LA Times religion reporter ends up losing faith

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Thanks for thinking well of me, but make no mistake, before I found good, I knew evil as my god. As my Brother in Christ Kanicbird reminds me," you have already been forgiven". Even these words, from the Man Himself (Jesus), don’t deter me from redoubling my efforts to seek justice for every one of His in this world. It has cost me much already, and I have no doubt it isn’t even a drop in the bucket as long as I draw breath. My reward, is but a smile, few and far between, but as God as my witness, it will do while I tread this world in search of His works.
[/QUOTE]

I interpet that to mean you have great Faith in Kancibirds beliefs.

Monavis

62

[QUOTE=Nava]
Well, he wanted to cover religion in order to strengthen his faith. To me that sounds just kind of absurd
[/QUOTE]
Like wanting to cover politics to strengthen one’s faith in the political process?

63

[QUOTE=monavis]
I interpet that to mean you have great Faith in Kancibirds beliefs.

Monavis
[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure what point your trying to make, but I’ll humor you. His and mine are the same. I hope that helps.

64

[QUOTE=MILTBore]
I don’t think that’s a particularly fair full characterization of what he was talking about.
[/QUOTE]
I do, especially given that he wrote this: “I sought solace in another belief: that a church’s heart is in the pews, not the pulpits.” It is in neither place.

65

[QUOTE=Reply]
But the evidence cannot prove that the observed universe constitutes all of reality. The evidence also doesn’t say much about the potential existence of other higher powers, especially one who deliberately misleads us. It could be as simple as “Satan made the world and wrote the Bible to deceive us from the Christian God”.
[/quote]

Nonetheless, the most practical way of understanding the world is through observable evidence. There are literally an infinite amount of beliefs you could hold without evidence that would be 100% wrong. By contrast, that number decreases drastically when you add supporting evidence to a belief. Just because we can’t say with certainty that there is or there is not a god does not make these two statements equally likely.

66

[QUOTE=Testy]
Reply

That really wasn’t the reply (if you’ll pardon the term) that I was expecting and rather takes the wind out of my sails. You are supposed to leap in here with an immediate and impassioned defense! :stuck_out_tongue:

Regards

Testy
[/QUOTE]

Can I come in with a gentle one? :smiley:

You’re right – “free will” is not a good enough answer to “Why do terrible things happen”, because often enough terrible things happen without the necessity for free will – cancer, car accidents, random lion attacks. And the fact that religion does not make every religious person into a better person does not speak well for it. I doubt it even makes the majority of church/temple/mosquegoers into better people.

So I’ll say something that I said when I was a pagan and when I was agnostic and now that I’m an Episcopalian I’ll say the same thing:

Religion is unnecessary.

I’ll say it again, because you might not hear me.

Religion is unnecessary.

Imagine you’re going to learn how to draw. You can find other people who know how to draw and whose drawings you really like and ask them what they do. You can read books on drawing and take classes in style. You’ll find a style of drawing that meshes well with you (or discover you don’t much like drawing at all).

Or you can just take a piece of paper and a pencil and start to draw and make your own way. This is harder, obviously, but you learn all your lessons by your own mistakes. You can look at other people’s drawings and that, but in the end the style is your own.

If you decide that daVinci’s cartoons are exactly how your drawings should look, you might study them intensely and try to draw everything like that. You probably won’t be another daVinci, but you may have some stuff that looks like his.

So religion kind of works the same way. If you want to gain whatever it is you gain from believing in a higher power, you can follow staunchly down the path of other people, you can strike down your own path, glancing occasionally (or never looking at all, as takes your fancy) at other people’s paths. Or you can fold your arms and say “This path is unimportant to me and goes nowhere I find interesting” and go somewhere else.

The problem occurs when instead of taking joy in drawing, to continue the metaphor, a person starts to believe that daVinci’s way is the only way to draw. That everything he said is right and everyone who draws another way is wrong. Anime-style stuff should be burned, and let’s not even talk about impressionist paintings or pointillism or abstract shapes.

When people begin to worship their religion, when they find it more important than its message, when they stop questioning themselves and their experiences and their church and their priests, they have stopped learning. They have put themselves into stasis. They have stopped on the path and do not intend to keep going. Keeping on down the path is harder because sometimes, no matter how well worn the path, you will find trails you have never considered wending off into the unknown.

I’m willing to agree that most if not all people can be perfectly wonderful human beings without religion. I can’t even say for certain that religion is a net detriment or benefit to the world; then again, neither can you, no matter how much you think you know. How many people have been housed and fed and clothed and comforted by people because of their religion? How many other people have been hurt and killed becasue of religion? How can we quantify one over the other? And is it important that we do, or is it more important to decry evil behavior – murder, torture, hatred, cruelty – that can be inspired by religion?

