I’m about to be brutally honest. Here is the problem. Not only do Christians of the evangelical variety believe they are correct because the Bible tells them so, but they also believe they are better than people that are more moral, more caring, more loving, and that are just generally better people than they are, just because they were indoctrinated in or adopted the “correct” religion from childhood. Also, it is demanded of them to correct the heathen masses who aren’t Christian exactly as they are Christian or rebuke and condemn them if they refuse.
And if “God” supports this, then that is not a God I want to believe in, a god of intolerance, hate, and mockery. And if hell is complete separation from a petty, intolerant god, then I welcome it. But, I believe in a God of love, and perhaps that isn’t the Christian God they believe in and perhaps it is, just the actual Christian God. Condemn me all you want.
The problem with religion is that all religions are based off of books (Bible included) of dubious credibility - books that have contradicted themselves and were written by fallible, corruptible human beings even if they were inspired by divinity. On top of this, it is left up to other corruptible, fallible human beings to interpret what those books say. So now not only can the original manuscripts be wrong, but the interpretation of an incorrect manuscript be wrong. And the fact is no Christian has any idea, nor does anyone else in any other religion. Everyone thinks they know, but no one actually does for sure. One may feel moved by divinity, but are they sure, really sure? Is anyone sure? Or do they just think they’re sure? (Is there anything beyond a feeling? And how do you express, convince others that your feeling is correct?) That to me is the definition of gullibility: the ability to believe in the credibility of something that can be wrong in so many ways but can never be questioned by the believers simply because that object of belief maintains its own legitimacy.
And maybe that is why I don’t have faith anymore, because it seems that people with an absurdly strong faith in any religion are gullible. I really don’t know. All I know is that I don’t want to believe I was created in the image of an intolerant, petulant, revengeful, and seemingly unintelligent (if ignoring good science [i.e. evolution] is a requirement) being.
The difference is, not every Christian is like Anon2 (or Anon1 for that matter), and that’s why I can still call myself Christian, because there are decent, intelligent people of that religion. Truthfully, I think we’ll all end up in heaven, assuming any divinity exists (I think that only then will we understand each other.), but for very different reasons. Both of us are undoubtedly misguided, but that’s why God is all loving, because by being human we could never please the intolerant, petulant god you speak of. Everyone has some measure of doubt. Let me repeat that. Everyone has some measure of doubt (We wouldn’t be human if we believed all the time.). So how do you measure how strong someone’s faith is against another’s? If good works aren’t good enough for God, how much faith does it take for them to become good? If good works are filthy rags simply because we don’t believe, then all works are filthy rages because at some point everyone doesn’t believe because we are all human. If we did believe 100% all the time we would be divine. No one could get to heaven otherwise.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
This I Believe (11, comments from pt. 10)
I explicitly said that faith and hope were two different things in the last post. I don’t see why you’re now trying to convince me of this. I also never defined faith and hope, so I don’t see how it appears that I’m confused between the two. Also what you gave wasn’t a definition. “Faith is having [hope] in a faith dimension.” That isn’t helpful at all.
As far as children and religion goes, obviously it was a mistake of me to talk about Dawkins even once. The posts from a year ago where I talk about Dawkins were simply me expressing my thoughts on Dawkins. I do not agree with him on most things. So, I assure you, you don’t need to convince me that he says some stupid things. Two, there is no possible way those studies are unbiased because they are trying to quantify qualitative results. Again, the church is more than the beliefs it espouses. The church is the people that make up the church. I attend church for more than participating in religious ceremonies. I attend for the people and the community.
I also stay because I love playing the music. Notice I said play and not perform. I do not care about showing off my talents. I do it because I enjoy it. The music I play in church is the closest I get to having faith anymore. If God exists, then I believe and am comfortable with what the Catholic Church does and says.
Again, I realize that faith and hope are different; I said that explicitly. But I disagree that if I don’t believe I can’t hope, because that’s exactly how I feel. For the very reason that hope is not faith, I can hope and still not have faith. And no, I’m not courageous. I am human; that’s why we need God isn’t it?
I keep going to church because I want everything the church says to be true. I do understand that wanting (hope) it to be true, believing (faith) it to be true, and it actually being true are completely different things. I also know, however, that after great moments of doubt there often come great moments of faith. I want to always have my foot in the door of the church so to speak. That’s why I don’t leave.
