Religion- Oh no not that again

[Iniquitous]

I must interject something here.

Yet you continue to ignore that to believe something you know to be false.

Rick has never once said he knows his beliefs to be false. Quite the contrary. He has said repeatedly that he knows it to be the truth - not only for him but everyone else.

Faith is the belief in something absent proof in what you believe in. Doesn’t matter if logic says it cannot exist. Doesn’t matter if reality says it isn’t real. Faith says it is. He has stated he has had personal experiences that have helped form and strengthen his belief. That means, to him, it is NOT known to be false. It is known to be very much true to him.

You cannot just throw out there that his religious beliefs are false just as he should not throw out there that his religious beliefs are right for everyone. It is literally a matter of agreeing to disagree. He cannot prove to you that his beliefs are true and right, just as you cannot prove his beliefs are false. Thus - it is a standstill and the best way to handle it is to say ‘to each his own.’ and move past it.

There’s no reason for name calling, there’s no reason for refusing to talk to someone anymore. Everyone chooses what works best for them. You, I or Joe Blow down the street may not agree but it is not our life. We have no say. Just as no one else has a say in our life choices.

I honestly think the anger comes in when frustration sets in that someone cannot or will not see things our way and agree we are right. I do not get angry at Rick for stating his belief. Yes, I became offended at things he has posted, but not angry. It’s his beliefs and since I do not agree with them, I agree to disagree and leave it at that. You can have respect for someone else’s belief without the ‘lively debate of ideas’.

All in all, I am rather disturbed to see such a post that is attacking Rick. He may not have answered the way you wanted, or agreed with your beliefs, or changed his mind or even processed everything you think proves you right the way you think he should, but that does not mean he deserves to be attacked.

[Torch]

But I can not abide by willful ignorance, to deliberately ignore everything you know to believe what you want to believe. That is what you've shown throughout this thread. You are smart. I know you are smart. You know the way the world works. You know that logic and reality itself, contradict your beliefs. You've said as much throughout the thread. Yet you continue to ignore that to believe something you know to be false.

Rick has stated over and over again that his beliefs are not false to him. That's the part you seem to be forgetting.

Because of your willful ignorance, I can't continue to talk to you because I will be reduced to name calling and schoolyard bullying. Because there is no other way to approach this. You've closed off logical debate. You just insist on believing it no matter what.

Do we really need to drag out the dictionary definition of faith again?

faith  [feyth]

noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact

You started this thread, and you seem to be annoyed that after asking for opinions on religion and faith, another member had the audacity to actually give his opinion, an opinion that you vehemently disagree with.

I can't help but ask...what did you expect?

[rick957]

It's really just unbelievably moving that both you guys supported me like that, just by speaking up; it's even more moving because I know that one or both of you do not share my religious views, yet you supported my right to have them.  Thank you.

Yaoi, I don't blame you for getting upset.  I think it's something so important that it's worth getting upset over.  You're right, though, that we can't really talk or discuss or debate if people get upset.  "Agreeing to disagree" is all that's left sometimes.  I really respect and admire a lot of your views, though, so I hope that whenever you're less upset, we can be amiable towards each other again.  And I'm sorry to upset you.

[YaoiRolePlay]

I was thinking about this today and wanted to post it someplace; it seems relevant to some of the topics discussed here so far, so here goes.  If you're already sick of hearing me beat my drum about certain religious topics, you should probably skip reading this. 

As a Christian, I struggle constantly with what to say to people who choose to rely on science and logic to make sense of their lives and to get them through each day.  That approach is by far the most sensible way to live one's life -- literally:  it's using one's "sense," i.e. logic.  There are many Christians who think it makes better sense to believe in Christianity than to use one's logic and depend on science.  I think those Christians are full of shit and don't mind telling them so, with all due respect.  :)

I don't think Christianity makes good "sense" ... But I also think that Christianity is true ... more true than anything that my senses, or any human senses, can get ahold of.  This is the very problem. 

Christianity claims that all humans are broken to such an extent that they are not capable of seeing the ultimate truth about reality using their senses, no matter how hard they try to develop the sophistication and accuracy of those senses. 

People who get good educations spend much of their time honing their critical thinking skills to a razor-sharp edge and feeding their intellect with as much scientific information about reality as they can handle.  That's exactly what they ought to be doing, of course ... So imagine the difficulty of telling any of those smart, well-educated people that there is exactly one true thing that is unlike every other truth they've learned about or studied scientifically, in that it can only be known by rejecting what science and human senses tell them about that thing.

