This, of course, tends to be one of the big obstacles between people who believe and those who do not believe (or disbelieve), whether it is Cthulhu or Free-Market-Capitalism. Our world views are formed by matching personal experience against both our expectations and against theories and mythologies that are presented to us. Aside from those people who tenaciously cling to some tiny kernel of belief despite the evidence, most people find their beliefs shaped and modified by the collisions of experience and data. It would no more be possible for me to believe that there is no God at this point in my life than it would be possible to stop loving my wife or begin to hate reading. I suspect that you would find it similarly impossible to suddenly discover a faith in a god. (I am quite capable of rationally creating an argument or an imaginary view of the world that excludes all gods, but that would occur only in a deliberately imagined world that does not resonate with my experience.)
Thus, we find ourselves facing each other across an unbridgable gap of experience. Now, we know people who have crossed (in either or both directions) from belief to unbelief or disbelief. Some post on this MB. It is possible that they can provide some commentary on the experience on both sides. However, since the experience that led them to their current position will most likely have altered their perception of the world, they can never stand on both sides of the issue, simultaneously, and adequately explain their “choices” (as if it was a choice) in ways that are comprehensible to everyone on the “other” side.
Well, now that you say that I’ve got no problem with it. I just get annoyed when people seem to think that it denigrates their feelings in some way to say that they’re biological in origin. That “love” is meaningless if it’s chemically inspired. Which is obviously not subjectively true.
tomndebb I can’t argue with any of that. And with emotional reluctance I accept it logically.
Even though All my experience/working out/ rationalising screams non-existence of God at me, there’s no arguing with that, er… argument.
No prob…
Like I said before, sometimes I assume too much and my posts aren’t as clear as they probably should be. Sometimes WE read more into a post than is actually there.
Perhaps the analogy is a bad example. But my thoughts were along the lines of God is more than just what science can describe as real or measurable. The concept of Love is greater than the sum of it parts. God is (IMHO) similar in the sense that He is the sum of our existence but is as a whole is much greater. I wasn’t planning on going down this road so let me just say. I don’t have a problem with it either. No denigration intended.
You can say at social, business or family gathering, “How can you like South Park? It’s juvenile and foul!” or, "Really, you’re voting Republican? But Bush’s policies . . . " or, “Dogs? Nah, I like cats.” If it’s said as discussion and not hurled as an insult.
But if you say, “Really? You believe in an invisible mythical creature and live your life according to a 2,000-year-old book of folk stories?” in most places, there will be an appalled hush before you are given the Bum’s Rush.
Harris argues (and I think he’s being naive and unrealistic, for the record) that it would be healthy for more people to openly say, “Will you please explain to me how your religion makes the slightest bit of sense?”
Well, I’m not trying to shut down discussion on the topic. I’m just noting that there are going to be some high (possily insurmountable) barriers to one “side” persuading the other “side” of the Truth of their convictions.
I think the discussions are valid, if for no other reason than for people to recognize that we’re not going to find that perfect argument of point of logic or act of inspiration that will bring all these discussions to a close. (And I’d much rather we discussed them, even with no resolution, than that we begin (or go back to) killing each other to win converts to our side.) I also think that each side needs to appreciate the depth of conviction that the other side possesses with some notion that there is some substance behind their beliefs so that we see fewer accusations that the other side is willfully deluded, giving us more room to actually attempt to understand the other.
I disagree. I think that this has occured multiple times in this thread. I think post #7 provides a concise example of this:
Religious beliefs are very diverse, and the way people understand, interpret, and “believe” “old stories” is just as diverse. Some people read John 9 and think that Jesus performed a miracle and healed blindness, others read it purely as an allegory that didn’t actually happen but which still contains spiritual truths, and yet both groups of people can be Christians who believe in the bible. Airman’s OP ostensibly is about all those who hold religious belief–both groups. But Testy’s characterization of belief is clearly descriptive of the second group: using “old stories” to explain “natural phenomena” (or, as JRDelerious put it, “using Scripture to describe the natural world.”)
This is certainly the pit, but I don’t think either of us is a brain-dead loser.
