The Religion Thread

[HertsWolf]

It's all getting complex with so many questions, comments and I really didn't want to become some kind of religious evangelist, tbh.

I really would encourage people to read both Dawkins and people like Armstrong and CS Lewis to see both sides of the argument. I sense that most come to the discussion with opinions firmly made and minds firmly shut (An accusation many may well make of me too, perhaps).

 

[HertsWolf]

To be honest, I think most atheists still DO 'do the noble thing'. Not being a believer doesn't make you someone who immediately stops being a nice person. the 10 commandments are a reasonably decent starting point, and I think most religions have similar rules and as a basis of society, 'treat others how you would like to be treated' works pretty well. But you don't need religion for that.

Absolutely. You don't need religion for it at all. But religion does provide a set of beliefs, values, morals and ethics which are "good" and also provides a sense of community and belonging.
I commented earlier (another thread) on how a homeless man crossing Britain always headed for Christian ministries and "Christians" for support, food and welfare. Someone here then said that it doesn't have to be a Christian or religious charity to help those in need. It's true, but the reality is that typically it is those of faith and religious charities who are out there helping those in need most. There's nothing stopping any good kind person from doing all this. But my own experience in remote parts of Africa, Asia and in the UK has been that the faith groups are more conspicuous in working most directly with the needy and in the most difficult areas. It actually contributed to my 'return' to believing although sadly, it hasn't made me a better person.

 

[HertsWolf]

I'm quite surprised by you being a religious man, Hertswolf.

Why? Just cos I'm not all "licked by kittens" and pious? Mugs can be Christians too.

I can see science and it can be explained rationally, whereas the idea of an omniscient presence guiding everything that everybody does is far too irrational for me.

I would humbly suggest there's a lot of science that you cannot see and cannot explain. The obvious answer is "yet" but in every generation there is a sense that science has proved just about anything. Hawking has said that everything is explained by the laws of nature. But where did those laws originate? How do we explain the essence of music and the creation of emotions, artistic expression and harmonies?

I'm not saying there is 100% not a god, or some kind of presence that helped us get to where we are today but I don't know it as fact so I don't believe it. If there is a god then it certainly isn't a benevolent being.

It would be rare for someone to be 100% certain there was no God. Even Hawking and Dawkins have said "almost certain" and that "science is a more convincing explanation". The lack of proof is why the word 'faith' is used. I don't see why not being able to prove something explains not believing in it. I have faith in the judgement of my girlfriend; I have faith in my children to be honest and diligent in certain things; I can't prove that judgement or that they will be honesty, I just have that belief that it remains valid. Great scientists, including Einstein and Dirac have believed in God without needing the framed Certificate of Authenticity.

The main 4 gospels were written 50-100 years after Jesus lived and were edited at the Council of Nicea by Constantine. There are a lot of other 'lost gospels' which tell the same/similar story of Jesus but these didn't fit the description that Christianity wanted for the son of god so they were left by the way side.

It is speculation that Constantine edited anything at all (he ordered 50 bibles to be prepared). There are many different accounts and many different versions of the Gospels...and the famous missing source known as Q. You suggest a Machiavellian interest in what they chose. Many scholars have suggested that they chose what seemed to be the best fit based on what they knew. Those who developed the various biblical canon were referees: sometimes referees make mistakes. Interesting that if it was a conspiracy why are so many of these additional sources still existing? In the fourth Century, they would have had the power to destroy stuff.

My main issue with modern religion is that it's done far too much to stop us becoming more advanced than we are. Imagine where we'd be had Christianity not persecuted the vast majority of the greatest minds the world has ever had? It's also played a major hand in far too many wars/conflicts.

Many elements and factors have been to blame. Given the power of religion in historical times, even maybe up until the 20th Century, it's not surprising that vested interests abused religion to create conflict. It's the same story with scientific progress. Arguably even to this day, there are large swathes of the world where academic science just doesn't exist in universities because of medieval mindsets and the need of many to take a 1,500 year old user manual as literal in today's world. Yes, of course the guy went round with his missus and two sons to get two of every animal and stick them on a boat. Even the Steve Carell version is more believable.

