On faith and religeon

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I rarely ever look into threads which discuss faith/religeon/spirituality. The arguments between those of different beliefs typically are on a level which just doesn't interest me. Recently however, there was a thread I looked at (on Poole,s Roost?)in which Flint and Stephen Poole were discussing science vs religeon/faith. It was quite interesting as they each brought out arguments which I had never heard before.

I mention that because last night I stumbled across a number of quotes made by a well known Anthropoligist named Richard Dawkins. Some of the quotes reflected the exact same things that I wondered about as a kid being raised in a Catholic school. When I'd question these things I was never able to get a satisfactory answer. I'm posting a few of these quotes below out of curiousity as to how anyone who considers themself a religeous/spiritual/person of faith would respond to them. Also, as in the Flint-Poole discussion, it would be interesting to possibly hear any arguments I'd never heard before.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 07, 2001

Answers

Quotes by Anthropologist Richard Dawkins...

"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had. No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place."

"Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to. Not the sect that has the best evidence in its favour, the best miracles, the best moral code, the best cathedral, the best stained glass, the best music: when it comes to choosing from the smorgasbord of available religions, their potential virtues seem to count for nothing, compared to the matter of heredity. This is an unmistakable fact; nobody could seriously deny it. Yet people with full knowledge of the arbitrary nature of this heredity, somehow manage to go on believing in their religion, often with such fanaticism that they are prepared to murder people who follow a different one."

"With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns."

"Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain."

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 07, 2001.


I think a big factor in the experience of faith is the feeling of heritage, of being part of a long line of believers and having a connectio to the past and the future.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 07, 2001.

Religion misspelled

-10

-- God (clouds@heaven.com), May 07, 2001.


On this forum there is a small but vocal group biased against faith. Dawkin's would fit right in. In Flint's case, he sees faith as the result of unfortunate early childhood imprinting. Others see it as a collapse of reason or logic. Ironically, these same individuals have no problem with nonrational human impulses like "love" or "hope" or "fear." Just as humans are both cognitive and emotive beings, so can we also be spiritual. Having passionate emotions does not exclude one from the world of rational thought, nor does have a spiritual life.

Religion is enmeshed with culture. You'll find more Baptists than Taoists in the Bible belt. What Dawkins avoids is how all cultures seem to have spiritual aspects. What I find interesting is the universality of religious experience. The cynics like Flint quickly point to misguided claims of exclusivity posited by some religions. This is the "Our God(s) can beat up your God(s)" school of theology.

What if God is more like the seven blind men and the elephant? Each man has a different experience, not technically inaccurate, but quite incomplete. The incomplete opinions of the men do not invalidate the elephant. Sadly, most religious look inward rather than looking for insights into God only other cultures may possess.

In India, I would have held an ear. In China, I would have held the tail. In Japan, the trunk and Europe, a leg.

Moving deeper into Dawkins, my parents said, on occasion, that I would be beaten within "an inch of my life." Personally, I belive this hollow threat was far less damaging than sexual molestation. For Dawkins to make this comparison suggests he has little experience with victims of childhood sexual abuse. As a parent, I'm sure he never subjected his children to the horrific torture of telling them, "You'll put an eye out with that thing."

Science is a powerful tool, but it tells us that we do not completely understand the complexity of life. God is not a tool, a method or a hypothesis. Unlike Dawkins, some of us depend on more than direct observation, or at least we realize the limitations of observation.

-- The shadow (knows@gain.com), May 07, 2001.


Tarzan- That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Godclouds@heaven- I said I went to Catholic school but I didn't say they taught me how to spell. If you want to take 10 points away from anyone, I suggest you look to the nuns at St Joseph's Elementary.

Shadow- Thanks for your well thought out comments. Just a brief remark about your commentary on Dawkins' sex abuse vs hell quote. As a person who has no idea how deep the emotional scars would run in someone who was sexually abused as a kid, I'm really in no position to compare this. I can say, however, that as an impressionable little kid who did not yet know the ways of the world, being told by adults I trusted that there was a real possibility I could end up burning in "the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell" was quite traumatic. I could at least understand what was happening if I were someday "beaten to within an inch of my life" and I could envision having an "eye put out with that thing", but the thought of burning forever and ever simply because I told a lie was terrifying. (Maybe you had to go to Catholic school to fully appreciate that.) I have to wonder how many psychological scars are indeed unknowingly embedded in people's minds because of this threat of hell which they were told about when they were children.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 07, 2001.



That's not the real Shadow. The real Shadow would have droned endlessly on and on about how Tarzan's a rotten person

-- (anonymous@coward.troll), May 07, 2001.

