Faith, Reason and Terrorism...

[blackfox]

OK, admittedly this is a rather ambitious thread topic, and one that may very well go down in flames - but I thought it so interesting that I would give it a shot. I apologize in advance...

I have recently begun reading a book entitled "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. It is concerned with an analysis of the clash between Reason and Religion in the world - and the inherent danger in Faith - belief untempered by reason, or that is to say, evidence. It is these beliefs that seem to, however, lead us inexorably to kill each other.

Let me preface by saying that I am a spiritually moderate and tolerant individual - I have my spiritual beliefs and tend to respect those of others, even when I am in disagreement/disbelief. I also tend to find there to be some great wisdom in Religion and don't discount the fact that Religion has aided a great many people. I do not suscribe to a particular religious faith, however.

That said, I am having a hard time discounting the premises implied or explicitly stated in reading this book. A sampling will be below, although I may (imperfectly) paraphrase some for sake of brevity.

I hope that this will spark both interest and respectful debate. Here we go:


- Your beliefs define your vision of the world; they dictate your behavior; they determine your emotional responses to other humans.

- A large segment of the population believes that there is a Creator and that he/she has written a book.

- There is actually no evidence of said Creator and/or the fact that they authored a book.

- Because there is no evidence on the validity of a particular God or their authorship of a book, except the book itself - there can be no discourse on it's validity or any of the implied beliefs therein. Without discourse, there cannot be progress - without progress, we cannot come closer to the Truth. In this way, Religion seems antithetical to the pursuit of Truth.

- To believe that God exists is to believe that I stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is the reason for my belief. There must be some causal connection between the fact in question and my acceptance of it - so in this way, religious beliefs, to be beliefs about how the world is, must be as evidentiary in spirit as any other belief.

- As long as a person believes his beliefs represent an actual state of the world, he must believe that his beliefs are a consequence of the of the way the world is. This leaves him vunerable to new evidence.

- If there were no conceivable change in the world that could get a person to question his religious beliefs, this would prove that his beliefs were not predicated by thaking the state of the world into account. He could not claim, therefore, to be representing the world at all.

- Although Religious faith has had great power and effect on the lives of many millions of people - this says nothing about it's validity (eg the paranoid-delusional may be greatly influenced by the terror of the CIA - but it does not follow that his phones are tapped)

- How have we as a culture, elevated belief, without evidence, to the highest heiarchy of human virtues? Why are we convinced in this one area of our lives that our beliefs about the world can float entirely free of reason and evidence?

- Why is Faith a taboo subject for criticism? Why must this important driving force in millions of people's lives be politely ignored or discounted?

- There can be no such thing as a religious moderate, such as one who respects all faiths, or those of unbelievers - as this is explicitly denied in their particular texts. While there may be ecumenical passages within those texts, the central tenet of each religious creed is that all other creeds are wrong, or dangerously incomplete - and therefore intrinsically intolerant.

- In order to be a religious moderate, to be tolerant, or to react to the modernization of humanity (like the fact that we no longer stone Adulterors to death) - requires a purposeful omission of canonized texts of said religion. Thus religious moderation has nothing underwriting it except the neglect of the letter of Divine Law. I would think most Religious people would find this troubling.

That people of faith are also eminently reasonable people - albeit compartmentalized. Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt turns you invisible, and he is likely to ask for as much evidence as anyone else and be persuaded only to the extent that it is given.

- Tell that same man that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for all eternity if he fails to accept it's every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.

- That subsequently, religious fanatics, are actually quite sane people - working logically and reasonably from a set of beliefs - that happen to be essentially unproveable, and therefore irrefutable.

- That beliefs can therefore be quite dangerous, though somewhat mind-boggling (eg. transubstantiation - The Catholic mass rite of changing bread into the body of Christ and wine into his Blood - this has the peculiar consequence of allowing Jesus Christ, son of the Creator, one who cheated death and rose bodily unto the heavens - to be eaten in cracker form.)

- This same dogma - that the communion host is actually transformed into the living body of Jesus Christ - began to worry Christians that these living wafers might be subject to mistreatment - even torture - at the hands or heretics. Otherwise rational people murdered thousands of Jews and "heretics" to ensure that no-one would harm the Son-of-God, now readily available in the form of defenseless crackers.

- Is there really just sanity in numbers? Millions believe it is normal to believe that the Creator of the Universe can hear your thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he communicates with you by tapping morse-code with raindrops on your bedroom window.

- If a terrorist is acting rationally on the basis of his religious beliefs, he can both be considered sane and unstoppable - as religious beliefs, absent of evidence for validity, are impervious to evidence to the opposite. This should prove troubling (more on this later).


That is enough for now, but I will post later on some curious and dangerous results of this lapse of logic - especially as related to terrorism. For now, though, let us discuss the validity of the above.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Still waiting for God to come down and tell us which of the thousands of religions is the correct one. Perhaps they are all man made, in fact i can assure you all religions are man made.

[freeny]

Religion is a vice bestowed upon you just like crack or heroin by the religious dealers to keep you feeling "complete" and "at peace" with yourself while all the while only helping the themselves in their own greed. Some leaders will take this to great heights as has Osama Bin Laden by telling his followers to kill others as their duty to their religion or they will have failed to be "good muslims". Some are more subtle like our fine president Mr Bush who will use it to further his own cause for more $$, power and persuasion.

Free yourself from the addiction. You will be just as at peace without it.

[XNine]

Agreed. I believe there is some kind of higher being, what? I don't know. However, I also believe that this higher force is not here to bend us to their will, but perhaps seeing if humans can really achieve something great by themselves.
IT's hard for me to believe that something such laws of physics could be created by a large cloud of gas. IT baffles me, but anything is possible. IT's just like how the human mind cannot truely comprehend nothingness.

I believe religion is a horrible reason to do anything. I've seen bumper stickers that say things like "This is my car on earth, my treasure is in heaven" and stupid **** like that, that makes me believe religion is another tool to keep the rich man rich and the poor man poor. Give 10% to a church when that 10% could possibly feed your family for another few days until more money comes in, things like that.

This book sounds interesting, and all seems logical/rational questions and statements that you ahve posted. Perhaps I'll give it a try.

[Blue Velvet]

How have we as a culture, elevated belief, without evidence, to the highest heiarchy of human virtues? Why are we convinced in this one area of our lives that our beliefs about the world can float entirely free of reason and evidence?

Because everybody feels their life has a meaning; their life is important to them somehow, and although that meaning may be felt, it may not be consciously perceived and known.

[skunk]

Because everybody feels their life has a meaning; their life is important to them somehow, and although that meaning may be felt, it may not be consciously perceived and known.I would venture au contraire that everybody wishes their life had a meaning. When you're deep in the doodoo for seventy-odd years, it's a natural reaction to hope there's more to it. There probably isn't.

You don't have to be in my dream if I don't have to be in yours.

Good thread, btw bf....

[Blue Velvet]

I would venture au contraire that everybody wishes their life had a meaning.

Intuitively, your life has meaning to you. You feel that your existence has some value to you and to those around you and you would resist that taken away from you by another. It has value and a significance that resists logical analysis and a reductionist approach to its understanding.

Your loves, creativity, passions and dreams provide some evidence of a private purpose.

Though that's not anywhere close to saying there's a big bearded guy in the sky. ;)

[3rdpath]

faith, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is fine.

it's the desire to discredit and disqualify the beliefs of others that creates a world of problems...

[skunk]

Intuitively, your life has meaning to you. You feel that your existence has some value to you and to those around you and you would resist that taken away from you by another. It has value and a significance that resists logical analysis and a reductionist approach to its understanding.

