War on Faith

[HAL 9000]

As many will be aware, Richard Dawkins is currently touring the States promoting his new book, the God Delusion. This book is something of a call to arms for rational thinkers and represents a direct attack on illogical concepts like faith, superstition and religion.

I largely support the agenda of Mr. Dawkins and others (like Sam Harris) who are leading this campaign as it seems to me that the worlds religions have, in recent years, gone from largely harmless yet fascinating element of human nature to being a serious threat to the stability of the world and the development of mankind. After all, a man who claims to consult with and seeks advice from a non existent and totally made up entity has his finger on the ‘nuclear button’.

In the information age, I expected the fall of religion, the information to debunk all forms of superstition is available at everyone’s finger tips – yet the opposite seems to have happened – people all around the world seem to be becoming more fundamentalist and more irrational.

The problem is that I can’t really see this campaign of Dawkins being successful – this is a fight I think needs to be had but I don’t want to have to tell my friends (who have some form of faith) that the thing they build their lives and personalities around is a lie, that’s just so rude! Also atheists, unlike the religious, are very difficult to mobilise.

So here are some questions that I thought might be interesting for discussion;

- Is it possible for religion to be marginalised to the point of being utterly trivial in society? How can this be achieved?
- Is this outcome desirable – how would the world be different, what would the implications be for war, science & technology, happiness etc.
- What do you think of Richard Dawkins current agenda?

Finally, I would like to quickly apologise for any offence that the above may cause, I find the confrontational nature of this issue to be quite unpleasant but I think this is an important topic. It seems necessary to adopt a rather arrogant approach here because to tiptoe around peoples sensibilities rather defeats the object of this discussion.

Link me do - http://richarddawkins.net/home

[fucktopgirl]

After all, a man who claims to consult with and seeks advice from a non existent and totally made up entity has his finger on the ‘nuclear button’.

Indeed, that why it is so ironic and why god completely lost his credibility.


Anyway, i have to go work but i will respond more deeply to yours questions when time will permit.

By the way, great post!

[sam i am]

Just as an additional query : what's your take on personal faith versus the (often destructive) norms of organized religion?

[HAL 9000]

Just as an additional query : what's your take on personal faith versus the (often destructive) norms of organized religion?


A lot depends on what one means by faith - I think often the term faith is used to describe the act of believeing in something in the face of scant, non existent or contradictory evidence. In that way I find it irrational but less harmful than an organised religion with an agenda of power. There are other ways of defining faith Im sure but I think that when it comes to religion this is not too contraversial (please contradict if I am wrong).

I find the respect afforded to people with faith curious, I do not understand it at all yet I appreciate that this is a matter of perspective.


In fact it (faith) may not be harmful at all - maybe society benefits from the existence of personal faith - certainly there seems to be strong evidence that faith is a product of darwinian evolution in which case it may have (either in the past or still today) served an important function.

One concern I have about Dawkin and his current crusade is that Im not sure what the outcome (if it were successful) would look like.

So to sum my rambling(!), I cannot myself understand why people have personal faith in something supernatural- I think that (to a very high level of confidence) that it is misplaced and irrational, but I view it as a potentially positive thing (Although on the balance of probability I suspect it is probably not positive).

[sam i am]

^^^

Interesting. You seem, if I may say so, rather conflicted in your response.

Faith is simply belief in something you can't see or measure with science.

Can you measure the love you feel for your parents or a lover or a child? That's one kind of faith : that you feel something intangible and inherently unmeasurable. Also...you probably feel pretty strongly that others love (or, at least, like) you. That's also a measure of faith.

How about when you cross the street and the light's red for traffic that's headed towards you? You have faith that the driver of the oncoming vehicle, that could smash you into death, will stop at his/her red light. Don't you?

Faith is simple, yet probably (maybe) more powerful than anything science can measure or explain.

Faith gives life, yet also explains the unexplainable and consoles at the worst of times (and sometimes at the best of times :) )

There is nothing wrong with personal faith. Organized religion is another matter altogether, IMHO.

[HAL 9000]

^^^


There is nothing wrong with personal faith. Organized religion is another matter altogether, IMHO.


Yes organised religion is probably bad for humanity and a 'dangerous thing'. My real conflict, as you put it, is where I stand on personal faith in a God(s). Is it a good thing - does it improve society, what would the world be like without it?

I am not conflicted within myself - I utterly reject the concept of faith (your definition amounted to the same as mine I thought), I could have a pretty good stab at an explanation at any of the faith examples you mentioned. My own experiance is not really what I wish to focus on - I doubt I have the debating skills to override someones faith (although I think I helped unconvert Norcen!). I am interested in the concept of faith though, what people think it is etc.

I am interested in your comment that faith explains the unexplainable - why do you think anything should be unexplainable? I agree it consoles, but so do many other forms of lie (forgive my bluntness) for eg - a doctor telling a dying patient that they have been cured.

I dont wish to get too sidetracked into discussing individuals beliefs (although it is very interesting) my focus in this thread is really how a secular humanist society could be created and whether that would be desirable (ie its implications for human happiness, war and poverty)

[fucktopgirl]

FAith is a must in life, faith go side by side with your will.
Faith is believing that you can survive and achieved yours goals, that you can love and be love. It just give you wings, It is a sense of confidence.

Faith is synonyme of succes and is a key to survival in this life. WHen you stop believing , you are kinda doom, better jump off a bridge then.

BUt , i think there is a major difference between a personnal faith and a faith in a god;

Faith in a religion is somehow a blind faith :it is believing in something /someone you never saw but just heard and read about. It is " croire" that what control your life is outside of your own power of actions thus evertyhing that happen to you, good/bad, is the work of your god. So therefore , you are always some kind of victim or at the mercy of this supposedly powerfull creator. And quite frankly , i think it is a pile a bollock and non sense.

We all know that religion was created to control and regrouped the population. Dont get me wrong, plenty of people are alive today because they believe in a certain god, so there can be positives effects to believe in arrange faith, a control doctrine but... Nobody is really free because they put their life in the hand of a legend/myth, surrealist story, that can be quite beautiful and full of good sentiments, still, you are like a little lamb following the shepherd.

On the contrary


Personnal faith is far more advance in term of believing because is rely on your self illumination and your personnal discovery of this life. YOu take the power in your hand and believe in your life, your qualities, your feeling. It is tangible as you wake up everyday and feel /experience what is going in your life. I feel it is a more constructive way of living, more independant thus less enslaving ; more freedom in your acts and in your thinking.



Does faith explain the unexplainable? HUmmm, religion think they do, they proclamed that god is the answer to everything we know. It is the easiest explanation to all the mysteries that surround us, really too easy and simple.

Having faith in your life, does not explain anything at all of this chaos/cosmos but it is a motivation and a sense of power that can alleviate to burden of this existence. I mean keeping this life mysterious is something you have to reach for because if everything was explainable, what a fucking boring life it would be, anyway for me.

And it is really presomptuous to say that everything can be put in words, maths... Life , earth, the universe is a freaking mystery that human are trying to surgicaly understand and so far, they are still struggling with the ultimate question " HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED" so....yea!

A secular humanisn society would be great in the sense that people would stop looking outside themselves but more within. It would stop this fake lie that is going on for generations, people would wake up and realised more that what is going around them is only reactions to their actions. So maybe this society would become more illuminate, less zombie, therefore it could change how things are and ameliorated the human condition. Some of the war would be non existent, dialogue between the human race would be far more easy and pleasant. I do believe that the human collective conscience would evolve and take a really big step forward if religion were not the main focus of society today. As for how this can be achieved.....no clues.

i guess that it would mean to have an overall, facelift, a makeover in the way our society is run, this will not likely happen any time soon.

ok i'm done!:D

[HAL 9000]

FAith is a must in life, faith go side by side with your will.
Faith is believing that you can survive and achieved yours goals, that you can love and be love. It just give you wings, It is a sense of confidence.

Faith is synonyme of succes and is a key to survival in this life. WHen you stop believing , you are kinda doom, better jump off a bridge then.

BUt , i think there is a major difference between a personnal faith and a faith in a god;

Faith in a religion is somehow a blind faith :it is believing in something /someone you never saw but just heard and read about. It is " croire" that what control your life is outside of your own power of actions thus evertyhing that happen to you, good/bad, is the work of your god. So therefore , you are always some kind of victim or at the mercy of this supposedly powerfull creator. And quite frankly , i think it is a pile a bollock and non sense.

We all know that religion was created to control and regrouped the population. Dont get me wrong, plenty of people are alive today because they believe in a certain god, so there can be positives effects to believe in arrange faith, a control doctrine but... Nobody is really free because they put their life in the hand of a legend/myth, surrealist story, that can be quite beautiful and full of good sentiments, still, you are like a little lamb following the shepherd.

On the contrary


Personnal faith is far more advance in term of believing because is rely on your self illumination and your personnal discovery of this life. YOu take the power in your hand and believe in your life, your qualities, your feeling. It is tangible as you wake up everyday and feel /experience what is going in your life. I feel it is a more constructive way of living, more independant thus less enslaving ; more freedom in your acts and in your thinking.



Does faith explain the unexplainable? HUmmm, religion think they do, they proclamed that god is the answer to everything we know. It is the easiest explanation to all the mysteries that surround us, really too easy and simple.

Having faith in your life, does not explain anything at all of this chaos/cosmos but it is a motivation and a sense of power that can alleviate to burden of this existence. I mean keeping this life mysterious is something you have to reach for because if everything was explainable, what a fucking boring life it would be, anyway for me.

And it is really presomptuous to say that everything can be put in words, maths... Life , earth, the universe is a freaking mystery that human are trying to surgicaly understand and so far, they are still struggling with the ultimate question " HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED" so....yea!

A secular humanisn society would be great in the sense that people would stop looking outside themselves but more within. It would stop this fake lie that is going on for generations, people would wake up and realised more that what is going around them is only reactions to their actions. So maybe this society would become more illuminate, less zombie, therefore it could change how things are and ameliorated the human condition. Some of the war would be non existent, dialogue between the human race would be far more easy and pleasant. I do believe that the human collective conscience would evolve and take a really big step forward if religion were not the main focus of society today. As for how this can be achieved.....no clues.

i guess that it would mean to have an overall, facelift, a makeover in the way our society is run, this will not likely happen any time soon.

ok i'm done!:D

Ftg – Thank you for that – I think I pretty much agree with what you have written, particularly regarding faith in a ‘personal god’ – I think it is this faith which I personally view as so irrational.

Both you and Sam alluded to another type of faith, a much more fundamental one; I have been thinking about this quite a bit and think that you are probably both right. I look at it this way,

I have no way of estimating the accuracy of the apparent inputs of data into my mind. I have five senses which feed me data that has always fitted into a framework of reality and has obeyed certain rules. Because of this I make the assumption that these data sources accurately reflect aspects of what is actually happening outside of my ‘self’.

Im no philosopher but I have always thought that this is what Descartes meant by ‘I think therefore I am” – ie all I can be sure of is that that I exist in some form, I really have no way of verifying anything my senses tell me about what might exist outside of self. It is a matter of faith that I choose to accept these inputs as accurate and as such I have faith that I live in multi dimensional world which is populated by minds other than my own. This is faith because I cannot prove any of this or even conduct any form of investigation to determine how likely it is.

Nonetheless the assumption that this reality is genuine is a rational one because doubting it would achieve no identifiable benefit and so I really am left with no choice but to accept it.

This is a bit of a tangent though, further thought has led me to wonder along these lines;

I worry that the evolutionary process that created us has made us naturally inclined towards bigotry. Often this is manifested through religion, sometimes through racism, patriotism or any other form of ism. Even at the level of individuals, people form cliques and have irrational hatred for rival cliques, football fans hate each other for no particular reason, the desire to form a group and then to dislike/distrust other groups seems very much built into us.

