The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Scepticism and suspicion > Comments

Scepticism and suspicion : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 23/3/2015

The two poles of atheism, the contention that there is no evidence for the existence of a supernatural being and the irrationality, immaturity and superstition of believers is common fodder for modern atheists.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All
Interesting and insightful article, Peter, thanks. Except for:

>>The first movement of modern atheism was championed by the likes of Hume and Kant.<<

I do not think Kant could be counted as an atheist. From Wikipedia: “Despite his religious upbringing and maintaining a belief in God, Kant was skeptical of religion in later life; various commentators have labelled him agnostic. … Kant asserted, people are justified in believing in God, even though they could never know God's presence empirically.”

>>female believers required a woman with whom to sympathise.<<

I do not think the sense of what the Orientals call the yin-yang complementarity is a result of female requirement of a woman with whom to sympathise. Is not the (Catholic and Orthodox) veneration of Mary, beside worship of God the Father, related to this sense of complementarity when directed at the objects of Christian faith?

>>Even Descartes was willing to concede that consciousness is an irreplaceable means of knowing the world.<<

Apparently a reference to Cogito ergo sum. However, as it stands, would not everybody, not only Descartes, agree that you need to be conscious to know anything?

And, of course, Feuerbach’s “man created God in his own image” (i.e. a human can try to understand God only when modelling Him as a [super]humen being) is just the reverse side of the same coin that on its obverse side states that God created man to His own image.
Posted by George, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:00:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh George you are quite wrong.
I think that if we brought back 'Mother Earth' as a god, many women might change their minds about whether there is a god or not!
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:20:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you've got very close to the nub, Peter.

You may be interested in a couple of pieces I came across this morning, coincidentally.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/22/atheists_self_defeating_superiority_why_joining_forces_with_progressive_religion_is_best_for_non_believers/

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/can-my-prayer-be-as-angry-and-funny-as-me/
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:35:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why make this simple topic so complicated? To some minds (like mine) the supernatural beings who inhabit religions are literally incredible. And if they weren’t then an independent thinker would need to decide which ones to believe in, a tricky exercise at the best of times. Does anyone really succeed? Most hasten to the safety of their inherited religion, as if it’s genetic.

As for the so-called history of ‘modern movements in atheism’, the version here looks dubious and unhelpful. Let me offer a personal view of approximately 65 years of atheist history, which is a fair slab, even if I say so myself. When I first decided around age 12 that religion was a load of nonsense, I really did not have to give the matter any thought at all. But in those days this was a view that was, in today’s terms, politically incorrect. One had to be very brave to reveal it, a bit like homosexuality. After all, the severe punishment of heretics was almost within living memory. My peer group then liked using the word 'agnostic', which had a less severe or decisive ring about it and was therefore less open to disparagement. They even defended the notion that, as one could not prove the non-existence of gods, it was only proper to be ambivalent or undecided. That was probably political correctness too. Deep down they probably thought it was all a load of old cobblers.

The real timeline for atheism is that one’s absence of belief in a deity can now be stated and discussed openly. Of course there has also been a broad increase in freedom of thought in western countries, which in the main has statutory protection. More people can and will now call themselves atheists. There is no need to delve into deep philosophy to understand that development
Posted by Tombee, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:44:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Suseonline, “many” women (or men) "might change their mind" on whatever for whatever reason. If bringing back Mother Earth would threaten belief in God, why did not any significant number of Catholic women who lost their faith (and there are really many of them) pass from venerating Mary to a comparable veneration of Mother Earth?
Posted by George, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:54:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tombee, I think you're missing the point. I'm an atheist, which is to say quite specifically that I don't believe in the existence of an independent entity which may be described as a god. Does that also have to mean that I must reject as unimportant or non-existent the phenomena that have lead some people over the millennia to posit the notion of a god to explain them? Does it mean I must ridicule those who hold to such a notion today?

I say it does not and that moreover, to do so is to diminish some of the aspects of humanity which are most important and perhaps least quantifiable.

I'd go further (as I have done previously on this site) and suggest that those who do so are in fact no less blinkered than the most bigoted spruikers of religious charlatanry and just as motivated by self-interest informed by ignorance.

I won't go into it any deeper at present, this was well covered on Peter's scientism thread.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:59:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
Thank you for your comments. About Kant, I guess I had in mind the way Barth had to base his theology on the Word of God in order not to fall under the Kantian prohibition on empirical knowledge of God. However he was a functional atheist if not a formal one and he did reduce Christianity to morality.But you are quite correct.

I had misgivings about the comment about Mary. She is of course the model of faith and deserves her place. I think I read in Feuerbach that he thought the elevation of Mary was an example of projection. I may be wrong.

For me the big insight Westphal gives is the move from evidential atheism to the suspicion of the believer. We get examples of both these on these pages. I think the former is easier to deal with while the latter is embarrassingly true!
Posted by Sells, Monday, 23 March 2015 10:05:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

Thanks for a well balanced look at the balances between scepticism and suspicion, however I suggest that it does not address the necessity for belief in any supreme being in the first place.

Mankind is totally responsible for the result of his thoughts, words, and actions.
Some are fortunate enough to be able to recognise the link between causation and result, others less so.

The latter could just be the people who seek some sort of refuge in a divine being, so as to have an external object of approval or blame for whatever happens to them in life.

I tend to support your comment that Neitzche regarded Christianity as producing a slave race that refused to grasp its own power. Many religions have this as one of their outcomes.

As you go on to say, "what we are dealing with here is folk religion that is uninformed by either biblical texts or critical theology."

We just could be dealing with the God of bargains.
Posted by Ponder, Monday, 23 March 2015 10:27:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip, For a religion to be effective it is not necessary that it is true, only that sufficient people believe it to be true. I have noticed that for many belief systems (not just religion) that those least informed are those more likely to accept the veracity of a belief. Those closest to the authority or seat of power of that belief are more likely to have realistic views concerning veracity of a belief. With respect to Christianity, and especially Catholicism, I wonder just how strong are the unspoken beliefs of the bishops, cardinals and pope. They derive great power from the Christian belief system whether it is true or not and I at any rate cannot help thinking their own private beliefs might be quite different. I note the Archbishop of Canterbury and/or Westminster etc has received much publicity for his downplaying of some christian tenets.
Posted by Pliny of Perth, Monday, 23 March 2015 11:26:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponder,
I think that I was fortunate to come to Christianity as an atheist. This meant that I had to deal with the questions you raised from the beginning. It was not that I was convinced that a supernatural being existed but rather the realisation that the discourse of theology powerfully described my situation. This power extended to a critique of naive belief. It allowed me to work in science and then to proceed to theological studies. It also lead to much conflict with my student colleagues as well as the church at large.

One of the reasons I write these articles for Online Opinion is that I think that the role of public theologian is essential, preaching to the converted is not enough. Christianity should not be tribal. In our time, as a link offered by Craig Minns in this thread explains, it is atheism that is becoming tribal to the extent that we have to have arguments over the same things forever.

My aim is to show that faith is possible in our time and that none of the criticisms levelled against it is fatal and furthermore, that faith is worth the candle.
Posted by Sells, Monday, 23 March 2015 11:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig, 7 day creationist should be mocked, they have nothing to offer except foolishness. When we are done with them we move on to the old earth creationist.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 23 March 2015 12:24:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'shape' of God has always changed: The Christian era is, overall, one of the more persistent themes but, even then, there has been re-shaping with the Reformation and subsequent development of various Denominations.

The Christian god is a syncretic one - a confluence of Judaism and other then concurrent religions such as Isiacism and the cults of Serapis, Osiris, and Isis. Just internet-search for the image of Serapis.
Posted by McReal, Monday, 23 March 2015 1:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Peter,

I especially appreciate your last statement: "My aim is to show that faith is possible in our time and that none of the criticisms levelled against it is fatal and furthermore, that faith is worth the candle."

Belief in God is an act of faith, thus it has nothing to do with God's actual existence (which is a logical absurd). It is very possible and very worthwhile.

The existence of that "god of bargains" however, is not a logical absurd - for there is a theoretical chance that he exists, but even if he does, even if there exists such merchant-in-the-sky, then he would be just an idol, not God.

<< This goes to show that you do not have to be religious in order to favour a view that deals with the horror of non-existence in death.>>

There is no horror in the sleep of non-existence - except for those who worship existence, which is quite trendy in the West. On the contrary, it's existence which is full of horrors.

Scepticism is not new - it is already embedded in the ancient Vedas, yet it was not an obstacle to faith:

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

Rigveda, 10:129 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta#Nasadiya_Sukta_with_English_translation
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 23 March 2015 1:05:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Atheism is largely a sin problem not a belief problem. Notice how for the last 50 years the god deniers constantly single out the God of Israel and the Lord Jesus Christ. A 2 year old know their explanations of beginnings are fairytales. They use pseudo science to cover their lack of true science for any plausable explanations. Unbelief among the church hierarchy is nothing new either. Look what they did to Jesus.

If ever a Scripture was true it is in Romans 1 where God has handed over people to their own hopeless explanations because they deny the obvious. A number of above posters confirm this clearly.
Posted by runner, Monday, 23 March 2015 5:42:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, there are no 'sins' amongst atheists, because they don't believe in such rubbish.
A guy called Paul apparently wrote a letter to the Romans in 30AD.
How do you know that what he wrote was true?
I wonder how mankind managed to get by for many thousands of years before Jesus Christ walked on the earth?
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 23 March 2015 9:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'How do you know that what he wrote was true?'

because he describes you very accurately Susie.
Posted by runner, Monday, 23 March 2015 10:26:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

As for Kant, I am not a philosopher but I have sort of imbibed him in the education I received from my father (a Catholic with a degree in Family and Canon Law and admirer of Kant), my only source of non-Marx-Leninist philosophy during the Stalinist years I grew up in. So I gather Kant - unlike those thinkers who carried (carry) their atheism as a badge - has inspired many Christian, (even Catholic), philosophers and theologians (maybe Barth is not one of them), contributing positively to the evolvement of Christian world views and philosophies going beyond the insights of medieval scholasticism,.

I was not after theological disputes about Mary (Mediatrix vs Co-Redemptrix) only the psychological explanation of the fact of veneration (not worship), especially in folkloristic manifestations, via the yin-yang complementarity.

As for the “irrationality, immaturity and superstition of believers” as being embarrassingly true, I do not find embarrassing that there are philosophically naive approaches to both theism and atheism.

There are people who see mathematics only reduced to what they need in their non-academic everyday life. However, I do not find this truth embarrassing. Rather those should be embarrassed who want to argue about mathematics with somebody with a PhD in mathematics on the basis of what they learned in Year 7. I think you understand what I mean.
Posted by George, Monday, 23 March 2015 10:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here you go again, Peter -- on and on and on about what 'we' think. How DARE you attempt to tell me what 'we' think? You know nothing about what I think, and you demonstrate that fact over and over and over again. Your views on what people believe and why are nothing more than projections of your own wishful thinking. Please remove me from your universal 'we' -- and be prepared for others to request the same thing. This pretence of knowing what you cannot know is tedious and transparent.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:48:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon, if you are secure in your own views and you don't agree with Peter's article, then surely what he thinks you think is of supreme indifference to you?

Yet it doesn't seem to be.

George, someone with a PhD in mathematics should be able to clearly explain to the person with a year 7 education just where their error lies in any argument over mathematics.

On the other hand, religion is not necessarily amenable to such abstractly pure reason, as Kant to some extent showed. Therefore, whilst the search for an unbreakable chain of inductive inference to support theological speculations has been long and at times highly rigorous, it has always foundered in the metaphysical bog of subjective experience on which it is ultimately set.

However, mathematics isn't immune to the effect of such numinous revelatory experience, in fact it's been a feature of many of the great mathematical insights and has been remarked on by some of the greatest mathematicians. Having the advantage of seeking only internal consistency rather than any empirical correspondence, mathematics has managed to happily encompass such insights without worrying overmuch about the metaphysics.

I'm hopeful that empirical science, combined with new approaches to metaphysics that flexibly encompass qualitative models as well as mathematics does might bring us close to working out just what it is that religion is trying to explain.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 24 March 2015 7:38:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

Thanks for the insights.

>> someone with a PhD in mathematics should be able to clearly explain to the person with a year 7 education just where their error lies in any argument over mathematics.<<

I agree but that is irrelevant to what my metaphor was saying, namely that a person who is not very knowledgeable in a field should have the modesty not to ARGUE (different from asking for “clear explanation”) with a specialist. Sometimes this explanation is not possible: e.g. I would not be able to explain to somebody whose understanding of mathematics is at the level of Year 7 the difference between homomorphism and homeomorphism.

>> On the other hand … <<

I agree, subjective experience is an essential feature of religion, its mythological or metaphysical constructions being another feature.

I also agree with your following paragraph which, as I understand it, essentially refers to (a higher version of ) the simple fact that before you can understand arithmetics you have to learn how to count apples and bunnies.

I am not sure what the last paragraph means. Religion “tries to explain” what is usually referred to as the human condition. Part of that is an attempt to model in order to explain - through mythologies and anthropomorphic or metaphysical constructs - the dimensions of reality that are not amenable to scientific investigation (dimensions that for an atheist - as I understand him/her with apologies to Jon J - are all reducible to the mental).
Posted by George, Tuesday, 24 March 2015 10:42:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George, the assumption in religion is that there are some aspects of the human condition which are not amenable to empiricist analysis and to some extent theologists have made a virtue out of necessity in raising these aspects to be central dogmas. Similarly, science, in its attachment to the centrality of empiricism has to a large extent ignored those aspects or written them off as irrelevant subjective or ignorant misexplanations.

I'm hopeful that won't always be the case, since unlike Peter (and perhaps yourself) I see that as a significant failing of theology and one of the main reasons that it has lost its epistemological authority, which is after all what this article laments. It is also why empirically-defined rationalism has not managed to provide a metaphysically satisfactory explanatory replacement for atheists, despite enormous efforts to do so in philosophy.

Gould's separate magisteria model was grasping at this as well, but I find it unsatisfactory because it effectively gives up on finding a way to unify the disparate ways of viewing understanding.

I guess at heart I'm a positivist when it comes down to it.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 24 March 2015 11:11:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The items featured on this reference provide a unique Illuminated Understanding of the quantum world in which we now exist - and in fact always did.
http://www.adidaupclose.org/FAQs/postmodernism2.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 24 March 2015 6:50:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig, what Peter thinks IS of supreme indifference to me. What is of concern to me, though, is that he is given a platform here to put forward in public whatever tedious drivel he chooses, without any apparent editing or filtering of the content. If you or I were to submit a piece of unsubstantiated nonsense like this about our own pet obsessions, it would be sent back with a polite refusal by a bemused moderator. Peter's religious 'credentials', however, get him access to public fora that you or I would be unable to reach unless we had something meaningful to say. It's not a level playing field. THAT'S my concern.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 25 March 2015 8:15:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

Thanks again for your resourceful input that made me activate my own grey cells.

>> the assumption in religion is that there are some aspects of the human condition which are not amenable to empiricist analysis <<

I agree, some Buddhists might not. Empiricists’ approach can only serve as an ANALOGUE for modelling the "supernatural” aspects of reality (the existence of them the believer has to assume) similarly to science's modelling its physical aspects. Only here the criterion of “adequacy” - to borrow from the structural empiricist Bas Van Fraassen - is not of empirical nature but grounded in culture, tradition, sacred texts, mystical experience, etc.

[I’d add to this list Christianity’s UNIQUE multifunctionality as I see it: It is neither just a philosophical orientation that can inspire arts, science and morality (as well as act against them), nor a fairy tale (mythology) to be taken verbatim by the philosophically unsophisticated, nor a mystical experience comparable to the more developed Oriental versions, nor a pain killer (“opium for the masses”). Christianity is all of these things taken TOGETHER, and more. By capitalisation I want to stress its uniqueness only as a whole, admitting that when taken separately each of these features can be found elsewhere in various forms and guises, c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17075#301493. ]

This analogue was to my knowledge first systematically studied by Ian Barbour in his “Myths, Models & Paradigms (1974) that I already mentioned to you in another thread. One can see these analogues without having to believe in the existence of the “supernatural” aspects of reality.

(ctd)
Posted by George, Wednesday, 25 March 2015 8:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(ctd)

>> to some extent theologists have made a virtue out of necessity in raising these aspects to be central dogmas. Similarly, science, in its attachment to the centrality of empiricism has to a large extent ignored those aspects or written them off as irrelevant subjective or ignorant misexplanations. <<

In principle I agree: there are “axioms” (basic beliefs, or dogmas as you call them) that a given religious belief system - e.g. that of Christianity - is built on, as there are “axioms” on which a given scientific theory (notably in physics) can be presented as being built on [You can axiomatically build SRT on the assumption that spacetime is modelled on the Minkowski space, or the GRT by assuming that it is modelled on a pseudo-Riemannian manifold (plus other assumptions)].

There is a philosophically naive approach to both religion/theology and science/physics which sees these assumptions as “truths”, dogmas if you like, verbatim "given by God" or having been “scientifically proven” respectively.

I think theology has “significantly failed” only as far as it has seen its belief system, and what can be deduced from it, amenable to empirical (scientific) verifications. The same as - I believe - science will fail when it tries to answer questions that in many cultures belonged to the realm of religion for millennia.

The difference is that (Christian) theology was acting as ersatz-science for centuries (and is still in some extreme cases) whereas attempts by some atheists to use science as a kind of ersatz-religion are relatively recent.

I also find Gould’s "Nonoverlapping magisteria" unsatisfactory.

>> It is also why empirically-defined rationalism has not managed to provide a metaphysically satisfactory explanatory replacement for atheists, despite enormous efforts to do so in philosophy.

I really appreciate this, although I would stress that most thinking Christians do not start with their religion providing them a “metaphysically satisfactory explanation” but rather seek this explanation after “embracing faith”, c.f. Anselm’s fides quaerens intellectum.

I really appreciate this opportunity to learn from your views on these things.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 25 March 2015 8:37:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George and Craig,
Can I remind you both that Christianity is an historical religion. Not that it exists in history but that it finds its foundation in history, in human experience. This means that it is empirical. As Israel experienced and meditated on that experience so did the disciples and the subsequent writers of the NT. Thus Christianity was not invented out of nothing, as it were, but evolved from human experience. Dogma arose out of an analysis of that experience. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, arose out of the need to systematise the experience of Jesus, the truth of his life, his historical being and that strongly felt experience of his continuing presence.