Question: you say that you will only make it to heaven “if [you] have faith, and inherently in [your] heart KNOW that He will take [you]”, but you say two sentences later that “No one knows, MBat!” I’m really confused. Do you know or don’t you? Or am I missing something?
A new thought: I do think that being a good person alone helps you get into heaven. 1 Corinthians 13:13-“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” The greatest of these is love, not faith. The question is does being a loving, charitable and hopeful person make up for not having a strong faith. I would argue yes. Obviously others would argue no. Perhaps I’m being narcissistic, but I just don’t see how a God who gives us reason would then demand we have faith (which is contrary to reason) for salvation when there is a reasonable doubt whether God exists.
As far as children and religion goes, obviously it was a mistake of me to talk about Dawkins even once. The posts from a year ago where I talk about Dawkins were simply me expressing my thoughts on Dawkins. I do not agree with him on most things. So, I assure you, you don’t need to convince me that he says some stupid things. Two, there is no possible way those studies are unbiased because they are trying to quantify qualitative results. Again, the church is more than the beliefs it espouses. The church is the people that make up the church. I attend church for more than participating in religious ceremonies. I attend for the people and the community.
I also stay because I love playing the music. Notice I said play and not perform. I do not care about showing off my talents. I do it because I enjoy it. The music I play in church is the closest I get to having faith anymore. If God exists, then I believe and am comfortable with what the Catholic Church does and says.
Again, I realize that faith and hope are different; I said that explicitly. But I disagree that if I don’t believe I can’t hope, because that’s exactly how I feel. For the very reason that hope is not faith, I can hope and still not have faith. And no, I’m not courageous. I am human; that’s why we need God isn’t it?
I keep going to church because I want everything the church says to be true. I do understand that wanting (hope) it to be true, believing (faith) it to be true, and it actually being true are completely different things. I also know, however, that after great moments of doubt there often come great moments of faith. I want to always have my foot in the door of the church so to speak. That’s why I don’t leave.
Question: you say that you will only make it to heaven “if [you] have faith, and inherently in [your] heart KNOW that He will take [you]”, but you say two sentences later that “No one knows, MBat!” I’m really confused. Do you know or don’t you? Or am I missing something?
A new thought: I do think that being a good person alone helps you get into heaven. 1 Corinthians 13:13-“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” The greatest of these is love, not faith. The question is does being a loving, charitable and hopeful person make up for not having a strong faith. I would argue yes. Obviously others would argue no. Perhaps I’m being narcissistic, but I just don’t see how a God who gives us reason would then demand we have faith (which is contrary to reason) for salvation when there is a reasonable doubt whether God exists.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
This I Believe (comments from last post)
I think it would be better for me to respond in posts instead of commenting because then there won’t be 100 comments on one post.
I agree that hoping that God exists will never help me; that doesn’t keep me from hoping though. Hoping and having faith are two different things. I hold out this hope because I want God to exist even though at this point I do not think he does. I want there to be an omnipotent, loving being that looks out for me and that created the universe. Isn’t hoping that God exists better (in your opinion as a Christian) than giving up on God altogether?
As far as childhood indoctrination, I don’t think this is an important point. I’m never going to be a child again, so I don’t particularly care if this is true at the moment. I will reconsider this when I have children. The main point of it is this: the child should not be forced into a religion. The problem is that it would be difficult for any child to choose a religion when they have no way of getting to nor communicating with other people from other religions. Children may not be forced into a religion, but at least all children are predisposed towards the religion of their parents. The thing about religious children being more well behaved children is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because they are instead left on their own. Although many of the statistics sited are probably correct, the flaw is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because the parents aren’t around enough to teach them anything. For those studies to be valid you would have to take a group of loving religious families and compare them to equally nurturing and loving atheist families. If you were to take atheistic parents that were around and showed just as much affection as religious parents, I would be the results on the child’s behavior would not be conclusive.
I am still Catholic because the Church is more than just what its beliefs are. The Church is also the people that are members of the Church. The feast for that concept is the Body and Blood of Christ that we celebrated not too long ago. I still call myself Catholic because while I do not espouse all the beliefs of the Church, I value the people and their ideals. One can be a member of an organization and not believe everything the organization believes.