Religion was abused and used by the rich and powerful because it was the most effective way to get what they wanted. This was done up until politics had been discovered as a way of not only the rich getting their way but getting ordinary people to actually pay for it as well.

Religion has moved on. Just as transport, politics, culture, arts, music have. People don't dislike Liverpool or Bristol because they were centres of the slave trade. There are far better, contemporary reasons to do so.

There are many things that Britain and British people and the British 'system' does wrong. However, I'm still British and I accept that "community" of being British. I also have a dysfunctional family (like most of us) but I don't disown it. I can understand that people stay away from things that they don't like or believe but there is, I believe, always a place for people to join and play a role (and 'belong') even if they don't believe it all or understand it all.

 

[HertsWolf]

Reply #345

Herts...
What/who do you think God is?

Dunno.

I'm not sure reading your post if you see God as a creator or some kind of supernatural (for want of a better word) guiding force, or both? Some kind of subconscious spirit within us all that is a force for good?

Could be a big, white bearded guy. I always sense that he is actually called Alan and lived in Wokingham for a while. He's definitely English though. Possibly from Suffolk originally. In one of the Gospels - I forget which - it mentions that he was once an Ipswich season ticket holder, but stopped going because the ground smells of piss and the view is crap.

Seriously, though, I don't know. I guess it's a little bit of all of the above.

Can we not teach the good that the New Testament also speaks about without religion?

Of course we can. Masses of good and noble things are done by all kinds of people without a single thought towards God or religion or faith.
The devil's advocate in me (and I admit it is arrogant and cheating a lot) is that that is God working through them, they just don't know it. Many will laugh and mock and say "Yeh, right. Load of crap. Nothing to do with religion!". I'm happy with that view. If people are ceaselessly doing good things, then we're all OK and we have a better world ahead. Kudos.
Christianity (or maybe I should say faith and religion) is for those of us who are actually a bit shit at it all and screw most things up, and need a bit of guidance and a bit of help and a bit of support. Like me.

For me, the organised part of it...church....brings in the community aspect and the sense of shared values.

 

[HertsWolf]

 

[Captain Scumbag]

Haven't you just defined agnosticism rather than atheism?

Not really, no. I've needlessly complicated matters by describing atheism as a form of scepticism (Ebbe's nitpicky point on that is correct), so allow me to backtrack and explain what I understand by the key terms in this discussion. That might help to clarify things a little.

I stand by my view that atheism is merely an absence of belief in deities. A lot of people seem intent on complicating it further, but I really don't know why. A person either believes in the existence of a deity (or deities) or they don't, and those who don't are atheists. The reason for that lack of belief is not greatly important.

The "a" prefix in agnosticism means "without". The "gnostic" part is derived (via Ecclesiastical Latin) from the Greek word for "know". So when considering the meaning of "agnostic" or "agnosticism”, it's knowledge, and more specifically being without knowledge, that we ought to be principally concerned with. If we're comparing and seeking to differentiate atheism ("without belief") and agnosticism ("without knowledge"), the key difference is that between belief and knowledge.

People can (and do) believe all sorts of things. I might believe my wife will eventually tire of buying shoes and soft furnishings. Pagnell might believe that Liverpool will finish in the top 4. Alty might believe (despite mounting evidence) that he's not slowly metamorphosing into a middle-aged, curtain-twitching Tory. Some beliefs are more rational and evidence-based than others, but they are all beliefs. But before you can legitimately claim to know something, higher standards of reason and evidence have to be satisfied. I'm sure most people would accept that.

To bring this back to a religious context, then, an atheist is merely someone who doesn't believe in the existence of deities. As mentioned before, their reason for not believing is not greatly (if at all) relevant. Therefore, what various atheists might claim to know or not know about the existence of deities is also not greatly relevant, at least from a definitional and/or semantic standpoint.