The other day in a thread about Ireland, Zorra said that the troubles were the fault of the British government; intellectually I suspected she was right but I still felt annoyed that she had criticized my ‘group’ even though I know the concept of patriotism to be pretty stupid and vulgar. I think these feelings are very deep seeded and that while it possible to override them with rational thought and education – it is difficult. I strongly suspect that many of the worlds problems are down to these fundamental human instincts rather than the specific groups (religions, governments etc) that appear to be the cause (I view them as a symptom rather than as the problem).

So I think what I am getting at is that Dawkins should focus on dispelling ignorance by teaching about science (which he does very well) and should not attack religion which is more of a symptom of ignorance rather than a cause. Through education I am sure that humanity is capable of overriding some of its natural psychological features which discourage development and form a truly enlightened society. I doubt that a direct intellectual assault on religion will have much effect other than to make atheists feel smug.

[sam i am]

Ok...

A little ditty on "organized" faith.

I'll preface my comments by stating that I am, now, a practicing Christian.

I spent MANY years when I was younger searching for answers to why I didn't "feel" quite right about how I fit into life.

I tried many paths to fill a perceived "hole" in my insides.

Substances could never fill the hole. A hodgepodge of philosophical and humanist teachings (aka science) could not help me feel like I had the answers. Wiccanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., et al all left me feeling more like I had more questions than answers.

The true measure of faith in a "God" outside of our human flesh, in my opinion, reflects our basic internal human longing to feel a part of something larger than ourselves. We all, if we're honest, at least occasionally have (at the very least perceived) feelings of loneliness, depression, isolation, and that we are meant for something more than what we can see, touch, taste, feel, and smell. I know that dreams are one way we all sense that more exists than "meets the eye" (so to speak).

Anyhow, before going TOO much more existenstalist, suffice it to say that faith in a power greater than oneself CAN and should be personal, powerful, and peaceful....any other measure of faith (especially in a larger "organized" religion) is doomed to the warpings of individuals with agendas that are not God's.

[Schmeltz]

The true measure of faith in a "God" outside of our human flesh, in my opinion, reflects our basic internal human longing to feel a part of something larger than ourselves.


I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian atmosphere and spent a great deal of my life believing much the same thing. In point of fact, I took it on faith that it was impossible to lead a full and valuable life without acknowledging that "basic human longing." However, as I encountered more and more philosophical and humanist teachings, I was surprised to discover that the ordered version of reality presented by my faith did not reflect objective reality itself. And I was even more surprised when the only response offered to this dichotomy by others who shared my beliefs was to simply assert that their beliefs must necessarily reflect a more correct understanding of reality simply because faith in God was inherently superior to a critically investigative intellectual methodology. And I was even more surprised at the outright hostility with which I was greeted when I pressed the point.

What I've learned is that faith really means ordering your perception of reality in order to convince yourself that the world works according to your own biases and prejudices. There is no inherent, internal longing to feel like a part of something greater; I certainly feel no such thing and in fact my personal experience has left me with a profound distaste for the very idea. But I think on some level we each feel a personal longing to believe that things work the way we want them to. Whether conservative or liberal (to use a relevant frame of reference), we consider that our ideological framework for the interpretation of events validates our ideas about how things work and gives us cause to believe that we can influence and order the shape of reality. Whether Muslim or Christian, we consider that our religious framework for the interpretation of events performs the same function. This isn't particularly rational, but it's a defining element of what makes us human.

So, to my mind, even a completely secular society would operate on a basis of partial faith simply because differences of belief and ideology would still be perpetuated in such a society and it would require a certain amount of faith in order for the citizens to maintain their participation in the system. Everybody everywhere takes it on faith that the world works how they think it does. But this doesn't extend to the point where we cannot be sure of anything and reality is nothing but a huge guessing game. It takes less faith to believe in the principles of the free market than to believe in the principles of Christianity, and it's foolish to consider that you have to take your sensory input on faith alone. That's inane.

Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to have a truly rational society because people are people, and not machines. People are insecure, petty, egotistical, self-centered, shallow, and irrational, in addition to being confident, magnanimous, selfless, introspective, and logical. It's all well and good to strive to replace religion - with its dogmatic, immature perpetuation of the supernatural - with a more progressive, rational frame of reference for reality, but any human system of interpretation will necessarily be defined in terms of what makes us human to begin with. And I think "faith"-based thinking is a big part of that - at least on one level.

[sam i am]

Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to have a truly rational society because people are people, and not machines. People are insecure, petty, egotistical, self-centered, shallow, and irrational, in addition to being confident, magnanimous, selfless, introspective, and logical. It's all well and good to strive to replace religion - with its dogmatic, immature perpetuation of the supernatural - with a more progressive, rational frame of reference for reality, but any human system of interpretation will necessarily be defined in terms of what makes us human to begin with. And I think "faith"-based thinking is a big part of that - at least on one level.

Not bad, Schmeltz.

I kinda had the opposite "indoctrination." When I was not a Christian, but rather faithless (or atheistic, if you prefer), and chose to become a believer again, I was greeted by suspicion, hostility, and humiliation by those who were my secular, "progressive," humanist friends. Ostracization did not come only from hostility towards faith or organized religion, but also from a separation from a previously tight-knit, supposedly "under siege," group mentality.

I guess that's where my doubt and coolness towards secular humanism stems from, emotionally.

I know you'll give me a lot of flak for saying so, but at least the way I believe in Christianity, I am encouraged to question and doubt and test my faith every day : to look for examples of God working in myself and others and events. I do NOT accept on "blind faith." My years of non-belief broke me of the ability to not cognitively interpret my surroundings and inner workings.

My doubt only reinforces my faith : kinda like a positive reinforcement cycle.

Just as an aside, to avoid an overweening theological debate here, there exists ample evidence in the Bible (shudder at the word......SHUDDER:p ) for humans to not accept God's word without investigating His claims and coming to your own conclusions.

I suspect that most of you who post here have not adhered to many faiths throughout your lives nor investigated fully the claims of each, including secular humanism. If you have, and have decided to remain a secular humanist...then good for you. If you haven't you should : faith in secular humanism without checking out the alternatives YOURSELF is, to quote Schmeltz, "inane.";) :rolleyes:

[HAL 9000]

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian atmosphere and spent a great deal of my life believing much the same thing. In point of fact, I took it on faith that it was impossible to lead a full and valuable life without acknowledging that "basic human longing." However, as I encountered more and more philosophical and humanist teachings, I was surprised to discover that the ordered version of reality presented by my faith did not reflect objective reality itself. And I was even more surprised when the only response offered to this dichotomy by others who shared my beliefs was to simply assert that their beliefs must necessarily reflect a more correct understanding of reality simply because faith in God was inherently superior to a critically investigative intellectual methodology. And I was even more surprised at the outright hostility with which I was greeted when I pressed the point.

What I've learned is that faith really means ordering your perception of reality in order to convince yourself that the world works according to your own biases and prejudices. There is no inherent, internal longing to feel like a part of something greater; I certainly feel no such thing and in fact my personal experience has left me with a profound distaste for the very idea. But I think on some level we each feel a personal longing to believe that things work the way we want them to. Whether conservative or liberal (to use a relevant frame of reference), we consider that our ideological framework for the interpretation of events validates our ideas about how things work and gives us cause to believe that we can influence and order the shape of reality. Whether Muslim or Christian, we consider that our religious framework for the interpretation of events performs the same function. This isn't particularly rational, but it's a defining element of what makes us human.

So, to my mind, even a completely secular society would operate on a basis of partial faith simply because differences of belief and ideology would still be perpetuated in such a society and it would require a certain amount of faith in order for the citizens to maintain their participation in the system. Everybody everywhere takes it on faith that the world works how they think it does. But this doesn't extend to the point where we cannot be sure of anything and reality is nothing but a huge guessing game. It takes less faith to believe in the principles of the free market than to believe in the principles of Christianity, and it's foolish to consider that you have to take your sensory input on faith alone. That's inane.

Anyway, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to have a truly rational society because people are people, and not machines. People are insecure, petty, egotistical, self-centered, shallow, and irrational, in addition to being confident, magnanimous, selfless, introspective, and logical. It's all well and good to strive to replace religion - with its dogmatic, immature perpetuation of the supernatural - with a more progressive, rational frame of reference for reality, but any human system of interpretation will necessarily be defined in terms of what makes us human to begin with. And I think "faith"-based thinking is a big part of that - at least on one level.

I don’t see this as foolish (obviously, because I said it!) – I don’t see how one can take the accuracy of perception on anything other than faith – there is nothing else. One can not even begin to estimate the probability of the assumption of accurate sensory perception, the important point is that it just doesn’t matter, I could be imagining all of you and it wouldn’t matter in the slightest so the point is utterly moot, it was a bit of a tangent.

I personally feel that superstition is not a fundamental part of humanity but an almost inevitable side effect of other processes that are themselves fundamental. I have already described how I sometimes catch myself being utterly irrational or illogical or even superstitious and yet I have broken the religious hold that once had me.

Dawkins (in his new book) argues that religion stems from a basic evolutionary feature whereby a child will implicitly trust information from it parents. If humanity does have such a feature (and anecdotal evidence from my life suggests it does) then one can see that the spread of things like religion is more or less inevitable.

You really can not practically stop parents indoctrinating children (and I am not sure that it would be desirable to do so because of the implications for free speech) – what you can and must do (as a society) is give those children the tools and knowledge to break that indoctrination. But once religion gets into politics, then it gets in to schools and then rationality and freethinking are in real trouble and that can lead nowhere good.

[sam i am]

But once religion gets into politics, then it gets in to schools and then rationality and freethinking are in real trouble and that can lead nowhere good.

This is arguable at best, transparently innacurate at worst.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, to almost a person, had faith in some kind of power outside themselves, guiding the founding of the country.

The Bible was taught, in public schools, until the 1960's, in many parts of the U.S.

The country was much more homogenized and a "melting pot" of views and culture prior to the (counter) culture wars of the 1960's, IMHO.

Religion in politics is not the problem...politics without people of faith is the problem. Secular humanism, in the myriad forms it has been attempted in recorded history, has led invariably to the demonization of certain sectors of society, warfare, and inevitable failure (see Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.).

Rationality/free thinking and faith (of any kind) are NOT mutually exclusive. Consistent questioning of one's reasons for accepting faith (whether religious, spiritual, or secular humanistic) should be encouraged on a regular basis.

[STANKY808]

Religion in politics is not the problem...politics without people of faith is the problem. Secular humanism, in the myriad forms it has been attempted in recorded history, has led invariably to the demonization of certain sectors of society, warfare, and inevitable failure (see Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union, etc.).


Yeah, that Taliban is quite a religous outfit from what I read - no problem there. I understand the Christian Identity movement in the USA is quite tolerant as well. Yup, gotta have some god with your politics or else you get Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union.

[sam i am]

Yeah, that Taliban is quite a religous outfit from what I read - no problem there. I understand the Christian Identity movement in the USA is quite tolerant as well. Yup, gotta have some god with your politics or else you get Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union.

Great retort.

I'd put the deaths and deprivations of atheistic leaders (Soviet Union and Nazi Germany) on a par with the Taliban:rolleyes:

Nice try.

Have a nice day :)

[STANKY808]

Yep - god and politics, the way to peace and understanding.

[sam i am]

Yep - god and politics, the way to peace and understanding.

More likely than secular humanism run amok, as history has proven.

[STANKY808]

So it's numbers game with you then? You figure more have died due to secular humanist governments versus those killed in the name of religion? Cause I'm still trying to figure out where those who've died due to religious zealotry fit into your world view. On second thought - I don't want a peek at your world view, it would depress me.

[Schmeltz]

The Bible was taught, in public schools, until the 1960's, in many parts of the U.S.

The country was much more homogenized and a "melting pot" of views and culture prior to the (counter) culture wars of the 1960's, IMHO.


Right, when black people sat at the back of the bus everything was so much better.