John J,
I do not understand why you get so upset! If my material displeases you so much save yourself from pain and stop reading it. I would be grateful for the absence of your posts.
Posted by Sells, Wednesday, 25 March 2015 10:07:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

I agree but do not see how this contradicts what I wrote, except for the use of the term “empirical” which in empiricist philosophy is not meant to mean “evolved from human experience”, which can be said about many products of human creative, intellectual or spiritual activity.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 25 March 2015 11:59:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is what's being described in this article emitting from Marks and Freud and others otherwise known as bulverism? The concept is explained as follows -

"The modern method [of argumentation] is to assume without discussion that [your opponent] is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it Bulverism. Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall.’ That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth [and Twenty-First] Century."

–C. S. Lewis, “Bulverism,” in God in the Dock, p. 273

Sells, I like what you said in the article about 'trust'. You've highlighted a disconcerting trend in current society.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 26 March 2015 8:34:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,
You seem jealous that Peter's 'drivel' gets a lot of space here on this website. However, I don't think it's because of his religious credentials. I'm not sure what these are. He's described here as a deacon. That could mean anything. It probably doesn't mean he's in the full time employ of the church. He's described as working in science. Maybe his training was in this domain, but I'm only guessing.

Have you ever attempted submitting something of your own here, and possibly had it knocked back? If so, I can sympathise. I sometimes have scratched my head trying to decipher the editorial policies. But it can't be denied that Peter's articles have got a lot of response over the years. Bums on seats, or whatever is the metaphorical equivalent, I think, here counts for quite a lot. These articles, from what I understand, are coming from a self confessed rebel in the church ranks (correct me if I'm wrong). He seems to me to be often aiming for controversy. The ability to stir the pot, or ruffle some feathers, touch a nerve, or some other emotion may be all that's required.

Though the website isn't always going to get it right in what it considers 'rational' or 'logical', it's often fairly open minded. And that's better than most.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 26 March 2015 9:24:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Peter,
I agree entirely with your comment vis a vis Christianity's (and I think it's as readily applied to all religious models) basis in empirical observation. The thing is that the core dogma relating to divinity represents an abrogation of empiricism and that is why it has had so much trouble meeting science in the middle over the years, although it must be said that especially in the Catholic church that is changing rapidly, with Teilhard's ideas at last receiving the attention they deserve.

I'm very much a lapsed Anglican and out of touch with the doings of the church, is the same type of theological reformation occurring in the Church of England?

I saw a very interesting interview with the Dalai Lama some time ago about the role of empiricism in Buddhism, in which he made the point that in his view Buddhism is in some ways closer to a science than a religion. I have looked for it online, but I can't put my hands on it. Perhaps someone else might know of it?

Dan, thanks for introducing me to Bulverism, I hadn't come across that delightful perversity before. It's incredibly resonant with a lot of what passes for public "debate" though.
Posted by Craig Minns, Saturday, 28 March 2015 10:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,
I have a hard time reconciling two sentences you said in your last post, one after the other.

'Christianity has its basis in empirical observation.'
'The core dogma relating to divinity represents an abrogation of empiricism.'

These seems contradictory. I can't see how it can be both.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 March 2015 8:51:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber,
You won't dispense with 7 day creationists by mocking them. This only encourages them, as in this phrase from Luke's Gospel:

"What blessings await you when people hate you, and exclude you, and mock you, and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man." (6:22)

You might fare better attempting reason.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 March 2015 8:53:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,
I don't think there's a contradiction. Religions, including Christianity, are all largely empirically based; that is, they are derived from observations and thoughts about the human condition. For the most part they represent attempts to explain and hence regulate the behaviours of people and the world in which they find themselves. In that regard they are the precursors to and the intellectual antecedents of modern science and philosophy and it is easy to show direct evolution from one to the other over time.

However, religions rely on a divine (imperfectly knowable) Mystery as a fundamental metaphysical (non-)explanation for things that are not readily amenable to empirical analysis. Since the tools available for such analysis didn't change a great deal until very recent times - the last couple of hundred years at most - this was readily defensible as a dogma, since it was well-shown to be beyond reach of normal human ken and, let's be honest, it was a great source of earthly power to be able to claim special access to God.

As a result, in some religions it became easy to simply add layer upon layer of speculation or sheer fantasy and claim it was part of that central dogma.

I think George is absolutely correct to say that for most people religious observance is about "practical religion" (my words) rather than the metaphysical speculation. They go along with the often impenetrable theology for the benefits in their everyday lives that derive from following the rules of behaviour.

Personal revelations on a scale grand enough to change the world are rare. It isn't surprising that those who have them are often venerated. It's even less surprising that they are often vilified in their own time.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 29 March 2015 8:08:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

>>Religions, including Christianity, … are the precursors to and the intellectual antecedents of modern science and philosophy and it is easy to show direct evolution from one to the other over time.<<

Here I beg to differ. Religion, especially Christianity acted until recently ALSO as a de facto substitute for what today is the realm of science (and to some extent also of modern philosophy). It is only this ersatz-function of religion that is the precursor of science and modern philosophy which "it is easy to show".

Religion, even its most primitive forms, is more than just a naive answer to scientific questions; it attempts to answer human beings’ existential questions that science cannot answer unless it masquerades as ersatz-religion. Its metaphysical interpretations concern only one of its dimensions.

Modern religion/theology deals with concepts (that for an atheist, as you rightly point out, have no reference to objective reality) that are beyond empirical verification either directly through senses or instruments or mathematical models, as concepts that science, notably physics, deals with.

As for dogmas, until Lobachevski, Bolyai also Euclid’s axioms were seen as “dogmas” i.e. basic, self-evident, truths that nobody doubted. Even today you must accept them as basic if you stick to Euclidean geometry.

>>it was a great source of earthly power to be able to claim special access to God.<<

This sounds like the ersatz technology function of religions in the past, or like mysticism that still thrives in spite of modern science and technology.

>>in some religions it became easy to simply add layer upon layer of speculation or sheer fantasy and claim it was part of that central dogma.<<

Until reletively recently also developments in pure mathematics were viewed by outsiders as adding “layer upon layer of speculation or sheer fantasy and claim it was part of” mathematics understood then only as arithmetics and elementary Euclidean geometry. Today some people look similarly at contemporary speculations in theoretical physics (M-theory, multiverse, etc.) I do not think these speculations are useless even when so far their usefulness is not visible.
Posted by George, Sunday, 29 March 2015 10:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,
Like theology, mathematics has at its heart the notion of internally self-consistent reasoning. Unlike religion, mathematics is self-consciously and deliberately abstract. Any correspondence with empirical reality is coincidental not purposeful: "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural world" as Wigner put it.

I think you'd agree that the history of maths has been one of endless striving for generality. Geometry on the plane is a special case of the more general geometry of the sphere, which is a special case of the more general geometry of curved surfaces, etc.

It's been an iterative evolutionary process over time that has revealed each of the more general cases, often only after a very lengthy period during which it has been necessary to accept as axiomatic the assumptions of the special case du jour.

Religion (especially the Abrahamic religions and most especially the fundamentalist sects) has somewhat quarantined the examination of some of the core axioms and that has been both an asset and a burden.

Speculation is not a problem per se, but when it is coupled with a theory of knowledge model in which only some forms of speculation are allowed and speculative results are regarded as unassailable dogma it is stultifying. Euclid arguably set back geometry by a millenium and Galen likewise for medicine, to give two non-religious examples.
Posted by Craig Minns, Sunday, 29 March 2015 10:49:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

I agree that one difference between mathematics and religion is that religion TRIES to understand reality within and without us, mathematics can only SERVE the latter, be it “coincidental” or “unreasonable”. Therefore logical constructions built on axioms (dogmas) are all that there is in mathematics, but not so in religion, not even the metaphysical dimension of it.

I agree that speculation is not a problem per se but even in science there is a difference between whether a theoretical physicist speculates about new outreaches of what is known, and whether somebody with a very limited knowledge and understanding of what is known tries to speculate to make things more comprehensible to him/her.

>> only some forms of speculation are allowed and speculative results are regarded as unassailable dogma it is stultifying.<<

This probably was so in the situation when one religion (e.g. Christianity) was the only (or default) cultural orientation (Christendom). This is not the case in the West any more: today there are no “dogmas” that everybody - interested or not in some theory of knowledge - has to accept.

Another thing are certain dogmas that might need to be explained/interpreted, but should NOT be explained away, when one wants to use the label e.g. Catholic when presenting a representation/model of reality (or morality). Compare this with my reference to the fifth Euclid’s axiom that became a “dogma” only for those doing Euclidean - in distinction to non-Euclidean - geometry, whereas before it was seen as an absolute truths about reality that everybody had to accept.

I do not think that Euclid set back geometry by a millennium, neither that Newton set back physics or Aquinas philosophy.
Posted by George, Sunday, 29 March 2015 11:44:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,
I agree that there is a great deal of interest within modern Christianity in seeking better approaches to core dogma, I was continuing from Peter's earlier comment vis a vis the historical roots.

WRT Euclid, I tend to Feynman's view, which was that Euclidean insistence on fundamental axioms caused a mindset within mathematicians and to some extent logicians more generally that made it difficult to advance to more general cases. As you know, it was ultimately the poorly framed 5th axiom that proved the undoing of that way of thinking and lead to a proper geometry of the sphere.

That criticism can't be made about Newton. His way of thinking was an early model for the scientific method. He was a paragon of unconventionality and a great example of always questioning accepted wisdom, including his own.

Philosophy is an interesting case, because it has flourished alongside and because of a great deal of cross-fertilisation with the natural sciences and mathematics. Aquinas was an excellent scholar and very much interested in reasoned speculation. He introduced a new level of rigour into his speculations about the nature of reality, but lacked the tools to be properly comprehensive and undoubtedly both knew and lamented that.

Aquinas is one of the great exemplars of the way in which theology has lead toward science and modern philosophy.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 30 March 2015 12:41:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,
Speaking in the context of what is believed by fundamentalists, you've said above. "... only some forms of speculation are allowed and speculative results are regarded as unassailable dogma ... "

I don't mind your turn of phrase, yet I hardly think this description belongs to 'fundamentalists' alone. I think you're more so describing what's common to all humanity. All our methods, beliefs, philosophies, 'isms' and creeds have their speculations, their boundaries, their 'quarantined' areas, and their unassailable dogma. It's only the human condition you are describing, common to us all.

And I think you've staked your own faith claim, though speculative, with as much conviction as any common parishioner I've seen in church:
"I'm hopeful that empirical science, combined with new approaches to metaphysics that flexibly encompass qualitative models as well as mathematics ... " is what you think might be the recipe to bring us on track? Do you really believe in your heart we'll find the unified theory for everything?

Add a little reason, speculation, self conviction, salt, simmer and stir. We can all propose a recipe. For we all have that measure of faith that's there to be appropriated.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 March 2015 6:33:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

I do not understand what Feynman meant (I have not heard of this before) but in general I am sceptical about historical “ifs”. We can say what would happen with a compound if we add or remove an ingredient, but how can we know how essential is this or that “historical ingredient”, whether geometry (or philosophy) would have developed the way Feynman prefers, without Euclid or other “ingredient”? Or does he really think that Euclid’s contemporaries would have understood what Feynman would have instead wanted him to state? Have all the premodern thinkers who accepted the “truth” that the square of a number cannot be negative set mathematics back?

With hindsight we might prefer Newton’s or Aquinas’ contribution to our understanding of the world to that of Euclid who, after all, lived centuries before both, so he was much more removed than the two from how we try to understand the world today.

I am not sure what you mean by “geometry of the sphere”, since as a surface embedded in the three-dimensional Euclidean space it was well treated (e.g. by Gauss) within what we now call Euclidean geometry.
Posted by George, Monday, 30 March 2015 7:16:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,
I don't dispute that faith is important and if you've followed some of Peter's other recent threads you'll see a fairly extensive defence of religion from me. Positivism is itself a kind of faith and that too is important.

I think you're also right that the tendency to quarantine aspects of knowledge is common in academia and other hierarchical organisational structures but it's by no means always been the case. The Enlightenment was notably characterised by a highly cross-disciplinary approach, as was the Greek Golden Age. It is also increasingly the case in our modern age of information that cross-disciplinary collaboration is seen as a norm, while easy access to information means that the lines between fields are increasingly blurred.

Yes, I really do believe we will eventually find out enough about the world to have a "theory of everything", including a genuine understanding of humans as a group species. What's more, I think that when we do, it will become obvious that what has been called "divine" is an emergent property of the interactions between the things that make up the self-organising "system of the world". This is what Maturana called "autopoiesis".

Are you familiar with Luhmann's work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann

He was one of the first to try to bring some of the ideas of dynamical complexity into sociology and in my view is undervalued by a profession that has been obsessed with oversimplification and constructionalism. Even such relatively simplistic approaches to complexity as structuration have failed to find much traction, but this is changing, once again due to cross-disciplinarity.
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 30 March 2015 7:42:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi George,
re: Feynman, I'll let him explain it himself. This is some video of one of his lectures. I think I may have referenced this before. He discusses the difference between a Euclidean axiomatical dogmatic approach and the more modern (although he points out that it actually predates Euclid) approach of making useful assumptions and working in whatever direction is necessary to arrive at the desired result. As you will note, Feynman's objection is not to the postulates that Euclid used, but to the assumption that they defined the only possible path to a proper understanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaUlqXRPMmY

Gauss had to abandon the fifth axiom (or more correctly, modify it to fit with what was obviously the case on the sphere) to make his geometry work, which was what I was getting at. Riemann and others then generalised it further. There really was no reason it couldn't have happened a great deal sooner though, because there was a great deal of knowledge about the geometrical properties of spheres for centuries before Gauss's work. It was only the perceived inviolate nature of Euclid's axioms that limited acceptance of non-Euclidean models.

I'll include a link to Wikipedia for those who may not have a mathematical bent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry
Posted by Craig Minns, Monday, 30 March 2015 8:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear George,

I have little to add because you summed the situation very well:

<<I think theology has “significantly failed” only as far as it has seen its belief system, and what can be deduced from it, amenable to empirical (scientific) verifications. The same as - I believe - science will fail when it tries to answer questions that in many cultures belonged to the realm of religion for millennia.

The difference is that (Christian) theology was acting as ersatz-science for centuries...>>

Which was wrong - the clergy were supposed to teach their flock the way to God, not about the ways of the world.

While the ultimate Reality, or God, is indescribable, sometimes it is necessary to encourage the people with inspirational stories that help them to find the strength and courage to proceed on the difficult path, to work against their human/animal nature, to improve their character and develop an attitude of devotion.

Take the Sabbath: it is of spiritual advantage to set aside regular times for rest and reflection. When simple-minded people asked "why?", it was helpful to tell them the creation-story, how even God rested on the seventh day.

However, somewhere, somehow, the purpose was nearly forgotten and the story acquired a life of its own, grew out of proportion and even spilled into the realm of science, conflicting with geology, astronomy, biology, etc.

This cannot be described as religion, but as an accident.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 30 March 2015 5:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig,
I don't have much time for the view that religion is merely a sociological phenomena, emerging from the human condition. If this is your view, then I fear we'll find little common ground to share. I don't believe man created God. I believe God is the creator of man, and everything else. This is the perspective from which I view any notion of faith.

For one example, while Yuyutsu claims that the Sabbath is merely a human construct or a good or useful idea, I see it totally the other way. The Sabbath was never someone's good idea. It is a gift of God to mankind. It came from God as a blessing.

Faith itself doesn't derive from our cleverness, or someone's good idea. It is itself a gift from God.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 March 2015 9:10:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

I have not claimed as if the Sabbath is a human construct or that it is not a gift from God, which it is. We can of course discuss the subtleties of the origin of the Sabbath, if you wish, but that was not my point at all.

Agreeing that the Sabbath is a wonderful thing and God's blessed gift, what I wrote instead related to the role of the clergy - how to explain it to simple-minded lay people and encourage them to practice it.

I believe that the creation story in Genesis 1 and the first 3 verses of Genesis 2, is a hymn in praise of the Sabbath, thus was never intended to recount the early history of this world. It also promotes religion by inspiring awe towards God. For me this is more than enough to consider it sacred - the concept of scientific history was not yet invented at the time and is really unnecessary for the faithful even today. Judging the ancient scriptures by today's modern expectations for scientific accuracy is inappropriate.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 30 March 2015 10:12:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
I was only going by what you said. You said it was helpful for the clergy to tell the ordinary folk some story to encourage them to rest once in a while. For it was advantageous for them to have regular times of rest and reflection.

So, let me see if I can follow your logic. God wants us to have the blessing of a rest. So to encourage us, he creates an elaborate creation tale/myth/hymn, all for reflecting the idea that he once took a rest one day out of seven.

If he is God, wouldn't it have been easier just give us a straight commandment, something like: 'Make sure you rest, one day out of seven.'? That was the tone he took for the other commandments: Do not murder; Do not steal; Do not take another man's wife; etc. No explanation required. He's God; he sets the required standard. Why not just give us another commandment?

No, for this commandment concerning rest, just to keep is in a regular weekly cycle, he wants to encourage us with an elaborate hymn, placed squarely and integrally at the beginning of the nation's foundational document, while knowing all along it doesn't relate to any temporal reality.

Is this what God did? What motivation is there to obey a God who manufactures such reasons to secure our obedience?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 12:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

I do not believe that God is a person, thus writing or wanting anything (that would have rendered Him limited, thus not God, perhaps just one god of many, which is not who we worship): it is people which are in varying degrees close to God who become inspired, through the Holy Spirit if that's the terminology you use - in that state they receive His gifts, then they seek to serve and guide others so they can benefit as well. In doing so, they adjust their teachings to the methods and presentations which their students at the time are able to absorb and benefit most from.

Regarding the "nation's foundational document", this hymn and others were collected over a thousand years later, essentially for national rather than religious interests. The collectors were politicians, not men of God: their aim was to unite and prosper the nation, regarding God only as instrumental for this process. Otherwise, if you believe this document to be in one piece, you would wonder why God needed to write His book in so many different and conflicting styles rather than leave clear and concise instructions.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 1:39:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan, do I believe that religion is a sociological phenomenon? Yes
Do I believe it is "just" a sociological phenomenon? No

If you would like to know about my views, then have a look at a couple of Peter's threads that I've contributed to.

I am sympathetic to your view, even if I don't share it. You might be surprised to find how much common ground we do share.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 6:24:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,
This is what I saw you wrote, and what I based my comment on, Maybe I missed the thrust of it.
- " ... it will become obvious that what has been called 'divine' is an emergent property of the interactions between the things that make up the self-organising 'system of the world'."