Your loves, creativity, passions and dreams provide some evidence of a private purpose.Do they? A private process is not evidence of a private purpose.

[Ugg]

faith, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is fine.

it's the desire to discredit and disqualify the beliefs of others that creates a world of problems...

But as bf pointed out, it isn't fine because religion is inherently antagonistic towards all other religions.

[Thanatoast]

I think the problem with the book is that it is pitting logic against faith. It's an unfair fight (from both sides, ironically).

Those supporting logic will become frustrated because those supporting faith don't care about evidence or logical thinking. They believe what they believe and to hell with everyone else. (pun intended)

Everytime I've had this conversation (my parents are pastors) it boils down to a mutual agreement for everyone to follow their path and not bother anyone else. My parents sometimes take offense when I rail against religion because they do not consider themselves part of the problem, and in as far as their fundy-factor is concerned, they're right. None of the Methodists I've ever known have been wild-eyed bible-thumpers.

I believe it to be an unsolvable problem. Each side believes the other will eventually come around. (Except the fundies, who believe our laws should reflect the arbitrary morals of our dominant religion)

[blackfox]

I think the problem with the book is that it is pitting logic against faith. It's an unfair fight (from both sides, ironically).

Those supporting logic will become frustrated because those supporting faith don't care about evidence or logical thinking. They believe what they believe and to hell with everyone else. (pun intended)

Everytime I've had this conversation (my parents are pastors) it boils down to a mutual agreement for everyone to follow their path and not bother anyone else. My parents sometimes take offense when I rail against religion because they do not consider themselves part of the problem, and in as far as their fundy-factor is concerned, they're right. None of the Methodists I've ever known have been wild-eyed bible-thumpers.

I believe it to be an unsolvable problem. Each side believes the other will eventually come around. (Except the fundies, who believe our laws should reflect the arbitrary morals of our dominant religion)

You know, I have usually adhered somewhat to this general consensus.

I must admit, however reluctantly, that this may be an incorrect and dangerous way to deal with the problem of those who use Faith as the primary guide to their lives.

I seriously entertain the notion that the other side does not care a whit about whether we will come around, and in some cases considers us to be the defacto enemy. This is predicated on the ascension of articles of Faith over any rational sense of ethics we might share.

This is bore out daily, now and historically, when people chose to kill each other (Ireland/UK, Serbia/Bosnia etc) or harm each other or society (such as preventing practical birth-control measures, proper science curriculum, practical AIDS prevention techniques etc) because adherence to belief and the comfort of fellow believers trumps basic common-sense humanity.

This is to say nothing of terrorism, where irrational belief can allow for both the impetus (concept and demand of Jihad against unbelievers) and the avenues (such as the "reward" for suicide bombers) for a concerted effort at our destruction.

There are certain things that are undeniable truths in the world - and unfortunately - many people armed with Religion are in a unique, even proactive position to ensure all of our destruction, even if it makes no sense to us that they ever would - which is exactly the point.

BTW, it could be argued (as I alluded to above) that many drug laws, laws against sodomy or other "victimless" crimes on our books here in the US are thinly-veiled legislated Christian morality.

[Thanatoast]

You know, I have usually adhered somewhat to this general consensus.

I must admit, however reluctantly, that this may be an incorrect and dangerous way to deal with the problem of those who use Faith as the primary guide to their lives.
Yeah, I must admit that just agreeing to ignore the problem and hope it goes away does feel kinda like a federal government style solution.

And it would be a lot easier to be able to talk about religion and its relative benefits and drawbacks without peole getting offended/frustrated or saying it's unsolvable (ahem).

But while national dialogue on the merits of religion would be welcomed and reported on, a dialogue on the drawbacks and and possible resolutions would be attacked and denounced.

Small forums like Macrumors are the only places we'll be able to have such conversations because we are a self-selected group who can handle the topic without much animosity. (or at least we try)

On the national level, accusations of bias and persecution would fly thick and fast, without the tempering use of smilies.

I still can't help but think the differences are intractable. As mentioned in the OP, when questioning faith with logic, neither will win.

[solvs]

You might want to also check out No God But God by Reza Aslan (http://www.rezaaslan.com/).

I think the problem stems not from a belief in a higher power, but of a desire for a higher power. People want to believe and know the truth so much that they are willing to throw logic out the window to support the ideal system told to them by someone else, usually someone in power like a parent or religious leader that they look toward for guidence and answers in an uncertain and scary world. The questions are then ignored, and anything that goes against their beliefs becomes a foreign idea and something to be hated and fought against. Even if logic dictates it being true, though even the truth can be subjective. Add in those who stand behind religion to justify their hatred and/or ignorance, or to mask a more deep seated problem they can't deal with (as we saw with our recently banned friend), and you have a bunch of extremists that make the rest of us look bad.

I am of course speaking mostly of the extremists, of which I don't count myself, but even those who walk the line can fall into dangerous territory. Witness a false prophet like Bush who can fool people by talking about God and wearing his Bible on his sleeve, even when doing the exact opposite of what a Christian should. Were Christians more like Christ (or Muslims like Mohammed), and actually followed what he did rather than just talking about him, this would not be an issue. But they'd rather be hypocrites because it's too much of an effort apparently to actually be a good person and far easier to judge and condemn others.

As well, if we accept that not all of the Bible makes sense, but we can still believe in the basic principles and that there might be a God, just like we can believe in evolution even though some parts of it don't make sense. ;)

[3rdpath]

But as bf pointed out, it isn't fine because religion is inherently antagonistic towards all other religions.
i disagree.

first, i don't define faith and religion as the same.

second, i see no reason why a religion must be inherently antagonistic towards other religions. this antognism says far more about people than religion.

[atszyman]

I was listening to an interview on Air America this morning with the director of State of Fear (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485046/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnx0dD0xfGZiPXV8cG49MHxrdz0xfHE9c3RhdGUgb2YgZmVhcnxmdD0xfG14PTIwfGxtPTUwMHxjbz0xfGh0bWw9 MXxubT0x;fc=3;ft=23;fm=1) a movie about terrorism in Peru in the 80s and 90s. There was an interesting point made about the goals of terrorism.

They raise the idea that the purpose of the large scale attacks are to prompt a military response the angers more of the world. Which seems almost like we played directly into their hands by invading Iraq, since the US had the whole world behind us on September 12 and now it seems most of the rest of the world hates us.

[Thanatoast]

i disagree.

first, i don't define faith and religion as the same.

second, i see no reason why a religion must be inherently antagonistic towards other religions. this antognism says far more about people than religion.
so are the troublemakers defined by their faith or their religion? what if they have faith in their religion? people may have faith in god, but they still get their behavioral rules and norms from the religious community that sold them on god.

some religions *are* inherently antagonistic. christianity's first commandment is devoted to this, "thou shalt have no other gods before me". the first five are about giving god his due, and non-worshipers will be punished until their 4th generation of children. that sounds pretty antagonistic towards dissenters. if someone else worships a different god, wouldn't that be inherently antagonistic?

i mean, that's like wearing a raiders jersey to a broncos game - after john elway said that anyone who roots for other teams will go to hell and their great great grandchildren will burn for all eternity.

[blackfox]

oh, a quick aside about the ten commandments.

There is continued debate about their inclusion further into our society. I happen to think that they have questionable validity/applicability to that end.

To those who agree with the Ten commandments, however, do you agree with their punishments?

They are all punishable by Death.

It's all in the Bible folks. If you choose to ignore that part, well then, you might as well ignore it all.

[Dont Hurt Me]

oh, a quick aside about the ten commandments.

There is continued debate about their inclusion further into our society. I happen to think that they have questionable validity/applicability to that end.