Secular humanism, in the myriad forms it has been attempted in recorded history, has led invariably to the demonization of certain sectors of society


That's completely ridiculous. There is nothing about secular humanism that "invariably" leads to the suppression of any element of human society; in point of fact, secular humanism is the least likely ideology to encourage such an outcome. Moreover, it's very disingenuous to link Hitler or Stalin with secular humanism because fascism and communism are ideologies that really have very little to do with it. They may be quite secular, but they aren't all that humanist.

On the other hand, throughout human history it is those governments most closely bound to religious faith that have perpetuated horrific demonizations of others. It wasn't secular thinkers who conducted the expulsions and pogroms against the Jews of Europe throughout the Middle Ages; it wasn't secular thinkers who instituted the cross-Atlantic slave trade; it wasn't secular thinkers who launched the Crusades - the list of horrifying follies directly attributable to religion is endless.

What history has proven is not that secular humanism is evil, nor that religion is evil, but rather that people can behave very darkly no matter what belief system they employ to justify the atrocities they commit. But if you ask me there is no future in putting a stop to that by perpetuating irrational beliefs in the supernatural, because such a belief system is inherently more prone to prejudice and intolerance than is secular humanism.


Consistent questioning of one's reasons for accepting faith (whether religious, spiritual, or secular humanistic) should be encouraged on a regular basis.


That's a very noble ideal, but you don't have any religious institution to thank for it. That sort of thinking came about during the Enlightenment and was propounded by men of substantially weaker faith than the vast majority of their contemporaries. Merely subscribing to it makes you an indirect supporter of progressive, secular humanist thinking. Good show! (y)


what you can and must do (as a society) is give those children the tools and knowledge to break that indoctrination.


I think Western society is succeeding admirably in that regard. The fact is that many people, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence against the veracity of their fundamentalism, will quite willingly choose to maintain an irrational belief system. It would be counterproductive, as a secular humanist, for me to do anything but respect that, even if I disagree.

[HAL 9000]

I dont think any humanist organisation has been responcible, for any attrocities, if it has, then thats not what I mean by humanism!

Wikipedia gives this definition of humanism;

"Humanism is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. " and this is basically what I reffer to.

Hitler and Stalin may or may not have been athiest (Well Stalin was, Hitler is less clear) but they were certainly not humanist. They did both have a great deal of faith in untested and illogical systems (Hitler some twisted Eugenics). Those leaders have more in common with religious fundamentalists than with anything that I would recognise as humanist.



Rationality/free thinking and faith (of any kind) are NOT mutually exclusive. Consistent questioning of one's reasons for accepting faith (whether religious, spiritual, or secular humanistic) should be encouraged on a regular basis.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier, no one wants to be part of a system that shoves one particular set of beliefs (or lack of) down peoples throats, freedom of speech is important. I disagree that they are not mutually exclusive, I think they clearly are, but that is somewhere we are unlikely ever to see eye to eye.

People almost always follow the faith of their parents, with less than 50% of the world believing in any one faith, then this means that most people have a value system that is based on lies. This has to be a bad thing.

I dont think that if the president of the USA was suddenly an Athiest it would improve anything in the world, but I think that in small steps we can become more enlightened and pursue rationality. Education in critical thinking and rational thought are central to this.

[HAL 9000]

What history has proven is not that secular humanism is evil, nor that religion is evil, but rather that people can behave very darkly no matter what belief system they employ to justify the atrocities they commit. But if you ask me there is no future in putting a stop to that by perpetuating irrational beliefs in the supernatural, because such a belief system is inherently more prone to prejudice and intolerance than is secular humanism.


Yes this is what I was trying to get at, but you put it much better than me.

I think Western society is succeeding admirably in that regard. The fact is that many people, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence against the veracity of their fundamentalism, will quite willingly choose to maintain an irrational belief system. It would be counterproductive, as a secular humanist, for me to do anything but respect that, even if I disagree

Respect and freedom of speech are crucial aspects of any free thinking society, again its ensuring the next generation have the tools to see through the superstition. And this may require some action now because religious groups tend to oppose freethinking (for obvious reasons). btw I am not sure what that action should bve, in fact that really is where I wanted this thread to go in the first place.

[Schmeltz]

its ensuring the next generation have the tools to see through the superstition. And this may require some action now because religious groups tend to oppose freethinking


I think there have always been, and will always be, particularly religious segments of society who consider it their duty to combat the perceived "evils" of secular freedom. This phenomenon is probably particularly evident now due to both the character of the current American administration and maybe also due to a kind of backlash against the Islamic fundamentalism that regularly appears on the news. But again I don't know that any particular form of action is needed; the fundamental principles of secular humanism are guaranteed in the American constitution, there are many associations of scientists and other secular professionals who constitute effective lobbying and interest bodies in opposition to the fundies, and the current administration is awash in a sea of incompetence and malignant blundering that, with any luck, will spell the doom of the religious right's influence on larger events both in America and the world at large.

So, basically - you're probably right to be concerned and it would certainly be productive to work, in whatever capacity you feel proper, to counter the influence of religion in your society. But I think the tools required to perpetuate a progressive, secular interpretation of reality are already well entrenched in America and in the Western world, and we have little to fear in terms of a direct return to the bad old days in terms of the way in which people think and behave.

[Qdrop]

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

(scroll down- interviews with Dawkins and Harris about thier new books)

dammit, i jumped on this thread too late....most everything has already been covered.

[Qdrop]

Faith is simply belief in something you can't see or measure with science.
i don't know if "measure" is the right word.

faith is the belief in what cannot be demonstrabley proven; through presentation, expirement, or logical/rational discussion.

Can you measure the love you feel for your parents or a lover or a child? That's one kind of faith : that you feel something intangible and inherently unmeasurable. Also...you probably feel pretty strongly that others love (or, at least, like) you. That's also a measure of faith.
i don't think emotions for kin or close friends is an example of "faith".
perhaps your expectations of reciprocated love are examples of faith in some respects...
but overall...love (as we define it and understand it) CAN be demonstated, measure, and proven through words and actions.

How about when you cross the street and the light's red for traffic that's headed towards you? You have faith that the driver of the oncoming vehicle, that could smash you into death, will stop at his/her red light. Don't you? Faith, sure. but there is very complex rationalization and propability behind your decision to walk in that street.
it's not simply blind faith.

Faith is simple, yet probably (maybe) more powerful than anything science can measure or explain. this is an empty and unqualifiable statement.
a tautology.

Faith gives life how's that? as in it gives "hope"?

, yet also explains the unexplainable does it? isn't that an oxymoron?

and consoles at the worst of times (and sometimes at the best of times :) ) that's probably the only value it has.

There is nothing wrong with personal faith.
it depends on what you rest that faith on.
what rationale you use to base it on.

[Qdrop]

A hodgepodge of philosophical and humanist teachings (aka science) could not help me feel like I had the answers. what answers were you looking for?
Wiccanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., et al all left me feeling more like I had more questions than answers. and christianity doesn't?
there is no way that the tennents of christianity could have any more satifying answers than any of the above.
all are equally irrational, unproven, and defy logic at virtually every curve.

comparing the validity of religions against one another, is like comparing which perpetual motion machine works best.

The true measure of faith in a "God" outside of our human flesh, in my opinion, reflects our basic internal human longing to feel a part of something larger than ourselves. oh, this is very true...yet it give more validity to the biological/psychological reasons behind religious belief...than it does to validity of religion or God.

We all, if we're honest, at least occasionally have (at the very least perceived) feelings of loneliness, depression, isolation, and that we are meant for something more than what we can see, touch, taste, feel, and smell. I know that dreams are one way we all sense that more exists than "meets the eye" (so to speak). all natural psychological emotions that, through evolution, developed to drive our species to progress.
a self-feeding cycle that was crucial to our surival and exploration.

[Qdrop]

You really can not practically stop parents indoctrinating children (and I am not sure that it would be desirable to do so because of the implications for free speech) – what you can and must do (as a society) is give those children the tools and knowledge to break that indoctrination. But once religion gets into politics, then it gets in to schools and then rationality and freethinking are in real trouble and that can lead nowhere good.

i think you just answered your own question.

well put.

[Qdrop]

I think Western society is succeeding admirably in that regard. The fact is that many people, even when confronted with overwhelming evidence against the veracity of their fundamentalism, will quite willingly choose to maintain an irrational belief system. It would be counterproductive, as a secular humanist, for me to do anything but respect that, even if I disagree.

this is the only area where i think i disagree with you on.
when you "respect" a view...or even tolerate it...you give it strength. you acknowledge it's stance and give it legs to stand on....even if you disagree with it.

if that view has been demonstabley shown to be false or without merit (not just opinion, but demonstrabley proven to be false or shown to have no evidence to be true) then to respect it or tolerate it is anti-progressive, and does not serve society well.

beyond being a secular humanist, if you are a progressive....it's your duty to dismantle and hassass obsolete (and therefore damaging) beliefs or ideas.

religious zealots, believers, or even moderates should be ridiculed and marginalized to the point where the likelyhood of them being elected to office or holding a position of authority is as likely as one who believes the world is flat and santa claus is coming down his chimney.

[sam i am]

santa claus is coming down his chimney.

My kids have faith that Santa Claus is coming down their (non-existent) chimney. I'd rather they have some wonderment and faith than be mechainical "rationalists."

I know...I know...now you're going to compare faith to childlike wonderment : spare me.

[Qdrop]

My kids have faith that Santa Claus is coming down their (non-existent) chimney. I'd rather they have some wonderment and faith than be mechainical "rationalists."

I know...I know...now you're going to compare faith to childlike wonderment : spare me.

no, YOU are comparing the minds of small children to the minds of those that follow religion.

i couldn't have said it better myself.

[sam i am]

no, YOU are comparing the minds of small children to the minds of those that follow religion.

i couldn't have said it better myself.

I love it that you fell right into that one.

I've stated before, and I'll state it again....faith and religion (or spirituality) are a choice just like the choice to NOT have faith or religion or spirituality.

Can you really live in the USA and be against choice...especially for one who so readily espouses the choice to kill unborn children?

[Qdrop]

I love it that you fell right into that one.

I've stated before, and I'll state it again....faith and religion (or spirituality) are a choice just like the choice to NOT have faith or religion or spirituality.

Can you really live in the USA and be against choice...especially for one who so readily espouses the choice to kill unborn children?

who's against choice?

feel free to believe whatever you want.
and if that belief is irrational, i will ridicule you for it....and not allow you to hold office or any position of stature or importance.
just like someone who believes in santa clause.

[sam i am]

who's against choice?

feel free to believe whatever you want.
and if that belief is irrational, i will ridicule you for it....and not allow you to hold office or any position of stature or importance.
just like someone who believes in santa clause.

You're really making me question my faith in Santa Claus.

Doesn't he exist?

There is a Santa Claus, Virginia (or Q, as the case may be).

Good luck, BTW, trying to stop me from getting into office : I'm ahead in the polls here already......bwwwhahahahahahahaha

[Schmeltz]

if that view has been demonstabley shown to be false or without merit (not just opinion, but demonstrabley proven to be false or shown to have no evidence to be true) then to respect it or tolerate it is anti-progressive, and does not serve society well.


Quite to the contrary: to suppress people's ability to choose for themselves among various philosophical or ethical perspectives, even if some of the options are unpalatable, is anti-progressive. The cause of progress will not be served by forcible attempts to quell people's right to believe as they please; in fact, it will be dramatically hindered when a precedent is set for the authoritarian redefinition of what is acceptable to believe.


if you are a progressive....it's your duty to dismantle and hassass obsolete (and therefore damaging) beliefs or ideas.


Of course it is. I didn't say it was all a one-way street.


religious zealots, believers, or even moderates should be ridiculed and marginalized


I don't think there's anything productive about taking such a stance over such a divisive issue. Religious believers should enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as everyone else in society. I don't think there's any need to marginalize religious belief anyway - over time it will simply recede further and further into the background as society becomes collectively more rational. There isn't much scope anymore for the direct imposition of religious values in Western public life and it's too much of a stretch to imagine that there's any danger of such a thing re-emerging in our societies. Not when we have the example of the Middle East to perpetually remind us why that's such a bad idea.