Yuyutsu,
I find it difficult to discuss the Christian God while putting aside the Christian Scriptures. Though rich in style, its message is not conflicting. The description there is tremendously clear. God is presented as personal, from cover to cover, including creating people 'in his image', through to revealing himself in the person of Christ, etc.

If you want to discuss the Christian God, then we are talking about a personality. It's this God that interests me, the God who communicates intelligently in and through the Scriptures. If you want to talk about some other god, then that will likely fall outside my interest.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 7:51:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Peter,
.

I find your article, this month, to be an honest, unbiased presentation of atheism.

However, I am not happy with Merold Westphal's distinction between scepticism and suspicion:

« Scepticism is directed toward the elusiveness of things, while suspicion is directed toward the evasiveness of consciousness. Scepticism seeks to overcome the opacity of facts, while suspicion seeks to uncover the duplicity of persons. Scepticism addresses itself directly to the propositions believed and asks whether there is sufficient evidence to make belief rational. Suspicion addresses itself to the persons who believe and only indirectly to the propositions believed. »

Scepticism rejects claims to certainty. Suspicion is a feeling of distrust.

Also, I have a problem with the terms “opacity of facts” and “duplicity of persons”. “Opacity” may not be due to the “facts”. It may be due to the observer or, perhaps, to both the facts and the observer.

Duplicity implies deceit. In my mind, someone who believes in God (“the proposition believed”) is making an honest mistake, for reasons I ignore (other than the fact that there is no such entity), but I consider that cases of duplicity must be extremely rare. If they exist, it seems to me that they can only be due to very grave, exceptional circumstances.

Regarding your observation that “there have been two movements in modern atheism”, I consider it is an error to qualify the second movement as “atheism”. You indicate: “The second wave of atheism presumed the nonexistence of God.”

Those who make up the groundswell of the second wave are not interested in religion. It does not come under their radar. They do not define themselves, a contrario, by reference to those who believe in God. Atheist is not part of their vocabulary.

The only people who ostensibly claim their atheism are militant opponents of religion. They are few in number and vehemently hostile. The large majority of those who make up the groundswell of what you call the second wave are indifferent to religion.

They are not “atheists”. They are just ordinary people, like you and me.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 8:14:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan,
Yes, that is what I wrote and that is what I meant. Have a look at those other threads, I'm not really interested in going through the rather lengthy discussion about that all over again.

I'd be happy to discuss how our views may be compatible or otherwise once you have that background. If you are simply going to reiterate statements of faith though, there's probably little to be gained from that for either of us.
Posted by Craig Minns, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 8:18:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote to Craig :

« I agree that one difference between mathematics and religion is that religion TRIES to understand reality within and without us, … »

It seems to me that religion, defined as “a set of beliefs”, does not “try to understand” but rather “projects a belief” (i.e., to cite Peter – or was it Feuerbach – “the consciousness that results is false consciousness. We remain enclosed within our own projections of what we wish the world to be”). But perhaps you have a different definition of “religion”. If so, would you be so kind as to indicate it ?

My Concise Oxford Dictionary indicates: “particular system of faith and worship”.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia indicates: “The derivation of the word "religion" has been a matter of dispute from ancient times. Not even today is it a closed question.” It then goes on to indicate the various definitions suggested by various “Catholic authorities” (Cicero, Max Muller, Lactantius and St. Augustine) before concluding: “The correct one seems to be that offered by Lactantius. Religion in its simplest form implies the notion of being bound to God”, and adding: “Religion, broadly speaking, means the voluntary subjection of oneself to God.”

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 8:20:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

>>the poorly framed 5th axiom that proved the undoing of that way of thinking and lead to a proper geometry of the sphere.<<

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was objecting to “a proper geometry of the sphere” which was known and studied e.g. by Gauss before the idea of dropping the 5th axiom allegedly came to Gauss (who never published it, see e.g. your link) and to Bolyai and Lobachevski (who published it).

Another thing is the sphere where great circles are called lines (and opposites identified) which in this set-up is the standard model of elliptic (non-euclidean) geometry, not a sphere as usually understood.

Thanks for the explanation by Feynman which does not contradict what I said about hindsight and the futility of trying to plausibly answer historical “if” questions. (I heard of a philosopher who claimed Aquinas would have better understood Einstein than Newton. Hence we would have been better off if Einstein followed medieval thinkers and Newton never came?)

>> Feynman's objection is … to the assumption that they defined the only possible path to a proper understanding.<<

Proper understanding of what? “Truth” that people spoke of intuitively before we came to distinguish e.g. between structural realism (Worrall) and constructive empiricism (Van Fraassen) in contemporary philosophy of science?

>> I think that … it will become obvious that what has been called "divine" is an emergent property of the interactions between the things that make up the self-organising "system of the world". This is what Maturana called "autopoiesis”.<<

Keppler correctly described the movement of planets but he could offer only a “divine” explanation (angels holding the planets). Newton gave a better explanation, removed the angels-explanation but did not claim that he could explain away the “divine” dimension of reality. Some people thought so, some people think Darwin explained it away and some may think that Maturana’s autopoeisis (a sort of biological mechanism projected into system theory) could do it. This is all about God being reduced to a “god of the gaps (in what science can explain)” and hence doing away with Him.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 8:35:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

>>Which was wrong - the clergy were supposed to teach their flock the way to God, not about the ways of the world.<<

Who in their time decided what they were supposed to teach? If you mean God, and believe that His will is reflected in the Bible, then it is true that the Bible was about “the way to God”, but doing that it had to substitute also for explaining “the ways of the world” until He found us mature enough for proper science that could do it much better. Similarly the Church had to provide for many things that related not only to “Love the Lord your God” but also to “Love your neighbour as yourself” until a secular society developed that can do the latter much more professionally (well, at least in theory).

“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" became comprehensible only in Galileo’s time, although even today there are some who do not understand what it means.

Dear Banjo,

I agree that if religion is defined as “a set of beliefs”, then it does not “try to understand” anything. What you call “projections” is, I think, covered by my reference to “reality WITHIN AND without us".

I also agree that there are many “definitions” of religion as there are of other abstract concepts. My favourite is Geertz’s anthropological definition (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816&page=0#124645 )
Posted by George, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 8:40:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

What other God could there be?

Surely God, "Christian" or otherwise, is not an idol which leaves space for any rivals...

The problem is that God cannot be described: neither words nor concepts nor any other finite expression can begin to convey even an infinitesimal idea of God.

But for religion to spread we need to use words, inadequate as they may be - such words that will propel the people to which they are addressed towards God and His ways. Christianity is one such attempt and has at times been quite successful.

The word "created" is no exception, for surely we cannot describe God's intents and actions in the way we describe limited human intents and actions. Yet if creation-stories is what does it, is what encourages people to lead a more virtuous life devoted to God, as they seem to work in ancient times, then so be it and they must be commended. However, if they can no longer provide this function (because modern people have been already stung by the poison of science), then other means should be sought - for example, Peter Sellick promotes the use of music and art to achieve the same.

As per Isaiah 55:1: "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.", I have faith that the roads to God are never closed and when one door is closed, another opens.

Thank you George,

God's will is reflected in everything, not just the bible and ultimately there is nothing but God and no action or road which does not eventually lead us to God - whether via the straight and narrow or via the winding, long and painful... and anything in between.

I believe that some parts of the bible are purer than others, directing people towards the straight and narrow. The best parts, such as “Love your neighbour as yourself” can lead us not only to the booby-prize of heaven, but beyond towards God Himself.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 9:21:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Yes, of course, the Supreme being cannot be rivalled. That only stands to reason.

I'm sorry, but I find your posts hard to comprehend, as they are too inconsistent. On one hand you claim the Bible is unclear and contradictory, but then you want to quote Scripture as if it means something. You speak about the inadequacy of words, but then you want to use words to communicate to me through your posts. You want to give some credence to the Christian God and the Christian scriptures, and yet deny that God is a person, whereas the personality of God is just about the most clearest and plainest teaching found within just about every page of the Scriptures.

All up, it makes for any meaningful conversation with you quite a challenge..

I could agree with you that God being an infinite being would naturally be hard for our finite minds to understand. Yet God is clever enough to communicate to us what he wants us to know. He doesn't have a communication problem. He's good with words, and he's chosen his words carefully, consistently, and concisely in his 66 books.

I disagree with you that science is poison. Good science can be a great tool for us all; as can be good theology, and as Peter Selleck suggests, good music and art. It's all great if used intelligently.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 31 March 2015 4:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

Thank you for Clifford Geertz’s anthropologist’s “scientific definition” of religion which has your favour :

« (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (op. cit. p. 90). »

I have no difficulty understanding why a mathematically trained mind such as yours is in resonance with this type of “scientific description” which breaks down the religious process into its constituent components in rational sequence.

Even a crude neophyte such as myself is capable of admiring the remarkable precision of the clockwork.

However, I must confess that while I agree with you that Greetz’s “scientific description” is interesting, it, nevertheless, provokes a rather uneasy feeling in me due to the fact that I perceive it not as a “definition” of religion but as a description of the process of religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind.

Geertz clearly describes the process by which religion surreptitiously infiltrates the human mind, implanting in it « a set of beliefs », a set of unshakeable religious beliefs.

I prefer the broad and simple definition of religion as « a set of beliefs ».

I see that Geertz was a cultural anthropologist who was heavily influenced by the German sociologist, Max Weber, both of them considering « that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun » - an interesting concept which seems to suggest that probably neither of them was a theist.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 1:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is there a difference, Banjo Paterson?

>>I perceive it not as a “definition” of religion but as a description of the process of religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind.<<

Every religion on this planet is designed to first attract a body of supporters, and to generate in those people an immediate animosity towards other religions. Or even between sects within their own religion - Protestants v. Catholics, Sunni vs. Shia etc.

That goal is not achievable using a Powerpoint presentation and an operating manual (or tablets of stone and a Bible, Qur'an or whatever). Indoctrination and mind-manipulation are prerequisites.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 7:14:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>>I perceive it not as a “definition” of religion but as a description of the process of religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind.<<

I think we all are free to perceive a text the way we want, but as for myself I do not see it as describing a “process” but a system of symbols reflecting a human predisposition as a result of evolution into humans. Of course, “religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind” is a well known invective but I have never seen it used in a scholarly anthropological context. Well then, I am not an anthropologist.

>> I prefer the broad and simple definition of religion as « a set of beliefs <<

You can make all sorts of conclusions from a suitably taylor-made definition.

I am aware that Geertz was not a theist, otherwise I would not offer you Geertz’s definition.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 7:17:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inculcation of a set of axiomatic cultural norms ("beliefs") is a functional, in fact essential part of having a culture. Cultural evolution is readily able to be analysed in a similar way to biological evolution, as Dawkins and others have pointed out.

So there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the process of indoctrinating members of a culture with a set of beliefs that form the core of the culture. We have, as part of out schooling of our children in secular Government schools, units called "civics" or similar, which are specifically designed to do this. We have all sorts of secular ceremonial events designed to espouse and foster representative or aspirational culturally normative values: Anzac Day, Remembrance Day, Australia Day, White Ribbon Day, International Women's Day, etc, etc, etc.

Whether any one of us agrees with the particular values being espoused is to a large extent irrelevant. What is seen as necessary is that there is a mass observance of some aspect of living within this culture; the particular event is likely to be mostly established by fiat within the socio-cultural hierarchy rather than as an outpouring of individual passions, even if the original impetus for it was (Armistice Day is now Remembrance Day, for example).

The organised religions have followed similar cultural evolutionary lines and have often been more about secular power than anything transcendental.

However, there is without doubt that transcendental/numinous aspect within the experiences of the founders of all religions, as far as I can tell and it is also undeniable that throughout history some people have experienced their own version of some sense of being connected to something transcendentally encompassing. This is a fact, but what that experience represents is still to be understood.

I find the idea of a God as an explanation unsatisfying for reasons gone into earlier, but I am sympathetic to those who don't. Having a bad explanation for something does not mean the reason for the explanation does not exist.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 8:34:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

I appreciate and learn from the profound spiritual content of many of the biblical texts, of various degrees of authenticity and purity: some of their authors were truly men of God. I do not similarly appreciate the purity of those guys who assembled together those texts and others into the collection now known as the bible. In my view, those who assembled the old-testament were politicians that were more interested in national cohesiveness than in spirituality.

Depicting God as a person is a useful tool, for otherwise it is very difficult to pray to Him, etc. Being a person (and more generally, having any attribute, including even existence) is a serious limitation and I hope we can agree that nothing limits God, but I don't blame the authors of the bible for teaching so to the unrefined masses, which was (and still often is) a practical necessity. They did a great job and here I agree with Craig's last sentence: "Having a bad explanation for something does not mean the reason for the explanation does not exist".

Regarding science, its common practice is a distraction from God and a hindrance to simple faith. There are of course exceptional individuals who use the discipline of science as a spiritual tool, but nowadays they are rare. One motive of science is curiosity, the other is the belief that this material universe has value. Curiosity is a mental sense so in principle it is not different to the other senses of the flash and trying to satisfy the former is akin to trying to satisfy the latter. As for the belief that the material universe has value, none was ever detected: while the Higgs boson was discovered and is likely responsible for gravitation, no particle or wave or anything else was ever found by material science which constitutes or contains value.

Dear Craig,

I enjoyed reading your last post.

<<The organised religions have followed similar cultural evolutionary lines and have often been more about secular power than anything transcendental.>>

To that extent, "organised-religions" are no longer worthy of the name "religion".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 9:06:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

I think that any sort of indoctrination is immoral because to indoctrinate means to teach others/another to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, and no-one should be taught to accept anything uncritically.That being said, I don’t think indoctrination is an essential part of having cultural norms, and nor does having a culture rely on indoctrination.

Religion, on the other hand, does rely on indoctrination and unlike cultural norms, is often accompanied by unfounded threats of damnation. Questioning the existence of God is a sin according to the Abrahamic religions. Such thought crimes don’t exist in most cultures and any that might are at least not policeable.

You are drawing yet another flawed parallel between religion and [insert social construct here]. Religion takes indoctrination to a level that cultures and societies never could and does it with the specific goal in mind of ensuring that its believers don’t question it. So it is a mistake to excuse what is an essential self-defence and self-propagating mechanism by simply shrugging one’s shoulders and saying, “Oh well, we’re all doing it.”

We’re not all doing it.

If you want non-religious examples of indoctrination to draw parallels with religious indoctrination, then look to communism and (to a lesser extent) Naziism.

<<Having a bad explanation for something does not mean the reason for the explanation does not exist.>>

I don’t think anyone has ever argued that it does. The lack of evidence for certain religious claims is what discredits them. Whether or not they are useful or satisfying is a separate issue.

Yuyutsu,

<<To that extent, "organised-religions" are no longer worthy of the name "religion".>>

They are if they still hold to a particular system of faith and worship. Words don’t have meaning, they have uses. We inject meaning into words ourselves.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJP,

Craig related to organisations which "have often been more about secular power than anything transcendental":

If that is the case and their particular system of faith is in the world and its pleasures, or if instead of God, in their mind they worship power, money and sex, then they only pretend to be religious. Otherwise it's like calling an able-bodied person who sits in a wheelchair a 'cripple'.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 1:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJP,
from Webster's Dictionary:

Indoctrinate

Full Definition of INDOCTRINATE
transitive verb
1: to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of a lack of criticality being a defining aspect of indoctrination.

Furthermore, a culture is and must necessarily be founded on indoctrination or if you prefer, "teaching" of the cultural norms that apply ("memes" in Dawkins's usage), whether that is done overtly and conscientiously or is implicit in the behaviours that are rewarded and punished by the group. This is a fundamental basis of social/organisational psychology.

I don't want to have an argument with you, AJ, because there is no point. You won't accept anything I tell you, regardless of how well supported, as being reasonable for an atheist to hold as a point of view, simply because it doesn't agree with your own.

Such is life. I wish you well in your mission as a "counter-apologeticist" and hope it brings you whatever you hope it might.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 3:22:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

The oxford dictionary says something very different:

teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

synonyms:
brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate, persuade, convince, condition, discipline, mould.

archaic:
teach or instruct (someone).

So, who do we believe? I don’t know of anyone who uses the Webster’s definition, and the denial from so many Christians, that what they do constitutes indoctrination, would suggest that they accept with the Oxford dictionary’s definition too. Furthermore, when we talk of, say, Marxist indoctrination, we’re not just talking about people being taught Marxist ideas and values. There is the implication there that it is being taught uncritically and that it is being taught to be accepted uncritically. Why else don’t we “indoctrinate” our children with values instead of simply “teaching” them those values?

Regardless of what word one uses, though, in light of what I pointed out, all this means is that you had presented a misleading/incomplete picture of the teaching styles of many religions by equating the two when there are very important differences.

<<You won't accept anything I tell you, regardless of how well supported,…>>

Firstly, nothing that you have said (that I have challenged) has withstood any scrutiny, so you can’t know this.

<<...as being reasonable for an atheist to hold as a point of view,...>>

Secondly, I have never said anything about whether or not your claims (that I have challenged) are reasonable for an atheist to hold. I don’t think they are reasonable for anyone to hold. Whether or not one is an atheist is irrelevant.

<<...simply because it doesn't agree with your own.>>

Thirdly, I have never suggested that a view is wrong or unreasonable "simply because it doesn't agree with [my] own". I go to great pains to support every one of my arguments in the very realisation that my opinion alone is no benchmark for anything.

If you could point me to examples supporting any of your claims here, then I will humbly apologise and slink away with my tail between my legs.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 4:50:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, I've already said I won't be bothering to argue with you. If you won't accept the Webster's as an authoritative source; a dictionary nearly as old as the Oxford and as well respected, simply because you "don't know anyone who uses" it, then I think my decision is well founded.

My own copy of that great work, the Third New International Edition, has it as follows:

1a: To give instruction esp. in fundamentals or rudiments: TEACH <the function of indoctrinating youth was given to and accepted by...the family and priesthood - LG Garber & WB Castetter> <the recruits were indoctrinated for a month and then sent to specialist schools> b: to imbue or make markedly familiar with a skill <indoctrinated themselves with the teamwork of attack - Ira Wolfert>

2:to cause to be impressed and usually ultimately imbued (as with a usu. partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle <had to be indoctrinated with the will to win - JP Baxter><indoctrinating young people with alien ideologies>:cause to be drilled or otherwise trained <as in a sectarian doctrine> and usu. persuaded<indoctrinated the immigrants in a new way of life>

Enjoy talking yourself in circles with selective quotations designed to try to indoctrinate others into your own point of view.
Posted by Craig Minns, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 5:35:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig Minns,

I accept Webster’s as an authoritative source. Nothing I said should have suggested otherwise. I also never cited the fact that no-one else uses the word to simply mean ‘teach’ as the only reason I “doubted” it. I simply asked who we should believe (“who we should go with” would have been better a better question). Again though, which word we use is of little consequence, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

<<Enjoy talking yourself in circles with selective quotations designed to try to indoctrinate others into your own point of view.>>

So now you’re accusing me of quote-mining? I would challenge you to point to a single example of that.