To those who agree with the Ten commandments, however, do you agree with their punishments?

They are all punishable by Death.

It's all in the Bible folks. If you choose to ignore that part, well then, you might as well ignore it all.Who said they are punishable by Death? it wasnt god, it was that pathetic creature who craves tradition called man.

[3rdpath]

so are the troublemakers defined by their faith or their religion? what if they have faith in their religion? people may have faith in god, but they still get their behavioral rules and norms from the religious community that sold them on god.

some religions *are* inherently antagonistic. christianity's first commandment is devoted to this, "thou shalt have no other gods before me". the first five are about giving god his due, and non-worshipers will be punished until their 4th generation of children. that sounds pretty antagonistic towards dissenters. if someone else worships a different god, wouldn't that be inherently antagonistic?

i mean, that's like wearing a raiders jersey to a broncos game - after john elway said that anyone who roots for other teams will go to hell and their great great grandchildren will burn for all eternity.

the troublemakers are defined by their desire to make trouble. religion/faith is simply a convenient justification for a person's actions. people will find their norms by seeking out what seems normal ; sadly, some people see hate and violence as normal. i can think of no other reason why so many people can read the bible (or Mein Kampf) and not feel the urge to persecute others.

and i think your football jersey story is a good example of why faith/religion has nothing to do with peoples' actions. football is neither faith nor religion yet it incites some people to violence and other abhorent behavior.

if you're looking-justification is pretty easy to find.

[blackfox]

Who said they are punishable by Death? it wasnt god, it was that pathetic creature who craves tradition called man.
Be that as it may, that is a tangental point to the one I was trying to make.

I am not so much trying to argue the logical consistency of the content of the bible - but that of the belief of those that follow it as the word of God.

There are numerous sections in the Bible, such as the recommendation of stoning people to death, or punishing those who break the Ten Commandments by death, that many "modern" Christians chose to ignore, for obviously practical reasons.

Once you do this, however, you could just as easily ignore those parts which regard homosexuality as a sin, or so on and so forth. There is no way around this fact, in my mind.

As this pertains to the larger issue of the Bible being the word of God, it seems that ignoring any of it, regardless of how abhorrent it seems to modern sensibilities is among the greatest sin a practicing Christian can do.

There is also the question of how an infallible God could be so base in his proclamations, and so uneven in his tone and content. There is great wisdom in the Bible to be sure, but so is there in Shakespeare, and it seems odd that the latter would be such a superior writer.

To those who say we mere mortals cannot conceptualize the wisdom of God (an often used retort) as he is above human understanding of said issues - I ask why he is displays all to human traits throughout the Bible - Anger, Jealousy, indeed a whole gamut of very human emotions.

One might be tempted to say we made God in our image...

[Dont Hurt Me]

I have to inject this one thought, King James and his zealots are the ones who made the Bible. They are the ones who decided what went in, what didnt and presto the Bible. The funny thing is billions think that this Bible was handed down and inspired by God. It wasnt, it was made by man and most of the books in it were written hundreds of years after the events they portray as history. I find that those books they threw out to be just as interesting as the ones they kept. Like i said man craves tradition just look at the Catholics and Protestants, same book but 2 diffrent traditions and spin if you will. How did they go from worshipping god and jesus to worshippiong his mother??? Man is a screwed up mess but you can be assured man will teach his kids the same screwed up mess. Religions are for the weak minded and those who need someone to tell them what to think. Please send your donation to.............................and bring in little johny so we can brainwash him before he grows up.

[Agathon]

They raise the idea that the purpose of the large scale attacks are to prompt a military response the angers more of the world. Which seems almost like we played directly into their hands by invading Iraq, since the US had the whole world behind us on September 12 and now it seems most of the rest of the world hates us.

Uh... yeah.. I realized that at about 9:05 on 9/11.

[Agathon]

If you think that religion will ever disappear, I invite you to consider how many people believe in Astrology, a "science" which had it's cosmological basis ripped out from under it about half a millenium ago.

A lot of people have no intellectual conscience. How frightening is it that they are allowed to vote...?

[atszyman]

Uh... yeah.. I realized that at about 9:05 on 9/11.

Immediately after 9/11 we had a massive swelling of support and sympathy across the globe. Had we not squandered this by our ill advised foray into Iraq we might have achieved the opposite and forged a stronger global alliance rather than alienating ourselves from most of the rest of the planet.

I never really thought about what the ultimate goals were beyond getting the US out of the middle east, and how slick the plan seems to be working with us in Iraq, the world mostly against us, and a plentiful supply of new terrorist recruits.

Had we sat and thought about it awhile we could probably have Al Queda almost completely destroyed had we utilized the offers of support and listened to our allies more closely following 9/11. Had we worked with our allies more and not been the arrogant bullies we were things could be very different today.

[Thanatoast]

if you're looking-justification is pretty easy to find.
Especially if it's codified in the bible. There are plenty of pieces of the bible that direct believers to go out and destroy other cultures, religions, et al.

Another large problem is that in the case of religion, not only is God on your side when you do the destroying, he forgives you and praises you for following his direction.

People are a problem, sure. But a system designed to eradicate other religions and cultures while granting amnesty for what would normally be heinous transgressions - that's the larger problem.

People are only taking advantage of the system laid out before them.

[IJ Reilly]

Interesting discussion.

I don't accept the premise that religious faith is inherently immoderate and intolerant. Everyone is free to interpret religious texts in any way they personally see fit and to describe their religious affiliations in any way they wish. It is the religious leaders, and those who choose to follow them by virtue of their own free will, who are immoderate and intolerant. Insisting on a strict adherence to one, arbitrary interpretation of a single religious text to the exclusion of all others is an age-old method of manipulating and controlling believers. In the end, it's about power. The power of the clergy. This manipulation can be rejected by an any individual who simply chooses to say "no" to it. The shame of it is how many believers feel the need to have their faiths officially endorsed by the men in robes. This is where the all the grief created by religion begins, now as always.

Currently we're in a period swinging hard away from religious tolerance and liberalism and towards fundamentalist adherence, world-wide. The source is of this trend I suspect is the rapid globalization of cultures. Religious leaders can and do play on the fear of lost religious and cultural identity in the same way that political leaders can play so successfully on fear.

[blackfox]

Interesting discussion.

I don't accept the premise that religious faith is inherently immoderate and intolerant. Everyone is free to interpret religious texts in any way they personally see fit and to describe their religious affiliations in any way they wish. It is the religious leaders, and those who choose to follow them by virtue of their own free will, who are immoderate and intolerant. Insisting on a strict adherence to one, arbitrary interpretation of a single religious text to the exclusion of all others is an age-old method of manipulating and controlling believers. In the end, it's about power. The power of the clergy. This manipulation can be rejected by an any individual who simply chooses to say "no" to it. The shame of it is how many believers feel the need to have their faiths officially endorsed by the men in robes. This is where the all the grief created by religion begins, now as always.

Currently we're in a period swinging hard away from religious tolerance and liberalism and towards fundamentalist adherence, world-wide. The source is of this trend I suspect is the rapid globalization of cultures. Religious leaders can and do play on the fear of lost religious and cultural identity in the same way that political leaders can play so successfully on fear.

Ah, but is religious faith really able to be moderate or tolerant? To the degree that some religious folk are moderate or tolerant seems to directly correlate to the degree in which their faith has accomodated or synthesized with some reason/common sense.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, there seems to be a peculiar conflux of dynamics with regards to religious faith - at least of an Organized Religion
- First, there is the mechanism of Faith itself, which requiring no evidence to institute a belief, seems oddly impervious to any contrary evidence, to any discourse, to any evolution of thought.

