Actually, I contend (and others have made similar statements) that in the vast majorty of cases, people “choose” to be whatever religion their parents are, so who are these skeptics you’re talking about?
As for your personal experiences, I’m glad everything seemed to work out for you.
And your post sounds remarkably like one from someone who completely missed the point. I was asked to advance an argument that had nothing to do with what I was asserting. I refused to do so. That’s all. If someone now parachutes into the thread requesting I critique the merits of the Hindu belief in reincarnation versus the Calvinist concept of unconditional election, I will respond similarly.
You mean it’s not feasible to do a complete survey of these faiths in order to form a comparison?
Sorry, that’s exactly what it means. Look at your own definition. Or don’t even bother! If one has a reason for something, it is not arbitrary. Sheesh.
I mean it’s not necessary to prove that a given belief system is not arbitrary.
Here’s what I think is occurring in our endless laps around this track. One one side we have people who say, the basic foundation of my belief system is faith-based. If you accept (or even acknowledge) that base, the rest of my belief system contains its own logic, albeit one that defies a conclusive scientific proof–by definition, given the nature of the belief system. It is not arbitrary, but a search for truth within the context of a revelation that at best is a subjective metric. I cannot convince you of it, I concede.
On the other side, we have people who say that only a logical syllogism that starts with an objectively verifiable premise, and then proceeds in a manner that possesses the same logic, can be deemed as something other than arbitrary.
The latter demands that this standard be met; the former responds by rejecting the standard. Repeat ad infinitum. We then get into an endless repetition of accusations of evasiveness, demands for evaluations of given belief systems, etc. We continue to talk past each other. Neither side accepts the other’s basic premise–the metrics we employ are not contradictory so much as they are irreconcilable, as The Tao’s Revenge previously pointed out.
I accept that the basic foundation of your belief system is faith-based. That, however, in no way proves the premise and all the follows from it is true. Similarly, religions the world over have faith-based premises at their basic foundations. This also says nothing about whether or not their premises and conclusions are true. Old ground, I know, but just getting it out of the way.
Now, these religions serve a purpose within their societies. I feel confident in saying so because otherwise they would cease to exist. These purposes vary widely, of course, but I (further) feel confident that they try to address a number of basic “big question” uncertainties, including:
[ul][li]Where did the universe come from? Where will it go?[/li][li]Does it have a greater meaning?[/li][li]What happens after death? Will there be a justice of sorts that rewards good people and punishes bad people?[/li][li]Are humans alone in the universe? Are there entities watching over us that care about us?[/ul][/li]
I have more to develop along these lines, but before I put in the effort, I’d like to know I haven’t already been dismissed.
No, they wouldn’t. They just have to be good at appealing to people; they can be useless or outright destructive and survive indefinitely as long as they do that.
Appealing to people is a purpose. Please don’t help me.
But it’s a purpose religion has for itself, not one given to it by society.
I’m arguing with you, not helping you if it makes you happier.
Well, insofar as it proves there is no atheist “groupthink” I’m tickled pink, but I’m otherwise trying to present a line of thought to Stratocaster and others and it isn’t helped by this kind of quibbling.
I think the realization of humanity right now should be that we decide who is God, We divine God from the ether with Fear, Prejudice, and all that is arbitrary as warring societies. God’s will is no more real than a monkey’s will, you are all that is and ever will be of God, it isn’t some invisible guy in the sky… IT IS YOU!
Peeples is Gods
Gods is Peeples
Riiight, it’s not arbitrary. Just like the religious right doesn’t arbitrarily decide to harass gays based on the Bible (Leviticus 18:22), then decide in a similar non-arbitrary manner not to follow the Biblical instructions (Leviticus 19:19) to punish people wearing cotton-linen blend shirts, or to put people to death for working on Sunday (Exodus 35:2) …
JThunder, not sure where you’ve been, but deciding in an arbitrary manner that “Oooh, I don’t like this doctrine, I’ll take that one instead” is exactly what Christians do. Have you read the Bible? Do you stone people to death as it requires? And if not … why not?
Please don’t give me the line about how that’s all Old Testament stuff which was overthrown by Jesus. If that’s the case, what’s up with the widespread Christian animosity towards the GLTB folks? You may not like it, but Christians arbitrarily pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe in and follow.
Of course, the above post reflects a third application of the word “arbitrary”, just to muddy these waters even more. So now we have:
Arbitrary #1: Distinctions between Christian beliefs vs. Jewish beliefs vs. Muslim beliefs vs. Buddhist beliefs vs…
Arbitrary #2: A person’s choice of a particular set of beliefs.
Arbitrary #3: A person’s choice of which particular beliefs within a particular set to observe.
Are you arguing that religions are independent, sentient entities? Because that’s a pretty donk-headed statement. Religions are the sum total of their members and their beliefs and actions, just as “the government” in America is not a separate entity–we are all the government. In order for religions to exist, let alone function without their members there would actually have to be gods so let’s all just agree that religion cannot and does not have a “purpose for itself,” shall we?
No, it isn’t, and I speak from personal experience. Frankly, I don’t like a lot of what I believe. It would be so much more convenient to disregard so much of what I hold to be true, including God’s existence. I don’t though, because I believe that the evidence points elsewhere.
