|
*If this is the wrong place, my sincere apologies to the mods. Please move to the appropriate location*
First off let me clarify that I do not want this to turn into a religious debate thread. I only wish to outline the struggle that lead me to first question, and then to renounce, my Christian beliefs. If any of this offends you it is not intentional, although I am not sorry about it.
I was born and raised in a Christian household. My mother was, and still is to this very day, a committed Christian woman. I spent my Sundays at church in various Sunday school programs. I was taught the basic Christian doctrines at this time and prided myself in excelling in them as well. Any question which may compromise such beliefs was met with utter hostility, and I was told it was better not to ask them at all. How dare reason stand in the way of faith. I was told these two were diametrically opposed, unless it validated religious principles. However, more on that later.
As I grew older I morphed, or shall I say evolved, into quite the little intellectual. I enjoyed reading and debating. Not to sound too conceited but I was keener at these things compared to other people of my age. This may be derived from the fact that most of my peers were too involved with sports, skirt chasing, and the like to worry about what is look at as trivial at that age. Nevertheless, my faith never wavered. Even when my actions overtly conflicted with the “morality” of the Bible I still held fast to them and bitterly opposed any opposition. I went to church because I was forced to by my parents. I didn’t want to praise the god I still gave my unwavering allegiance too. This is America. To be godless was anti-nationalist, and would possibly even make you a communist. Can’t have that, now can we?
I graduated high school and moved to college. After two years of classes my grades were not satisfactory to say the least. I drifted from major to major not sure of what I wanted to pursue, which made me not take my classes to seriously. This was also during my hardcore wow phase; there possibly could be a correlation there to explore in another thread. Then something remarkable happened. My head knowledge of faith which was actively ideal once again morphed into an emotional one. I rediscovered my love for god. I dropped the classes I was in, and within 5 months was enrolled in a seminary type internship at the megachurch I attended.
I spent a year of my life there (also five thousand dollars I might add). Eighty to one-hundred hours a week we spent running the church operations, conferences, services, special events, and the like. However, my favorite day and the one I excelled at the most was class day. Here we learned the ins and outs of Christian doctrine. To this day I believe I can quote the Bible and defend the Christian faith better than most believers. There was one remarkable thing missing in this whole ordeal. Everything we learned was under the presumption that the Bible was the true and inerrant word of god, Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, and the stories in the both the new and old testaments were factual, historical, and scientific. I believe I now know the reason why we never covered such topics. If you proved that any of those three things were indeed false the rest would soon follow. The foundations of Christianity are akin to the old tale of humpty-dumpty. Not just in historical validity, but spirit as well. One small gust of reason and the shattering would be monumental.
I graduated the program with more questions than I had when I started. I was told by a close friend at the time, who was a devote Christian, to stop all my questioning. “You won’t reach God through logic, “ he said. “I have had friends who did the same thing and they stopped believing”. I wanted the truth. You do not stop searching just because you might not like what you do not find. The hunt continued.
I stopped studying doctrine, and instead focused my attention on the fundamentals. What is the evidence that points to the inerrancy of Scripture? What is the historical proof to point to the divinity, if even the existence, of Christ? How did the universe originate, along with the species on the Earth? I started to listen to debates and lectures by the opposing “faction”, such as: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and the like. What I have learned and discovered is so vast that I do not have the time nor energy to write here. I can simply say this; there is an irreconcilable difference between reality, reason, and the Bible. Even the moral teachings of the Bible are founded in immorality. We are not here because of divine creation. Our purpose in life is not given to us, but we make it ourself. Our life is not meaningless, we create our own meaning.
As I am about to head to class I will end this with a quote by Hitchens. I will gladly answer any question I am able to. Also, excuse me if this comes out a bit choppy and rant-like. I am writing down my thoughts as I have them. In no way is this supposed to convince people to challenge their beliefs, but rather detail my own journey as of late.
Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene," and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person. Why am I glad this is the case? To get to the point of the wrongness of Christianity, because I think the teachings of Christianity are immoral. The central one is the most immoral of all, and that is the one of vicarious redemption. You can throw your sins onto somebody else, vulgarly known as scapegoating. In fact, originating as scapegoating in the same area, the same desert. I can pay your debt if I love you. I can serve your term in prison if I love you very much. I can volunteer to do that. I can't take your sins away, because I can't abolish your responsibility, and I shouldn't offer to do so. Your responsibility has to stay with you. There's no vicarious redemption. There very probably, in fact, is no redemption at all. It's just a part of wish-thinking, and I don't think wish-thinking is good for people either. It even manages to pollute the central question, the word I just employed, the most important word of all: the word love, by making love compulsory, by saying you MUST love. You must love your neighbour as yourself, something you can't actually do. You'll always fall short, so you can always be found guilty. By saying you must love someone who you also must fear. That's to say a supreme being, an eternal father, someone of whom you must be afraid, but you must love him, too. If you fail in this duty, you're again a wretched sinner. This is not mentally or morally or intellectually healthy. And that brings me to the final objection - I'll condense it, Dr. Orlafsky - which is, this is a totalitarian system. If there was a God who could do these things and demand these things of us, and he was eternal and unchanging, we'd be living under a dictatorship from which there is no appeal, and one that can never change and one that knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought crime, and condemn us to eternal punishment for actions that we are condemned in advance to be taking. All this in the round, and I could say more, it's an excellent thing that we have absolutely no reason to believe any of it to be true
PS: To those who will say,” You were never a true Christian to begin with.” I sincerely disagree, and you have no authority by which to make that accusation. I felt the “holy spirit”. I had experiences just like every other person who believes. I knew the doctrines both in my head and heart.
 
|
I never quite understood the desire to prove beyond doubt that Christianity is true. In fact, knowledge of the truth of the Christian religion itself is something I never quite understood how anyone could ever possibly claim to have. There is a reason why Christianity is a religion and not math or... science or something. The sole fact that this thing here is religion that we're talking about means that at the very core of it all lies faith. Faith has nothing to do with certainty, knowledge or proofs.
In fact, so many classical theologians (think Aquinas) argued that although reason can strengthen faith, it can never provide complete certainty, because with certainty you lose what makes faith so characteristically faith. Nobody needs to have faith in the fact that the thing infront of you is a monitor; you either take the plain obvious for granted or you're a bored philosopher. But it takes faith to commit to a religion - in fact, that's what makes it a religion to begin with.
Coming back to Aquinas, he argued (being the Aristotlean that he was) that we are all naturally drawn to goodness, and because God is the ultimate goodness, we would never be able to resist being drawn to him if we had certain knowledge of his existence (or if we were to ever perceive him). And that would wreck our free will, which would be a bad thing, right? With other words, if we'd throw away faith, nobody with a sane mind would ever be able to deny the truth of Christianity and thus we'd be unable to -choose- God, to choose to do the good thing, to accept salvation and so on. But there's no choice in accepting the fact that the thing infront of you is a monitor. It's just plain fact.
EDIT: Oh yeah I should probably recommend you Kierkegaard's 'Practice in Christianity'.
|
Thanks for sharing. Always interesting to hear how people grow and change.
I have a similar story but not at all as extreme as yours but I know how hard it is to start questioning the faith you were borned into. That is one thing that is so scary with christianity (and most religions); it is by fear they hold you to their faith. It took many years until I dared to say out loud that I did not believe in that kind of a God.
|
I disagree with you on most points about Christianity, but I completely respect your decision. I even find some things that I relate with you, like our naturally inquisitive and rational minds. If your worldview works for you, and you are happy with your decision, I'm happy for you and hope the best in the future.
But what exactly turned you away from God? Was it a specific argument, or just a realization that none of it made sense?
|
Ok I'll bite. You take a collection of readings that were written almost thousands of years ago at the earliest, that have no original to reference, that were translated from language to language with no real collective authority on how this process should happen, and at the very earliest wasn't mass produced until 500 or so years ago, and you think that if one thing was off everything must be wrong and should be ignored? I don't know anything who says that the bible is a definitive academic reading that should be referenced as a solid source for things. The roman records approve of what at least the modern bible has said and they've been mostly replicated by the Quran.
So I admittedly don't get a lot of what you say and I don't know what denomination you belonged to so there isn't a real point of reference for me to go off of for your "doctrines" but I'm gona guess if your using those words its catholic.
But at the foundation of your blog the very idea of trying to find evidence that proves or in opposition disproves god you aren't going to find anything. There isn't anything that proves god or disproves it simply and if thats what you used to lose your faith then I'm sorry for you and I guess I should let you go on your way. I feel confident and happy in my faith and questioning it and reasoning with it doesn't threaten me. Just because you know the rules and practices doesn't really say anything about your faith, I've known plenty of shitty Christians and plenty of good non religious people.
|
For someone who thinks of themselves so highly, it sure took you long enough to figure out that it was bullshit.
|
Religion was infantile mans attempt to understand the world around them. Why does rain happen, why does this gigantic mountain occasionally blow up in fire, and the like. With little to no scientific knowledge of the world around them it was perfectly acceptable at that time to believe that there was a higher power, maybe the sun, trees, animals, or other humans which were the ultimate cause for these phenomenon. Religion was the lens by which we tried to answer the question why and how. Thanks to meteorology and hydrology we understand precipitation. We now know why volcanos erupt and tsunamis happen. It is time that we give religion a short, but not too sweet, dismissal to the Smithsonian museum where it belongs.
|
On February 19 2013 04:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:
I disagree with you on most points about Christianity, but I completely respect your decision. I even find some things that I relate with you, like our naturally inquisitive and rational minds. If your worldview works for you, and you are happy with your decision, I'm happy for you and hope the best in the future.