- Second, as to reinforce the first, the very gravity of the subject matter of Religion, as relating to the psychological needs of humanity in reference to meaning and more importantly, to death, is a powerful motivator to hold onto an otherwise irrational belief (or set of them).

- Third, religious text is inherently inflexible, exclusive and said to be infallible. It demands adherence in order to give forth it's supposed gifts, to the point where faith is absolutely necessary as a means to that end.

There is, on top of that, of course, the very real manipulation of Religion in the ways you've outlined - but I think that just further reinforces what is inherent in the system to begin with.

As for your comments about the swing away from liberalism and tolerance with reference to religion as of late - I think you are largely correct, although the West is still remarkably liberal as modern Culture has thoroughly weakened and diluted Religions potential holding power. Is the US really more Religious now than anytime in it's past? Is Europe?

In the ME, on the other hand, you could make a case for increased fundamentalism - as generally speaking, ME culture has been remarkably stagnant - for example, Spain translates as many books into spanish each year, as the Arab world has translated into Arabic since the 9th Century (UN Arab Human Development Report 2002). This vacuum naturally leads to the ascendence of Islam, and perhaps even Muslim cultural identity, as there is very little in the way of National or Regional identity (such as Pan-Arabism) compared to the West.

Which brings me to another point, that not all Faiths are equal, in this case in terms of danger. Islam is a very militant Faith, and indeed it's texts have less restraining passages with regards to violence than do either Christianity or Judiasm (to name a few). Coupled with the above paragraph it seems that this is a dangerous situation indeed.

While it is tempting (and somewhat true) to assign political, economic reasons to the upsurge of Muslim Fundamentalism and terrorism, I am not sure they hold water.

In terms of political situations, it is surely true that many live in terrible conditions under despotic leaders. It is also true, however, that most of these leaders are more Liberal than their populations. The leaders of Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and until recently, Iraq - as terrible as they were, were also intruments of liberalization, however imperfect.

To the extent that you believe that democratization in the ME would invariably lead to Sharia Law, then you might see that many would vote to uproot many of the political and social freedoms they once enjoyed under tyrants. In many ways democracy in the ME, amounts to the equivalent of opening the polls to 14th Century Christians.

Relatedly, to those who put the causes of terrorism/fundamentalism either with the West, for it's imperialist meddling, or with ME cultural and political conditions/history - but it is Muslim faith which differentiates every Muslim from every Infidel. Indeed, without faith much of the Muslim grievances against the West would be difficult to formulate, let alone avenge.

As far as economic - while it is true that many in the ME are miserably poor and uneducated, it seems that most terrorists are actually neither. Many are well-educated and from relatively affluent families. So while education and economic reform may well better the lives of millions, and perhaps placate the militancy of Islam, it could very well aid the means to that end and exarcerbate the problem.


In case you wonder why I have decided to make a somewhat unequivocal case - there are two reasons:

1. There is alot at stake with the proliferation of chemical, biological and even nuclear technology which will inevitably fall into the hands of the faithful - and the unreasonable.

2. A certain relativism of thought on belief here in the West (that even I entertain), manifested in tolerance of other's beliefs (somewhat uncritically) and a certain pragmatism of methodology with regards to peoples beliefs (such as beliefs are merely a tool to an end), can lead to a lack of coherence and backbone. There are certain things which are realistically right and worth speaking up for.

Of note, UBL's favorite philosopher, sayyid Qutb, has ascribed this very relatism and tolerance to be America's eventual downfall - in that it would undermine it's ability to fend off it's enemies.

As said by Yeats : "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity".


OK, sorry too much written, but perhaps bits and pieces will spark further conversation...

[IJ Reilly]

Ah, but is religious faith really able to be moderate or tolerant? To the degree that some religious folk are moderate or tolerant seems to directly correlate to the degree in which their faith has accomodated or synthesized with some reason/common sense.

A bit overwhelmed by your response, and not really up to a lengthy reply at the moment, so I'll try to deal with this statement at least.

I think you are assuming that religious texts must by definition be read literally and as infallible, if only because that's what many people do. There's no rule saying that this must be the case. As I suggested before, those rules are made up by clergy for the purpose of maintaining control over believers. The believers subscribe to these rules voluntarily, at least in countries where religious and governmental authority are not one in the same.

[Thanatoast]

A bit overwhelmed by your response, and not really up to a lengthy reply at the moment, so I'll try to deal with this statement at least.

I think you are assuming that religious texts must by definition be read literally and as infallible, if only because that's what many people do. There's no rule saying that this must be the case. As I suggested before, those rules are made up by clergy for the purpose of maintaining control over believers. The believers subscribe to these rules voluntarily, at least in countries where religious and governmental authority are not one in the same.
If you accept the basic premise, that a supreme or divine being inspired these texts, why *wouldn't* you read them literally? As mentioned before, once you start tossing aside certain parts of the sacred texts, what's to stop you from arbitrarily doing away with anything? Why not toss the whole thing at that point?

There has to be *some* absolutism in religion, or else what is it exactly that you believe in?

[IJ Reilly]

If you accept the basic premise, that a supreme or divine being inspired these texts, why *wouldn't* you read them literally? As mentioned before, once you start tossing aside certain parts of the sacred texts, what's to stop you from arbitrarily doing away with anything? Why not toss the whole thing at that point?

There has to be *some* absolutism in religion, or else what is it exactly that you believe in?

Inspired by, if you choose to believe it -- but not written by. In fact these texts were written down by humans, and translated, and re-translated numerous times over centuries.

I'm no expert in these matters by any means, but I have heard religious people talk about the Bible's meanings in less than literal terms -- that faith is not determined by a belief in the literal truth of Biblical events, but more generally by the understanding of the lessons contained in the text. Certainly religious people are going to subscribe to some "absolute" views, but I would not confuse this with a literal interpretation of religious texts.

[3rdpath]

If you accept the basic premise, that a supreme or divine being inspired these texts, why *wouldn't* you read them literally? As mentioned before, once you start tossing aside certain parts of the sacred texts, what's to stop you from arbitrarily doing away with anything? Why not toss the whole thing at that point?

There has to be *some* absolutism in religion, or else what is it exactly that you believe in?

first and foremost, the bible ( and all religious texts) are *inspired* by God BUT they aren't written by God...big difference. man always inserts an agenda-whether knowingly or not, it's still there. therefore, a prudent person wouldn't( and couldn't ) read them literally.

second, the bible itself is sometimes contradictory which lends itself to interpretation. " eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are certainly at odds. we choose what we want to follow.

thirdly, i think you're really confusing religion's supposed power with man's innate desire to believe in something. if man was truly reasonable, there wouldn't be incidents or cults such as "guyana punch/jim jones", branch davidians, scientology or that group that committed mass suicide in san diego as a way of meeting their divine makers in an unseen spacecraft.

it's not the bible or religion.....it's man's innate, though fallible, desire for purpose.


edit: IJ beat me to the punch...

[blackfox]

Inspired by, if you choose to believe it -- but not written by. In fact these texts were written down by humans, and translated, and re-translated numerous times over centuries.

I'm no expert in these matters by any means, but I have heard religious people talk about the Bible's meanings in less than literal terms -- that faith is not determined by a belief in the literal truth of Biblical events, but more generally by the understanding of the lessons contained in the text. Certainly religious people are going to subscribe to some "absolute" views, but I would not confuse this with a literal interpretation of religious texts.

So IJ, how did you come to the conclusion that these texts were merely inspired by God - and written down by humans?

Obviously, it is because you allowed the facts of the matter to influence the equation - but people who believe that the world was created 1000 years after people were already brewing beer - don't seem to be able to allow just that - and in fact the text encourages this.

