe in God will believe in anything.”>>

I could just as easily say, “He who believes in God will believe in anything”. But by agreeing with this, you are guilty of the same flawed reasoning and generalising that you accuse your mythical atheists of.

Even more curious, however, is that by referring to yourself as “agnostic”, you are including yourself in the category that Chesterton was talking about.

<<If its not a belief in a deity its a belief in something which is often worse.>>

Really? So what belief have you taken up in replacement of your lack of belief in deities?

And what makes you (and Chesterton, for that matter) think that a belief in deities is any sort of inoculation against the other beliefs you listed? Indeed, belief in deities is often used as a justification for some of those beliefs you listed.

Dear Mhaze,

<<I think you'll find that when Yuyutsu refereed to " people who hate God" he was talking about those who hate the notion of God as well as those who hate all the institutions and ramifications of theism.>>

Sorry that I had no time to reply to David (and others) yet, I'm rather busy today and probably will not be able to answer in full until Sunday, but your assertion about my reference is incorrect.

Indeed, I admit that David is right and my reference to "haters of God" was a bit loose in language. While in my circle of friends what I meant is clearly understood the way I meant it, I failed to notice that others don't read it the same way and that's my fault.

For those who (mistakenly) think of God as either an entity; a deity; a being; or a notion, indeed hating God means something different altogether to what I meant.

What is it to me anyway if others hate an entity, a deity, a being, a notion, a bunch of institutions, theism or its ramifications? I consider that ordinary.

Perhaps I should have written instead "haters of religion", but that should not to be confused with those who hate religious doctrines and/or institutions (some or all), rather "those who hate coming closer to God", but even that is still likely to be misunderstood, so shall I say "those who hate and try to avoid that gut-feeling of coming closer to God (even while they cannot recognise it by name)"? it somehow conveys that hating God then is akin to hating spinach: one just has that aversion even if they don't recognise that green vegetable in front of them. Then of course, one could mistake God for a vegetable or an object, so it may still not carry across what I am trying to say. Let's see if I can come with a better definition/description when I have more time.

AJP, I wasn't suggesting that all atheists think theists are unevolved, unthinking. Read my original post. I was talking about the subset of atheists that rush to ridicule theists whenever OLO has a religious thread. Some among those do claim that atheists are more evolved.

Sorry but half your double post is based on a misunderstanding.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on the dark matter issue. I must say however, that I admire your unbounded (or is it unfounded) faith that merely disagreeing with my point is the same as discrediting it.

There is no evidence for dark matter. It is assumed to be there because people have faith that their models of how the universe works arecorrect. No DM and their models are wrong. Are you aware that some scientists do indeed think the models are wrong and that DM doesn't exist? Equally theists have faith that their model of how the universe works is correct and that therefore the deity must exist.

I suspect you don't get this point because you are so wedded to the scientific worldview. You keep saying we don't need to insert a deity into the universe to see how it works. But at the same time you think its perfectly fine to insert something we've never seen, don't know anything about, don't know where it comes from or goes, don't know where it is, etc etc. Basically all we know is that we need it to make our models make sense. Ditto Yahweh.

Mankind is very arrogant in this regard. Each generation feels that it has a handle on how the universe works and that its only a matter of confirmation. But later generations look back and wonder just how they were so confident. We, despite our hubris, are no better. We think we've got it worked out even as we admit there may be 90% of the universe that we haven't got the faintest idea about.

A little less arrogance and a lot more "I don't know" would do the world a lot of good.

mhaze,

<<I wasn't suggesting that all atheists think theists are unevolved, unthinking. Read my original post. I was talking about the subset of atheists that rush to ridicule theists whenever OLO has a religious thread.>>

In your first post, yeah. But then read the first two paragraphs of your post to Pericles. There was a reason I quoted your second paragraph.

<<Sorry but half your double post is based on a misunderstanding.>>

Apparently not. I suggest you take more care with your wording, though.

<<I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on the dark matter issue.>>

No, people tend to do that only when an impasse is reached; having your analogy shown to be invalid, only to repeat it later without sufficient justification as to why it IS valid, is not an impasse.

<<I must say however, that I admire your unbounded ... faith that merely disagreeing with my point is the same as discrediting it.>>

Since when have I merely disagreed with it? You do know the difference between merely disagreeing with something and demonstrating why it is wrong, don't you?

<<There is no evidence for dark matter.>>

You do know the difference between evidence and confirmation, don't you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence)

<<It is assumed to be there because people have faith that their models of how the universe works arecorrect.>>

No, it is hypothesised that dark matter is there because that is what our observations suggest.

Again, faith is belief without good reason, and having one's models consistent with what we observe is a good reason to believe them. That they may turn out to be wrong one day is irrelevant.

So your "faith" tag is still wrong but thanks for giving me the opportunity to point out another reason as to why your dark matter analogy is wrong too.

<<You keep saying we don't need to insert a deity into the universe to see how it works. But at the same time you think its perfectly fine to insert something we've never seen...>>

Yes, and I had already explained why in the post that I linked to.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"I am sure the government itself sees me rather as nuisance, not interested in either following or breaking their laws, not recognising their worldly authority (enforced as you say by their shotgun), instead recognising God as my only true and eternal authority."
.

That sounds reasonable, Yuyutsu. I see things much the same way though I do recognise the authority of a freely elected, democratic government and am willing to accept the legal consequences of any conscientious breach of law which I consider to be unjust.

Another difference, of course, is that I do not refer to any god or gods as a standard of human behaviour. Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards. I am willing to offer resistance to any breach of those standards and often do.

I might add that Christian values are at the base of most laws in the Western world, inspired, inter alia, by those two biblical characters, Moses and Noah (Mosaic law and Noahide code). The other major source of inspiration, of course, are the laws imposed on us by nature.

Also, Paul of Tarsus, who appears to have been the principal promoter, perhaps the founder of Christianity (Jesus and his parents were Jews), following a vision of the "resurrected" Jesus, whom he never met, exercised a determining factor on the religious belief and philosophy of which we still find trace in man-made law today - known under its technical term of "positive law".

I mention this because it might reassure you to know that by "recognising their (the government's) - [legal] - worldly authority", you are only, so to say, respecting your god's "true and eternal authority" which is at the base of most of the laws adopted by Western society.

.

"But the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues."

This paragraph came from an article written by Richard Dawkins which can be read in full on Information Clearing House.

The final sentence is instructive!

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I thought I should mention that I share your aversion of "institutional-religion" - a notable exception, so far as I am concerned, being the Salvation Army.

A regrettable paradox of religion is that while it was designed to eliminate immorality it actually creates the conditions for fostering it. Its purifying action of washing the sins away and leaving the soul as white as snow is a process which can be repeated ad infinitum. This represents an irresistible temptation for some to take advantage of the facility in order to commit as many sins as they please, in complete impunity, before heading back to the laundry to wash their sins away once again.

The clergy welcomes one and all with open arms, saints and sinners alike. Just like the barbers who cut the hair of their colleagues, they too make good use of the facilities under their charge in order to launder their own grimy souls.

Naturally, the traditional immunity associated with the confessional has contributed to fostering widespread paedophilia among the clergy of the Catholic church, in particular (but not exclusively), at all levels of the hierarchy, worldwide.

And let us not forget that the Catholic church has notoriously been associated with the mafia ever since the Italian Unification in 1861 which resulted in the expropriation of the church's property and estates. Pope Pius IX subsequently rejected the legitimacy of the newly formed Italian state and established liaisons with local political groups invested by the mafia
.
The phenomenon later took on even greater importance with the signing of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 between Mussolini and Pope Pius XI and the creation of the independent Vatican State.

The finances of the Vatican are about as clear as mud. US State Department and the Italian authorities accused the Vatican of money laundering. In 1982, the Vatican was involved in the bankruptcy of Italy's largest private bank, the Banco Ambrosiano. Its president, Roberto Calvi, nicknamed "God's Banker", was found hanged beneath London's Blackfriars Bridge, with investigators unable to rule if it was murder or suicide.

.

Dear Banjo:

Google Salvation Army abuse, and you’ll find:

1. Paedophile ring 'lent out boys'
www.theage.com.au › Victoria
Dec 18, 2012 – ... including 137 from Bayswater - said systemic abuse by Salvation Army staff was so severe that in some cases boys were killed or allowed to ...

2. Parliamentary inquiry witness says Salvos flogged boys | Herald Sun
www.heraldsun.com.au/news/.../story-e6frf7kx-1226570338222
Feb 5, 2013 – Abuse victim Hugh McGowan described the government institutions in the ... he suffered sexual abuse in the Salvation Army's Box Hill home in ...

3. Salvation Army says sorry for abuse
news.smh.com.au/.../salvation-army-says-sorry-for-abuse-20101207-...
Dec 7, 2010 – So an apology by the Salvation Army for the abuse of children in its care up to the 1990s was welcome news for many of the survivors who ...

4. Don't bar offenders' stories of abuse | The Courier-Mail
www.couriermail.com.au/...abuse/story-e6frerc6-1226526962103
Nov 30, 2012 – Another man convicted of rape told me a Salvation Army officer had abused him in a boys' home. I heard so many of these stories that I began ...

AJP,

"In your first post, yeah. But then read the first two paragraphs of your post to Pericles. There was a reason I quoted your second paragraph. "

I can't help it if you want to jump into the middle of a conversation and get the wrong end of the stick. With a word limit, we can't afford to go restating caveats in each post. You'll just have to try harder to follow the thread.

I don't know if you don't understand this darkmatter issue because its too subtle or if you are determined to obfuscate because to do otherwise would mean you'd have to admit a dozen or so of your posts on the point are bollocks.

Did you read the article you linked to? It was making the exact point I've been trying to get you to see - that no one has seen DM and its existence is inferred based on how we think the universe and gravity works. The very first line says "The first person to interpret evidence and infer the presence of dark matter was....". If you read further down you'll see a paragraph about those who don't think DM exists and instead think the models are wrong and need changing.

I don't know how explain it any simpler. Scientists believe DM exists not through direct observation but because they need it to make their models work. And that's not a million miles from the thought processes many follow to infer the deity.

mhaze wrote: "I don't know how explain it any simpler. Scientists believe DM exists not through direct observation but because they need it to make their models work. And that's not a million miles from the thought processes many follow to infer the deity."

It is a million miles from the thought processes many follow to infer the deity. Inferring a deity doesn't explain how anything works. Just saying "God did it." explains nothing.

mhaze,

<<I can't help it if you want to jump into the middle of a conversation and get the wrong end of the stick.>>

It has nothing to do with what I want to do. And yes, you can. Again, you can start by wording what you say a little more carefully. 

You don't get to say "atheists" (implying all of them), only to refer back to an earlier post of yours in which you were talking about a few, and then accuse me of getting the wrong end of the stick.

That's deceitful. 

All you had to do was acknowledge the careless wording on your behalf and all would be forgiven. Instead, you choose the dishonest route by attempting to put the blame on me. 

Keep digging, mhaze. 

<<With a word limit, we can't afford to go restating caveats in each post.>>

Well, you need to. I do. All you had to say was, " I'm NOT saying that *the above* atheists are wrong in their beliefs."

That's two additional words.

Nice try, though. 

<<You'll just have to try harder to follow the thread.>>

Nope. We're not all mind-readers and we can't be expected to assume that you're still talking about the same thing when your words clearly say something else. You don't get to just write however you please and expect everyone else to be the ones to put all the effort in by trying interpret what you're saying. Take some responsibility for yourself.

<<[The Wikipedia article] was making the exact point I've been trying to get you to see - that no one has seen DM and its existence is inferred based on how we think the universe and gravity works.>>

No, that's not what your point had "been trying to get me to see". Your point was that dark matter cannot be seen, measured or verified, and neither can gods, so scientists must have faith too.

That's it.

Continued...