And if giving credence to an idea that requires myself to commit the same logical fallacies and/or ad hominems and/or misrepresentations of what others are saying just to defend it is the only way to break out of that circle, then I'm happy to walk around in it until something better comes along.

If I give credence to something as ridiculous as religion for no other reason than to break out of a circle, than that the same heuristic leaves me at risk of giving credence to all sorts of ridiculous ways of thinking. Our heuristics don't all operate in isolation from each other.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 6:25:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Dictionaries often help to clarify. But words also convey shades of meaning depending on context, and certain words are often chosen for emotive effect.

So I might 'teach' the youth, or 'train' the youth. But if I 'indoctrinate' the youth of today, I might be meaning exactly the same thing, but intending the phrase to portray a different flavour. Indoctrination, I think, carries a more sinister or stern feel. I think it's often used when teaching a widely held belief or value that is assumed but wouldn't otherwise be readily obvious if critiqued (that's my opinion, rather than an attempt at a dictionary definition.)

I've noticed that in this thread, a few people have used the word 'evolution', perhaps in the context of people evolving over time from something that is other than a person. The idea that people evolved from non-people is a common belief today. I don't think it's entirely obvious, but it's often assumed by those who haven't looked into the matter critically. In other words, it's a cultural value (whether good or bad) that's been imbued into the society.

I've noticed that philosophies encouraging belief in the theories of evolution over millions of years are part of our cultural milieu. You can't go to a national park without seeing plaques describing the long-age geological history of the scenery. No self respecting nature documentary on television will avoid inserting references to our evolutionary history. Any pre-school lesson or kids' book on dinosaurs will carry with it descriptions on how many millions of years ago these dinosaurs lived, all designed to 'indoctrinate' our youth with the appropriate current belief.

That evolution is a major tenet undergirding atheism means that usually the atheist will not refer to this societal inculcation as 'indoctrination'. But I would suggest that most people who use the word evolution, both here on this thread and elsewhere in modern society, do so in likelihood of this type of teaching/indoctrination rather than having looked at it critically.

So which is the most appropriate word to use? It depends on your belief system.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 9:22:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Craig,

Thanks for the interesting exposition preceding

“I find the idea of a God as an explanation unsatisfying for reasons gone into earlier, but I am sympathetic to those who don’t.”.

I like the way you formulate this, since I can counter it with my

“I find the idea that God is just a believer’s delusion unsatisfying for reasons gone into earlier, but I am sympathetic to those who don’t.”

Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the divide, who see it differently, who are insecure in their beliefs or unbeliefs.

As for “indoctrination”, I agree with you. As I said many times, I am glad I have been “indoctrinated” into speaking three languages (as well as into the basic tenets of Christianity) in my “tender years” without learning anything about their grammar, not to mention “critical (linguistic) thinking” about them, because it was much easier for me than the foreign languages that I had to (tried to) learn and "critically assess" tediously in my later years.

Nevertheless, I think that “indoctrination”, because of the way it is being used in worldview wars, has become a pejorative word.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 1 April 2015 11:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan and George,

As I said earlier, we can ditch the word "indoctrinate" and it doesn't really change my point about the problem with equating the inculcating of cultural norms and the teaching religion from a nonpartisan perspective.

George,

This is just silly, and I think you know it by now...

<<Unfortunately, there are people on both sides of the divide, who see it differently, who are insecure in their beliefs or unbeliefs.>>

I'd doubt very much that there are any at all on the atheist divide who are insecure about their unbelief. As we have been through many times before, an atheist has no reason to feel insecure about their lack of belief. They are not the ones with the burden of proof; they're still at the default position with a complete lack of evidence and Occam's Razor to justify why it's alright to for them to still be there; as per the "Atheist's Wager", they have nothing to lose and everything to gain if they're wrong; their unbelief provides no crutch that they may fear cannot be replaced if they change their mind; and they are free to change their minds if the evidence permits without wondering if an evil spook is trying to trick them.

The idea that an atheist could be insecure about the fact that they find the evidence for a god to be insufficient is beyond absurd, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference between belief and disbelief in general. It is the equivalent of trying to claim that baldness is a hair colour, or that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Someone like runner could get away with making such a claim, but from you it just looks dishonest.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 April 2015 12:38:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips,

I think you just proved my point, although originally I did not have you in mind in that remark to Craig. There are many things I do not believe in but I would not spend so many words arguing how secure my unbelief is.
Posted by George, Thursday, 2 April 2015 12:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Pericles,

.

You ask :

« Is there a difference, Banjo Paterson? » [between the definition of religion and the process of religious indoctrination or a formula for manipulating the human mind].

Yes. It is the difference between the subject matter (religion) and the “teaching” of the subject matter.

Geertz’s so-called “definition” of religion only vaguely alludes to the subject matter without actually naming it, but clearly identifies what he considers to be the five phases of the “teaching” process employed for “imparting” this particular subject matter, providing a brief description of each phase.

.

Dear Craig,

.

I don’t think the words “teaching” and “indoctrination” are interchangeable.

Perhaps some fervent Catholics send their children to school to be indoctrinated but I should be surprised if this were the case of the majority of families who send their children to Catholic schools. As for the families who send their children to state schools, I doubt that any of them send their children there to be indoctrinated.

I employed the term “indoctrination” with reference to Geertz’s so-called definition of religion. If “indoctrination” simply means “teaching”, then it seems that the five phase process he describes should apply to any scholastic pursuit, e.g., mathematics, science, languages, history, geography, etc.

I don’t think it does, but if you do, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why ?

Here, once again, is his “definition” for easy reference :

« (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (op. cit. p. 90). »

If, like me, you think it doesn't apply to any other scholastic pursuit, I should be interested to know if you have any suggestions to make as to why it only applies to religion.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 2 April 2015 2:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I think we all are free to perceive a text the way we want … »

If we “perceive (something) the way we want”, I doubt that it is because we are free. I suspect that it is because we are incapable of perceiving “it” any other way – for all the obvious reasons.

Whatever our perception, we can, of course, keep it to ourselves and pretend that it is something different. We can lie.

So far as you and I are concerned, George, I rule that out. In fact, I rule it out for everyone on this forum.

You also wrote :

« Of course, “religious indoctrination, a formula for manipulating the human mind” is a well known invective … »

I knew you would not take kindly to that expression, George, but I couldn’t think of a more appropriate one to describe the five phases Greetz identified as constituting the “teaching” process for religion.

As you know from previous experience, I can be a bit rough at times. Hopefully, you will put that down to my ill-spent youth as an Aussie bushwhacker and forgive me. Australians of my generation who grew-up in the bush are known to be a bit rough around the edges but legend has it that we are rough diamonds.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the definition of religion as “a set of beliefs” is not of my coinage. I simply found it on “dictionary.com” and adopted it as the best definition I had come across so far.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 2 April 2015 3:04:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>> I knew you would not take kindly to that expression <<

Thus you agree with what I wrote above, namely that “indoctrination” has become a pejorative word.

>>to describe the five phases Greetz identified as constituting the “teaching” process for religion<<

There is no mention of any “teaching process” there (anthropology, as far as I can tell, does not deal with teaching processes) or “phases” in the definition (divided into five parts only to make the long defining sentence more palatable).

I cannot reproduce here the whole context in which Geertz offers his definition; you would have to read the whole Chapter IV titled Religion As a Cultural System.

Nevertheless, here is an excerpt “…rather like “culture”, “symbol” has been used to refer to a great variety of things … it is (also) used for any object, act, event, quality or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception—the conception is the symbol’s meaning—and that is the approach I shall follow here” (op cit. p. 91).
Posted by George, Thursday, 2 April 2015 7:41:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread has become a perfect illustration of why it's pointless trying to discuss ideas online.

Enjoy yourselves.
Posted by Craig Minns, Thursday, 2 April 2015 7:50:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Craig,

<<This thread has become a perfect illustration of why it's pointless trying to discuss ideas online.>>

Why, the first 10 pages went really well - perhaps we can resume where we were before the interruption?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 2 April 2015 7:55:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I tried very hard to indoctrinate my son into the joys of cricket. But alas, I failed. He has no interest whatsoever in attending cricket matches with me. He'll never understand its intricacies of the game. However, when he sometimes challenges me to a game of cricket on PlayStation, at those times, I must cede to his dominance. I can barely compete.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 April 2015 8:11:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, If I'm not mistaken, it was on page 10 where you attributed someone's existence (as opposed to their non-existence) as a limitation.

That one had me clean bowled.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 April 2015 8:39:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

The fact that I used so many words to rebut your claim does not necessarily prove that you were right. It could simply mean that I am thorough. It could also be indicative of the extent to which your claim was absurd. There were several possibilities but you chose the one that had already been shown to be false in order to sling mud.

I also didn't argue how secure my belief was. I only provided reasons as to why it cannot be something to be insecure about. Why is it that anybody, theist or atheist, has to misrepresent what others say when defending religion? I think that's telling.

Craig Minns,

I think it's still possible to have discussions online. Given how damning your accusations towards me have been, what I would do if I were in your position would be to back my claims up with examples of what I was talking about and send me on my way. Either that or show why it was reasonable to ignore the factors that I pointed out which render a comparison between religious indoctrination and the inculcation of cultural norms inaccurate to the point of useless.

By the way, if it's any consolation, I don't enjoy contradicting you like I do some others on OLO. You're intelligent, articulate and well-educated and I agree with you on every other topic, but there are some arguments and claims that I find so bad that I just can't leave them to go unchallenged.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 April 2015 1:06:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Yes, existence is a limitation.

Apart from the obvious inability of anything existent to be non-existent (or if you like, to become "non-existent, then existent again"), only OBJECTS exist (or in common language, "things").

Objects are subject to time/change and can be manipulated - even the sun is affected by our small mass and as it pulls us we pull it back.

"Existence" is the subtlest attribute, but still is. Let's take a simpler example of an attribute - "creator". If something or someone creates a world, then that makes them a creator! Previously they were not a creator, but now they are. Have they changed? It's action and reaction: if you do something to X, then X applies an opposite force on you. That's a limitation.

Apart from this, existence is an illusion of the human mind - a divine illusion if you will, but still an illusion. Our brain is incapable and was not even meant, designed or evolved to grasp the Truth, but only to carry our survival and everyday duties successfully, so "existence" is just a practical abstraction which helps us to function and plan. Now would it be sensible to claim that God is within and subject to His own illusion?

It is simply inappropriate and futile to attempt to apply our everyday sense and mental experiences and the terms we invented for them, to God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 2 April 2015 6:19:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« >> I knew you would not take kindly to that expression <<

Thus you agree with what I wrote above, namely that “indoctrination” has become a pejorative word. »
.

For those who consider that indoctrination simply means teaching (cf., the Webster dictionary definition cited by Craig) then you are right : indoctrination may be interpreted as a pejorative word for teaching.

Webster is an excellent dictionary but it is an American dictionary. My reference is the Oxford English Dictionary which I think you will find is generally considered the ultimate authority in the English language.

The free online Oxford dictionary indicates the following definition for indoctrination :

1. Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically

2. Archaic: Teach or instruct (someone)

Modern usage of the term indoctrination makes a clear distinction between teaching as it is generally practiced in most scholarly pursuits and the teaching of a doctrine or an ideology.

In the modern usage of the term, indoctrination is not a pejorative form of the word teaching. It designates a very unique method of “teaching” for which the corresponding pejorative term is brainwashing.

The online etymological dictionary indicates that the word indoctrination derives from the Medieval Latin word doctor : "religious teacher, adviser, scholar" (which reminds me of the term “witch-doctor”).
.

You then quoted Geertz as having explained :

“…rather like “culture”, “symbol” has been used to refer to a great variety of things … it is (also) used for any object, act, event, quality or relation which serves as a vehicle for a conception—the conception is the symbol’s meaning—and that is the approach I shall follow here” (op cit. p. 91).

It seems to me that the “vehicle” Geertz describes in his “definition” of religion is a system of communication which represents a process of indoctrination of something (a doctrine, an ideology, religion …) but not the thing itself.

I’m afraid we seem to be at odds, here, George.

Btw, why should cultural anthropology “not deal with teaching processes” ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 2 April 2015 8:34:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

>> the following definition for indoctrination :

1. Teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically<<

I agree, and have already admitted that as a child I have been taught to accept many beliefs uncritically (I mentioned languages, but similarly maths when learning to count apples, facts of science, etc.), although the word indoctrination is usually not being used in this context. Besides, I do not understand how a child could have accepted these things “critically”, except that his/her “criticisms” is guided (e.g. by his/her maths teacher in later years).

I agree that I accepted Geertz’s anthropological definition uncritically, since I am not an anthropologist. If you want to criticise it, you have to consult the paper I quoted from, and perhaps suggest an alternative anthropologist’s approach.

Otherwise I would have to agree with Craig’s last post, and leave it at that.
Posted by George, Friday, 3 April 2015 12:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,

I think you’re being deliberately obtuse. When I quoted the Oxford dictionary's definition of "indoctrinate", I included the synonyms for a reason. Dictionaries order their synonyms by their relevance and here are the first five synonyms that Oxford mention in regards to "indoctrinate":

brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, inculcate, re-educate

Not exactly the words one would use to describe the style of uncritical teaching that you’re trying to pass off as examples of what the Oxford dictionary could be talking about.

Sounds like they need to revise their definition for those who insist on not understanding.

Banjo Patterson,

Thanks for that last post. It said everything I didn't have the patience or time to say earlier.

Speaking of unreliable defintitions, here's one that serves as a good reminder as to why we need to be cautious of the definitions we accept, and why I (and Google's 'define:' command, apparently) only use the Oxford dictionary's definitions...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 3 April 2015 1:16:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« I do not understand how a child could have accepted these things “critically”, except that his/her “criticisms” is guided (e.g. by his/her maths teacher in later years). »
.

Naturally, there is a good deal a child cannot accept critically but I have observed in my own children and grand-children that they develop a capacity for critical thought, to varying degrees, fairly quickly – particularly when one gets a better deal than another – call it a sense of justice, if you like.

Turning to your example of maths - but it is true, too, for the sciences and humanities (to a lesser extent) - while young children are highly vulnerable and largely incapable of criticising whatever is dealt up to them, the job has already been done by others, through peer reviews and rigorous teacher qualifications and control. Society has long been aware of the problem and caters for it fairly effectively.

Where the problem lies is in the domain of religion, beliefs, doctrines and ideologies over which society has very little control. The humanities are not exactly watertight either despite the built-in safeguards of the education system previously mentioned They are often subject to conflicting interpretations and theories. Even biology is a borderline case. Scientology, creationism and intelligent design have made inroads into what otherwise may have qualified as a “hard” science.

As you know, my formal education ceased at the end of primary school. I was raised as a Christian, baptised, confirmed and served as an altar boy. One of my best friends is now a retired Anglican bishop. I never had a “teacher in later years” to “guide” me (as you indicate). I grew-up not knowing my father. My mother never mentioned him. I always thought he was dead but learned he was alive the day he died. My brother found out and told me in secret. Our mother never remarried.

Perhaps that is why I have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind, George, and why our world-views are so difficult to reconcile.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 3 April 2015 7:54:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Thanks for a sincere insight into your formatting years.

>>Perhaps that is why I have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind, George, and why our world-views are so difficult to reconcile <<

I do not doubt that you “have always enjoyed relative freedom of thought and independence of mind”, and I would appreciate if you could accept the same about me, (or other people whose worldview you do not share) since after all it is a self-assessment, and only a few people would claim the opposite about themselves.

I never thought these discussions were about reconciling different worldviews, often based on very different life experiences. I would rather think that they are about enhancing one’s worldview by learning from some honest upholders of the opposite one, without seeking an admission by the opponent that my worldview was superior (e.g. more rational because he/she was “indoctrinated” into his/her worldview while I was not). At least I have learned a lot from many (not nearly all) contributors here, including you.
Posted by George, Friday, 3 April 2015 8:44:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Once again, I confess that I have very little comprehension of whatever it is you're talking about.

To your claim that 'existence is a limitation', if I dare suggest you're just being silly, or that your mind has become a little unhinged from common sense or reality, then such allegation would only then reflect back onto me for attempting to reason with you.

I'm pretty certain that I exist (I think Rene D long ago once famously said something similar.) I have existed for some decades.

I strongly believe that God exists. I think I can reasonably speak for both of us (myself and God) in saying that we'd prefer to exist than to not exist. I think we can achieve more that way..

I really don't see how existing is going to limit either of us, as opposed to not existing. In fact, I think non existence would put a real dampener on me trying to achieve anything. I can't imagine a more limiting factor than non existence. But, hey, I'm sure you'll try and explain your point of view to me one more time.

So, Craig Minns,
Welcome to the Twighlight Zone. Oops, sorry, I meant to say, welcome to the OLO Forum. It's a therapeutic place where we try to make sense out of each others ramblings. The strongest sense of grace I get here is that we are limited (yes, there are limits) to 350 words. However that reminds of the phrase 'just enough rope'.

Here, we try our best to know and be known. On a good day, we might just make a point comprehensible to someone else. On a really good day, we might learn something.

I'm guessing I'll catch up with you soon somewhere along the line.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 3 April 2015 12:17:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

You say that you have existed for some decades.

At the start of those decades, you experienced yourself as a baby, then as a child, a youth, a young-adult, an adult, a mature-adult, an old-man perhaps. During those decades both your body and your mind have changed and they keep changing. Science tells us that all the atoms in our body are replaced within 7 years at the most. Whatever you experience as existing therefore, is not you but your body, not you but your mind.

What remained constant throughout those decades, is you. You say "I Am" and never hesitate that it is the same "I" as when your body was a baby, child, adult, etc.: everything around it changed, except YOU.

That You Are is the one thing you can never doubt, but that you exist is but an illusion.

Similarly, I say "I Am", you tell me "You Are" and that "She Is". "Am", "Are" and "Is" are only grammatical differences denoting different points of view, whereas their quality is exactly the same.