Also, while I am perfectly willing to concede that many thoughtful religious people do talk about the symbolic or other interpretations of the Bible, there are obviously a great many people who are not thoughtful, and who actually do suscribe to the text as literal representation and are adverse to any other interpretation.

Many of the thread topics we have discussed here concerning religious matters, we have seen this in practice - and lamented the damage this has done to the health of our society - or to the world. And the stakes are rising.

Would you not agree that you can make realistic appraisals of the essential character and tendencies of a system?

That belief about fantastical notions, with great psychological weight attached to them, requiring no evidence - could be anything other than a recipe for disaster?

The fact that there are many reasonable people in our neck of the woods who temper this with thoughtful insights not gleaned from religion, while great, only serves to obscure the issue - that although these people may call themselves Christians, according to doctrine they are not - but will still identify and defend this Religion against detractors - in effect defending something that they don't really believe in.

To somewhat clarify, it is those zealots and fanatics out there who are products of pure, undistilled faith - and that is exactly the problem.

[IJ Reilly]

So IJ, how did you come to the conclusion that these texts were merely inspired by God - and written down by humans?

Because I am free to come to any conclusions that suit my understanding.

[Thanatoast]

But what you guys are saying is that almost by definition, we can't take religion seriously. "Oh, you're not *literally* supposed to stone an adulterer to death, you should just remember that adultery is a wrong." But the bible doesn't say *why* adultery is wrong - beyond it being a sin - it just forbids it. So the only basis we have for the lesson is the lesson itself.

Religion doesn't encourage prudent thought, it encourages obedience. Otherwise why bother having a religion? You have to tell the people what to have faith *in*. If man interpreted God's will incorrectly, how do we know? Which parts of which texts do we leave behind as cultural detritus?

Now, if we've evolved past the point where we can take the lesson of adultery without having the actual stoning, then obviously we can take the lessons of religion without have the actual weekly worshipping. So where are we at? Has the worshipping gone on long enough or have the lessons not been learned? If we still need the weekly reminders, don't we still need the rules laid down by the texts?

This doesn't even touch upon how we decide which rules are valid and which aren't. If they were all written or interpreted by man, how do we know *any* of them are valid? The only proof we have of the validity of the bible is the bible.

If you, 3rdpath and IJ, are arguing that we should have faith rather than religion, how do you decide what to have faith in? How is your interpretation of any more valid than those we consider to be nutcases?

[skunk]

But what you guys are saying is that almost by definition, we can't take religion seriously. "Oh, you're not *literally* supposed to stone an adulterer to death, you should just remember that adultery is a wrong." But the bible doesn't say *why* adultery is wrong - beyond it being a sin - it just forbids it. So the only basis we have for the lesson is the lesson itself.Quite so.

Religion doesn't encourage prudent thought, it encourages obedience. Otherwise why bother having a religion? You have to tell the people what to have faith *in*. If man interpreted God's will incorrectly, how do we know?Current theory seems to be, among the religious types of all denominations, that we "know" by our "god's" continued favour, presumably at the expense of someone else. Therefore, interpretation is all: it's what makes Us Right and Them Wrong. All other faiths "know" this too, which does tend to lead to problems.

This doesn't even touch upon how we decide which rules are valid and which aren't. If they were all written or interpreted by man, how do we know *any* of them are valid? The only proof we have of the validity of the bible is the bible.

If you, 3rdpath and IJ, are arguing that we should have faith rather than religion, how do you decide what to have faith in? How is your interpretation of any more valid than those we consider to be nutcases?If there's any goodness, let alone godliness, in the world, it must reside as close to universality as is possible. It is logically inconceivable that (a) the millions either born before JC/Mohammed/Buddha/Mammon/etc, or out of range of their missionaries, are doomed irreversibly, or that (b) our species should hold a monopoly on grace.

[blackfox]

nice post thanatoast.

I guess what I am saying here is that in order to make progress on issues that concern us personally or collectively - one must be willing to think.

Religious Faith, by definition, does not allow that to happen, or so seriously compromises the parameters of debate, to make them almost inconsequential.

[IJ Reilly]

If you, 3rdpath and IJ, are arguing that we should have faith rather than religion, how do you decide what to have faith in? How is your interpretation of any more valid than those we consider to be nutcases?

I don't think this is my argument at all. I am simply saying that acceptance of a literal interpretation of a religious text is not a prerequisite for religious belief, it is simply one form of religious belief that is gaining in acceptance. Just because we happen to be surrounded by fundamentalists these days doesn't cause every authentically religious person to be one, and all religions throughout all time to be fundamentalist. But as I said, as a secular person myself, I'm no expert in faith. Perhaps we should hear from some religious people who don't necessarily accept that it's impossible to interpret the Bible without believing that Lot's wife was literally converted into sodium chloride, or that Jesus could only be the Son of God if he was born of a virginal Mary.

[solvs]

how do you decide what to have faith in? How is your interpretation of any more valid than those we consider to be nutcases?
The decision is personal based on beliefs, experience, and interpretation. The difference between us and them is that we accept that everyone is different and has a different system of beliefs. It's only when someone wants to force their beliefs on others, especially when they are unaccepting of others' differences, that things get sticky. In a free society, you are welcome to say Merry Christmas, but have to hear Happy Holidays. If Christians actually were Christian, this would not be a problem.

If you take the Bible, for instance, in context and realize that Jesus later spoke of the old way leading to ruin (he actually was against "an eye for an eye" and clearly says so), you see where you are only supposed to listen to what he said and did. The Old Testament is mostly just there to show how things used to be. Leviticus, for example, is not something we should be following anymore.

[mactastic]

Isn't insistence that religion is wrong just as intolerant as any religion asserting their supremacy?

[Agathon]

Immediately after 9/11 we had a massive swelling of support and sympathy across the globe. Had we not squandered this by our ill advised foray into Iraq we might have achieved the opposite and forged a stronger global alliance rather than alienating ourselves from most of the rest of the planet.

He wanted you to attack Afghanistan so that he could do to you what he and his friends did to the Soviets.

That didn't work, since the US played it smart militarily in Afghanistan.

Then the US gave him what he'd wanted all along by invading Iraq.

[blackfox]

Isn't insistence that religion is wrong just as intolerant as any religion asserting their supremacy?
Is tolerance always a good thing? If I was able to make a case, citing evidence, that Religion and the mechanism(s) of faith cause more ill than good in the world and stand as likely candidates to usher in the end of mankind - is not tolerance the worst thing to apply?

I am not saying that I necessarily believe the above, but it stands as a point to consider.

Let me add that beyond any insistence that Religion is wrong, which I would have come to rationally and thoughtfully, I would have no further specific agenda to follow.

If I were a Muslim (as an example), not only would I be explicitly directed to be intolerant - but I would also be explicit directed to act upon that in a number of proscribed manners. That some people might chose not to do so, has little to do with the nature of the system.

Is there not a difference?

I was hoping some Christian members of the forum would post their opinions, perhaps I have come off as overly hostile to Religion, but I am merely trying to foster a debate.

[solvs]

I was hoping some Christian members of the forum would post their opinions
Look closer. They are. ;) Perhaps you meant the more extremist Christians. In which case, I think we scared most of them off. Or got them banned. Or like the thread I created about homosexuality where I was kinda expecting someone to come in and ruin it.