As I acknowledged in a previous post, some atheists do exhibit a rather cocksure and credulous confidence (or faith, if you prefer) in modern science. In some cases they might even claim to know, without doubt or equivocation, that deities definitely don't exist. I find those people as irksome as you probably do, but their (unwarranted) epistemic certainty does not define them as atheists; their mere being without theistic belief does.

A lot of confusion, I think, comes from the common but mistaken view that atheism, theism and agnosticism are three separate and mutually exclusive categories that occupy specific places on a spectrum, with atheism at one end, theism at the other and agnosticism in the middle as some kind of conceptual fence for the uncommitted chap to plonk his arse on. That conceptual framework makes no effort to understand and categorise the key terms with any literal or philosophical precision; therefore, I think it's largely unhelpful and basically wrong.

I'm prattling on here but I basically take the same view as Ebbe. A lot of atheists are also agnostics. My lack of theistic belief makes me an atheist. My acknowledgement that I don't (and/or can't) know that deities definitely don't exist makes me an agnostic. Atheism is a matter of belief. Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge. And since what a person believes or disbelieves doesn't have to perfectly correspond with what they claim to know or not know, there's no reason why someone can't self-identify as both atheist and agnostic. Actually, there’s no reason why a person can't self-identify as both agnostic and theist. After all, a person can believe in a deity for all sorts of reasons (they might just like the idea) while also acknowledging that they don't definitively know their deity exists.

I know you're answering multiple posts in this thread (which is never easy) so apologies for the essay. Hopefully some of it made sense.

 

[HertsWolf]

A lot of confusion, I think, comes from the common but mistaken view that atheism, theism and agnosticism are three separate and mutually exclusive categories that occupy specific places on a spectrum, with atheism at one end, theism at the other and agnosticism slap bang in the middle as some kind of conceptual fence for the uncommitted to plonk their arses on. That conceptual framework makes no effort to understand and categorise the key terms with any literal or philosophical precision; therefore, I think it's largely unhelpful and basically wrong.

I'm prattling on here but I basically take the same view as Ebbe. A lot of atheists are also agnostics.

I agree with this all (including what I left out above) but feel that many Christians and Muslims and other religions are also agnostic. You can have faith and belief even if you can't prove it. There is much that cannot be proved in life, the universe and everything. However, I would suggest that atheism and theism are mutually exclusive.... No?

I know you're answering multiple posts of this thread (which is never easy) so apologies for the essay. Hopefully some of it made sense.

Yes, it all made sense (as have most of EG's despite my strong disagreement with him on other threads)

 

[Captain Scumbag]

However, I would suggest that atheism and theism are mutually exclusive.... No?

Yes. Should have phrased that part better.

 

[silkyman]

That basically sums up my main reason behind not believing. Yes, there are gaps. But there are fewer gaps than ever. Where's the slide to represent what we know about where earthquakes come from? Because not all that long ago (within the timeframe of the Old Testament), it would have been as blank as the rest of them.

 

[silkyman]

As good a place as any for those sort of utter shit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309472/Evangelists-upset-Starbucks-red-holiday-cups.html

Grow up.

 

[HertsWolf]

That basically sums up my main reason behind not believing. Yes, there are gaps. But there are fewer gaps than ever. Where's the slide to represent what we know about where earthquakes come from? Because not all that long ago (within the timeframe of the Old Testament), it would have been as blank as the rest of them.

I think it reflects he views of many, tbh. A useful counter to this (and to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc) is Frances Spufford's book 'Unapologetic' because he is really funny as well.
Part of the problem of the New Atheists is that they believe all Christians are nutty fundamentalists. Except Harris, who understand the difference, but would like all religious people to be killed.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Part of the problem of the New Atheists is that they believe all Christians are nutty fundamentalists. Except Harris, who understand the difference, but would like all religious people to be killed.

The fuck sort of propaganda have you been reading?

 

[HertsWolf]

The fuck sort of propaganda have you been reading?