My AMness is the same as your AMness, also the same as the ISness of the chair you are sitting on. True, I often think while the chair doesn't, but our AMness and ISness is EXACTLY the same. The differences are imaginary, temporary or superficial while the commonality is absolute and everlasting. Once my body falls away, I also will probably stop thinking, but my AMness will never change.

That brings us to God, the great "I am that I am". This AMness, AREness or ISness that we all share, which is also everywhere and at all times, is nothing but our divine spark. In our true essence, we and God are one, you and God are one, in truth there is nothing but God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 3 April 2015 1:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yusutsu,
You quote from the Pentateuch as if you think it means something. Yet you've said before you don't believe in the Pentateuch. You should try and decide which tram you're on.

You also said yesterday that it's futile and inappropriate to try and use normal words and language to apply to God. So I have I have no reason or basis to bother attempting to discuss any of these issues with you.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 3 April 2015 2:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

In the Song of Songs [2:14], the lover says: "My dove in the clefts of the rock, in the hiding places on the mountainside".

Does it mean that the beloved is in fact a dove?
Or given that the lover is God and His beloved is Israel or the Church, are they biologically a dove?

In the language of science, where all is dry, factual, objective, none of it makes sense, none of it has meaning, but in the language of love, of the heart, it does and it has!

While it is futile and inappropriate to try discussing God as an object, it is very useful and appropriate to thank Him and sing His praises. In fact, it is GOOD to do so [Psalm 92:1].

I am very appreciative of those authors of the Pentateuch and other books who did just that. Science came much later.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 3 April 2015 3:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still at it I see, Dan S de Merengue.

>>The idea that people evolved from non-people is a common belief today. I don't think it's entirely obvious, but it's often assumed by those who haven't looked into the matter critically. In other words, it's a cultural value (whether good or bad) that's been imbued into the society.<<

It is a common belief that there cannot be an exact numerical representation of pi. In fact, this is often assumed by those who haven't looked into the matter critically.

Does that make the belief in the non-exact nature of pi to be a cultural value that has been imbued into society, or simply an acceptance that people much cleverer than I have looked into it, and come to a pretty convincing conclusion?

Your denial of evolution may amuse you, but to me it is convincing evidence of Mr Sellick's description of the "irrationality, immaturity and superstition of believers".

And - unlike you - I have taken the time to look critically at the concepts behind young-earth creationism, and found it too far-fetched, when compared to the logic and evidence behind evolution. Rather than evolution being a "cultural value", it is more "standard text".

But hey, each to his own, eh?

I do like the way you elect to speak for God, though.

>>I strongly believe that God exists. I think I can reasonably speak for both of us (myself and God) in saying that we'd prefer to exist than to not exist. <<

Unfortunately, merely preferring to exist (than not exist) does not confer the right to existence. I can reasonably infer your existence from the fact that you take the trouble to contribute to this Forum. But your existence does not in any way imply the existence of God, much as you would like to speak on his behalf.

What a very strange life you lead.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 April 2015 6:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You barely even know me.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 3 April 2015 6:46:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DSdeM's position is impregnable, at least in his own mind, claiming that faith itself is a gift from god!

Living and letting live is what matters, if believers would only leave it at that.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 3 April 2015 9:31:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you're saying my faith seems very firm, I'll take that as a compliment.

If you were wanting to say anything else, you'll have to elaborate, as I didn't catch it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 3 April 2015 10:21:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(:-))
Yuyutsu believs in the non-existence of God, although Christianas believe in His existence, and Pericles believes in the “non-exact nature of pi” although mathematicians believe in its “exact nature” (as an irrational number) …
(:-)).

Sorry Pericles, I know you meant the non-existence of a finite decimal expansion, but I could not resist the temptation to compare. Since, if one wants to, one can see what you mean, and also what Yuyutsu or Dan mean even when they disagree on the meaning of the verb "exist".

To avoid misunderstandings, I certainly do not think that scientific theories - including those falling into the category "biological evolution"- are merely "cultural values" that have been "imbued into the society".
Posted by George, Friday, 3 April 2015 10:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear George,

.

On « relative freedom of thought and independence of mind » :
.

I have no means of measuring such things. I place the accent on the qualifier: “relative”.

Moreover, many eminent philosophers seem to think that “freedom of the individual” is extremely limited if it exists at all.

By “freedom”, I mean “autonomy”. I see it as something we acquire progressively during our lifetime until it peaks-out and declines, describing a sort of Gaussian curve. In the scenario I imagine, our degree of autonomy varies at different points of time along the curve. The point at which it peaks-out is different from one person to another and the size and shape of the “bell” is also different from one person to another.

Please be assured, George, that I consider that you, like me and everybody else on this earth, dispose of some degree of « relative freedom of thought and independence of mind » which, as I said, I am perfectly incapable of measuring. Perhaps you can come-up with some sort of algorithm.

If you are willing to give it a try, I should be happy to do whatever I could to help identify the determining factors that enter into the equation.

The only thing of which I am certain is that none of us has a constant value of autonomy, freedom, independence or responsibility. It is a variable.

.

On « reconciling different worldviews » :
.

You wrote : « … these discussions are about enhancing one’s worldview by learning from some honest upholders of the opposite one …».

Agreed, and I think we can combine the interests of all parties through “reconciliation” as defined by the OED :

« 1. – The restoration of friendly relations
2. – The action of making one view or belief compatible with
another »

As Quentin Crisp wrote in his novel “How to Become a Virgin” :

« The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people think about us ».

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 3 April 2015 11:07:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
George,
If I too may clarify, I said that our society takes the opportunity to 'indoctrinate' our youth in what it considers appropriate current beliefs and values. In the case of evolutionary beliefs, most of our kids from a young age are receiving this inculcation through blanket repetition and continual reinforcement before their minds have developed the more critical faculties.

My point was that it is happening, whether good or bad. Whether theories of biological evolution are something more than 'merely' cultural values is a different question.

Pericles,
You were willing to use Peter Selleck's words in your post taking aim at me: "the irrationality, immaturity and superstition of believers".

I can see from this that you're not really concerned about getting onto my Christmas card list. But if I can ask your opinion, are you quoting Peter as a witness for believers or for the non-believer? In other words, whose side do you think he's on?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 4 April 2015 1:14:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

>> our society takes the opportunity to 'indoctrinate' our youth in what it considers appropriate current beliefs and values.<<

Every society does that - if by ‘indoctrinate’ you mean teaching children beliefs and values without offering them a critical assessment or the alternatives - but you are right that Christendom that defined its basic beliefs and values is over. We in the West have a (more or less) purely secular society whose beliefs and value overlap, but are not nearly identical with, those of the Christendom.

Happy Easter with (or without) its Christian significance to you and all those who still read this thread.
Posted by George, Saturday, 4 April 2015 8:55:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Happy Resurrection Day !

.

Time to have a little talk with Jesus :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxLA1NX9gxY&list=RDWxLA1NX9gxY#t=3

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 5 April 2015 1:13:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You barely even know me<<

For all I know, you could be a closet comedian, having some fun at the expense of a bunch of forum-hangers who actually believe that you are what you represent yourself to be here. Each time we take you on, and point out the massive gulf between young-earth creationism and reality, you laugh your fairisle socks off at our gullibility that anyone could possibly believe you are serious.

It is also remotely conceivable that you actually do believe it, prompting my comment, what a very strange life you lead.

>>I can see from this that you're not really concerned about getting onto my Christmas card list.<<

Nope. It is many years since I had a Christmas card list myself, so being left off anyone else's is something of a relief.

>>...are you quoting Peter as a witness for believers or for the non-believer? In other words, whose side do you think he's on?<<

Having read many of Mr Sellick's pieces over many years, I don't believe that he actually has a clue himself, as to which "side" he is on. My assessment is that he has completely lost any faith he ever had, but still needs to earn his daily crust. Or perhaps more charitably, that he is so intellectually drawn to every new religious analysis he comes across, he is now terminally confused.

He is widely read on his topic, that's for sure, which probably means that he is not faking it.

But 'fess up. Are you faking it, or do you genuinely believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? And is the reason you believe that, is that it was written in the Bible?

Every religion needs its documentation, sure. But why have you selected this particular handbook as being more credible, as a document, than the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita?

Perhaps because from a young age you received this inculcation through blanket repetition and continual reinforcement before your mind had developed the more critical faculties?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 5 April 2015 7:14:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,
I'd be happy to try and answer some of those questions in good time. But perhaps not today. It's Resurrection Sunday on the Christian calendar and a good time to pause for reflection.

Thanks George, for your last post and your holiday wishes, and happy Easter to all the regulars who are often back here at the Forum.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 5 April 2015 8:09:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I appreciate the offer, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Dear Pericles, I'd be happy to try and answer some of those questions in good time.<<

I think the one that puzzles me most about young earth creationists is how they reached the conclusion that they do. Was it the Bible that led them to Christianity, or Christianity that led them to the Bible - and from that point, into the concept of a young earth.

If the former, then why pick on the Bible as the starting point, when there are so many other, equally inspirational, spiritual guide-books available? I mean, it's not as if Christians actually follow the teachings, is it?

An interesting side issue - which Mr Sellick demonstrates each time he puts his quill pen to parchment - is that he firmly believes that atheism is actually about disbelief in Christianity, rather than a lack of belief in a deity of any kind. Here he is, discussing the "suspicious" atheist...

"The second phase of opposition to Christian belief is based on the suspicion that believers are not what they seem, that their belief is self-serving and has little to do with truth".

It is almost as if he categorizes "other religions" as being atheistic too - I know he doesn't, of course, but the phraseology gives away his subconscious tendency to file them in that basket.

Which leads to another puzzle with young earth creationism - how do you regard Christians who do not share your certainty in the literal interpretation of Genesis? It would appear that the Bible is so front-and-centre to your impression of being Christian, that Christians who understand and accept evolution must seem very strange to you.

A different religion entirely, perhaps? Or a sub-species of atheism..
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 April 2015 10:01:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I appreciate your questions. I wish I wasn't so busy at work to try and answer better.

Thanks for your opinion on Peter Selleck's writing. I think it interesting that you view him as confused (or inconsistent).

Without having read all that he's written, I find lacking in his articles the acknowledgement of the supernatural. For to look at the Christian scriptures, which are central to the faith, each of the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, each have the resurrection of Jesus at the core of its teaching. I cannot get around how this can be interpreted as anything but the action of God intervening in our normal time/space continuum. To not acknowledge this miraculous intervention is to miss an essential aspect of the historical faith. This is consistently presented throughout the NT, and has been believed upon by Christians for thousands of years.

Or to look at it another way, when Christians lose their faith in the resurrection, they've lost a crucial element of the faith. And it's no surprise that if they have no faith in the Bible's key miracle, there's no faith for other miracles, and a confusion falls over the rest.

And then there are some Christians who will accept some miracles but not others. But which miracle is grander or more difficult to activate, bringing Jesus to life in the tomb (all four gospels), or creating a man (Adam) from dust (in Genesis), or creating Eve from Adam's rib? In scope, they're all much the same.

What I'm looking for is consistency. There's no point believing some of it and not all of it. For those Christians who don't believe in supernatural resurrection, I'd like to ask them how they interpret this verse from Paul's teaching:
"And if our hope in Christ is only for this life, we are more to be pitied than anyone in the world." (1Cor15:19)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 8 April 2015 3:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
You question whether I'm serious. I could ask you the same, for your challenge about my whether I was serious sounds a bit light hearted. For years I've made my stand and flown the flag high. This includes articles that I have written for OLO which touch on the creation/evolution issue. I even remember discussing these issues with you in some detail after this 2010 article of mine,

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9980&page=0

So if you were serious, you would be aware of certain things. If you've truly investigated the issue you would be aware of the growing numbers, consistently over recent decades, of creationists present in churches, scientific circles, and in society in general. You would know that leading defenders of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones say they're dismayed at these numbers. So I'm not alone. There are real issues being discussed.

You've talked of the gulf between creationist views and reality. But when have you given evidence or argumentation for this? I can understand that compelling arguments are difficult to complete in the 350 words we're allowed here. But if the gulf was truly so immense, then it shouldn't be particularly hard for you to expose. That you're objecting without arguing shows there's obviously a lot more depth to these issues than can be dealt with simply.

I'll try and address some of those other questions when time at work permits.

Michael Viljoen
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 8 April 2015 4:01:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
Paraphrasing or interpreting your question a bit, you ask, does belief in creation (of a creator) lead to belief in Christianity or does Christianity lead to creation? Yes, I think it is potentially both, as one should inform the other. I see Christianity and the Bible as somewhat synonymous. Six-day creation is a clear biblical teaching. It was the standard view accepted within the church as a whole until roughly the nineteenth Century.

Darwin's teaching rocked the church. It made a sizeable impact on how the world thinks. And after more than 150 years, the church is still coming to terms with how to deal with the issue. But I don't believe Darwin had it right. Darwinism is a form of naturalism which relates to atheist thinking. Obviously, atheism is not theologically acceptable. I don't see how Darwinism has brought us any scientific advances. Philosophically, it hasn't brought comfort to anyone except to the atheist.

So as we aim to seek truth, we do so through good philosophy, good theology, as well as applying good science. These should compliment each other.

The empirical evidence does point to a creator or intelligence beyond this world. ['His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.' (Rom1:20)] You can see this in the example of Antony Flew, who was converted from his atheism when seeing evidence of design within living things. Even the atheist Dawkins talks about the 'appearance of design' and then tries to explain it away.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 10 April 2015 11:56:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the theological side, recently the well known Reformed theologian, Sproule, came out saying that the penny has finally dropped in his mind, and he now sees the importance of Christians accepting six-day creation. If space permitted I could mention movement from the RC side. In philosophical and theological thought, the wheels turn slowly, but the move back to biblical orthodoxy is at hand. The situation is progressing from what it was in say the 1960s, when Darwin reigned virtually unchallenged.

I view Christians believing in evolution as somewhat inconsistent, but we're all striving humbly for perfection in our thinking and our theology without anyone being quite there.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 10 April 2015 11:59:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are correct, Dan S Merengue, my comments on the seriousness of your belief were somewhat flippant, for which I apologize.

I do find your responses a little disappointing, though. To elide the questions of "which came first for you, the Bible or Christianity" by claiming they are in fact the same question does smack of avoidance.

>>...does belief in creation (of a creator) lead to belief in Christianity or does Christianity lead to creation? Yes, I think it is potentially both, as one should inform the other<<

That is like saying you came first and last in the race, which can only happen if you are the only runner. This, of course, renders the actual race itself null and void.

>>Six-day creation is a clear biblical teaching. It was the standard view accepted within the church as a whole until roughly the nineteenth Century<<

I don't find this "pleading from history" particularly persuasive.

Aristotle (and later Galen) believed that the "four humours" governed our health, which led directly to the practice of blood-letting to counter fever. This also was a practice that "was a standard view until roughly the nineteenth century", but was eventually found to be harmful.

>>Darwinism is a form of naturalism which relates to atheist thinking.<<

Darwin was a Christian, with Christian beliefs. It is interesting that the principal charge levelled against him by Christians wishing to discredit his religious beliefs is that his research led him away from Genesis. A somewhat circular argument, in my mind, as there are many Christians who are comfortable with both evolution and their chosen religion.

>>The empirical evidence does point to a creator or intelligence beyond this world.<<

It would be interesting to understand more about your employment of the word "empirical" in this context. Many regard the work performed by (ancient-earth) geologists to represent "empirical evidence". How does your "empirical" differ from theirs?

I'm not sure how Flew furthers your cause. He explicitly denied that he believed in the Christian (or Muslim, as it happens) version of God.

More later, perhaps.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 5:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why must faith conform with the empirical?

'Empirical' means "pertaining to or derived from experience or experiments" and our human experience was never meant to provide us the truth, only to biologically survive and prosper in this world, which it does quite well.

For survival of the body, one should use ordinary knowledge, derived by ordinary experiences through our senses and brain.

For transcending the limitations of the body, one should use supreme knowledge, derived by the grace of God to a few souls who were pure enough to receive it.

Two different goals - two different means - no conflict!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 April 2015 6:07:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
To try and summarise, I see this article as discussing the defence of Christian faith in the face of atheism. While I can agree with many of Peter's comments in this article, I would disagree with some positions he's shown in others.

In discussing the Christian faith, it is necessary to first seek an authentic representation of the historical faith. My contention is that 'six-day creation' is the revealed view of history according to the Bible, and thus the strongest position from which to defend the faith in the face of other world views..

When I said that six-day creation was the standard view within the church for its first 1800 years, this was an argument for the authenticity of the position. Given that the Scriptures derive from God, and that God is capable of communicating his message clearly, it would seem odd that God might mislead the church for 1800 hundred years with a poorly construed message and a misunderstanding of Genesis. Rather, the message communicated in Genesis has always been clear. Unfortunately, there are those Christians persuaded by Darwin's teaching to accept evolution rather than creation, who will remain clouded in compromise.

I said that the empirical evidence points to a creator, and you ask about my use of the word 'empirical'.

Empirical evidence doesn't differ according to person. The body of empirical evidence is the same for everyone. Yet the interpretation of the same evidence can differ markedly depending on one's philosophical perspective or perception. I state (as in Rom 1:20) that the evidence, especially the apparent design of created things, is sufficient to reasonably persuade anyone of the existence of God, as was apparent to Antony Flew.

In saying that the evidence is sufficiently obvious and persuasive doesn't imply that it will allow us to construct an ultimate proof of God's existence. Nor am I claiming that such evidence is sufficient to illuminate someone with regard to the other truths of the Christian faith. So someone like Flew would need to be persuaded of much else before he would announce himself as a Christian believer.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 17 April 2015 3:18:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For me, that's the nub of the issue, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I see this article as discussing the defence of Christian faith in the face of atheism<<

As an atheist, I could far better understand deism if there were only one religion, and the discussions were along the lines of "religion: yes or no?" Would Mr Sellick's arguments be the same, do you think, if it were a defence in the face of, say, Islam? Or Jainism?

Surely it would be more appropriate to defend his particular belief system against other belief systems? After all, they are the institutions who are competing for clientele, not atheism. Atheism does not have the equivalent of a bible, or a sabbath day, or a formal meeting place, or demand tithes etc.

Hence my question to you on the manner in which you arrived at your version of Christianity. Did you evaluate the alternatives, or was it purely your cultural background that led you Christianity in the first place? And once there, what was it that determined your decision to adhere strictly to its particular standard text, in favour of the standard geological and anthropological etc. texts?