I also agree that faith and reason are two different things, but just because they are different doesn’t mean I can’t use both of them. But yes, reason cannot help you in areas of religion, and faith is not useful in science and logic. Presently we can’t use reason because to find answers because we lack information. Should the answer in those situations automatically be faith? No (for example in deciding if the big bang proves the existence of a creator). As Wesley said every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic because there is the chance that God exists in the same way there is a chance that the force of gravity could stop working tomorrow. That chance is not a reasonable doubt, but merely a chance. That is where I hope. That is where I try to apply faith, but my faith is not strong enough to fill in this chance, and that is why I do not believe in a personal God, but that I hope.
The thing is though that there is free will. God doesn’t stop the heart of callous, blasphemers. And calling God a megalomaniac is probably blasphemy, but I don’t believe, so it doesn’t bother me. I understand that prayer is two way conversation and that most prayers are asking for things that are not willed by God, but the fact is that most prayers are essentially wishes to God. I do still pray. Let me just say what I pray for. Under the hope that God exists, I ask him to show me the “Way and the Truth” wherever that may take me and to help others with that same goal. I also acknowledge my talents and gifts, and I express where I would like my life to go. Lastly I pray for the decrease of misery and pain in the world.
If God doesn’t exist there is still a use for prayer in my mind. It helps solidify my desires and wants, and makes me grateful for what I have been given and helps put into perspective the misfortune of others. I think that level of awareness is a good thing.
I have a question. Didn’t Moses convince God not to destroy the people of Israel when they made the Golden Calf? Wasn’t that changing the will of God?
The problem with saying that the Bible has 2,000 fulfilled prophecies is that those prophecies were recorded by the Bible and then purportedly fulfilled and recorded in the Bible. I would be much more interested in independently proven prophecies made by the Bible, and even then there is now no way to prove anything from 2000 or more years ago actually happened.
I agree that hoping that God exists will never help me; that doesn’t keep me from hoping though. Hoping and having faith are two different things. I hold out this hope because I want God to exist even though at this point I do not think he does. I want there to be an omnipotent, loving being that looks out for me and that created the universe. Isn’t hoping that God exists better (in your opinion as a Christian) than giving up on God altogether?
As far as childhood indoctrination, I don’t think this is an important point. I’m never going to be a child again, so I don’t particularly care if this is true at the moment. I will reconsider this when I have children. The main point of it is this: the child should not be forced into a religion. The problem is that it would be difficult for any child to choose a religion when they have no way of getting to nor communicating with other people from other religions. Children may not be forced into a religion, but at least all children are predisposed towards the religion of their parents. The thing about religious children being more well behaved children is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because they are instead left on their own. Although many of the statistics sited are probably correct, the flaw is that when children are not indoctrinated with religion it is because the parents aren’t around enough to teach them anything. For those studies to be valid you would have to take a group of loving religious families and compare them to equally nurturing and loving atheist families. If you were to take atheistic parents that were around and showed just as much affection as religious parents, I would be the results on the child’s behavior would not be conclusive.
I am still Catholic because the Church is more than just what its beliefs are. The Church is also the people that are members of the Church. The feast for that concept is the Body and Blood of Christ that we celebrated not too long ago. I still call myself Catholic because while I do not espouse all the beliefs of the Church, I value the people and their ideals. One can be a member of an organization and not believe everything the organization believes.
I also agree that faith and reason are two different things, but just because they are different doesn’t mean I can’t use both of them. But yes, reason cannot help you in areas of religion, and faith is not useful in science and logic. Presently we can’t use reason because to find answers because we lack information. Should the answer in those situations automatically be faith? No (for example in deciding if the big bang proves the existence of a creator). As Wesley said every atheist is infinitesimally agnostic because there is the chance that God exists in the same way there is a chance that the force of gravity could stop working tomorrow. That chance is not a reasonable doubt, but merely a chance. That is where I hope. That is where I try to apply faith, but my faith is not strong enough to fill in this chance, and that is why I do not believe in a personal God, but that I hope.
The thing is though that there is free will. God doesn’t stop the heart of callous, blasphemers. And calling God a megalomaniac is probably blasphemy, but I don’t believe, so it doesn’t bother me. I understand that prayer is two way conversation and that most prayers are asking for things that are not willed by God, but the fact is that most prayers are essentially wishes to God. I do still pray. Let me just say what I pray for. Under the hope that God exists, I ask him to show me the “Way and the Truth” wherever that may take me and to help others with that same goal. I also acknowledge my talents and gifts, and I express where I would like my life to go. Lastly I pray for the decrease of misery and pain in the world.