I’m just saying: picking up this book on drawing worked for me. I don’t think every technique in there is very useful, at least not to me, but I like it and it works for me.

67

[QUOTE=ForumBot]
Nonetheless, the most practical way of understanding the world is through observable evidence. There are literally an infinite amount of beliefs you could hold without evidence that would be 100% wrong. By contrast, that number decreases drastically when you add supporting evidence to a belief. Just because we can’t say with certainty that there is or there is not a god does not make these two statements equally likely.
[/QUOTE]
But the supporting evidence offered by people of faith is summarily disregarded. And the irony of that is that it’s exactly the sort of evidence you say is most compelling — observation. It is our experience that has convinced us that, notwithstanding any a priori arguments, God exists.

The reason most often given to me for rejecting the evidence, though, is that the person rejecting it has not made the same observation for himself; that is, he has not experienced the existence or presence of God. In the end, what I usually discover is that the person did not mean to say he wanted observational evidence in the first place. He meant to say that he wanted scientific evidence. He wants to be able to reproduce the experience. (This is discounting, of course, those who claim we’re delusional or lying or such.)

Used to be, I would argue that scientific evidence is irrelevant with respect to the existence of God just as much as it is with respect to say, the Induction Axiom. But I stopped arguing that because either the person was insufficiently grounded in logic theories or the philosophy of science to stipulate that analytic claims require analytic proof, or else was a complete physicalist — well schooled in all the disciplines but holding to a specialized philosophy of materialism.

But what I would say now is more general than that, and far less technical. I would just say that even for science it is necessary to time some tests. It is, after all, a temporal universe. There really is no space; rather, there is spacetime. So if, for example, you want to test whether gravity bends light around an eclipsed sun, you have to wait until there is an eclipsed sun. Or if you want to observe a supernova, you have to wait until a star of sufficient mass explodes. Even among believers, most people have come along in their own time at their own pace, depending on the events in their lives. You never know what’s around the corner. Maybe you just have to wait for the right time to experience God. Maybe he doesn’t knock on every door at once or on demand.

68

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
When people begin to worship their religion, when they find it more important than its message, when they stop questioning themselves and their experiences and their church and their priests, they have stopped learning. They have put themselves into stasis. They have stopped on the path and do not intend to keep going. Keeping on down the path is harder because sometimes, no matter how well worn the path, you will find trails you have never considered wending off into the unknown.
[/QUOTE]
Little Plastic Ninja. I will remember the name. :slight_smile:

69

And since I passed my edit window…

[QUOTE=Voyager]
But we can figure out not to touch the stove without god reminding us. Those who are going to touch the stove will do so no matter, and those who won’t touch the stove won’t. When god tells us to kick the cat, those who will will, and those who won’t wont. It’s my contention that all morality is basically atheistic (without god) and those whose morality lines up with the Bible or other Holy Book preaches it - though they might not live it.

The only exception might be those of such weak will that they can be convinced to go against their consciences by appeal to God - and I’m not all that sure that they wouldn’t do it anyway.
[/QUOTE]

I was about to get :dubious: and :confused: and :mad: about this before I realized how you were using atheistic, and then I agreed with you entirely.

Look – I remember from psychology and sociology that some people never get beyond the “I must not do this because I will be punished if I do”. I don’t think religion is to blame for that retardation of social and mental development, I just think it can in some circumstances be a handy way to address it.

But that’s an entirely atheistic (as per your usage) view.

Religion helps me when I start getting seriously angry and I’m about ready to shout and rail at someone for being an idiot when I stop myself and think “You know, Jesus wouldn’t tell Chris he’s being an asshole” or “I bet Jesus would help that guy with his problem.” Yeah, I know, it’s cheesy and unnecessary and corny and all that, but it works for me. It’s a poke in the back of the head to make me think rather than react, and that’s something we all need.

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Little Plastic Ninja. I will remember the name. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Should I be worried? :wink:

70

Getting back to the OP, It seems he found God through sleep deprivation and “intimate sharing.” These are the methods cults use to break down resistance. Then he lost his faith when he found out some religious leaders are jerks. You’d think he would have figured that out on day one.

If someone uses psychological manipulation and sleep deprivation to get you to agree to a proposition, the best response is “Fuck You.”

Good thing no one told him about the Bad Popes. Dude would have had a heart attack.