Dawkins 'God Delusion', parts of 'The Selfish Gene', Harris various, Hitchens 'God is Not Great' and part of 'Hitch-22', and most of Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. I've read others but as many seem to quote the Four Horsemen most, I'll just refer to them.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first of my two sentences sentence not the second.

And, as always, I do like your Emoji of Ridicule. Very good.

 

[HertsWolf]

As good a place as any for those sort of utter shit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3309472/Evangelists-upset-Starbucks-red-holiday-cups.html

Grow up.

Yes, agree. Sadly a lot of nutters around. I already have sufficient reason to boycott Starbucks without needing a looney one.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Dawkins 'God Delusion', parts of 'The Selfish Gene', Harris various, Hitchens 'God is Not Great' and part of 'Hitch-22', and most of Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'. I've read others but as many seem to quote the Four Horsemen most, I'll just refer to them.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first of my two sentences sentence not the second.

I was referring to both. Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens - while he was alive - all went out of their way to refute those accusations with tedious regularity, and always made/make a point to note that they're not talking about all religious folk. I can only assume the 'kill all religious people' comment was in reference to Harris' nuclear first strike philosophical question that is regularly taken out of context by regressive liberals, much like the cropped fascist comment they love to quote also. You would do better to just watch some of their debates than reading their books dry, especially quotes taken out of context, much quicker and much more entertaining.

 

[HertsWolf]

I was referring to both. Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens - while he was alive - all went out of their way to refute those accusations with tedious regularity, and always made/make a point to note that they're not talking about all religious folk. I can only assume the 'kill all religious people' comment was in reference to Harris' nuclear first strike philosophical question that is regularly taken out of context by regressive liberals, much like the cropped fascist comment they love to quote also. You would do better to just watch some of their debates than reading their books dry, especially quotes taken out of context, much quicker and much more entertaining.

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Harris, End of Faith, p52.
There are other similar statements elsewhere. You might want to acquaint yourself with what is written in their books before patronising others who have already done so. I happen to find the debate interesting and stimulating. Funny how suddenly it's "regressive liberals" who take things out of context. I thought that was the role for the Christian right. Ho hum.

But thanks for letting me know what i would "do better at". Your guidance on all matters intellectual is always entertaining.

 

[silkyman]

I've not read Unapolagetic, but looking at up, and reading reviews, it appears to be about the emotional element of belief. (It's subtitle is 'why religion makes emotional sense').

I don't know if it goes any deeper, but that appears to be the main message. As one review puts it '`Unapologetic' puts up an elegant two fingers to the acolytes of Dawkins et al by saying you cannot possibly know how I feel and you have no right to guess.'

Which doesn't seem all that scientific to me, if we're purely discussing whether a god, logically, does, or even CAN exist. You can feel all you like, it doesn't in any way alter what would be a universal truth, one way or the other.

 

[HertsWolf]

But I admit I do like humour and jokes at the expense of religion and faith and stuff...

 

[silkyman]

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Harris, End of Faith, p52.
There are other similar statements elsewhere. You might want to acquaint yourself with what is written in their books before patronising others who have already done so. I happen to find the debate interesting and stimulating. Funny how suddenly it's "regressive liberals" who take things out of context. I thought that was the role for the Christian right. Ho hum.

But thanks for letting me know what i would "do better at". Your guidance on all matters intellectual is always entertaining.

As always, context is important.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

“Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them” Harris, End of Faith, p52.
There are other similar statements elsewhere. You might want to acquaint yourself with what is written in their books before patronising others who have already done so. I happen to find the debate interesting and stimulating. Funny how suddenly it's "regressive liberals" who take things out of context. I thought that was the role for the Christian right. Ho hum.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd been mislead by propaganda, because the only alternate explanations for those beliefs would be issues with reading comprehension, wilful ignorance, or simply that you were seeking to misrepresent the truth. Again, I can only reiterate what I said about those comments being taken out of context.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

 

[silkyman]

Also quite interesting that you're using a quote (albeit slightly out of context) to show 'look, atheists can be nasty buggers' which has been, and still is in some cases, official policy for pretty much every religion in history!