If God doesn’t exist there is still a use for prayer in my mind. It helps solidify my desires and wants, and makes me grateful for what I have been given and helps put into perspective the misfortune of others. I think that level of awareness is a good thing.
I have a question. Didn’t Moses convince God not to destroy the people of Israel when they made the Golden Calf? Wasn’t that changing the will of God?
The problem with saying that the Bible has 2,000 fulfilled prophecies is that those prophecies were recorded by the Bible and then purportedly fulfilled and recorded in the Bible. I would be much more interested in independently proven prophecies made by the Bible, and even then there is now no way to prove anything from 2000 or more years ago actually happened.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
This I Believe (comments on the comments part 2)
Let’s start from the beginning. This post will only deal with comments from “This I Believe (part 4)” and will thus be rather short. None of the anons had really joined yet, so this was really just a couple of points between myself and Wesley.
Firstly, no, I don’t really believe in a personal God (as in a God that “…interferes in the physical world for [my] sake.”) anymore. I really want there to be a personal God. I want to believe that there exists an intelligence that if I only hope (pray) hard enough and in the correct way that he will grant me wishes, but this does not seem to be the case. (As an aside and I suppose to see if the anons are back, I’ll will say this: yes, there are some things that are beyond human control [e.g. natural disasters and a lot of other things], but most prayers are for silly things that would be more easily solved if people weren’t as lazy [e.g. oh God, please let me pass this test] or things that if God does exist He probably doesn’t care about [e.g. oh God, please let my foot/base/basketball team win]. If everyone took a bit more personal responsibility, the need for prayers to be answered would be greatly reduced.) Yes, a lot of “miracles” happen, but in the end, I think a lot of those “miracles” will be attributed to our own stupidity and lack of understanding. It seems far more likely that miracles are a lot of chance, coincidence and people taking the initiative to help themselves. Just because I don’t believe in a personal God does not mean I don’t hope there is something greater than myself.
Secondly, I believe that the primary reason for the continuance of religion is childhood indoctrination. I think that if we let a child develop without religion and then try to teach that child any religion once that child has developed the logical part of the brain, the child would reject it as silly.
I don’t believe in what Catholicism believes, but I do believe in the institution that is the Church - the “Body of Christ”, the people that make up the church. The Church has a lot of good, decent people that do good works, so while I don’t really espouse many of those beliefs, I do believe in the people. The Church (and when I say that I mean the people of the church) has helped me a great deal. And because of that, I will continue to support Catholicism.
Wesley is absolutely correct in his summary of my methodology for “minimizing the possibility of ‘accepting things on faith that are wrong’”. Namely:
1. “Figure out as much as you can with reason. 2. Begin believing things for which you have no evidence (or even evidence of likelihood) and call it ‘faith.’”
I use the all too familiar risk-reward idea. Here are the possibilities. One, God doesn’t exist, but you believe. You die; nothing happens. Two, God doesn’t exist. You don’t believe; nothing happens. Three, God exists. You believe; you live in “paradise” for eternity. Four, God exists. You don’t believe; you suffer in hell for eternity. (In a future post I’ll comment on how I think that if option four is true, then God is a petty, childish megalomaniac.)
Am I, if I were to become a atheist, willing to bet against option four for eternity? No, so I must still force myself to believe even though reasoning tells me it is silly. (I’m sure Wesley and the anons must be exasperated with me now.)
I’ll end this part with saying that I agree that God seems infinitely improbable, but because we do not know for certain I cannot dismiss the possibility that a God, even a personal God exists. I simply have a difficult time believing that. Moreover, I want a personal God to exist. I want an omnipotent being watching out over me, but it does seems like it is a fairy tale.
Firstly, no, I don’t really believe in a personal God (as in a God that “…interferes in the physical world for [my] sake.”) anymore. I really want there to be a personal God. I want to believe that there exists an intelligence that if I only hope (pray) hard enough and in the correct way that he will grant me wishes, but this does not seem to be the case. (As an aside and I suppose to see if the anons are back, I’ll will say this: yes, there are some things that are beyond human control [e.g. natural disasters and a lot of other things], but most prayers are for silly things that would be more easily solved if people weren’t as lazy [e.g. oh God, please let me pass this test] or things that if God does exist He probably doesn’t care about [e.g. oh God, please let my foot/base/basketball team win]. If everyone took a bit more personal responsibility, the need for prayers to be answered would be greatly reduced.) Yes, a lot of “miracles” happen, but in the end, I think a lot of those “miracles” will be attributed to our own stupidity and lack of understanding. It seems far more likely that miracles are a lot of chance, coincidence and people taking the initiative to help themselves. Just because I don’t believe in a personal God does not mean I don’t hope there is something greater than myself.
