Explain the presense of your faith...

[GB Steve]

Steve, I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but that statement comes across as insulting. The belief underlying it seems to be that religious people are all a bunch of blind, ignorant, unquestioning sheep, that religious people don't question what they read.

Well, religion is the opium of the masses, or used to be until we got TV.  Being religious does not make someone a stupid person in my book, but in my experience does tend to make them a bit blinkered. But that's just a theory.

Most Christians have never read the Bible, and would be hard pressed to do so, especially given the general level of literacy round these parts. Their beliefs have very little to do with the good book, and much more to do with who taught them religion in the first place. And as soon as you question that authority, you soon find out that it's a paper tiger. That's what happened to me anyway.

Think about it: neopagans don't even HAVE a sacred book, they don't have priests that tell them what it's all about, all they get to do is think about things!

And not for nothing is it known as Bitchcraft and Bicca! I'm very familiar with neopagans, my wife is one and whilst there is a fair amount of talking going on, I don't see much intellectual (or moral) rigour. How many of them drive to their earth rituals?

Then there is Bhuddism, where one of the primary tenets of their faith is to question everything, including every tenet of their faith! And it is not as though Bhuddism is some minor religion on the world stage, with only a few million adherents, that you shouldn't know this (and I haven't even mentioned Reformed Judaism or Unitarians).

Buddhism still is lacks the courage of its convictions as far as I can see. There's still a prevalent monk class who sit around praying for others who do the work, which is possibly why it appeals to rich westerners.

And the basic tenets of the faith involve detachment from the real world, the one in which people live and suffer. Sure detachment can distance you from suffering, but it doesn't stop it. Still I pretty much subscribe to the 5 precepts, so it's not all bad.

Particularly American atheists, who tend to believe that all religions are basically like fundamentalist Christianity, but with different hats.

I'm certainly not in that boat. My approach tends to be pragmatic.

Ultimately, I agree with the sentiment, so, yeah, read stuff and question it! But additionally, by the gods, read it! Especially those of you who think you've got this religion thing and these religious people all figured out, and like to talk down to the religious as though they are children.

But don't you have to approach Jesus as a child, with a child's understanding? Perhaps that was a bit facetious of me but it seems we're in agreement about questioning, which is nice.

[James Holloway]

Note: certainly not all atheists are like this, but the idea holds for (American) atheists as a group and is supported throughout much of their literature, regardless of the differences of individuals.

Well, I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this point, anymore than anyone does when talking about "most gamers" here on the Forge.

[pete_darby]

Hi folks, wooly minded proto-druid here!

My faith? Ick, if I can call it a faith, probably comes from memetic programming, with possible genetic predisposition, tending towards a psychological need to develop a relationship with a transcendant entitiy.

Combined with a finely developed appreciation of the possibilities and acheivements of humanity without recourse to the transcendant, and a generally cynical nature...

Do I believe in God, or gods? Yes, for a given value of "deity", essentially on a Universalist bent. Do I believe in worshipping a deity? I believe in respecting and appreciating the universe and everyone and everything in it, more or less, is that worship? I don't believe in giving some anthropomorphic entity "big up yerself, I am nothing, you are everything".

My version of Druidry is a way of forming and exploring a relationship with the non-human world and the unconcious, often through religion as metaphor.

Gareth, I have put away my doctrinal marxism as a childish thing and taken up a religion...

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Note: This is not moderation. It's the Birthday Forum.

This is going to go nowhere.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to contracycle. I don't think this'll cause a big rift; he and I have exchanged middle fingers before, I think.

My own take: I often say I have a two-track mind. There's the rational part of me who can easily see the fallacies and untruth of believing in something invisible and all-powerful. Then there's the other half of me who needs that, craves it, and believes wholly in it.

I finally came to the realization that it doesn't matter if (a) God empirically exists. Whether it does or doesn't, a God of some sort affects millions of lives daily. People kill for one. People die for one. Families split apart, and families come together for one. A God of some sort gets people to put down the bottle or get off drugs. A God of some sort changes peoples' lives tremendously.

I don't care anymore if (a) God exists. I know that He or She is real.

That's my faith.

[Ben Lehman]

I don't care anymore if (a) God exists. I know that He or She is real.