My contention - and the reason for my curiosity, albeit occasionally impatiently expressed - is that you are at the "literal interpretation" end of the Christian belief spectrum. And it occurs to me that the answer to these questions will help towards understanding the motivation behind all extremism-based religious conflicts - militant Sunni vs militant Shia, militant Catholic vs militant Protestant etc. Because only when something is understood can you try to address its core dynamics, and hope to bring about change. And if the world is interested in countering the rise of an aggressive Islam, for example, it desperately needs to address the disease, rather than the symptoms.

I trust you will take these questions in the spirit of honest enquiry that they are framed. I genuinely do not understand why people place so much store in their religious beliefs. And I genuinely would like to understand more of the mindset that creates them.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 19 April 2015 10:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<As an atheist, I could far better understand deism if there were only one religion, and the discussions were along the lines of "religion: yes or no?">>

However, this is the case.

There is but one religion and its instructors teach multiple methods and beliefs to suit different people according to differences in culture, climate, temperament, geography, history, etc.

Some, through the centuries, have forgotten this and only remember the particular methods and beliefs which they were personally taught. This is a pity because they are now only able to teach those for whom those particular methods and beliefs are suitable, but not others and as conditions change, for example due to the development of modern science, these methods and beliefs need to be adjusted accordingly or are no longer suited for as many.

Deism is one of those systems of practice - it could not be understood outside the context of its contribution to the religion of the cultures which have taken up its use. Very briefly, in Deism one imagines God as a being, a deity of massive power and wisdom, so this facilitates the kind of worship which one would offer to such a deity. The attributes and stories about this deity vary from one culture to the next in order to fit the temperament and devotional inclinations of the people. This forwards religion because through the worship, the devotees lose their ego as they place themselves in the service of something higher than it. Once their ego is completely lost, they attain the object of religion, God.

Religion is one, but is adjusted to the culture. To make this more real, see for example how it is taught in 12 steps specifically for the culture of alcoholics: http://www.aa.org.au/members/twelve-steps.php
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 19 April 2015 1:27:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nup. Doesn't work that way, Yuyutsu.

>>There is but one religion and its instructors teach multiple methods and beliefs to suit different people...<<

Not out in the real world, at any rate.

If your definition held true, then the word religion could not bear a plural, as in "religions". Which it most definitely does...

"The groups, practices and systems that people identify as 'religions' are so diverse that it is no easy task to bring them all under one simple definition."

http://www.religionfacts.com/religion/quotes.htm

There's a bit of a perception gap here, as well:

>>...through the worship, the devotees lose their ego as they place themselves in the service of something higher than it. Once their ego is completely lost, they attain the object of religion, God.<<

And when they do so - when they "lose their ego as they place themselves in the service" of their God - they go around smashing everything in sight that does not fit their idea/concept/interpretation of religion...

"Isis fighters destroy ancient artefacts at Mosul museum"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/26/isis-fighters-destroy-ancient-artefacts-mosul-museum-iraq

So I'm afraid I must reject your massive oversimplification that "there is but one religion", in favour of the overload of evidence that there exist enormous divides that separate the different styles of religious observance, sufficient to bear individual scrutiny for their conduct, and impact on their fellow human beings.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 19 April 2015 5:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I agree with you that not all religions are the same. Not all beliefs and ideologies end in the same place. It matters what you believe. It makes a difference, for beliefs are the precursors to actions (and as you note, potentially very destructive actions.).

However, i disagree that believing God created the world in six days is an extreme belief. It's a standard belief. It's definitely not extremist in the sense of being violent or anything like that. Exact and uncompromising are not the same as extreme. Historically, in the days of the great thinkers of the past, for pioneers such as Isaac Newton and those who helped establish today's scientific method, six day creation was a standard belief amongst the great majority.

You speak of weighing alternatives, and I think that's key. That's virtually the definition of rationality. Weighing alternatives is what makes us human. It's what Adam and Eve did in the garden of Eden. It's what Jesus of Nazareth did in the Garden of Gethsemene. It's what we've all done in significant measure, and it always sets the course of human history.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 6:49:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In investigating religious belief, the mind weighs alternatives, firstly, God versus not God.

You've asked about my background. As a teenager, I was influenced by my family upbringing, including Christian traditions going back generations from various strains and different countries: Australia, South Africa and Europe. I attended government schools but was never formally taught about evolution. By contrast, in church or at home I was never overtly discouraged from believing evolution, although creation is always present right there in the Biblical text.

At university I was formally taught to try and think more rationally. I could define this for the moment as 'weighing alternatives'. In weighing Christianity, like most others, I was focussing at the core of it, which is Christ. You must examine the Prophet, his life and his claims on your life. The alternatives are, Jesus versus not Jesus, I'm trying to put it to you logically and systematically.

In investigating origins, the alternatives I considered were, 'evolution' versus 'creation'. That could also be described as, our origins arising by 'natural means' versus 'supernaturally by purposeful intelligence'. (I've always considered Christians who try combining the two to be compromised. It's odd to say God chose a method of creation in which he didn't create.)

I see the arguments for creation as strong. For biology, natural selection seems to aid in adaptation but is not a creative process. And I find more plausible the explanations given by Flood geologists and catastrophists (such as given in the example of Mt St Helens) for describing the world's geology.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 9:02:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan
I have written about this.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9564
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 10:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

As English is a living language, it contains many anomalies which people sought for convenience even despite their logical inconsistencies.

Just as a 'hot dog' is not a dog and a 'school of thought' is not a school, 'religions' is not the plural of 'religion', but of 'a religious organisation/movement'.

Schools of astronomy, for example, are not called 'astronomies', but suppose that somehow, for convenience or whim, this fluke of language happened. Now suppose further that schools that started off teaching astronomy included over the years more and more astrology in their curriculum until it became their dominant teaching - they still run some astronomical calculations to determine in which of the signs of the zodiac planets fall, but that's about all.

Would that do justice to the science of 'astronomy'?

Then why to 'religion'?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 9:31:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I see it, Dan S de Merengue, your religious faith is due in no small measure to your family upbringing. There seems to have been no serious 'weighing of alternatives' outside the narrow spectrum of a generally Christian environment.

Weighing up the alternatives, Jesus versus not Jesus, and then, Bible stories factual versus Bible stories allegorical, does not sound to me much like a work of investigation. More a preference, really.

That is not a criticism, merely an observation. But what it does not do, for me at least, is explain how you came to a decision on, firstly, the existence of a God in the form in which you imagine him, and secondly, how you selected Christianity over any other form of deist worship.

I may lack imagination, or empathy, or something, but I simply cannot get my head around the thought processes that lead people to take such an impregnable-to-logic position on one, specific, tightly-constrained version of a belief system.

As opposed, that is, to the others.

Tell me, what am I missing here?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 8:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<I simply cannot get my head around the thought processes that lead people to take such an impregnable-to-logic position on one, specific, tightly-constrained version of a belief system.>>

Jesus said, "My Father's house has many doors".

All religious belief-systems are merely techniques or methods that help us to reach God.
As it makes no difference which door we come in, it makes sense for most people (though I would be an exception) to enter through the nearest door, the door one was born nearby.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 5 May 2015 9:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is only a response to half the question, Yuyutsu.

>>All religious belief-systems are merely techniques or methods that help us to reach God.<<

The part you overlook is how does one come to the conclusion that there is a God in the first place? That is after all a necessary prerequisite to selecting a belief system, is it not? There is little point in employing "techniques or methods that help us to reach God" if there isn't a presumption that you will find one.

Asking it in a different way: if you start out with the intention of determining for yourself whether to believe in a deity or not, how - and why - would you choose one of those techniques/methods over another?

Your assumption has always been that God exists. But that is what it will always remain. Just an assumption. Neither you, nor Dan S de Merengue, ever gets past that assumption to disclose the thought processes that preceded it/led to it.

With Dan, it sounds nothing more critical than an acceptance of family values. Fair enough. It does of course explain why different folk, brought up in households with different family belief systems, seem to be constantly at war with each other. Just an extension of tribal rivalries and existential struggles, in reality.

But - surely - if religious belief systems are all about "which door we come in", and the selection of that door causes so much strife, is it not reasonable to assume that the problem might after all be, what is supposed to be the other side of that door?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 8 May 2015 12:18:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

There is value in making doors attractive - clean them, paint them, ornament them, sound soothing music near them, use perfume to make them smell nice, etc. But unless the doors are eventually crossed, they become a trap. People who exaggerate investing in decorating their door can even become jealous at others who decorate different doors; or they can become proud and possessive of their doors, forgetting their original utility.

Swami Vivekananda said: "it is good to be born in a church, but it is bad to die there."
http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/H%20-%20World%20Religions%20and%20Poetry/World%20Religions/From%20the%20Indian%20Tradition/Teachers%20from%20the%20Indian%20Tradition/Swami%20Vivekananda/Straight%20Talk%20on%20Realization/Straight%20Talk.htm

Most people don't even have the discipline and circumstances to decide for themselves whether to believe in a deity, yet although God is not a deity, those who do so believe, tend to benefit from this practice, improve their character and expand their heart through their devotion to that [non-existent] deity, thus becoming more fit to eventually find God within. It's a wonderful technique!

As for the existence of God, I already wrote that it would be a logical contradiction, hence God does not exist. Those doors, however, lead us out of the bondage to the illusion of existence and the suffering that goes with it - on the other side we discover our true selves, which is indistinct from God. Before crossing we consider ourselves to be individuals, separate bodies and minds, but after crossing we realise that we were never ever separate from God or from each other, that there is nothing but us, nothing but God.

So no, neither is the existence of God a prerequisite for selecting a belief system, nor is a belief-system a prerequisite for realising God - there are people who reached God without even having a belief system or a slightest idea of God.

I hope this answers all your questions, otherwise please keep asking.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 May 2015 1:31:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is clearly pointless trying to squeeze sense (in the normal, conventional usage of the word) on a question of religion from someone who is simultaneously anti-deist and pro-God, since the two stances are - to me, at least - entirely contradictory.

>>As for the existence of God, I already wrote that it would be a logical contradiction, hence God does not exist.<<

followed by:

>>...there are people who reached God without even having a belief system or a slightest idea of God<<

The conventional - that is, the generally accepted - definition of God includes the synonym "deity", and a description involving the worship of a third party (i.e., not oneself).

If you insist on selecting a different definition, then there is little point in discussing the religious variants that cause people to choose the substantially different conventions that go along with them.

But if you like, you can explain how you personally arrived at your definition of God, and which "door" you chose to pass through to reach it.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 8 May 2015 8:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I also have trouble following whatever it is Yuyutsu is saying about God. I'm not sure if she (or he, if I'm guessing wrong) even believes God exists or not.

Yet I wish to soundly contradict one thing that was said earlier. The citation given was factually in error. Jesus never said his 'father's house has many doors'. That makes it sound like all beliefs are equally valid. That's the same as saying that what you believe doesn't matter.

I would not wish to take a tram ride with someone who thinks all rides end in the same place.

In fact, that idea of 'many paths up the mountain' is quite foreign to Christianity. Jesus was exclusive and singular in his claims. John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Such a position could be described as 'tightly-constrained', but that appears to be the very thing Jesus was aiming at in his self-proclamation.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 May 2015 1:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
You are correct in saying my family had a significant influence on what I believe. However, why would I wish to run counter to my family heritage? Rather, I have come to treasure it as a blessing of God. Yet I would challenge your suggestion that I have not seriously weighed the alternatives, or never investigated the issues deeply.

You ask about the thought processes. This is simple. For belief in God, this is either a yes or no question. Weigh the alternatives. Do you believe? Although I shouldn't be flippant. The reason why some believe when others don't can also be a profound question. Yet I think atheists are sometimes more disinclined to the possibility of believing than they care to admit, perhaps more disinclined than someone coming from a Christian environment is inclined.

You ask, am I missing something? Have you ever considered the reality of God? Many people are converted to the faith after having significant encounters that they could not explain otherwise. I remember Mike Willisee converting to Catholicism only a short time after being awarded a prize from the skeptic's association for the thoroughness of his disbelieving film documentaries. I recall the famous author, CS Lewis, who was raised an atheist, describing his coming to faith as if God was pursuing him as a cat might pursue a mouse. It's more than 'imagination'. In a sense these people 'met' God in the form of a Spirit.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you said 'impregnable-to-logic' with regard to faith. Perhaps you could explain further. I believe the Christian faith is eminently reasonable and logical, and have tried to give it a logical defence many times on this Forum. My investigations on the matter have not been superficial. After my Christian baptism as a teenager, I completed a BA with a philosophy major, as well as completing other theological studies, as well as reading many books on the creation/evolution controversy, for which I'm sure you're well aware.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 May 2015 1:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Examination of religious belief requires constant acts of interpretation, which is why people constantly debate the meaning Biblical verses.

>>Jesus never said his 'father's house has many doors'. That makes it sound like all beliefs are equally valid.<<

According to the King James version, the exact phrase was:

"In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." John 14:2

I can take a guess at half a dozen different intentions generating this single sentence. But then, there is the fact that the quote itself was written (probably) in Aramaic, by someone (or possibly some people) upon whose identity we can only speculate. To base any argument at all on such a flimsy foundation is predestined to founder simply on the number of individual opinions that are totally justifiable on the evidence provided.

None of which gets us any closer to reality, but at most provide a level of insight into to the workings of individual minds.

And this, Dan S de Merengue, is where your thinking processes and mine diverge:

>>For belief in God, this is either a yes or no question. Weigh the alternatives. Do you believe?<<

My answer is simply "no". But more to the point, it is not even possible for either of us to be specific as to the identity of what I am supposed to believe in.

Nor am I alone in this.

If you ask a Christian and a Muslim whether they worshipped the same God, you could get totally different answers from each. Catholics might say "yes"...

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-it-the-popes-private-opinion-that-muslims-worship-the-same-god

...but others say "no". Vehemently.

http://www.menorah.org/allahtrc.html

Which is the reason why the thought processes undertaken by people who categorically "believe" are so fascinating to me.

>>And I'm not sure what you mean when you said 'impregnable-to-logic' with regard to faith.<<

Quite simply, I cannot see how logic, or rationality, can be applied to a situation where there are so many potential interpretations of the question "God, yes or no".

To me, the question is in itself illogical.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 9 May 2015 2:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

I am not anti-deist!

I believe that Deism is wonderful and at times even practice it myself. When I am in church I make use of it and worship the Christian trinity and if I'm in a mosque then I would similarly worship Allah, and so on in any other place of worship.

As a Hindu, I worship several aspects of God AS IF He was a deity, AS IF He had a human or animal form, male or female: though God has no form, this is a good technique for coming closer to Him.

If someone, despite the modern/scientific brainwash is fortunate enough to still be able to sincerely believe that God exists and has a specific form, including the human Son of God, then I would be the last to "correct" them. Worshipping Jesus Christ the Son of God is a wonderful thing - it purifies the heart and transforms one's soul, then ultimately a devout Christian can become a saint and live with God, in God and only for the sake of God.

For those who can no longer believe that God exists, I can still suggest that they should continue to worship Him regardless, including, if they have Christian inclinations, as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I suggest that they put aside the question of existence and perhaps substitute it with the question of goodness. It is (by definition even) better to base one's life and life-style on goodness than on existence.

You asked for my definition of God:

Vedanta philosophy, as taught by the Upanishads and to which I subscribe, tells us that God cannot be defined in any positive manner. All one can say is "not this, not that" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti), yet there is nothing but God. It is an implicit definition, yet I find it complete and satisfying.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 9 May 2015 8:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll accept that, Yuyutsu.

>>I am not anti-deist!<<

But only in the sense that you do not dislike deists, that you would welcome them in your home and allow your daughter to marry one.

You yourself however are not one. The definition of deism includes the existence of a God, which you do not accept...

>>As for the existence of God, I already wrote that it would be a logical contradiction, hence God does not exist.<<

Neither you, nor the Upanishads, can define something by its lack of existence.

>>All one can say is [that God is] "not this, not that"<<

This can equally define our legal system, or the weather patterns over the Coral Sea, or the mating habits of the preying mantis. By saying "not this, not that" and eliminating all the things they are not, you are bound to arrive at arrive at the thing itself. Logically, the same must apply to the definition of God.

In its simplest form, apophatic theology is just an intellectual exercise that boils down to the statement "actually, I don't know". Dissatisfied with this simplicity, it proceeds to blame the lack of a conclusion on God itself. Very convenient.

I should also point out the fly in this particularly sweet-smelling ointment, which is that since you have already decided you can't tell what God is, there can be no basis upon which to determine what God is not.

As Douglas Adams so neatly encapsulated the problem:

"“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” said Man, “the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that!” and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore he proves that black is white and gets killed on the next zebra crossing."

[Douglas Adams: Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the First]
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 10 May 2015 7:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<But only in the sense that you do not dislike deists, that you would welcome them in your home and allow your daughter to marry one.>>

I would also encourage a deist to remain a deist; gladly join and participate in deist worship; and at times direct and pour my feelings of love and gratitude to God through a deity.

<<The definition of deism includes the existence of a God, which you do not accept...>>

Indeed, if that's the definition then I cannot be formally considered a deist, yet for me the question of existence is insignificant. I understand that this question is popular in this day and age, for theists and atheists alike, yet I can't see why.

<<Neither you, nor the Upanishads, can define something by its lack of existence.>>

The non-existence of God is not a definition, but a conclusion, my own. The [implicit] definition is:

1. No description or quality can be positively attributed to God.
2. There is nothing but God.

The non-existence of God can be derived by applying simple logic: If God exists, then the quality of existence can be attributed to Him, hence He is not God... Contradiction, hence God does not exist.

<<there can be no basis upon which to determine what God is not.>>

Why, 'God is not ________', just fill in that blank-space whatever you want, feel free...

But then don't forget the second part of the definition:

Since by your own experience you undeniably are and since there is nothing but God, then what possibly could you be? What are you?

<<apophatic theology is just an intellectual exercise>>

Indeed, reaching God through rationality alone is next to impossible: in this pursuit one should also utilise their emotionality, ingenuity and will-power. The rational part, however, helps us to de-identify from any distracting worldly desires - we focus on them one by one and conclude rationally: "not this, this is NOT God, this will not lead me to eternal joy and peace, so I better concentrate elsewhere".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 10 May 2015 10:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tell me, Yuyutsu, do you have an App that churns out this rubbish for you?

>>...for me the question of existence is insignificant<<

Yet you still eat. To what end, if not a continued existence?

So, not all that insignificant, eh?

>>The non-existence of God is not a definition, but a conclusion, my own.<<

Yet you still talk about God, as if one did exist. Incessantly. Why? Talking about things that don't exist is usually a warning sign that all is not well, healthwise.