Well, I think many people (like me) believe that God created the world and the universe (even though there are differences regarding how micro his creation-management was, depending on the individual’s stance on evolution), while not believing it only happened 10,000 years ago.
Depends if you can be bothered to get your calculator out and count all those "x begat y"s.
The difference is, most people don’t feel their love for dogs over cats, or their fandom for South Park at the core of their being. The same cannot be said for religion. (Okay, I take the thing back about dogs and cats. If a person merely mentions that they like cats more than dogs, most dog-lovers won’t get too bent out of shape. But if the cat lover makes comments to the dog-lover about how cats are a smarter or more sensible choice, or how loving dogs doesn’t add up because of this and that characteristic, those will be fightin’ words for many people.)
And as far as politics go, most people tread very carefully when discussing politics, because that’s getting a little too close to the core too. Surely you’ve heard about the rule of thumb to never talk about religion or politics. Too touchy. Too much potential for a heated and often, an ugly scene.
It would kind of be like saying, “Really, why you are going out with her? You find red hair attractive? You find tall women attractive? You find science fiction fans attractive? WHY?”
It’s kind of the same thing. There’s often a love for religion that a person feels deeply inside, and questioning that love, even if it’s not directly insulting, is cutting too close to the core. It’s rude. If the discussion hasn’t been initiated and welcomed by the other party, it’s just asking for trouble and ill-will.
However, if the other person wants to discuss the merits of their faith, that’s a different story. But merely mentioning that they have a faith isn’t, I don’t think, permission to have that faith put under the microscope. Some people just want to be left alone. They don’t want to have to justify their personal beliefs to every Tom, Dick and Harry who starts asking questions. This “being left alone” thing works both ways.
And the answer I’d give is, “Because it pleases me, and it works for me.”
I also might answer, “Why do you feel that you are owed an explanation about my personal reasons for my personal faith?”
People ask me why I choose not to eat meat—why I am a vegetarian. I often tell them it’s because I don’t want to eat meat. Honestly, they are not owed any further explanation. But sometimes they act as if I have to explain it to them, so it makes sense to them. I owe them no such thing. Unless I am asking them to stop eating meat, (which I’m not) I see no reason why I am obligated to explain to them why I choose vegetarianism, or why vegetarianism is a great thing. They can just keep wondering what my reasons are, for all I care.
Personally, I think they’re often being nosy, or they’re only asking because they want to start an argument, or to find a way to ridicule me. I don’t want to waste my time with such irritants.
Problem is, millions of people have not been killed through history—or their civil rights violated—because they like cats or are veggies or date tall women.
And that’s what makes religion so terrifying and dangerous and “untouchable.”
Plenty of people have been killed through history for wealth, love, pride, and nationality–all of which people can consider an import part of their being. Are those things terrifying and dangerous? Of course not: it’s not the concept itself that’s harmful, it’s people who become completely consumed in the concept that are harmful.
I think you’ve vastly overstated the degree to which religion is “untouchable.” Look at how you framed the respective questions:
The person asking the first question isn’t assuming anything about the person whom they’re asking other then things they already know–that the person supports Bush–or that are obvious–that they most likely support Bush because of his policies.
The person asking the second question is assuming a great deal about the person that they’re asking: they’re assuming that the person they’re asking has an unsophisticated view of God (that’s he’s a physical “creature”) and that they live their life according to the entire Bible. Worst of all, the question is flat-out insulting by calling the Bible a “book of folk stories.” That characterization is just flat-out wrong. Even if you don’t believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, you should still know that it isn’t merely a collection of folk stories: it’s a set of books that cover topics ranging from law, to history, to philosophy, etc. You may not think that the history is true, you may not agree with the philosophy or desire to follow the law, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t any of those things! Newton was ultimately wrong about a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t write science books; Herodotus may have told a lot of whoppers, but he still wrote books on history; and the Bible may be wrong, but it’s still a hell of a lot more then a “fairy-tale.”