71

[QUOTE=Liberal]
But the supporting evidence offered by people of faith is summarily disregarded. And the irony of that is that it’s exactly the sort of evidence you say is most compelling — observation. It is our experience that has convinced us that, notwithstanding any a priori arguments, God exists.
[/quote]

Personal experience unchecked against objective verification is the least reliable of all methods of observation. The human brain is complicated and capable of some misfires of huge importance; because of this, we know that we can not trust our senses 100% all of the time, and have to take steps to minimize the chances of our brain and our senses being wrong. We do this by holding evidence up to the scientific standard.

I don’t discount personal experience entirely as a type of evidence, but personal experience is unrivaled in its inaccuracy. Elvis sightings should be more than enough proof of this.

If you want to go on using your personal experience to justify your belief where there is no other evidence to contradict, that’s fine. It’s not good enough for me, but it’s not harming anyone. But surely you would admit that evidence held to a scientific standard has a considerably higher likelihood of being correct?

72

Little Plastic Ninja
Sorry for the delay, I have been at the Embassy having a quiet party for a few hours.
Thank you for the thoughtful (and thought-provoking) post. Too often, the religious vs atheist debates turn into slanging matches over who can prove God does/doesn’t exist. I have my own opinion (obviously) but view that kind of debate as a waste of time for all concerned. In truth, I have very little interest in God’s existence or lack of it I can tolerate some forms of Buddhism but am hardly what you’d call devout.
Unfortunately, and not to hijack the thread too badly, I haven’t made my personal position as clear as I should have.

I have no animosity toward religious people, regardless of their beliefs. I don’t hate the religious at all. I fear them.

As you are probably aware, Saudi is more-or-less, a theocracy. The religious authorities have a large say in the curriculum of the schools, laws of all kinds, and the day-to-day life of almost everyone in the Kingdom. They patrol the streets in Suburbans, looking for businesses that didn’t close for prayer-time or people that are not praying or are dressed (in their opinion) improperly. Beatings, fines, and arrests can be and are applied as they believe necessary.
These are not evil people and have the best of motives. Nevertheless, they make life a misery for many people, foreigners and locals alike. Citizens have been beaten to death by the religious police. Their control of the school curriculum contributes to the unemployment rate which is estimated to be between 20 and 30 percent of the males between 18 and 30 years of age. Women, of course, can barely work at all.

To use a more down-home example, I used to live in Carlisle county Kentucky which is both a dry county and a very poor one. This should not be taken as an indication that people don’t drink. Far from it. They drive across the county line and buy liquor and drag it home with them or visit a local bootlegger and buy untaxed alcohol (either commercial or homemade,) and drink that. Every few years someone points out that the county could really use the revenue from liquor taxes. They always lose thanks to the religious vote. Someone, effectively, has to come out in favor of sin while preachers denounce and vilify them from the pulpit. Of course, they lose the election and that’s the last that is heard of it until some other dedicated but unrealistic crusader gives it another shot.

My point, with those two examples is that a religion will inevitably try to acquire secular power. We see it in the US today with politicians pandering to the religious vote. Bush constantly refers to God in his speeches and there was the recent bit with some of the Catholic church hierarchy recommending that priests refuse to administer the sacrament to politicians voting the wrong way (in their view) on abortion. In other countries such as Pakistan the Imams control enormous voting blocks while to the South in India it is the Hindu vote that is pandered to. In either of these countries it is unwise to be too publicly devout toward the wrong religion.

The religious see it as their duty to bring their fellow countrymen to God, and it is much easier to command through secular power than persuade through example.

Sorry for the long post and I didn’t intend to go on a rant about the matter but this is one of my hot-buttons.

Best regards

Testy

73

That is only some religious people, Testy. Other religious people, including some Christians, also see it as a hot button issue and feel as strongly as you do about the separation of Church and State. I hope that you are not blind to that.

You are mistaken. Some Christians interpret Christianity as saying that. Many other Christians do not interpret the Scriptures that way. Stop describing Christians as if they all think alike. There are considerable differences.

Although I agree with Lobdell that faith can’t just be switched off and on, he didn’t exactly exhaust all that Christiandom had to offer after exploring Catholicism, TBN and “prosperity thology.” Although he mentions that there were “other things,” I’ve seen no mention of the contemplative life or simplification, Third Order Franciscans or anything along that line.

He did not strike me as being a very emotionally wise person to begin with. This comment about the victims of pedophilia made me shudder:

Of course, he came to understand better, but that any adult would think this to begin with is unbelievably shallow.

But maybe he has taken the path which is right for him even though it is painful at the moment. Who’s to say?

74

[QUOTE=Liberal]

The reason most often given to me for rejecting the evidence, though, is that the person rejecting it has not made the same observation for himself; that is, he has not experienced the existence or presence of God. In the end, what I usually discover is that the person did not mean to say he wanted observational evidence in the first place. He meant to say that he wanted scientific evidence. He wants to be able to reproduce the experience. (This is discounting, of course, those who claim we’re delusional or lying or such.)