>>If God exists, then the quality of existence can be attributed to Him, hence He is not God... Contradiction, hence God does not exist.<<

Actually, if you look closely, that is not a contradiction.

If God exists, the quality of existence can be attributed to him, therefore he exists by definition. Only if he doesn't exist, can the quality of non-existence be applied.

>>Why, 'God is not ________', just fill in that blank-space whatever you want, feel free<<

The problem is, how do you know that you haven't accidentally filled the blank space with the exact description of God? You have no way of knowing whether you have, or you haven't. If you have by chance picked the precise definition, then your statement is false. Even though you won't know that it is false, of course.

>>Since by your own experience you undeniably are and since there is nothing but God<<

There you go again. On the one hand you say there is no God, but at the same time you say there is nothing but God.

Sometimes I am extremely grateful that I am atheist. With thought processes like that, I'd find it impossible to live a normal life.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 11 May 2015 12:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
You ask about thought processes. I said that I put the question, is there a God? Weighing the evidence in a balance, I conclude that there is a God. With yourself, you say,weighing the evidence in the balance you conclude that there is not.

So, the thought processes are actually the same. While its only our conclusions that are different, or perhaps the evidence that each of us are assessing.

Your excuse that you put earlier for not believing was to say God is not or can not clearly be defined.

However, God as revealed in the Christian scriptures is sufficiently and consistently defined. God has been revealed in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a belief that I share with Christian believers of all nations, cultures and languages across many centuries. A summary of the teaching of the Christian Scriptures can be seen in the early creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, which is a confession which unites believers across the Faith throughout time.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 11 May 2015 7:04:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Obviously, for worldly success, or even just survival, one needs some knowledge about existence, for example where food, mates and predators are present. How important such knowledge is depends on one's priorities: for the spiritual life, God comes first, before existence.

But if all one wants is a "normal life", then why waste time questioning the existence of God? You cannot eat it and it won't eat you...

Similarly, if all one wants is God, then why waste time questioning His existence? What difference would it make?

<<Yet you still talk about God, as if one did exist. Incessantly. Why?>>

I talk about what I consider important - so are you. For me it is God, for you, existence. Likewise, for me you seem to talk about existence as if you worship it.

---
A description is a positive attribute, so by the definition I just provided, God cannot be described, thus you may fill the blank with whatever you like.

By the same definition, the property of 'existing' cannot be attributed to God, so if X exists then X is not God and if God existed, then God is not God... a contradiction.
---

<<On the one hand you say there is no God, but at the same time you say there is nothing but God.>>

There is no God in existence, but existence itself is an illusion (Maya). The Truth of it all is God - but due to our ignorance it seems to us as existence instead. The parable for it is, when you go in the forest at night and see a rope, you may be scared because you think it's a snake, looking very real, but when you shine light on it with your torch, you discover that there was never a snake there, only a rope. In Truth there is no existence, real as it may seem in our ignorance, it's all only God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 11 May 2015 7:06:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's a fairly important step missing here, Dan S de Merengue.

>>You ask about thought processes. I said that I put the question, is there a God? Weighing the evidence in a balance, I conclude that there is a God.<<

You omit to declare what evidence you perceive to be important, in your process of weighing.

What I am trying to understand, I guess, is why and how the evidence evaluated by a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Catholic, differs from "your" evidence. If indeed it does differ.

Do you take the same evidence and evaluate it differently, or simply choose different evidence?

To my mind, either a) there has to be something different in the evaluation process, given that in the twentyfirst century the same evidence is available to all parties, or b) the decision is inevitably reached purely on cultural grounds. And I am gradually coming to the conclusion that it is only culture.

The way I reach this conclusion is as follows:

1. All the data pertaining to different religions, and the various divisions within those religions, is available to all.

2. Some highly intelligent people - i.e. with a highly-developed capacity for reason - from a wide range of religions, have looked at that evidence.

3. Since there is an extremely high likelihood that they will adopt the religion of their tribe, intelligence - reasoning capacity - can have no impact on their selection process.

I often wonder how highly intelligent people can spend countless hours examining history to justify their stance - as Peter Sellick appears to do - when their conclusions have no relevance beyond the confines of their particular sect.

Every argument also seems to be completely circular. "I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus; I believe in Jesus because I am a Christian".

Or

"I am a Christian because I believe the Bible tells the truth; I believe the Bible tells the truth because I am a Christian"

Surely there is something more to it than that? If there is, I have yet to hear it articulated.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 12:36:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wrong question, Yuyutsu.

>>But if all one wants is a "normal life", then why waste time questioning the existence of God?<<

It is not the existence of God I am questioning - I long ago concluded there isn't one - it is the thought processes that lead people towards a particular belief that fascinate me.

>>Likewise, for me you seem to talk about existence as if you worship it.<<

Nope.

Worship v. show reverence and adoration for (a deity)

Neither you nor I had any influence on the fact of our existence. We simply are. To "worship" something as simple and mundane as that is highly inappropriate. It is a binary state - you either exist, or you don't. All available evidence points to the fact that you didn't exist before you were born, and you will cease to exist when you die. Nothing to revere or adore there.

>>...the property of 'existing' cannot be attributed to God<<

Many religions take a different view. I'm interested in why they think that way.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 12:48:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

For me YOU SEEM to worship existence because you talk about it incessantly. In the Hindu mythology, Kamsa was a very evil king, he hated Krishna so much that he couldn't ever stop thinking of him, he talked about him incessantly, he tortured his subjects which he suspected of supporting Krishna and couldn't sleep because he had nightmares and woke up sweating after dreaming that Krishna is going to get him. When Kamsa was finally killed by Krishna, he went to heaven because all his life was thus dedicated to Krishna, even though it was in a negative way.

---

Yes, we simply ARE. This doesn't imply that we exist: our bodies exist and as we identify with them we believe ourselves to exist as well for the duration of the usefulness of those bodies. We are who we are when this body is a baby as well as when this body is old - nothing is changed in that regard just as nothing has changed when this body was born and when it will die.

---

<<Many religions take a different view. I'm interested in why they think that way.>>

It's like asking why a mother loves her baby. For a mother, her baby is the most beautiful and she totally loves and adores him/her regardless how s/he actually looks (and as per current-affairs, even if he deals with drugs). The question of "[why] is your baby beautiful?" doesn't usually arise unless some fool challenges the mother about it. Our "relation" to God is even closer than that of a mother to her baby: we ARE God!

Some religions do not care about that question of God's existence and haven't bothered to answer it. I only needed to address this question because it comes up again and again on this forum. I wonder whether early Christianity needed to address this particular question before the assault of modernism (or perhaps earlier, Greek philosophy) and its "worship" of this rival new god, existence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 8:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's just silly, let's-pretend stuff, Yuyutsu.

>>For me YOU SEEM to worship existence because you talk about it incessantly.<<

I refer to existence when the discussion's context requires, which is hardly the same thing as talking about it incessantly.

>>Yes, we simply ARE. This doesn't imply that we exist<<

Actually, it does. More than that, it does not merely imply our existence, it confirms it. Defines it, in fact. Your own existence is confirmed by the fact that you are reading this response. Because you would be unable to do so, if you did not exist.

(This is very much like trying to explain breathing to a five-year-old. "Ok, try holding your breath. You see? If you stop breathing, you stop existing.)

>>The question of "[why] is your baby beautiful?" doesn't usually arise unless some fool challenges the mother about it.<<

Poor analogy. What I am curious about is not the one-on-one relationship of a mother with her baby, but the many-on-one relationship of an individual with the intellectual concept that is a religion. Which you simply cannot avoid by saying...

>>we ARE God!<<

...because that is the view of a very small minority, and one that rejects the notion of religion completely. Even atheists are able to accept that the available evidence can only be explained by the presence within our society of religions, and of many adherents to those religions.

>>I wonder whether early Christianity needed to address this particular question before the assault of modernism (or perhaps earlier, Greek philosophy) and its "worship" of this rival new god, existence<<

At least you are able to accept that "existence" substantially pre-dates religion, of any kind. Even the nullity that you seem to "worship".
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 7:16:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<At least you are able to accept that "existence" substantially pre-dates religion, of any kind.>>

What a perfect chicken-and-egg question!

I can't tell which concept consciously arose first in the history of the human mind, or where and when for the first time a culture had a word for either of those two. While both concepts have an [unknown] age, that which the concepts point to must have sprung simultaneously, for religion is not possible without existence and existence is not possible without religion. It's like death is not possible without birth and vice-versa, matter without anti-matter, a bubble forming without it bursting, etc. Religion can be likened to the process by which the illusional bubble of existence explodes - the moment a bubble forms, that process which culminates in its explosion has already started.

Organised-religions are later additions, but so is the thought of 'existence': which came first is hard to know.

---

<<...because that is the view of a very small minority, and one that rejects the notion of religion completely.>>

About a billion Hindus is not a very small minority, nor can you seriously claim that Hindus reject religion or its notion.

Yes we ARE God, but under the spell of illusion (Maya) we are unaware of it, believing instead that we are some limited body-mind: religion is the process which wakes us out of this illusion (and as above, it could be a conscious process with concepts attached, or otherwise).

---

<<but the many-on-one relationship of an individual with the intellectual concept that is a religion.>>

I understand.

Although religion is not an intellectual concept, some religious practices involve intellectual concepts and you are interested to know how people decide to take to those concepts.

---

<<it does not merely imply our existence, it confirms it. Defines it, in fact.>>

It's not "I Am", but the thought of it which confirms the existence of our minds. Indeed, my body-mind exists because otherwise I couldn't read your reply. The illusion of "I exist" is only a result of me falsely identifying with this body-mind.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 12 May 2015 8:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,
I agree that cultural heritage is a huge factor shaping people's values and beliefs. I think it is expected and valid that parents. families, and communities will try and pass on what they value as true and worthwhile to the next generation through various means of transference and education. Yet, as I said in an earlier post, the same is true for yourself as one holding an atheistic view. I doubt that all your thoughts are original. I suspect that many of the philosophical ideas to which you're wedded have been passed on in the flow of time preceding since maybe the Enlightenment.

And I doubt you believe that the application of intelligence and reasoning has no impact on shaping important beliefs. If you believed this, then there would be no point to discussing things at all. But your lengthy input and discussions here would deny that, unless you think that your views likewise are just inescapable cultural legacy.

You ask what is the evidence which convinces the believer. It is many and varied:
Various philosophical arguments such as the cosmological arguments or teleological arguments, which point to the created order within the universe;
Moral arguments which relate our sense of right and wrong pointing to a higher law from which such morality originates;
Historical arguments, such as those verifying the events of the Scriptures, or verification of the historicity of the Scriptural texts;
Testimony of those having encounters or religious experiences;
Perceived unity, beauty, and integrity of the Gospel message, perhaps including prophecy fulfilled;
Some are convinced by the medium of the message, such as artistic expression in its various forms.

Different things appeal to different people at different levels of intellect and emotion. Yet the Gospel has the capacity to communicate deep truth to those who are open to it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 5:33:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the first part of this, Yuyutsu

>>...for religion is not possible without existence and existence is not possible without religion<<

But not, of course, the second.

Unless you choose to include all forms of superstition.

I can perfectly understand that our cave-dwelling ancestors gazing upwards and wondering what forces might have been at work to cause that big orange ball in the sky, or those pinpricks of light that are visible at night. They did not, of course, have a radio telescope handy to help them work it out, so they naturally framed their thoughts in terms of a deep misunderstanding of what they were seeing, based on a profound lack of knowledge.

But neither you, nor I, would call that religion. And they certainly could determine that they existed, and that they would at some point cease to exist.

>>About a billion Hindus is not a very small minority, nor can you seriously claim that Hindus reject religion or its notion<<

My observations were specifically about people who declare "we ARE God".

Hindus in general, I have noticed, tend to polytheistic in much the same manner as Ancient Romans, with a God for every occasion. There may be a small sect who don't subscribe to this view, but they may accurately be described as "a very small minority".

Also, I have noticed that many Hindus have an adversarial relationship with other religions. Is this the stance of someone who "IS God"?

>>It's not "I Am", but the thought of it which confirms the existence of our minds. Indeed, my body-mind exists because otherwise I couldn't read your reply. The illusion of "I exist" is only a result of me falsely identifying with this body-mind.<<

With what else could you possibly be able to identify, Yuyutsu, that would enable you to read this?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 1:50:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not invariably, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Yet, as I said in an earlier post, the same [cultural heritage is a huge factor] is true for yourself as one holding an atheistic view.<<

I was brought up in a Christian, church-going household. But my parents' (and their parents') views and beliefs were never forced upon their children. We were encouraged to go to church, and sent to a Christian school that was closely allied with the local church, but were never told what to believe.

>>I doubt that all your thoughts are original. <<

I doubt whether any of my thoughts are original, as I doubt yours to be either. Not sure how that is relevant, but maybe I'm missing some subtlety.

>And I doubt you believe that the application of intelligence and reasoning has no impact on shaping important beliefs.<<

Of course I believe it has an impact. That is the purpose behind my enquiries - where does the reasoning path diverge? At what point, and after what analysis, does the Christian mind determine - independently - that the Bible stories are factual, and that Jesus actually said all those things he is reported to have said, and performed all the miracles that were ascribed to him, etc.

While family background can strongly influence whether you become Roman Catholic or Sunni Muslim, surely there is some mechanism, separate from culture, that is able to persuade intelligent people that there is a mystical presence watching over their every move?

You offer philosophical, moral, historical and testimonial grounds, and add a couple of emotionals for good measure. But none of these, singly or together, points to Christianity per se, with the sole exception of the Gospel message.

So if there is no more to it than upbringing, then there's nothing to be done.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 3:37:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think there is more to it than just upbringing. But I'm struggling to follow what you're saying. Are you asking what is the evidence for there being a God? Or are you asking about the significance of the Christian revelation?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 4:35:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Indeed, I probably wouldn't call the cave-man's desire to understand the big orange ball in the sky a religion - more likely I'd call it the infancy of science.

It would be quite fascinating to find at what stage in pre-history did our cave-dwelling ancestors began to have a word/concept for 'existence' and further at what stage they began to have a concept of God or religion. I don't know the answer (the bible claims it was Enosh, Adam's grandson).

Undoubtedly existence is possible without organised religion or even without a conscious religion, yet along with the pain of existence automatically comes this urge to relieve it, the yearning to heal this seeming gap between oneself and God. So religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion.

---

The declaration "I am God" is deeply rooted in the Indian culture:

'Aham Brahmaasmi' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aham_Brahmasmi
'So-ham' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soham_%28Sanskrit%29
'Shivo-ham' - http://livingunbound.net/inspiration/atmastakam_shivoham

When saying grace before meals, Hindus are reminded that the food, the eater and the eating-process are all God, thus even the ordinary act of eating is raised to the level of a sacrifice to God:

http://www.sathyasai.org/devotion/prayers/brahmar.html
http://www.ramdass.org/blessing-our-food-part-of-god

Regarding the Hindu worship of deities, one must distinguish between philosophy and practice: the ordinary person in the street or in the fields isn't expected to be a philosopher or a theologian, so they are only taught the "How" - "how to achieve God?", "what needs to be done?", "what works?". Fact is that imagining an aspect of God in the form of a deity works for most people and brings them closer to God (I could elabourate on it if you are interested).

Regarding "adversarial relationship with other religions", that is not a teaching of Hinduism, but emotional ignorance and human weakness of some Hindus. Gandhi for example declared he would fast to death until this adversity stops towards Muslims.

---

One should not identify with anything, but seek to uncover all false identifications in order to reveal one's true original nature
(this includes the identification with being the "reader of this page").
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 9:00:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually neither, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Are you asking what is the evidence for there being a God? Or are you asking about the significance of the Christian revelation?<<

As I have stated before, I am particularly interested in the journey that believers take, from a state of unbelief, to a state of commitment to a particular religious idea.

So far, I have found no thread that I can follow with any confidence, with the sole exception of the "accident of birth" explanation, where ones parents, and the society surrounding them, are the deciding factor.

I have tried to elicit detail on the particular elements of a religion that make up the mental flypaper that attracts and retains adherents. Without success. All I am left with is:

>>I think there is more to it than just upbringing.<<

But what is the "more"? What does the intellectual person regard as credible evidence, and what is discarded as immaterial, irrelevant or false?

When I said "if there is no more to it than upbringing, then there's nothing to be done", it was with a sense of disappointment. Thousands of people are dying every day, either by fighting each other or through starvation and neglect, as a result of adherence to religious beliefs. If it is simply a matter of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, then there really is "nothing to be done".
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 14 May 2015 6:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you are a walking contradiction, which makes discussion pointless. Here you opine that...

>>Undoubtedly existence is possible without organised religion or even without a conscious religion<<

But in your immediately-prior post, you stated that...

>>...existence is not possible without religion<<

And it doesn't help when you write this sort of stuff:

>>...along with the pain of existence automatically comes this urge to relieve it, the yearning to heal this seeming gap between oneself and God. So religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion<<

Apart from the assumption that existence = pain, the assumption that there is an "urge to relieve it"", and the assumption that the means to address this urge is to "heal this seeming gap between oneself and God", the "conclusion" that follows - that "religion exists long before humans, even plants, rocks and dead stars have a religion" - bears no relationship to the three unsupported assumptions.

Clearly, there is little point in discussing facts - such as the innate polytheism of the Hindu - when the responses are so undecipherably self-centred and circular.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 14 May 2015 6:24:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

Thank you - I realise that what I wrote requires much more elabouration if it is to be understood by Western people which don't have the Hindu background.

I make a clear differentiation between 'religion' and 'organised religion'. The former, Hinduism claims, is inherent in nature and does not need to be conscious, while the latter is optional and usually conscious. Accordingly, existence is a painful illusion because it seems to separate us from God, while religion (unlike organised-religion) is this process of healing that pain by removing this illusion. While universal and automatic, this religious process can be accelerated by making conscious efforts, which is why organised religions appeared.

I am aware that this is very brief, bare terminology and it would take many more pages, if not books, to explain.

Now Western society and the English language got into the habit of calling any organisation/institution/movement which ATTEMPTS (or attempted in the past) to teach the way back to God, a "religion", no matter how it fails or how corrupt it has become. This might give undue credit to undeserving bodies and blemishes the reputation of religion.

I hope that seeming contradiction is now removed.

(...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 14 May 2015 7:48:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...

Let me try to help you with your letter to Dan:

<<What does the intellectual person regard as credible evidence, and what is discarded as immaterial, irrelevant or false?>>

I think that you are frustrated because you look "under the lantern", assuming that others would have the same priorities as yourself.