Secondly, I believe that the primary reason for the continuance of religion is childhood indoctrination. I think that if we let a child develop without religion and then try to teach that child any religion once that child has developed the logical part of the brain, the child would reject it as silly.
I don’t believe in what Catholicism believes, but I do believe in the institution that is the Church - the “Body of Christ”, the people that make up the church. The Church has a lot of good, decent people that do good works, so while I don’t really espouse many of those beliefs, I do believe in the people. The Church (and when I say that I mean the people of the church) has helped me a great deal. And because of that, I will continue to support Catholicism.
Wesley is absolutely correct in his summary of my methodology for “minimizing the possibility of ‘accepting things on faith that are wrong’”. Namely:
1. “Figure out as much as you can with reason. 2. Begin believing things for which you have no evidence (or even evidence of likelihood) and call it ‘faith.’”
I use the all too familiar risk-reward idea. Here are the possibilities. One, God doesn’t exist, but you believe. You die; nothing happens. Two, God doesn’t exist. You don’t believe; nothing happens. Three, God exists. You believe; you live in “paradise” for eternity. Four, God exists. You don’t believe; you suffer in hell for eternity. (In a future post I’ll comment on how I think that if option four is true, then God is a petty, childish megalomaniac.)
Am I, if I were to become a atheist, willing to bet against option four for eternity? No, so I must still force myself to believe even though reasoning tells me it is silly. (I’m sure Wesley and the anons must be exasperated with me now.)
I’ll end this part with saying that I agree that God seems infinitely improbable, but because we do not know for certain I cannot dismiss the possibility that a God, even a personal God exists. I simply have a difficult time believing that. Moreover, I want a personal God to exist. I want an omnipotent being watching out over me, but it does seems like it is a fairy tale.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
This I Believe (comments on the comments part 1)
The next few posts will deal specifically with the comments I have received to my previous posts. Only three posts had much discussion with them: “This I Believe (part 4)”, “Serious Conversations (part 6)”, and “Serious Conversations (part 7)”. I’ll deal with each set of comments separately. Firstly I’d like to make some general comments.
It is interesting to note the ratio of how much commentary everyone left to useful comments. I pasted all the comments into a word document and the result was 293 pages of 12-pt Times new roman font. However, I deleted a lot of it because I found it irrelevant (e.g. the name calling, arguments on specific authors, like Dawkins, the argument on homosexuality, anon. 2 soliciting five positive comments to speak intelligently [which I still maintain is a bribe], the argument of anon 2 actually being an agent of the devil [which I first interjected as a joke to demonstrate how childishly the anons were behaving], I could go on and on about the pointless items discussed.) or when people repeated themselves. The end result was only 24 pages of relevant, original discussion. So only about 8% of the comments posted were useful. A PDF of the comments I found relevant can be found at “http://www.battalio.com/comments.pdf” I’m sure many of you will be aggravated by me leaving out something you feel important. Leave it as a comment later on if you want me to look at it again.
In reference to specific Biblical passages, I ignored references to the Bible in arguments where the Bible was used to justify its own veracity, that being a fallacious argument. In cases, mostly between Ted and anon 2, where specific topics about religion were argued, for example what is hell or do demons exist, I considered those references because in those arguments the presupposition is that God exists and Bible is true.
I should also say I deleted or ignored comments I felt needed no reply - places where I find it obvious that the argument is true or false. Let me justify that statement. I’m certain both anon. 1 and 2 will condemn me as a narcissist. I will repeat; this is my blog. While others might find our commentary useful, I don’t think I need to justify myself for every thought I have. I’m not trying to convince anyone but myself. If I am comfortable with my own logic, I don’t care what condemning statement others have.
As well as deleting entire comments, I deleted sections of comments I found irrelevant, obviously true/false, snipes at one another’s intelligence, et cetera.
I am leaving comments off until I post my responses to the first set of comments. I suspect that to be complete in the next week or two. I again apologize for having to take that step. I felt that the conversation was being pointed toward places I really don’t want this blog to head, namely politics. I will end that discussion with this: Despite the prevailing opinions of many, politics has nothing to do with religion and vice versa. In political discussion most confuse ethics with religion. Politics should be a case were they are separate entities. If your ethics are defined by religion then fine, but do not directly inject religion into politics. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.