But what exactly turned you away from God? Was it a specific argument, or just a realization that none of it made sense?
The latter. It started with my battle of the inerrancy of scripture, then the the study of the origins of the universe and how it completely contradicts the biblical narrative of creation . The lack of secular evidence for most biblical events. This turned me off to Christianity then the whole notion of God in general.
About me sounding arrogant. That was not my intention at all. I do not consider myself an intellectual heavyweight. I constantly finding myself knowing less and less about more and more. I do think I know more than the average person my age, mostly because I find these types of things fascinating.
|
On February 19 2013 04:28 Sermokala wrote:
Ok I'll bite. You take a collection of readings that were written almost thousands of years ago at the earliest, that have no original to reference, that were translated from language to language with no real collective authority on how this process should happen, and at the very earliest wasn't mass produced until 500 or so years ago, and you think that if one thing was off everything must be wrong and should be ignored? I don't know anything who says that the bible is a definitive academic reading that should be referenced as a solid source for things. The roman records approve of what at least the modern bible has said and they've been mostly replicated by the Quran.
So I admittedly don't get a lot of what you say and I don't know what denomination you belonged to so there isn't a real point of reference for me to go off of for your "doctrines" but I'm gona guess if your using those words its catholic.
But at the foundation of your blog the very idea of trying to find evidence that proves or in opposition disproves god you aren't going to find anything. There isn't anything that proves god or disproves it simply and if thats what you used to lose your faith then I'm sorry for you and I guess I should let you go on your way. I feel confident and happy in my faith and questioning it and reasoning with it doesn't threaten me. Just because you know the rules and practices doesn't really say anything about your faith, I've known plenty of shitty Christians and plenty of good non religious people.
Was in a non-denominational church for awhile. Towards the end I considered myself staunchly orthodox presbyterian (Calvinist).
|
|
|
On February 19 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Nice blog  I'd just like to leave you, however, with the seed of doubt, that there are more sophisticated ways to think about religion than the way in which you were raised, and there are more sophisticated ways to think about the critique of religion than Dawkins and Hitchens. Keep asking questions I love a curious mind! If you decide that NOW you have found the Truth, then you have just made the same mistake as before  Show nested quote +
Confucius said, "When everyone dislikes something, it should be examined. When everyone likes something, it should be examined."
Thanks for the kind words, and the advice, brother =).
|
On February 19 2013 04:34 ImAbstracT wrote:
Religion was infantile mans attempt to understand the world around them. Why does rain happen, why does this gigantic mountain occasionally blow up in fire, and the like. With little to no scientific knowledge of the world around them it was perfectly acceptable at that time to believe that there was a higher power, maybe the sun, trees, animals, or other humans which were the ultimate cause for these phenomenon. Religion was the lens by which we tried to answer the question why and how. Thanks to meteorology and hydrology we understand precipitation. We now know why volcanos erupt and tsunamis happen. It is time that we give religion a short, but not too sweet, dismissal to the Smithsonian museum where it belongs.
Quoting this for 100% truth. Religion may have had a use in the past (we're talking hundreds or thousands of years ago here), but now that we have science that's able to answer most of the "tough" questions that couldn't be answered in the past, religious beliefs are a relic and it's time to let them go. They have virtually no place in a modern-day, thinking person's society.
Also, ImAbstracT, welcome to the dark side.
If I'm actually being serious, though, congratulations on breaking through the indoctrination that you grew up with from a very young age. I have a firm belief that people, overall, would be far less religious if it was forbidden to expose children below the age of 13 to religious styles of thought. So many devoutly religious adults are only devoutly religious because those beliefs were forced on them from a young age, before they were able to cognitively say "you know, I don't think this is true because there's no evidence." Children (especially very young ones) are incredibly gullible, especially when it comes to things their caretakers say. I'm happy that you were able to break through all of that and see things from an objective point of view.
|
5/5 for the guy who made up a religion so he didn't have to work on a farm everyday!
|
On February 19 2013 04:56 iamahydralisk wrote:
now that we have science that's able to answer most of the "tough" questions that couldn't be answered in the past
Careful, buddy, or I'm gonna ask you some "tough" questions...
edit: be careful that, having cast off your priesthood, that you do not replace it with another, this time wearing labcoats.
and @op, even though I like to needle atheists, as you know, lemme tell you that I'll take Dawkins over the megachurch any day of the week
|
As I grew older I morphed, or shall I say evolved, into quite the little intellectual. I enjoyed reading and debating. Not to sound too conceded
i died at this typo xD
interesting blog, very well written, 5 stars
|
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude.
|
On February 19 2013 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 04:56 iamahydralisk wrote:
now that we have science that's able to answer most of the "tough" questions that couldn't be answered in the past Careful, buddy, or I'm gonna ask you some "tough" questions... edit: be careful that, having cast off your priesthood, that you do not replace it with another, this time wearing labcoats. and @op, even though I like to needle atheists, as you know, lemme tell you that I'll take Dawkins over the megachurch any day of the week
Notice that I said "most" lol. I know that science can't answer everything, but at least it can answer a lot of things empirically, whereas religious beliefs would answer those same questions with "the creator did it" and rely entirely on faith. Basically what I'm saying is, I choose reason over faith.
|
On February 19 2013 05:00 docvoc wrote:
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude.
He did lose his religion, but he didn't lose his morals. There's a very clear-cut difference there. You don't have to have religion to be a moral person, and on the converse of that, having religion doesn't automatically make you a moral person either. Just saying there are good and bad people on both sides.
|
I'm very much in the same place you were in the past. Except 100% Irish Heritage and Catholic.
I don't really practice much anymore but while I was in the military I have to tell you I found myself in the church every week.. odd how that works. Anyway I tend to just accept Pascals Wager now and it works for me on why I choose to believe. I think my issue is that I've lost faith in the church rather than faith in God. Everything that has happened recently reinforces my beliefs that the church just like many other organizations is extremely corrupt.
Fun Fact, Pope Benedict the 16th's clothes were an estimated $80,000 for everything and his shoes always looked brand new (also cost around $1,500 a pair). Not exactly the most modest person.
Edit: I should mention that I'm not against the church at all. I'm just disappointed. I hear a lot because my uncle has been a priest for almost 60 years, my mother was a religion teacher, and my cousins sell all the priests / bishops and in some cases cardinals their garments and tassels and all that other stuff they wear.
Edit 2: Also the blog title made me think of R.E.M.
|
On February 19 2013 05:13 OmniEulogy wrote:
Fun Fact, Pope Benedict the 16th's clothes were an estimated $80,000 for everything and his shoes always looked brand new (also cost around $1,500 a pair). Not exactly the most modest person.
Don't you hate it when subversive-progressive ideologies are coopted by hegemony? bummer, man
|
On February 19 2013 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 04:56 iamahydralisk wrote:
now that we have science that's able to answer most of the "tough" questions that couldn't be answered in the past Careful, buddy, or I'm gonna ask you some "tough" questions... edit: be careful that, having cast off your priesthood, that you do not replace it with another, this time wearing labcoats. and @op, even though I like to needle atheists, as you know, lemme tell you that I'll take Dawkins over the megachurch any day of the week
So long as you are a reasonable skeptic, and never make any positive claims or negative claims without evidence, then it is impossible to turn into a religion. I guess atheism/agnosticism can be a semantic debate, but to me all agnostics are 100% safe (maybe not hardcore atheists who say: NO GOD EXISTS, which isn't logical)
It was also nice to hear of your experiences abstract. I feel sorry for religious people sometimes, just because of how flawed their logic must be to believe, and the mental gymnastics they need to do do defend faith...and we know by now that there are literally no good arguments left anymore. I look upon them kind of like (and I don't mean to draw any equivalency) old racists, or people who think that women belong in the kitchen. They will eventually die off, but while they're still alive, its just a sad cult that, unfortunately, still brainwashes children.
I think its fine if people have hope that there is a creator, and make efforts to contact that creator (or alien civilizations in general!). That way people can still keep their hope alive for an afterlife, or some metaphysical meaning in their lives.
I think the most interesting parts about religion are the experiences people reportedly have, as well as those experiences people have during near death experiences and being in comas, where they apparently watch the procedure and can tell the surgeon what happened in detail (not sure about the truth of these things, but respected surgeons seemed amazed). I have had quite a remarkable experience with an "entity" if I could put it that way, which I can't explain rationally. But I think its really those experiences that form the core of religion these days; stories of miraculous healings and the like.
The problem is people are just assuming that those things validate a very specific, complicated story in the bible rather than just taking them for what they are; unusual experience, that may imply the existence of something more, but that's it.
|
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact!
|
On February 19 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact!
I could believe that reason has its limits, I think that's an entirely reasonable proposition. And from my readings of David Hume, I know for a fact that some of the things we believe (observing a cause and effect many times leads to the expectation of the effect, following the cause in all future instances) are without a rational basis. But the fact is, these observations of "causative conjuctions" work, and they work very well as science, philosophy and many other fields show us. Since there is no way around it, we have to accept it and deal with it as best we can.