But they didn't, so I had to do so myself. :p

[takao]

I was hoping some Christian members of the forum would post their opinions, perhaps I have come off as overly hostile to Religion, but I am merely trying to foster a debate.

well i guess most members are christian ;)


that aside: i think in certain european countries religion is loosing a lot of influence especially in the youth ... heck try finding somebody my age (22) going to church here...
people leaving the church are at a all time high through all religions even the 2nd 3rd generation turkish muslims don't really bother

we've got more unused churches than ever before and even not enough priests/monks/nuns: in the hospital chapel they have a polish priest in one one of the churches in my hometown one from the czech republic

i think religion is one of the things people rally around during times of war simply to differentiate from the other side.. the last 60 years are (i think) the longest period of peace in austria as long as history books Mention the name Austria (since 996 AD) and just 70 years ago it was catholic-christian conservative regime ...
all Religions live on hard times and problems ...

[mactastic]

Is tolerance always a good thing? If I was able to make a case, citing evidence, that Religion and the mechanism(s) of faith cause more ill than good in the world and stand as likely candidates to usher in the end of mankind - is not tolerance the worst thing to apply?

I am not saying that I necessarily believe the above, but it stands as a point to consider.

Let me add that beyond any insistence that Religion is wrong, which I would have come to rationally and thoughtfully, I would have no further specific agenda to follow.

If I were a Muslim (as an example), not only would I be explicitly directed to be intolerant - but I would also be explicit directed to act upon that in a number of proscribed manners. That some people might chose not to do so, has little to do with the nature of the system.

Is there not a difference?
Well, you'll have to look elsewhere for a Christian viewpoint, but haven't we run across Religion Is Wrong diatribes that call for religion to be purged?

If you were convinced that religion did harm, wouldn't you be compelled to do something about it? (Even if some might choose not to do so? ;) )

I mean, if you arrive at the conclusion that smog is bad rationally and thoughtfully -- do you then ignore the smog? Or do you call attention to it and try to do something about the problem?

Also, I'd add that this discussion has largely focused on the big mono-theistic religions -- in essence the Judeo-Christian tradition (even with the inclusion of Islam).

What about other faiths? Taoism for instance. Or the various flavors of earth-worshipping pagans? What about monastic communities who use religion as a path to inner reflection with no threat to the outside? Are they all inherently dangerous?

[blackfox]

oooh...alot of winking smileys...I do wish I was better at framing my arguments.

To clarify mactastics' latest question - I have been referring just to the "Religions of the Book" as they are the most codified and come with a specific manual.

Still, I don't want to get mired in the bog of addressing specific grievances against a particular faith - although I do feel some deserve it more than others.

What I do want to do is to try and encourage a realistic appraisal and discussion of the nature of "Faith" and what that means, in practical terms.

In this country, as in many others, it is taboo to address Faith in any critical light - without being branded as somehow anti-moral or some such negative association.

Despite the (possibly) positive nature of some Faith and interpretation of say, Christianity in the US, the nature of both has profoundly negative consequences in the health of our society imo.

The fact that someone can say something which is, in many cases ridiculous - cite the Bible and/or God as his/her evidence and then just call "Faith" - ends the debate right there. So what you are left with is the ascension of values, that gain credibility despite being from a more-or-less arbitrary book, believed to be correct for no evidence whatsoever. And this process is not only accepted, it is more or less sacrosanct.

As noted, many drug-laws, laws againt homosexual-marriage, curbing of reproductive rights - are but thinly-veiled Christian "sins" leglslated. And although they are in almost all respects counter-productive to their stated goals - their arguments and impetus are not able to be effectively debated as it treads on the sacred ground of Religion and Faith, meaning again, that one does not even have to argue their case in defending these laws.

Also, there is the evangelical aspect of Religious Faith - that "sinners" need to be saved, that we need to protect, as a society, the collective values of a segment thereof - those being derived without evidence and not subject to argument.

While you may dismiss this trend as coming from fundamentalists, which it often does, it is actively enabled by many of rest of us, who either identify or defer to the concept of Religion or Faith, and who just can't seem to see that those concepts don't automatically deserve deference. Those of us that remain skeptical are ultimately marginalized, despite perhaps being only guilty of pointing out the truth of the matter or asking an intelligent question to that end.

I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense.

[skunk]

I don't know, it just doesn't make any sense.Of course many people feel so threatened by that thought that they turn for comfort to religious dogma. It's nothing more than insecurity. Dangerous stuff, insecurity.

[solvs]

I mean, if you arrive at the conclusion that smog is bad rationally and thoughtfully -- do you then ignore the smog? Or do you call attention to it and try to do something about the problem?
Ah, but smoking is bad. And yet even if you are against it, it's allowed so long as the person smoking isn't blowing it in your face. Much like religion, as long as you don't have to "breathe" it in, it isn't a problem for anyone other than those who do. That would be where religion becomes a problem. When it moves from personal belief to "this is how everyone should be". I would say those who are against religion should be careful not to become what they fight. ;)

If everyone were Taoists, this would not be a problem.

[mactastic]

To clarify mactastics' latest question - I have been referring just to the "Religions of the Book" as they are the most codified and come with a specific manual.

Still, I don't want to get mired in the bog of addressing specific grievances against a particular faith - although I do feel some deserve it more than others.
What I'm wondering is whether this antipathy is universal towards all religions, or just towards the ones with instruction manuals?

What I do want to do is to try and encourage a realistic appraisal and discussion of the nature of "Faith" and what that means, in practical terms.

In this country, as in many others, it is taboo to address Faith in any critical light - without being branded as somehow anti-moral or some such negative association.

Despite the (possibly) positive nature of some Faith and interpretation of say, Christianity in the US, the nature of both has profoundly negative consequences in the health of our society imo.
In my opinion too, but does that mean the fundamental premise of faith is flawed, or is it the purveyors of that faith who are twisting it for their own ends?

The fact that someone can say something which is, in many cases ridiculous - cite the Bible and/or God as his/her evidence and then just call "Faith" - ends the debate right there. So what you are left with is the ascension of values, that gain credibility despite being from a more-or-less arbitrary book, believed to be correct for no evidence whatsoever. And this process is not only accepted, it is more or less sacrosanct.
To me though, there is a difference between a person who says they are sober by the grace of God (even if I think it's ********* and they did it on their own) versus someone who says God wants them to help them change the laws against abortion. I'm perfectly willing to let the former alone with their faith, yet I will vigorously challenge the latter.

As noted, many drug-laws, laws againt homosexual-marriage, curbing of reproductive rights - are but thinly-veiled Christian "sins" leglslated. And although they are in almost all respects counter-productive to their stated goals - their arguments and impetus are not able to be effectively debated as it treads on the sacred ground of Religion and Faith, meaning again, that one does not even have to argue their case in defending these laws.
You are partially correct, but there are other reasons as well. I've met plenty of non-Christian homophobes. Homophobia doesn't necessarily always come from a religious background. Misunderstanding or a complete lack of understanding also play significant roles in racism, sexism, and many other discriminatory factors. One does not have to be Christian to see drugs as a scourge on society. Of course that can come back to a lack of understanding -- or maybe a meth-head in the family.

IOW, while Christianity's morals may overlap 'traditional' morals, they are not necessarily the whole picture.

Also, there is the evangelical aspect of Religious Faith - that "sinners" need to be saved, that we need to protect, as a society, the collective values of a segment thereof - those being derived without evidence and not subject to argument.

While you may dismiss this trend as coming from fundamentalists, which it often does, it is actively enabled by many of rest of us, who either identify or defer to the concept of Religion or Faith, and who just can't seem to see that those concepts don't automatically deserve deference. Those of us that remain skeptical are ultimately marginalized, despite perhaps being only guilty of pointing out the truth of the matter or asking an intelligent question to that end.
Evangelism is where I break with most Christians -- hard. I'm very tolerant of someone doing their own thing on their own time, but to feel compelled to waste my time on a Saturday morning is wrong. Any religion that teaches that others MUST hear The Word or else! is just manipulating people in a giant pyramid scheme in my mind. If you religion is so good, you shouldn't have to advertise, right?

