Exercise in Restraint: What Religion Do You Believe In?

[Hector]

I picked that up years ago, but couldn't get through it, Andy :-)

Sartre was a c..t. He justified violence to bring about political change.

Sod democracy, ay, Jean-Paul, you cul.

[Mark]

The Danish philosopher Kierkegaard wrote that there are two types of morals for a person, which often bleed into each other:

a) the moral law from "outside": things which are punishable by the civil authorities for example.
b) the moral law on the inside: the one which can make a person sick with grief at the idea of actually killing or raping a person, etc.


It may prove illuminating for many, to look inside and see what repels a person on a moral level. And why. Then go back in and see whether it is more "acquired" or "authentic".

Unsurprisingly, my 'moral compass' points to both a) and b) above. For example, if I kill someone, I'll not only feel deep remorse but also spend many years without my freedom. And the notion of rape is certainly something which makes me physically sick - I know of three women close to me who were so violated.

[Hector]

Now *that* is more unlikely than any of the miracles described in any religious texts I have ever seen. Walking on water? Why not. Rasing someone from the dead? Sure, you just have to know how. England winning the World Cup? Come on!

You can laugh and if you go on like that I'll send you all the posts from Al Moritz.

You'll be laughing, if at all, on the other side of your face, then

[greg]

b) the moral law on the inside: the one which can make a person sick with grief at the idea of actually killing or raping a person, etc.

makes you wonder about certain people who don't actually have this...... i guess some are born without it, and some lose it.

[Haffner]

makes you wonder about certain people who don't actually have this...... i guess some are born without it, and some lose it.

Makes me wonder whether most, if not all, murderers and rapists do feel the same, awful inward feeling at the thought of committing such crimes.

It might have been their upbringing; child abuse early on might make the criminal experience a splitting inside. A dissassociation from the "bad" person that was punished. So, whenever he or she committed a crime, it would always be the "other" person, the "bad" person, whom actually did the crime, with the offender's conscience standing by (inside), horrified and unwilling to take the blame.

[greg]

It might have been their upbringing; child abuse early on might make the criminal experience a splitting inside. A dissassociation from the "bad" person that was punished. So, whenever he or she committed a crime, it would always be the "other" person, the "bad" person, whom actually did the crime, with the offender's conscience standing by (inside), horrified and unwilling to take the blame.

yeah, probably that's it.
unless you're just born a complete psychopath, but that's very rare....

[Renfield]

Interesting how this thread has come down to discussing ethics; even though it could have been said to be inevitable...

Still, I will once again be a spoilsport and note that, however entertaining such a discussion might be, it would very much help the general argument if views aren't simply "thrown in" without justification. And that's regardless of verity: I'm mostly saying this due to notions like "men can be born evil" that seem to suddenly be dropped in the conversation.

Citing Kierkegaard specifically, on the other hand, was - in my view - useful; just don't fall into the trap of discussing only what was immediately referenced, rather than at least part of the sum of opinions on record regarding the subject.

Interlude on "debating productively" over. You may continue with your discussion.

(And no, I am not doing this just to be an "ass". After all, I'm not even participating in the present debate. But I do think some refinement could help it flourish into something more "solid", and indeed interesting. )

[Haffner]

yeah, probably that's it.
unless you're just born a complete psychopath, but that's very rare....

I've  read that there are those with...abnormalities (I grimacingly await responses).

[karlhenning]

Interesting how this thread has come down to discussing ethics; even though it could have been said to be inevitable.

Haven't ethics always been a core component of religion?  This aspect of the discussion, of itself, strikes me as non-news.

[karlhenning]

I've  read that there are those with...abnormalities

That's so last century.

Now, they are simply different-normalitied 

[Renfield]

Haven't ethics always been a core component of religion?  This aspect of the discussion, of itself, strikes me as non-news.

Exactly my point, in describing the discussion going that way as something that "could have been said to be inevitable". Or rather "could be said to have been inevitable" would be a clearer way to put it, but concurrent thoughts were apparently befuddling me, as I was typing the original post.

[greg]

That's so last century.

Now, they are simply different-normalitied 

lol 

[karlhenning]

Exactly my point, in describing the discussion going that way as something that "could have been said to be inevitable". Or rather "could be said to have been inevitable" would be a clearer way to put it, but concurrent thoughts were apparently befuddling me, as I was typing the original post.