But it wouldn't make you unreasonable to accept this, or even live like this. And I don't understand how it would be religious to accept the truth of this claim. Accepting one's own limitations is a statement of reason, not religion. Religion would be saying that we have no limitations and that reason can solve everything.
And if you are implying that we can never be certain about the limits of our reason (which we use reason to discover), so any statement we make is without evidence, well then yes that's true as well. But I don't see what's wrong with making statements "to the best of our ability" in the present. If we find reasons in the future as to why we're wrong, then so be it. But if we proceed scientifically, so that everything is based on as much evidence as possible, then that is ultimately the only reasonable way to live, and the best you can do.
Uhmm..so basically to sum up: Even if you make claims without evidence, that's not a big deal if its unavoidable. You can still use reason to choose to believe things on the basis of what leads to the best outcomes, the most consistently, because there is no other choice (like with Hume's example).
That is very different from religion, or religious reasons for doing things. I would think the religious person would make decisions just based on sheer will without anything to ground it.
I guess that would be the definition for faith:
Pure, baseless belief.
In comparison, the reasonable person who sees flaws in reason:
Belief, based on necessity on what leads to the best quality of life (this way its based on reason in a *practical* way).
Also: I guess the most obvious problem, if I am to take you seriously, with being unreasonable is that there is literally nothing else your brain can use to evaluate whether a proposition is logical or not, good for you or not. You cannot be skeptical unless you make use of your reason, so you're forced to use what was seemingly "destroyed" by itself.
In the end, it clearly isn't destroyed. Reason works! Its displayed in the world around us all the time. Religion doesn't, and the same goes for all sorts of crack-pottery and superstitious beliefs 
|
On February 19 2013 05:00 PassiveAce wrote:Show nested quote +As I grew older I morphed, or shall I say evolved, into quite the little intellectual. I enjoyed reading and debating. Not to sound too conceded i died at this typo xD interesting blog, very well written, 5 stars
Bah, FU iphone. =)
|
On February 19 2013 05:00 docvoc wrote:
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude.
If the goal of religion is to teach people to be moral beings it fails quite hard. Why is it then that some of the worst travesties in human history have been done under the banner of religion? To paraphrase a Hitchens argument once again, name one moral action or uttered phrase which can only be done by one who holds religious belief.
|
On February 19 2013 06:06 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 05:00 docvoc wrote:
My statement:
As a guy who got isolated from his religion because of a choice to go to a different highschool, I'm just going to say that I'm very cynical of what you just wrote. I'm going to be abrasive here, not because I hate you or think that you are some kind of moron, but because you missed the point despite all your learning. When I got isolated, I was attached, slandered, but nothing physically harming ever happened. While I was gone, I was bitter, angry, and most of all disappointed in my faith. I lost it for a while, and to be honest I will never allow myself to go back to the community without a bit of cynicality there. However, that is not the point of religion. That was what happens when people mix power and religion, that never goes well. The point of religion is to teach people to be moral. Whether or not I agree with Christian doctrine, in a Jewish view, does not matter. Being a good person means following the laws and codes that god has set forth. Some of them are antiquated (until the end of the second temple and more recently with the creation of head rabbis for states) and they get tossed out, while others are kept for tradition. That said, the point is to be a moral person. Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and even Scientologists all believe that. You did not lose your religion, you lost the faith you had because you went too far into an area that you can't do anything with. You can't prove god, you can only have faith that what he said is how you should live your life. The Old Testament has some history to it, but first and foremost it is a codex.
My final thoughts:
I'm younger than you, but I spent all of my life growing up in a significantly more orthodox environment. I am personally not orthodox, and neither is my family, but I spent my formative years in school there, living a double life. What I questioned is what you questioned and the answer I was given by my Rabbis varied, with one exception. They all said that god is a matter of faith. To some its just a natural idea that, "of course he is real, l0l," while to others it was a more sympathetic, "I believe he is real because I have faith in him," or something to that effect. When you try to rationalize and prove his existence you fail; like all the mathematicians of the past who tried to prove that 1=3, no one will ever prove god's existence. You can believe what he said was right, but you can't ever say to anyone else that beyond a shadow of a doubt you can prove he is real.
My background:
I spent about 9 learning religious doctrine. From the time I was in school until I left for highschool, and even in highschool (though significantly less so) I learned religious Jewish doctrine (I'm talking about Yeshiva level stuff here, not your generic conservative or reform stuff). I can defend my faith to the end of the earth, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that you ask questions, you need to find what fits you.
EDIT: I'm just editing bits in and out because I think the original was WAYYY to rude. If the goal of religion is to teach people to be moral beings it fails quite hard. Why is it then that some of the worst travesties in human history have been done under the banner of religion? To paraphrase a Hitchens argument once again, name one moral action or uttered phrase which can only be done by one who holds religious belief.
I think that argument might be hard to make, because its possible that religion prevented people from committing atrocities in many other instances whether its due to the fear of God, or because of the enforced moral commandments that people were "forced" to follow. And those types of statistics are hard to determine.
I think Hitchens is right that an atheist can do everything a religious person can, but he's missing a rather crucial piece of the puzzle, which is can atheism prevent people from doing bad things the same way religion can? So are we better off with religion?
Also just because specific religions had failures in their moral teachings doesn't mean others have had the same results, or that all religions will have the same results. I think the Sikh's (although they wouldn't technically classify themselves as a religion, as they don't have any enforced rules), are a group of people who historically can be shown to have upheld some very strong, positive moral values based on their teachings, and held to those teachings even when they were in power. This is probably true, and potentially true, for many other relatively unknown religions.
But anyway, its kind of funny that Sikhs are really identical to humanists in terms of their moral values. So do we really *need* religion? The Sikh's belief in the divine doesn't seem to ground any of their moral principles. If it all just stems from reason, then its an argument as to why religion is unnecessary (except for maybe that belief in the divine part, which may be important to many people who need religion for those reasons).
|
On February 19 2013 05:54 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 05:21 sam!zdat wrote:
no, no, I'm an unreasonable skeptic. Un skeptic déraisonnable. Once you've seen Reason use Reason to destroy Reason, what is there left to believe in? Critique everything ruthlessly!
edit: EVERYONE makes claims without evidence. EVERYONE. The only true religion is to accept this fact! Religion would be saying that we have no limitations and that reason can solve everything.
Yes, and people go around saying this! That's what I'm trying to communicate
And if you are implying that we can never be certain about the limits of our reason (which we use reason to discover), so any statement we make is without evidence, well then yes that's true as well. But I don't see what's wrong with making statements "to the best of our ability" in the present. If we find reasons in the future as to why we're wrong, then so be it. But if we proceed scientifically, so that everything is based on as much evidence as possible, then that is ultimately the only reasonable way to live, and the best you can do.
No, I think expecting evidence for truth claims of all kinds is entirely unreasonable. There are some things for which it is a fool's errand to attempt to find "evidence." It's simply no way to go about doing things.
Uhmm..so basically to sum up: Even if you make claims without evidence, that's not a big deal if its unavoidable. You can still use reason to choose to believe things on the basis of what leads to the best outcomes, the most consistently, because there is no other choice (like with Hume's example).
I agree this.
That is very different from religion, or religious reasons for doing things. I would think the religious person would make decisions just based on sheer will without anything to ground it.
but disagree with this. It is not different from religion. It is, however, different from debased religion! Not all religion is revealed religion.
Also: I guess the most obvious problem, if I am to take you seriously, with being unreasonable is that there is literally nothing else your brain can use to evaluate whether a proposition is logical or not, good for you or not. You cannot be skeptical unless you make use of your reason, so you're forced to use what was seemingly "destroyed" by itself.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be reasonable. I'm just saying you should also be unreasonable!
In the end, it clearly isn't destroyed. Reason works! Its displayed in the world around us all the time. Religion doesn't, and the same goes for all sorts of crack-pottery and superstitious beliefs
Religion absolutely works. What are you possibly talking about? they both work. The problem is just when people get confused about what things religion does, and what things reason does, and try to use reason to do religious things, or try to use religion to to reasonable things.
|
That argument which I used is his counter to people who claim that the religious holds some moral superiority to non believers. Morality is innate in all mentally sane people and is not derived from ones belief in a higher power. Atheists have done horrible things just like the religious. However, religious texts have a long history of inciting violence, genocide, slavery, domestic abuse, genital mutilation, patriarchy, and inequality which otherwise would not have happened.
|
On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people
I promise you, it is not, and this belief is just as foolish as your prior belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
|
On February 19 2013 07:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people I promise you, it is not, and this belief is just as foolish as your prior belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
How so? Are we not, by nature, moral beings with a sense of right and wrong? Sure, their are some exceptions, but that doesn't negate the whole.
|
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good.
|
On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good.
I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong. I guess you can say we are good when our actions act in accordance with our sense of morality. I claim to be no expert on how evolution has molded our ethics. There is only so much we can learn from the observance of primates; we are the higher ones of course.
|
On February 19 2013 07:47 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good. I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong.
Ludicrous.