The Shadow is cpr. He was too busy playing with his daughter today to think about you, Tarzan.

[His wife divorced him for being such a mean arrogant son of a bitch, ya know.]

-- (t@ttle.tale), May 07, 2001.


CD:

Dawkins is quite famous. He has whole websites devoted to him (that aren't his website!)

As far as I can tell from what you've quoted, Dawkins' key insight is that no supernatural being is necessary to explain or accomplish anything whatsoever. This doesn't mean no such being exists, because a negative cannot be proved. Anyone is free to engage in whatever superstitions they can dream up and that's fine. The problem is when such a superstition is used *instead* of the actual explanation, either as a substitute for investigation, or as a means of denying what has been learned independently. Then "spirituality" is simply a handicap, hard to overcome. Otherwise, spirituality is not relevant, at best a way not to be too bored.

I must say, Dawkins put his finger on what I called "imprinting" very well. Those childhood indoctrinations are so damn hard to overcome. My own parents found formal religion irrelevant, and paid no attention to it. Is it any surprise that I feel the same? After all, I was also an infant at one time.

Personally, I conceive on consciousness as a byproduct of of a chemical process ongoing in the brain. It's not a "thing", it's an epiphenomenon. I regard religion as a bug in that process, whether through laziness, early training, or confusion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 2001.


CD,

You won't go to hell for telling a lie. No purgatory is the ticket for you. Now there is a concept for you.

From an old altar boy.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 07, 2001.


I regard religion as a bug in that process, whether through laziness, early training, or confusion.

Dawkins would appear to share your sentiment, Flint...

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

No purgatory is the ticket for you.

Ah yes, JBT, purgatory. I'd almost forgotten about that. What a concept. Kinda like being invited onto the cruise ship and then being told you can't leave the boiler room until you've shoveled enough coal for a few trips around the world.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 07, 2001.



Ah yes purgatory, no wonder confession went over so well. If you don't go to hell then you will get an undetetermined spell in Purgatory to reflect on your misdeeds. Gee Whiz, that doesn't sound like fun.

And don't forget venal versus mortal sin and Limbo for all the unbaptized babies who died. What a system! I felt guilty all the time, even on the rare occasions when I had not been committing a venal sin or contemplating the best plan to commit a mortal sin.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 08, 2001.


LOL,JBT. You're really bringing back some lost long memories for me. Confession, Limbo, venial sins, Purgatory, mortal sins, etc.

Ya know... Anyone who wasn't raised Catholic and reads this stuff is going to wonder what in the hell we are talking about!

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.


Well we could carry on in Latin but most of it has left my memory. The Monsignor would not be happy!

Oh well. Pax Vobascum, or something like that.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 08, 2001.


JBT, not to be a smart-aleck, but I think you meant "venial" sin.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), May 08, 2001.

Catholic imprint going on here too.

To this day when I see the word 'confession' a chain reaction of words go off in my head -

Bless me Father for I have sinned, it has been one week since my last confession ... I have talked back to my mother and father, I fought with my sister and brother, I ...

An interesting article appeared in Newsweek this week. Religion And The Brain talks about the new field of neurotheology, where scientists seek the biological basis of spirituality.

CD, any chance you have a link to the discussion between Flint and Stephen?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 08, 2001.



Yes Paracelsus, both you and CD are correct in pointing out my error. Hey, I thought I was lucky to remember that there was a difference between a little sin and a big sin.

Oh well, another ten years in Purgatory on slow roast for me! Damnation, errr I mean uh, uh, shoot. I'd better start now

"Hail Mary full of grace, the lord is with thee............"

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 08, 2001.


I had forgotten about the penance Jack. That will be 3 Our Fathers and 4 Hail Mary's for you!

Did you ever cheat and do less than you were supposed to?

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 08, 2001.


"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

I'm not surprised you included that quote, CD, because I remember something else you said recently.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00576M

I am convinced that if a person were truly honest with themself and dug deep enough they would find that they "get something" out of every action they take. I am convinced that, regardless of how it "looks", all of our actions are taken for purely "selfish" reasons. If the choices we make and the actions we take were not ultimately in our own self-interests, we as biological organisms would not choose to do them.

Sure, many people on many occasions do act selfishly. Some call that sin, and some call it worldliness. You see it, CD, as an innate part of ourselves as members of the animal kingdom -- a part of us that cannot be denied.

Though it isn't all that common, it is possible to deal with other human beings out of more than just self-interest. It's called love. Some 'love' out there is at its core selfish, but there is a higher love.

