Faith
Disclaimer:
When I made this post, I left something out - the reason I posted it. This is a post that outlines exactly how a person can realize that what they were taught to believe was erroneous. It is also a comment on the state of the world, where religion and politics do not collide, but where they have allied. Observing that men in power have found the most brilliant and pervasive means to control the masses through their powerful superstitions (both sides) seems logical to me. I do understand that there is more than one reason for millions supporting someone who, in my estimation, has contempt for those he and his party lead, but I see religion as the root cause. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. We do not have to engage in word wars. Simply move on. My world is free, at least for the time being. However, if you wish to speak on the topic of coercion through dogma and fear-mongering, I'm ready to respond.
You know, when I first realized that Christians lied, I was upset. I had been fiercely fed the Catholic way of seeing and thinking from before I was born, by being born into the legacy of Catholicism. As a teenager, I focused my opposition on one parentshe was the vigorous enforcer of the faith in our household.
Within this framework, the religious folks I knew extolled their version, delivered in their homes of worship, and put on a friendly face while secretly believing that theirs was the one true religion. I remember a very influential person in my life being smug when she told me that the Baptist religionand all Protestant religions were derived from Roman Catholicism.
She had no clue that what she was talking about was the razor-sharp divide between her kind and the men and women who didnt believe as she believed. What I began to observe, in more subtle tones than the conflicts in Northern Ireland contrasted, was that it was us against them. Id often hear: When youre grounded in what you believe, other peoples preaching about their version of a Christian god wont sway you.
This mindset allowed her to pretend to accept their version of god and to be friendly with other faiths, to the point of sometimes sitting in on a service meant to promote inclusivity of all Christian religions in our area. It was that version of superiority that got passed down to me. I guess we all must feel superior to someone, right?
That was the first lie.
To say it wasnt her faultthat she was doing the best she knew howdidnt change what could be reduced to fear mongering and coercion. She vigorously defended her faith and regularly made me the target of her righteousness. Step out of line, and youll be condemned, rejected, ridiculed, and sanctionedsteps the representative of her god regularly preached from the Catholic pulpit.
I got angry when I realized she, too, was just a pawn in a religious battle. Even though it had the semblance of civility, the true wrath of her god was visited upon me. That was a battle she truly believed she had to win. A modern-day Joan of Arc. I would be her best work, her triumph over sin.
Much to her dismay, it didnt work.
After a particularly tragic event that occurred in my life, an event that took her out of my life, some folks thought it prudent to invite me to go to their church. I understood that they thought it was an honorbut they didnt know me. Not at all. One woman, when I said, I do not belong to any organized faith, muttered to herself but within earshot: What happened to you that caused you to think like that?
She assumed something must have turned me off religiona source of comfort for her. It was also obvious that she thought that the tragic event skewed my thinking. That it made me angry at GOD and turn away from HIM.
She didnt have a clue who I was. Who I am.
At that point, I was approximately ten years into my move away from any form of religiosity. I had rejected all versions that told me what to do, how to live, and how to think. Kierkegaard said, When you label me, you negate me. He gave too much credit to outside forces, to you, as I see it.
The best version of me revised his famous admonition to take back my power: When I label me, I create me.
It took me decades to declare, Im not a Christian, and by that time, I was quite comfortable with stating my position on the sky-man-god. I tried to turn her offer down with class, but I dont think she bought it.
When I got really angry, something came before it: sadness. Disillusionment. Confusion. The discomfort of realizing Id played right into their gods hands in my desperate need for connection and love. Granted, it happened before I had an inkling of what a god or a religion wasand that makes it even more insidious.
The worst part? It never worked. I was always rejected, mirroring the vision she reflected of her god.
People who dont stand for something will fall for anything. Theres truth in that statement. Consider that children are people toopeople with highly neuroplastic brains, ripe for the picking. Children are forced to pick a side before they even know theres a battle raging, because it rages out of their sight, and they dont have the insight, the perspective, to realize it.
When we start considering catechism, Sunday School, homilies, sermons, and religious universities as training in spiritual warfare, we will begin to realize the true nature of corporate, organized, old-time religion.
I write this not because Im attempting to force-feed you my perspective. To do that, my parent would win, and thats not an option. My liberation is not up for discussion.
I write because writing is my form of protest. I see whats happening in our world today, how old-time religions archaic values are the force behind the scenes for an authoritarian regime, and how confused the good citizens of that nation are when they try to tease out the knots of how it crept up on them and usurped their version of reality.
It's deeply disturbing to see siblings against siblings, partners turn on one another, and good women and men fight for their right to worship a man they view as a demigod.
In real life, it compels me to ask the same question that woman mulled over within earshot that day, What happened to you that caused you to think like that?
What caused you to allow your faith to be turned into a commodity?
What made you condone violence and suffering if it doesnt come pounding on your door?
In the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated tradition of Carl Rogers Unconditional Positive Regard, we must be willing to hear their answers.
When I made this post, I left something out - the reason I posted it. This is a post that outlines exactly how a person can realize that what they were taught to believe was erroneous. It is also a comment on the state of the world, where religion and politics do not collide, but where they have allied. Observing that men in power have found the most brilliant and pervasive means to control the masses through their powerful superstitions (both sides) seems logical to me. I do understand that there is more than one reason for millions supporting someone who, in my estimation, has contempt for those he and his party lead, but I see religion as the root cause. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. We do not have to engage in word wars. Simply move on. My world is free, at least for the time being. However, if you wish to speak on the topic of coercion through dogma and fear-mongering, I'm ready to respond.
You know, when I first realized that Christians lied, I was upset. I had been fiercely fed the Catholic way of seeing and thinking from before I was born, by being born into the legacy of Catholicism. As a teenager, I focused my opposition on one parentshe was the vigorous enforcer of the faith in our household.
Within this framework, the religious folks I knew extolled their version, delivered in their homes of worship, and put on a friendly face while secretly believing that theirs was the one true religion. I remember a very influential person in my life being smug when she told me that the Baptist religionand all Protestant religions were derived from Roman Catholicism.
She had no clue that what she was talking about was the razor-sharp divide between her kind and the men and women who didnt believe as she believed. What I began to observe, in more subtle tones than the conflicts in Northern Ireland contrasted, was that it was us against them. Id often hear: When youre grounded in what you believe, other peoples preaching about their version of a Christian god wont sway you.
This mindset allowed her to pretend to accept their version of god and to be friendly with other faiths, to the point of sometimes sitting in on a service meant to promote inclusivity of all Christian religions in our area. It was that version of superiority that got passed down to me. I guess we all must feel superior to someone, right?
That was the first lie.
To say it wasnt her faultthat she was doing the best she knew howdidnt change what could be reduced to fear mongering and coercion. She vigorously defended her faith and regularly made me the target of her righteousness. Step out of line, and youll be condemned, rejected, ridiculed, and sanctionedsteps the representative of her god regularly preached from the Catholic pulpit.
I got angry when I realized she, too, was just a pawn in a religious battle. Even though it had the semblance of civility, the true wrath of her god was visited upon me. That was a battle she truly believed she had to win. A modern-day Joan of Arc. I would be her best work, her triumph over sin.
Much to her dismay, it didnt work.
After a particularly tragic event that occurred in my life, an event that took her out of my life, some folks thought it prudent to invite me to go to their church. I understood that they thought it was an honorbut they didnt know me. Not at all. One woman, when I said, I do not belong to any organized faith, muttered to herself but within earshot: What happened to you that caused you to think like that?
She assumed something must have turned me off religiona source of comfort for her. It was also obvious that she thought that the tragic event skewed my thinking. That it made me angry at GOD and turn away from HIM.
She didnt have a clue who I was. Who I am.
At that point, I was approximately ten years into my move away from any form of religiosity. I had rejected all versions that told me what to do, how to live, and how to think. Kierkegaard said, When you label me, you negate me. He gave too much credit to outside forces, to you, as I see it.
The best version of me revised his famous admonition to take back my power: When I label me, I create me.
It took me decades to declare, Im not a Christian, and by that time, I was quite comfortable with stating my position on the sky-man-god. I tried to turn her offer down with class, but I dont think she bought it.
When I got really angry, something came before it: sadness. Disillusionment. Confusion. The discomfort of realizing Id played right into their gods hands in my desperate need for connection and love. Granted, it happened before I had an inkling of what a god or a religion wasand that makes it even more insidious.
The worst part? It never worked. I was always rejected, mirroring the vision she reflected of her god.
People who dont stand for something will fall for anything. Theres truth in that statement. Consider that children are people toopeople with highly neuroplastic brains, ripe for the picking. Children are forced to pick a side before they even know theres a battle raging, because it rages out of their sight, and they dont have the insight, the perspective, to realize it.
When we start considering catechism, Sunday School, homilies, sermons, and religious universities as training in spiritual warfare, we will begin to realize the true nature of corporate, organized, old-time religion.
I write this not because Im attempting to force-feed you my perspective. To do that, my parent would win, and thats not an option. My liberation is not up for discussion.
I write because writing is my form of protest. I see whats happening in our world today, how old-time religions archaic values are the force behind the scenes for an authoritarian regime, and how confused the good citizens of that nation are when they try to tease out the knots of how it crept up on them and usurped their version of reality.
It's deeply disturbing to see siblings against siblings, partners turn on one another, and good women and men fight for their right to worship a man they view as a demigod.
In real life, it compels me to ask the same question that woman mulled over within earshot that day, What happened to you that caused you to think like that?
What caused you to allow your faith to be turned into a commodity?
What made you condone violence and suffering if it doesnt come pounding on your door?
In the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated tradition of Carl Rogers Unconditional Positive Regard, we must be willing to hear their answers.
Comments (82)
Welcome to the forum.
I am not a theist - I have no particular religious belief. I was raised a protestant until my early teens, when my mother died. Since my father was not religious, I fell away from the church. I married a Catholic and we raised our children in the church. I didn't go to church regularly, but I supported my wife in her and my children's involvement. There was never any serious religious conflict between us. When my children got older, they moved away from the church also. I think that bothers my wife, but I have never seen it cause any conflict between her and my kids. I respect my wife's beliefs and I can see the value it has for her.
Clearly, your experience has been much more painful than my family's. I know lots of people who have experiences that are more like mine than like yours. I'm sure you know lots of people who have experiences more like yours. I guess I would say that the religious believers I know don't lie about their beliefs. I'm sure some, perhaps many, are hypocritical, but I don't think any more so than many of us are hypocritical about our principles and ideologies. Many of us don't always live up to the standards we preach.
I'm sorry you've had such a hard time with this.
Let's put this idea and heartfelt feeling into generational context. Such was felt thousands, if not tens of thousands of years ago.
When good men claimed to make a "government" to repel the evils and ills of human existence: death, violence, robbery, rape, crime, etc.
Most were formed in good intent. But unfortunately., just like every Kingdom formed by the Rule and Power of a Just King. He, at least his body, is still mortal, and so will one day pass away, just like the lowliest thief. We attempt to have education, and more often than not it provides more or less the attempt is was envisioned to. But. There's always the possibility of a bad apple.
So, did "random kingdom xyz" that in fact prevented untold and unfathomable amounts of suffering and led to countless arrests and executions of those unfit to live moral life... such a great legacy, "lie" because it succumbed to the fate all human institutions inevitably succumb to. Corruption? I think not. But it's a fair assessment. And why things are, just a bit different now, shall we say.
Can you demonstrate that? I doubt its accurate.
Im an atheist, but I dont blame religion for everything thats wrong or bad. Just look at Pol Pot, an atheist whose regime murdered millions of men, women, and children for a political agenda. Mao, another atheist, killed 3040 million for his political vision. Stalin? Same story. One might even argue that philosophy (if we include political ideologies) may have been been responsible for more deaths than any other pathway.
Sounds like you've had a tough time of things, but perhaps it's important not to assume that ones own experience is the whole reality of the world.
Consider that done.
Now describe the lie (the intentional misrepresentation) of the truth by the Church, not just how the people in your life disappointed you. That way we might be able to respond philosophically, as opposed to just offering you personal encouragement.
I didn't get that out of it. Philosophy is all about recognizing the forces that shaped you and trying to peep beyond them. If you don't encounter anything negative on that journey, you're probably in denial.
But is it really? If one is aware, truly, of what shapes not only one's self but the entire world, is it not something perhaps a bit more internal? :chin:
I can see why you would ask that, and it's a great question. It really highlights the stakes and what not.
It would seem to me that a key role of philosophy is to transcend ones limitations - cultural and self-created. To ask better questions and move beyond the quotidian. I suspect there are many ways this could be done.
I don't think "philosophy" has been to blame for mass murders, etc so much as dogmas have (i.e. unthinking, or rationalized, obedience to authority / tradition / popularity / superstition ...)
Religious Wars in Europe:
The Crusades (1095-1291): Estimates of deaths vary widely, but it is believed that hundreds of thousands of people were killed in these series of religious wars between Christians and Muslims.
The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): While not solely a religious war, it was deeply influenced by religious conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Estimates suggest that up to 8 million people died, both directly and indirectly, from warfare, disease, and famine.
The Wars of Religion in France (1562-1598): These conflicts between Catholics and Huguenots (French Protestants) resulted in an estimated 3-4 million deaths.
Religious Conflicts in the Middle East:
The Ottoman-Safavid Wars (1514-1736): A series of conflicts between the Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empire, driven by religious differences between Sunni and Shia Islam. Estimates of deaths are difficult to ascertain, but they were significant.
The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988): While not solely a religious war, it had strong sectarian overtones between Shia and Sunni Muslims. Estimates suggest that over 1 million people were killed.
Religious Conflicts in South Asia:
The Partition of India (1947): The division of British India into India and Pakistan, largely along religious lines, resulted in an estimated 200,000 to 2 million deaths.
The Mughal-Maratha Wars (1680-1707): A series of conflicts between the Mughal Empire and the Maratha Confederacy, driven by religious and political differences. Estimates of deaths are uncertain but significant.
Religious Conflicts in Africa:
The Rwandan Genocide (1994): While not solely a religious conflict, it had strong ethnic and religious overtones. An estimated 500,000 to 1 million people were killed.
The Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970): Also known as the Biafran War, it had religious and ethnic dimensions. Estimates suggest that 1-3 million people died.
Religious Conflicts in the Americas:
The Conquest of the Americas: The Spanish conquest of the Americas in the 16th century, driven by religious zeal, resulted in the deaths of millions of indigenous people due to warfare, disease, and forced labor.
The Thirty Years' War (1618-1648): While not solely a religious war, it was deeply influenced by religious conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Estimates suggest that up to 8 million people died, both directly and indirectly, from warfare, disease, and famine.
Religious Conflicts in Asia:
The Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864): A millenarian movement in China that resulted in an estimated 20-70 million deaths.
The Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901): A violent anti-foreign and anti-Christian uprising in China that resulted in an estimated 100,000 deaths.
These represent only a fraction of the religious conflicts throughout history. The total number of people killed in the name of a god is likely in the hundreds of millions, if not more.
I agree, there are a number of factors that are involved, but everyone believes that their version of god is on their side.
Doesn't the word "Therapy" work better in that sentence than "Philosophy."
What I got out of the post is that she suffers from religion trauma, a thing all too pervasive, and a thing that plenty of people can identify with.
Had her mother been open to her questions, unconditionally loving and embracing, and in all ways the perfect mother, is Christianity vindicated?
Christianity is a dying religion. Vindication, even if it were possible, wouldn't help.
Everyone believes their version of 'truth' is on their side.
The problem isn't so much religion as it is tribalism and dogma.
Quoting 180 Proof
I agree. A critical point abotu human behaviours and tribalisms.
Quoting Paula Tozer
Lists are easy here, thanks to ChatGPT, are some of the non-religious wars and no doubt people will debate the finer points:
20th & 21st Century
Wars & Armed Conflicts
World War I (19141918) Rooted in nationalism, imperial rivalries, alliances, and militarism.
World War II (19391945) Driven by fascism, militarism, expansionism, and racial ideologies (e.g., Nazi doctrine) rather than religion.
Korean War (19501953) Cold War proxy conflict over competing political systems (communism vs. capitalism).
Vietnam War (19551975) Anti-colonial struggle evolving into a Cold War ideological battle.
Falklands War (1982) Argentina vs. UK over territorial claims.
IranIraq War (19801988) Although both sides were Muslim, the main cause was territorial and political rivalry, not theological difference.
RussiaUkraine Conflict (2014present) Geopolitical, territorial, and national identity disputes.
EthiopiaEritrea Border War (19982000) Primarily about border demarcation.
State-led Atrocities & Mass Killings
Holodomor (19321933) Soviet-engineered famine in Ukraine under Stalin; political/economic repression.
Great Purge (19361938) Stalins political purges in the USSR.
The Holocaust Although Jews were targeted partly on religious identity, Nazi ideology was racial/ethno-nationalist, not religious.
Maos Great Leap Forward (19581962) Economic policies leading to famine and tens of millions of deaths.
Cultural Revolution (19661976) Political and ideological purging under Mao.
Khmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia (19751979) Pol Pots agrarian communist vision, ~1.7 million killed.
North Korean purges and gulags Political control and suppression of dissent.
Rwandan Genocide (1994) Ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi.
Bosnian War Massacres (19921995) Mainly ethnic nationalism, though with some cultural identity overlap.
Earlier History
Mongol Conquests (13th14th centuries) Expansionist empire building, not religious conversion campaigns.
Taiping Rebellion (18501864) This one had a pseudo-Christian ideology, so not fully non-religious but many other Chinese civil wars (e.g., An Lushan Rebellion, 8th century) were political/territorial.
Napoleonic Wars (18031815) French expansionism, nationalism, and power politics.
American Civil War (18611865) Primarily about slavery and state rights, not theology.
Franco-Prussian War (18701871) Territorial and political rivalry.
Key Points
Many of the deadliest conflicts in history World War II, Maos campaigns, Stalins purges, the Khmer Rouge were entirely non-religious in origin.
Even when ethnic groups with religious identities are involved, the core cause can be political, nationalist, or economic.
Political ideologies like fascism, communism, and nationalism have caused as many or more deaths than explicitly religious wars.
My point is simply that this is a philosophy forum, so what difference does it make philosophically whether your mom used religion to build a horribly dysfunctional childhood for you or whether she did hundreds of other terrible things?
In all cases, I'd extend my sympathies. How is that a philosophy issue?
Then you throw in that atheists can be good people too. I agree with you. Was that your point in the OP you wanted to debate?
Do you think that responsive to my post?
Sure, personal change is often forged in trauma, and maybe yours was, and possibly yours is a story of overcoming great adversity, and maybe I'm a dick for being combative despite what you've been through, and fill in the rest of the blanks that describe me and you.
I'm just looking for where the philosophical debate lies.
I do. I didn't see a "poor me" in the OP. I saw this:
Plus she was talking about a wound that gets passed down, having to do with the bloody conflict between Catholics and Protestants. If you walk away from the wound, you can end up feeling like the ancestral continuum has been broken. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Or so I've heard.
What do you take to be the meaning of that often proffered quote?
That Christianity didn't survive the Enlightenment, when it turned from living religion to fairy tales, the result being an identity crisis that's still unfolding.
Just thought it'd sound more ridiculous to say out loud
No, I guess not. I still thought it was a cool post, though, clueless as I am.
I get it.
Totally disagree with you and Nietzsche.
God is still just another thing in human society. For the vast vast majority of people, religion and church are just another activity (unless you are priest or active cult member). Maybe people give God and their religion highest honors and praises, but how much time and thought really goes into it for the vast majority of people trying to live?
God and religion are as much a boogeyman as any other. Blame has to fall on ones own heart first if we are to be free. Religion taught me that.
Blaming parents is typical. Eventually we grow up and realize our parents are as full of shit as anyone else.
And we are full of shit ourselves, often when we see ourselves as victims. When are you really free - when you realize blaming others creates a hollow, empty world.
Everything about me, is up to me and me alone. Not religion or anyone else. I am responsible for me.
Then we can decide for ourselves whether to listen to our parents or our priest or Chris Hitchens.
Religion is as much a force for hope, charity, and love as it is for deception and evil. Its full of people, so what else should you expect.
Quoting Paula Tozer
Thats not absolute. You can replace religion with anything depending on the weakness of the person. For some atheism warps the mind. For others pleasure seeking warps the mind, for others stoic self-denial warps the mind.
Weakness in people will always be the root of all the badness. Weakness warps the mind and blaming others for our weakness warps the mind.