An intellectual person is not necessarily intelligent and an intelligent person is not necessary an intellectual: an intellectual is someone who values evidence and logic whereas an intelligent is someone who is capable of handling evidence and logic correctly.

From a religious perspective, intelligence is an asset while intellectualism is a liability which makes the path more difficult.

In summary, I think that most of us, religious persons, are not interested in credible evidence, but go after our heart and our inherent yearning to relieve this pain of existence away from God. The various belief-systems that come with it are merely techniques on the way. What's important about them is that they work (if they do), rather than their being accurate or objective.

<<Thousands of people are dying every day, either by fighting each other or through starvation and neglect, as a result of adherence to religious beliefs.>>

If however, those belief-systems cause us to be violent and cause injury, then they defeat their purpose and should be discarded. Why? Because others, just like us, are nothing but God: if we treat them otherwise, as we wouldn't treat ourselves, then we only increase our blindness to this common reality, God.

<<If it is simply a matter of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time, then there really is "nothing to be done".>>

In my personal case it's different. I was not born in a Hindu family, it was and is my private journey.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 14 May 2015 7:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for summing up your position so neatly, Yuyutsu.

>>I think that most of us, religious persons, are not interested in credible evidence<<

Which is why any discussion with you is completely impossible.

It was worth a try, though.

I think I'll let Douglas Adams have the last word.

"MAN IN SHACK:
It’s folly to say you know what is happening to other people. Only they know if they exist.

ZARNIWOOP:
Do you think they do?

MAN IN SHACK:
I have no opinion. How can I have?

ZARNIWOOP:
Look, don’t you see that people live or die on your word?

MAN IN SHACK:
It’s nothing to do with me, I’m not involved with people. The Lord knows I am not a cruel man.

ZARNIWOOP:
W-ahhhh! You say, “The Lord.” So you believe in -

MAN IN SHACK:
My cat. I call him “The Lord”. I am kind to him.

ZARNIWOOP:
All right. How do you know he exists? How do you know he knows you to be kind or enjoys what you think of as your kindness?

MAN IN SHACK:
I don’t. I have no idea. It merely pleases me to behave in a certain way to what appears to be a cat. What else do you do?"

Douglas Adams: 'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy'
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 15 May 2015 8:36:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking as a Christian believer, evidence has an important role to play:

(Acts 1:3)
"During the forty days after his [Jesus'] crucifixion, he appeared to the apostles from time to time, and he proved to them in many ways that he was actually alive."

(1 John 1:1)
"We proclaim to you the one who existed from the beginning, whom we have heard and seen. We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the a Word of life."

Such was the attitude of early believers. For Christians today, evidence too is important. I've listed several categories of evidence in a posting above.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 15 May 2015 10:02:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles,

<<Which is why any discussion with you is completely impossible.>>

Did you mean "undesirable"? I can discuss credible evidence just like anyone else - my lack of interest in it does not render it impossible.

It's not only religious people who tend to be uninterested in evidence (credible or otherwise), but practically everyone. Yes, there are those who like evidence and for them it's either a hobby or their livelihood, but nobody in fact lives by it. In fact, it is impossible to live by evidence because evidence doesn't tell us how to live. Surely you would agree that politicians do not stick to their Left-Right sides due to evidence, nor football fans cheer their team for any evidence.

If you only talk with people who like credible evidence, you would find yourself pretty isolated.

Of course there are those who use evidence as pretext: first they already decided how they are going to live, then they look for and find the evidence to justify it, it's a case of "Aunty, say 'Yes' because we're going to get married anyway"...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 15 May 2015 10:11:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Yuyutsu, I said impossible and I meant impossible.

>>Did you mean "undesirable"?<<

This doesn't wash either...

>>I can discuss credible evidence just like anyone else - my lack of interest in it does not render it impossible<<

Yet you choose not to. Fair enough. But that just underlines the first point: impossible.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 16 May 2015 1:14:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not helpful, Dan S de Merengue.

>>For Christians today, evidence too is important. I've listed several categories of evidence in a posting above.<<

Categories of evidence are not actually evidence in themselves. If I stood up in court and said that I would give evidence that I was not at the scene of the crime, that identifies the category of evidence that I would proffer: absence of opportunity. However, to have any validity at all, I would actually have to produce evidence that I was not there.

You offer two excerpts from a book that you believe represents your religion, as evidence to support your belief in that religion. That is akin to my saying "I was not there", without third party corroboration, and expecting instant exoneration.

Belief, on its own, does not constitute evidence, however much you may believe in it.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 16 May 2015 1:22:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Pericles & Yuyutsu,

.

Pericles wrote to Yuyutsu:

« At least you are able to accept that "existence" substantially pre-dates religion, of any kind »

And Yuyutsu replied:

« What a perfect chicken-and-egg question! I can't tell which concept consciously arose first in the history of the human mind …»
.

You may both be interested in the following :

Man separated from his common ancestor with the chimpanzee about 5 to 6 million years ago :

[ Nature. 2006 Jun 29;441(7097):1103-8. Epub 2006 May 17.

Patterson N, Richter DJ, Gnerre S, Lander ES, Reich D.

Genetic evidence for complex speciation of humans and chimpanzees.

Speciation appears to have been unusually drawn-out, with an original divergence as much as 7 to 13 million years ago, but with ongoing hybridization during several millions of years, with the final separation dating to as late as 5 to 6 million years ago. ]
.

Whereas the earliest precursory signs which may possibly be interpreted as “religious behaviour” date from 300,000 years ago :

[ Paleolithic religion is the set of spiritual beliefs thought to have appeared during the Paleolithic time period. Religious behaviour is thought to have emerged by the Upper Paleolithic, before 30,000 years ago at the latest, but behavioral patterns such as burial rites that one might characterize as religious — or as ancestral to religious behaviour — reach back into the Middle Paleolithic, as early as 300,000 years ago, coinciding with the first appearance of Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens. Religious behaviour may combine (for example) ritual, spirituality, mythology and magical thinking or animism — aspects that may have had separate histories of development during the Middle Paleolithic before combining into "religion proper" of behavioral modernity.

There are suggestions for the first appearance of religious or spiritual experience in the Lower Paleolithic (significantly earlier than 300,000 years ago, pre-Homo sapiens), but these remain controversial and have limited support. ]

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

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 16 May 2015 2:43:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The journey believers take, from unbelief to commitment. What is there more than just upbringing? Fearing we'll be retracing ground already covered I'll attempt an answer.

It's obviously more than just upbringing. Otherwise there'd only be Christian believers coming from Christian backgrounds. There are countless counter-examples to this. CS Lewis was one who had declared himself an atheist at one point as a young person. I understand that he became convinced by certain evidences to become a reluctant theist, and then later someone of Christian conviction. So I notice a sort of progress or development.

I think people advance through steps or stages towards belief. For example, from one stage of never thinking about or considering God, to mild reflection upon spiritual things, more seriously acknowledging the relevance of God, first hearing the gospel message, more understanding, a revelation of Jesus as the Son of God, then to finally a full conviction and belief of the Christian faith.

Some move through stages quicker than others as they come to seek and understand the truth. Each will hear, and account for, and be convinced or otherwise by different evidence along the way, as all are individuals. Those beginning in Christian homes will have some advantage in their progress as they will have accessed spiritual knowledge from a young age.

So people come to faith after acceptance of the significance and cohesion of the gospel message in the light of the consistency and integrity of the evidence they perceive.

Why is it that two people of similar background, when presented with similar argument and evidence, one accepts the message and the other does not? I cannot say. This is to enter into the mystery of the question of human free will. Some people do not want to accept certain ideas.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 16 May 2015 9:49:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yet Pericles, you asked earlier, am I missing something? It could be you are leaving God out of the accounting. Without including the possibility that God is making himself evident in people's lives, then understanding how faith figures in human history is made more difficult.

"The wind blows wherever it wants. Just as you can hear the wind but can’t tell where it comes from or where it is going, so you can’t explain how people are born of the Spirit.”

As for the various evidences for what it is that convinces people about the Christian faith, I've given a few categories of these types of evidences. These or perhaps others are for you to research to your own satisfaction. Choose a topic and dig into it as deep as you like with whatever strength you have.

I can tell you a little of my experience, why I have come to faith, and what I find convincing. But I am only one person. I can't speak for all believers. I suspect I know what it is that unites all true Christian believers. It has to do with being convinced that Jesus really did come in the form of a man, he lived and died, a perfect life, rose again from the dead. He is the Lord of life and offers new life and forgiveness for those who believe in him. It's a deeply impacting message to many, but I know not to all. Some still remain unconvinced, opposed or indifferent. Different people are going to be convinced and persuaded by different types of arguments and evidence.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 16 May 2015 9:56:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Banjo,

If indeed actions such as the burial of the dead were performed by the Palaeolithic people despite them not believing it to produce any material advantages, then I may believe that it was a "religious behaviour". If however, they believed for example that the spirits of the dead will help them in their hunts, then I cannot count such burials as religious. Do we in fact know WHY they buried their dead?

Are you also able to give us some rough idea about when the concept of 'existence' could have first appeared in human history/pre-history?

---

Dear Dan,

<<This is to enter into the mystery of the question of human free will. Some people do not want to accept certain ideas.>>

Especially such ideas that imply "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or the like...

I think that religious people find it easier to become believers because the belief-system they adopt is already more harmonious with the way they have been living, based on previous good uses of their free will. Others find it harder to bear the cognitive dissonance and their need for evidence is only a cover-up.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 16 May 2015 10:44:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

Your evident sincerity prompts me to make a contribution to this debate though my trajectory and perspective run counter-current to yours.

Family was something I discovered later in life when I married and founded my own. It was not really on my radar when I was young. I never knew my father but grew up in the love of my mother whom I felt overly possessive and whom I left at the age of 18.

I grew up in the bush like a wild weed, in what I felt was total freedom, largely left to myself so far as my schooling was concerned. Nobody ever asked me what I did, whether I had any homework, etc. I came home when I had nothing better to do. My dinner was kept warm on the edge of the old wood-burning cast iron stove. Usually a small piece of steak as tough as the leather soles of my shoes by the time I got to it.

Conversation at home was pretty basic, purely practical and of no real interest. I spent most of my time talking with the young bush-brotherhood priests who relayed each other every few years in the local Anglican church.

My mother had me baptised as a baby and later confirmed. I became an altar boy and served at communion throughout the region, accompanying my friends, the young priests, from one little country church to another on Sundays. They were the only people whose conversation I found interesting. It was mostly about theology.

Everybody thought I was going to become a priest and my expectation was that I would eventually become convinced that God really did exist. As a youth, I never did. I kept the question in abeyance for another half a century until my retirement and then took it up again.

This time I was sure I would become convinced but exactly the opposite occurred. I had a revelation. I suddenly saw the light. I realized there was no God. It was an exhilarating experience. I finally reached the truth.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 16 May 2015 11:12:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

What a beautiful story!

Now that you realised that God does not exist, you are finally free to fulfil your childhood dream to serve Him. As your mind has settled and you no longer need to be convinced, now you are free to follow your heart.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 May 2015 12:11:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« Are you also able to give us some rough idea about when the concept of 'existence' could have first appeared in human history/pre-history? »
.

I’m afraid I have nothing on that, Yuyutsu.

My guess is that it emerged with the sense of self-awareness which I imagine all living creatures have to some degree or other.
The question of existence may also be formulated as “what is the meaning of life” which is a question philosophers have been grappling with ever since mankind has been capable of abstract thought. But please don’t ask me when that first emerged. I don’t know.

In “ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy”, the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything is given the numeric solution "42", after seven and a half million years of calculation by a giant supercomputer called Deep Thought. When this answer was met with confusion and anger from its constructors, Deep Thought explains that "I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

More seriously though, I am inclined to agree with the French philosopher Albert Camus who asserted that the absurdity (senselessness, meaninglessness, irrationality) of the human condition is that people search for external values and meaning in a world which has none, and is indifferent to them.

Camus wrote in his novel “The Stranger” of value-nihilists such as Meursault (a fictive character), but also of values in a nihilistic world, that people can instead strive to be "heroic nihilists", living with dignity in the face of absurdity, living with "secular saintliness", fraternal solidarity, and rebelling against and transcending the world's indifference.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 May 2015 8:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« Now that you realised that God does not exist, you are finally free to fulfill your childhood dream to serve Him. »
.

I gave up chasing illusions a long time ago, Yuyutsu. I’m better off without them.

But I recognize that they do serve a useful purpose. Some people can’t live without them. That’s what illusions are for.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 May 2015 8:37:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

I am also inclined to agree with Camus.

You are completely correct. Some people are better off with illusions, but not yourself.

The good news is that you don't need to chase illusions, that they are unnecessary and you can follow your childhood dream of serving God without any.

You could even be a priest, it's never too late! I know that some churches are closed-minded, but surely you could find some denominations that do not require their clergy to believe that God exists. What matters is to love and serve Him devotedly and to feed and tend to his flock, rather than to harbour a dry and useless mental idea about God's "existence".

Somehow the analogy of gay people come to mind: homosexuals used to be jeered at, they were made to be ashamed of themselves, so many suppressed it or went underground, but lately there came a movement of trying to rationalise their feelings, to claim for example that it is biological and genetic, therefore not their fault - but does it really matter why someone feels the sexual attraction they have? Does it need a proof?

Similarly since the Western "enlightenment", religious people are jeered at. We are being told "Your God doesn't exist, you fools" and like beaten children some of us cry "Mommy, she said that my God doesn't exist, please prove her wrong" and they do try to prove their offenders wrong... except that by doing so they play their offenders' own game: true religion was never about that new secular game in town, existence - it was the deep yearning of the heart to return to God, and like the analogy of sexual attraction, this yearning is not an illusion and the heart needs no proof!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 May 2015 1:53:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

« … you can follow your childhood dream of serving God without any (illusions). »
.

I never had such a childhood dream, Yuyutsu. That was how other people interpreted the fact that I spent so much time talking with the young priests at the local Anglican church. I loved life in the bush but there was nothing much to do except go fishing or hunting with my old army disposal 303 rifle. Conversation with my family and friends was pretty basic and never got passed practical mode.

I have never been much of a dreamer but though my formal education ceased at the end of primary school I have always enjoyed intellectual pursuits. My lengthy conversations, late into the night, with the young priests was an intellectual pursuit, not a “childhood dream of serving God”.

I am not a servile person by nature but I lend a helping hand if I can. I am curious, more of an adventurer and a battler. As a child, I always wanted to become a drover but, I’m afraid, it never worked out that way. I ended up becoming the international director of France’s largest multinational insurance broking group, based in Paris and spending most of my time travelling around the world.

I was determined to smoke out this question of God before I died. It took me the best part of my life to do so. In the end, I consider it was a stroke of luck, something like a flash of genius. All the pieces finally fell together and it became as clear as crystal: there is no God.

.

(Continued …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 17 May 2015 7:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.
 
(Continued …)
 
.
 
God is not a childhood dream. It is a brilliant concept invented by primeval man that has been handed down to us generation after generation (it has stood the test of time), a natural anxiolytic and antidepressant, self-administered by auto-suggestion, accessible to all without exception. But it has a price, a price that many are prepared to pay: it only works if you truly believe in it, submit yourself completely to it, and serve it faithfully all your life.

In “l’Histoire de Juliette”, published in 1797, the Marquis de Sade referred to it as “ the opium you feed your people”. Under the pen of Karl Marx nearly half a century later, the expression became: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

It certainly is a powerful medicine and, in a few rare cases, is even thought to produce miracles.

Once the anxiety has been mastered, the natural forces take over and get on with the job of paving the way for salvation.

With a bit of luck, it succeeds. If it doesn't, that is deemed to be the will of God and the myth prevails.

It is what we commonly call a win-win situation. It can never fail.
 
.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 18 May 2015 12:59:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Obviously you know better than anyone what your calling is.

Earlier I wrote:

"If indeed actions such as the burial of the dead were performed by the Palaeolithic people despite them not believing it to produce any material advantages, then I may believe that it was a "religious behaviour". If however, they believed for example that the spirits of the dead will help them in their hunts, then I cannot count such burials as religious."

Religious people put God first, not the world. If people think of God as a deity and approach Him/Her in order to achieve worldly results, including health and mental-health as you just mentioned, then this is not religion, then it's just ordinary worldly behaviour, just commerce: they don't really love God, they don't truly worship Him, they simply believe that there is some vending-machine in the sky, so they press the button and expect results, they pray for the world to change around them instead of having their own attitude and character transformed - that's not religion!

Sadly, that's how religion looks to those, theists and atheists alike, who lack the spiritual dimension, who therefore can only see the shadow or projection of religion over the physical and mental planes, believing this to be religion itself. This projection could be seen for example as "a powerful medicine", but those who only see it as such are incapable of teaching religion and should not be ordained. I am curious what those young Anglican priests that you met in your youth and had many intellectual discussion with, taught.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 May 2015 1:56:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for that thoughtful post.

« Obviously you know better than anyone what your calling is. »
Yes, but, in my language it was not a “calling”. As there is no God, there was nobody to do any “calling”. It was a profession which I chose as a second best when I finally accepted the idea that I could not become a drover.

« If indeed actions such as the burial of the dead were performed by the Palaeolithic people despite them not believing it to produce any material advantages, then I may believe that it was a "religious behaviour". If however, they believed for example that the spirits of the dead will help them in their hunts, then I cannot count such burials as religious. »

I suggest that that is because of your Utopian or idealistic streak, Yuyutsu. It is clear to me that the motivation of the inventors of the brilliant concept of God among primeval man, was a sentiment of awe and fear instilled in them by the various manifestations of nature (beautiful sunrises and sunsets, clear star-studded night skies, lightening, thunder, volcanoes, earthquakes, tempests , floods, bushfires, etc.). They attributed a God to each natural force, which, in turn, allowed them to offer worship, submission and sacrifices to them in exchange for their appeasement and safety. It was a trade-off. Nothing Utopian or idealistic about it.

I am persuaded that the vast, overwhelming majority of mankind, today, who believe in some God and adhere to some religion or other has exactly the same motivation. Except that the list is, perhaps, slightly different. They place their hopes in a trade-off for a place in heaven, a cure for an incurable illness, a more prosperous life, a happy family, to be rescued when in danger, or some other advantage.

Apparently, you are one of a extremely minuscule minority of truly authentic Utopians, Yuyutsu, whose belief is unconditional.

« I am curious what those young Anglican priests … taught. »
.
Just the gospels of the New Testament (like Dan). Nothing else.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 18 May 2015 9:09:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy