Exercise in Restraint: What Religion Do You Believe In?

[karlhenning]

M, I appreciate your quarrel with the misogynistic elements in the Pauline letters.  There could follow a long and detailed discussion, and yet, you might find at the last still that you disagree.

All I will point out is, that there are women who are Christians, who embrace the faith — who intelligently embrace the faith — and yet do not labor at all under the 'self-loathing' implicit if (as some argue) misogyny were somehow an 'inherent aspect' of Christianity.

[M forever]

M, I appreciate your quarrel with the misogynistic elements in the Pauline letters.  There could follow a long and detailed discussion, and yet, you might find at the last still that you disagree.

I don't think it matters so much with what I personally agree or disagree about this. That is ultimately a personal decision which may or may not be relevant to other people. I personally find it horrible, deeply inhuman, and it appears to me to be a glaring contradiction, but that has nothing to do with the question of the "authenticity" of these concepts and the events they claim are connected to that.

The interesting question is how it came to be that way. Especially since it is so obviously contradicted by many elements of the same texts this Pauline form of Christianity claims to be based on. But then Paul was the man who went to Jerusalem and argued with the people who actually knew Jesus personally, because he thought he knew better than them what all that was really about and how it was supposed to be understood, right? When it comes to that whole subject, I think we simply don't know anymore what it was really all about, since people (like Paul) started helping themselves to whatever elements of this new movement fitted their very own agenda very early on, and whatever the original message and content really was, it disappeared, just like the original Christian (if we even want to call it that way) community, or rather, was made to disappear.
So what follows is two millenia of highly complex and diverse religious concepts based on some of these elements, but nothing "authentically" and directly connected to the - supposedly - historical origins.

I find the question of what is behind all that enormously interesting and intriguing, and it is without a doubt of singularly immense importance to the whole history of mankind from that point on, but we simply don't know much or anything about "what really happened" - thanks to people like Paul who didn't actually care about that. They had other plans...


BTW, I think we have all really been very restrained in this discussion so far. Is this still GMG? 

[karlhenning]

Actually, call this a 'glass half full' take on the matter, but what I find interesting is that, in spite of for instance the "institutionalization" of dubious remarks in the Pauline letters, that in fact Christianity has among all world religions been the one which has, perhaps, most effectively and meaningfully fostered an intellectual and cultural environment, and the moral impulse, to address the injustices of sexism the world over.

Even the fact that you, M, are finding these elements in the Pauline letters "horrible, deeply inhuman," is the intellectual fruit in this culture of the religion which you are critiquing.

[Haffner]

I don't think it matters so much with what I personally agree or disagree about this. That is ultimately a personal decision which may or may not be relevant to other people. I personally find it horrible, deeply inhuman, and it appears to me to be a glaring contradiction, but that has nothing to do with the question of the "authenticity" of these concepts and the events they claim are connected to that.

The interesting question is how it came to be that way. Especially since it is so obviously contradicted by many elements of the same texts this Pauline form of Christianity claims to be based on. But then Paul was the man who went to Jerusalem and argued with the people who actually knew Jesus personally, because he thought he knew better than them what all that was really about and how it was supposed to be understood, right? When it comes to that whole subject, I think we simply don't know anymore what it was really all about, since people (like Paul) started helping themselves to whatever elements of this new movement fitted their very own agenda very early on, and whatever the original message and content really was, it disappeared, just like the original Christian (if we even want to call it that way) community, or rather, was made to disappear.
So what follows is two millenia of highly complex and diverse religious concepts based on some of these elements, but nothing "authentically" and directly connected to the - supposedly - historical origins.

I find the question of what is behind all that enormously interesting and intriguing, and it is without a doubt of singularly immense importance to the whole history of mankind from that point on, but we simply don't know much or anything about "what really happened" - thanks to people like Paul who didn't actually care about that. They had other plans...

All of M's assertions are excellently written and well thought out. I'm very impressed and at the same time sympathetic. But perhaps the greatest genius of his last few posts lie in the fact that the assertions and questions he's come up with are overall nearly impossible to provide conclusive redactions to; at least from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm sure that people in general (religious and non-religious) often tend to grasp onto religion as an entity that simply provides answers for what they can't/won't-try-to/don't-care-to try and understand. I agree fully with M that this isn't exactly an example of Nietzsche's idea of "intellectual hygiene". And I'm not trying to minimize the subject of will to Ignorance. But try this: how many things in an individual life are treated with what I term Der Wille Zur Wegsehen: the will to look away. That is, how many variables in a person's life are not put under the witheringly-bright lamp of thorough inspection...by necessity toward the goal of life-efficiency?

The failed musician tells him or herself that it's "who you know"; the failed mechanic had "the wrong treacher", etc.

Again, I can fully understand how many would consider this very much a minimization of personal dishonesty. But the writings of Nietzsche brought into the world a way of understanding the role of "dishonesty" in one's life, and his goal in writing (when he wasn't inadvertantly writing from his own, bitter loneliness) was to pretty much prove M's and my own belief that Christ taught people to see every day as a Blessing in and of itself, that the very fact of existence (and especially one's experience and relationship to Love) is the most obvious Miracle in-itself[/i].