Shouldnt you say government is evil? It has laws that allow it to arrest me and kill me and force me into war and make me kill others - it is absolutist in police tactics. The Catholic Church is a pussycat compared to a decent legislature and a couple of street cops. Why doesnt the threat of government oppression warp your mind? Like it warps minds in North Korea - and 50 other places?
Religion isnt the bogeyman. Its been around since before the dawn of recorded history for a reason. People are built to believe in a future, and with death getting in the way of the future for all of us, we will never let go of religion to protect the future we seek to build.
The future and our plans warp the mind.
Yep. Parents get sucked into this vortex. I did as well. I taught religious education until I was 39. For a long time afterwards, I felt like a hypocrite. 20+ years of identifying as simply human has changed me, because it taught me to stand by what I say. I struggled with the idea of opening this can o' worms, even on a philosophical forum, where people are supposed to be more open-minded, but did it anyway. It's my story, the point of which is that it is the story of many, the origin of many a secular, philosophical thinker. Quoting Fire Ologist Whether the future and our plans warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective.
Was this your way of backing down from Hanover's onslaught? How are you clueless? Everyone has the right to their origin story. It brought us here to this space.
Pervasively. All the cool kids are.
Welcome to the forum, Paula :smile: .
I am sorry to hear you have experienced what seems to be the worst aspects of organized religion. However, I would challenge you to aspire to learn the strongest and most plausible positions on all sides of the various topics-at-hand and reach your own informed decision. If you get too caught up in fending off the people with unsophisticated positions, on any topic (but in this case theology), then your position will be formulated parasitically on those positions which you wish to oppose and this makes your own position equally, but oppositely, malformed as your opponents.
With respect to theology, there are many sophisticated views on both sides of the theology debate which have no bearing on the ill-formed positions people on both sides can take in practical life.
As far as some of these people in this forum go, such as @frank, they will pump you will a false sense of accomplishment by feeding into straw mans and emotion-pumped critiques of ill-formulated religious views without having the integrity to contend honestly with those who provide the iron-manned versions.
To put all of this in a perspective:
'Faith' is no more than a wish and a hope that doesn't grant its object; thus all talk of its truth is not only moot but misleading to the point of intellectual dishonesty. Blah, blah, blah, on and on, anon.
I've been on both the negative and positive sides of a debate many times, and this one is no different in that regard. People must make a stand for what they know for sure, not quote rhetoric to support that which they have not experienced.
I have no interest in debating theology with anyone. And, thank you for the warning, but I will not be coerced into a false sense of accomplishment. As for questioning someone's integrity...I'm assuming that you have a history of debate with this person?
As for the people who have not only questioned my ability to tackle big subjects, but also suggested that the reason for my philosophical endeavors is a substitute for trauma therapy, that gave me a wry chuckle. I guess I'll gear up for word wars, brought to me by people who have no clue who I am or what I stand for. That's fair. I'm attempting to play on your field now. And I accept your challenge as I have been thinking about it a lot, especially in light of my personal theory of why an authoritarian regime is now in power in the United States. Do other people see what I'm seeing? That was my reason for sharing this post - our world has been corrupted by religion, conditioning us to be led by a poor substitute for a powerful being. And those of us who say, "This is not our issue, not our business," are complicit in its rollout. It's not enough to engage in heated debates on the internet while not only the symbolic Rome, but the whole damn world is burning.
Quoting Bob Ross. I agree with Bob's perspective.
Years ago, I left any form of religion behind me. I do not identify as an atheist because that would mean that I identify as something I'm not. How can you be anti something that doesn't exist? A good life is not lived through what you are not. The process of negation, in my view, is to lead me to what can stand the test of scrutiny. Subsequently, I cannot say I'm a non-believer, thus making something of nothing.
If I'm in error, then so be it.
Yes, 'God', as proposed to be some greater mind as the basis of all, cannot be, for it is a system of thinking, planning, designing, and implementing, which cannot be fundamental since its part would have to be more so,
Greater beings may become in the future, so the past and its lesser is not the direction to look, for there is only the simpler and simpler there, unto the lightness of being of the quantum fields.
Quantum fields Presence, through transient veins,
Running Quicksilver-like, fuels our gains
Taking all the temporary shapes as
They change and perish allbut It remains.
All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne must someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness,
Dispersing its greatness into blandness.
In between, the Basis sets a story
That gets lived by the transients within,
As life and all the stars, moons, and planets
In a book from the Babel Library.
Whats Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and eer remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself.
The Simplest cant be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it cant break; neer Nothing starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts.
Whats Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
Its ever, neer still, else naught could happen;
The quantum vacuum weaves the universes dress.
The elementaries of a type are
The same, being woven by the same weave,
Only at the stable rungs of quanta;
Theyre well anchored, but theyre secondary.
Are the fields spooky as non physical?
Since the elementaries are physical,
And because they are outright field quanta,
The quantum fields are purely physical.
Change, change, change constant change, as fast as it
Can happenthe speed of light being foremost
The speed of causalityoer 13 billion years now,
From the simple on up to the more complex.
The vacuum has to eer jitter and sing,
This Base Existent forced as something,
Due to the nonexistence of Nothing;
When it tries to be zero, it cannot.
At the indefinite quantum level,
Zero must be fuzzy, not definite;
So it cant be zero, but has to be
As that which is ever up to something.
Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. It isnt anti-theism in the sense you are referring: it is the thesis that theism is wrong.
Likewise, religion is the worshiping of a divine deity. There are religious atheists; and there are areligious theists. I just point this out to show you how your view is parasitic on people who have tried to convert you or keep you in mainstream Christianity. This is what I really meant by what you quoted of me: your view is narrowed parasitically on one extreme view within one worldview and I am just trying to broaden the landscape for you to think about for yourself.
Yes, although I love @frank to death :kiss: , they straw man Christianity all the time and refuse to engage with peoples responses that provide the iron manned versions.
Well, thats an ad hominem attack and I am sorry they do that to you. I have no doubt that you are capable of reaching substantive positions on things.
See, thats the thing though: these kinds of discussions dont need to be word wars. It doesnt need to be a formal debate where we try to convince the audience or where we be as uncharitable as possible to each others positions. Instead, this is a place for genuine, intellectual conversations geared towards knowing the truth.
Politically, I doubt we agree on anything; but thats the whole point: we can discuss and learn from each other. Emerson once wisely said: ~In some way every man is my superior, and in that I can learn from him.
Forgive me, I am not trying to put words in your mouth; but from my perspective it seems like you may have a really negative view of religion because of your horrible exposure to the really bad parts. For example, I think religion total net has done great things for humanity because it has shown us, however imperfectly, what is objectively good. Of course, this will lead us to presumably a disagreement in our ethical commitments; but, the way I see it, God ultimately has to be posited for there to be objective morality.
Perhaps what you say is true. However, as I don't know you, I would not say that with any certainty. I leave that to the theists. Of course, I can learn from you and from anyone who takes the time to comment here.
Quoting Bob Ross
Nope. It's all BS. I can be kind to my neighbors, be a good, contributing citizen, embrace diversity in both culture and gender, give of myself through volunteering and selfless acts, teach my children how to critically think as part of their education, and fore-give you my best intentions regardless of whether we ever meet in this lifetime, without fear of everlasting torment if I don't give my life to a sky/man/god who watches me while I'm sleeping and polices my thoughts, by the way...who's good book tells me, as a female decended from the original woman, I'm the cause of original sin. All Christian religions must agree on this point, and that is, fundamentally, where our paths diverge. I got tired of being a sinner, I didn't put Jesus on a cross...so I changed my mind. I do apologize for the rant.
Of course, many atheists today dont formulate it like that, even if its a traditional account. For me, an atheist is simply someone who doesnt believe there are gods. Its not a knowledge claim; its a belief claim. As an atheist I simply say I am unconvinced by any god claims, including the arguments I have encountered, from CS Lewis to Aquinas.
Quoting Paula Tozer
Christians dont all agree on this. Many are taught that the Bible is metaphorical rather than literally true, and that God is not a magic man in the sky. Theistic personalism is only one way of construing God. For many Christians, God is understood as the ground of being: mysterious, unknowable, and certainly not a person. Closer to mysticism. Your argument is really directed at a very particular account of Christianity and God.
Whether the religion and our God warp the mind is contingent upon your Theory of Everything, aka your perspective.
I don't care how the person spins it so it makes believing in "something" unknowable palatable, at its core is this fundamental belief.
A good human is a good human, right? I don't require superstition to be in awe of the everyday workings of nature, to be kind to people, and to celebrate my joy for life.
Tom, if believing in a mystical version of a god helps you to sleep better, why would I challenge you? However, I would invite you to consider that you've kept only one piece of the puzzle as your soother. I've been there and done that.
Why not simply enjoy what quantum physics is revealing - that all is energy, connected, and coherent?
I grew up in the Baptist tradition which did not accept this doctrine and took issue with it. It also rejected the notion of hell. You'll find this in Protestant and Anglican/Episcopal traditions. And in some Eastern Orthodox and some Methodist.
If you are a modern Christian who understands the Bible as allegories and you believe in evolution, then the story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth and original sin is impossible. Not all Christians are primitive literalists.
To borrow a quote from one of the prominent Episcopal Bishops in America, Bishop Shelby Spong (who died a few years ago) -
It seems Australian Baptists have a very different perspective from USian Baptists. I think many USians Baptists would likely declare the Baptist tradition you describe to be unchristian
Im an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer.
Im curious what the cartoon account is in your view. Are you seeing any of that in Paulas posts or do you mean in general?
Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion.
Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? Like if you claim god is all good and believe god wants apostates killed then that contradiction might cast doubt on the gods existence?
Most religious revelation/prophecy is probably bs and I say that as someone who believes in a higher power. To much outdated inconsistencies. Nothing wrong with personal revelation but when it becomes preachy thats when I lose interest. Even as someone who does believe in god I do not know his true nature or attributes and i certainly wont take it from a man written book. I used to be an atheist up to my early twenties but as a grew older I had some personal experiences which swayed me rather than scripture which I never found convincing to begin with.
I wouldnt think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good.
What if there is a god and hes a thug? Like the one described in the Old Testament. We can perhaps disprove that god is good as humans understand him, but perhaps hes more Trump than Lincoln
Im not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more?
Quoting DingoJones
I think thats right. And given this is a philosophy site Id expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments.