I follow you now.

One interesting aspect of these discussions, is where some of our more zealous neighbors actually attempt to categorize religious belief as, itself, a mode of unacceptable behavior (only one example being the citation of Chomsky warning us that "irrational belief" is of its nature "dangerous").

[Norseman]

I'm an agnostic. I generally don't like religion, but I like some of its 'products'.. Like the music.

[Danny]

I love the writings of St. Ignatius, and I just watched another movie recently about Sts. Therese and Bernadette.

I too consider the political dealings of the Church to often be very wrong and not-thought-through-enough. I am, however, also very much in love with the Theology and by and large the practices as well.

I am particularly devoted, Mass more than once a week, consecrations to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts 5-6 times a week, a full Rosary at least 7 times a week...

but I don't see myself as being any quicker toward getting "into Heaven" because of such devotion. I do it because it makes me understand Love better, and it makes me feel marvelous.

Well, I do it for both, really. 

I think being a practicing Catholic makes me a better person, but know that going through the various motions won't have any real effect in your life if you view it as "going through the motions."  There has to be a real and sincere faith operating within it.  I know that in the past I've fallen into the trap of thinking that if you did x, y, and z that everything was taken care of.  Although I obviously do not agree with a lot of what he believed/taught, I think Luther was right in re-stressing a strong personal faith in Christ that was at the heart of St. Paul's teachings.

[karlhenning]

Let's Drink to St Paul!

(oops)

[Danny]

Let's Drink to St Paul!

(oops)

For me, I'll make it a cup of coffee! 

And are there any Evangelical Humanist Catholics out there like Erasmus?

[Haffner]

Although I obviously do not agree with a lot of what he believed/taught, I think Luther was right in re-stressing a strong personal faith in Christ that was at the heart of St. Paul's teachings.

I'm betting that people (well, most) figure out that one can't have faith without it being personal.

Interesting to ask oneself what one does that isn't ,at least in some way, personal.

I was never wild about St. Paul's more misogynistic writings...in fact, just the opposite. However, his song of love, and much of his writings in regard to Christology and prayer, continue to Affirm and Inspire me.

I have read both Luther and Calvin, and while I respect their intellect, I didn't learn much from them I hadn't already guessed. Luther's movement, as you know, stemmed from both his vocational failure and (perhaps mostly) the awful state of the Catholic Church at the time.

I must heartily thank both Luther and Calvin for having helped tremendously in making the RC church clean its act up!

As I wrote the latter, I realize that some here may feel offended, believing perhaps that the RC church never did "get right". i apologize if I have offended any, and offer up my sincere respect for them and whatever Faith they live by.

[Scriptavolant]

The belief that all belief can be (or ought to be) "rational belief," may itself be an irrational belief. 

Agreeable, but quite generic and vague. I don't think Chomsky was saying this.
But elsewhere you can find his considerations about a study conducted in the US.

I was just looking at a study by an American sociologist (published in England) of comparative religious attitudes in various countries. The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that -- it's astonishing.

These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population.

Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believed in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago.

Again, you've got to go back to pre-technological societies, or devastated peasant societies, before you get numbers like that. Those are the kinds of belief systems that show up in things like the God-and-country rally.

Source: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pfrm/pfrm-12.html

Quite spooky, eh?

[Haffner]

Agreeable, but quite generic and vague. I don't think Chomsky was saying this.
But elsewhere you can find his considerations about a study conducted in the US.

I was just looking at a study by an American sociologist (published in England) of comparative religious attitudes in various countries. The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that -- it's astonishing.

These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population.

Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believed in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago.

Again, you've got to go back to pre-technological societies, or devastated peasant societies, before you get numbers like that. Those are the kinds of belief systems that show up in things like the God-and-country rally.

Source: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pfrm/pfrm-12.html

Quite spooky, eh?

Hm. Not really spooky at all, for me. I'm convinced that religious miracles exist (outside the "ordinary-extraordinary" miracle of Love itself). For a Catholic, the Eucharist itslelf is a Miracle in every way.

It is tough for me on the Darwin thing, however. I've noticed that the book I read awhile back, "Darwin's Black Box", is more and more popular...


I guess the only thing "amazing" about the above statistics is the apparent fact that you find such "spooky".

Absolutely no offense intended, and I greatly admire and respect the coherence of your assertions.