Yo.

yrs--
--Ben

[contracycle]

Oh yes - certainly the idea of god causes things to happen in the real world.

The very religious Mr Blair and the very religious Mr Bush, being as they were so righteous in the eyes of god, appear to have been supremely confident that whatever atrocity they committed would be the right thing.

Religion is dangerous not just because it makes people believe in sky-fairies, but also because it trains a non-rational thought process; one informed by alleged, presumed, unverifiable, moral stances and criticisms; and of course exhibits groundless hero worship, as the wailing throng around the dead reactionary in Rome demonstrate in all their glory.

Hence, even if one does not really care about the ultimate existance of god, the existance of *religion* is still a bad thing and should be tossed in the dustbin of history.  Because they are social structures that teach hero-worship (in the form of holiness), irrationality (in taking morality as some sort of force) and intolerance (in teaching special revelation and chosen status).

Religion is not merely an opiate of the masses, it is also a pollutant.

[Andy Kitkowski]

One thing I find troubling is the assumption that one person should/must believe in only one thing/way/etc.  It seems that, any way you cut it, the beauty/flaw of the human animal is to be adaptable enough to be able to hold onto two or more contradictory viewpoints or fundamental beliefs at the same time. It's not hypocricy, it's the human brain, human experience.

In my case, I am a hardcore atheist.  I am also hardcore Theravada Buddhist.  I also believe in God.

Unfortunately, this beauty/flaw is often infuriating when seen in others. Ex: GB Steve's example of the hardcore Christians that don't read the Bible.  Or George Bush, who can say "Culture of Life" after Terry Schaivo, but supported (probably still does, I dunno the record) state executions in his tenure as governor (no matter how much the executed changed, or were repentent, since their crime). Or how those Catholic priests could molest little boys.

The human brain's a pretty fucked up thing.

[Lxndr]

Here's a situation I imagine happening in the past:

Picture a time before religion.  Then someone comes up with this idea of religion, specifically in a sense of non-rational hierarchy.  Some people glom onto this, others don't.  Those that glom eventually decide to kill the ones that don't.  Thus, the ones that glom (the ones predisposed to non-rational religious thought) are the ones who pass their genes on to the next generation.

Every generation that passes, same thing.  Those that question are selected less than those that accept the whole religion thing.  These people that accept it probably have the whole moments-of-faith thing, they are swayed by oratory, they have the predisposition to turn beliefs into dogma, etc.

We are their legacy.  Perhaps the reason why people these days are so predisposed to religious events, sudden conversions, even feeling "in touch with (deity)" is a direct result of our ancestors committing holy war against those who questioned, who were willing to live and let live.  The neophobe vs. the neophile.

Just goes to show that the "Fittest" isn't necessarily the "best."

[pete_darby]

Here's a situation I imagine happening in the past:

Picture a time before religion.  Then someone comes up with this idea of religion, specifically in a sense of non-rational hierarchy.  Some people glom onto this, others don't.  Those that glom eventually decide to kill the ones that don't.  Thus, the ones that glom (the ones predisposed to non-rational religious thought) are the ones who pass their genes on to the next generation.

Every generation that passes, same thing.  Those that question are selected less than those that accept the whole religion thing.  These people that accept it probably have the whole moments-of-faith thing, they are swayed by oratory, they have the predisposition to turn beliefs into dogma, etc.

We are their legacy.  Perhaps the reason why people these days are so predisposed to religious events, sudden conversions, even feeling "in touch with (deity)" is a direct result of our ancestors committing holy war against those who questioned, who were willing to live and let live.  The neophobe vs. the neophile.

Just goes to show that the "Fittest" isn't necessarily the "best."

Pfft. Imagine that it was one guy who thought up religion, and it freaked everyone else out, so they killed him. That's why we're all rationalists now, our rationalist ancestors killed all the religious folks!

I'd rather take a less extreme, memetic view: the base concepts of religion (existence of the transcendant, mainly) are fairly easy to infer ("There is more to existence than you understand," which is fair enough). This meme is fairly benign, spreads like wildfire, and has advantages (qua meme) over it's allele ("This is all there is").

Now, as with genetic factors, memetic factors may be succesful in themselves in edging out competing memes, but ultimately harmful to the host. Whether this is true of the "faith meme", I'm unqualified to answer. What we can say, though, is that we are only as controlled by our memes as we are by our genes when it comes to behaviour. We can choose how to behave, we can reject the urgings of our genetic and memetic heritage.

