Religulous

[Elgarian]

I must object, as Ernie did, to "just about every decent, redeeming characteristic of human societies stems from the religions at their moral centers."

I was very affected many years ago by a little book by CS Lewis called The Abolition of Man, in which there was an Appendix comparing moral statements drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. I was struck by the commonality of many of the statements, and it left me with quite a profound sense of a core of goodness at the heart of most religious thought. Now it may well be that I've enquired insufficiently deeply into the matter - but it was in that spirit that I read DavidRoss's post. Whether the moral centres are there because of the religious belief, or whether the religion is merely a receptacle for the pre-existing moral centre, I can't say. But I do think that the religions of the world have been, if you like, guardians of those moral centres. You might say that's not what DR was saying, and maybe you're right; but that's what I'm saying, now - rather more guardedly and less sure of my ground.

[DavidRoss]

in the past few posts he has been called "ignorant bigot, moron, nitwit, complete asshole, boor, pathetic loser, small minded bigot and wacko." 

Was there something I missed?  Or do you think some element of this assessment is mistaken?  Personally, I think that--after several years of hearing him repeat the same ignorant bilge in chronic attempts to sow enmity and rancor--we've all molly-coddled him far more than enough.  Or are you also thinking that, like Saul, he is sufficiently handicapped that we should make special allowances for him and respond with bottomless tolerance as if he had Down syndrome or something equally debilitating?

I don't (and didn't) endorse the second section of DR's post, where I think he let his temper get the better of him, and I'd have much preferred it if he hadn't.

I apologize to you and others here (excluding Eric) who might have felt offended by the strong wording of that post and the previous one.  My temper was never at risk, but my judgment as to the value of such repeatedly forceful expression may have been amiss--especially in light of Eric's response suggesting his behavior may be more pathological than willfully obtuse.

Anyway, having had my say and having learned something from it, I'll take my leave of Eric's threads and get back to listening to some of that beautiful music that brought me to this site in the first place.  Schoenberg's Pelleas & Melisande, anyone?  

[Elgarian]

    Nope, the NAZI Party was evil, the various churches that burned people at the stake were evil, the Communists were evil in a way that included but was not limited to the guilt of the individuals involved. The KKK was evil, too. Organizations can be evil and sometimes are.

But why would you think I'd disagree with this? Those are all systems that have gone wrong. The Nazi party was wrong, but parties are not; people-burning churches are wrong, but churches are not. Some religious systems are wrong, but religions are not.

The Muslim who crosses the road to help you when you're hurt isn't evil just because he thinks he's doing it by the grace of Allah, and neither is his belief.

[DavidW]

In reply to Dave:

Since Eric has so generously given me cds and dvds I will never think of him as an asshole. 0:)  I will admit that he can be a bit of a troll, and definitely close minded though!

[karlhenning]

Don't think Debussy would have happened except for the particular congruence of events that led up to the 19th century as we know it.

Word.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

The idea of loving your neighbour as yourself seems to me a pretty fine moral principle to begin with.

Yes, that's true, but I think that the order to 'love thy neighbor as thyself' is too extreme/strenuous to be obeyed....I don't think humans are so constituted as to care for others as much as themselves.    

Also, let's not forget  empathy  which is the basis of morality, yes ?  And from which comes love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance with a profound desire to make a just society and reduce suffering.  

[Homo Aestheticus]

Eric's assertion that nothing good comes from religion.

No, no David, I never said that...    There are some good things that come from it but there is one thing that deeply depresses me whenever the topic of God's nature, monotheism, organized religion and free will comes up.

Scientists say that it has been about 100,000 years since homo sapiens became separate from the cro-magnons and neanderthals as our own species. So to be a theist one has to believe that for approximately 100,000 years humanity is born, perhaps 25% dies in childbirth or just after. Life expectancy maybe 25 years. Infant mortality (after childbirth), extremely high. We were killed by microrganisms we didn't know existed, by earthquakes that we thought were portents, by storms we didn't know came from our climate system, by other events that arise from being born on this cooling planet with deep cracks in its crust.... And then of course man-made things like turf wars, fights over women, over territory, over food.

So we have a very slow, gradual upward process we might like to think. Pretty slow, but at least we can say, at of our own self-respect....man-made.

And for the first 96,000 years of this experience Heaven watches us go through this with folded arms....

With indifference...

Without pity...

And then around 4,000 years ago decides: 'Gee, it's time to intervene. And the best way of doing it would probably be bronze-age Middle East, making an appearance to stupefied illiterate peasants. And the news could get passed on to China and the East in about 1,000 years. How does that sound ?

THIS  is what one must believe to be a monotheist (i.e. Jew, Christian, Muslim).  



Now some rhetorical questions for those in our society who adhere to one of the Abrahamic, monotheist belief systems:

Aren't you glad that you can't be made to believe this ?

Aren't you glad there's no theocracy anymore within range of you that can make you believe this ?

Do you know what it's like living in countries where you can be made to believe it ?

Do you know what the penalties are for not believing it ?

So yes, it's unfortunate that we have to still deal with these things in 2009.

[karlhenning]

Of course, the value of some dogmatic credos is genuinely questionable.

[DavidW]

I was reminded of Futurama where God tells Bender that he figures the only way to intervene without surpressing free will is to do such light touches that it seems as if nothing had been done at all.

That also had one of my fav Futurama parts:
Bender: "I was God for awhile."
God: "Yes I saw.  You were doing fine until everyone died."

[Elgarian]

I'd told myself I'd be wise to keep out of threads like this one for a while, and coming back to this, this morning, reminds me that I should have stuck to that. So I'm dropping out of this, here, with apologies for the error of judgement.