...Continued

I then link you to my post from months ago (in which I had pointed out that dark matter proves useful in explaining something, whereas gods are an excuse to stop looking and only serve as a dead end) while also adding that we at least have observations that are consistent with dark matter, and your only response was to change your angle of approach, walk dangerously close to the argument from ignorance fallacy by indirectly implying that a deity has as much explanatory power as dark matter and attempt to shift the goal posts...

<<Scientists believe DM exists not through direct observation but because they need it to make their models work.>>

Oh, so it has to be *direct* observation now, does it?

Says who?

No, it doesn't have to be *direct* observation. The fact that there are no observations to suggest a god (without resorting to the argument from ignorance fallacy) is enough to render you argument invalid.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for the tip and the info.

I had no idea paedophilia was so bad in the Salvation army. What a pity. They did great work in the Pacific during the Second World War.

Times change, unfortunately, not always for the better.

I have now wiped them off my list.

.

.

Dear David G.,

.

"Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues." (Richard Dawkins).
.

It is a pity Dawkins felt the need to employ the term "virtues", a moral designation, to describe the characteristics of scientific enquiry. It is inappropriate and unnecessary for proving his point.

As I see it, the human brain has developed three modes of thought to try to understand what life is all about: the philosophical mode, the religious mode and the scientific mode.

There was a certain amount of cross-fertilisation of all three modes during their early development, though less between the religious and scientific modes. The dogmatic approach of the former having rendered it rigid and less evolutive, the two found themselves on different trajectories, no longer able to cooperate together.

This had dramatic consequences due to the fact that the religious mode was the reigning mode of thought with the political rulers who used their power to impose their views under threat of severe sanctions.

However, this proved untenable as the scientific mode gradually demonstrated its superiority in an increasing number of domains.

As a result, the advocates of the religious mode were obliged to revise their strategy. Not only did they cease contesting scientifically proven facts but they now approved of them, i.e., once all doubt had finally been erased. They subsequently adopted a "wait and see" attitude before taking position on any further matters likely to be the object of scientific enquiry.

Never again would they expose themselves to scientific ridicule.

It is only after the scientific mode has revealed its conclusions and exhausted its resources (at least for the foreseeable future) that the advocates of the religious mode feel free to take position.

This strategy reposes on the well established principle that the more we learn, the more we realise we ignore. Ignorance grows faster than knowledge.

As Dawkins observes:

"Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of [science's] virtues."

.

Banjo, thanks for your comment and for this pearl: "Ignorance grows faster than knowledge."

Humans, strange, driven creatures that they are, seem destined to lie forever in a rancorous bed soiled by ignorance and superstition rather than to rise up, shower themselves thoroughly, rid themselves of the anachronistic goblin-witch-godmyth mentality, and live lives based upon reality and the need for a peaceful, caring humanitarian ethos.

The goblin-witch-godmyth mentality, if it is allowed to fester for much longer, will inevitably lead us to annihilation.

Perhaps it is a fitting end!

mhaze,

To ensure that we really nip this in the bud once and for all, let's take a more in-depth look into just how similar (or not) God and dark matter really are.

Dark matter helps to explain something, whereas God has no explanatory power at all.

Dark matter gives us an avenue of investigation (the LHC may detect it one day - what argument will you use then?), whereas "God did it" is the end of the line of inquiry and provides no motivation to look any further. 

Scientists don't engage in mental gymnastics to maintain the hypothesis and even if they were to, investigation and peer review would eventually see dark matter retire to the scrap heap eventually if it doesn't exist or it proves to be too inconsistent with what we observe and know.

Scientists don't claim that dark matter is above, or transcends, logic and reason in order to protect it like you seem to (and as many theists most certainly do) with religious beliefs by playing the faith card. 

[By the way, did you notice your little inconsistency there? They're both apparently "faiths", yet only religious belief is protected from logic and reason by somehow being above it all or in a different realm. Or are you really silly enough to claim that dark matter should be too? I don't think so.]

And yet despite all the above, your entire argument rests on the sole fact that neither can be seen and both are assumed (although dark matter is more *presumed*, despite your refusal to acknowledge that).

Really puts your analogy into perspective, doesn't it.

Dear David (AFA),

Sorry for the delay.

It was my mistake to use and take-for-granted the phrase, "God haters", which while part of my (and some others') common and intuitive experience and vocabulary, others may not share, thus is meaningless on a pure objective level.

I therefore must first clarify some terms:

1. When I speak of God, I don't refer to any of those "3000 gods purported to have existed", or anything else that may exist. If "it" may even possibly exist, then I label it "god" with a small-g (some people may use small-gods as a temporary aid, crutch or ladder-step on their religious path, but that's technical rather than of philosophical value).

2. When I speak of religion, I don't refer to any organisation or institute, teaching or doctrine. Religion is simply the process of coming closer to God. There are teachings and institutions which claim to promote and assist in bringing individuals closer to God: these may be rightly called "religions" (plural) only to the extent that they in fact achieve that purpose.

3. Hating is a feeling which need not be conscious. One may, for example, avoid walking through a certain street, detouring around it, without being conscious that the reason is their aversion to the smells emanating from a fish-shop on that street.

I have not mentioned "existence" in a word in my post that you were referring to, but in your post you mentioned the word "exist" and its derivatives 7 times. I consider this a red herring. I also wonder why this excessive emphasis on questions of existence.

Just because bugs-bunny does not exist, for example, hating bugs-bunny is not nonsense: if one holds the attitude of hating bugs-bunny and someone approaching at night SEEMS to that person as bugs-bunny, or REMIND him of bugs-bunny, which he therefore shoots, then that's serious business!

Having that out of the way, I admit that since God is not an object, I cannot define "God haters" either. I may only try to informally convey what I mean, just hoping you may get the feeling:

(continued...)

(...continued)

While religion often consists of conscious efforts to come closer to God, I believe that everyone occasionally and spontaneously experiences coming closer to God. While these religious experiences are not always conscious, some love them while others hate them (because they challenge their sinful mode of life, which deep inside they intuitively know is wrong).

Whether people love or hate the religious experience, some notice patterns of circumstances, such as being in certain places, doing certain things, avoiding others or associating with certain people, that increase the chances of those experiences occurring. Those who love religious experiences will therefore try to increase those circumstances while those who hate them will try to avoid those circumstances.

Among those who try to avoid religious experiences, there are people who desire to justify their avoidance - and one way to do that is to discredit, marginalise and silence religious people who love those experiences. These I call "God haters". They cannot suppress their own conscience indefinitely, yet they try.

Among those who love the religious experience, some try, for the benefit of others, to codify those circumstances that increase the chances of religious experiences. This gives rise to doctrines and "religions". While born of sincere, almost-scientific, attempt to identify "what works" on the path to God, some codes are more accurate than others while others are more speculative (and others yet were more accurate ages ago, but deteriorated since having parts lost and/or added and/or distorted). In any case, doctrines and "religions" are statistical in nature because no two people have the exact same experiences and religious path.

What more can delight haters of God than to find faults and weaknesses with codes, doctrines and "religions", some indeed faulty or weak, then generalise and claim with glee that ALL religions are false and should be outlawed?

Now that I explained this, I don't think you will any longer find it difficult to identify those people on this forum.

Dear Pericles,

The choice of etymology for 'religion' depends on one's attitude towards religion. Now as this sounds circular, I clarify: The choice of etymology for 'religion' depends on one's attitude towards the way-of-life of those who call themselves 'religious'.

The etymology I use is from inside the circle of religious people. I don't think you will find many people who call themselves 'religious' by any other etymology: other etymologies are generally imposed from the outside by people not following this way-of-life, and some are even derogatory in nature.

Now tell me, whose etymology is fairer to use for X - that of the group practising (or at least trying to practice) X, or that of those who wish to denigrate X?

---
Dear Banjo,

<<Kindness, politeness and fairness are my standards.>>

Then you are well on your way to God. God bless you!

<<A regrettable paradox of religion is that while it was designed to eliminate immorality it actually creates the conditions for fostering it. Its purifying action of washing the sins away and leaving the soul as white as snow is a process which can be repeated ad infinitum. This represents an irresistible temptation for some to take advantage of the facility in order to commit as many sins as they please, in complete impunity, before heading back to the laundry to wash their sins away once again.>>

This is an example of religious-degeneration, not of religion. Washing away of sins can only occur with true and profound attrition. How can a priest possibly declare with confidence that your sins have been washed away unless they are clairvoyant and know your heart-of-hearts?

Yuyutsu,

>>”It was my mistake to use and take-for-granted the phrase, "God haters", which while part of my (and some others') common and intuitive experience and vocabulary, others may not share, thus is meaningless on a pure objective level.”<<

Apology accepted. We all make mistakes verbally and in the written word when we allow our subjective thoughts to take control.

The rest of your explanation is overload to cover that subjectivity and I do not intend to address it. However, it does demonstrate the principle that anything can be argued to the nth degree, as in this case, but still remain subjective waffle.

I’m sure you have learnt the lesson that equating what you would like to think of others with what others actually think are not one and the same. I’m also sure you will not use that phrase again. Let me restate that with a variation. I’m also sure that you ‘shouldn’t ‘use that phrase again.

David

Perhaps the Atheist Foundation of Australia could define the difference between subjective and objective? This has been a philosophical conundrum for centuries and I am amused that the writer thinks there is such a sharp distinction. All perception involves the subject even if that perception is of a definable object. Of course in science one attempts to place purely subjective, that is projection, aside to get at the objective. That is one of the disciplines a scientist has to learn.

However, when we get to the humanities things are not so clear cut, if they are clear at all for science. An insistence on the objective over the subjective when listening to music will not get you very far. There is here an insistence that all knowledge and experience must pass through the filter of scientific epistemology. What you get when you apply this to the humanities is reductive nonsense. What you also get is an impoverished humanism that cannot cope with tragedy, does not know what constitutes good action and is subject to fad and fashion. As Chesterton remarked, the world is a trap for logicians. Thankfully very few people live by the constraints of scientific rationality, those who do are poor wretches indeed.

Nature is obviously more fundamental than creation. Nature has existed ever since anything existed. Creation myths are a human invention and didn't exist until humans invented the creation myths. When the human species dies out the creation myths will die with us, but nature will continue to exist. Nature is more fundamental than life itself - far more fundamental than a creation of one life form.

The statement that "Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature." is complete rubbish.

Sells,

I agree with a lot of what you say. Of course I don’t agree that anyone should put their subjective thinking into the arena as though everyone else has the same subjective thoughts.

And that is what I have explained to Yuyutsu.

That which can be questioned by objective science should be, and it should be done via scientific method so all can agree upon it and benefit by it.

That which can only be ascertained by revelation etc should be kept to self if there are adverse ramifications to others involved.

David

Dear David (AFA),

The choice to pay importance to objective existence, is itself subjectively-based.

Objective considerations only tell us what exists, how, where and when, but provide no values: it is meaningless for example to differentiate objectively between good and evil, hence which ramifications are "adverse" to others, is subjective.

---
Dear David F.,

It is funny how Genesis chapter 1 turned to be considered a creation myth. We must remember that at the time it was written there was no concept of history yet, nor of science. Chapter 1 (and the first 3 verses of chapter 2) never intended to be a factual account, but rather a poetical and fictional tribute to the seventh day - the Sabbath, using the 6-day build-up in order to emphasise the importance of taking time to rest.

Turning to the current article, if I read it correctly, especially if we understand that creation is unrelated to Genesis 1, what Peter refers to as 'Creation' has also nothing to do with the natural world, but everything to do with making it meaningful - while nature existed earlier, imbibing objects with meaning is thus likened to re-creating them. In Peter's words: "Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature because creation is where we truly live, where we find the source of life." Nature may have existed longer, but without meaning and [subjective-]life, existence is of no value.

Right on Yuyustu!. The whole point of the article is that creation is not nature. In the NT creation refers to the creation of a new people, the church that lives in the resurrection.