Gareth, you are as ever mistaking the cruft for the substance. Hero worship, irrationality and intolerance are not intrinsic to the religious experience, though you seem to be very good at displaying at least the latter.

[greyorm]

Which is also pretty much fair enough.  The specifics of the doctrine are lesser differentiations than the commonality of superstition and credulity.

Well, fuck all, I rest the very point! Thanks for making it for me, Gareth.

I feel entitled to, as I have put away my childish things, and they still play with theirs.

Hey look, a prime example of intolerance!

For all your posturing and sneering superiority, Gareth, you prove that you are no better than the very folks you rave about, and are in fact caught in the very same web of irrationality and ignorance as they.

What's really sad is that you and I are both Communists, have more or less the same beliefs about the state of the world and its politics today, and yet I can't find myself agreeing with you on the fundamental premises that lead you to those same stances.

You bitch about the evils caused by the religious beliefs of Bush and Blair, how their religion is the source of their errors. No, Gareth, that's not the source of their errors, the source of their errors is the same source from which your own errors arise: intolerant, unaccepting, unquestioning idolism. The only difference is that you have a different philosophy you unquestioningly worship and follow, and you don't call yours religion.

Really, frothily quoting the atheist Marxist doctrine is no better than frothily quoting the fundamentalist Christian doctrine; it just makes you a close-minded bigot of a different stripe, but a close-minded bigot all the same. And that's not any real sort of difference when you get right down to it.

[Larry L.]

I would not call myself a religious man. But I have been known to root for the Chicago Cubs.

[Bankuei]

Sigh.  This is a perfect example of why certain issues just don't lend themselves well to rational discussion(politics, religion, race, gender issues, etc.)...

For any given view, there are people who have their view, mind their business and don't go around doing crazy stuff.  Then there's the wackos.  Apply the same logic that people use when they blame rpgs when a kid does something crazy.  Or rap music.  Or because they're Christian.  Or because they're not Christian.  Or they're capitalists.  Or they're communists.  Or whatever.

Sometimes, the crazy shit was inspired BY a belief system, but not too many belief systems stay around that are totally based in crazy shit.  I mean, we don't have entire societies that promote wanton cannibalism, or throwing babies off buildings, etc. etc.

And I will AGREE that in some cases, you have a higher percentage of stupidity that correlates to certain factors...  but overall, pointing to the 15% and saying that the 100% of those people are stupid, jacked in the head, or whatever based on a seperate belief system, nope that doesn't fly.

Otherwise, we start making judgements like, "Well, Mother Theresa was Catholic, and the Catholic Church was responsible for inquisitions, and invasive and coercive missionary work, therefore, Mother Theresa, along with all the other Catholics, kidnap children, raise them in indoctrination schools, beat them for speaking their native language, and burn people if they think they're witches...."

There's wacked people in all belief systems.  And definitely some beliefs promote wacked behavior more than others, but people for the most part are lazy, and "reinterpret" stuff for the least amount of hassle in their lives whenever possible.

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

There, I've ended the thread.




...oh, it's still going.

Look, religious/interreligious/interreligiositous discussion is a fine art. The problems I see happening here are these (which are fundamental human issues of argument, I think):

- You have the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast of religious discussion: "Everyone has their own beliefs, and I should respect that, even when those contradict mine - which, if I don't stand up for them, is evidence that I don't believe them."

- You have the idea that belief and faith somehow have to do inherently with religion, which is not true. Do you say, "I believe the sky is blue" as someone else said? No, you say, "The sky is blue." Belief assumes that what you believe in is a) arguable and b) true. The sky, in fact, is an illusion, there is no such thing; it's makkyo. But that doesn't make it less true for you as a visceral being. Likewise, if you "believe" in God, or what-have-you, you're being necessarily contrary. Those who are certain of the existence of something don't bother arguing about it, except to garner what they can of others' experiences.