[Qdrop]

Quite to the contrary: to suppress people's ability to choose for themselves among various philosophical or ethical perspectives, even if some of the options are unpalatable, is anti-progressive. The cause of progress will not be served by forcible attempts to quell people's right to believe as they please; in fact, it will be dramatically hindered when a precedent is set for the authoritarian redefinition of what is acceptable to believe.



Of course it is. I didn't say it was all a one-way street.



I don't think there's anything productive about taking such a stance over such a divisive issue. Religious believers should enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as everyone else in society. i'm not talking about rounding them up and shooting them....or taking rights away...or passing laws against them.
just marginalize them...the way we do to people who believe the earth is flat.

i mean, think about it....why is it that someone who believes in santa claus and the earth being flat would become a national joke if he ran for President...but a man who believes some guy walked on water, made water into wine, died, and rose from the dead....then flew up to heaven, is in some way more rational and trustworthy?

THAT'S inane.
that's insane.

there is no more proof of jesus being god, than there is of santa claus being real.

we need to put jesus and allah and vishnu...on the same shelf as Zeus.

I don't think there's any need to marginalize religious belief anyway - over time it will simply recede further and further into the background as society becomes collectively more rational. you would hope. alot of polls say otherwise, though.

There isn't much scope anymore for the direct imposition of religious values in Western public life and it's too much of a stretch to imagine that there's any danger of such a thing re-emerging in our societies. a ban on stem cell research? anti-abortion laws? Creationism and ID being taught in some schools as "viable" alternatives to evolution?
take a look around, man.

Not when we have the example of the Middle East to perpetually remind us why that's such a bad idea. one would think.
while we are light-years ahead of the middle east in social structure and progressiveness....we have so far to go.

[Schmeltz]

we need to put jesus and allah and vishnu...on the same shelf as Zeus.


I hope you realize how totally and completely impractical that idea is. The influence of these deities on human culture and history is too vast for them to ever be dismissed out of hand. Vishnu in particular has survived everything ever thrown at the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years, from the Aryans to the Mughals to the British. You think secular humanism is going to do him in?

I think it's much more realistic to imagine a sort of cohesion between progressive values and traditional religions, or the gradual evolution of progressive strands within religious belief structures. The fact is that a great many people view their traditional beliefs as fully compatible and integrated with the modern world (especially in the Middle East and Asia where intellectual and philosophical traditions differ greatly from those of the West), and even the global reach of classical liberalism has barely dented the ranks of the believers.

You will never get anywhere trying to sideline or marginalize cultural structures that have informed human society for millennia. You can only hope to influence them for the better.


a ban on stem cell research? anti-abortion laws? Creationism and ID being taught in some schools as "viable" alternatives to evolution?


Ah, you'll have to forgive me; I come from a country where those things only surface on the "This Week's Wackiest Stories" section of the news. Still, I think that the impassioned debates being held about those issues in the USA are a feature of both the character of the current administration (which is, from what I hear, losing ground among even its religious constituency) and the essential openness of American society. The heated nature of the social discourse that defines the practical implementation of that agenda is a good sign. Now, if those measures were being passed without substantial opposition, you'd have some very real grounds for concern.

[HAL 9000]

I’m with QDrop on this one, in a number of countries around the world, faith and superstition influence government to a significant degree. This means that important decisions concerning foreign policy, economics, science and education are being made with consideration to texts from the bronze age. These are texts (at least in terms of Christianity, Islam and Judaism) that advocate rape, murder, genocide, the idea of women as property and the suppression of reason. There must be negative consequences of this, it is quite frankly insane as QDrop says.

who's against choice?

feel free to believe whatever you want.
and if that belief is irrational, i will ridicule you for it....and not allow you to hold office or any position of stature or importance.
just like someone who believes in santa clause.

This is the first step, at present; faith is protected for some reason. It has become politically incorrect to challenge anyone to justify their faith. As Dawkins often argues, there is no other area of thought where this is true (except sexuality I suppose).

Hopefully if this change can be made in society, a lot of people will see that their beliefs can not be justified. I think that this latest atheist movement (if it is big enough to be called that) can reasonably hope to succeed in at least making it acceptable to challenge faith. This may well be enough to damage religion and start a marginalisation process.

I suspect most people who used to have faith but were enlightened (myself included) did so because they started subjecting their faith to rigorous analysis. If it can be shown that it is ok to do this, that it is nothing to be scared of, then I think a lot of people will see the error of their ways.

I think this must be the first step on what is going to be a long journey to human secularism. I think it likely that if this journey can not be made globally in the not to distance future, then serious disasters (of an apocalyptic nature) await us.

The next big and important ideological conflict is not the West vs East or a conflict between different faiths, it is Rationalism vs. Superstition. I really feel the time for this conflict/debate is getting closer.

[Qdrop]

I hope you realize how totally and completely impractical that idea is. The influence of these deities on human culture and history is too vast for them to ever be dismissed out of hand. Vishnu in particular has survived everything ever thrown at the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years, from the Aryans to the Mughals to the British. You think secular humanism is going to do him in?
well, hey...Zeus got taken down...as did native american gods (for the most part).
there's gotta be a way...despite the fact that evolutionary biology has riddled our minds with pitfalls...

I think it's much more realistic to imagine a sort of cohesion between progressive values and traditional religions, oh man. now THAT'S impractical. you are speaking of two completely different paradigms of thought and belief. they are incompatible.

or the gradual evolution of progressive strands within religious belief structures. The fact is that a great many people view their traditional beliefs as fully compatible and integrated with the modern world (especially in the Middle East and Asia where intellectual and philosophical traditions differ greatly from those of the West), you are basically speaking of "cherry pickers" or "moderates". the ones who pick and choose which of thier traditional religious beliefs they will follow as long as they fit in with thier current conventional lives. pragmatic religious beleif.
that is currently the reason our country has progressed beyond the middle-age mentality of pre-enlightenment....and one hopes will continue.
still, i find the cherry pickers to be nearly as maddening as the fundamentalists. their hypocrisy and flip-flopping is as unpredictable as the wind. why not just let it ALL go and proceed?

You will never get anywhere trying to sideline or marginalize cultural structures that have informed human society for millennia. informed society? are you giving religion credit for history's progress in technology, philosophy and education?
religion was simpley the dominant cultural norm at the time...the vehicle, the means to the end.
many of histories greatest thinkers may have been religious men...but only by cultural necessity. It was often only the religious elite that had the resources to do research and pontificate on philosophy and technology. it was only the religious elite that had the power to create new political structures and law systems (judeo-christian)...
athiests didn't get a chance to study the stars...they were burned at the stake.
if you wanted to research and understand the world around you, you had to make DAMN sure you gave God credit first....




Ah, you'll have to forgive me; I come from a country where those things only surface on the "This Week's Wackiest Stories" section of the news. Still, I think that the impassioned debates being held about those issues in the USA are a feature of both the character of the current administration (which is, from what I hear, losing ground among even its religious constituency) and the essential openness of American society. The heated nature of the social discourse that defines the practical implementation of that agenda is a good sign. Now, if those measures were being passed without substantial opposition, you'd have some very real grounds for concern.
i just see the writing on the wall...
but, after last nights elections...i see others may have seen the writing too...and we are doing something about it....

[Schmeltz]

I suspect most people who used to have faith but were enlightened (myself included) did so because they started subjecting their faith to rigorous analysis.


That was certainly true for me. Did you find that others who shared your religious beliefs considered that a profound social transgression and were prepared to radically alter their relationships with you, for the worse, drastically affecting even your family dynamic? A big problem with showing people that there is nothing wrong with critically approaching their beliefs is the fact that religious behaviour is commonly deeply integrated with social behaviour. For most of humanity, many of the boundaries between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable social interaction are still defined or informed by religious values. To suddenly reverse this relationship, or attempt to redefine it on the basis of the exclusion of religious beliefs, will necessarily involve a redefinition of many aspects and trends of social life as well - changes on a level that would require infinitely complex processes of renegotiation by all social actors at all levels of society.

This is the big problem with your "marginalization" idea, I think: it ignores the fact that people might not simply accept that the beliefs and traditions that define much of their participation in human society should be rejected. A lot of people might see the "error" of their ways, but plenty more might be unable to process the real significance of rejecting values that are profoundly integrated with the way in which they legitimately interact with others. You'd be looking at a huge backlash unless you followed up this program of marginalization with some kind of compensatory mechanism that allowed people to willingly abandon religious beliefs for secular progressivism and still conceive of themselves and their societies as acceptable social actors.


The next big and important ideological conflict is not the West vs East or a conflict between different faiths, it is Rationalism vs. Superstition.


Superstition wins by default: they've got an insurmountable numerical advantage. On the other hand, if rational/secular societies and religious/traditional societies could figure out a way to co-exist, instead of trying to destroy or convert each other, we wouldn't have to worry about ideological conflict at all.


you are speaking of two completely different paradigms of thought and belief. they are incompatible.


My personal experience is that they are not, and I don't think it's productive to approach this issue from that perspective. If you've already firmly come down on the "them vs. us" side of things, then there's little hope for anything but a violent confrontation. If only for the sake of compromise, which is the only realistic way to engineer some kind of productive solution to the divide between religious and secular philosophies, you'd do better to look for ways in which traditional and progressive values can be seen to be compatible.


still, i find the cherry pickers to be nearly as maddening as the fundamentalists.


Well, don't blame anyone else for your own intractable refusal to accomodate anybody's point of view. It's hardly realistic to imagine that the only possible future is one in which everybody thinks exactly like you.


informed society? are you giving religion credit for history's progress in technology, philosophy and education?


No, I didn't mean in the sense of "information" as we understand the term. Rather I meant that religious values have, for pretty much all of human history, constituted a primary influence on the manner in which humans interact with one another and with the natural world. People have historically relied on, and continue to rely on, their religions in order to define how they behave. Of course people are also profoundly influenced in their behaviour by other things than religion, like emotion and biology. And I think you might just as well try to marginalize either of those two things as marginalize religion. You'd get the same result.

At the bottom of it all, I think that religion is much too deeply integrated in human society to be done away with altogether, except perhaps gradually over a period of time extending into the extremely distant future, with plenty of setbacks and backlashes along the way. It's futile to imagine that secular progressivism will take hold over a majority of humanity within our lifetimes and I think it much more likely that the religious philosophies that constitute the basis of life for a very large segment of humanity are here to stay for a good long while. This doesn't mean that it's unproductive to press for the fullest expansion possible of the ideals of secular humanism; in fact I'd say that's probably the most important task before the Western world right now, considering the ongoing struggle within Islam between fundamentalism and moderation. But to think that it's even halfway possible, or even desirable, to entirely do away with religion as a facet of human life is unrealistic - indeed, dare I say, as irrational an idea as any I've heard propounded.

[sam i am]

These are texts (at least in terms of Christianity, Islam and Judaism) that advocate rape, murder, genocide, the idea of women as property and the suppression of reason.

The advocation of rape, murder, genocide, the idea of women as property, and the suppression of reason are not any part of Christianity.

Please ensure that you are being honest in your intellectual assasination of faith : there are tremendous differences in the tenets of Judaism (Old Testament) and Christianity (New Testament) and both are worlds away from Islamic thoughts and beliefs (Koran).

I don't mind your bashing or thinly veiled arch-mindedness, but honesty is a trademark of true rationality : not suppressive beliefs of your own.

[sam i am]

To follow up on Q's and Schmeltz's discussion above :

What is the proposition for a replacement of "superstition?"

My rational fear is that the imposition of some other form of "belief" (like it or not, progressive secular humanism is a BELIEF system) will not solve the problems you see in traditional religions, Q.

It's akin to the Socialism vs. Free-Market Liberalism way of governance. Socialism inherently strives for centralized leadership that forces the means of production to those who most need it...not rewarding those who have sacrificed time and labor for the fruits of their labor.