You might find this to be some interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
edit: Also, go read the Iliad, and tell me those people thought about right and wrong in the same way we do. Then go read, oh, I don't know, Dostoyevski, and compare notes.
edit: also, this: http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-1
|
On February 19 2013 07:51 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 07:47 ImAbstracT wrote:On February 19 2013 07:39 sam!zdat wrote:
No, of course we're not. If you don't believe that, go read some literature and you will be rapidly disabused of this notion.
You have just transferred your worship for revealed religion to the assumption of the natural goodness of man. It's still an article of faith. Things are far more complicated than this. Go learn about primate sexuality and dominance hierarchies and stuff like that, if you really think that humans are naturally good. It's absolutely not true. We must learn to be good. I never said we are naturally good, but we are naturally moral. Moral in the sense that we know right from wrong. Ludicrous. You might find this to be some interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_developmentedit: Also, go read the Iliad, and tell me those people thought about right and wrong in the same way we do. Then go read, oh, I don't know, Dostoyevski, and compare notes. edit: also, this: http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology/eeb-122/lecture-1
Or read some John Locke, old friend
|
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution.
|
On February 19 2013 07:57 sam!zdat wrote:
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution.
He's brilliant for his time, of course.
|
Oh, I'm sure the man was clever enough. I think his philosophy is worthless, though. But I'm really the wrong person to ask about John Locke, I guess.
|
On February 19 2013 08:51 sam!zdat wrote:
Oh, I'm sure the man was clever enough. I think his philosophy is worthless, though. But I'm really the wrong person to ask about John Locke, I guess.
He's valuable as a first study into the empiricism, and to "set up" your mind for what Berkeley does, and in turn what Hume does. I find his realism philosophy like an unfortunate implausibility. I don't want the opposite, the idealist world, to be true, but it's hard not to find skepticism in his veil of ideas. In moral philosophy he argues along the line that you were, that we don't have right or wrong imprinted in us, and that it needs to be taught. I've heard his political philosophy is/was very influential, but I haven't studied it yet. So I definitely don't think he's a moron, and he's quite important to learn as a subtext to other epistemological discussions.
|
On February 19 2013 06:29 ImAbstracT wrote:
Morality is innate in all mentally sane people
As a moral non-realist, I'm outraged.
|
Fair enough, Roe, you win, I'll leave poor old Johnny alone. I'm not really familiar with his moral philosophy.
|
On February 19 2013 06:06 ImAbstracT wrote:
If the goal of religion is to teach people to be moral beings it fails quite hard. Why is it then that some of the worst travesties in human history have been done under the banner of religion? To paraphrase a Hitchens argument once again, name one moral action or uttered phrase which can only be done by one who holds religious belief.
No, religion never did that, politics in religion did that. When the Jews freed themselves from the Macedonians (the greeks in common knowledge) during Hannuka, that was religion banding together to free themselves; when the Hasmonian dynasty added politics to the Jewish religion, that was when things fell apart. People critique the Vatican for its indulgences, no one critiques Christ for saying, "Love thy neighbour." Hitchens isn't exactly the greatest source in the world himself, he has contradicted himself and held many views that in general cannot be generalized. Also, it isn't about being DIFFERENT, it isn't about being able to do something that other people without belief cannot do. That is going about it the wrong way. Going about it that way is trying dismiss religion because it doesn't give you magical powers to do stuff others can't. Religion has also done some of the greatest things the world has ever seen, and to be fair, that argument is so banal that there is no thought to it. Finally, really, you don't need religion to be moral? Look at what people consider moral, it is what christianity and the general thought of the abrahamic religions. What is considered moral, the ten commandments maybe? Yes, over itme there have been modifications, but religion has always dictated what moral means. It's fine if you have a loss of religion, but don't revoke actual history to support views of other people that so often do.
EDIT: Nothing I say is going to change your mind. Go about this the way you want to, find yourself. I'm not going to be much help as some random on the internet.
|
I've never understood the whole 'morals are derived from religion'. Alot of human society functioned perfectly fine before Abrahamic religion.
Also if you need religion to have a moral compass, you don't lack morals, you lack empathy for your fellow human being.
|
On February 19 2013 11:19 FractalsOnFire wrote:
I've never understood the whole 'morals are derived from religion'. Alot of human society functioned perfectly fine before Abrahamic religion.
Yeah, because for all x, if x is a religion, x is an Abrahamic religion.
On February 19 2013 09:55 docvoc wrote:
EDIT: Nothing I say is going to change your mind. Go about this the way you want to, find yourself. I'm not going to be much help as some random on the internet.
never give up. if he can be rescued from the megachurch, he can be rescued from anything
|
On February 19 2013 07:57 sam!zdat wrote:
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution.
And altruism is quite a favorable trait in evolution, especially for such group dependent creatures like humans.
|
On February 19 2013 11:22 Tarot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 07:57 sam!zdat wrote:
John Locke is a moron
edit: nature is a battlefield. there are no ethics in evolution, there is only evolution. And altruism is quite a favorable trait in evolution, especially for such group dependent creatures like humans.
So is being a big mean son of a bitch. what's your point?
|
On February 19 2013 11:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 11:19 FractalsOnFire wrote:
I've never understood the whole 'morals are derived from religion'. Alot of human society functioned perfectly fine before Abrahamic religion. Yeah, because for all x, if x is a religion, x is an Abrahamic religion.
I probably should've clarified and add all the previous religions before that too. Just that docvoc used Abrahamic as his main reference.
On February 19 2013 11:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 09:55 docvoc wrote:
EDIT: Nothing I say is going to change your mind. Go about this the way you want to, find yourself. I'm not going to be much help as some random on the internet. never give up. if he can be rescued from the megachurch, he can be rescued from anything
Not sure if serious.
Why can't you just let him be? Actually I guess that's another of my gripes with Christianity, the constant need to 'save'. At least some people eventually respect other people's decision not to believe.
|
I'm not a Christian...
And if you want to say that society functioned perfectly fine before religion at all, you're wrong, because there wasn't any such thing as society before there was religion.
|
On February 19 2013 12:31 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not a Christian...
And if you want to say that society functioned perfectly fine before religion at all, you're wrong, because there wasn't any such thing as society before there was religion.
Then why do you want to rescue him?
Hunter gatherers count as a type of society.
|
On February 19 2013 12:37 FractalsOnFire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:31 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not a Christian...
And if you want to say that society functioned perfectly fine before religion at all, you're wrong, because there wasn't any such thing as society before there was religion. Then why do you want to rescue him?
because I'm a nice person and it pains me to see others fall into philosophical error
Hunter gatherers count as a type of society.
a) no, not really, under any meaningful definition of the term
b) show me some hunter gatherers with no religion
|
On February 19 2013 12:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2013 12:37 FractalsOnFire wrote:On February 19 2013 12:31 sam!zdat wrote:
I'm not a Christian...
And if you want to say that society functioned perfectly fine before religion at all, you're wrong, because there wasn't any such thing as society before there was religion. Then why do you want to rescue him? because I'm a nice person and it pains me to see others fall into philosophical error a) no, not really, under any meaningful definition of the term b) show me some hunter gatherers with no religion
Give me your definition of what a society is.
Can't find one.
|
I tend to think of a society as an organization of people which is not an organization based purely on kinship ties. it doesn't really matter though, because see (b).
edit: if you think people are sort of naturally atheists who get corrupted by the big bad priests, well, hmm...
|
@OP
I too would describe myself as having been raised Christian, and honestly I would still not have a problem with describing myself as such. However, I think the vast majority of self-described Christians would not call me one.
I congratulate you for overcoming the box you were put in. You were given a set of assumptions growing up and you were able to recognize that those assumptions turned out to be unproven.
But I now challenge you to do it again. Losing your religion doesn't mean you have to subscribe to something else.
Question things again and again and again, until the only thing you are sure of is your own ignorance. At that point you will then be able to start the journey for truth.
|
I have a question. This can be answered by the OP or any other devout Christian in this thread.
As an anti-theistic agnostic, I believe there are reasons to believe in a deity, but I think organized religion (Christianity, Islam etc.) is the most destructive force in human society. Therefore, I am really happy to live in Europe, where religion has been on the decline for the past 50 years and will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. However, when I look at the current state of the USA and the Middle-East, I'm greatly concerned. The large role religion plays in those areas is slowing down the progress of mankind in many areas, eg. science, politics. Therefore, I am really interested in how religion in general is doing in other areas in the world, since I only really know about Europe. Is it declining? Or remaining constant or even increasing? I really look forward to some point in the future when children are no longer indoctrinated on a grand scale, because that is by far the biggest reason why there are still so many believers in this day and age.
Please note that I didn't mean to bash religious people or any other party mentioned, I just expressed my personal opinion to explain why I'm interested in this subject.
|
@OP I don't really think you gave up on "faith" it's just that you gave up on one particular god that you believed in for a large part of your life.
There are plenty of believers even in science, you could call these people methodologist worshipers. These people have simply traded their bible for the classical laws of science and now choose to believe in that instead as means of finding the truth. And I suspect this is what you have done, which is fine btw if you feel that it suits you better.