- Some beliefs have in them, inherently, things that are offensive to you. Sometimes, that offensiveness comes from a direct contradiction of what you hold to be most dear. No duh. If I believe Jesus to be fictional, should I argue that to you, who believe Jesus to be the Lamb of God? Only if we agree on these very stakes beforehand: I want to understand what you think/feel/believe/know and you want the same from me. If my goal is to convert you to my belief (or vice-versa) it indicates that either I think you're not smart enough to recognize the truth when I lay it down for you, or, more likely, I'm secretly trying to convince myself. See the item above.

- Assertion of belief is not evidence. If you belive, with all your heart, that the sky is blue, telling me that you believe so does not matter to the discussion: only evidence does. Take a picture, quote someone you know I respect in the matter of sky blueness, measure it and share your data. Belief is a personal thing. It's your nervous system talking with itself, making sense of the Universe. That doesn't translate well to words, but if you want me to understand where you're coming from, you have to use symbols we share, not convince me with the power of your conviction. This is obviously a difficult position when one's religion is based in faith and belief, but do your best.

[greyorm]

How often have you made pretty dramatic shifts in belief?

Hrm, once for certain. Possibly as much as two or three times if you include shifting perspectives over time.

When I was younger -- through most of high-school -- I was a devout Catholic, possibly even more fundamentalist than Catholic. If you weren't Christian, you were bound for hell. If you behaved in immoral ways (ie: non-Biblical), you were bound for hell. I told my girlfriend at the time she was bound for hell. I was full-bore on-board with converting the heathens to the TRUE way to save their poor, damned souls. Frankly, I was damn scary.

During highschool, I discovered Wicca and eventually wound up converting to paganism. I'd say that was a fairly dramatic shift in attitudes and beliefs. Yeah. I won't go into the details of it here, but I have them written up here from a few years back when (I think) MJ asked me about it: Who Is God?

However, I'm not really "Wiccan" any longer, and have not been for years. I don't have any particular existing social-religious structure on which to hang my hat. Some of my beliefs definitely seperate me from the majority of Wiccans and neopagans, and others seperate me from the minority of them, and I'm perfectly fine with that -- so-called fundie-pagans, such as some conservative branches of Asatru, bother me as much any group of fundamentalists.

I've studied most religions at least in passing, and can see the commonalities in all of them, the Truths revealed in each. I am probably most influenced by Wicca, Asatru, and Bhuddism.

Is there any presentable evidence for what you believe?

Yes, but very little that I am willing to share because most of it is personal and none of your business.

//Tangent//
To explain this, regarding religious experiences and beliefs, consider that religious experiences are most often like having sex with your wife, no one else's business for obvious reasons:
"So, did you have sex with you wife last night?"
"Yes, but it is none of your damn business."
"I don't believe you. Prove it. I want video."

Frankly, the questioner in such a scenario can simply go fuck himself because whether or not you had sex with your wife is none of his business, and the details of the event are certainly not his business.

However, that the last question is usually closer to the idea of asking, "Prove that you love her." Which is, of course, impossible to prove (ie: the response to such can always be, "Oh, that can all be faked. Here's how/why.")
//end//

For me, the divine is like the wind. You can't see or hold the wind, you can't take a picture of it, you can only feel it's passing, you can only see its effects. Doesn't mean the wind isn't there.

(And keep in mind that's an analogy, folks -- there's little I hate worse than people who try to take apart an idea by taking apart the analogy. Except beer.)

(Oh, and I think the fact that I used an analogy should not be lost upon anyone who considers that choice and the nature of god/myth/religion.)

So, really, I don't care. I have my evidence in what I believe. I don't claim to know precisely what it that means, but I have my "events not easily explained by other means." Plenty of them. As examples of ones I am willing share, certain extrasensory abilities seem to run in my family: my grandmother and aunt both had premonotory dreams about my uncle's death the morning of it. I, unfortunately, foresaw the suicide of an aquaintance. I did nothing, and I feel incredibly guilty about that to this day.

My aunt has experienced spirit phenomena in various homes, as have the rest of the family, including my sister and I: in fact, none of our friends would ever sleep in the basement at our parent's house, some of them still won't. My wife won't (we experienced something weird down there together, without even knowing it at the time...we compared notes shortly afterward and became even more creeped out).

So, I know there is something beyond the physical, something I can't explain but which we currently use words like "psychic" and "spirits" and etc. to describe. Whether or not the context of those is entirely and actually correct and that such is really what is going on is not entirely important to the question of "is there?" (but very important to the question "what is?").