Traditional beliefs have given societies (in the West, at least), the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and all the fruits of current modernity. Secular humanism, as I've pointed out before, TENDS to lead to monolithic and monmaniacal societies that are not constrained by morals or virtues (Sovietism and Naziism are the prime 20th century examples).

Reality betrays the utopian ideals of secular humanism : highjacking of high-minded ideals by those with agendas throws into doubt (at a minimum) and ridiculousness (at a maximum) the implementation of such a system of belief.

[Qdrop]

To follow up on Q's and Schmeltz's discussion above :

What is the proposition for a replacement of "superstition?"

My rational fear is that the imposition of some other form of "belief" (like it or not, progressive secular humanism is a BELIEF system) will not solve the problems you see in traditional religions, Q. it's a belief...but what is that belief based on?
the more grounded and rational your beliefs....the better.

i think basing beliefs on more rational, logical systems of ethics will help many societal ills.

It's akin to the Socialism vs. Free-Market Liberalism way of governance. Socialism inherently strives for centralized leadership that forces the means of production to those who most need it...not rewarding those who have sacrificed time and labor for the fruits of their labor.that is such a stretch man...

Traditional beliefs have given societies (in the West, at least), the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and all the fruits of current modernity. all progressive ideas in thier time.
Secular humanism, as I've pointed out before, TENDS to lead to monolithic and monmaniacal societies that are not constrained by morals or virtues (Sovietism and Naziism are the prime 20th century examples).
why do you keep stating this when it has no legs?
stalin and hitlter were not secular HUMANISTS. stop saying that.

this is just a backdoor attempt and saying that humans NEED religion to be moral...without it, we'll be raping and pillaging.
that's bullshit.
religious morals did not come from "god" first of all...they came from man, who based them on natural law and basic rational ideals of survival (don't kill each other, don't steal from each other, don't diddle your neighbors wife...etc), these are behaviors that social pack animals follow in some respects as well...these "morals" or "ethics" are based on basics of survival through cooperation and reciprocation....man just put them into writing...and tweaked and refined them with our human ability to conceptualize, project, sympathize and empathize, and CHOOSE...

Reality betrays the utopian ideals of secular humanism : highjacking of high-minded ideals by those with agendas throws into doubt (at a minimum) and ridiculousness (at a maximum) the implementation of such a system of belief. yeah, secular humanism will us turn all into little hitlers and stalins....
fear mongerer...

[Schmeltz]

Traditional beliefs have given societies (in the West, at least), the Enlightenment, Liberalism, and all the fruits of current modernity.


They most emphatically have not; all of those ideas came about in spite of strenuous opposition from proponents of traditional religious values, including the elites at the top of the West's religious hierarchies and you have secular-minded progressive thinkers to thank for them, not religious adherents or theocrats.


Secular humanism, as I've pointed out before, TENDS to lead to monolithic and monmaniacal societies that are not constrained by morals or virtues


They most emphatically do not; all of the countries in the world that could be classed as most closely adhering to the principles of secular humanism - like those of Western Europe and North America - are those with very low rates of crime and exemplary commitment to democracy. And, as Q and I have both pointed out now, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, while secular in the most extreme sense of the word, were very far from being humanist in any sense of the word.

By contrast, it is the most religiously commited societies in history that have given us many of history's greatest atrocities - the slave trade, colonialism, the Crusades, the Taliban, on and on. Nazism and Soviet Communism replaced religion with statism, not humanism, and gave us even greater atrocities - proving that it's fundamentalism, not progressivism, that constitutes the greatest threat to the stability and productivity of humanity.

[HAL 9000]

The advocation of rape, murder, genocide, the idea of women as property, and the suppression of reason are not any part of Christianity.

Please ensure that you are being honest in your intellectual assasination of faith : there are tremendous differences in the tenets of Judaism (Old Testament) and Christianity (New Testament) and both are worlds away from Islamic thoughts and beliefs (Koran).

I don't mind your bashing or thinly veiled arch-mindedness, but honesty is a trademark of true rationality : not suppressive beliefs of your own.

, the accusations I was making were actually taken largely from Deuteronomy, Joshua and Ezekiel, although I have also read similar content in the Koran. There seems to me to be little to distinquish the Koran from the OT/Torah in terms of ethics. NT is quite different, containing much that is ethically sound - it seems that God undertook quite a radical personality change betweeon the two books.

Im afraid I had to look up arch-mindedness (“Call me arch minded will you! Right, I’ll show you!”)

As far as I can tell it reflects a concern for the archtectural use of the arch. (I realise this isnt what you meant.). hmmm how did my post only manage to thinly disguise my love of the arch, I usually keep it so well hidden, dammit.

Anyway, I guess I missed the point on that one!

Joking aside, I do strive for rationality by which I mean that I tried to hold beliefs that are proportional to the evidence that supports them. If have incorectly analysysed some piece of evidence, then I am happy to be set straight so by all means do so. I try not to get angry when my world view is challenged and am always open to new data which may alter that view.

[HAL 9000]

I do not see secular humanism as a major political shift and it implies no particular political policies, just a commitment to approach issues with a critical and rational mind.

Everyone agrees that at least some religions that have influence on governments must be false since many religions are mutually exclusive. So taking ones own religion out of the equation, the key question is whether or not a society based on a series of myths can be preferable to one that is not, maybe it depends on what those myths are and maybe there is a religious stand point that can produce a better society then one which is secular and humanist?

I would be inclined to think that this is not the case, as already pointed out by Q, morality does not originate in scripture and any religion successful enough to influence government, must contain requirements designed to propagate itself and these are highly unlikely to be aligned with the maximisation of collective utility. Such text is also likely to be ethically and scientifically out of date and, as such, is also unlikely to be desirable.

Is a secular society more at risk from becoming a fundamentalist society like under Hitler or Stalin? Maybe, although religion is responsible for some atrocities, is it a case of better the devil you know? After all, what stops secular humanist societies descending into a fundamentalist society like that of Hitler and Stalin? It seems to me that such fundamentalist atrocities are more likely in religious societies because the major religious texts all justify such acts to some extent.

[sam i am]

I guess my point in this is that one person's "criticality and rationality" is another person's insanity.

I'm quite sure that most who have embraced faith or belief of one kind or another (secular humanism, atheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc.) are convinced of the rightness and righteousness of their beliefs and system.

Since faith is inherently personal and not subject to the edicts of logic (which are not laws, BTW), all systems of belief cannot be fundamentally altered without life-changing events.

As I said in this thread, or another one, I also was a "believer" in humanism and secularism, which, when I investigated the claims of Christianity, came to seem as frivolous and constraining. Q & Hal & Schmeltz : you've all said you had faith of one kind or another at some point in your lives, them came to believe in secular humanism.

Why is it so difficult to understand, and necessary to denigrate, those who have made different choices that do not impugn upon your ability to believe what you want to?

[sam i am]

, the accusations I was making were actually taken largely from Deuteronomy, Joshua and Ezekiel, although I have also read similar content in the Koran. There seems to me to be little to distinquish the Koran from the OT/Torah in terms of ethics. NT is quite different, containing much that is ethically sound - it seems that God undertook quite a radical personality change betweeon the two books.

Joking aside, I do strive for rationality by which I mean that I tried to hold beliefs that are proportional to the evidence that supports them. If have incorectly analysysed some piece of evidence, then I am happy to be set straight so by all means do so. I try not to get angry when my world view is challenged and am always open to new data which may alter that view.

The New Testament is about the life and death and resurrection of Jesus and the spreading of his message throughout the world via his followers (mostly Paul, who was a convert that previously had killed Christians).

The New Testament speaks of love, strength through faith, caring for one another, the non-necessity of blood sacrifices since Jesus already made the ultimate sacrifice for all of us (as opposed to the Old Testament's necessity for prolific bloodletting to absolve us of our sins), the reinforcement of the Old Testament tenets of the Ten Commandments (not much controversial there), and life everlasting for those who choose Christ when afforded the opportunity.

Whether you take those tenets as practical or rational or not is up to you.

[Schmeltz]

The New Testament is also about the vengeful return of a deity bent on the eternal destruction of everybody who exercises their free will in not choosing to accept him as their overlord. Practical and rational... not so much.


the key question is whether or not a society based on a series of myths can be preferable to one that is not


I think that question, and indeed your argument, contains a key assumption: that it is possible to separate human society from mythology and create a culture entirely free from mythic ethos. I don't think it is. Even the nations and societies that most closely approximate a secular humanist culture rely heavily on myths of one kind or another to inform their collective cultural imaginations; if you don't believe me then I suggest a trip to Paris to tour the Pantheon or Napoleon's mausoleum. Or, closer to home, look at the language in which the USA's founding experiences and leaders are described and honoured. Even in Canada we depend to a significant extent on a type of mythological thinking to define our most collectively valued cultural experiences - the observance of Remembrance Day, which was just last weekend, is as much about ritual honorification of war dead as it is about a sobering, rational reminder of the horrific nature of modern warfare.

The increasing distance, in terms of time, from the collective past seems to lead in every society to a mythologizing of it - maybe an attempt to preserve values against change, or find meaning in seemingly uncontrollable events, or preserve a connection with a past thought to be better than the present, or maintain the position of elite groups at the top of economic and social hierarchies, or whatever (there is no shortage of debate over this tendency in anthropology). The point is that you can count on people to enshrine certain things into myth and remain profoundly emotionally attached to their beliefs in these things no matter how rational or objective they might be otherwise. I would question not only whether it is entirely possible to rid humanity of this tendency, but whether or not it would even be desireable to do so.

It's like the legend of Jebediah Springfield - no matter who said it, a noble spirit really does embiggen the smallest man.

[HAL 9000]

Whether you take those tenets as practical or rational or not is up to you.
I don’t really want to get side tracked by a debunking of one religion or another but I would like to say this; I do not have a choice as to whether I accept something like this as rational any more than I have a choice in whether I think 2+2=4. I can conduct analysis of evidence and I can come to a conclusion (which may be right or wrong) but I can not honestly deny a conclusion that I have come to unless further evidence becomes available. To do this requires the sort of faith that the thread is about and that seems to me to be intellectually dishonest and it is this sort of faith that I really object to (more than religion itself).



I think that question, and indeed your argument, contains a key assumption: that it is possible to separate human society from mythology and create a culture entirely free from mythic ethos. I don't think it is. Even the nations and societies that most closely approximate a secular humanist culture rely heavily on myths of one kind or another to inform their collective cultural imaginations; if you don't believe me then I suggest a trip to Paris to tour the Pantheon or Napoleon's mausoleum. Or, closer to home, look at the language in which the USA's founding experiences and leaders are described and honoured. Even in Canada we depend to a significant extent on a type of mythological thinking to define our most collectively valued cultural experiences - the observance of Remembrance Day, which was just last weekend, is as much about ritual honorification of war dead as it is about a sobering, rational reminder of the horrific nature of modern warfare.


Your right I am making this assumption, it is probably an unrealistic one and I am aware of this. I am trying to deal in hypothetical extremes in order to gain some understanding of more realistic visions of what might be possible in the future (including the very distant future). For example, if a theoretical completely secular humanist state existed might it be prone to slip into some form of ideological fundamentalism as it seeks to fill gap left by religion (as suggested by Sam)?

The central issue for me which I am trying to get at is whether faith (albeit misguided) has inherent benefits to mankind the loss of which (through the reduction of faith) would be detrimental. In reality it s very unlikely to be removed altogether, but reliance on it can certainly be reduced (as in Europe) and I just wonder what impact this will have on society and global politic. I think it would be positive but am looking for others views.

[sam i am]

The New Testament is also about the vengeful return of a deity bent on the eternal destruction of everybody who exercises their free will in not choosing to accept him as their overlord. Practical and rational... not so much.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Book of Revelations, which is quite open to interpretation?