Hope your new faith will lead you better than your old one.
|
@OP
I read this with geat interest. Was well written compared to alot of Religous talks, which do go into strong beliefs of there own which leads to arguments. I want to ask a few questions just further my ideas or my opinions. I not sure what you would class me but i have beliefs. Not in a god or entity who created everything and to be brutally honest i do not care. I believe in morals treating everyone in the world equally and allowing everyone to have there own beliefs. I feel i would like to believe in "God" seems like a wonderful thing knowing that here is someone who will look after you and have place for you in the after life (Which again i dont believe in) So i pose a few questions, if you would no mind.
Apologies for my lack of knowledge in this religon
So you say from what i understood that you'll follow all the ethics of christianty but believe in no god?
Therefore you said you have the feeling of christianty (i do not understand but would gladly read more on what this is) so making you a believer but if so then what does this make you believe in?
Thanks
|
So how many people in this thread were genuinely offended by the Djesus Uncrossed skit on SNL this weekend? I was hannel surfing and saw a Fox News reaction and it was hilarious.
|
5003 Posts
Hi OP,
This is something that everyone goes through in their faith somewhere. In my opinion, it's particularly worse for people who grew up in a Christian household so they never made the "choice" to begin with and you grew up with it, so you think that you are questioning your faith.
Religion isn't really about facts or logic, it's more about resonation. Once you academically start ripping apart the Bible, you'll find that the books aren't really written the way we have imagined it to be as we were growing up. Christianity, in the end, is more about the message rather than facts. You're right, there's a lot of immorality in the bible -- but that's the point -- we are human, people in the Bible were also human (whether they existed or not, who cares). Everyone in the Bible sinned, even Abraham or David or even the Disciples. The point isn't that the things in the Bible are moral or not but more about the inner message within this.
I don't know much about your faith, because you only talked about the logic behind what you perceive to be Christianity and the things you have done. But what I'm getting is that, you are a seeker of truth. You should keep reading. Not just the Bible, but also what atheists write, what other people write, other philosophies, etc. Keep reading and reading, but do not make the mistake that you'll find the answer in other people's thoughts -- but look for fragments of truth that they speak from. Just keep an open mind, and eventually you *will* return to God. And once you do, your relationship will be a lot more organic rather than mechanical.
It's not about "evidence". The most funny thing is that people believe that people would believe in God if there was evidence. The Bible constantly depicts the opposite -- despite miracles, despite constant guidance, people always turn away from God. There are people, who tend to believe things like a science, and I'm sure evidence would be great for those type of people (but I don't see that lasting, because we're very curious and creative critters), but for most of us, evidence is never, ever, enough. You'll have to reach the core yourself, and once you do, that will be the foundation of your faith.
|
John turns into Jack*
*See: Lost Seasons 1-6
|
I will answer the questions as I have time.
Is it declining?
I think stagnating would be a better word
I don't really think you gave up on "faith" it's just that you gave up on one particular god that you believed in for a large part of your life.
The whole notion of god now to me is now repugnant.
So you say from what i understood that you'll follow all the ethics of christianty but believe in no god?
I would say Christianity holds no exclusive copyright on any moral teaching which can't be found in another faith, or from the lack of one.
Therefore you said you have the feeling of christianty (i do not understand but would gladly read more on what this is) so making you a believer but if so then what does this make you believe in?
I have totally given up the entire notion of God, a prime mover, creative force, etc. That has been replaced with skepticism and reason.
You're right, there's a lot of immorality in the bible -- but that's the point -- we are human, people in the Bible were also human (whether they existed or not, who cares). Everyone in the Bible sinned, even Abraham or David or even the Disciples. The point isn't that the things in the Bible are moral or not but more about the inner message within this.
The Bible is not presented as such. It is the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. To disagree with it, in a sense, is to disagree with your creator.
It's not about "evidence". The most funny thing is that people believe that people would believe in God if there was evidence.
Why is that such a faulty assumption. Let's say the Biblical narrative is correct. We are made by God as logical and rational creatures. Even subconsciously we are weighing pro's and con's in our head. We are constantly looking for evidence in the world around us to validate or challenge what we believe. Therefor, the supreme God of the universe, who made us as such, reveals himself in a way which is the total opposite. He creates us as logical beings who have to ascend to God by faith without evidence. Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." 2 Cor 5: 7 "We live by faith, not by sight."
Man, Bible school has paid off in some regards, haha.
|
On February 19 2013 22:43 metbull wrote:
John turns into Jack*
*See: Lost Seasons 1-6
I see what you did there.
WE GOT TO GO BACK KATE
|
5003 Posts
he Bible is not presented as such. It is the authoritative and inerrant Word of God. To disagree with it, in a sense, is to disagree with your creator.
First, I don't understand why me talking about immorality would lead you to this remark. I'm a bit confused, so I'll take on your word on face value rather than trying to connect the dots. My apologies if my response isn't what you're looking for because of that.
In my opinion, the Bible does not say anything like that -- what you're saying is more doctrinal rather than actually biblical.
The Bible was put together by a council. There are *many* books related to the bible that didn't make the cut -- the people who put it together tried to put together a coherent message. Again, many of the books of the Bible has MANY motivations when it was written. You should take a look at such a history.
The verse that's most commonly quoted doesn't say that it *is* the word of God -- but inspired by God. You look at the Bible to look at the inspiration behind it, not just the words on the surface.
I also believe it is foolish for you to tell me "it is to disagree with my creator" to not read the Bible as the literal word of God. For me it doesn't matter whether or not Genesis happened or not, the point is that it gives tremendous insight into our spiritual walk. That is what matters.
Why is that such a faulty assumption. Let's say the Biblical narrative is correct. We are made by God as logical and rational creatures. Even subconsciously we are weighing pro's and con's in our head. We are constantly looking for evidence in the world around us to validate or challenge what we believe. Therefor, the supreme God of the universe, who made us as such, reveals himself in a way which is the total opposite. He creates us as logical beings who have to ascend to God by faith without evidence. Heb 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." 2 Cor 5: 7 "We live by faith, not by sight."
Because when we look for evidence we have a "theory" we want to prove. God isn't a theory. God is God. He is who he is. Look at the disciples -- they were by Jesus the entire time, saw all of the miracles. They believed that he would be the Messiah. Look at what happened when Jesus was arrested -- they all denied him and scurried away. All of those miracles, those evidence, what are they? They were for the theories that we feed to ourselves, but the second that theory that we have crumbles apart we run away from it all.
There's a reason why we call Christianity a "relationship" -- and once you understand that, those versus will make much more sense.
|
@OP
I just want to say thanks for your post and sharing your feelings. It was very heartfelt (to me at least). I have spent most of my young adult life struggling with the perceived gap between science and religion. For example, the events in Genesis 1-11 are so incredibly different from what is taught in school (Earth is 6000 years old vs. millions, evolution vs. creation, etc). I had a hard time trying to reconcile the differences between scientific facts from Scripture (ie, the mustard seed is the smallest seed when it is really not) and what we discover from our science.
That all changed when I took a Christian theology course at my university. My professor, Dr. Denis Lamoureux, has a doctorate in evolutionary biology and a doctorate in theology, specializing in Genesis 1-11. Needless to say, he has spent his entire life studying this. The class changed my life and I thought perhaps some of his material would be of interest to you.
I would definitely recommend you check out his book "I love Jesus and I accept Evolution." Also his website has essays regarding his official stance on this subject (Evolutionary Creation), as well as his testimony and some lectures on youtube regarding the subject.
Website: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/
Essay on Evolutionary Creation: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/evolutionary_creation.pdf
To summarize my thoughts, I think God is a concept that cannot be proven. Otherwise we would not have a definite choice. So if creation was so obvious, this would leave us with no choice but to believe in God. For man to truly be free from God, there must be no obvious signs that God is there. But because of that, I believe that leaves the door open to so much interpretation and doubt and etc. So I have a feeling you will be struggling with this for a long time. In the end, I believe this is what makes faith so incredibly challenging for some people (especially myself).
On the flip side, I don't think morality is a scientific principle. I think it would be almost offensive to attempt to attempt to fit emotions such as love and hate into a formula. To me, science studies nature. And theology will study morality and spiritual truths. I don't think you can mix the two.
In any case, I said I would try to keep this short and here I am with a long post. Of course this is a vast and complex topic, so I don't think a public forum is the best way for me to talk to you.
Feel free to send me a PM. I would love to discuss with you further on this subject. All the best in your spiritual journey.
Cheers.
|
First, I don't understand why me talking about immorality would lead you to this remark. I'm a bit confused, so I'll take on your word on face value rather than trying to connect the dots. My apologies if my response isn't what you're looking for because of that.
In my opinion, the Bible does not say anything like that -- what you're saying is more doctrinal rather than actually biblical.
The Bible was put together by a council. There are *many* books related to the bible that didn't make the cut -- the people who put it together tried to put together a coherent message. Again, many of the books of the Bible has MANY motivations when it was written. You should take a look at such a history.
The verse that's most commonly quoted doesn't say that it *is* the word of God -- but inspired by God. You look at the Bible to look at the inspiration behind it, not just the words on the surface.
I also believe it is foolish for you to tell me "it is to disagree with my creator" to not read the Bible as the literal word of God. For me it doesn't matter whether or not Genesis happened or not, the point is that it gives tremendous insight into our spiritual walk. That is what matters.