[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. If you said you could predict the results of tomorrow’s races, I’d ask for you to write them down, keep them in a safe place, and compare your predictions with reality. I wouldn’t deny the results if I couldn’t do it also. All we ask for is some way of distinguishing an interaction with an outside entity from something purely internal to your brain.

75

[QUOTE=Omegaman]
I’m not sure what point your trying to make, but I’ll humor you. His and mine are the same. I hope that helps.
[/QUOTE]

I mean that you are taking Kanicbird’s belief that you are forgiven. This is a help to you so I do not fault it, but A good father who knows your mind and abilities would forgive you, like a good parent wouldn’t expect a 2 year old to be chastized for something he was not capable of knowing right from wrong.

Being human, recognising your faults and trying to correct them is your seeing that you forgive yourself.

Monavis

76

[QUOTE=monavis]
I mean that you are taking Kanicbird’s belief that you are forgiven. This is a help to you so I do not fault it, but A good father who knows your mind and abilities would forgive you, like a good parent wouldn’t expect a 2 year old to be chastized for something he was not capable of knowing right from wrong.

Being human, recognising your faults and trying to correct them is your seeing that you forgive yourself.

Monavis
[/QUOTE]

Well I’ve done some pretty horrible things in my life. Sometimes it’s hard for me to reconcile what I’ve done can be forgiven at all. So when someone like Kanicbird reminds me, it helps. Things that happen to us as human beings shape and change us if even in the smallest way. My being responsible for changing people in bad way has been corrected but cannot be forgotten. I can’t forget and I’d bet my dying breath they will never forget.

77

[QUOTE=Testy]
Little Plastic NinjaMy point, with those two examples is that a religion will inevitably try to acquire secular power.
[/QUOTE]

Snipped a lot because it was very true, very honest, and certainly thought-provoking. And it’s one of the reasons I shied away from religion for so long.

But to say a religion will try to do this or that is a bit of a misnomer, isn’t it? A religion is an idea, a set of notions, a dogma, a series of ceremonies. It has no motive force save what it engenders in the mind, unless you want to go all Neal Stephenson on it.

People, you and I will both agree, will try to acquire power however they can. Because religion is seen by some people as the basis of morality, they are careful to raise their children ‘properly’. A world full of examples of ‘immorality’ (which often means “my priest/rabbi/imam/holy book/tradition/etc says this is wrong”) can spur people to say “We need stronger religious teachings! If people live by their religion they would not do wicked things! We must force them to be good.” These people are wrong on several counts, but I would argue that this does not mean the religion upon which they base their arguments is therefore evil.

Don’t get me wrong. I can see the frustration of the moral atheist attempting to argue with the dogmatic theist about a theocratic nation.

“The people are legally required to act morally!”
“But who gave you the right to choose their lifestyle or their morals?”
“My magical sky pixie!”
“I’d like to have a word with him.”
sneer “He won’t talk to you!”
“…right.”

I get it. I really do. But I’m unwilling to blame the institution of religion for it. I’m much keener on blaming human nature. We see a problem. We don’t want it to be a problem. We try to fix it the best way we can. Some people will see a problem and say to themselves “How can I get people behind this? How can I make people believe what I say? I’ll put it in terms they can understand and relate to, couch it in concepts they already believe in. If they’re already convinced A and B are right and secretly believe C, I can take them all the way to N or O before they start questioning me! And by then it’s too late, since they lost the right to question me around about K.”

The power hungry use what tools they can. I have no doubt that most of the people who enforce the religious laws in places like Saudi Arabia believe they are doing good. No matter what religion they are enforcing, however, they are wrong. Not my belief nor any other should be forced upon anyone, I would say, and this is why:

Virtue is worthless to the soul without intent.

By accident you can perform a kindly act. You might leave a bag of groceries on the sidewalk accidentally. When a homeless person finds them and manages by that food to feed herself and her family, that is a wonderful circumstance – but it is not a virtuous act on your part. If you leave the food by intent, that is a virtuous act. I understand that in (some sects of) Islam it is considered virtuous for a woman to choose to wear a veil. I would say then that to force women into this choice is to remove that choice entirely and thereby remove any possibility for the enrichment of the soul.

The legislation of morality removes that morality entirely because nobody will ever do anything just because it is right. Their only reason will become “because I must”. You cannot carry anyone to enlightenment; you can only show them the path you took. At some point they have to walk that lonesome road all by themselves, just like you did… or else they can just sit on the side of the road when it gets dark.