David, I cannot agree that the theological should be relegated to the private realm, after all, it consists in a social reality. The attempt to make religion private was initially proposed to inhibit religious violence. It results in relativism and perspectivism which enabals people to say: That is only your point of view. Taking the theological out of the public square robs us of the discussion that we need. You must remember that theology used to be understood as the queen of the sciences in that it ordered all things aright. I mourn the loss of this status and this is due to its relegation to the private.

When theology was barred from our universities the natural sciences were left undamaged but the humanities became fragmented and lost all direction. We are having this discussion now because the theological has been so neglected.
Peter

So much discussion! So many words! So little progress! People see what they want to see.

The clerics continue to have a field day exploiting human weaknesses. Dressed in their fine robes and elaborate head-wear, they continue to regurgitate conflicting words from ancient manuscripts while they make mysterious signs and put things in peoples' mouths and have them drink sips of wine and promise them eternal life!

These are promises that they know cannot be kept. They know that they are frauds but they live a comfortable lifestyle so what do they care?

The jails are filled with criminals. Clerics should be there too!

Yuyutsu,

Ah, solipsism, the last retreat of the wishful thinker. Solipsism relies on possibilities and not probabilities. One can live their lives in a non-caring way about others in a dream state by ascribing to such mind meandering.

I prefer to live in the world where I trust my senses and I can have due regard for life I observer and that I know about. It was summed up nicely by Bertrand Russell which I often quote. It is possible my most favourite.

"To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true."

Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization" (1923)

David

Sells, (Peter)

Unfortunately for religion, it attempts to propagate itself at every opportunity with disregard to ethical considerations. I agree - religion began its journey as a basic science trying to work out the world. But, when science got its act together, both it and religion parted company. Thankfully.

Rather than the loss of religion being a negative, it has proven to be very beneficial to those societies who have gone down that path. Countries with less, rather than more regard for religion are always at the top of the happiness and wellbeing scale in surveys.

Regardless of that point, even though you and I and everyone else living in such a fortunate country as Australia benefits by the godlessness, it will never be the case that all people will believe in supernatural concepts without full-on indoctrination. To think otherwise is to not understand how religion is believed in and propagated.

David

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"Then you are well on your way to God. God bless you!"
.

That's very kind of you, Yuyutsu, but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me have your own blessing instead.

"On my way to God"?

I am sure your god is a nice person and pleasant company, but that's not exactly where I would like to be heading. My idea of heaven is a little different.

Please forgive me if this offends you, but I have fairly simple tastes and do not aspire to eternity.

Here is the sort of thing that could please me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NI83UrxIKY

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

For most of our history we have been tribal creatures thinking that our values and our ideas are the only ones worthwhile. For many years both Christians and Jews have accepted their parts of the Bible as literal truth.

With knowledge of tribal cultures in anthropology and knowledge of other advanced cultures we have come to realise that the development of our myths have gone through a process analogous to that of other people. We have also acknowledged the syncretic process where religions take from other religions and other cultures. With the translation of cuneiform tablets and other increased knowledge we have become aware that the Bible stories are the Hebrew version of legends current in the society of the time. The Bible has absorbed creation stories of the Sumerians, the Babylonians and other surrounding peoples and treated them as the word of God.

Many of us now influenced by that knowledge are aware that the Bible is merely the product of a people analogous to the way other people have produced their founding myths. We can talk of God, but we can also realise that God is a human invention. In Asia there are religions such as Buddhism which do not postulate the existence of a God. One can have religion without God. God is a human invention, and the Bible contains a collection of myths along with other material. The first 18 chapters of Genesis are pure myth.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “… what Peter refers to as 'Creation' has also nothing to do with the natural world, but everything to do with making it meaningful - while nature existed earlier, imbibing objects with meaning is thus likened to re-creating them. In Peter's words: "Creation is a more fundamental notion than nature because creation is where we truly live, where we find the source of life." Nature may have existed longer, but without meaning and [subjective-]life, existence is of no value.”

I do not feel that the mumbojumbo of Peter’s religious myth contribute to making anything meaningful. We may enjoy biblical legends as poetry, but they do not add meaning. I don’t agree that existence is of no value without meaning, and I also do not agree that Peter’s mumbojumbo is necessary to give it meaning. I agree that nature in itself has no meaning nor does life.

Existence is of value in itself. I wake up in the morning and am happy that my wife is there. If there is sunlight it is beautiful to see the pattern of the dappled shadows. If there is not sunlight I enjoy watching the rain. I so love this world and am glad to be alive in it. I did not know what it was before I was born and will not know what it is when I am dead. I feel that it is in my genes to enjoy life and assume that some of my ancestors felt the same way. Perhaps feeling that way is an aid to survival, and my feelings are a product of Darwinian natural selection. I am still interested in learning what I can about our world - good things like mathematics, geology, art etc. Life and what I can experience is enough. I do not need to create a Creator.

Dear Sells,

You wrote: "The attempt to make religion private was initially proposed to inhibit religious violence. It results in relativism and perspectivism which enabals people to say: That is only your point of view."

People say, "That is only your point of view." because that is all it is. That is all that religion is, a point of view shared by a number of people.

Science is more than that. Experiments or observations can show a scientific theory to be false. If it is then it is abandoned. However, if no evidence can be found to challenge it is accepted provisionally and used as a basis for creating technology or further scientific investigation. It can still be proven false or inadequate as Newtonian mechanics has been for objects traveling at high speeds.

There are no tests to prove any religion false. They all rest on faith. As such all religions including yours are merely points of view.

David,
No religion began as a protoscience. You forget that natural science only arose in the 15th C and all religions, including Islam began before that. This mistake is disastrous for our conversation because it posits religious ideas as scientific or an attempt at what we now understand as scientific. That is to project modern concepts back to the ancient world. For example, the creations narratives were not causal explanations of the genesis of the world. Read the first (the priestly) account and it sounds like liturgy it does not even look like a scientific explanation.

I reiterate my point, creation is not nature. Having worked as a scientist and a theologian I know the difference. Again we attempt to filter all ideas through the sieve of modern scientific epistemology.

The attempt to spread Christianity in its pure form is to simply tell the stories of the faith and hope that something in them will resonate with hearers. That is all we can do. All this talk about indoctrination is absurd, except for the dangerous cults like scientology. Interesting mix!

Peter,
I was using science loosely as an explanation of the world which as you say, was achieved by religious metaphor and allegory. Proper science grew out of this.

>>>” The attempt to spread Christianity in its pure form is to simply tell the stories of the faith and hope that something in them will resonate with hearers.”<<<

Love that phrase, “Christianity in its pure form”. That’s the plaintive cry of all religious adherents of all religions. My suggestion is to tell such stories to children who have been informed of all or the main faith stories out there and let them choose one or none when they are mentally mature enough to do so.

It seems pointless to converse with you if you don’t accept that religious indoctrination of the young works. Each culture does it in a similar fashion.

Let’s for a moment assume you do understand that incontrovertible fact. What steps have you taken to stop the insidious religious intrusion in Australian state schools? Or, do you consider there is no ethical problem with it?

Cult or mainstream religious indoctrination works on the same basic principles.

If you are a religious person, why is that so? I’m not and even if there was a god, I would not change how I live. What is the point of slavish obedience to such a creature that you do not know if it exists or not. Good or bad fortune happens at the same rate to believers and non-believers. The only point I can work out is fear of hell, hope for eternity of bliss and some kind of big-daddy comfort for this life. Just think about the eternity of bliss for a moment. Boring comes to mind very quickly.

Why aren't you a Muslim and why aren't most Australian religious people Muslims and why aren't most Iranian people Christians.

None of these questions can be answered satisfactorily without employing mental gymnastics so I don’t expect any answers.

The AFA is more interested in undoing the damage caused by faith than debating the existence of a god or not.

David

David,
This is a disappointing reply that brings up all the same old tired arguments about "religion" without attempting to look deeper. I agree with you that religion is the problem. Jesus, was after all crucified by the religious. I do not see myself as religious. When I look around the world "religion" does seem to coincide with chaos in all of life. It is of course forbidden to point the finger but religions are judged ultimately by the fruits that they bear in public and personal life. I think the West has done particularly well and that is because the religion that causes so much harm in the third world has been tempered by Christian faith that alone understands the danger of religion.

Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion. It is simply wrong to talk about the religious as if we can lump it all together and tar it with the one brush.

Peter

"I think the West has done particularly well and that is because the religion that causes so much harm in the third world has been tempered by Christian faith that alone understands the danger of religion.

Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion."

Gee, I understand it all now! It is theo-babble at its best.

But at least it recognizes 'the danger of religion'!

Dear Peter,

<<When theology was barred from our universities>>

Is that true? It's sad and shocking news to me that it became illegal to open a department of theology in one's university. When did it happen?

<<I agree with you that religion is the problem>>

It's the LACK of religion in those claiming to be religious which is the problem.

<<Since it was the religious who crucified Jesus, we are dead to that kind of religion.>>

Were they in fact religious? I think they were hypocrites!

Dear David (AFA),

<<Ah, solipsism,>>

What do you call thoughts and feelings that are neither objective nor subjective, but in between, shared by a subset of people, but not by all?

---
I now refer to your response to Peter:
<<If you are a religious person, why is that so? I’m not and even if there was a god, I would not change how I live. What is the point of slavish obedience to such a creature that you do not know if it exists or not. Good or bad fortune happens at the same rate to believers and non-believers. The only point I can work out is fear of hell, hope for eternity of bliss and some kind of big-daddy comfort for this life. Just think about the eternity of bliss for a moment. Boring comes to mind very quickly.>>

I believe that Peter would agree with me that God is not a creature. I add that He doesn't even exist. What's commonly perceived as good or bad fortune has nothing with actual goodness or badness (besides, believers are not necessarily religious and vice-versa): The only good is God and one is a religious person when one loves God and goodness for God's sake, not because they get any personal benefit: otherwise one is only bartering, trying to do business with God - and that doesn't count as religion. The truly religious says "Thy will be done".

Dear Banjo,

<<but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith,>>

No, existence can be verified or refuted by science. Faith is not interested in existence, in fact it's almost the opposite.

<<I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me have your own blessing instead.>>

Very well, I bless you, may you find joy in all you do - I and my Father are one, So'ham!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_%28Sanskrit%29

<<am sure your god is a nice person and pleasant company, but that's not exactly where I would like to be heading. My idea of heaven is a little different.>>

God is not a person, but certainly you will find His company better than any heaven. I am glad you have no intentions of going to heaven since it's only a honey-trap.

<<Please forgive me if this offends you, but I have fairly simple tastes and do not aspire to eternity.>>

The meek shall inherit the earth.

Dear David F.,

<<One can have religion without God. God is a human invention>>

It is meaningless to speak of anything "without God" since there is nothing but God, but I understand what you say: yes, one can have a religion without a concept of God and yes, the Jewish/Abrahamic god is a human invention (at times a useful one).

<<I do not feel that the mumbojumbo of Peter’s religious myth contribute to making anything meaningful.>>

The Sabbath (being the actual object of Genesis 1, instead of natural creation) is very meaningful.
A relationship with a person who represents God for us (Jesus in Peter's case) is very meaningful.

<<Existence is of value in itself.>>

Then you go on to describe how YOU enjoy it. Without you, it would have had no value.

<<Life and what I can experience is enough. I do not need to create a Creator.>>

I fully agree. You don't need to create a creator (though others may find it useful) and you are perfectly capable of experiencing God without one.

Peter,

No one is more disappointed than me. To have to bring up the basic arguments ad infinitum and defend them as a never-ending story is more than frustrating but it is the nature of religion that rational argument takes some time in overcoming the emotional hold of religion. But going by the growing non-religious demographic in Australian it is slowly working.