My view of what you are referring to is that those who choose to live apart from God are certainly free to do so (free will and all that), but the consequences of eternity without God could be less to your liking than you envision.

The way I see it, it would be like being on the other side of a huge glass partition, looking in on a party that is better than you've ever seen or been to, while locked away on the other side in a cold, dark room.

The cool part, however, is that you ALWAYS have the choice to still join the party : it's NEVER too late to make it better.

Sounds pretty rational to me.

[Funkaloyd]

If you can repent after death, then what's the point of doing so in life?

[sam i am]

If you can repent after death, then what's the point of doing so in life?

Early entry to the party, man. God wants everyone to party with him.:cool: :D

[Waus]

Wait...can someone summarize the argument that's going on right now? I like talking about this but it seems like there's a billion things being said either way, and I'm too impatient right now to catch up with all this.

[sam i am]

Wait...can someone summarize the argument that's going on right now? I like talking about this but it seems like there's a billion things being said either way, and I'm too impatient right now to catch up with all this.

Dude...just read the thread then respond to what you want. Anyone who tries to summarize the other's position is not going to do it well and will probably start a spat.

[Waus]

The central issue for me which I am trying to get at is whether faith (albeit misguided) has inherent benefits to mankind the loss of which (through the reduction of faith) would be detrimental. In reality it s very unlikely to be removed altogether, but reliance on it can certainly be reduced (as in Europe) and I just wonder what impact this will have on society and global politic. I think it would be positive but am looking for others views.

Okay, trying to just add something here.

Frankly, I think that our relationship with God was never meant to be something political, and the existence of religion as a political entity has caused nothing but trouble.

Removal of religion being beneficial? It really depends on how you treat it. If you are a "man of faith" out of habit, and it's nothing more than something to align yourself with because it's easy - then yes, get rid of it and figure out what you really believe. If it's your sincere faith and defines the purpose in your life, then getting rid of it would be denying the very center of who you are.

[sam i am]

Okay, trying to just add something here.

Frankly, I think that our relationship with God was never meant to be something political, and the existence of religion as a political entity has caused nothing but trouble.

Removal of religion being beneficial? It really depends on how you treat it. If you are a "man of faith" out of habit, and it's nothing more than something to align yourself with because it's easy - then yes, get rid of it and figure out what you really believe. If it's your sincere faith and defines the purpose in your life, then getting rid of it would be denying the very center of who you are.

Well stated. Rigorous attention to one's fundamental beliefs, through questioning, observation, research, etc., is essential to "deep" faith as opposed to superficial faith (especially when imposed by parents or peers rather than being readily and joyously accepted and espoused).

[Waus]

I would be inclined to think that this is not the case, as already pointed out by Q, morality does not originate in scripture and any religion successful enough to influence government, must contain requirements designed to propagate itself and these are highly unlikely to be aligned with the maximisation of collective utility. Such text is also likely to be ethically and scientifically out of date and, as such, is also unlikely to be desirable.


Morality does not originate in scripture - that I agree with - but only because it's existence isn't really tied to the scripture. With that said, the later line about "text is also likely to be ethically...out of date" is wrong to me. Morality/ethics, if viewed as an objective thing is timeless. I'm not sure what the 'scientific' aspects of a major religious text would really be.

The influence that a religion has on the government should be the result of a consensus of morals, and not a deliberate attempt to push ideas on other people.

[HAL 9000]

Wait...can someone summarize the argument that's going on right now? I like talking about this but it seems like there's a billion things being said either way, and I'm too impatient right now to catch up with all this.

Hi Beck,

Like Sam I do not want to put words in others mouths and summerise what has been said...

The idea of this thread is to discuss the recent 'new athiest' movement led by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and to consider whether the removal of religion from society is either achieveable (and if so how) or desirable. I was hoping you would get involved after reading your earlier chat with Ace.

Some discussion regarding whether or not religion is rational has also gone on...

[HAL 9000]

Okay, trying to just add something here.

Frankly, I think that our relationship with God was never meant to be something political, and the existence of religion as a political entity has caused nothing but trouble.

Removal of religion being beneficial? It really depends on how you treat it. If you are a "man of faith" out of habit, and it's nothing more than something to align yourself with because it's easy - then yes, get rid of it and figure out what you really believe. If it's your sincere faith and defines the purpose in your life, then getting rid of it would be denying the very center of who you are.

Clearly there is an religious divide in this thread, as an athiest, I have mostly been happy to ignore religion. Indeed in the past religion and science have had a sort of understanding where they dont step on each others toes.

Recently however, religion has been been exerting political influence in certain areas (mostly in the states) in such a way that I think it is encroaching on the territory of science (stem cells, teaching of evolution etc).

If religion stayed away from me and my family, I probably would not care but it has gotten political now, and I think this is why we are seeing an athiest backlash (well we are in the early stages of one I think). Religion seems to be very political, there are no openly athiest members of either house (I think) in the States and religion centric issues seem to dominate the political landscape. I agree with most of what you said in your post though.

[HAL 9000]

Morality does not originate in scripture - that I agree with - but only because it's existence isn't really tied to the scripture. With that said, the later line about "text is also likely to be ethically...out of date" is wrong to me. Morality/ethics, if viewed as an objective thing is timeless. I'm not sure what the 'scientific' aspects of a major religious text would really be.

The influence that a religion has on the government should be the result of a consensus of morals, and not a deliberate attempt to push ideas on other people.


I agree with the last part and the idea of a fundamentally correct set of morals. However, I think that this morality is something that humanity has not yet achieved and is slowly advancing towards. The morality of the OT is horrible, there is little that I would call moral in the old testament in fact I would go as far to say that the concept of satan I was taught as a child is indistinguishable from the OT concept of God. Throughout history (it seems to me) that there has been gradual progress towards a higher moral standard (with some set backs along the way).

Morality does evolve over time (for eg, Abraham Lincoln was an apalling racist by todays standards and Bomber Harris would today be considered a war criminal, women are only now, for pretty much the first time in human history, being considered equal to men), I consider myself progressive morality wise but 100 years from now I bet (and hope) people will be appalled by my ethics (ew he ate animals for eg).

In terms of Science there is much that is scientifically inaccurate in religious texts not least what they imply about evolution and the physics of creation.

[sam i am]

Clearly there is an religious divide in this thread, as an athiest, I have mostly been happy to ignore religion. Indeed in the past religion and science have had a sort of understanding where they dont step on each others toes.

Recently however, religion has been been exerting political influence in certain areas (mostly in the states) in such a way that I think it is encroaching on the territory of science (stem cells, teaching of evolution etc).

If religion stayed away from me and my family, I probably would not care but it has gotten political now, and I think this is why we are seeing an athiest backlash (well we are in the early stages of one I think). Religion seems to be very politcal, there are no openly athiest politicians in the States and religion centric issues seem to dominate the political landscape. I agree with most of what you said in your post though.

HAL : the gist of your argument seems to be that the political influence of religion has over-intruded into public life? Is that a factual summary of your stance?

I just want to be sure before I address this aspect of our discussion further, ok?

[HAL 9000]

HAL : the gist of your argument seems to be that the political influence of religion has over-intruded into public life? Is that a factual summary of your stance?

I just want to be sure before I address this aspect of our discussion further, ok?

Yes I think that is the headline point. Underlying it is a belief that God does not exist, but the reason that I actualy care (instead of just just ignoring religion) is its increasing influence on matters that I care about (politics, science and education).

[Waus]

Recently however, religion has been been exerting political influence in certain areas (mostly in the states) in such a way that I think it is encroaching on the territory of science (stem cells, teaching of evolution etc).

...Religion seems to be very political, there are no openly athiest members of either house (I think) in the States and religion centric issues seem to dominate the political landscape...

I disagree with churches using their tithe money to fund lobbyists or using sermons to make political points.

As far as evolution goes - I think really people are slowly coming to an understanding. Basically, Darwinism, or a sort of strict evolution versus simple survival of the fittest hasn't really been proven. I realize this is a whole different discussion, but I guess I'm just saying that simple evolution is obvious and proven. What people try to take from that is that somehow something came from nothing, or that life through incalculable amounts of tiny changes transformed from primordial soup to human being. I just don't think that's quite scientifically sound yet - nevermind my beliefs in God's role.

Teaching evolution in schools is fine with me - but I don't think it's fair to say that darwinism explains man's origin yet. I'm not saying read Genesis in schools either, far from it, but don't teach things as fact that are theory.

Stem cell research is basically the same issue as abortion as I see it. Conservatives generally oppose it because of where the stem cells come from. I'm not well accquainted enough with the proposals of stem cell research to make a clear statement on it, but I do have some thoughts.

It's a question of where does it end. If we can use fetus tissue to make new organs etc. then why can't we just use newborn or fetus DNA to make a 'clone' baby to use for spare parts if the real baby gets sick? It's a matter of what constitutes a "life." I realize that's an extreme example - but it's all a consequence of the "religious right" having a different perspective on life due to their belief in an eternal soul. If you don't believe in an eternal soul - then what life is there outside of physical consciousness? Since a fetus doesn't really have physical consciousness yet an athiest will lean towards "not-life" while someone who believes their 'soul' is still in existence will say "life."

[Waus]

I agree with the last part and the idea of a fundamentally correct set of morals. However, I think that this morality is something that humanity has not yet achieved and is slowly advancing towards. The morality of the OT is horrible, there is little that I would call moral in the old testament in fact I would go as far to say that the concept of satan I was taught as a child is indistinguishable from the OT concept of God. Throughout history (it seems to me) that there has been gradual progress towards a higher moral standard (with some set backs along the way).

I guess I can sort of agree with that. The problem for me is that the standard has always been there - and our efforts to fulfill it have increased in some areas and decreased in others.

There's a lot of cultural issues and things I don't really understand in the Old Testament either, and sometimes understanding what God does in those chapters is beyond me too. Then again, I haven't been to seminary school or anything like that.

One thing I think of is (does this break the rules?) what Jesus said in the NT, when they asked him what the greatest commandment was and he said [paraphrase] Love God, then Love Others. I mean was slavery really loving others? No! So we weren't fulfilling the set standard. Take any example of us hurting our fellow man and we generally aren't loving others. Loving God, well, I guess it's a personal thing and impossible for me to try to explain.

You might disagree with me on this - but as far as morality's progress - obviously we've made great strides in racial relations, civil rights, women's equality, lots of stuff. At the same time though I think we've decided a lot of things aren't important anymore - such as preserving sanctity of marriage, controlling lustful behaviour, living in moderation (I'm thinking alcohol).

A lot of the things I mentioned though fall into C.S. Lewis' "second tier" morality though, which is personal morality, and not necessarily something that a secular society will agree upon.

[HAL 9000]

I disagree with churches using their tithe money to fund lobbyists or using sermons to make political points.

As far as evolution goes - I think really people are slowly coming to an understanding. Basically, Darwinism, or a sort of strict evolution versus simple survival of the fittest hasn't really been proven. I realize this is a whole different discussion, but I guess I'm just saying that simple evolution is obvious and proven. What people try to take from that is that somehow something came from nothing, or that life through incalculable amounts of tiny changes transformed from primordial soup to human being. I just don't think that's quit scientifically sound yet - nevermind my beliefs in God's role.

Teaching evolution in schools is fine with me - but I don't think it's fair to say that darwinism explains man's origin yet. I'm not saying read Genesis in schools either, far from it, but don't teach things as fact that are theory.

Stem cell research is basically the same issue as abortion as I see it. Conservatives generally oppose it because of where the stem cells come from. I'm not well accquainted enough with the proposals of stem cell research to make a clear statement on it, but I do have some thoughts.

It's a question of where does it end. If we can use fetus tissue to make new organs etc. then why can't we just use newborn or fetus DNA to make a 'clone' baby to use for spare parts if the real baby gets sick? It's a matter of what constitutes a "life." I realize that's an extreme example - but it's all a consequence of the "religious right" having a different perspective on life due to their belief in an eternal soul. If you don't believe in an eternal soul - then what life is there outside of physical consciousness? Since a fetus doesn't really have physical consciousness yet an athiest will lean towards "not-life" while someone who believes their 'soul' is still in existence will say "life."