I agree. The Bible does not claim to be inerrant. Paul, in Timothy, does say all Scripture is God-breathed. Some may say that points to inerrancy, but at the very least it says that the OT is inspired.
Let me ask you this. If you agree the Bible is not inerrant, and that some of the stories such as the creation narrative in Genesis are not accurate, then how can you trust any of the spiritual insights? How do you pick and choose what is real and true while the others are bullshit?
There's a reason why we call Christianity a "relationship" -- and once you understand that, those versus will make much more sense.
I know, the whole "Its a relationship, not a religion" bumper sticker. The Bible sets forth an entire world view, not just a relationship. It says how man should live his life, the roll of the government, how we got here, why it rains, who God is, and how man is to respond to him. To regurgitate my question from above, if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
|
I have read many of the theistic evolution arguments. BB Warfield was a theologian around the time Darwin published Origins, and he came to accept it as well.
The reason why I do not accept this view is that I believe evolution and the concept of God to be incompatible. Evolution is not order. It has lead to the extinction of 99.9 percent of all species which have been on this planet alone. The thought that a god could just sit in his throne and watch billions of the creatures he created suffer and die for no purpose is diabolical. And if a Christian says, "We were that purpose" then how can such arrogance be reconciled with the order to be humble?
|
5003 Posts
Let me ask you this. If you agree the Bible is not inerrant, and that some of the stories such as the creation narrative in Genesis are not accurate, then how can you trust any of the spiritual insights? How do you pick and choose what is real and true while the others are bullshit?
I know, the whole "Its a relationship, not a religion" bumper sticker. The Bible sets forth an entire world view, not just a relationship. It says how man should live his life, the roll of the government, how we got here, why it rains, who God is, and how man is to respond to him. To regurgitate my question from above, if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
Why do we believe in science, when the methodology also gave us false conclusions quite a bit? We don't believe in the results of the science but we believe in the method, the process, and the spirit. Anytime we take these ideals and apply them, we're bound to make mistakes one way or another because the picture we see isn't the whole picture, or we may have applied it badly, or maybe there's just something we just don't understand. Imagine if every time someone publishes some result and it turns out they were wrong for whatever reason. Are we going to not believe in the scientific method now?
I'm not saying "cherry pick". I am saying, what matters is this spirit, in the same way. The Bible is a story of people, and people are sensitive to a lot of different factors. Religion doesn't provide us with "truths", it provides us with a path that we walk towards.
It's our nature, really. If we don't understand a statistical concept or a model we will so often say "well, that's because we're not good enough". But when it comes down to philosophy or economics or religion or things like that, we are so damn quick to deride the other side as "quacks" and "has no idea what they're talking about" -- because we have our own opinions, our own mold on what we believe.
Reading your posts you clearly have some notion of God. It's very likely that I don't believe in the God that you believe in, because to a certain extent when it comes to things like God it's so easy to project ideals and notions onto God and call it a god and what not. This is what means to seek God (or at least, what I currently believe it to be)
|
^And this is also, Milkis, why you should learn about every religion, and not just pick one and be, say, a "Christian"
On February 20 2013 01:03 ImAbstracT wrote:
if some of those has been proven wrong on what grounds can you accept the rest?
because it's just a book that some people wrote a long time ago about how they were trying to find some meaning in the world. The mistake is thinking that you should "accept" it in the way you are thinking about it.
|
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences. Every person is confined to the same purpose. And the only possible way life could have meaning is if it was created by an external consciousness for a specific purpose. Objects which are the result of indifference and purposeless cause/effect cannot have meaning, no matter how much they've been programmed to desire it.
What we call "purpose" or "meaning" these days has simply come to mean "what am I gonna do with all this free time I have as a result of industrialization?"
Where you trip up OP is focusing solely on Christianity. Looking for evidence about the truthfulness of the bible says absolutely nothing about the important questions, such as the existence of God. You've lumped the two together as if they were a single question, which is natural because you were raised that way. So make your title "my struggle with Christianity" and not "my struggle with God," because those are not synonymous. God is something there is no evidence for or against, something which is necessarily dependent upon faith and not logic or science. You either believe faith is worthwhile or you don't.
|
On February 20 2013 03:35 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences.
To paraphrase a wise man:
Men make their own meaning, but not under conditions of their own choosing.
|
On February 20 2013 03:38 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 03:35 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
Despite what people lie and tell themselves because they don't like the alternative, you cannot "create" your own purpose or meaning for life. If a chair was conscious it could not "decide" for it's purpose to be a table. You are confined to the limits set by your universe, your biology, your experiences. To paraphrase a wise man: Men make their own meaning, but not under conditions of their own choosing.
The conditions are deterministic.
Men do precisely what their physical brain tells them to do. Which can include deluding themselves into inventing a "meaning" for their actions, of course.
|
5003 Posts
On February 20 2013 03:18 sam!zdat wrote:
^And this is also, Milkis, why you should learn about every religion, and not just pick one and be, say, a "Christian"
I absolutely agree (I don't think I implied that you should only learn about Christianity). But at the same time, I still don't fully understand Christianity -- how can I make a full judgment regarding religion when I'm only able to look at them on the surface?
|
eh, whatever man, I'm not getting into this with you. go read some philosophy and get back to me in a few years
(edit: not you milkis the other guy)
|
On February 20 2013 03:59 sam!zdat wrote:
eh, whatever man, I'm not getting into this with you. go read some philosophy and get back to me in a few years
(edit: not you milkis the other guy)
Believe me, I've read plenty of philosophy. I don't make it my refuge from reality like you do, though.
|
Yeah, my life is pretty much defined by taking refuge from unpleasant truths
edit: the fact remains, you chose to believe that. it's an illusion which you cannot escape. stop trying to pretend like it isn't.
edit: "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away"
|
An illusion which you cannot escape? It's not about escaping it, it's about rejecting it. You simply have to remind yourself that the human mind is fully capable of tricking itself. Even science is coming to confirm this fact.
|
Let's see you reject it then. Stop making choices. You have no free will.
les non-dupes errent
|
On February 20 2013 04:31 sam!zdat wrote:
Let's see you reject it then. Stop making choices. You have no free will.
les non-dupes errent
Oh, choices still exist. I just don't have any choice in the choices I make.
You cannot stop something that has never begun.
|
So your point is irrelevant, because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference either way. You still have to make choices. Who cares if God already knows what choice you're going to make? I don't see what difference that makes.
Anyway, this is all a different question than the question of searching for meaning in existence, I don't really see what determinism has to do with it.
edit: and you still have to explain how the epiphenomenon of consciousness could arise from the simple rearrangement of objects which are not themselves conscious, that is extremely troubling
edit: if anything, determinism makes the problem even more problematic! how can I find meaning in a deterministic existence? I suppose I could become a calvinist, but then I would have to be a calvinist, and I can't think of anything more depressing than that.
|
On February 19 2013 04:49 sam!zdat wrote:Nice blog I'd just like to leave you, however, with the seed of doubt, that there are more sophisticated ways to think about religion than the way in which you were raised, and there are more sophisticated ways to think about the critique of religion than Dawkins and Hitchens. Keep asking questions I love a curious mind! If you decide that NOW you have found the Truth, then you have just made the same mistake as before Show nested quote +
Confucius said, "When everyone dislikes something, it should be examined. When everyone likes something, it should be examined."
fair words as usual samzdat
|
I am proud of OP. sharing this with us; it must be hard to overcome this. realizing what we believed in so deeply is in fact not what we thought it was.
|
On February 20 2013 04:30 AmorFatiAbyss wrote:
An illusion which you cannot escape? It's not about escaping it, it's about rejecting it. You simply have to remind yourself that the human mind is fully capable of tricking itself. Even science is coming to confirm this fact.
the rephrase with exactitude you thoughts I'd say that human have this biological tendancy of religious thoughts. mostly because, like primates, we recognize links of causality, we learn through them, everything. with our higher cognitve capacity, though we humans, have a much more complex sociality which involves semantics, which allows us to think of this causality. which mostly explain why we have such things as beliefs. Yes science confirms this fact. Illusion? partially.
|
On February 20 2013 01:09 ImAbstracT wrote:
I have read many of the theistic evolution arguments. BB Warfield was a theologian around the time Darwin published Origins, and he came to accept it as well.
The reason why I do not accept this view is that I believe evolution and the concept of God to be incompatible. Evolution is not order. It has lead to the extinction of 99.9 percent of all species which have been on this planet alone. The thought that a god could just sit in his throne and watch billions of the creatures he created suffer and die for no purpose is diabolical. And if a Christian says, "We were that purpose" then how can such arrogance be reconciled with the order to be humble?
well maybe these concept are incompatible with christianity, but not with god. wether you call it GOD or the world/universe, it appear to me it has no importance. importance is a human thing, we give importance. although there are rules/physics/phenomenon in this universe we do not grasp at all. things that are totally NOT under our control. bigger forces. science cannot either explain the "first" cause. again i think your vision of god is personified. he does not watch us nor have feelings like we do.
-> by the way this personifying of god was levistrauss' main explanation of the topic. every culture has god/gods who resembles them, who's the "real" god. how do you explain that every culture has its "every" beliefs.
|
I like to think about religion as the Theory of the Real.
What do I mean by this?