Religious people reading what an atheist might have to say can dismiss it with all kinds of weird and wonderful excuses such as ‘the priest, Imam, bishop or Pope knows even if I do not’. Of course, those leaders of faith have no more idea than anyone else. Any atheist making sense must be influenced by the devil, are cleverly lying or are doing something along those lines.

Degrees of harm by religion when comparing Christianity to Islam for instance are just degrees and the affected really don’t care about the degrees. They care about the suffering.

If religious people wholesale start balking at the pedantic-theological stands made by religious leaders, and I’m speaking of Australia, then maybe atheists will diverge away from lumping them all together. Therefore, as that is showing only miniscule signs of happening, atheists have no choice but to keep thumping away at the basic point that religion is a problem. And why do we do that – because at the moment, it is.

If religion expects to influence politics and the lives of everyone, then it has to prove its gods exist. It is that simple. Subjective religious experience is not proof to anyone except those experiencing it. It is not transferable to others. If the faiths can’t do that empirically, and they can’t, then the only ethical thing for them to do is to stop influencing children that they have the ‘truth’ and let politics work on the democratic principle, not the theocratic one.

In Australian, when religions en masse start calling for the official separation of church and state, then we will know they are serious. Until then, they will be treated as they are - ideological enemies within democracy.

David

Sells: You forget that natural science only arose in the 15th C and all religions, including Islam began before that.

I didn’t forget because it isn’t true. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to 99% accuracy about 2,300 years ago. Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in 371. This ended the spirit of inquiry in that region as people had to believe rather than think. Christianity was an enemy of science. Hypatia was a neo-Platonist philosopher and teacher who discovered that the orbit of the earth and other planets is an ellipse – something that Kepler rediscovered about a 1,000 years later. Hypatia was murdered by Christian monks in 415. She refused to adopt their superstition, and St. Paul declared that women shouldn’t teach. Some historians consider Hypatia’s murder the start of the Dark Ages. In 1553 Servetus was burned at the state in Calvin’s Protestant Geneva. He questioned Trinity. He also discovered pulmonary circulation . In 1600 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Catholic Rome. He postulated that our solar system was only one of many and didn’t see God as the Catholic Church saw God. Galileo was under house arrest. Meanwhile science continued outside of Christendom and revived in Europe as Europe began to question Christianity. You might read about the history of science.

It matters not which was first – science or religion. They are different ways of thinking, and religion is inadequate to explain natural processes although it claimed to do so.

Furthermore all religions did not begin before the 15th century. Anabaptism, Bahai’I, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Methodism, Humanistic Judaism, Unitarianism, Falun Gong, Sikhism, Quakers and many others have sprung forth since then. You might read about the history of religion.

Sells: “ dangerous cults like scientology. “

The Church of England stems from Henry VIII wanting a divorce. A trivial reason to set up a religion. Scientology is as legitimate as Anglicanism and just as silly. To Hypatia Christianity was a dangerous cult.

AFA David:

In the US religious people have supported the separation of church and state.

Dear David (AFA),

<<If religion expects to influence politics and the lives of everyone, then it has to prove its gods exist.>>

In other words, prove that 2+2=5. Why not ask them to eat fire and drink ink instead? In another age people were asked to prove their innocence by withstanding the inquisition's torture-machines. It's like issuing a public tender with the requirement that the successful candidate must be 1xx cm tall, weigh yyKg, have a certain eye-colour and a name starting and ending with 'D'.

Existence is your specific pet. It is your private choice to give it so much importance and allow it to determine your decisions in life. There's no problem with that except that you expect others to also follow your idol and base their choices in life on that same pet of yours. The difference between your intolerance and the inquisition's intolerance is therefore only a matter of degree.

While you want to have everything decided on your home turf, God's existence or otherwise (the later being the case), which seems such an important topic for you, has nothing to do with religion.

<<let politics work on the democratic principle, not the theocratic one.>>

Democracy is a bad joke. In democracy for example, a lustful majority can legislate, "as a natural extension of taxation and welfare and their role in achieving equality and fairness", that all married men must share their wives for 2 nights a week with those who have no, or not as attractive, partners.

Democracy thus allows ignorant, lustful, greedy and covetous masses to deny others that which is most dear to them - and for religious people, God is dearer even than their own family, body or life.

<<In Australian, when religions en masse start calling for the official separation of church and state, then we will know they are serious.>>

As a religious person (so I hope I am) and to preserve the purity of religious spirit, I call upon all other people of God to call for and work towards the official and practical separation of church and state.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your blessing. I wish you well, in return.

Perhaps your blessing will do me some good. If not, hopefully, it will do you some good.

Wisdom knows no bounds. The Dharmic religions are just as respectable as the Abrahamic religions or any other major religion. They all share the common characteristic of embodying rich veins and deposits of profound wisdom deeply embedded in an amorphous mass of "mumbo jumbo", as david f puts it.

I wrote: <<but as the existence of "God" is a question of faith,>>

You replied: "No, existence can be verified or refuted by science. Faith is not interested in existence, in fact it's almost the opposite."

It seems I mistakenly thought you believed in the existence of "God". However, as science has proven itself incapable of verifying the existence of any such entity, your professed reliance on its findings clearly indicates that you do not.

This is in contradiction with everything you have written so far and I am quite confused - including your recent invocation: "God bless you!".

If science cannot prove that "God" exists and you accept that science, alone, is competent in such matters, adding that faith has nothing to do with it, why do you invoke what you consider to be a non-entity ?

You later go on to indicate:

" God is not a person, but certainly you will find His company better than any heaven. I am glad you have no intentions of going to heaven since it's only a honey-trap."

This, again, is confusing. It is obvious that if you consider that "God" does not exist, he cannot be a person. How, then, could I find his company better than any heaven which you qualify as a "honey-trap" (which I understand to mean: "a scheme in which a victim is lured into a compromising sexual situation to provide an opportunity for blackmail") ?

I thought we were doing quite well understanding each other up until your last post, Yuyutsu, but now I am completely confused.

Please clarify.

.

david f,

>>”In the US religious people have supported the separation of church and state.”<<

And just imagine how that country would be now without it.

David

Yuyutsu,

You really do say such baloney. Proving your god exists if you wish to influence politics is vastly different than me having an inquisition type nature. In fact, it is the interference in politics by religion that allowed that disgraceful part of history to happen.

I am not asking anyone to follow my idol at all, whoever or whatever that is in your mind.

Again, for a second time in one post, you stupidly align me with the inquisition. You had better make that clear and explain it or our interaction is over as you are becoming not worth the trouble. On second thoughts, don’t bother. Your explanations tend to be waffle when you trap yourself in nonsense.

Democracy might be a bad joke to you but as Churchill quipped, ‘It’s better than the rest”.

Thank you for calling for the separation of church and state. That’s one.

David

It is an unreasonable demand to make of theists that they prove God exists. When one makes an assertion one is obligated to prove its validity if one wishes to have it accepted by other people. However, that does not apply to one's own acceptance. Religious belief is a matter of faith. I would not interfere in the believer's exercise of their faith. However, a theistic (since all religions do not require belief in God, it is more reasonable to use the word, theistic, than religious.) believer should accept that it is unreasonable to expect other people to share that belief.

As I grew older I could no longer accept belief in God. However, people I loved had that belief, and that did not affect my love for them.

I think the statement, "creation is a more fundamental nation than nature." is rubbish. What that really seems to mean is the the author of the article regards the notion as most important in his life. If he had stated that I would have accepted that. However, the problem is that he expects other people to agree that it applies to them. That is as unreasonable as the demands that theists prove that God exists or that non-theists accept the theist notion that God exists.

david f,

I think you are reading what is not between the lines. No one is bothered if religious people or theists have a god. Of course they don't have to prove its existence. But and this is a elephant sized but, if they wish to influence politics in an unrepresented fashion, indoctrinate children with that belief, the obligation is on them to prove why they should be allowed that indulgence. The only way they can do that is to prove the particular god's existence. Nothing could be fairer than that.

David

Dear AFA David,

I do not have to justify all of my opinions before I take a political stand. I don't see why theists should have to do so either.

I agree that children should be free from religious indoctrination at public expense. There should be no place for it in the public schools and no financing of non-public schools. However, indoctrination by their parents or their religious institution on their own time is their right.

Religious belief of any sort is a triumph of the irrational. However, the belief that the human species can increase indefinitely is a triumph of the lemmings. We don't demand that Kevin Rudd show that his wish for a BIG Australia is reasonable in any way. We can make a value judgment and accept or reject his views.

According to statistics the percentage of Australians who reject religious mumbojumbo is growing. The way to encourage this trend is to promote critical thinking and education in the practical and intellectual arts of life. When we demand that religious people justify their belief we are making a demand that I think none of us could meet. It is as unreasonable as to demand that people justify their faith in a particular political party. I belong to the Greens. To many Australians that is objectionable. However, I don't have to justify my opinion that the Greens have an outlook that can best meet the problems that face Australia.

Democracy rests on the supposition that all opinions can have public currency, and the public will decide among them. I would not demand of religious belief what I do not demand of other opinions.

Dear Banjo,

Everything that exists is an object and every object is limited. God is not.

Saying that God was anything or has any property, implies that He was NOT the opposite or the absence of that thing or property, which is a limitation.

Moreover, had there been anything or anyone but God, that would also impose a limitation on God, since then God would not be that other thing or person.

While we cannot therefore make any positive statement about God, we can still make negative statements: God is not {_fill_in_the_whatever_you_like_} and most importantly, there is nothing BUT God.

The Upanishads (and later Buddha) tell us that existence is an illusion, or Maya (literally, "that which is not"). While attached to a human form, what we perceive is existence, and ourselves as separate entities within it, but what we truly are, is God.

<<They all share the common characteristic of embodying rich veins and deposits of profound wisdom deeply embedded in an amorphous mass of "mumbo jumbo">>

That "mumbo jumbo" is a plethora, or graveyard, of religious techniques that were employed at one time or another to help particular aspirants on their path to God. It was often forgotten, sadly, that these techniques suited particular people at particular times and while available to us as a raw material to possibly build on and prescribe new techniques for modern people, it does not represent logical truth-statements.

<<How, then, could I find his company better than any heaven>>

Some scriptures mention not one, but a series of heavens, with increasing pleasures beyond belief. Whether actual locations or psychological states, those heavens are finite. One may stay there for 1000's or millions of years, using up their accumulated merit, but eventually that merit expires and they are back in Samsara. While in heaven, one is too absorbed in pleasures to make any spiritual progress, so it's a total waste of time and the efforts that went into accruing that merit.

Being with God is not pleasurable, but beyond pleasure. Once there, no clock is ticking because time itself is exposed as illusion.

The reason AFA David and I, or many of the other contributors cannot understand each other is that we belong to quite different rational traditions. It is like we don't speak each other's language. If you take a look at the analysis of liberalism in the final chapters of MacIntyre's "Whose Justice, which rationality?" you will find a good explanation. Part of the problem is that those who belong to the empiricist tradition do not regard other traditions of rationality to be rational. They think that they and they alone are rational. The argument then is really whether the tradition of rationality that we have inherited that informs virtue and an understanding of how we should live and to what end, (disparaged as religion) is a rational tradition. If you look at Aquinas, for example, it is quite clear that he stands within an Augustinian/Aristotelian rational tradition. If it was not rational he would have been unable to write the Summa Theologica. Theology is a discipline governed by rationality; it is just not the rationality of empirical science.

It is a particular aspect of the Enlightenment that we avow all traditions, thinking that we can evolve a universal and individualist rationality. But there is no rationality without a tradition of rationality. Even liberalism is a tradition, although a very weak and fragmented one.

My problem with exclusive scientific rationalism is that it is impoverished. Because it pretends not to stand in a tradition it neglects all of the thinkers of the past and stands bravely and stoically alone.
Peter

Dear Sells,

Theology is indeed governed by rationality and logic. Augustine, Aquinas and other theologians built structures that were logic and rational. It is exactly the same rationality as that of empirical science. In fact we owe much to Aquinas and Augustine. I have read Augustine and have found his “Confessions” to be sublime when he speculates on the subjects of time and space.