I don’t because those commands were part of the old covenant that was given specifically to Israel, and that were done away with by Jesus.
I know you don’t like this answer, which is why I offer the following response to the rest of your post.
Your use of the word “animosity” is yet another illustration of the stereotyping to which I object. Obviously, it’s not enough to declare that Catholics and evangelical Protestants object to homosexuality. No, this objection has to be characterized as outright animosity toward GLTB folks. Such are the words of someone who has already made up his mind about why others believe at they do.
As for why Catholics and evangelical Protestants still uphold the prohibitions against homosexual behavior… for the same reason that they still uphold the Old Testament prohibitions against theft, murder, and bearing false witness. In brief, both the immediate and greater context of these prohibitions shows that they are not merely ritual or symbolic in nature.
Now, you might disagree with this reasoning, as I’m sure you will. However, the point remains that this is NOT simply a case of picking what sounds good and what doesn’t. You can continue to insist that this is merely a matter of picking which doctrines we like, but by doing so, you would demonstrate that you’re adhering to your preconceived notions of what we believe, and then lambasting us based on those grounds.
Heck, if were to simply pick the teachings that I like, I would stop attending church altogether! Attending church is a HUGE inconvenience for me every single week. For that matter, I’d also get rid of my belief in hell, as well as those pesky commands against adultery and fornication. I don’t though, precisely because I do NOT believe in discarding a teaching simply because I don’t like it. I daresay that most serious Catholics and evangelicals would feel the same way.
You say that because you haven’t made any effort to understand why Christians believe as they do. No, you’ve already decided that this must surely be our motivation, and so you lambaste us for being so foolish. I daresay that you’ve already picked and chosen your reasons for condemning Christians, regardless of what their actual motives may be.
The flippant in me wants to point out that even under the strictest Christian doctrine, a thief or a murderer or a perjurer can get married while under moderate Christian doctrine a homosexual cannot, but I’m quite sure it wouldn’t be productive.
JThunder, sorry you don’t like the word “animosity”, but I’ve seen so much animosity, hatred, and violence directed by Christians against the LGTB community that calling it an “objection” is a joke. Preachers regularly get up and thunder about it from the pulpit, saying it is evil … that’s not an objection, that’s animosity. Here’s one example of hundreds:
Enough animosity for you? And note that their target is not homosexuals. Oh, no, it’s something far worse than that … religious homosexuals, the worst of the worst. How dare they?
Another example among many. The web page of the Westboro Baptist Church is called “godhatesfags.com” … go take a look. Then see if you can come back and call their vile filth an “objection” while keeping a straight face.
You say:
But this is still arbitrary. You are saying “According to our point of view, some of these laws are merely ritual or symbolic, and some are important. We will only obey the laws that we think are important, whether Jesus abolished them or not.”
How is that not arbitrary? You are not following all the laws, just the ones that you decide to follow, regardless of anyone else’s views (including Jesus’s).
The arbitrary nature of the choice is perfectly illustrated by the host of different laws that different Christian sects choose to follow and to ignore. You’re probably not a snake handler, nor do you consider Saturday to be the Holy Day … but those Christians who follow those ways have simply chosen different Bible verses as being important. You say one verse is important and not just ritual, they say a very different verse is important and not just ritual …
Not arbitrary? Hardly.
Religion has a purpose of it’s own just as a virus has a purpose of it’s own, despite neither being sentient and both depending on hosts. And yes, the government and the economy and any number of other things have an existence of their own beyond just their human components, just as a body is more that the sum of it’s cells, a brain more than the sum of it’s neurons and a computer more than a particular number of transistors in one spot.
As I said, stereotyping. In fact, to see how your comment amounts to stereotyping, let’s page down a few lines to the following:
And if I were trying to defend Westboro Baptist Church, you would have a valid point. I did not though, nor did I deny that animosity exists. What I object to taking one issue – the question of why churches oppose homosexuality – and then immediately labelling it as “animosity.” That’s a perfect example of what Stratocaster and I have been lamenting – blatant stereotyping without any effort to understand why churches believe as they do.
And yes, stereotyping is the perfect word for this. You take one of the most extreme churches in America and act as though it was representative of Christianity at large. Never mind that most churches don’t follow their example Never mind that this church has been routinely and heavily criticized by other churches. This doesn’t stop people here from lumping them together with their critics.
Besides, even if we were to grant that every single church in America held great animosity toward homosexuals, how would this prove that they merely pick and choose whichever doctrines they like? Quite simply, it doesn’t – but heck, why invest any effort in studying the rationales of these churches when a quick sound bite would do just as well?
As I said, people here start with their suppositions – that religions are all the same, for example, or that believers merely pick whatever teachings sound good – and then argue backwards. Such logic fails to hold water. It fails to explain why the vast majority of religious people in the USA believe in hell, even though this is an extremely inconvenient belief to hold. It fails to explain why most Christian churches oppose premarital sex, even though this is an extremely difficult teaching to follow. Heck, Jesus even said that merely entertaining sin in your mind is sinful itself – and surely no person would enjoy keeping that in mind.
Any careful thinker would have to realize that people often hold religious beliefs that they would rather not follow. Still, this doesn’t stop certain people here from insisting that they only believe in things that they like. That’s ignorance and supposition, not empiricism.
Y’know, stereotypes aren’t automatically wrong.