Science is unable to explain life origin at the moment, but I do think it is fair to say that baring in mind what we do know about evolution, and the fact that the basic building block of life had billions of trillions tickets in the origins lottery of chance (universe is 13 billion years old, there are billions of galaxys each with billions of planets each with billions of molecules) it is not unreasonable to suggest that life can be triggered by some pretty spectacularly rare event and still be common place in the universe.

This is a digression though, personally I was not taught evolution as fact - just theory bt I was also taught everything else in science as theory too, its just a matter of assigning an appropriate probability. For my mind evolutionary origins of life are more likely than the big bang but less proven than say, the idea that plants use chlorophyll to create energy.

[Waus]

Science is unable to explain life origin at the moment, but I do think it is fair to say that baring in mind what we do know about evolution, and the fact that the basic building block of life had billions of trillions tickets in the origins lottery of chance (universe is 13 billion years old, there are billions of galaxys each with billions of planets each with billions of molecules) it is not unreasonable to suggest that life can be triggered by some pretty spectacularly rare event and still be common place in the universe.


See - I read that and there's just one problem that comes up in my mind. People take infinite time and infinite things happening, and say "well then the odds aren't really against spontaneous life are they?"

The thing is, even with infinite possibilities that doesn't mean something impossible can happen. You can't flip a coin until the end of time and have it come up "grobnak" one time instead of heads or tails. All I'm really saying is that I don't think the mechanics of nature, of the universe, have in them the capability of spontaneously triggering life - regardless of how big and old it is.

[HAL 9000]

I guess I can sort of agree with that. The problem for me is that the standard has always been there - and our efforts to fulfill it have increased in some areas and decreased in others.

There's a lot of cultural issues and things I don't really understand in the Old Testament either, and sometimes understanding what God does in those chapters is beyond me too. Then again, I haven't been to seminary school or anything like that.

One thing I think of is (does this break the rules?) what Jesus said in the NT, when they asked him what the greatest commandment was and he said [paraphrase] Love God, then Love Others. I mean was slavery really loving others? No! So we weren't fulfilling the set standard. Take any example of us hurting our fellow man and we generally aren't loving others. Loving God, well, I guess it's a personal thing and impossible for me to try to explain.

You might disagree with me on this - but as far as morality's progress - obviously we've made great strides in racial relations, civil rights, women's equality, lots of stuff. At the same time though I think we've decided a lot of things aren't important anymore - such as preserving sanctity of marriage, controlling lustful behaviour, living in moderation (I'm thinking alcohol).

A lot of the things I mentioned though fall into C.S. Lewis' "second tier" morality though, which is personal morality, and not necessarily something that a secular society will agree upon.

I do not mind your personal god as long as it is personal (I dont mean that to sound patronising), my one comment regarding morality is that maybe we have come further than you realise in things like drinking and the control of lust. There is a lot of rape in biblical stories afterall, and it is often not presented as a bad thing. Maybe lust based problems only seems so bad now because the views of women on the subject are now respected? Just an opinion, I think that the trend is towards improved morality on the whole.

Maybe if some of these things (marriage etc) seem less important now its because they are not that important in the grand scheme of morality? Maybe if we ever reach a level of perfect human morality there will be no marriage at all just jealousy free procreation and love amoung all (pure speculation obviously).

[HAL 9000]

See - I read that and there's just one problem that comes up in my mind. People take infinite time and infinite things happening, and say "well then the odds aren't really against spontaneous life are they?"

The thing is, even with infinite possibilities that doesn't mean something impossible can happen. You can't flip a coin until the end of time and have it come up "grobnak" one time instead of heads or tails. All I'm really saying is that I don't think the mechanics of nature, of the universe, have in them the capability of spontaneously triggering life - regardless of how big and old it is.

Thats fine, I totally appreciate your point, but I think it probably is scientifically possible for a self replicating protein (or something) to form entirely by chance given enough 'lottery tickets' and all I am saying is "Wow, there sure are a lot of lottery tickets".

But this is definately one of the most challenging aspects of the origins question.

[Waus]

Maybe if some of these things (marriage etc) seem less important now its because they are not that important in the grand scheme of morality? Maybe if we ever reach a level of perfect human morality there will be no marriage at all just jealousy free procreation and love amoung all (pure speculation obviously).

This is where I kinda suspected we'd differ. I don't believe that rape was ever characterized as acceptable in the Bible. Really though, I was referring to the NT line from Jesus that says [paraphrase] to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery in your heart. The general acceptance of pornography and lustful attitudes is, I think, a step in the wrong direction as far as healthy relationships and healthy minds.

The thing about marriage versus a sort of "free love" deal is that marriage and romantic love, I believe, were designed to create families that give us the love and support God intended. It's not really a matter of jealousy and wanting someone else etc. - it's a matter of commitment being a vital part of real love for someone else.

[HAL 9000]

This is where I kinda suspected we'd differ. I don't believe that rape was ever characterized as acceptable in the Bible. Really though, I was referring to the NT line from Jesus that says [paraphrase] to look at a woman lustfully is to commit adultery in your heart. The general acceptance of pornography and lustful attitudes is, I think, a step in the wrong direction as far as healthy relationships and healthy minds.

The thing about marriage versus a sort of "free love" deal is that marriage and romantic love, I believe, were designed to create families that give us the love and support God intended. It's not really a matter of jealousy and wanting someone else etc. - it's a matter of commitment being a vital part of real love for someone else.

I agree with your idea of marriage, I am engaged myself and this what I want, but I can imagine a time when people view relationships differently (check out the posts of Green Earth Al on this forum for more on that). I genuinely do not know how porn and lust impact the mind and soul, I think societies view on this will change over time, but who knows, you may well be right.


Im off to bed now, it has been interesting

[Waus]

Wait, what happened to the rape thing...did that go away?

[HAL 9000]

Wait, what happened to the rape thing...did that go away?

Yea, I thought it wasnt really going in a nice direction, so I just deleted that stuff. A quick google search will elaborate on that topic if you are interested.

[Waus]

Yea, I thought it wasnt really going in a nice direction, so I just deleted that stuff. A quick google search will elaborate on that topic if you are interested.

Well, I kinda looked into it. I mean - I'm far and away not an expert on that.

Basically what I came across was that Moses' law for the Israelites made rape punishable by death.

The other instances of rape by implication were usually more complicated than just that. Like, forced marriage with prisoners of war type thing seems completely wrong to me - but you have to remember that women had little to no power in that society and that with their men gone and being in a hostile populace the men taking them in wasn't necessarily as bad as it seems today. Also there were usually laws about the men not being allowed to simply abandon those women once they were in marriage.

...anyways, complicated - but I can't believe that God condones rape in any way. Goes back to "love others."

[cosmo105]

beck - your misconception of stem cell research is a common one. most opposed to it seem to think that a life has to be created inside a woman and ripped from her - i.e. and abortion - in order to become viable for research. not so.

it's not a fetus. it's not even an embryo. in fact, it's a very small collection of cells that have been created in a laboratory setting. scientists can do this on their own without a man and woman ever having to meet. hell, set up a sperm/egg bank and you've got yourself blastula material. and that's all it is. i know the state of california has a program set up for just this so that scientists don't need to look for other options. it's grown in a nutrient solution, and then given a differentiation factor so that it can go from just one cell to a cell specifically instructed to become a liver, or a heart, or brain tissue. that's why people with chronic diseases like michael j. fox are interested in it -if you implant some of these cells into the brain of a person with, say, Alzheimer's, they can actually regenerate damaged tissue. nerve pathways.

these cells can also be collected from in vitro fertilization clinics. when couples go for that, they donate many, many eggs and sperm and fertilize them. they then pick which look the most viable to be implanted. the rest are thrown away. these would never become an actual embryo or fetus anyway, and their lifesaving potential is going in the trash.

if someone close to you had liver cancer and was at the end of a long waiting list for donors (which she'd need to be on immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of her life to accept), and this was an option to save her life...wouldn't you want it?

my biology professor gave the most impassioned argument i've seen for it yet. his son has a severe, undiagnosable form of retardation. this could change his kid's life - he was almost in tears - so he's all for it. it just makes sense.

[Auton]

^(y) (y) (y)

[Pres Zount]

FAITH is stronger than sense.

[cosmo105]

for example, stem cells could totally replace auton's missing nipples.

[Mr. Boomin'Granny]

KILL BABIES TO CURE MY CROHNS!!!!!

[QueenAdrock]

lol dead bebbes

[Waus]

beck - your misconception of stem cell research is a common one. most opposed to it seem to think that a life has to be created inside a woman and ripped from her - i.e. and abortion - in order to become viable for research. not so.

it's not a fetus. it's not even an embryo. in fact, it's a very small collection of cells that have been created in a laboratory setting. scientists can do this on their own without a man and woman ever having to meet. hell, set up a sperm/egg bank and you've got yourself blastula material. and that's all it is. i know the state of california has a program set up for just this so that scientists don't need to look for other options. it's grown in a nutrient solution, and then given a differentiation factor so that it can go from just one cell to a cell specifically instructed to become a liver, or a heart, or brain tissue. that's why people with chronic diseases like michael j. fox are interested in it -if you implant some of these cells into the brain of a person with, say, Alzheimer's, they can actually regenerate damaged tissue. nerve pathways.

these cells can also be collected from in vitro fertilization clinics. when couples go for that, they donate many, many eggs and sperm and fertilize them. they then pick which look the most viable to be implanted. the rest are thrown away. these would never become an actual embryo or fetus anyway, and their lifesaving potential is going in the trash.

if someone close to you had liver cancer and was at the end of a long waiting list for donors (which she'd need to be on immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of her life to accept), and this was an option to save her life...wouldn't you want it?

my biology professor gave the most impassioned argument i've seen for it yet. his son has a severe, undiagnosable form of retardation. this could change his kid's life - he was almost in tears - so he's all for it. it just makes sense.

Yeah, I said before I don't really know much about it. I haven't based any of my voting after stances on that issue yet. From what you said I don't have any problem with it.

[cosmo105]

glad to shed some light on the subject.

[ms.peachy]

Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.

There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)

A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed.

After enduring two days of talks in which the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.

That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.

With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

“Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”

By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.

Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

[ms.peachy]

With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?

“There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.”

“People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.”

Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.

“The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”

That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

“With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.”

Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”

In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.”

It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.

“What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ”

“Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.”

He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.

But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.

He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.

Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.

“She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”

Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won't miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”

[Pres Zount]

“I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,”

haha. That's such an awesome sentence. 'We need to respect people's religion, unless that religion is wrong.' He's basicaly saying people are only right if they agree with him. Dr Krauss is not as moderate as he might think he is.

Dr. Dawkins is the best one.

[HAL 9000]

“I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,”

haha. That's such an awesome sentence. 'We need to respect people's religion, unless that religion is wrong.' He's basicaly saying people are only right if they agree with him. Dr Krauss is not as moderate as he might think he is.

Dr. Dawkins is the best one.

I think this lies at the heart of the issue,

Should we respect opinions that are wrong? I guess the key is whether or not those opinions impact other people and in the case of religion, they do.

I thought the article was a good summary of the issues talked about here, in fact my initial post raised many of the same questions really. Thanks for posting that Ms P.

Interesting survey in the UK (http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/899) saying that 42% of Britains think 'Faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate".

I suspect and hope that, in reality, a lot of people think this and that Dawkins very visible stand will make it more acceptable to hold anti-faith views. But I agree that there is a risk (as mentioned in the article) that Dawkins confrontational approach could potentially harm his cause.

[sam i am]

HAL :

What's your take on your system of "thought" only being another form of faith or belief?