It is interesting to note the ratio of how much commentary everyone left to useful comments. I pasted all the comments into a word document and the result was 293 pages of 12-pt Times new roman font. However, I deleted a lot of it because I found it irrelevant (e.g. the name calling, arguments on specific authors, like Dawkins, the argument on homosexuality, anon. 2 soliciting five positive comments to speak intelligently [which I still maintain is a bribe], the argument of anon 2 actually being an agent of the devil [which I first interjected as a joke to demonstrate how childishly the anons were behaving], I could go on and on about the pointless items discussed.) or when people repeated themselves. The end result was only 24 pages of relevant, original discussion. So only about 8% of the comments posted were useful. A PDF of the comments I found relevant can be found at “http://www.battalio.com/comments.pdf” I’m sure many of you will be aggravated by me leaving out something you feel important. Leave it as a comment later on if you want me to look at it again.
In reference to specific Biblical passages, I ignored references to the Bible in arguments where the Bible was used to justify its own veracity, that being a fallacious argument. In cases, mostly between Ted and anon 2, where specific topics about religion were argued, for example what is hell or do demons exist, I considered those references because in those arguments the presupposition is that God exists and Bible is true.
I should also say I deleted or ignored comments I felt needed no reply - places where I find it obvious that the argument is true or false. Let me justify that statement. I’m certain both anon. 1 and 2 will condemn me as a narcissist. I will repeat; this is my blog. While others might find our commentary useful, I don’t think I need to justify myself for every thought I have. I’m not trying to convince anyone but myself. If I am comfortable with my own logic, I don’t care what condemning statement others have.
As well as deleting entire comments, I deleted sections of comments I found irrelevant, obviously true/false, snipes at one another’s intelligence, et cetera.
I am leaving comments off until I post my responses to the first set of comments. I suspect that to be complete in the next week or two. I again apologize for having to take that step. I felt that the conversation was being pointed toward places I really don’t want this blog to head, namely politics. I will end that discussion with this: Despite the prevailing opinions of many, politics has nothing to do with religion and vice versa. In political discussion most confuse ethics with religion. Politics should be a case were they are separate entities. If your ethics are defined by religion then fine, but do not directly inject religion into politics. I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Serious Conversations (part 7):
A bit of a disclaimer, this is the seventh in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about control.
Previously my friend hit upon an important point, that religion and science are different methods for explaining the same thing. Also, she noted that religious ceremonies were created so we could control God. Here is my perspective: I find it difficult to let go completely of religion because I like the hope of control. Assuming what I pray for gets answered, I can in some respects control whatever I want. But with the things I cannot control (for example, a safe drive, an extra scholarship offer, acceptance to whatever grad school, that it will/will not rain today), without prayer, I really have no control. They are left to luck and chance. So, letting go of religion means letting go of a level of control. I think that’s part of the reason that religion is so hard to disavow. Who would want less control over their lives? Christianity is particularly good about saying that if God hasn’t answered your prayers yet, you aren’t praying enough or in the correct way. Prayer and religion give people a way to swing the odds in their favor, and people are greedy. They will take whatever method they can to get what they want, even if it is trying to use God to hurt others chances, say for winning a football game or getting a job. (Let me just say as a matter of personal belief, even before I started questioning my faith, God does not care if you win a football game. Your prayers for your team were no stronger or better than the prayers for the opposing team. God doesn’t care. Stop thanking Him. He didn’t do anything to help your team.)
Control might also be considered the root of religion and part of the reason why religion is still around. Faith gives you a level of control where logically or scientifically you should hold none. But to tone that statement down, and to not give faith undue credit. “Miracles” do happen in the sense not that God has necessarily done something for you, but in the sense that, for example, life is very resilient and can heal itself without an explanation from medicine (or insert some other “miracle” in place of a medical miracle). I would expect that the occurrence of that will continue to decrease as we become more and more knowledgeable about ourselves and the universe It’s just easier to attribute “miracles” to an omnipotent God than it is to attribute them to our own ignorance. The part of me that still clings to belief wants to believe in the miracles though, but as we understand more and more of the world, I feel it will become more and more difficult.
I’m also inclined to believe that culture had a major influence on the survival of some religions over others. It would make sense that dominant cultures, that for whatever reason became dominant, would have a greater chance of spreading their religions. And that fits the facts. The dominate cultures of the Far East have religions that dominate the Far East, and the dominate cultures of the West have Judeo-Christian religions that have come to dominate the West.