"Beyond Good and Evil" was written by Nietzsche to reassure people that whatever form of rationalization that people use to augment their lives (read:"make them easier") , without hurting others in the doing, are intrinsic to human psyche as an overwhelming rule. He felt that people should search inside and understand that they:

a)"tell" themselves things...thus being "intellectually hygienic"...and then
b) understand the whys, hows, wherefores of this "telling" then
c) accept the fact that this is going to happen regardless of one's self-indignation ("the worse form of lying" to Nietzsche), and forgive it when seeing it in another.

What one chooses to believe in...there's the rub, nicht wahr?

[Haffner]

Even the fact that you, M, are finding these elements in the Pauline letters "horrible, deeply inhuman," is the intellectual fruit in this culture of the religion which you are critiquing.

Great point, Karl. I think M has really kicked a** on this topic, and I must state again how impressed I am.

[Al Moritz]

Very true. But does that mean it has to be "supernatural" and/or "divine" then? For people not too long ago, more or less everything, even the things today a moderately intelligent 9 year old can understand, were completely outside science.

No, I am not talking about the "God of the Gaps" – we have no natural explanation yet for this and that, so "God did it". In fact, I have forcefully argued against the God-of-the-gaps argument in my essay The Origin of Life at talkorigins.org, the major evolution site on the web:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality

(Last three paragraphs of that chapter.)

I am not talking about the current limitations of science, I am talking about the boundaries of science, period. I am not talking about gradations, I am talking about a categorical distinction. Science studies the natural causes to natural effects. It cannot say anything about the question if the natural causes ultimately might come from a supernatural source or not.

The American National Academy of Sciences states:
"Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."

(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063647&page=58)

By the way, even if science one day could explain why each and every physical constant has the precise value that it has from a model that unifies all physical forces (desirable, but still far away in the future), this would still not be an argument that the laws of nature have to be the way they are – such an argument of course might be used to bolster the suggestion that we would not need a supernatural explanation for this. The laws of nature could still be different based on another unified structure, and also, different laws of nature would be conceivable based on a non-unified structure. There is no compelling logical or mathematical argument that would exclude those possibilities. Not just according to our current limitations of knowledge, but in principle.

[Scriptavolant]

Not every scientist (I suspect very few) would agree on the assumption that scientifical investigation and acquiring of new knowledge will never possibly offer an alternative explanation for Deism or for Divine determination of natural laws.
First theory that practically did that (and eliminated the need to conceptualize nature as a divine creation) was Darwin's. At the time when the theory of evolution was first published, the whole scientific community relied on the Natural Theology of Paley, the same doctrine that the ID is bringing back in new suits with the pretension that it is an alternative scientifical explanation (which is not).

Not to mention Dawkins, another one who consider scientifical hypotetical evidences as a way to exclude God is Stephen Hawkins. This is a consideration of him from the book "A brief history of time".

When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity , there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before : that space and time together might form a finite , four dimensional space without singularities or boundaries , like the surface of the earth , but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe , such as its large - scale uniformity and also the smaller scale departures from homogeneity , like galaxies , stars , and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self - contained , with no singularities or boundaries , and completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.

Same thing occurs for Chomsky again. I feel very close to the way he interprets the hypothesis of a divinity beyond the material world.

What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there is something not in the universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe infinitely) many of them), and that somehow stands above them? I've never heard of any reason for believing that. (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1990----.htm)

Given that Science has no tools so far to deny or affirm God, let's consider the ammount of rationality intrinsic to religious constructs and beliefs such as the resurrection, apparitions, miracles, afterlife and so on, since -as said - having a religious life experience not only deals with affirming the ingerence of God on natural laws as plausible. I didn't obtain a straight answer so far, and I really would like to know.

For what concerns the philosophical argument of the necessary First Cause for natural phenomena, I think that its contraddictions and flaws have been well demonstated through the XXth Century logical debate. If we assume a First Cause, we must explain who caused it. If we admit God can be uncaused, why God can be and the Universe can't?

[Al Moritz]

Not to mention Dawkins, another one who consider scientifical hypotetical evidences as a way to exclude God is Stephen Hawkins. This is a consideration of him from the book "A brief history of time".

When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity , there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before : that space and time together might form a finite , four dimensional space without singularities or boundaries , like the surface of the earth , but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe , such as its large - scale uniformity and also the smaller scale departures from homogeneity , like galaxies , stars , and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self - contained , with no singularities or boundaries , and completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.

Hawkins in all fairness says "if". And unlike Hawkins suggests, nobody has yet succeeded in combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. It is the big problem in current physics. And since nobody has solved it yet, noone can see the consequences of that. You owe it to yourself to read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics on this. (And no, this physicist has no religious agenda; from his book it seems he is either an atheist or an agnostic.)

EDIT:

and completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.[/i]

See what I said about the laws of nature.