It's like lawyers -- if they truly were successful, do you think they would be trying to gain clients by (proselityzing) advertising? No way.

[belvdr]

If you religion is so good, you shouldn't have to advertise, right?

It's like lawyers -- if they truly were successful, do you think they would be trying to gain clients by (proselityzing) advertising? No way.

Let's use the term products here, as you can substitute it interchangeably.

Successful products always advertise. Even though the iPod is wildly successful, you still see their ads all over the place. When a product still has a portion of market share to gain, or has a significant portion of market share it doesn't want to lose to competitors, they advertise. This is basic marketing.

[IJ Reilly]

Let's use the term products here, as you can substitute it interchangeably.

Successful products always advertise. Even though the iPod is wildly successful, you still see their ads all over the place. When a product still has a portion of market share to gain, or has a significant portion of market share it doesn't want to lose to competitors, they advertise. This is basic marketing.

Ewww. Now I know why I am truly revolted by evangelism.

[takao]

hehe i'm just reminded of those guys who stand in old-town and shout around something about the bible or those in front of malls trying to talk teenagers into something... typical case of bad market analysis + failing to adpot to other country's culture ;)

[mactastic]

Let's use the term products here, as you can substitute it interchangeably.

Successful products always advertise. Even though the iPod is wildly successful, you still see their ads all over the place. When a product still has a portion of market share to gain, or has a significant portion of market share it doesn't want to lose to competitors, they advertise. This is basic marketing.
If Apple was selling as many iPods as they could ever possibly make, would they still advertise? ;)

I'd say Apple has a ways to go before that level of success.

[belvdr]

If Apple was selling as many iPods as they could ever possibly make, would they still advertise? ;)

I'd say Apple has a ways to go before that level of success.

Well, I was stating that just as an example. ;) If you look at products that have the greatest market share (save MS and their monopolistic control over the PC world), they still advertise to keep that share. If they didn't, competitors would advertise and attempt to steal that market share away.

Hmmm... I think I may have drifted way off topic here... :)

[solvs]

Nope, surprisingly still on topic. Difference being you aren't forced to buy iPods. No one will tell you that if you don't buy an iPod you are evil and going to Hell.

Well, except maybe here. :o

[mactastic]

Well, I was stating that just as an example. ;) If you look at products that have the greatest market share (save MS and their monopolistic control over the PC world), they still advertise to keep that share. If they didn't, competitors would advertise and attempt to steal that market share away.

Hmmm... I think I may have drifted way off topic here... :)
You can argue the aptness of the analogy all you want, but my point is that good religions shouldn't care what other people think -- the non-invasive actions and lives of the adherents should be advertisement enough.

I'm just wondering if BF thinks these guys (http://newsketemonks.com/) are a threat? (I've been reading their book "How to be your dog's best friend" an excellent book on dog training.)

And BTW BF, it's excellent to see you around again.

[IJ Reilly]

So, the Christian faith is little more than a product that can be sold through clever marketing, like so much toothpaste? Get your New and Improved God with Fluoride! And this entire concept is not seen as utterly profane by every believer? Please tell me it isn't so.

Though I must admit, whenever I see a car go by with one of those fish logos on the back, I say to myself (sometimes out loud), "Look, there goes another Honda Jesus!" So maybe it's working on me. Can you supersize my Jesus for me? Can I have my Christianity with a side of creamy slaw? I mean, I've got a coupon good for 25% off on Islam until next Wednesday, so I've really got to know.

[solvs]

So, the Christian faith is little more than a product that can be sold through clever marketing
Not faith, religion. ;) The opiate of the masses. The perversion of faith. I'm amazed that people still fall for it, what with your modern internets and all.

[mactastic]

So, the Christian faith is little more than a product that can be sold through clever marketing, like so much toothpaste? Get your New and Improved God with Fluoride! And this entire concept is not seen as utterly profane by every believer? Please tell me it isn't so.
No, it's not that, it's that these thought patterns leave people open to manipulation by others. Being willing to accept God on faith, it's a small step to accept that the priest needing a bigger, church, a nicer car, and some of life's finer things. And that he needs YOUR money to do it with. Note that this doesn't happen to everyone who is religious, nor are the non-religious exempt from thinking things like QVC needs their money.

I remember going to church, there were an awful lot of eyes on you as the collection plate went around.
Lights, camera, silence on the set
Tape rolling, 3-2-1-action
Welcome to the church of Suicidal
We'll have a service and wonderful recital
But before we go on, there's something I must mention
An important message I must bring to your attention
I was in meditation and prayer last night
I was awakened by a shining bright light
Over head, a glorious spirit
He gave me a message and you all need to hear it
"Send me your money", that's what he said
He said to "Send me your money"
Now if you can only send a dollar or two
There aint a hell of alot I can do for you
But, if you want to see heaven's door
Make a check out for five hundred or more
"Send me your money", do you here what I'm saying?
"Send me your money"

--Suicidal Tendencies

[IJ Reilly]

No, it's not that, it's that these thought patterns leave people open to manipulation by others. Being willing to accept God on faith, it's a small step to accept that the priest needing a bigger, church, a nicer car, and some of life's finer things. And that he needs YOUR money to do it with. Note that this doesn't happen to everyone who is religious, nor are the non-religious exempt from thinking things like QVC needs their money.

Possibly. But I think American Christians have become so accustomed to seeing their religion marketed like a product that many no longer see it as a conflict between the sacred and the profane. I've often wondered about this cash register Christianity phenomenon, and especially the use of Christian symbols in association with commercial enterprises -- on business cards and Yellow Pages ads and the like. What are we non-Christians supposed to make of this?

[xsedrinam]

Possibly. But I think American Christians have become so accustomed to seeing their religion marketed like a product that many no longer see it as a conflict between the sacred and the profane. I've often wondered about this cash register Christianity phenomenon, and especially the use of Christian symbols in association with commercial enterprises -- on business cards and Yellow Pages ads and the like. What are we non-Christians supposed to make of this?
As part of the non prophet making group, probably little to nothing. It's an interesting phenom to observe what kind of 'Christianity' comes out of cultural settings and influences. (i.e. What kind of 'Christian' is to be found in Cuba, China, Pakistan, Mangolia?) I would think the effort to reconcile free enterprise Capitalism with N.T. Christianity would require an unpleasant breed of opportunists who would cause the Spanish Conquistadors to blush. Where are the clowns? Don't bother, they're here.

So, are other faith groups (specifically Muslim) able to avoid this western influence? Isn't that part of if not the crux of extremist name calling (i.e. "the great satan", "the great whore")?

[blackfox]

No, it's not that, it's that these thought patterns leave people open to manipulation by others. Being willing to accept God on faith, it's a small step to accept that the priest needing a bigger, church, a nicer car, and some of life's finer things. And that he needs YOUR money to do it with. Note that this doesn't happen to everyone who is religious, nor are the non-religious exempt from thinking things like QVC needs their money.


It is also a small step from being willing to accept God on faith, and subsequently accepting a number of ridiculous dogmatic propostions as fact on that same Faith.

Benign or not, Religious belief is the presumption of knowledge where only some kind of pious hope exists. In religious faith, as in some other areas, wherever conviction grows at an inverse proportion to justification, we should be wary.

This has a definite consequence of being an impediment to genuine social progress. According to Gallup, 35% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God, another 40% believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. 46% believe in the literalist view of Creation - meaning that roughly 120 million people believe the world was created after known civilizations were already in existence for thousands of years.