And again, I believe it is the very nature of religions that ensure their survival. Judeo-Christian religions are very big about spreading the faith. Followers are even told they will be rewarded for more and more converts. I’ve never heard of the Ancient Roman or Greek religions being about that.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about control.
Previously my friend hit upon an important point, that religion and science are different methods for explaining the same thing. Also, she noted that religious ceremonies were created so we could control God. Here is my perspective: I find it difficult to let go completely of religion because I like the hope of control. Assuming what I pray for gets answered, I can in some respects control whatever I want. But with the things I cannot control (for example, a safe drive, an extra scholarship offer, acceptance to whatever grad school, that it will/will not rain today), without prayer, I really have no control. They are left to luck and chance. So, letting go of religion means letting go of a level of control. I think that’s part of the reason that religion is so hard to disavow. Who would want less control over their lives? Christianity is particularly good about saying that if God hasn’t answered your prayers yet, you aren’t praying enough or in the correct way. Prayer and religion give people a way to swing the odds in their favor, and people are greedy. They will take whatever method they can to get what they want, even if it is trying to use God to hurt others chances, say for winning a football game or getting a job. (Let me just say as a matter of personal belief, even before I started questioning my faith, God does not care if you win a football game. Your prayers for your team were no stronger or better than the prayers for the opposing team. God doesn’t care. Stop thanking Him. He didn’t do anything to help your team.)
Control might also be considered the root of religion and part of the reason why religion is still around. Faith gives you a level of control where logically or scientifically you should hold none. But to tone that statement down, and to not give faith undue credit. “Miracles” do happen in the sense not that God has necessarily done something for you, but in the sense that, for example, life is very resilient and can heal itself without an explanation from medicine (or insert some other “miracle” in place of a medical miracle). I would expect that the occurrence of that will continue to decrease as we become more and more knowledgeable about ourselves and the universe It’s just easier to attribute “miracles” to an omnipotent God than it is to attribute them to our own ignorance. The part of me that still clings to belief wants to believe in the miracles though, but as we understand more and more of the world, I feel it will become more and more difficult.
I’m also inclined to believe that culture had a major influence on the survival of some religions over others. It would make sense that dominant cultures, that for whatever reason became dominant, would have a greater chance of spreading their religions. And that fits the facts. The dominate cultures of the Far East have religions that dominate the Far East, and the dominate cultures of the West have Judeo-Christian religions that have come to dominate the West.
And again, I believe it is the very nature of religions that ensure their survival. Judeo-Christian religions are very big about spreading the faith. Followers are even told they will be rewarded for more and more converts. I’ve never heard of the Ancient Roman or Greek religions being about that.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Serious Conversations (part 6)
A bit of a disclaimer, this is the sixth in series of serious blog posts about religion and philosophy. If you have ever chatted with me about philosophy and religion and very much disagree, be prepared for that to continue.
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about the origin of God and Science.
My friend and I have taken up several other topics, but we are currently revisiting religion. I will post our conversations on family, art, and a comment on what we want to do with our lives further on in the series.
I began the conversation:
The older I get, and the more stuff I learn about, the harder and harder it is to believe in a religion. Being a child and believing in a religion is easy because children can be convinced of everything. Which, from a atheist’s perspective, is why religions force parents to teach their children about faith at an early age (It could also be why in the Catholic Church you must agree to raise your children Catholic if you want to be married in the Catholic Church.) because they are so impressionable, and it’s easy to convince them to believe. The older I get the more I realize that if I hadn’t been raised in a religion, I probably wouldn’t be religious. This is a scary thought. Religion could be the second Christmas myth, and unlike Santa Claus, when we get old enough no one tells us that Jesus is just a made up story for the sake of the holiday, which is quite possible. The question becomes, where did religion come from? If it’s just something that we conscript children into, who conscripted the first generation? Could Jesus be a real person? What about Moses, Mohammad, Buddha? How unlikely is a God who created all of us? What about a Son who died for us? (Notice I still capitalize the names. I still haven’t given up on religion completely.) If God didn’t create the universe, where did it come from? Perhaps the answer is in front of us; perhaps we will never know.
To sum up my friend’s reply: Humans, being curious and having a desire to understand all that they see, came up with way to explain all the phenomena around them. God was attributed as the doer of the unexplainable. If there was not an obvious explanation it must be God. And humans wishing to control whatever they can to better their condition created religion via ceremonies, rites, sacrifices, worship, to influence of that entity with controlled the unexplainable.