However, rationality and logic are simply not enough. Any logical and rational system depends on axioms which are unprovable. Plane geometry is a logical-rational system which depends on unprovable axioms. Saccheri, a brilliant monk, attempted to prove the parallel postulate by a reductio ad absurdum method. That method is to negate the postulate and produce a contradiction. If one produces a contradiction then that shows that the original postulate was necessary to the system.

He negated the postulate in two ways.

1. Through a point not on a given line no lines can be drawn which do not intersect the given line.
2. Through a point not on a given line many lines can be drawn which do not intersect the given line.
He did not produce a contradiction but two non-Euclidean geometries.

The first negation produced spherical geometry, and the second negation produced hyperbolic geometry. He now had three logical, rational systems.

However, had he showed by some manner that any of the Euclidean axioms or postulates were untenable then he would be left with no worthwhile systems even though they would still be rational and logical.

Theology remains a logical and rational system. I certainly acknowledge that. However, it rests upon an implicit axiom. Theology assumes there is a God. I do not think there is a God, and even theologians agree that no proof that God exists is valid. There have been many attempts at proof. Cosmological, common consent, degrees of perfection, moral, ontological, popular, religious experience etc. However, Kant, the great philosopher, maintained that none of those proofs were valid.

Theology is logical, rational and worthless if one does not accept the axiomatic existence of God

david f,

“>>I do not have to justify all of my opinions before I take a political stand. I don't see why theists should have to do so either.”<<

If you were a politician and you were opposed to a system of legal voluntary euthanasia on religious grounds, as but one example, it would be ethically incumbent on you to let me know before you are elected that your stance is such. This is especially so when roughly 80% of the population agree with LVE. Most politicians who are opposed to LVE are so because of religious reasons.

Politicians are not elected to promote or support their particular religious fantasy. They are elected to do the bidding of the people. Most also keep the information that they will oppose the wishes of the people on such social issues a secret.

That you are giving religion some special privilege here is beyond me.

I really don’t know why you are labouring this point and I hope you never end up with a terminal illness in unremitting pain before you realise you should have been more introspective on these matter when you could have been.

>> “However, indoctrination by their parents or their religious institution on their own time is their right.”<<

Can you point out where I disagree with that?

>>” Democracy rests on the supposition that all opinions can have public currency, and the public will decide among them. I would not demand of religious belief what I do not demand of other opinions.”<<

Why are you missing the point? Yes, the public can have a variety of opinions but please read this. The politicians that the public elect must use the opinions of the public and not only use their own religiously based (or Nazi based etc.) opinions in making decisions on behalf of us all. If they can’t do that, then they shouldn’t be politicians. They should be priests as I have said before.

The electorate has a right to know such opinions beforehand. All politicians should supply them without reservation.

This is simple stuff.

David

David F,
I agree that logic is not enough. That is why I stress traditions of rationality that change over time. Descartes was in error when he proposed that epistemology can be based on the thinking individual, there is no such thing as the view from nowhere.

My problem with your dismissal of theology is that the god you project as not existing bears no relation to the god Christians worship, who is named as Father, Son and Holy Spirit: truth history and the future of truth, if you like. Your premise of god being a supernatural divine being is simply wrong even though the great majority of Christians believe in his existence.

God is not an object in the universe. He is not a cause even the first cause. God for Christians is the truth of the life and death of the man Jesus. To simply dismiss theology because you cannot believe in an old man in the sky is infantile.

God is not an abstraction to whom one gives intellectual assent, as if that makes any difference to anything. To encounter god is to identify with the anthropology found in Scripture, the drama of it. To encounter god is to be moved by the passion narratives and to then understand that this one is the one with whom we finally have to deal.
Peter

What is the difference between Sells and a used-car salesman?

At least a used-car salesman has something tangible to sell. The used car can be seen, sat in, driven, etc. The used-car salesman may promise that it will go forever but no one would believe him.

Flogging a non-existent god is a con and so is promising the 'true' believer that they'll live forever.

Such con-artists should be jailed!

David G,
Gee, without you this thread would be reduced to infantile mudslinging.

Sells, with you this thread is filled with lies and theological horse dung!

If you were born a thousand years ago, you wouldv'e been a real hit. You might have even started a new religion, bent the minds of millions.

You know that your words are false and all your promises are false.

Have you no conscience at all?

Dear David (AFA),

Sorry you take the inquisition analogy personally. It is not how you are in life, but only about that particular demand for religions to prove that their god exists, which you know very well, is impossible.

The inquisition asked its victims to prove their truth by withstanding their torture-machines without saying 'Ouch' - that was physical torture while trying to prove God's existence is a mental torture, both impossible.

<<I am not asking anyone to follow my idol at all, whoever or whatever that is in your mind.>>

Existence.

Only few people today (e.g. fundamental creationists and those who believe that the sun revolves around the earth because Joshua ordered it to stop) disagree with you on matters of existence and its contents: I am not among those, but while we agree on the contents of existence, we do differ on the IMPORTANCE of existence.

Myself and other people do base our life and values on things other than objective existence. Your demand that we must play on your home turf, by your own rules in order to gain the same privileges, is unfair.

AFA David:

You wrote: “The politicians that the public elect must use the opinions of the public and not only use their own religiously based (or Nazi based etc.) opinions in making decisions on behalf of us all.”

You have brought in the Nazis implicitly equating them with religion. I find that offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputation and http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5226-disputations is one thing that leads me to reject your demand that theists justify their opinions.

When Christianity was dominant in Europe Christians would often force Jews into disputations. It boded ill for the Jews if they won or lost. The price of their victory might be exile, massacre or other unpleasantness. The price of their loss could be a demand to convert to Christianity. If they refused their refusal might result in exile, massacre or other unpleasantness.

You seem to me to have the same mindset that the medieval Christians had. You want to force politicians to make statements about their beliefs. Their record should be enough.

I do not want to behave towards Christians as they have behaved towards people who didn’t believe as they do.

JFK said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Other politicians may make similar statements and lie. However, I would rather not put people on the spot because of their religion.

Your idea sounds like the McCarthyite demand for loyalty oaths.

Sells:

Is the God Christians worship more meaningful than Thor or Apollo? Tradition? Theodosius made Christianity the official religion and forced the Romans to abandon their traditional gods. Those Gods are now irrelevant. Why shouldn’t Christianity also become irrelevant? Traditions become outworn.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

[Everything that exists is an object and every object is limited. God is not...........]
.

I think you meant to say that the apparent contradictions which I highlighted in your previous posts regarding the "existence" or non-existence" of "God", were caused by your sudden switch from scientific reasoning to the enunciation of esoteric doctrine.

As you gave no warning, I had no reason to believe you were no longer continuing to reason on the basis of your previous declaration that "existence (of "God") can be verified or refuted by science."
.

You also wrote:

["mumbo jumbo" is a plethora, or graveyard, of religious techniques that were employed at one time or another to help particular aspirants on their path to God ... it does not represent logical truth-statements.]

According to the World English Dictionary, "mumbo-jumbo" means:

1. foolish religious reverence, ritual, or incantation
2. meaningless or unnecessarily complicated language
3. an object of superstitious awe or reverence

As I indicated previously, I consider all major religions to be respectable (excluding their transgressions of course), also, that they are all faith based and, in the absence of scientific proof, do not represent reality or any so-called "truth" (revealed or otherwise).

I do not recognize in any of them a satisfactory explanation of what life is all about. I do recognize in them, however, a source of precious "nuggets" of wisdom, well worth the patient effort of prospecting, extracting and adopting.

For example, I am sure you are familiar with that very compelling exhortation of Mahatma Gandhi:

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

That, to me, is religion at its best. It is not esoteric or illusory.

It is factual, practicable and realistic

.

Yuyutsu,

>>”Sorry you take the inquisition analogy personally.”<<

Who is taking it personally? You just have no idea what you are talking about which is exampled by this sentence.

>>”The inquisition asked its victims to prove their truth by withstanding their torture-machines without saying 'Ouch'”<<

The inquisitions were largely about making people confess to having an alliance with the devil. You obviously haven’t read the Malleus Maleficarum which was the Papal approved handbook for torturing witches, written by Dominicans Spenger and Kramer. This dark part of Christian history continued for about 600 years. Equating that with atheism or me is blind ignorance.

>>”Your demand that we must play on your home turf, by your own rules in order to gain the same privileges, is unfair.”<<

Now, you are totally making stuff up. It is the religious privilege existent that atheists are opposed to.

I think our conversation is over as you have gone into a state of utter confusion. It is too much to ask of me to un-muddle it.

David

Yuyutsu,

I think I am coming to understand and appreciate the insight you are trying to offer here. (By the way, this doesn’t seem to contradict what david f wrote in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#255967.)

You obviously have a different understanding of the meaning of the verb “exists” (so elementary that one cannot define it in a form acceptable to everybody) than most of us. Similarly about “God”, where one cannot even speak about an understanding shared by most people, including Sells, and our friendly or not-so-friendly atheists here. For instance, I would endorse the statement “God exists” being aware of its ambiguity, because the opposite would even more misrepresent what I believe on these matters.

One question, if I may: Had your posts contained references to Virgin Mary I would assume your worldview had a Catholic background. Well, that is obviously not the case, but would you agree that you are in some way trying to defend the Hindu or the Buddhist way of seeing life, existence and reality? I know practically nothing about Jewish (Kaballah) or Islamic (Sufism) mysticism, but I know there are points of contact between Christian mysticism and Buddhism. And what you are saying. Would you agree?

david f,

>>” You have brought in the Nazis implicitly equating them with religion. I find that offensive.”<<

If you re-read you will find it says Nazi based “etc”. It was not equating religion with Nazism it was showing how in one case, religion, you don’t want to know, and in the other, Nazism, you certainly would want to know.

>>“You seem to me to have the same mindset that the medieval Christians had. You want to force politicians to make statements about their beliefs. Their record should be enough.”<<

And it their views are not on the record? And don’t come back with people can ask because people are too busy surviving to think about such things.

Why you bring in the JFK quote is a mystery. No one is denying office by them admitting religion.

>>” Your idea sounds like the McCarthyite demand for loyalty oaths.”<<

This is utter nonsense and used in an attempt to make a case where one does not exist.

Most atheists I know and know of are on side about this matter. You appear not to be but I wonder if that is true. At the moment you are just throwing mud and most of it is sticking on you. Why are you throwing it?

David

Dear Banjo,

I can envision Mahatma Gandhi giving a young person who wants to change the world the brilliant spiritual advice: “Be the change you wish to see in the world”.

I can also envision this written in a book and subsequently, 6000 years later, read by a scholar in some future stable society that has no wish, or even no concept of 'changing the world', who looks at it puzzled saying "what a mumbo-jumbo!".

Dear David (AFA),

<<Equating that with atheism or me is blind ignorance.>>

I was not equating atheism with the inquisition, only with a specific statement of demand that you made.

Many atheists are, in fact, quite religious.

Dear George,

<<but would you agree that you are in some way trying to defend the Hindu or the Buddhist way of seeing life, existence and reality?>>

I am defending religion. There is not this-or-that religion, only one: http://greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_sayings_quotes/religion-religious_harmony.php

Hail Mary!

Yuyutsu

>>I am defending religion. There is not this-or-that religion, only one:?<<
Thhis reminds me of "not this or that religion is a genuine knower of Truth", only mine is genuine, knows the Truth

>> http://greenmesg.org/swami_vivekananda_sayings_quotes/religion-religious_harmony.php<<

Thanks for answering my question through this link. So your guru is apparently Swami Vivekananda whose roots are obviously Hindu. [My modest understanging of Hindu influence on interpretations of science (phsics) came only through V. V. Raman, who, I suspect, could view Hinduism only from the outside.]