[robnewman]

It's OK to go nuts about a baseball game, or a Hollywood presentation show. But the moment a person takes God seriously that's crazy, right ?

The video is the usual confusion of organised religion and Christianity. Two opposites. It's not original. It's not even funny. And, frankly, it's nuts itself.

[karlhenning]

Whenever anyone is about to attempt to talk sense to Eric about religion, it might be well to consider that this is the level of his thought on the matter:

And then around 4,000 years ago decides: 'Gee, it's time to intervene. And the best way of doing it would probably be bronze-age Middle East, making an appearance to stupefied illiterate peasants. And the news could get passed on to China and the East in about 1,000 years. How does that sound ?

THIS  is what one must believe to be a monotheist (i.e. Jew, Christian, Muslim).  

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Pick a thread, any thread; they're all the same, folks:

Religulous

Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

Miss Allen: Atheism Is Simply About Anger

Why Is America Still So Often Puritanical ?

Some aspects I love about the Christian religion

God Bless Sarah Palin !

The Pope speaks on the global financial crisis

The Two Doctrines I Believe In

An argument against Charles Murray ?

The immortality of the 'soul'

Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish

Is There Something Degrading About It ?

[Brian]

I was very affected many years ago by a little book by CS Lewis called The Abolition of Man, in which there was an Appendix comparing moral statements drawn from a wide variety of religious sources. I was struck by the commonality of many of the statements, and it left me with quite a profound sense of a core of goodness at the heart of most religious thought. Now it may well be that I've enquired insufficiently deeply into the matter - but it was in that spirit that I read DavidRoss's post. Whether the moral centres are there because of the religious belief, or whether the religion is merely a receptacle for the pre-existing moral centre, I can't say. But I do think that the religions of the world have been, if you like, guardians of those moral centres. You might say that's not what DR was saying, and maybe you're right; but that's what I'm saying, now - rather more guardedly and less sure of my ground.

Elgarian, if you do read this, I think this was the best post in the thread. Thank you.

[Homo Aestheticus]

It's OK to go nuts about a baseball game, or a Hollywood presentation show. But the moment a person takes God seriously that's crazy, right ?

The video is the usual confusion of organised religion and Christianity. Two opposites. It's not original. It's not even funny. And, frankly, it's nuts itself.

You may be missing the larger point.

Nowadays the consensus on the supernatural is as follows:

"Oh back when people were stupid they believed in many gods but now we know there's one god.... and that's ethical progress"

Why do we believe this ?

It seems to me that a system (polytheism) that acknowledges that there are  MULTIPLE  forces in the universe that are superior to us and possibly beneficent towards us and to whom you owe a kind of reverence and acknowledges that they might come into conflict with each other.... This seems to me like a more grown-up set of beliefs than a belief that there is a single Father in the heavens and that if you're right with Him everything is fine. And you're entire moral universe consists in doing His will.

And remember as noted above for 96,000 years we had to fend for ourselves in the most forbidding environments. It is easier to believe that many gods (some possible malevolent) allowed this.

But no, in the year 2009 people still want to cling to the Judao-Christian God and his supposed omnibenevolence and omniscience.

[karlhenning]

Well, one hopes that you find all this therapeutic, Eric.

[DavidW]

I'd told myself I'd be wise to keep out of threads like this one for a while, and coming back to this, this morning, reminds me that I should have stuck to that. So I'm dropping out of this, here, with apologies for the error of judgement.

Well I enjoyed reading your posts, you seem to be a real sensible fellow.

[DavidW]

I'm sure we all loving reading Eric's posts, but Karl has pointed out how many posts he has made and threads he has created.  I looked over the forum rules (because I couldn't help but think that there is something wrong with this) and even though religious posts of all kinds are allowed (as long as they are not insulting, vulgar etc), multiple posts on the same subject are construed as spam, so anyone that is had enough has a legitimate foundation for giving mods work to do.

I'm sure Knight and Bruce would thank you for the work.

[Wanderer]

...Karl has pointed out how many posts he has made and threads he has created.  I looked over the forum rules (because I couldn't help but think that there is something wrong with this) and even though religious posts of all kinds are allowed (as long as they are not insulting, vulgar etc), multiple posts on the same subject are construed as spam, so anyone that is had enough has a legitimate foundation for giving mods work to do.

I'm sure Knight and Bruce would thank you for the work.

I agree that all this useless and repetitive drone easily falls under the category of spam. If I'm not mistaken, someone has already voiced the idea of merging all these - present and subsequent -  threads of more or less the same subject matter into one big pile of garbage, which would be far easier to peruse or avoid.

[DavidW]

I agree that all this useless and repetitive drone easily falls under the category of spam. If I'm not mistaken, someone has already voiced the idea of merging all these - present and subsequent -  threads of more or less the same subject matter into one big pile of garbage, which would be far easier to peruse or avoid.

That would be fantastic, isolate him just as was done for Newman's Mozartian rant.  We really don't need the diner just covered with these topics like uninvited ants at a picnic.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Ernie,

Religion is treated, quite properly, as one of the most dangerous forces on earth when it's not restrained by the power of secular law.

The reluctance to evaluate religion in all its aspects has nothing to do with any inability to come to conclusions. This reluctance is more like the right hand not knowing something about the left hand. We know but prefer not to say.

I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment...

What about the scholars who maintain that Christianity transformed the ancient world in 4 crucial ways ways we may have forgotten:

1. Bringing liberation from fatalism.

2. Conferring great dignity on human beings.

3. Subverting the cruelest aspects of pagan society.

4. Elevating charity above all virtues.

Any thoughts on this argument ?