Christianity claims that it contains a truth so true that our broken human selves cannot comprehend this truth, because we are broken, all the way down to our intellect and senses.  We become fixed and whole only when we choose to accept that truth in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.  It's a terrifying thing to do; it goes against every human instinct.

It bugs the hell out of me that in many ways, the smarter a person is, and the better-educated, and the better at critical thinking, the more of a hindrance that person has to accepting the truth of Christianity.  Knowledge is a priceless gift and is certainly one of the most important goals every person must strive to attain, all throughout one's life.  But all of our knowledge is that of humans, and as such, it is marred by the same crucial defect that plagues everything human.

What sort of a fool willingly turns his or her back on science and logic?  In this one case, and only this one case, the answer is -- a wise fool.

This is what I was talking about when I said he was being willfully ignorant. He's made this point repeatedly. You have to abandon logic and science to believe what he does. The fact that he knows that you have to abandon logic and reason makes him willfully ignorant. That's what frustrates me.

[Iniquitous]

Incorrect.

In your opinion he is willfully ignorant. To him, he is displaying faith in his beliefs. That is what faith is - belief in something that you cannot prove, something that you cannot fully explain. Something that everything else contradicts. At this point, it is best to say 'agree to disagree'. This isn't suppose to be a conversion thread after all and the bickering to prove who is right or wrong would get annoying right quick.

@Rick - Just because I do not share your beliefs does not mean that I think you shouldn't be allowed to have your own. Rather, I believe each person finds what best works for them and it is no one else's business. I would stand up and say something if it was an atheist being treated badly as well. Part of the problem in this world is the fact that people cannot accept the differences in each of us.

[rick957]

@ YaoiRolePlay

After they've understood my opinion, people are free to disagree with it and even to think all kinds of negative things about me or about my views.  Come to think of it, people can do that even if they don't understand my opinion.  :)

I know that I say a lot of stuff over and over again, and I have certain views that most sensible people consider to be ignorant or even offensive.  In those cases I can only say that I apologize for upsetting anyone, and I hope we can disagree respectfully and maybe even amicably, without detesting one another too much. 

I've thought out my religious views a great deal, so many of them are pretty fixed.  At the same time, I am very interested in what other people think, and I hope I can keep learning and changing my views whenever they're mistaken.

@ Iniquitous Opheliac

Well said, I totally agree.

[YaoiRolePlay]

I find it very interesting that religion gets this blatant free pass in the willfully ignorant department. It's not willful ignorance, it's faith. And faith is a good thing. Right?

Let's see how it sounds with anything else. (None of these are my own personal views, just illustrations to make a point.)

"I believe that all gays are evil and unnatural and are going to hell. I know it is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't say anything to dissuade me from thinking that gays are an abomination, so let's just agree to disagree."

"I believe that the Earth is pyramid shaped. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that the Earth is pyramid shaped, so let's just agree to disagree."

"I believe that New York is in France. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that New York is in France, so let's just agree to disagree."

"I believe that black people are inferior to white people and that white people should spread European culture to civilize them. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that black people are inferior, so let's just agree to disagree."

[NatalieB]

There's two different types of example there.

Example One:

"I believe that all gays are evil and unnatural and are going to hell. I know it is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't say anything to dissuade me from thinking that gays are an abomination, so let's just agree to disagree."

&

"I believe that black people are inferior to white people and that white people should spread European culture to civilize them. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that black people are inferior, so let's just agree to disagree."

and then example two:

"I believe that New York is in France. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that New York is in France, so let's just agree to disagree."

&

"I believe that the Earth is pyramid shaped. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that the Earth is pyramid shaped, so let's just agree to disagree."

The difference is that example one is actively harmful to others, or a specific subsection of them at least.  Example two harms noone.  Lumping them both together is, well, its intellectually dishonest.  It makes it look like any viewpoint that "logic disproves" is morally equivalent. 

Now, I don't know Rick at all.  Only from reading this thread.  But I don't get the impression from him that his views are harmful or dangerous to others.

Have you heard the phrase "reductio ad Hitlerum".  It makes me chuckle every time.  It's a fake latin phrase for a common argumentum ad populum where an opponent's views are compared to Hitler's.  This is essentially what you're doing here.  Saying that Hitler, or a similar unpleasant character, holds views that are "disproved by logic" therefore such views are themselves unpleasant.

Incidentally, I'm unsure what you mean by "disproved by logic" - hence the scare quotes - but thats very much a side issue.  I can take a reasonable stab and I think I'm pretty close.