She continued: Just like religion, science was conceived to explain what was confusing. Science was just another method to make order of the chaos. And like religion, science has changed over the ages. The science we know today is not like the science of the ancient Greeks. What we consider science today is based on the, well, scientific method: developing a hypothesis and testing to see if that hypothesis is correct. Before the scientific revolution, science was not this. Scientists used Aristotelian logic to try to derive truths about the world without much experiment, most of which turned out wrong.
Science and religion did not really become separate things until around the 1800s or so, and they didn't come into direct conflict until much later, when people began questioning one from the other’s point of view. My point is that religion and science are sort of different ways of addressing the same questions (explaining the things we don't understand). But you can't really judge one of them by the other one's rules and standards.
Well, where does this leave me? At best I can believe with the part of me that still has faith. (Faith being believing in something which by definition you have no proof of.) And calling myself agnostic with the scientific part of me. I’m not saying that science and religion contradict each other. As my friend said, they were created as different methods of explaining the same world. And today, many religions embrace science. I’m saying that science doesn’t need religion, and that religion can adapt itself to whatever science proves. There will never be a way to prove religion wrong. Religion will always redefine itself. But the question is, do I still have faith?
These are my responses (Edited, of course, to offend as few people as possible; although offense is inevitable with me.) from a conversation I am having with an atheist friend of mine about the meaning of life, consciousness, physics, the kitchen sink, religion and a couple of moral issues thrown in to boot. This entry is about the origin of God and Science.
My friend and I have taken up several other topics, but we are currently revisiting religion. I will post our conversations on family, art, and a comment on what we want to do with our lives further on in the series.
I began the conversation:
The older I get, and the more stuff I learn about, the harder and harder it is to believe in a religion. Being a child and believing in a religion is easy because children can be convinced of everything. Which, from a atheist’s perspective, is why religions force parents to teach their children about faith at an early age (It could also be why in the Catholic Church you must agree to raise your children Catholic if you want to be married in the Catholic Church.) because they are so impressionable, and it’s easy to convince them to believe. The older I get the more I realize that if I hadn’t been raised in a religion, I probably wouldn’t be religious. This is a scary thought. Religion could be the second Christmas myth, and unlike Santa Claus, when we get old enough no one tells us that Jesus is just a made up story for the sake of the holiday, which is quite possible. The question becomes, where did religion come from? If it’s just something that we conscript children into, who conscripted the first generation? Could Jesus be a real person? What about Moses, Mohammad, Buddha? How unlikely is a God who created all of us? What about a Son who died for us? (Notice I still capitalize the names. I still haven’t given up on religion completely.) If God didn’t create the universe, where did it come from? Perhaps the answer is in front of us; perhaps we will never know.
To sum up my friend’s reply: Humans, being curious and having a desire to understand all that they see, came up with way to explain all the phenomena around them. God was attributed as the doer of the unexplainable. If there was not an obvious explanation it must be God. And humans wishing to control whatever they can to better their condition created religion via ceremonies, rites, sacrifices, worship, to influence of that entity with controlled the unexplainable.
She continued: Just like religion, science was conceived to explain what was confusing. Science was just another method to make order of the chaos. And like religion, science has changed over the ages. The science we know today is not like the science of the ancient Greeks. What we consider science today is based on the, well, scientific method: developing a hypothesis and testing to see if that hypothesis is correct. Before the scientific revolution, science was not this. Scientists used Aristotelian logic to try to derive truths about the world without much experiment, most of which turned out wrong.
Science and religion did not really become separate things until around the 1800s or so, and they didn't come into direct conflict until much later, when people began questioning one from the other’s point of view. My point is that religion and science are sort of different ways of addressing the same questions (explaining the things we don't understand). But you can't really judge one of them by the other one's rules and standards.
Well, where does this leave me? At best I can believe with the part of me that still has faith. (Faith being believing in something which by definition you have no proof of.) And calling myself agnostic with the scientific part of me. I’m not saying that science and religion contradict each other. As my friend said, they were created as different methods of explaining the same world. And today, many religions embrace science. I’m saying that science doesn’t need religion, and that religion can adapt itself to whatever science proves. There will never be a way to prove religion wrong. Religion will always redefine itself. But the question is, do I still have faith?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
