Will we survive religion?

[Gilbert_Keith]

I have sent this letter to the management at Catholic Answers.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1899098#post1899098

 

[Keikiolu]

…

E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe.

 

[Keikiolu]

…

Thanks R.

I think our positions have been thoroughly stated. I know you’ll work for the best for humanity in your own way, and I understand your frustrations, as I have frustrations as well.

Best to you my young (-er than me) friend.

(( By only a few years, actually. ))



E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe.

 

[R_McGeddon]

Thanks R.

I think our positions have been thoroughly stated. I know you’ll work for the best for humanity in your own way, and I understand your frustrations, as I have frustrations as well.

Best to you my young (-er than me) friend.

(( By only a few years, actually. ))



E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe.

I enjoyed the exchange

 

[Valke2]

If my group believes that God is on our side. What is our attitude toward the rest of the world?

 

[Keikiolu]

If my group believes that God is on our side. What is our attitude toward the rest of the world?

If God is on your side, and your God is actually GOD, then you’ll abide by God’s rules, and treat them with charity and love in your education of them.

What do they need education about? (In what do they need educating?)

 

[Greg27]

Religious violence is a complex phenomenon, as is I believe all violence. Personally I think the evidence from history suggests violence has deeper roots than simply religion or ideaology. While it is true a great deal of violence in history was done in the name of religion, in inquiring into the root causes of what causes violence I think we need to better understand the emotional and natural roots of human aggression, which seem to be the causes of violence.

It seems violence is often closely connected with our sense of identity. I think questions and conflicts over our notions and sense of identity, form the root of a great deal of human violence towards other humans. Another causes of violence is struggle over scarce resources, at both the individual and communal level. In this sense humankind shares a lot with other animal species in that aggression has evolved as a mechanism to deal with the problem of sharing resources in such a way survival was ensured and resources were shared in an effective way. If we look at history, many conflicts are basically rooted in competition for resources, markets, and territory. Another cause of violence is the struggle to gain power, both individually and as a group or society. Again, if we look at many conflicts in history today, the question of power and who should have it is often resolved by violent means if diplomacy isn’t effective or no legal recourse to grievance is available.

I agree with Mirdath that the pendulum of world religion is swinging towards fundamentalism. I think this is because fundamentalism represents a strong assertion of self-identity, which is a strong assurance of self existence and continuity in a world which is shrinking and increasingly diverse. Fundamentalism is occuring in all the world’s religions and it is increasingly violent. Islam may be the key example at the moment, but I see no reason why our fears should be limited to merely one religion; potentially, any religion and its adherents could and can become extremely violent if the pressures and conditions are right (one only needs to look at the often bloody and intolerant record of Christianity to see it can happen in the West as well, as well as in secular forms and ideaologies like Communism).

I believe the best antidote to the poison of violent forms of religion and fanatics is critical thinking and reason. Very often the arguments fundamentalists use to justify their beliefs, and their violence, disintigrates when subjected to skepticism and doubt. This is ultimately because fundamentalism is really defensive in nature and when faced with internal contradiction, like any other belief it falls apart. A more difficult question is when fundamentalists don’t argue but instead try to use violence and terror as a means of coercion to force people to live their way of life or accept their views.

I don’t believe the question of violence has been properly answered or addressed, nor have we really developed an effective mechanism for dealing with religious or ideaology-based violence where it occurs, nor have we humans, as a species, developed so far appropriate ethical codes and tabus to utterly forbid it and banish it from our behaviour, nor have we developed appropriate laws to justly punish those who commit violence in the name of religion and ideaology. This is no doubt largely because most of the world’s religions, at some point, accept and even promote violence in their holy scriptures and traditions as a legitimate means of bringing about change in the world and society in the name of making it a better place or bringing about the salvation of souls. It is made even worse by leaders and teachers of the world’s religions (particularly now in Islam) embracing violence as a means of defending, as well as spreading, their faith in the world.

 

[Greg27]

I don’t think religion can be entirely eliminated from humanity, as religion and religious myth seem to keep recurring in human history, along with philosophy, as an attempt to come to terms with key questions pertaining to our human condition and existential concerns. But at the same time, religions have to learn to expel the poison of doing violence towards other creatures and human beings for any reason, even if the highest principles of their religion seem to demand it. In my view then, secular thinkers and philosophers have a strong duty to argue and contest every irrational justification given for taking or harming human life, in whatever forms it occurs, as well as sternly defending human freedom, particularly that of conscience, of right to life and happiness, and of freedom from religious and state interference in their choice of beliefs. Unfortunately defending this freedom will also mean having to accept fundamentalists in their midst, but it also obliges fundamentalists to accept those who don’t share their beliefs on pain of breaking the law.

In terms of the question of protecting society vs individual rights, I don’t believe we’ve found a good solution here either, but clearly where a fanatic and their desire to cause harm to a society is concerned, then in my view the protection of society from that fanatic must outweigh his or her rights (though not in the sense we must then try to wipe out everyone with a religious view we deem ‘extreme.’)

 

[Sixtus]

More important: will religion survive us?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

How is that morally different from being certain than one’s lown age is the measure of truth, humanity, civility, or the like ? Why is it more likely that we are right in 2000 AD or so, than that Moses was right in 1200 BC or so ?​

Besides, in 35 centuries’ time we will be as far in the past as 35 centuries ago is to us today - must it follow from this, that people in 5500 AD are wiser than we are, or that they cannot learn from us ? If not - maybe we can learn from those in our past

Value & dating have very little in common - a good act in 2000 BC is a good act in 2000 AD, & mean or cowardly acts in 2000 AD will always be mean or cowardly. Things are prior to how they are described - that’s why accurate descriptions of things are reliable as descriptions of them.