Dear AFA David,

Whether or not many atheists agree with you is irrelevant. It does not make you either right or wrong because other people agree with you.

You can make excuses for bringing in the Nazis but they were irrelevant to your argument unless you wanted to smear. Why bring them in at all?

Your idea that believers in religion must make a statement defining how that belief would affect them sounds exactly like a McCarthyite loyalty oath. You have singled out a particular group as an object of suspicion as though that particular group cannot act in good faith.

Many people have special interests or ideas. Lawyers have defended many clients with diverse interests or have even been employed by those interests. They don’t have to make such a statement. If they have defended a polluter they don’t have to state their position in that area.

Reserve army officers may get elected to office. They can participate in legislation affecting the military establishment without making any statement about how their background affects them.

Kevin Rudd’s wife made big bucks from employment agencies. That is very much an area of interest as employment is a concern of the government. Yet Rudd was not required to make such a statement.

Real estate developers get on local councils where they make decisions on zoning that could affect their interests. They are not required to make any statement concerning the way their business interests would affect their activities on council.

However, you want religious people to state how their religion would affect their acts in office when other people with other interests are not required to make such a statement. Why should religious interests be treated differently?

That sounds like sheer prejudice against religious believers to me. I see you as reflecting the intolerance that many religions show toward the heretic and unbeliever.

I don’t believe in religion, but I also don’t think it’s fair to treat people differently because of their religious beliefs.

Accusing me of mudslinging is a tacit admission that you don’t have a real argument.

david f,

True that no matter how many accept a statement does not make it correct. However, the case by a lone dissenting voice should be investigated. Your case, in using all kinds of strategies instead of rational evaluation doesn’t hold water.
This thread on the AFA Forums has had more than thirteen hundred look. I have seen no objections. Surely that means something. http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=17577

I have stated that “all politicians” should supply their views on various matters that the majority electorate consider important.

You want to keep religion as a private matter. That is your opinion. You want to give religion some special kind of dispensation and respect. I don’t. I would not have this opinion if politicians with a religion were more honest about it.

What are the adverse ramifications for a politicians stating they are religious or they are not religious. Julia Gillard stated she is not. To me that is a big plus. When we don’t know a politician’s religious or non-religious beliefs, then we are left guessing. That might be OK in private conversation but it is not acceptable with people who are representing us.

If a politician says they are against legal voluntary euthanasia and then goes on to advance the religious bulldust opposing arguments dressed up as concerns for the most vulnerable etc, without knowing that such a politician is sprouting religious propaganda, it can have an influence on some people that they are putting forward a genuine case.

This kind of shenanigans has kept progressive social policy at bay for too long.

You are protesting far too much about this and I am not impressed. There are no negative ramifications for anyone in what I am proposing.

The interest is not so much in the religious beliefs of politicians but their opinions they bring into law or reject as law, that are a result of them.

David

Dear David,

If you would make the same request of all politicians and all interests that is a different matter. To declare one's interests and state how they would affect your actions is reasonable. I am sorry for apparently missing that part of your statement.

However, I do have a particular concern about requiring religious people to make a statement. I would want to keep religion as a private matter. When people make a statement that focuses attention on their religious beliefs I feel that many of the electorate will pay more attention to their religious identification than to the substance of their statement. Many will vote for or against a candidate because of their religious beliefs and no other reason.

Once a religious label is put on a person or party that colours feelings toward that person or party. eg. If a party chose to call itself the Christian Democrats I would not want to vote for that party. I would prefer that a person simply announce their position on issues.

When people vote for a candidate on the basis of that candidate's religious identification I think that is most undemocratic. I know I favour Gillard over Rudd partially because Gillard is an atheist. I really would rather not have known their religious identification.

In Israel there is a new political party called Yesh Atid. It is good because it wants to move Israel toward a secular state by taking away the various exemptions from obligations that the ultra-orthodox have.

However, Yesh Atid would be unnecessary if the religious hadn't formed political parties in the first place. I am afraid that having people make statements concerning their religion will lead to political lineups based on religion. Yes, I would like to keep religion a private matter.

david f,

I appreciate your apology but it was not necessary. We differ on how we perceive religion in society. A politician’s religion is not as you have stated, similar to a footy-team preference. Religion is a world-view; footy is a pastime, albeit in some case, very close to one.

I know you are honourable in your efforts to have religion and atheism draw closer where there are perceived mutual ties. However, the AFA is an organisation, not an individual and it does not share that opinion. There can be no common ground as it considers supernatural edicts that have no basis in sound evidence should not be used to govern populations.

Here is how I think it should work. All politicians should be asked to answer by survey if they agree with, disagree with or are non-committal on a list of policy issues that the electorate want made into law or taken out of law. If they disagree with, and let’s use voluntary euthanasia as a case in point, then the investigative media must question such a politician more deeply as to why they hold that opposing position when the public are all for it. Out of such a conversation it would most likely arise that the politician is opposed to VE on religious grounds? The public should know this.

Even if the politician denies that religion has anything to do with her/his opinion on VE and has chosen that stance on empirical grounds, the reporter is bound in my opinion, to ask the politician about any religious-affiliation. This should be requested of all politicians opposed to VE whether they are known to be religious or not. It is no different than the reporter asking if the politician has any affiliation to the palliative-care industry or is restrained by party-politics or any other biasing-factor.

Religion is negatively affecting politics and people’s lives all over the planet and it is not acceptable that those in power can use it as their own, sometimes, secretive private-way to heaven against the wishes of those they lead.

An informed-public makes for better-policy.

David

Dear David,

Religion is a worldview, but it is also a label. What a person does is more important than the religious label he or she wears. There have been many wars and atrocities against people because of their label.

I much prefer, Jimmy Carter, a born-again Christian, with respect for the separation of church and state, to Julia Gillard, a professed atheist, who seems to have respect for it.

If I have a common purpose with somebody I will work together with them regardless of their beliefs. If AFA does not share that opinion I do not and will not belong to AFA. Religious people and non-religious people can have considerable common ground. To deny that is to deny their common humanity.

I object to segregation in schools by race, religion or any other criteria not relevant to their education. I don't even know the religious beliefs of my next door neighbour. Several days ago our neighbour, Adam Lawson, knocked at our door. He was muddy and in his work clothes. He told us that our water line had sprung a leak and was pouring down on his property. Since the leak was our side of the water meter we were responsible for its repair and not the local council. Adam told us he would get the needed parts and take care of repairs. Adam is a plumber and knew what to do. He also told us not to worry about cost. He would just do the job for us, and we owed him nothing. We went to look, and it was as he said. A flow of water was coming from our line on to his property. Adam shut the meter off and went to work.

Adam is a great guy, and I don't care if he worships the new moon.

Dear George,

<<So your guru is apparently Swami Vivekananda whose roots are obviously Hindu.>>

Swami Vivekananda was a disciple of Ramakrishna. I had no fortune to meet him as he died before my times (in 1902).
As well as various forms of Hinduism (itself a multitude of faiths), Ramakrishna also spent time practising Islam and subsequently practising Christianity in order to verify that they too are legitimate paths to God, then he concluded:

"The Divine Being is seen in many different ways in different cultures. Worship your God, but honor the forms in which he appears to others as well. Don’t condemn other paths to God. If other people follow that path with full sincerity, they will definitely reach God. Go on calling to God in the way you understand him, but don’t criticize other faiths. All religions are true.”
(from http://www.yogachicago.com/nov04/ramakrishna.shtml)

Dear David F.,

<<However, Yesh Atid would be unnecessary if the religious hadn't formed political parties in the first place.>>

Let's then analyse how it all started:

*Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews generally pay no tax and live-on-welfare because they don't work.
*They can't work because they are supposed to study.
*They study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred.
*While most ultra-orthodox would have liked to enlist, they won't serve in the army because that would expose their young males to women, contrary to their doctrine.
*The state-of-Israel insists on having one army for all, thus unable to satisfy the ultra-orthodox need for gender-segregation.
*Ultra-orthodox parties were formed in-order to protect and enshrine in legislation their constituents' right to not be exposed to the other gender.
*Since state's insistence on conscription to a single army caused poverty, they also apply political pressure to receive generous welfare-packages.

You can see how the government-of-Israel started all the trouble. In one word, conscription.

I certainly don't advocate gender-segregation, but as-above, I respect others' forms and techniques of worship.

Separation of church and state is a two-way street, where the state too mustn't interfere with the religious needs of individuals.

Had religion not been attacked, no religious-parties would be needed in self-defence.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"I can also envision this written in a book and subsequently, 6000 years later, read by a scholar in some future stable society that has no wish, or even no concept of 'changing the world', who looks at it puzzled saying "what a mumbo-jumbo!"
.

It could be sooner than you think, Yuyutsu. But I guess we'll never know.

If it's religion, it is short term. If it is science, it is medium term. If it is reality, it is long term.

Unfortunately, my imagination is not capable of projecting any further than that.

.

Yuyutsu wrote:

Let's then analyse how it all started:

*Israel's ultra-orthodox Jews generally pay no tax and live-on-welfare because they don't work.
*They can't work because they are supposed to study.
*They study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred.
*While most ultra-orthodox would have liked to enlist, they won't serve in the army because that would expose their young males to women, contrary to their doctrine.
*The state-of-Israel insists on having one army for all, thus unable to satisfy the ultra-orthodox need for gender-segregation.
*Ultra-orthodox parties were formed in-order to protect and enshrine in legislation their constituents' right to not be exposed to the other gender.
*Since state's insistence on conscription to a single army caused poverty, they also apply political pressure to receive generous welfare-packages.

You can see how the government-of-Israel started all the trouble. In one word, conscription.

I certainly don't advocate gender-segregation, but as-above, I respect others' forms and techniques of worship.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Your analysis is somewhat inaccurate. They don’t study indefinitely in order to have their army-service deferred. They study because that’s the way they think they are serving God. They would not like to enlist. They want to study. There are segregated units for the few ultra-orthodox who want to serve.

Ultra-orthodox parties were formed to protect their privileged status. The state's insistence on conscription to a single army did not cause poverty. Their refusal to work caused poverty.

The state of Israel started the trouble not by conscription but by giving them special privileges in the first place.

Ben Gurion gave them special privileges because he thought they would gradually merge into the population, and they were only a small number initially. They didn’t merge but had very large families and are no longer a small number.

david f,

After the anecdote about the plumbing problem involving help from an ‘individual’ and other inferences about ‘people’ and after misreading and apologising for misreading what I have said before, which I accepted in good faith, you again imply a similar falsehood in this sentence.

>>”If I have a common purpose with somebody I will work together with them regardless of their beliefs. If AFA does not share that opinion I do not and will not belong to AFA. Religious people and non-religious people can have considerable common ground. To deny that is to deny their common humanity.”<<

Common purpose is destroyed by the ubiquitous acceptance of state controlled religious indoctrination.

The AFA is not opposed in any way to individuals or persons whether they are religious or not. If individuals hold a faith or don’t, unless they are personally acting against the real interests of others, they are not on our radar. It is the bad parts of religion itself; that is, the harmful ideology to which the AFA is opposed.

I am very disappointed you have misrepresented me/AFA twice. But, if you can supply quotes from this thread where I have shown any signs of being unjustly negative about our “common humanity”, that might clear the matter up.

It appears you have never been a member of the AFA. You may not be a joiner but it has been going a long time and you have only just discovered this alleged anomaly.

People join the AFA for many reasons. They might do so as it is the most recognised atheist body in Australia and feel that adding their voice strengthens the atheist message. They can see it as a focal point for their lives or an escape from religion. They may wish to take advantage of social-media via Facebook or the AFA Forums although membership is not a prerequisite with those. But I feel the main reason people join the AFA is that social justice is high on their list of priorities and they recognise that is what the AFA is all about.