I’d like to see religion get out of the state entirely. I cast a gimlet eye on any candidate who thinks I ought to base my vote for them on religious similarities. I’ve heard it for more than just the usual suspects, too: “I’m definitely voting for her,” a friend of mine once said. “She goes to my same church! She’s a Unitarian Universalist; I know I’m going to agree with what she does…” :smack:

78

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Like wanting to cover politics to strengthen one’s faith in the political process?
[/QUOTE]

Proving again that no one wants to enter the kitchen of their favorite restaurant.

79

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
<SNIP>

But to say a religion will try to do this or that is a bit of a misnomer, isn’t it? A religion is an idea, a set of notions, a dogma, a series of ceremonies. It has no motive force save what it engenders in the mind, unless you want to go all Neal Stephenson on it.
[/quote]

Little Plastic Ninja
I’m not sure I agree with this. Or maybe my perception is that a church isn’t only an idea, set of ceremonies, dogma, etc. There is also an organization there. In the US we have the Catholic church, Southern Baptist Convention, the Mormon equivalent, to name a few, and over here we have Immams with enormous followings. The organizations deliberately try to influence civil policy.

(I like that term; “Going all Neal Stephenson.” Thank you.)

Little Plastic Ninja
I wholeheartedly agree that enforced morality lacks legitimacy. In some way or another I think it “doesn’t count.”
That issue I mentioned with the linkage between abortion and no communion is the fault of the church itself, with no outside influence. I believe that churches trying to obtain and hold secular power and wealth caused a good bit of European history. Given the opportunity, this could happen again. My own perception is that there is certainly the will there.
More often though, I will agree that it is generally some politician who uses the church as a lever to get into power. Nevertheless, a popular religion is one of the easiest levers to grab when someone is running for office. They automatically have at least an assumed constituency and, more often than not, are also assumed to have the moral high-ground in any conflict with other candidates. The other issue is that most churches will not say; “Oh no you don’t speak for us!” A good Catholic/Mormon/Baptist candidate is going to have the members of those religions behind him. All of them together will try to crush an atheist candidate. I believe there is one successful, openly atheist politician in the entire US right now.

I don’t know a way to fix it. Educating people to not vote for a candidate because of his or her religion would be a great idea but there’s no way something like this would work. People will continue to assume that a candidate who shares their religion will automatically share their values and neither of them will worry about small minorities of other religions or none.

Regards

Testy

80

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
But to say a religion will try to do this or that is a bit of a misnomer, isn’t it? A religion is an idea, a set of notions, a dogma, a series of ceremonies. It has no motive force save what it engenders in the mind, unless you want to go all Neal Stephenson on it.
[/quote]

“There is a vicious dog behind you.” These are merely words, too. The fact that there isn’t a vicious dog behind you means that these words have no power. They present no harm to you. Sam Harris compared ideas to a lever that only belief can pull and, once pulled, affects your behavior.

Whether you panic and look behind you or sit at your desk is of relatively little consequence, since the action of looking for the dog doesn’t cause much disruption in the world behind you. But when you change the belief to “I will live after death” or “there is a reward for my violence beyond this world”, you have a much more dangerous proposition. Now you have a strong justification for terrorism. A belief in a personal god who actively punishes any who use birth control has led to millions of deaths in Africa and untold unplanned pregnancies in the world–not just in believers, but in the poor who have proper education robbed from them by religious dogma of wealthier nations.

To say that belief is just an idea contained within the mind is to reduce the power of belief: because although human action may be physically distinct from words on paper, without belief there is no action. The two go hand in hand and for all purposes may as well be the same thing.

Any harm that has been mitigated from the wholly destructive text of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a result of secular ethics, not the religions themselves. The god of the old testament (who is, after all, the same god as the one in the new testament) is a shit. The Koran is full of unambiguous calls to subjugation and murder. That moderates have chosen to ignore the uncomfortable and disgusting parts that outright condone morally deplorable actions such as infanticide is not a result of religious text but secular ethics that have managed to postpone religion’s more violent side.

But sometimes, reason is not able to overcome the absurdity of many religious claims. You need only see the millions dying of AIDS in Africa or remember September 11th. Even look to our home country, where life-saving stem cell research has been banned entirely due to religious interference.

Faith-based claims undermine reason and logic. Claims of truth with zero secular evidence are actively harming humanity. Human nature may give these absurd claims more power than they need, but the religious texts I have cited have absolutely nothing good to say for them. If religion were to disappear, we would certainly still have crazy mass-murdering fucks to deal with. But we would lose nothing by abandoning faith-based claims to morality and gain plenty.