There's good and evil, patience and grudges, loving one's neighbor vs. selfish motives, objectivity rather than subjectivity. It's important not to "have an axe to grind" when making decisions, because it often leads to unseen consequences -- the result of seeing a situation as one wants to see it rather than seeing the situation for what it really and then acting on that.

Many people would rather live in the darkness of their own subjectivity rather than be lead by the light of objectivity. Animals are meant to live by instinctive self-interest, but people can do more than selfishly react to circumstances: they can act according to what they can objectively see is true in the moment.

Faith for me isn't believing in something that cannot be proven. My faith is knowing that the principle of Love works, sort of like the way the priciples of addition and multiplication work. 3 x 3 = 9, not just because I've memorized the result of 3 x 3, but because of the principle of multiplication.

The best example of the principle of love is Jesus Christ.

-- (+@x.^), May 08, 2001.


We know what we want, but how can we know what we need?

-- (Food@for.thought), May 08, 2001.

Yes Debra I did cheat but felt guilty enough about it that I had to confess the cheating the next week.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), May 08, 2001.

Nope I never cheated. I figured that I would have a long enough list of sins committed by the next confession time so I didn't want to get a head start.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 08, 2001.

I was kindof raised like Flint, except I was sent to Sunday School when I was REALLY young. It was fun learning the little songs like "Jesus loves the little children...all the children of the world...red or yellow, black or white, all are precious in his sight...Jesus loves the little children of the world." My Sunday School teacher found me too frustrating to teach when I just couldn't "get" the concept that "God always was."

My folks didn't consciously practice any faith, although my mom WOULD use the line, "Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long..." when we didn't want to do what she said. I DID attend many different places of worship with my friends. They were all different to me. Roman Catholic services [and even churches] were fascinating to me. There were candles that people could light themselves, while kneeling down and saying a little prayer for a loved one. I, particularly, liked the part where folks made the sign of the cross using forehead, chest, and each shoulder. The guy at the front said things like, "Dominoes are fun to play", and everybody in the church responded with something and knew what to say. It struck me much like the script in a familiar play. The first person said something and the next person knew which line to use in response.

My Greek Orthodox experience didn't vary much in the candles, the unfamiliar language, and the responses. I DO remember my friend slapping me when I crossed my legs, however. My legs are too long to sit an hour without crossing them, but my friend said something about the Holy Spirit only being able to enter my body if my legs were NOT crossed. [I don't even want to THINK about that one.]

The Protestant churches I attended didn't do the Hell and Brimstone sermons. The minister told folks what page in the hymnal to use, and everyone tried to sing songs they didn't know to the accompaniment of an organist who didn't know the songs either. Sometimes choirs sang songs and the people could just listen. There were "announcements" of what was happening in the church and then a sermon where most folks fell asleep. After the sermon, folks woke up and started whispering amongst themselves, saying disparaging things about the other folks at the service....little things like "Look at that awful hairdo, or did you notice that so-and-so's shoes and purse didn't match?"

I liked the faiths with the most active youth groups. They offered fun things for young teens too young yet to date like roller-skating parties and hay-rides. Once I started dating, I thought the Roman Catholics were the best kissers. A friend once told me that was because it was considered a sin to even THINK about going for the other stuff. The Protestant boys seemed more interested in [I think it was] the book of Ruth. Some boys looked at the National Geographic and some boys read the book of Ruth. I didn't read the entire bible until my college years, but there WAS one book that was quite descriptive sexually-speaking.

Once I got into exploring the various faiths in my College years, I found that there weren't too many variations on a theme in what the main symbolic character in them all represented. They all seemed to advocate beind kind to others, doing the best job one could, etc. These seemed reasonable philosophies to encourage societal order to me.

I thought the idea of confession a good one, in that folks wouldn't have things build up inside of them forever just to feel like it was futile to ever get a handle on it all. It struck me as a "deal with it as you go along" method. I didn't agree much with the "thought police" aspect of it. It seems to me to be hard enough to control what we say and do without trying to put a filter on what we think. Did anyone ever find out whether patent leather shoes really DO reflect up?



-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.


+@x.^ - Thanks for your thoughts.

Debra-

LOL. I had that very same confession-induced chain reaction of words. Ya know, as a little kid who had to go to confession every single week it got pretty hard to come up with sins to confess. Never the less, you had to go into that booth and rattle off a list. I think I would often confess that I had lied even though I hadn't. Come to think of it, saying you had lied when you actually hadn't, is in itself a lie. Guess I told the truth after all. And, no, I never cheated on penance. (Gasp! Can't ya burn in hell or purgatory or something for doing such a thing?) It was kinda interesting watching how long a person prayed after coming out of the confessional. The worse the sin, the more prayers you had to say as penance. When somebody was praying a long time, you always wondered about what bad thing they must have done. It was especially fun speculating when it was a friend or aquaintence. Wow, can you imagine being a priest having to sit through listening to that stuff day after day? Betcha they've got some interesting stories.