In the sense that a god of certain traits (all good being my example) would not allow that/those traits to be represented by followers. Since the traits are being misrepresented with acts by followers that contradict those traits then we might think that such a god doesnt exist. If it did, surely it would do something about evil being done in it all good name?
I guess its a sort of argument of evil that Im making.
Quoting Tom Storm
Thats why I Mentioned how you define god as part of the basis of my argument above. Divine command justifies all things, not really about morality but authority.
Quoting Tom Storm
Are the philosophical arguments much better? Are any of those cartoonish in your view?
Id argue that the behaviour of believers has a direct bearing on whether their concept of God holds up. If being a Christian means undergoing a significant transformation through the Holy Spirit, then that change should reflect the character of the God you believe in. Otherwise, it raises the possibility that God exists, but your understanding of Him is flawed.
The fact that so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity has no bearing on whether there's a god or not.
Quoting DingoJones
Ive never heard any that are convincing to me personally, but theres nothing cartoonish about Leibnizs argument from contingency or Plantingas evolutionary argument against naturalism.
Fair enough. The issue with personal revelation and experience is that, for others, its just hearsay. (Is that Hume?) Whoever it is, it sounds fair. Ive heard many first-hand accounts of experiences: Indian girls who say they encountered Krishna, Muslim cab drivers who report seeing Muhammad and the angel Gabriel, Christians who say they saw Mary or felt the Holy Spirit. Id be more convinced if the Hindu girl encountered Jesus and the Muslim cab driver saw Krishna. It seems to me these experiences are primed by culture and expectation.
Yeah thats cultural bias, the experience I had was not encountering such things but I simply heard a voice in my head say a certain phrase which was very rare only for it to be said by a family member a few minutes later. Obviously the shocking thing was to hear something in my head in the first place almost like a loud voice and not the usual internal monologue, to have this exact phrase repeated by a family member truly shocked me which is why I believe that theres a higher power, for what else could explain it. For the record Im not a schizophrenic and the scenario Ive just described has only happened once but thats all it took to convince me.
Unless the god in question could/would/should stop or curb that evil. The fact that there is no intervention, even just a quick do not kill in my name from a mountain top or something, suggests no such being exists. No? I mean why wouldn't an all good god say orvdo something?
Or what about prayer? Thats behaviour, can we not judge from the lack of prayer return calls that perhaps there is no such being?
Sure, but for me the problem no one can demonstrate what God believes or what Gods properties are, so any claims about god's relationship to evil or to good are moot and at best, tradition. So for someone to say God is good or that God responds to prayer is on them. But these models of God have no bearing on whether there is a God or not, only on what people claim about God. What difference does it make what the claims are, or what an old book might say about God? God may well be a cunt. Is there any way we can demonstrate either way for certain?
Quoting kindred
I work in the area of mental health. Plenty of people have one off experinces of voices, noises and other odd symptoms and do not have a diagnosis. So there's that.
Quoting kindred
Lots of people hear voices, their names being called, or other meaningful things via voices in their heads. Not everyone turns to God to make sense of it. If you do, thats finebut for me, this isnt a reason I would see as justification for a God.
Quoting kindred
No offence intended, but that's a classic 'argument from ignorance fallacy' - "I don't know how else to explain X, therefore God."
Most of the bible on God is fluff, but it's mixed in with some wise words and supposedly an historical account. I don't think the bible in its current state is what it was once was envisioned to be.
God brings about more evil in the world; and that's separating God from the rest of the bible, which could credibly bring about good in the right context.
I'm not even sure if the original bible contained God. It could just be another act of evil(editing a good, educational book for thought control).
I am schizophrenic too. I, however, think that my subconscious mind could also deceive me, giving me false hallucinations. I am not denying spirituality either. It could be real.
Not beyond Cartesian doubt obviously, but It think we can be reasonably certain .but it sounds like you believe no one has any knowledge about god, from the bible or otherwise. Is that correct, and if so why do you suppose that is?
Even many theists, especially the apophatics, argue that nothing sensible can really be said about God. Its all mystery. I just take their move one step further: if thats the case, why not forget about it and piss the God idea off altogether?
In the end, I think theism (as Ive often said) is a matter of preference, much like sexual orientation: you cant help what youre attracted to. Its shaped by culture, upbringing, aesthetics, and a persons preferences for how they construe meaning.
:up: :up:
(from 2022)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774731
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774753
As we should with all things reduced to mystery as a description.
Quoting Tom Storm
I disagree here. I would call it need rather than preference. Some people seem to need religion or god or mystery or whatever and some people do not, some people are comfortable with no greater meaning and some are not. Preference implies an array of different paths on a journey but actually its a matter of being on a journey or not in a journey at all.
I think even when a meaning seeker rejects religion they will find another path to it by another name. The ones who arent searching for meaning (or at least meaning beyond the physical world), arent selecting any preferences because they arent looking for anything (beyond the physical world)
I dont disagree with this. All I mean is that some people are 'turned on' by theism and some are not, just as some are attracted to boys and not girls. I meant preference in that sense, that it is essentially an orientation rather than a reasoned choice. But I think need works fine too in a broader sense. And I would include the need 'not to believe' in God along with the 'need to believe'. Both atheism and theism could be understood as sources of affective satisfaction.