Instead of thinking about how people would respond to: "Really, you’re voting Republican? But Bush’s policies . . . ", try thinking about how they’d respond to: “So you’re a Republican, eh? That must mean you support the slaughter of Iraqi children, the deception of the American populace, the right of fetuses to be born, and the right of citizens to own machine guns!”
In my opinion, the Old and New Testaments and the Koran are folk stories, fairy tales and fables. That doesn’t mean they don’t have morals (good and bad ones) to put forward, just as the tales of the Grimm Brothers and Hans Christian Andersen did.
Perhaps you don’t mean to discuss this, just put it out there (which I suspect), but this is what confuses me about the concept of God: If God is not a physical being, then what is God? God supposedly came before the physical, right? How is that possible and how does that make sense? What does it mean to come before the physical (AKA everything we know of)?
You could compare God to a thought (i.e. thoughts aren’t physical), but thoughts come from physical things (namely, brains). The physical has a direct effect on thoughts (brain damage effects thoughts). So what does it mean to reverse these things, to say that something nonphysical can effect something physical. Thoughts, in and of themselves (aside from the electrical impulse) can not effect the physical in any way imaginable-at least in any way that I can imagine.
I think a lot of atheists have trouble with the idea of God for these sorts of reasons, or it could be just me.
Again, perhaps this is an inappropriate tangent to bring up here, but it sprang to mind from your post.
You are correct. I think the problem is that some religions have been relegated by both sides to that sort of status. The ancient Greek religion (what’s it called, BTW, anyone know?) is often called ‘myth’ and ‘fairytale’ by both atheists and theists alike. I suspect this is because no one believes in them anymore (or at least not a lot of people).
I hear you and even though you weren’t talking to me.
No religion would have survived without fundamentalists. They are at the core of any religion. It is up to Joe Bloggs to make those beliefs fit his life.
But the fundamentalists will always be there. Without them all religion would be dead.
So what? It’s someone’s private business. Trying to scrutinize someone’s private business or beliefs without them asking for it and initiating it is rude.
When someone is acting “dangerous” to you or to someone else (or to society as a whole) then some over-the-line scrutinizing is in order. But when someone is minding their own damned business, believing what they believe, it’s the height of assholishness to even suggest that you should skewer their beliefs, just because you think that religion as a whole can be dangerous or might be dangerous.
It would just be so rude and nasty and arrogant. It’s not your job to try to “get people to think” about their private business, their private thoughts, unless they ask you to. They are entitled to believe what they want, as long as they aren’t bothering anybody or hurting anybody, without being bugged or pestered or “questioned” in a veiled insulting way. This applies to everyone, religious and non-religious.
Nobody here seems to like it when the preachy “I want to save you” religious person sticks their nose in someone else’s business, and starts asking them nosy personal questions about their personal beliefs. And rightly so. It’s obnoxious. But the thing is, it works both ways.
First of all, “myth” is not a pejorative. Myths, religiously speaking, are stories that are intended to convey essential truths in some way; consider the Eden myth’s centrality to illustrating the essential Christian truth of a flawed universe in need of repair and salvation. (And this myth either makes sense to one as a description of the universe or it doesn’t; if it doesn’t, it’s entirely likely that that person will have a hard time making sense of Christianity. The worldview differs, the essential truths perceived differ – this is going back to tomndebb’s comment about experience.)
“Myth” and “fact” are pretty much orthogonal to each other; this is the important thing that a lot of fundamentalists have completely lost track of, and why they’re such pains in the ass. The essential truths of the stories, the evocations of specific responses and insights, do not depend on their factuality; if they did, nobody would use allegory as a teaching tool or enjoy fiction. There are myths that contain specific seeds of fact – for example, some have traced the myth of Aesclepius through to the myths of Imhotep and wound up at the specific man who designed the Step Pyramid of Djoser and who is said to have revolutionised the practice of Egyptian medicine – but this is not essential to myths. Myths create and encapsulate worldview; worldview is far more a filter on facts than it is factual.
(Consider “People suck” and “People are basically nice” as conflicting worldviews, and how they influence interpretation of facts; both are generally factually supported by those who hold them, but it’s wicked hard to convince someone who holds one that the other is true with those fact-based arguments.)