[Oniya]

"I believe that the Earth is pyramid shaped. I know this is true based on faith even though I know that logic disproves it. You can't dissuade me from thinking that the Earth is pyramid shaped, so let's just agree to disagree."

I'm a mathematician.  Not only is the Earth pyramid-shaped, but a cup of coffee is equivalent to a doughnut. 

[Samnell]

I think that promoting inaccurate information is a form of harm, generally speaking. It's not in the same class as skinning someone alive, but it's certainly an act of intellectual sabotage.

[Starlequin]

Yes, faith is a good thing, or at least it can be. Like aspirin, taken and used correctly, it can prove a powerful and soothing agent, to heal, comfort, and calm a distressed, worried or troubled mind. And like aspirin, taken to extremes (like in the examples you mentioned), it can quickly turn to poison. Some people don't like taking aspirin, so they just power through the headaches or the muscle soreness that comes with living. Likewise, some people dont like the idea of faith to help them deal with their troubles, so they just face their problems down cold with nothing but logic and reason. But some people prefer to take the aspirin and get rid of their headaches a little faster, and some people prefer to rely on so-called 'higher powers' to help them live their lives.

So basically, as long as they dont try to shove it down your throat, why not  let them take the friggen' aspirin if they want it? It's one less headache for all of us.

Add: Dang ninjas, all snappin' in and posting while im tryin to type all this crap out with my thumbs!

Add the 2nd: just giving Oniya's post a major thumbs-up.

[YaoiRolePlay]

His views themselves (as far as I know) are not in and of themselves harmful. That's not the point I'm trying to make here.

My point is that I am constantly astounded that religion gets a free pass. People say that we should respect other's religion and that it's a good thing to have faith. You have a view that the Earth is flat? No that is wrong, absolutely wrong. You have a view that an invisible man in the sky grants wishes when you pray? Oh, you have to respect that.

Well, I'm not surprised that it exists, but I'm annoyed and maddened by it. There is a reason this type of attitude exists towards religion, otherwise it wouldn't exist. That reason is because religion is a set of ideas that functions as a virus. It produces thoughts and ideas that act to cement itself in someone's mind and keep itself from being pulled out. The idea that religion needs to be "respected" is one such idea. Along with ideas about heaven and hell and numerous others.

The idea that we should "respect" people's religious beliefs is a very dangerous one. Sure his particular beliefs are not harmful, but the idea that only one religion is the true religion can and has lead to some very dangerous, not only ideas, but actions. Moderation leads to fanaticism and intolerance. If you believe strongly enough that those who believe differently than you are wrong, than why not have an inquisition? After all, what's a little suffering for them compared to an eternity in heaven for them if you get them to convert and confess?

The ideas that I was lumping together, in and of themselves, were not the main point. The main point was that religion gets that free pass. We see those other ideas that are said with the same exact wording as rick uses, and we immediately jump on them as wrong. But we say that having these religious ideas is ok, that faith is good, that we should respect those ideas. It's what I like to call, hypocritical.

I only use the phrase "disproved by logic" because that was the line of thinking that rick was going with:

People who get good educations spend much of their time honing their critical thinking skills to a razor-sharp edge and feeding their intellect with as much scientific information about reality as they can handle.  That's exactly what they ought to be doing, of course ... So imagine the difficulty of telling any of those smart, well-educated people that there is exactly one true thing that is unlike every other truth they've learned about or studied scientifically, in that it can only be known by rejecting what science and human senses tell them about that thing.

Christianity claims that it contains a truth so true that our broken human selves cannot comprehend this truth, because we are broken, all the way down to our intellect and senses.  We become fixed and whole only when we choose to accept that truth in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.  It's a terrifying thing to do; it goes against every human instinct.

It bugs the hell out of me that in many ways, the smarter a person is, and the better-educated, and the better at critical thinking, the more of a hindrance that person has to accepting the truth of Christianity.  Knowledge is a priceless gift and is certainly one of the most important goals every person must strive to attain, all throughout one's life.  But all of our knowledge is that of humans, and as such, it is marred by the same crucial defect that plagues everything human.

What sort of a fool willingly turns his or her back on science and logic?  In this one case, and only this one case, the answer is -- a wise fool.

[Vamfire Havain]

A person does not have the right to promote religion or push it onto someone if they, themselves, don't obey everything that is said in the bible. Once, i was for religion. I heard that god is a forgiving god and doesn't hate anybody. Then I hear people of that religion saying that God hates. Why should i side with a religion that contradicts itself, and a religion that people try to change just to make themselves happy?