There is a basic tripartite division in Lacanian psychoanalysis between the Symbolic, the Imaginary, and the Real. Without going into too much detail, you can think of the Symbolic as just language - it's the web of symbols that we weave in order to understand the world. The Symbolic order is where we spend most of our time - wandering about in language. But it's just a bunch of individual symbols, joined together by this shifty sort of web that connects all of them together. But it's still just a net, and it's got lots of holes in it. So the Imaginary order is what you sort of project in order to fill in the gaps between the nodes in the network. The Imaginary is like a pointillist painting - if the Symbolic order is the collection of dots, then the Imaginary is what you see when you step back from the dots and look at the painting. (the Imaginary actually precedes the Symbolic, just like the painting precedes the dots that make up the painting, but that doesn't matter for now).
The Real, though. The Real is what hurts.
The Real is what happens when something bursts up from behind the painting, opening up a hole in the Symbolic order, which then must struggle to reconfigure itself and deal with the trauma. The Real is a radical break - it is what resists Symbolization absolutely. The Real is a horrific glimpse of the Abyss.
Religion, as a Theory of the Real, is precisely this struggle - it is the struggle of the Symbolic order to grapple with the lack which is inherent in that very order itself. How can we, from within language, from within the Symbolic order, attempt to symbolize that which, by its very nature, is a traumatic excess which forever eludes Symbolization? How can we use language to attempt to grapple with that which is forever beyond language?
Can we SAY it?
Or must we somehow SHOW it?
|
here's an interesting thing, from David Graeber's Debt
To one degree or another, all the major world religions[...] borrow[ed] the language of the marketplace as a way of thinking about the human condition. The reason is that all of them - from Zoroastrianism to Islam - arose amidst intense arguments about the role of money and the market in human life, and particularly about what these institutions meant for fundamental questions of what human beings owed to one another. The question of debt, and arguments about debt, ran through every aspect of the political life of the time. These arguments were set amidst revolts, petitions, and reformist movements. Some such movements gained allies in the temples and palaces. Others were brutally suppressed. Most of the terms, slogans, and specific issues being debated, though, have been lost to history. We just don't know what a political debate in a Syrian tavern in 750 BC was likely to be about. As a result, we have spent thousands of years contemplating sacred texts full of political allusions that would have been instantly recognizable to any reader at the time when they were written, but whose meaning we now can only guess at.
Jesus said to him[...] Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
is any of this starting to sound familiar to anyone
|
Didn't read it all, but always good when people who's been brainwashed have the power to intellectually grow themself out of it, props to you for breaking through the nonsense. Probably sick hard when you're surrounded with so many lol ppl.
|
I feel partly your expereience. I've been in a rather similar situation after finishing high school. I don't understand why you can stop believing in God after you claim you have experienced so much? One of the reasons that kept me back from falling away from the belief of a Creator, is exactly my experiences with Him. The prayers he has directly answered, the love he has directly shown. It is in a such a different and higher moral standard than anything, and yet you claim it to be immoral?
The basics of Christianity is the simple relationship with God, the Father & Jesus Christ in prayer.
In addition to reading the bible for spiritual nutrition. You said you were in a mega church active, but did you ever have a prayer life of your own? withdrawing, spending time alone with God daily? This is the most important thing in a Christian life.
There are plenty of good arguments that supports Genesis. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/) There is nothing about evolution that has ever convinced me to believe anything but the Bible, except the time I was brainwashed to believe in evolution during my early school years when I didn't know much about my faith. Evolution is a utter lie and a fantasy this world is wrapped under. There is no proof and still people claim it to be science...
|
On February 20 2013 16:11 sam!zdat wrote:here's an interesting thing, from David Graeber's DebtShow nested quote +
To one degree or another, all the major world religions[...] borrow[ed] the language of the marketplace as a way of thinking about the human condition. The reason is that all of them - from Zoroastrianism to Islam - arose amidst intense arguments about the role of money and the market in human life, and particularly about what these institutions meant for fundamental questions of what human beings owed to one another. The question of debt, and arguments about debt, ran through every aspect of the political life of the time. These arguments were set amidst revolts, petitions, and reformist movements. Some such movements gained allies in the temples and palaces. Others were brutally suppressed. Most of the terms, slogans, and specific issues being debated, though, have been lost to history. We just don't know what a political debate in a Syrian tavern in 750 BC was likely to be about. As a result, we have spent thousands of years contemplating sacred texts full of political allusions that would have been instantly recognizable to any reader at the time when they were written, but whose meaning we now can only guess at.
Show nested quote +
Jesus said to him[...] Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
is any of this starting to sound familiar to anyone
Nice Graeber drop. Dude is brilliant (just not the best public speaker).
|
5003 Posts
On February 20 2013 16:11 sam!zdat wrote:here's an interesting thing, from David Graeber's DebtShow nested quote +
To one degree or another, all the major world religions[...] borrow[ed] the language of the marketplace as a way of thinking about the human condition. The reason is that all of them - from Zoroastrianism to Islam - arose amidst intense arguments about the role of money and the market in human life, and particularly about what these institutions meant for fundamental questions of what human beings owed to one another. The question of debt, and arguments about debt, ran through every aspect of the political life of the time. These arguments were set amidst revolts, petitions, and reformist movements. Some such movements gained allies in the temples and palaces. Others were brutally suppressed. Most of the terms, slogans, and specific issues being debated, though, have been lost to history. We just don't know what a political debate in a Syrian tavern in 750 BC was likely to be about. As a result, we have spent thousands of years contemplating sacred texts full of political allusions that would have been instantly recognizable to any reader at the time when they were written, but whose meaning we now can only guess at.
Show nested quote +
Jesus said to him[...] Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
is any of this starting to sound familiar to anyone
sounds like economics to me
|
I never really believed in the bible, just think about this:
God is supposed to be all knowing, all rightful etcetc
But why is he warning us about what's coming (the end of the world) when he should know the future as it is. Is he expecting something to change?
BUT
I also don't put all too much trust into science.
A science teacher once told us this:
science is based on experiments and observations, and what if experiment and observations were actually not what we think they were?
Sure we think the earth had billions of years of history, we found dinosaur bones, we have methods to calculate how old Earth is.
But what if there is a creator? What is this earth is just created right a second ago? What we thought existed actually never existed. In fact, we wouldn't even know we have only started living a second ago.
similarly with black swan effect.
So science is just an easier target to put more faith in because our world is operating heavily based upon science improvement.
|
On February 21 2013 00:31 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2013 16:11 sam!zdat wrote:here's an interesting thing, from David Graeber's Debt
To one degree or another, all the major world religions[...] borrow[ed] the language of the marketplace as a way of thinking about the human condition. The reason is that all of them - from Zoroastrianism to Islam - arose amidst intense arguments about the role of money and the market in human life, and particularly about what these institutions meant for fundamental questions of what human beings owed to one another. The question of debt, and arguments about debt, ran through every aspect of the political life of the time. These arguments were set amidst revolts, petitions, and reformist movements. Some such movements gained allies in the temples and palaces. Others were brutally suppressed. Most of the terms, slogans, and specific issues being debated, though, have been lost to history. We just don't know what a political debate in a Syrian tavern in 750 BC was likely to be about. As a result, we have spent thousands of years contemplating sacred texts full of political allusions that would have been instantly recognizable to any reader at the time when they were written, but whose meaning we now can only guess at.
Jesus said to him[...] Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
is any of this starting to sound familiar to anyone sounds like economics to me
to me it sounds like we're ripe for a new religion
|
5003 Posts
On February 21 2013 09:55 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 00:31 Milkis wrote:On February 20 2013 16:11 sam!zdat wrote:here's an interesting thing, from David Graeber's Debt
To one degree or another, all the major world religions[...] borrow[ed] the language of the marketplace as a way of thinking about the human condition. The reason is that all of them - from Zoroastrianism to Islam - arose amidst intense arguments about the role of money and the market in human life, and particularly about what these institutions meant for fundamental questions of what human beings owed to one another. The question of debt, and arguments about debt, ran through every aspect of the political life of the time. These arguments were set amidst revolts, petitions, and reformist movements. Some such movements gained allies in the temples and palaces. Others were brutally suppressed. Most of the terms, slogans, and specific issues being debated, though, have been lost to history. We just don't know what a political debate in a Syrian tavern in 750 BC was likely to be about. As a result, we have spent thousands of years contemplating sacred texts full of political allusions that would have been instantly recognizable to any reader at the time when they were written, but whose meaning we now can only guess at.
Jesus said to him[...] Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and knelt before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!' The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.
"But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!'
"So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you!' He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.
is any of this starting to sound familiar to anyone sounds like economics to me to me it sounds like we're ripe for a new religion
haha, I guess it went over my head a little bit then -- could you tell me what you were implying exactly?
|
Graeber's thesis is that the major world religions are fundamentally about the question of what human beings owe to one another. What is the nature of debt? What do we owe to others, as a condition of being born into society?
For example, we can think about Christ the Redeemer (the term "redeem" of course is a debt term) as the savior who will come and absolve the tributary debt owed by the Judaeans to the Roman Empire.
Most popular uprisings in the classical world were about debt forgiveness and land reform. that is, periodically, the aristocracy would consolidate all the wealth, and the peasants would revolt and demand that the debts be cancelled and the land be redistributed. If you know anything about the Gracchi and things like that in Roman history, that's what we're talking about.