David

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the link, I think it explains where you come from. I am not sure if I remember Ramakrishna - I fist heard about this approch to religion, or perenial philosophy, during my stay at UC Berkeley in the seventies of the last century, when these things were “in”.

I appreciate that quote you gave. I have nothing to add to it as it stands, except perhaps to point to a wider context:

“The Western attitude is expressed by the words of Yahweh on Sinai: ‘You shall have no other gods before me; in the Bhagavad Gita the incarnate god Krishna says, ‘Whatever god a man worships, it is I who answer the prayer’” (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I think these can be seen as two complementary ”models”, ways of seeing God, although - if I may say so - it was the cultural adherents of the jealous Yahweh in the West (and their descendants to keep our atheist friends happy), rather those of the all-embracing Eastern model that brought us Enlightenment, modern science and technology that today we all profit from.

Though throughout its history Christianity used to overemphasize the “jealous” aspect, I think what is here quoted as having been said by the incarnate god Krishna, could have easily been said also by the non-fictional Jesus, seen by Christians as the incarnate God.

Dear AFA David,

You asked me for a quote. You wrote: “I know you are honourable in your efforts to have religion and atheism draw closer where there are perceived mutual ties. However, the AFA is an organisation, not an individual and it does not share that opinion. There can be no common ground as it considers supernatural edicts that have no basis in sound evidence should not be used to govern populations.”

What drove me up the wall was the phrase: “There can be no common ground…”

I have lived in the United States for many years before I came to Australia. One of my good friends is Jim Noonan, a practicing Catholic. Jim has been arrested many times for his protests against militarism. Jim apparently believes in what I think is nonsense, but nevertheless he is inspired to protest against inhumanity, the exploitation of workers, corporate malfeasance, the School of the Americas in Georgia where the US has trained Latin American military death squads etc. I have joined with him in some of those protests. We have considerable common ground, and I hope to see him later this year. I have other religious friends with similar common interests.

Roger Williams, a Baptist preacher, was the first man to use the phrase, “separation of church and state” and worked for it. In 1636 he founded Providence Plantations which later became Rhode Island. PP had complete separation of church and state and allowed all views concerning religion including those who rejected it.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded in 1947 as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State (POAU) maintains that government support for religious education would violate church-state separation. Its current head, Barry Lynn, is an ordained minister. They favour separation in other areas, and I have been a member.

They may have been inspired to those views by unsubstantiated supernatural edicts, but we share those views. That is our common ground. It is more important to me what is done than why it is done or what mumbojumbo they follow.

David f,

How about I analyse that quote for you as you seem incapable of understanding it more than reading into it what you want to believe.

“I know you are honourable in your efforts to have religion and atheism draw closer where there are perceived mutual ties. “

This sentence praises you for your attitude to ‘individuals’ for their ‘common humanity’ no matter their world view.

“However, the AFA is an organisation, not an individual and it does not share that opinion.”

This sentence states that the AFA is as an organisation and not an individual. It does not speak of individuals because of that. It can only have concern for other-organisations. Those organisations are religious and the AFA brings to light the problems within them.

“There can be no common ground as it considers supernatural edicts that have no basis in sound evidence should not be used to govern populations.”

This sentence states that there can be no common-ground between the AFA organisation and religious-organisations when supernatural edicts are used to govern people.

Individual religious people may have some similar goals as those of the AFA. Unless they join together as a visible body and fight against the bigotry of their own religion, they can be of no assistance to the AFA. This has not happened.

And as I clearly pointed out, the elephant in the room is that in Australia there (are-few-if-any) religious organisations, large body of religious people or any kind of push by religion to remove religious indoctrination from state schools. Students are the basis of an on ongoing democratic system, some end up as politicians. This point is not negotiable.

You may wish to live in a comfortable-world where everything is nice on the peripherals but the AFA lives in the world where the deciding alpha factor of common-ground between it and religion does not exist.

It will be a sad day if the AFA ever succumbs to compromise on this matter. Your cries of disenchantment are more suited to whose personal lives are disadvantaged by the AFA stance. We understand that position.

David

Dear AFA David,

You wrote: “And as I clearly pointed out, the elephant in the room is that in Australia there (are-few-if-any) religious organisations, large body of religious people or any kind of push by religion to remove religious indoctrination from state schools. Students are the basis of an on ongoing democratic system, some end up as politicians. This point is not negotiable.”

The point is not negotiable with me either. I will not compromise on that issue. However, as I pointed in my last post Americans United for Separation of Church and State shares that position. Its current head, Barry Lynn, is an ordained minister, and AU was founded by Protestants.

Australia and the United States are two different countries. For all practical purposes I am on your side here since I have found no religious groups and few non-religious groups who support the separation of church and state. It is different in the United States because the founding fathers had a great respect for the principle. That respect is shared by many religious and non-religious people.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 will point to an essay in olo I wrote on the separation in the US.

Let’s switch to something else. I have a great respect for David Hume, the Scottish philosopher. He wrote, “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

He rejected religious mumbojumbo. He also wrote, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

We can point out that the religious are driven by unsustainable supernatural edicts. I believe with Hume all our positions are based on passions which we use reason to justify. I feel strongly about separation of church and state yet I cannot say why I feel so strongly.

Dear David F.,

I saw recent documentaries showing that young ultra-orthodox Jews admire soldiers. You see them going on a hike with soldiers (in an area close to the Lebanese border, so it's unsafe to go without military escort) and looking at the soldiers with wide eyes. They know the names of all military units, their history, the names of their commanders and what weapons they have. When the soldiers are fighting, they hold special all-night study-vigils for each fighting unit. Those youngsters expressed desire to serve in the army, but their Rabbis forbid them because they might see women, or even worse, hear them sing.

Yes, there are a couple of segregated units for the ultra-orthodox, but the Rabbis don't trust them enough and indeed in one such unit, 20 out of 60 soldiers left the orthodox life-style. Last month there was an incident when the agreement between the Rabbis and the army was broken as ultra-orthodox soldiers were made to listen to a lecture by a female soldier in a navy base. Earlier, 4 ultra-orthodox soldiers were expelled from an officer-training course because they refused to remain in a compulsory social-evening at their base when a woman was about to sing.

So I looked again, and found in a May 2012 survey, that it's only 42-45% of the ultra-orthodox that want to serve in the army. Still the vast majority would have liked to work if they could. 40% admitted that they discussed with their parents the possibility of secretly studying English (as 2nd-language) and maths because they believe that not-studying these subjects will hurt their employment prospects.

Changing the subject, your last post contains a great insight:
<<Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions>>

- I have my reservations about that statement, but suppose it were always true and I had such an employee, then I would surely sack him/her!

Passions are born of the genes, and when I read in scripture about devils, daemons and monsters of sorts, I wonder whether 20th-century scientists were the first to discover and enumerate them.

david f,

I’m certainly pleased we have reached some kind of détente in our discussion. It was unexpected that it should persevere for the time it has. It was only the ‘hating a god’ statement that induced me to initially write.

I think we can leave it here with not permanent bruises remaining on either of us or anyone else for that matter.

I won’t answer your latest post as it will lead to more discussion and I am a bit pressed for time, as much as you have brought up some interesting comments about the American experience. Maybe Australia will emulate the good parts of it someday.

Au revoir

David

.

Dear George and Yuyutsu,,

.

"Though throughout its history Christianity used to overemphasize the “jealous” aspect, I think what is here quoted as having been said by the incarnate god Krishna, could have easily been said also by the non-fictional Jesus, seen by Christians as the incarnate God." (George)
.

King James Bible:

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" [Exodus 20:5]

" For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God" [Exodus 34:14]

" And Joshua said unto the people, Ye cannot serve the LORD: for he is an holy God; he is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins." [Joshua 24:19]

"For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God." [Deuteronomy 4:24]

"They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger." [Deuteronomy 32:16]

"God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies." [Nahum 1:2]

" For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth." [Deuteronomy 6:15]

"Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them." [Ezekiel 8:18]

As George astutely notes, Christianity has "overemphasized" the "jealous" aspect:

- nine crusades (1096 to 1272) resulting in an estimated 2 to 6 million deaths;

- the inquisitions (1184 to 1860) with widespread torture and burning at the stake;

- the holocaust and the extermination of 6 million Jews.

Though presumed alive and well, the "resurrected", non-fictional Jesus remains silent.

"Qui tacet consentit" ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Since you addressed me, may I ask what your point is?

Are you claiming that God is jealous because you read so in the bible?

Or are you claiming that even after a lifetime of suffering among the Jews, Jesus has no right to retire in peace, sitting at God's right hand while his followers below riot?

Yes, his followers (or shall I say, those pretending to follow him!) overemphasised the jealous aspect. Are you claiming that he could do more about it?

Si Zeus intorserit fulmen super omni peccatori, mox fore, sine relicti munitionis quoadusque!

Dear Banjo,

I suppose I could not have expected you to understand what I - or the author of the EB article, or e.g. Toynbee (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9038#144777), etc - wanted to say. (You might or might not agree with my description of different types of knives, but pointing out the many cases where people were stabbed to death by knives seems to be somewhat irrelevant.)

We already had such talk-past-each-other encounter on another thread, that time in connection with (mathematical) models in contemporary physics. I think we just have to live with our differences in both cases.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"Since you addressed me, may I ask what your point is?"

As I was intruding into your conversation with George, I thought it was polite to address myself to both of you instead of to George alone, ignoring you completely.
.

"Are you claiming that God is jealous because you read so in the bible?"
.

I was quoting from the bible in which various authors claim that the Abrahamic god is a jealous god. I provided this as supporting documentation in order to illustrate what George was referring to when he mentioned "the jealous aspect".

I think your question is better directed to George.

For my part, I understand there is no "god" therefore I do not claim that "he", "she" or "it" or whatever, is jealous simply "because I read it in the bible".

If somebody or something does not exist, he, she or it cannot be jealous.
.

"Or are you claiming that even after a lifetime of suffering among the Jews, Jesus has no right to retire in peace, sitting at God's right hand while his followers below riot?"
.

No. But it seems you are claiming that Jesus spent "a lifetime of suffering among the Jews". I am no expert but I thought his suffering occurred during the three hours he spent on the cross before he died. Would be so kind as to let me have some more details on that.

As regards Jesus's "right to retire in peace", that, again, is a question for George to answer, if he can, though I suspect you are being a little facetious.

I hope that is not the case, because if it were, it would not be very befitting of you, Yuyutsu, as an adept of Ramakrishna.

Swami Vivekananda would not be so proud of you either.

.

.

Dear George,

.

"We already had such talk-past-each-other encounter on another thread ..."
.

Well, I thought I was talking to you but I do sometimes have the impression we have difficulty understanding each other. Admittedly, we also have our occasional disagreements.

I see nothing unusual about that since we come from immensely different backgrounds. In addition, I am as ignorant as you are knowledgeable and my thought patterns are as vagabond as yours are disciplined.

As I just indicated to Yuyutsu, my previous post to you was in two parts:

In the first part, I provided documentation from the bible illustrating your reference to what you termed "the jealous aspect".

In the second part, I indicated some practical examples of your observation that "Christianity has "overemphasized" the "jealous" aspect".

Ninety percent of my post was pure documentation.

Only the last two lines were personal:

"Though presumed alive and well, the "resurrected", non-fictional Jesus remains silent. "Qui tacet consentit" ?

I see this as polemic and open to debate.

I do not see it as "talking past each other". But as you say it is, I am more than willing to take a step sideways in order to catch whatever it is you are saying.

I promise to do my best to understand.

.

Dear Banjo,

OK, I should not have said “talk-past-each-other” but maybe “irrelevant”. My bracketed parable about the knives should have explained this. I was not arguing a point (except by mentioning the rather obvious fact that modern science and technology originated in the cultural West rather than East).