[Rinzler]

I'm with Yaoi when it comes to the intrinsic 'qualities' of faith. It may well be the case that an individual can harmlessly hold to a faith despite all the evidence contrary to that faith. But I'd prefer not to see it as something acceptable in society at large, given that there are more than enough people out there who could certainly do with a good dose of doubt when it comes to their most precious and vaunted 'ideas'.

[NatalieB]

Well, I'm not surprised that it exists, but I'm annoyed and maddened by it. There is a reason this type of attitude exists towards religion, otherwise it wouldn't exist. That reason is because religion is a set of ideas that functions as a virus. It produces thoughts and ideas that act to cement itself in someone's mind and keep itself from being pulled out. The idea that religion needs to be "respected" is one such idea. Along with ideas about heaven and hell and numerous others.

Well, I got a big 'ol [Citation needed] on that.  You're aware that Memetics is not universally accepted I'm sure and that sounds like a statement based on memetics.

An alternative explanation for why religion 'must' be accepted/respected is common courtesy.  Because - and this is the point I was attempting to make above - Rick's belief doesn't harm you in the slightest.  My belief that celery is absolutely disgusting doesn't harm your (hypothetical) belief that celery is gorgeous.  And one of us trying to convince the other is just pathetic.

Sure, some religious people have done bad things.  So have some non-religious ones.  So have some celery likers.  (I'll freely admit that religion is more frequently a motivating factor for bad things than celery. )

But if his ideas are not harming anyone, as we seem to agree, then honestly - what does it matter?   

[Torch]

The main point was that religion gets that free pass. We see those other ideas that are said with the same exact wording as rick uses, and we immediately jump on them as wrong. But we say that having these religious ideas is ok, that faith is good, that we should respect those ideas.

You have completely missed the mark regarding freedom of religion.

What "we" say is that everyone has the right to have religious ideas (or not have them), that everyone has the right to have faith (or not have it), and that everyone has the right to practice one's religious faith (or not practice any faith), so long as that practice does not infringe on anyone else.

The idea that we should "respect" people's religious beliefs is a very dangerous one.

No, the only thing we have to respect is one's right to have religious beliefs (or no beliefs at all). The beliefs themselves do not have to be respected.

Religion in and of itself does not get a "free pass". The right to practice one's religion is the only thing that gets a "free pass". You are confusing the two concepts.

[Hemingway]

I feel the need to chime in, on the value of faith. I think I stand with Christopher Hitchens.

Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated.

It's a bad thing, faith, as I see it, because it's essentially a declaration that what is true and what isn't, isn't really important. That what is important is how something makes you feel. How something makes you feel, or how it makes you behave, or whatever reason you have for believing something without evidence, shouldn't be more important than whether or not that thing is true. Because if all that matters is utility, then, surely, we can invent a better system of beliefs than what we have, and we'd all be living in a Brave New World-type of anti-utopia.

[Iniquitous]

I beg the question here.

Who are you to judge? What gives you the right to stand and judge those that have faith in a deity - any deity? You realize that by condemning those who have faith in something they cannot prove you are no better than those who have faith and think they have the right to judge and condemn?

Here is a simple truth. This will never, ever be a perfect world. We humans are incapable of it and this right here is just proof of that.

What does it matter to you if your neighbor is Christian who has faith? Or Buddhist? Atheist? Pagan? Answer? It doesn’t. It shouldn’t. It is not your life nor your afterlife. What you should be concerned with is yourself. Your choices, your decisions.

I honestly could give two shits less if my neighbor goes to church three times a week and wholeheartedly believes I am the spawn of evil that will burn in hell for all eternity. That belief/opinion does not negatively affect me, thus it is of no concern of mine. We are no longer in the days where those who did not convert were tortured and executed. There are no witch burnings/drowning. There is no inquisition. The most we have to deal with is someone trying to witness to nonbelievers and that is easily dealt with by simply saying “no thank you.”

Every belief system (even atheism) has it’s die hard fanatics that simply cannot accept that they cannot convert every single person they interact with. Every belief system (even atheism) can be dangerous if taken to the extreme. But the majority of the human population not only wants something to believe in but needs something to believe in - even if what they believe in is aliens that live on Planet X.

The point is, just because you do not agree with it - just because you think they are wrong and that their faith is dangerous - does not mean that you or anyone else has the right to take that away from them. You certainly would not like it and would scream to the heavens if you had something integral to who you are denied to you.