Sorry. I just did a search for the Flint-Poole discussion so I could link it for you as requested. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. Thanks for the Newsweek article "Religion and the Brain". Very interesting.

Anita-

"Dominoes are fun to play" Hilarious! Yes, if memory serves, I believe that is exactly what they said. And yes, a scripted play is a very good description.

"I thought the Roman Catholics were the best kissers." Sheesh. You say that as if it wasn't common knowledge. (Of course, they can't hold an alter candle compared to ex-Catholics in that department.)

I didn't agree much with the "thought police" aspect of it. It seems to me to be hard enough to control what we say and do without trying to put a filter on what we think. Amen to that! "Impure" thoughts can result in lots and lots of penance prayers. Bizarre huh.

And yes, patent leather shoes really DO reflect up. LOL

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 08, 2001.


Debra:

Here is the link to the thread I think CD is talking about:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004qeu

The discussion starts about 1/3 of the way down this (very long) thread, and continues with excellent signal/noise ratio until nearly the end. But be warned, Stephen and I use a lot of words, and the topic is profound enough so skimming it is the same as skipping it altogether.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 08, 2001.


We've lost several people in the past year. We lost another one this week. I had a thousand miles of driving to wonder about what the life force is and where it goes. I wondered how many of my loved ones would pass to the other side (?) before I would want to join them.

This week I wished for the ability to believe in the tenets of religion for the sake of comfort over losing someone possibly forever. I might have made it if some folks hadn't started speculating on the salvation status of other mourners. They pissed me off and I started yelling that God might be found in a canyon under a full moon more easily than in a baptismal font in a stuffy building. Talk about a show stopper. Badly worded, yes, grounds for a commitment hearing, no. I think they would have preferred I had simply appeared naked in public.

Then I really got mad and said that I had a right as God's creation to hold God responsible for not being more straightforward about the rules and regulations. Then I got in trouble for crying and upsetting the other mourners. Then I got in trouble for going to a place so I could cry alone and not upset anyone. Then I threatened to throw ashes on my head, rend my garments, and howl my grief. Then they left me alone.

I don't know any more about God and life now than I did last week, but grief makes me wish I did.

-- helen (one@two.three), May 09, 2001.


"On this forum there is a small but vocal group biased against faith."

There is also a small but vocal group biased in favor of it. There are also individuals who impute all sorts of strangeness to religion, such as claiming that the Constitution is a religious document. What piffle.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), May 09, 2001.


Jeez, Helen. I'm SO sorry for your loss. I've followed your losses for a while now and can fully understand your grief.

I, personally, don't believe that there's a place wherein all will meet again. It's just too confusing a concept for me to grasp. For instance, what happens when a couple is married for half a life-time when one dies and the second lives a lonely life for many years and then falls in love with another? We're ALL going to die SOMETIME, so how would all this be sorted out?

Eastern philosophies encourage a belief in reincarnation...with the soul of the person who dies entering the womb of an impregnated woman. This makes more sense to me and during periods of grief I appreciate the thought. There are still huge holes in the logic, however, like how'd we get up to 6-8 billion people if there weren't enough deaths previously to accommodate this?

Grasp onto whatever makes you feel better during your period of grief, Helen. I wouldn't suggest you try and question life too much.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 09, 2001.


Flint,

Thank you for the link. No skimming, I promise. I will take my time and read every word sometime this week-end.

:)

helen,

I'm sorry for your losses. I never became angry with God. Once the questions started, the God I had been taught about simply went away. There was no one left to be angry with.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), May 11, 2001.


Yesterday, I watched a movie, entitled, Keeping the Faith. It kept my interest and entertained me. I hadn't even realized that the Priest, Brian, was Edward Norton [who we'd discussed a few months back for his role in another movie about skinheads.] I didn't know that he was the director, either.

I saw the movie as one about two younger guys [30-ish] trying to modernize their religions. One was a priest and one was a rabbi. They'd been friends since childhood. I thought it touched on a lot of issues that may need addressing, like fear of what others may think of us if we attempt "methods" that some may consider too untraditional.

Here's Rotten Tomato's view of the movie.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 13, 2001.


Anita and Debra, thank you for caring. I need to quit with the doom stuff. :)

-- helen (ok@ok.now), May 13, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