 

[HertsWolf]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you'd been mislead by propaganda, because the only alternate explanations for those beliefs would be issues with reading comprehension, wilful ignorance, or simply that you were seeking to misrepresent the truth. Again, I can only reiterate what I said about those comments being taken out of context.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

"the only alternate explanations for those beliefs"....
Yes, of course it's the only possible reason.

 

[HertsWolf]

Also quite interesting that you're using a quote (albeit slightly out of context) to show 'look, atheists can be nasty buggers' which has been, and still is in some cases, official policy for pretty much every religion in history!

Yes that's true. The rationale of Hitchens, Dawkins and many others is interesting and challenging, but Harris is like the atheist equivalent of the religious nutters. I would suggest that Harris' statement isn't really taken out of context.

 

[silkyman]

If you read the full quote it's clear he's only talking about the likes of ISIS, who much of the west is currently waging a war against.

It's not like he wanted to massacre some old dears at a jumble sale to raise funds for the church roof...

 

[HertsWolf]

If you read the full quote it's clear he's only talking about the likes of ISIS, who much of the west is currently waging a war against.

It's not like he wanted to massacre some old dears at a jumble sale to raise funds for the church roof...

It's not really taken out of context.

The passage is "The link between belief and behaviour raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

If you Google this, you will find a prior paragraph which states a specific emotive proposition. But he follows this with "some propositions" (above), not just the one stated. He admits it's an extraordinary claim. I am concerned when there is support for killing for beliefs. It's indeed, as Harris suggests, behind military action in Afghanistan but at probably many other times as well. Perhaps as disturbing is his view that we are "bound to do this" even at a cost to innocents.

And if you believe that it des simply apply to "ISIS" (however defined), can I ask if you are in favour of simply executing people who may have the same beliefs as jihadist fighters?

Edit: And as there is frequent juxtaposition of this with the Inquisition, I would agree: the Inquisition was abhorrent and wrong, like many of the things done in the name of religion or faith. I'm not sure why people always look back to the Inquisition and somehow think modern Christians are somehow OK with it.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

He explains those comments in the link I posted. The paragraph you're quoting was written within the context of some wider ponderings about the relationship between belief and behaviour. He wasn't only suggesting that we might rationalize killing people for their beliefs, but that we already do when we assassinate terrorist leaders. We don't do it in direct self defence, we don't do it for retribution, we do it because we know that their specific set of beliefs will lead them to commit more atrocities. It was a philosophical commentary, not some sort of ethical blueprint for the future. The wording does make it very easy to misinterpret intentionally or otherwise though I suppose, which he himself admits to.

 

[HertsWolf]

I've not read Unapolagetic, but looking at up, and reading reviews, it appears to be about the emotional element of belief. (It's subtitle is 'why religion makes emotional sense').

I don't know if it goes any deeper, but that appears to be the main message. As one review puts it '`Unapologetic' puts up an elegant two fingers to the acolytes of Dawkins et al by saying you cannot possibly know how I feel and you have no right to guess.'

Which doesn't seem all that scientific to me, if we're purely discussing whether a god, logically, does, or even CAN exist. You can feel all you like, it doesn't in any way alter what would be a universal truth, one way or the other.

Didn't see this earlier. Spufford does tackle more than just the emotional aspect in the (very short) book and does address 'science'. Most responses to New Atheism need to.

 

[silkyman]

What sort of scientific stuff does he cover?

 

[HertsWolf]

What sort of scientific stuff does he cover?

He does it generally, rather than by saying "Well string theory is bollocks because that's what it says in Deuteronomy". (To be fair, most of what the Bible says about string theory landscape is in Psalm 92). Anyway, part of the problem is that God has hidden a key part of the anthropic landscape behind a caravan near Swansea.

 

[silkyman]

So he doesn't cover anything scientific then.