I will always hold to the practice and belief that you can believe what you want - I will uphold your right to believe what you want. Right up until you start trying to tell me that I cannot believe what I want/have faith in what I want.

Simple rule of thumb here. If you do not want it done to you, do not do it to others.

[rick957]

@ Hemingway

I'm an admirer of Christopher Hitchens and hope to read one of his books someday.  I'm glad to see his name in this thread.

Strange coincidence:  after reading your (and his) comments on the topic of faith, I happened to run across the following quotation at the end of an article about the persecuted Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng:

"No matter what happens, I feel very good about the future. There is no way to compare this with my life before," Chen said. "Before I had faith that everything would get better, and the present has proved this was right."

(Emphasis added.)  I don't think religious people have any monopoly on faith, or any other virtue for that matter; and one need not look to any churches to see the power and importance of faith.  IMO.

EDIT Can't resist adding this ... Lou Reed said it so much better than I could.

Food for thought ...

[Trieste]

... religion is not willful ignorance. Christianity is not willful ignorance. Christianity is a variant manifestation of the same awe that can be felt by non-religious scientists. That is felt by any competent scientist. Einstein himself has a fantastic quote on it:

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.

He's not talking about Christianity, he's talking about physics. I know that I, every time I enter my lab, have a lot of respect for the things that I can't see, that cannot be seen. Or felt, or tasted, or measured, or quantified. There are some things we just do not understand. The difference between willful ignorance and faith is that the faithful will always seek to understand more. And that, I believe, is actually a base tenet of the Christian faith, to bring yourself closer to God by seeking to better understand Him, though mere mortals can't hope to completely grok God.

Faith is not ignorance. Faith is just... faith.

Christianity claims that all humans are broken to such an extent that they are not capable of seeing the ultimate truth about reality using their senses, no matter how hard they try to develop the sophistication and accuracy of those senses. 

This earlier statement from rick really struck me because you have essentially the same concept in basic science principles. The only difference is that scientists don't generally feel they are broken... just that they haven't built a powerful enough microscope yet.

[Vekseid]

...

Christianity claims that all humans are broken to such an extent that they are not capable of seeing the ultimate truth about reality using their senses, no matter how hard they try to develop the sophistication and accuracy of those senses. 

People who get good educations spend much of their time honing their critical thinking skills to a razor-sharp edge and feeding their intellect with as much scientific information about reality as they can handle.  That's exactly what they ought to be doing, of course ... So imagine the difficulty of telling any of those smart, well-educated people that there is exactly one true thing that is unlike every other truth they've learned about or studied scientifically, in that it can only be known by rejecting what science and human senses tell them about that thing.

Christianity claims that it contains a truth so true that our broken human selves cannot comprehend this truth, because we are broken, all the way down to our intellect and senses.  We become fixed and whole only when we choose to accept that truth in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.  It's a terrifying thing to do; it goes against every human instinct.

...

This sentiment, and things like it ('humans are inherently wicked', 'humans are wretched', 'we can only be saved by grace', 'by faith alone', 'we only need God's forgiveness') sums up, in a nutshell, why I left Christianity.

What's amusing is, I don't even need to look outside the Bible for a suitably inspiring answer to that.

And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

For the 'lord' so feared a United Humanity that he confounded Us with Our differences. What shall he do, then, when We overcome them?

It's only in the past half-year or so that my view on this has begun to settle into an actual, unified philosophy, complete with moral code. I've debated on writing it out but I don't know if there would be any interest, or if it would just be a conceit.



I'm far from the first to note the other interpretation of Genesis 11:6, of course. Pauline and Unitarian Christianity stood in opposition to Gnosticism for far more than just that line in the Old Testament.

[Rinzler]

I beg the question here.
Every belief system (even atheism) has it’s die hard fanatics that simply cannot accept that they cannot convert every single person they interact with. Every belief system (even atheism) can be dangerous if taken to the extreme.

I fail to see how not believing in a god is a belief system; it's like exclaiming - to paraphrase an already well known saying - that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Oniya]

Phrase it as follows:  The atheist believes that God does not exist.

At that point, it is an affirmation rather than an absence of any affirmation.

[Rinzler]

As you wish. Anyways, I have to depart now, as I have a busy day ahead of me indulging in such hobbies as not scaling the north face of the Eiger, not tinkering with a moped engine, not looking for seashells portraying a simulacrum of the Madonna, and not skiing.

:-p

[Oniya]

Or, you are going to indulge in the hobby of couch-sitting? 

The complement of a set (and, indeed, the empty set) is still classed as a set.