Ancient peoples rarely had a word for their religion; it was simply a part of their lives and how they lived. If you asked an ancient Greek “What do you call the way you worship the gods?” they’d probably say something like, “. . . I just worship the gods.” The modern version of the ancient Greek religion is generally referred to as Hellenic reconstruction (or Greek reconstruction); one of its major organisations is Hellenismos, but that’s far from the universal temple group. (I’m given to understand that Hellenismos has problems that have led some people to leave angrily; I’m not Greek recon, so I only know what I pick up in conversation.)
Generally speaking, the ancients believed their myths in the sense of worldview and cosmogenesis; it is not generally believed that they used them as facts. (A scholarly study of this question is entitled Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? : An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination, by Paul Veyne; I have not acquired it yet.) Ancient polytheists were also generally not practicing scriptural religions; the myths were a living corpus of knowledge, not something with a canonical form. We have extant copies of a huge number of variants and retellings of various cultures’ myths, and in several cases can trace the evolution of the story as cultural beliefs shifted and needed new stories to encapsulate their worldview, to explain why the gods of immediate neighbours have been added to the pantheon, or to express new ideas.
There are modern pagans who have a difficulty with fact and myth; I suspect most of them have been influenced by a culture dominated by scriptural, orthodoxic religion and not shed the influences. Most of them, however, are not operating on literality of ancient myths of whatever culture they prefer (if any); the two most popular neopagan myths are the Universal Great Goddess Cult and the Burning Times. The grownups in the pagan community spend a fair amount of time debunking these, providing facts, generally fighting ignorance, and then retreating to quiet spaces where they can vent about having to do so. Many of the people who buy into this form of mythological literalism are, however, the larval forms of people with clues; a fair number of us can remember when we were them, and this knowledge can help us not be too damn smug.
On a personal note: I do wish the SDMB theist/atheist discussions would be responsive to pointing out that the thing under discussion as “theism” is usually just thinly veiled Christianity. I’ve had a go a couple of times at pointing out that folks are presuming things like monotheism, scriptural basis, orthodoxy over orthopraxy, damnation as a factor at all, religious exclusivity for some form of afterlife, omnipotence, benevolence, and the like, as factors in theism. I’m coming to the conclusion that that ignorance doesn’t want to be fought and I should just watch and nosh on popcorn, though. I feel oddly sad about it, though.
Some translate the Hebrew name for god as “I am the one who is” or “He will cause to become” or similar phrases. God is–but what God is, I don’t know. I can think that God exists without knowing what precisely it is, by making weak inferences from my own experiences: I think our existence is too profound and our Universe too beautiful in implementation to exist merely by chance. Different people will have different experiences, and even people with similiar experiences can reach different conclusions.
And, FWIW, my view of God isn’t that out of step with what a lot of mainstream and liberal Christians believe. I remember well a sermon where the rector at my church proclaimed that Christians needed to move away from thinking of God as an omniscient white-robed man in the clouds.
I think the train jumped the track when Airman bailed in the third post.
I have no problem with people thinking that my religion is mythology, but I do object to “fairytale” (as well as “folk story” and “fable”, to round out Eve’s words).
I think, when examining any piece of literature, it’s crucial to bear in mind why the author was communicating what they did, and to whom they were communicating it. Fairy tales, folk stories, and fables are communicated by people who know them to be fiction for the purpose of amusement. They all cary puerille connotations: that the content exists primarily for the idle amusement of children. I think it’s fairly obvious, even for people who don’t “believe,” that the authors of the books in the bible weren’t writing stories to amuse people: they were trying to convey concepts that they felt were important. I don’t think the books of the Bible fit well into modern classifcations of “fact” or “fiction.” Mythology isn’t bad. “Religious text” or “the Bible” are even more accurate. “Fairy tale” carries both false implications as to the purpose of the piece, and also condescends by implying that the intended audience is child-like (which, I think, is precisely why it’s so often used).
I greatly appreciate the civility in a heated discussion. I could do to show more of it myself, too often…