This willful ignorance, and even hostility, to fact is astounding. This effects our collective attitudes on many important social issues, often to their detriment on terms of realistic, viable solutions.

The fact that we want our President to be Religious should seem especially troublesome in this light. Those of us who call "************" on Religion itself, or on various shallow manipulations of such - are branded anti-religious and by extension, anti-american. It is institutionalized ignorance, without a corrective.

In relation to the "advertisment" component of Religion - it should come to no surprise that people can be manipulated into the shallowest expressions of their Faith - as almost by definition Religious Faith encourages a passive, shallow relationship.

Again, let me be clear - I am not neccessarily advocating secularism - but I am advocating rationality. This does not preclude spirituality or ethical concerns, as they can both be accomplished with a healthy relation to reason, be it empirical or otherwise.

[xsedrinam]

Peter Huff wrote in the International Journal on World Peace:
"According to Antoun, fundamentalists in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite their doctrinal and practical differences, are united by a common worldview which anchors all of life in the authority of the sacred and a shared ethos that expresses itself through outrage at the pace and extent of modern secularization."

The topic's context of "Faith, Reason and Terrorism" would sooner or later need to address the issue of what is in the fiber or the profile of a fundamentalist or an extremist or a radical. There are those who would take any kind of standardized Taylor Johnson Preference Test and mark "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree" more than would the average or norm. With a fundamentalist, not only the "what" of the body of their belief is called in to question, but also the "why" and "how" of the intensity levels. If individuals are to be considered rational by behaving in a way which makes sense to them, (or, at least consistent), what is at the root of the belief system of an "extremist"?

Modernity has assigned to these as acting out of some basic motivational and felt need of fear, anger, guilt, control, power, greed, acceptance, vengeance, etc. But when a fundamentalist plays the "revelation" or "epiphany" trump card, all bets are off with regard to any common ground of "rationality".

Any hope of a global eradication of "believing" and "believers" is not likely to occur any time soon, regardless of Lennon's mantra of "Imagine". So to return to the earlier issue, in an arena where tolerance is currently being championed, how are cultures, societies and communities to peacefully coexist with believers when, within each belief system there continue to pop up subsystems of "fundamentalists" who apparently believe "more strongly" than others that which they have chosen to believe.

Should rational thought become the new opiate and clarion call to mediocrity?

[blackfox]

Peter Huff wrote in the International Journal on World Peace:


The topic's context of "Faith, Reason and Terrorism" would sooner or later need to address the issue of what is in the fiber or the profile of a fundamentalist or an extremist or a radical. There are those who would take any kind of standardized Taylor Johnson Preference Test and mark "strongly disagree" or "strongly agree" more than would the average or norm. With a fundamentalist, not only the "what" of the body of their belief is called in to question, but also the "why" and "how" of the intensity levels. If individuals are to be considered rational by behaving in a way which makes sense to them, (or, at least consistent), what is at the root of the belief system of an "extremist"?

Modernity has assigned to these as acting out of some basic motivational and felt need of fear, anger, guilt, control, power, greed, acceptance, vengeance, etc. But when a fundamentalist plays the "revelation" or "epiphany" trump card, all bets are off with regard to any common ground of "rationality".

Any hope of a global eradication of "believing" and "believers" is not likely to occur any time soon, regardless of Lennon's mantra of "Imagine". So to return to the earlier issue, in an arena where tolerance is currently being championed, how are cultures, societies and communities to peacefully coexist with believers when, within each belief system there continue to pop up subsystems of "fundamentalists" who apparently believe "more strongly" than others that which they have chosen to believe.

Should rational thought become the new opiate and clarion call to mediocrity?

I think that the steps that need to be taken to minimize the damage of Religious faith itself, especially the pure, undistilled form that marks fundamentalism are roughly as follows:

An attempt to de-mystify and subject both Religious faith and religious content to serious inquiry and discourse in the public realm, as appropriate to it's importance as a shaper of our society. It is doubtful that this subject will ever be resolved to everyone's liking, but it should at least be a topic of serious debate.

An attempt to show that it is possible, indeed preferable, to live ethically with genuine concern for other beings - without presuming to know things that we are profoundly ignorant of. In many cases, these ethical concepts are self-evident - Truth, Honesty, Love, and History is replete with examples of "Pagan" Ethics to draw lessons from, if we cannot from our own personal and collective experiences.

A somber assesment of what it at stake here. Whether the problem is Religious Faith, or Doctrine, or merely misguided fanatics, History has shown religion to be a divisive and bloody affair. In an age of advanced weaponry, an it's inevitable proliferation, it's stands to reason that we will not have the luxury of merely looking the other way.

As an aside, I am not advocating Atheism, which seems like a dogmatic secular Religion in itself - I am merely asking that the important questions be asked, and that some evidence be required in their answers.

[mactastic]

Ha. So much of our power structure is tied up in religion that you'll never pry them apart. When was the last time we had someone other than a Judeo-Christian president? I would imagine you could count the number of taken-seriously candidates for president who weren't a member of some sect of Christianity one hand.

In order to have a rational fruitful discussion of religion, first you'd have to quiet the religious masses and their leaders when they scream foul when you start "brainwashing" us with "the secular progressive agenda". But any move to quiet a religious fanatic only makes them more aggressive and more dangerous. It feeds their persecution complex, as we've seen all too often.

It's much easier to SAY you're going to have a rational discussion about religion than it is to actually DO it. :p

[solvs]

When was the last time we had someone other than a Judeo-Christian president?
Wasn't too long ago that there was a huge controversy over having a Catholic President. We haven't come that far. We still have a long way to go.

[Thanatoast]

In order to have a rational fruitful discussion of religion, first you'd have to quiet the religious masses and their leaders when they scream foul when you start "brainwashing" us with "the secular progressive agenda". But any move to quiet a religious fanatic only makes them more aggressive and more dangerous. It feeds their persecution complex, as we've seen all too often.
I'm pretty sure this is a phenomenon of only the last 25 years. Reagan started courting the fundies in the 80's because he saw them as an untapped resource. Before that religion stayed out of politics, as long as politics stayed out of religion.

The current "persecuted Christian" syndrome is a fabrication invented by Karl Rove and a large group of "conservatives" who started planning for the long term 20 years ago. They created think-tanks and universities, started lobbying to have their appointies put into the court system, and started fund raising and getting out the vote. Now the religious right has created an entire generation of "values"-based lawyers, conservative judges appointed to federal appeals courts, and politicians who are scared so ******** they won't tell the fundies to mind their own damn business.

[mactastic]

I'm pretty sure this is a phenomenon of only the last 25 years. Reagan started courting the fundies in the 80's because he saw them as an untapped resource. Before that religion stayed out of politics, as long as politics stayed out of religion.
In a different time they had a different name for it. "Secular progressive agenda" is just the most recent name for it. You are correct about Reagan and the fundies, and for sure the political meddlings of the religious right are growing stronger these days, but remember we once amended our constitution (then had to amend it back) because of the political power wielded by the religious.

The current "persecuted Christian" syndrome is a fabrication invented by Karl Rove and a large group of "conservatives" who started planning for the long term 20 years ago. They created think-tanks and universities, started lobbying to have their appointies put into the court system, and started fund raising and getting out the vote. Now the religious right has created an entire generation of "values"-based lawyers, conservative judges appointed to federal appeals courts, and politicians who are scared so ******** they won't tell the fundies to mind their own damn business.
Yes the current version is whipped into a frenzy by Rove, but he certainly didn't invent it. Persecuted Christians have been around as long as Christianity itself.

Yet somehow with a near-total dominance on the levers of power, they are a persecuted people...