I am also perfectly willing to admit that there may be other explanations for the various things which I have encountered and experienced, but after looking for them and applying Occham's Razor, the so-called "rational" beliefs do not fit as well. Even the best cases can be called "coincidence"...and that's a lot of coincidence to rationally buy into.

Why do I not care if "God" is real or a figment of my imagination?

Because that isn't the point of religion for me. Religion is about personal and societal betterment. It doesn't matter if Odin is a real being, or a figment of my imagination: what he represents, what he means, is what is ultimately important. It could all be proven to be illusion tomorrow and that wouldn't change the practice of my faith one bit (well, other than providing some answers to questions I've often asked, and thus opening venues of further inquiry). Myths aren't meant to be understood as "real" events, even if they were real events; myths are not so coarse and base as that.

I'm very Bhuddist about the whole situation. In fact, I honestly think that Bhuddism is the perfect "religion" for atheists and agnostics. I have to wonder why more of them do not follow it, and why most of them know so damn little about it.

(and should there be?)?

Yes and no. On one hand, why put any belief in something you have not personally tested? That's just like deciding one day that you should be able to fly, because you want to, and then jumping out your window because of it. It isn't even nuts, it's just stupid.

On the other hand, for some religions it is supposed to be about faith, not evidence. You believe because that's the choice, hope versus despair. You can't provide evidence of "hope" -- that's why it's hope.

I'm not really down with that, though because ultimately, I'm practical. What works is what works. And I'm a rationalist. I'll develop a theory, test that theory, and if that theory later turns out to be false, well, that's actually cool, I'm one step closer to understanding! The minute I decide, "This is definitely true" or "Ha, that's all crap" is the minute I stop being a Seeker and become a closed-minded jerk cut off from the divine -- whatever that happens to be.

For me, you don't need evidence that tells you what, exactly, is going on to tell that something is going on and make guesses based on what you learn. It is that gaining understanding of the events and universe around me, not trying to say what the actual reality is because I am am ignorant, limited human being, a child being, that is important to me.

Hubris is the six-year old who says he knows and understands more than an adult does about life. Hubris is the religious individual who claims they understand God. No, both have ideas, but that is all they are, ideas, possibilities, inklings of the truth, brief glimpses of the whole that are only parts of it.

Even the Bhudda said about his teachings, "There are more leaves in the forest than these." And I ain't got nothin' on the Bhudda, yet.

If I ever do figure out what the Truth is, at that point I will have likely ascended beyond the human state and become something altogether alien, if even "physical" any longer in any humanly comprehensible way.

What do I believe?
In godhead. In ascension. In enlightenment. In becoming the best person you can be, and in so doing, becoming a god -- which is a beacon of hope, a landmark for others searching upon the path, a myth (ie: an ideal) to be followed in the search to gain wisdom and give love. Like the Bhudda, like Christ, like Muhammed, like Odin, and like many others I have not named. In glowing like the furious bright flame of a candle raging through the night, to attain immortality and enlightenment, mental and spiritual. In not giving up the search for understanding, for the protection and betterment of not only the self, but all and every one of us.

I may not even live to see the fruits of this, I hope I do, but someone will, and I hope I had something to do with it, every stone providing a step across the river has an incalcuably important job, otherwise no one makes it, and that's a waste of millions of years of evolution and progress.

I don't know that I really need to provide "evidence" of any of that. I don't know that any "evidence" I could present would be worth it. I'd like to think that such goals stand on their own merits as goals. This is where faith and belief come into it for me: even if the end result is not possible, a fantasy, it's the journey that's important. The "at least I'm trying" instead of simply giving into nihlism, death, and self-defeat.

"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield...to not go gently into that good night, but to rage against the dying of the light..." That's what it's all about for me. Even though I don't have a poetic quote about the importance of community, the strength of the whole, yet.

[Larry L.]

Well, for my Lutheran confirmation, I got this elegant cross, and my grandfather gave me a pretty substantial gift of cash. For high school graduation, our neighbor/minister gave me a men's devotional. I don't think that little shot of communion wine counts as free booze. All the holidays are pretty secularized these days, so I don't think those count...

Oh, you said presence. Nevermind...

(Apologies to Gilda Radner.)