And I certainly did not want to start a "polemic", about the truthfulness or not, usefulness or not, of perceptions of “ultimate reality” offered by religion. Or about how non-Christians should understand, if at all, Christ’s resurrection. I was just quoting insights offered by people more experienced than us about things I thought Yuyutsu was about. Not arguments, but insights to be understood or not, shared or not. One way or another depends on the background one comes from, as you rightly point out; it is not a question of being knowledgeable or ignorant.

"The test of a phenomenological description is that the picture given by it is convincing, that it can be seen by anyone who is willing to look in the same direction, that the description illuminates other related ideas, and that it makes the reality which these ideas are supposed to reflect understandable." (Paul Tillich)

Dear Banjo,

<<No. But it seems you are claiming that Jesus spent "a lifetime of suffering among the Jews". I am no expert but I thought his suffering occurred during the three hours he spent on the cross before he died. Would be so kind as to let me have some more details on that.>>

I have no first-hand knowledge of Jesus, but according to the gospel, he was constantly confronted by ill-wishing fundamentalist Jews who were looking to trap him and as a result he had to walk on eggs. While under different circumstances he could perhaps have imparted the same ultimate wisdom as Krishna, alas instead of Arjuna he had for disciples ignorant, brainwashed and superstitious Jewish peasants whom he had to teach the A-B-C in parables.

<<Or about how non-Christians should understand, if at all, Christ’s resurrection.>>

Again, I have no first-hand knowledge, so my guess could be good as yours. One possibility is that rather than dying, Jesus went into Samadhi, where the heart and breathing can stop for days and so he was mistakenly taken to be dead.

George wrote: I was not arguing a point (except by mentioning the rather obvious fact that modern science and technology originated in the cultural West rather than East).

Dear George,

Is it an obvious fact? Science, democracy and much else that make up our civilization are assumed by many to have originated in the West. However, one can maintain this is historiography rather than history, and the role of the East has been downgraded or denied. Western civilisation is a late comer to the civilised world. John Keane in "The Life and Death of Democracy" places the beginnings of democracy in Asia where there is an ancient tradition of settling matters by bringing them up in discussion in assemblies generally open to the adult male population of the area. Greek democracy came later.

John Hobson in "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation" regards western civilisation as an offshoot of developments in Africa and Asia. For example the Chinese had the seed drill 2,200 years before it got to Sicily, printing with movable type in Korea 400 years before Gutenberg, blast furnaces in China 1,700 years before they were in Europe etc. Even Christianity, the dominant religion of Europe, was invented elsewhere.

Before the nineteenth century Europe acknowledged the debt to the East. However, in the nineteenth century Weber, a capitalist historian, and Marx, an anti-capitalist historian, denied that debt and saw the east as characterised by 'oriental despotism.’

Our language contains Arabisms in astronomy, mathematics and chemistry such as zenith, apogee, Deneb, algorithm, algebra and alembic. Hypatia, a fourth century Egyptian, discovered that the planets had an elliptical orbit a thousand years before Kepler. The Indian Aryabhata (b. 476) thought of zero, and proved that the earth revolves around the sun and rotates on its axis.

During the Cold War the Soviet claimed to have thought of rockets and disavowed genetics in favour of Lysenkoism. I think we are doing an analogous thing when we claim a western origin for science and technology. Science and technology did not arise full blown in the West from nothing several hundred years ago.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

"One possibility is that rather than dying, Jesus went into Samadhi, where the heart and breathing can stop for days and so he was mistakenly taken to be dead."
.

I see you have once again switched from scientific discourse to the enunciation of esoteric doctrine.

It is not difficult to imagine that the explanation you offer could well appeal to Hindu and Buddhist yogi and other mystics but, unfortunately, not so to the uninitiated, particularly the pragmatic realist I happen to be.
.

My mind drifts back to other lands:

I thought I heard something ... must have been the breeze rustling through the leaves of the gum trees down on the river bank where the earth is cool and the grass is green ... and the clear water flows gently over the clean pebbled river bed of the Condamine at Rangers Bridge. The big white cockatoos swirl high in the bright blue sky and settle on the boughs of the tall gum trees, breaking the silence with their mournful cry. ... and time stands still at midday as it always does ... suspended in the pure fresh air of the rugged Queensland outback.

.

Dear david f,

I never claimed that “science and technology” arose “full blown in the West from nothing several hundred years ago”.The same as I would not claim humans arose “full blown from nothing” several million years ago. Nevertheless, I maintain the we, humans, have brought it further than any other species on this Earth (without saying explicitly what I understand by “further”) . As for science and technology, I thought I made it explicit what I meant by the adjective “modern”.

As fas as I know - though I might be wrong - none of the examples that you provided contributed directly to the developments in the West that lead to contemporary science and technology. Did Gutenberg pinch his printing technology ideas from the Koreans? An so on. Those examples apparently did not lead the culture that gave rise to them to scientific and technological heights comparable to those reached by the equivalent achievements, even if at a later time, within the West.

Besides, I wrote of West and East on the background of religions, and here the West is represented by the three Abrahamic religions (c.f. EB’s reference to “jealous” God), which includes the Arabs. As Western culture would not be Western culture as we know it without its Judaic and Hellenic roots, science would not be science as we understand it without Arabic (or Hindu-Arabic if you like) numerals. And Aquinas would probably not know much about Aristotle and other Hellenic thinkers without Arabic mediation. Nobody denies these things today.

There are geographical, political, cultural, religious and other distinctions between East and West, that only partly overlap.

Dear George,

You asked if Gutenberg pinched his printing press from the Koreans. Of course he didn’t directly. He put together and improved on existing technology. The basic print technology may have made its way to Europe from China in the 1300s, although some scholars, claim that a European had the insight independently. Gutenberg’s printing would have meant little without the invention of paper, as parchment would not have supplied enough material for the books and other printing that began to pour forth. From http://www.ipst.gatech.edu/amp/collection/museum_invention_paper.htm papermaking was invented in China over 2,000 years ago The spread of knowledge of papermaking can be traced, and it did not originate in Europe. You wrote, “I was not arguing a point (except by mentioning the rather obvious fact that modern science and technology originated in the cultural West rather than East).”

Other instances of technological modernity originating in the East were the tools of warfare - steel making by the blast furnace and gunpowder. That made the mounted knight obsolete. The mounted knight disappeared in China about 1,700 years before he disappeared in Europe and for the same reason. Technology made him obsolete. It is generally accepted that the modernization of Japan has been largely a consequence of the importation of technology from the West and their application of that technology in their own country. When they defeated the Russians in the Russo-Japanese War they had taken western technology and used it so well that they had outdone a European power. In the same way Europe had taken eastern technology and had outdone the East.

Newton acknowledged his debt to others when he wrote: “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Neither modern technology nor modern science might have arisen in the West without the contribution of the East.

What I am objecting to is the whole idea that our culture stems from the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews independently of the rest of the world. Perhaps you didn’t mean that at all.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the information.

>>What I am objecting to is the whole idea that our culture stems from the Greeks, Romans and Hebrews independently of the rest of the world. Perhaps you didn’t mean that at all. <<

No I did not, if the emphasis is on “independently”. I cannot imagine a Newton or Einstein if we still had to work with Roman numerals.

Just an illustration of what I was trying to say about MODERN science: Taking mathematics, or mathematical physics, there are many non-European sounding names among contemporary prominent specialists and pioneers, most of them previous students at Western universities. I don’t think this was the case in, say, nineteenth century, which I think is related to the fact that there were practically no “non-Western” students in Western universities in those centuries.

.

An Easter gift ...

.

I hope you enjoy it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es5fqw3wAxc

.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Just an illustration of what I was trying to say about MODERN science: Taking mathematics, or mathematical physics, there are many non-European sounding names among contemporary prominent specialists and pioneers, most of them previous students at Western universities. I don’t think this was the case in, say, nineteenth century, which I think is related to the fact that there were practically no “non-Western” students in Western universities in those centuries."

The above is true. However, if we consider the European Dark Ages when Islam was flourishing in the arts and sciences there were no non-Christian students in the European universities. Christians, Jews, Buddhists and other non-Muslims were students in Islamic universities during that time. As Europe left the Dark Ages Islam entered their own Dark Ages where they still are. I guess I don't think of modern science as anything but a continuation of previous scientific investigations. The emphasis simply shifted to Europe. Ijtihad or the spirit of inquiry in Islam in the 14th century became confined to Islamic theology due to clerical pressures, and their universities were no longer places of learning in other areas.

Dear david f,

>>The emphasis simply shifted to Europe. Ijtihad or the spirit of inquiry in Islam in the 14th century became confined to Islamic theology due to clerical pressures, and their universities were no longer places of learning in other areas.<<

More or less this is what I meant - although Islam belongs to the West, when seen from the religions point of view - when I wrote:

“Those examples apparently did not lead the culture that gave rise to them to scientific and technological heights comparable to those reached by the equivalent achievements, even if at a later time, within the West.”

>>The emphasis simply shifted to Europe. Ijtihad or the spirit of inquiry in Islam in the 14th century became confined to Islamic theology due to clerical pressures, and their universities were no longer places of learning in other areas.<<

George wrote: More or less this is what I meant - although Islam belongs to the West, when seen from the religions point of view - when I wrote:

“Those examples apparently did not lead the culture that gave rise to them to scientific and technological heights comparable to those reached by the equivalent achievements, even if at a later time, within the West.”

Dear George:

Science continues to reach new heights because it builds on the insights of the past. Science at a later time by its nature ascends to new heights whereas the arts and humanities build on the past to a lesser extent or not at all. Arguably Shakespeare still remains our greatest playwright whereas the great Newton’s laws of motion have been superseded by relativity.

Islam has its roots in some of the same ground as Christianity. It seems that the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome brought on the European Dark Ages, and the confinement of Ijtihad to theology brought on the Islamic Dark Ages. Chinese inventiveness was hobbled in another way. The mandarins were the highest class followed by the peasants, merchants and artisans. A peasant might by study move into the mandarin class, but merchants and artisans were barred from it. Artisans were the class which were responsible for technical innovations. The use of what they developed was decided by the mandarins. Thus printing although developed earlier in the East was confined to government regulations and Buddhist texts whereas western printing printed whatever the printers could find a market for. Scientific publications found a ready market.

.

Dear David f and George,

.

At the crossroads of religion and science, there is, of course, that religious science or scientific religion called astrology.

It has been suggested astrology might have preceded both religion and science, giving birth to each as a common ancestor.

It reigned supreme until Copernicus (1473-1543), Kepler (1571-1630), and Galileo (1564-1642) dethroned it in favour of science.

The cosmic vault has been a source of awe and veneration for mankind throughout history. Its mysteries continue to incite our curiosity and imagination.

We set out, on foot, from our origins in Africa about 100 000 years ago and explored the earth, occupying all seven continents, but the cosmic vault remained beyond our reach until Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969.

It's 44 years since that first step and we still have a few more paces to take if we want to explore the universe. In the meantime astrology continues to thrive throughout all countries and all cultures, irrespective of any other declared religious affinity we may have.

I have not found any global statistics on the number of people who take astrology seriously but I should not be surprised if it surpassed the world's leading religious population (Christianity) estimated at 2 billion.

Here are a couple of interesting documents I did find:

http://www.astrologer.com/pics/graphs/belief.jpg

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris_Poll_2009_12_15.pdf

According to the Chinese zodiac, 2013 is the year of the snake. One point three five billion Chinese take this into account and adjust their decisions and behaviour accordingly.

In February 2011, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed astrology's standing in India when it dismissed a case which had challenged its status as a science. One point two seven billion Indians are diectly concerned by this decision.

.

Dear Banjo,

I am awed by the universe, mathematics and nature, was born under the sign of Mickey the Mouse and believe in life after birth.

.

Dear david f,

.

I always thought you were a bit odd, David ... a bit like me I suspect.

Enjoy your Easter lamb !

.