Quoting DingoJones
It has sometimes interested me how many atheists actually believe in supernatural claims. Its only God they dont accept. Some atheists Ive known believe in astrology, ghosts, clairvoyance, and other occult phenomena. So Im not sure what the connection between God, religion, and the occult actually is for some folk. Its more the Dawkins-style atheists who are galvanised by empiricism who seem to find any supernatural thesis anathema.
Quoting Tom StormTo compare it to a deviance..I don't know if I'd go that far.
However, if it's truly an individual preference, I haven't seen this to be the case. Everyone I know has been altered by religious ideology - that includes Catholic, Baptist, as well as other Protestant religions.
In my view, it's absolutely unnecessary to follow a deity.
I think that good people want to be truly decent and caring and that they may be attracted to a philosophy that reflects this outlook on life. It's been true for me, but I never had a chance when I was a kid as I was force-fed the beliefs of my family of origin. My experience isn't an anomaly, it's pervasive in the Christian communities that I've been exposed to.
Quoting DingoJones
Agreed. Humanity is hard-wired to bring meaning to our experiences. If they reject religion, they will find another way, many of them New Age. I also explored some of these ideas back in the day and rejected them as well. It's strange what some folks will accept as their new religion. As I see it, a philosophical perspective that embraces science and rejects superstition (particularly the sky/man/god idea) is the most practical.
I don't see homosexuality as a deviance. If you do then you're missing my point.
Quoting Paula Tozer
My point is not connected to whether it is necessary to follow a deity. My point is that some people are drawn to this form of meaning making and some are not. I see much of this as an innate disposition, an orientation or preference. Are contingent factors like culture, linguistic practices, and upbringing involved? Of course.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by altered' could you give an example? But isnt it fair to say that most beliefs alter us in some way? Politics, culture, and art all leave their mark on us. Some radically so.
Any views on Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Parsi, or Jain faiths?
The point of disagreement is reasoned choice. Obviously it depends on the specific belief or claims but in general I think a lack of belief can be reasoned choice. As you pointed out atheists can belief in similar non rational things as the average believer and I would agree but also think an atheist can have arrived at atheism by reasoned choice. Im much more hesitant to say the same about a theist.
Quoting Tom Storm
I think it is because these atheists are of the meaning seeker type but are just upset with religion and reject it for whatever reason.
I completely agree that politics, culture, and art all have their influences. On this point, I also ask you to consider the role that religion has played in each of these different aspects of human life. My initial point with the post was to ask readers to consider the basis for most of the contention and separation that we see globally as being religious ideology. It is pervasive and runs so deep that it cannot be separated without determined effort.
I've studied the philosophical component of Buddhism to a certain degree, and I resonate with a lot of what they teach.
As for the other religions you mentioned, I'm not schooled in their practices and cannot comment.
All I know is Christianity and its variations. However, when it becomes dogma, like any religious practice that inhibits or ostracizes people, it's not my vibe.
Quoting Paula Tozer
Yeah well this is a subject so familiar and well covered by atheists that it's close to being a banal observation. I've made the point innumerable times in my atheist proselytising days and on this site we sometimes get members who are active for a while, who hate religion and have little else to offer the God debate than Dawkins or Hitchens style polemics. Not saying you're one of those, just that this style of argument appears here often enough.
Personally I think humans fuck everything up, whether its secular or religious. Our drive for control and conformity perhaps. Amongst my friends I count a number of Christians, a priest and a sister too, who are extraordinarily tough on religion and believers and no fans of the oppressive history of the church. There are Christians and Sikhs whose company I prefer over many doctrinaire atheists I've known.
I am not. Ive spent a lot of time talking to those folks and learning but I dont seem to be built that way. Where I stand depends on what the claim is but in general Im not moved by appeals to mystery, the transcendent, the universe or other such vacuous basis. I guess Im comfortable a) not knowing and b) that there is no greater meaning to it all. Perfectly content with the mere mortal meaning found in friends and family.
HA! I agree, we have a way of messing with a good thing...power hungry, most trying to be the top gun in a world where violence reigns. It's interesting to hear your perspective - a person who no longer shouts his atheist perspective from the rooftops. I've noticed, among those who do not believe in a deity of any sort, that they do take great pleasure in being right - at least on the forums I've visited. Whether the perspective has had the life flogged out of it or not, it's still relevant to our discussion, I think. To your point - I've listened to Dawkins and Hitchens, and even though they are much closer to the truth than I believe that religion can be, I do not agree with their aggressive posture. Where I live, it's very hard to find someone of like mind (at least so far). My frustration with anyone who accepts what they've been told on blind faith stems from my background and experiences. A priest and a nun who are tough on religion...very interesting...I wonder what they actually know to be true for them?
As a creative, I've come to understand something that may be interpreted as me "believing" in something - some kind of higher power - but I do not consider it to be that way. I have lived and felt the power of inspiration in my life. It's why I write. It's why I'm a creativity coach - I love helping other people feel that surge of power that comes from a mind-spark of inspiration. I believe that inspiration is the result of tapping into the quantum field, collapsing the wave, and drawing what you wish to create into life. It's as close to real magic as I've ever felt. For me, that's my sacred.
However, I also believe that creativity is neutral - inspiration can be used for good or for evil. We have been seeing it play out on a global scale for as long as I can remember.