For what concerns the philosophical argument of the necessary First Cause for natural phenomena, I think that its contraddictions and flaws have been well demonstated through the XXth Century logical debate.

This is debatable, but another whole point of discussion which I have no time for now. I have said what I wanted to say about rationality and about the boundaries of science, and I'll leave it at that.

[aquablob]

I have a fundamental problem with the word "supernatural." In my (amateur) opinion, anything that exists is by definition "natural." If a "Supreme Being" exists, it is most definitely "natural," and arguably the most fundamentally "natural" aspect of existence, no?

And why assume that if a Deity (or Deities) exist(s) that hard evidence for said existence will never come to light? It seems to me that attempting to define the boundaries of scientific knowledge is akin to trying to predict the future, and in this particular instance, is based on the assumption that some aspects of existence are, indeed, "supernatural," which is just a fancy way of saying "totally incomprehensible."

Perhaps it is true that some things are simply "incomprehensible," but where is the proof? Such a claim truly boils down to mere assumption. Look at the progress of human knowledge over the millenia -- it is staggering! I'd rather keep our options open. We should always try to increase our knowledge (on a species-wide scale). What if Einstein had decided that the apparent constant speed of light found in experiments such as Mickelson and Morley's was simply "incomprehensible" -- a "supernatural" phenomenon not worth furter investigation? If he had done that, the GPS system in my car (thanks, Mom!) wouldn't work worth a damn!

Again, I am not saying that all knowledge is attainable by human kind. I really don't know. But why set limits before we get there? Who knows what the future holds in store?

[Al Moritz]

I have a fundamental problem with the word "supernatural." In my (amateur) opinion, anything that exists is by definition "natural." If a "Supreme Being" exists, it is most definitely "natural," and arguably the most fundamentally "natural" aspect of existence, no?

If God created nature, he is outside of it.

As for the remainder of your post, I am not quite sure if you have understood everything I said before. And yes, I am all for science finding out everything it possibly can.

[aquablob]

If God created nature, he is outside of it.

Is God unnatural?

[karlhenning]

Is God unnatural?

Cute!

[greg]

Cute!

wouldn't that be a bizarre ending for this thread?

[Haffner]

wouldn't that be a bizarre ending for this thread?

Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?

[greg]

Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?

if so, i just might start believing in miracles 

[Danny]

Didn't St. Paul, in Romans 5, place the blame of the fall of man on Adam's shoulders? (Or is that apple?) 

And doesn't the doctrine of Original Sin (based on St. Paul's writings) that was later formulated by St. Augustine principally blame the fall of mankind on what Adam did?

Besides all that, how could a misogynist write in Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."

[Don]

Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?

This thread might end, but another similar one will begin shortly.  No matter the basic subject, someone always throws in the religious card.

[M forever]

Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?

Why should it end at this point, or any time soon? It looks to me like we all behaved very well so far, and that in itself is a very good group effort since this is a complicated and for many people rather emotional subject. It is also a good discussion because the choice of the subject is very good. Because it isn't so much about the question if supernatural gods exist or not, or if people believe in that or not, but mostly why people believe in that or not, and why they believe in specific forms of organized religion or not. So it stays on a personal level, it's not about what is the "truth", we are leaving that open for now, but what personal relationship people have to the subject. That is something we can respectfully discuss. And that is actually very interesting. We don't have to waste much time fighting about detail content of this or that religion, but it is interesting to hear from people why they chose to believe in certain things, but not in others.
Anyway, thanks for the thought out replies to my posts, I will come back to these a little later. It's a complicated subject which requires a little thinking now and then, so some of the posts deserve to be taken more time to reply to than typing in a few spontaneous lines...

[Hollywood]

I survived 12 years of catholic schools. Since I graduated from my all girl catholic high school in 1974 I have distanced myself from the church and its teachings. I know that the catholic religion is fine and wonderful for many people and if that's what makes them happy then more power to them, but it is not for me. Now whenever I am asked what religious beliefs I have I just say I am a Druid.   

All I can say about religion is that people can believe in any organized religion they wish to because it was their choice. I feel that people are free to practice their religion of choice and believe in whichever god or gods they want to as long as they don't come to my door or approach me on the street trying to add me to their congregation. So you can believe in god or not and practice whichever religion you wish, but please leave me out of it. I am far happier spiritually walking in the lovely Vienna Woods and surrounding nature where Beethoven spent many hours of the day.

This is as far as I am going to get involved in a religion topic since such a topic usually gets way out of control and ends up getting locked.   

[Haffner]

Didn't St. Paul, in Romans 5, place the blame of the fall of man on Adam's shoulders? (Or is that apple?) 

And doesn't the doctrine of Original Sin (based on St. Paul's writings) that was later formulated by St. Augustine principally blame the fall of mankind on what Adam did?

Besides all that, how could a misogynist write in Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."

Beautiful quotes, Danny! Many doubt the authorship of some (at least parts) of the "Pauline Epistles". Many point out the inconsistencies as being indicative of later interpolations.