It seems to me that we're currently in a situation much like this. We have debt structures that have never existed before in human history, which are causing severe destabilization of society and raising fundamental questions about what humans owe one another (i.e. do we owe money to the financiers who crashed our market, and then were bailed out by taxpayers? do we owe money to the people who gave us home loans under misleading pretenses? Do third world countries which were aggressively invaded and colonized by western powers at the end of the nineteenth century really owe monetary debts to their aggressors, as the IMF insists? Are the people in those countries responsible for loans taken out by unelected dictators, who mostly put the money in swiss bank accounts? It's them who suffer when the IMF comes in and imposes austerity. In many cases, the amount paid in interest on these third-world loans has already exceeded the principle by quite a bit, although the debt remains outstanding, making these countries de facto imperial tributaries. Stuff like that)
If Graeber's thesis is correct, and it's persuading so far, we are now in precisely the sort of world-historical situation in which new religions tend to arise. Just sayin'
|
5003 Posts
On February 21 2013 13:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Graeber's thesis is that the major world religions are fundamentally about the question of what human beings owe to one another. What is the nature of debt? What do we owe to others, as a condition of being born into society?
For example, we can think about Christ the Redeemer (the term "redeem" of course is a debt term) as the savior who will come and absolve the tributary debt owed by the Judaeans to the Roman Empire.
Most popular uprisings in the classical world were about debt forgiveness and land reform. that is, periodically, the aristocracy would consolidate all the wealth, and the peasants would revolt and demand that the debts be cancelled and the land be redistributed. If you know anything about the Gracchi and things like that in Roman history, that's what we're talking about.
It seems to me that we're currently in a situation much like this. We have debt structures that have never existed before in human history, which are causing severe destabilization of society and raising fundamental questions about what humans owe one another (i.e. do we owe money to the financiers who crashed our market, and then were bailed out by taxpayers? do we owe money to the people who gave us home loans under misleading pretenses? Do third world countries which were aggressively invaded and colonized by western powers at the end of the nineteenth century really owe monetary debts to their aggressors, as the IMF insists?)
If Graeber's thesis is correct, and it's persuading so far, we are now in precisely the sort of world-historical situation in which new religions tend to arise. Just sayin'
That's actually a really fascinating thesis. Instinctively I kind of disagree with it -- My disagreements come from the fact that the way we thought about Christianity is something that constantly evolved over time, and I believe that stress tests from society such as things like that are things that really challenge what we believe through Christianity and it'll allow us to shade the things that we thought were right at one point but end up realizing it wasn't the whole picture. Structures like that helps us realize what's wrong with how we think about the world through the Christian lens. Because after all it's not like the structures got simpler, it has gotten more and more complicated and tests these beliefs more and more deeply each time.
I think it's a challenge, but doesn't mean we need a "new religion", but it'll weed out some of the interpretations we have had that is clearly leading people astray. The core message, imo, will always stay the same.
|
I think phenomena like religions can be a bunch of different things all at once - far be it from me to present a reductionist thesis of the type "religions are just about debt."
But I think historical situations involving debt crises DO tend to make people ask a lot of deeper existential questions, and ask questions about the nature of human society and their relations to others.
If not a new religion, I do think we're in the makings for a new Great Awakening of sorts, a period of creativity in religious thought. These people who think that religion is just a dying-out vestige of the medieval world have got everything precisely backwards. Religion will play a big role in the 21st century, I'm pretty sure about that.
edit: I think the way that religious systems get adopted into social structures is a different question than their origins. Certainly the way that Christianity was used in Medieval Europe as a justification for an oppressive social order has nothing to do with the origins of the religious tradition, or with the actual teachings of Christ. Empire will always find a way to co-opt a subversive ideology - that's why you have to always keep making new subversive ideologies.
edit: at any rate, I would recommend this book to everyone, it's one of the best things I've read in quite a while
|
5003 Posts
On February 21 2013 13:32 sam!zdat wrote:
But I think historical situations involving debt crises DO tend to make people ask a lot of deeper existential questions, and ask questions about the nature of human society and their relations to others.
It's crisis in general, no? Wars, Famine, disasters. Not sure why the focus is just on debt. All of those questions raise different questions. The thing is that a lot of these don't change so people are kind of trained to be able to answer these questions (or realize the true meaning of the answers they've been hearing from other people) during these crisis.
You are right in that, for crisis involving social and economic structures, which change over time, religion can't rely on such principles because they get outdated very quickly. This means that we need to dig back into it understand the core message again to see how it would apply. The entire tradition of talmud is about things like that, and iirc, Islam has a similar system in place for the interpretation of the Quran. It's a shame Christianty doesn't really do that other than Catholics. Shame everything else is a bit too decentralized which allows people to literally cherry pick their version of Christianity.
If not a new religion, I do think we're in the makings for a new Great Awakening of sorts, a period of creativity in religious thought. These people who think that religion is just a dying-out vestige of the medieval world have got everything precisely backwards. Religion will play a big role in the 21st century, I'm pretty sure about that.
We always say this but I don't think it'll happen. It'll always be the same. I think it's something to hope for, but it's unclear that any single idea can diffuse that fast in modern society where everyone already has a strong opinion on what they want to believe. If everyone was open minded and were trying to expand their understanding to get a "great awakening", then we'd understand it a bit more.
But maybe we're just seeing all of the friction we see in society right now and we're just hoping it gets greased out and we're talking about the diffusion of such a stress building up in society as we understand the world better.
edit: I think the way that religious systems get adopted into social structures is a different question than their origins. Certainly the way that Christianity was used in Medieval Europe as a justification for an oppressive social order has nothing to do with the origins of the religious tradition, or with the actual teachings of Christ. Empire will always find a way to co-opt a subversive ideology - that's why you have to always keep making new subversive ideologies.
People will use anything to gain favor. The abuse of economics in modern day politics, for example
|
On February 21 2013 13:49 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 13:32 sam!zdat wrote:
But I think historical situations involving debt crises DO tend to make people ask a lot of deeper existential questions, and ask questions about the nature of human society and their relations to others.
It's crisis in general, no? Wars, Famine, disasters. Not sure why the focus is just on debt. All of those questions raise different questions. The thing is that a lot of these don't change so people are kind of trained to be able to answer these questions (or realize the true meaning of the answers they've been hearing from other people) during these crisis.
Those might make people become more religious, but I don't think you see any religious traditions being developed in times of war and famine. War is just war - people fight and die. Famine is just famine - people starve. But debt crises require a reexamination of one's place in the world on a much more symbolic level, I think. I don't know, it's an intriguing thought, at any rate.
You are right in that, for crisis involving social and economic structures, which change over time, religion can't rely on such principles because they get outdated very quickly. This means that we need to dig back into it understand the core message again to see how it would apply. The entire tradition of talmud is about things like that, and iirc, Islam has a similar system in place for the interpretation of the Quran. It's a shame Christianty doesn't really do that other than Catholics. Shame everything else is a bit too decentralized which allows people to literally cherry pick their version of Christianity.
Cherry picking your version of Christianity is what the Reformation was all about! Well, that and a period of radical economic transformation
Show nested quote +
If not a new religion, I do think we're in the makings for a new Great Awakening of sorts, a period of creativity in religious thought. These people who think that religion is just a dying-out vestige of the medieval world have got everything precisely backwards. Religion will play a big role in the 21st century, I'm pretty sure about that.
We always say this but I don't think it'll happen. It'll always be the same. I think it's something to hope for, but it's unclear that any single idea can diffuse that fast in modern society where everyone already has a strong opinion on what they want to believe. If everyone was open minded and were trying to expand their understanding to get a "great awakening", then we'd understand it a bit more.
oh, it's just a little hunch I have. You're right that the modern media landscape makes things different. I don't think everyone's going to convert to some one big new religion. Mostly I just see religious discourse as a way to get out of the rational-utilitarian-positivist deadlock and offer some sort of resistance to the totally amoral power of capital. That's part of what the Church was supposed to be doing, offering a counterweight to the secular power, and I think we need to bring back an institution that accomplishes some of that same function. Our government certainly isn't doing it, because the government just works for capital.
But maybe we're just seeing all of the friction we see in society right now and we're just hoping it gets greased out and we're talking about the diffusion of such a stress building up in society as we understand the world better.
Yeah, I mean, we're definitely building up some pressure in the old boiler tank. I'm just sitting here trying to think of ways out, and some progressive development on the religious side of things just seems crazy enough to work. I'm sick of seeing religion as a force for conservatism and bigotry, I want to see religion as a force for compassion and moral cultivation. I don't really think that's all that far-fetched.
Show nested quote +edit: I think the way that religious systems get adopted into social structures is a different question than their origins. Certainly the way that Christianity was used in Medieval Europe as a justification for an oppressive social order has nothing to do with the origins of the religious tradition, or with the actual teachings of Christ. Empire will always find a way to co-opt a subversive ideology - that's why you have to always keep making new subversive ideologies. People will use anything to gain favor. The abuse of economics in modern day politics, for example
ugh, well, tell me about it  sam just makes himself sound angry and over his head when he tries to talk about that, however which i guess he is
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