As you admited above, the creation of life from randomness is one of the most difficult arguments for scientists to prove....especially as they have NOT proved it. Despite numerous tests in ideal conditions, meeting all rigorous scientific levels of observation, hypothesis, testing, etc., with all of the known chemical elements of life in all of the "proper" mixtures with all of the ideal conditions "proven" to show the advent of life, not once has the "spark" emerged that shows spontaneous or planned for "life" signs.

Seems that (thus far, I'll grant) the creation of life is not provable by science.

[HAL 9000]

HAL :

What's your take on your system of "thought" only being another form of faith or belief?

The first point is very difficult, and I will answer as best I can. We have three terms here which need defining and over the last few weeks (I have been pursuing this topic on a number of websites) I have found that theists and atheists tend to define each quite differently such that I am now pretty confused. Nonetheless I will give my understanding.

First of all belief: I think belief as being the status assigned to a hypothesis about some aspect of reality that is accepted on the grounds of the believers high confidence (using the statistical meaning of the term) in its being true. So for example I believe there is a computer monitor in front of me because based on my experience in life so far, it seems to be more than 99% certain that this is the case. The monitor might not be real but this is a vanishingly small prospect.

Belief does not require such high confidence levels, for eg, I believe that humanity is influencing global warming, but in this case my certainty level is much less (70% ish). Once this falls below 50%, I tend to start saying I don’t believe it, and as this tends to 0% this disbelief becomes stronger.

Of course, the probabilities are assigned on an approximation basis – I lack the time or skills to calculate all my beliefs. I believe that all humans work this way even though it may be unconscious (although I try hard to make it a conscious process.)

I try to relate new evidence to this probability and thus am hopefully able to incorporate new ideas and adjust my worldviews accordingly. Again I think everyone does this but without really thinking about it.

I think of faith as a kind of fudge factor (this is probably a British expression that has unfortunate connotations). Ie it’s the adding of a certain level of probability to a hypotheses likelihood which is not justified by the evidence. So if I see evidence that suggests to me a 30% chance of God existing, my faith pushes this up to 80%. This is a very simplified explanation but I think you will get the idea.

My recent experience suggests that as a theist you will define faith differently. In fact you will probably give a definition that is much the same as mine for belief, in which case faith = belief (but in a religious context).

I presume when you talk about my system of thought and whether it requires faith or belief, you are suggesting that there is no way to prove that we are actually seeing what we appear to be seeing or that the laws of logic and mathematics are actually real or in anyway a valid way of assessing reality.

I believe I talked about this earlier (and forgive me if this is not what you meant) but the gist of my feeling on this is that if this belief is incorrect (after all belief does not impact truth) then as I have nothing else to go on, it does not really matter.

I don’t see how I can do anything but respond to the reality that is presented to me. I certainly understand the idea that my thought system requires faith – but if it is wrong then I have nothing, I don’t even know if I exist in any real sense. (Man I wish I was stoned now).

If this is not what you meant and I have gone off on a tangent, let me know and I will try again and sorry about the two minutes of your life I have just cost you.

[HAL 9000]

HAL :



As you admited above, the creation of life from randomness is one of the most difficult arguments for scientists to prove....especially as they have NOT proved it. Despite numerous tests in ideal conditions, meeting all rigorous scientific levels of observation, hypothesis, testing, etc., with all of the known chemical elements of life in all of the "proper" mixtures with all of the ideal conditions "proven" to show the advent of life, not once has the "spark" emerged that shows spontaneous or planned for "life" signs.

Seems that (thus far, I'll grant) the creation of life is not provable by science.



You are absolutely correct, the abiogenisis event is not proven by science at all. Again we have to assign a probability to different scenarios reflecting that the origin of life may be far more bizarre than we can suppose (because of panspermia it may not have even happened on earth.),

What we do have is a theory of evolution, which is a theory but is as close to fact as science will allow anything to get. Under my probability systme I rate this more likely than ‘big bang’ and the idea of HIV causing AIDS (both of which I regard as extremely likely).

We also know that although we can not (yet) replicate life in a lab what we can do is observe that when we do replicate the ‘primordial soup’ in labs it has been observed that carbon spontaneaously forms into basic organic compunds. This is not life by a long shot but when you consider lab experiments run in such small volume for such short time and then think about the billions of years and galaxies, it does not seem such a stetch to imagine that something self replicating could form. This is however far from satisfactory, I just wish to address the idea that abiogenesis is ‘impossible’ (which you did not say to be fair).

The other point is that, just because we can not explain abiogenesis there is absolutely no reason to suppose that God did it. When God was invented he was there to explain all in the world that could not be understood, the movements in the heavans, the weather, disease, disaster etc. As each of these has now been explained, God has been forced to retreat further and further. Now he can only really survive in big bang and abiogenesis. I would put it to you that it is only a matter of time before God is rooted out of these places too.

Failure to prove theory A does not prove theory B especially when Theory B is such a complicated thing as the existance of God – who made God? and if the answer is noone, then why cant that be the answer for the Universe or life. The ultimate of question of first cause is not solved by God, its just put off.

The reason for athiesim is not that God can be disproved because he cant. I cannot and do not eliminate the possibility of God I just see it as incredibly tiny.

Indeed I have some simpathy with the deist position that the universe could have some intelligence in its creation, I just don’t know and lack information to even postulate the probabilities (I suspect not but this is more faith than anything). But what I reject (dis-believe) is a personal God, who cares about what we do, punishes, rewards, smites and answers prayers

[HAL 9000]

Sorry about the spelling and grammar in the above. I was typing way to fast and not proof reading (due to being in a hurry). Unfortunately, its too late to edit now. :mad:

[sam i am]

Indeed I have some simpathy with the deist position that the universe could have some intelligence in its creation, I just don’t know and lack information to even postulate the probabilities (I suspect not but this is more faith than anything). But what I reject (dis-believe) is a personal God, who cares about what we do, punishes, rewards, smites and answers prayers

As for this part of the discussion (and, first and foremost, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful, nuanced, textured posts above), the belief in a personal God does not necessitate the belief that said God "cares about what we do, punishes, rewards, smites, and answers prayers."

My personal belief does not see God as an ATM machine where I can go to make deposits and withdrawals. I don't believe (nor does Christianity espouse) that you are "saved" by works or deeds, other than the deed of repositorying your faith in Christ as the one true savior.

As for punishment, there is none that one does not choose : i.e., one can choose eternity without God or with God. Rewards are in Heaven, not here on Earth.

Answered prayers CAN be part of faith, but is not a prerequisite.

[Pres Zount]

Religion and gods should only be tolerated up to the time when it is possible to wipe them of the face of the planet completley.

Do not attack your enemy until you are ready to destroy him. I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu said that one.

[Auton]

My personal belief does not see God as an ATM machine where I can go to make deposits and withdrawals. I don't believe (nor does Christianity espouse) that you are "saved" by works or deeds, other than the deed of repositorying your faith in Christ as the one true savior.

so what you're saying is that if you're jewish or muslim, and you do good works, you're still not going to be "saved" because you haven't accepted jesus as the one true savior? that doesn't make sense. what if you live in a country where you never even hear about jesus? you believe they're kicked out of "heaven" by default?

[Waus]

so what you're saying is that if you're jewish or muslim, and you do good works, you're still not going to be "saved" because you haven't accepted as the one true savior? that doesn't make sense. what if you live in a country where you never even hear about jesus? you believe they're kicked out of "heaven" by default?


I think what sam is saying is that no one is "saved" by what they do, regardless of what religion they are. It's more of a condition of imperfection that we can't get around despite our actions.

I can't speak for sam about this, but I believe that God makes himself evident to people in their lives and allows them the decision to follow him, whether or not it's our culture's "christianity" or not. Whether or not another faith is the same as christianity, in my opinion, has to be judged (not that we can ultimately know) based on their characteristics of God and our own human condition.

The idea isn't that they're "kicked out of heaven" - it's that we, by both our own imperfections and sinful decisions that we make decide for ourselves that we don't want to be with God (e.g. heaven). It's about what you live for, and if you're living to try to do enough good deeds to be with God, then you aren't living in grace.

[Auton]

so trying really hard to be in God's good graces makes it so you're not in his good graces?

[Waus]

so trying really hard to be in God's good graces makes it so you're not in his good graces?

I guess you could put it that way.

It really goes against how we perceive everything else, but grace really is an undeserved thing.

If you're trying to do this and that and be good - you're missing the point. I'm not saying it's not good to do good deeds and so forth, but we can't be perfect.

[Auton]

hmmm. so if you try to be a good person for God, it doesn't count? a logical conclusion to that line of thinking would be that repentence is not only useless- it actually makes you worse of a person.

[Waus]

hmmm. so if you try to be a good person for God, it doesn't count? a logical conclusion to that line of thinking would be that repentence is not only useless- it actually makes you worse of a person.

I'm not sure exactly what logic you're using to come to that conclusion.

Basically I'm saying that my understanding of how it works is that we're saved by grace, and not by what we do. By that reasoning, anyone can be reconciled to God, regardless of what they've actually done in their lives.

I think one of the apostles addressed that "useless - it actually makes you worse of a person" concept with this (and I guess you can just disregard this if you think the Bible is useless too).

'What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?'

Or maybe you mean it's just pointless for us to repent of our sins? In my opinion, when you accept that grace from God you accept it for all your sins past, present, and future. Some might disagree with that - but if you look at it that way then if there are things you don't confess before you die then you are condemned for them. I can't agree with that concept, so I'm left agreeing with you in a way, in that I think repeated repentance is unnecessary for eternal salvation, but important for self realization.

[Auton]

Oh, I wasn't saying that's what I believe, I just was wondering if that was what you meant. I think repenting for the future, if one even believes in a God or repentence in general, is ridiculous. "well, I'm sorry for robbing a bank tomorrow, good thing God already forgave me for it, otherwise that would be bad." i think repenting for things you haven't even done yet is completely useless, and eliminates the point altogether, but that's just me.

[Waus]

Oh, I wasn't saying that's what I believe, I just was wondering if that was what you meant. I think repenting for the future, if one even believes in a God or repentence in general, is ridiculous. "well, I'm sorry for robbing a bank tomorrow, good thing God already forgave me for it, otherwise that would be bad." i think repenting for things you haven't even done yet is completely useless, and eliminates the point altogether, but that's just me.

Ah no - I totally get you on that. I mean, the verse I threw in there kind of addresses that I think. Also, I mean - is it really repentance if you're going to deliberately disobey? I kind of see that as not really being sincere repentance in the first place.

I guess my view on it is just that we weren't meant to live walking on eggshells you know? Worrying that we have to repent every time we make a little mistake. Confidence in salvation gives people a certain freedom to live the full lives I think God intended.

[Auton]

I agree. Besides, how are we ever going to learn anything without making mistakes?

[sam i am]

Religion and gods should only be tolerated up to the time when it is possible to wipe them of the face of the planet completley.

Do not attack your enemy until you are ready to destroy him. I'm pretty sure Sun Tzu said that one.

Are you sure you're ready to be destroyed?:rolleyes:

[sam i am]

so what you're saying is that if you're jewish or muslim, and you do good works, you're still not going to be "saved" because you haven't accepted jesus as the one true savior? that doesn't make sense. what if you live in a country where you never even hear about jesus? you believe they're kicked out of "heaven" by default?

I believe that God judges based on what one has the ability to learn in life. If not, Revelations talks about the Final Judgement, when Jesus has been fully revealed and all will have one final opportunity to choose eternity with Him or away from Him.

This one did trip me up for many years as well. I thought, "well, what about newborns who die of SIDS, or those who live in remote areas without access to the Bible." Like I said above, I'm quite convinced that God judges based on what we know and when we know it....not necessarily some formal outward showing.

As for Jews and Muslims....do you really think that they have not been afforded the opportunity to learn about Jesus? Both religions acknowledge Him as, at least, a great prophet (Mohammed specifically mentions Him numerous times throughout the Koran). If one is uninclined to learn more, then one is responsible for one's actions.