There may, in some sense, be constant progress throughout the course of history - but it’s not very clear. Stalin lived later than King David, but he can hardly be regarded as more humane or moral on that account.

Any religous system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

People are willing to die for beliefs that have as much evidence to support them as we have to support the belief that Zeus exists. In fact, people would rather kill or die their own set of stories than to acknowledge that their neighbors stories are just as “true.”

This has led to disasterous results in the past. In a nuclear age, it can only lead to the annihilation of civilization, unless things change.
If that doesn’t change, we’re doomed.

People commit political genocides because of their political faith - should political activity, or principles & convictions, or technology, be banned ?​

The problem is in man - man does evil in religion & politics because he is corrupted in heart; because he is a sinner. And because even our best intentions are warped by our sinfulness, no measures we take against the corruption of our fellow-men can succeed, because we are no mote free of evil than they. Religion produces inquisitions, tortures, persecutions, pogroms, massacres, kidnapping, terrorism, libels, hatred & murder, not because it is religious - but because it is engaged in by human beings, by sinners. And the very instincts that can produce a Stalin, can produce a holy man or a martyr.

 

[An_Agnostic]

Very nice post Greg27. I couldn’t have described our condition better than that.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
…

We could go around this for a few more times, but you have to understand that as far as I’m concerned, organized religion runs the gamut from the outright fraud to lifestyle coaching corporations. I trust this answers which side I’m on?

Yup. It simply shows you have no idea what you’re talking about, as this is not your subject area, any more than my subject area is .

My objection is not that you HAVE an opinion, even about something you have no clue about, but that you try to pass off your non-informed opionion as one that is indeed informed.

Religion has been with us for thousands and thousands of years. The very question asked in the opening post wouldn’t be possible if religion could deliver what it promises, at least during anybody’s lifetime.

Then why does religion persist, in a very “un-evolutionary survival of the fittest” way?

Once again, your opinions are only interesting as an exhibition of ignorance.

I do believe in life before death and an appeal to a grand design rings more than just hollow to me.

Since you actually don’t believe in belief, only proof and “actuallity”, your use of the word “belief” renders your above sentence meaningless. Why should I consider it as meaningful if YOU don’t consider it meaningful?

I see no insanity in chipping away at hard and perhaps intractable problems. Right back at you, by the way. Two thousand years of Christianity and what do you have to show for it? People still go hungry, die of diseases, and we still have to suffer politicians - including those in ecclesiastical garb.

Religion is not a “paracite” on the species “man”. It is an inherent quality OF man. You would disagree with this, That’s fine.

If you see it as a paracite, PLEASE try to eradicate it,… and reap the consequences of your actions therefrom.

To me, the Catechism is the bylaws of a particular religious organization. If you want to make a case that the solution to world hunger or the cure for cancer is in there, quote it.

Solving world hunger would be having food for every person on the planet. If each person was given their due dignity by every person on the planet, there would be no hunger. That is in the catechism.

Why would the normal state of human biology be “fixable” by faith and morals?

Disease is a “normalcy”, not an aberation.

You seek a “great sugardaddy ultra-fixer of my every boo-boo”, and label that “god”, and when you don’t find him, deny that which with has no relation to your self-defined-from-your-own-neuroses “god”.

Worshipping your “god”, who can “fix everything but doesn’t and is therefore evil” is FORBIDDEN in the catechism.

Conversing with the ignorant is commanded of us, but it IS tiring. Thanks for the workout, partner.

Best to you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I can only speak from my own point of view. That’s my opinion. My question is what is YOUR opinion.

My opinion? I think it unlikely that God or Gods exist, but leave the question open. If there is such a thing as the divine, it hasn’t come out and told me yet.

That’s a perfetly acceptable opinion. Except that it’s more a non-opinion than an opinion, really. It screams, “I don’t want to deal with it!” to me,… which entices me to wonder why your DO like to “deal with it” in this forum? Hmmmm…

Quote:
“Religion”, as a thing, is a ubiquitous feature of all individual human beings. (That is an axiom. You may deny it regardless of course.)

It is not. The mere existence of atheists and irreligious people proves that.

We can agree on this IF we can each agree to allow each other our own definitions of “religion”. Are you willing to do that?

Quote:
True religion (catholicity [no, I’m not particularly interested in being “tolerant”]) shows us the way to seeing God most clearly, with the most positive social effects possible in the obedience thereof.

Funny, that’s what all the other ones say – including those promoting human sacrifice, which is not exactly a ‘positive social effect’. How can any outsider know that you’re right and the rest are wrong?

An “outsider” can’t. That’s why it’s called a,… wait for it,… wait for it…

FAITH…!!

Quote:
It is our job to NOT ERR to solve our problems, not God’s to “FIX” our problems.

Which do you choose?

Decently put, but who picks the definition of error?

God,… via the Magisterium.

Quote:
It is axiomatic that humans have an inherent place for God.

Prove me wrong.

I do not believe in any deity, and don’t know what it feels like to ‘believe’ at all. I have no inherent faculty for faith, nor do I wish to have such a thing. There, you’re wrong.

Well done. A beautiful act of faith. You stated your belief without defining the terms. Boldly asserted facts you don’t have, and added a lovely dose of emotionality to the mix.

Excellent. A gorgeous profession of faith in not-having-faith.

Quote:
If you were wrong, you assume that “God will forgive you because”:

1. …you can’t be blamed for not believing in such an obtruse deity who doesn’t speak to me in words I understand.
2. …you can’t be blamed because it’s “God’s Will” that you NOT understand.

If I’m wrong and you’re right, I would hope that my actions and good intent would speak for themselves. I’d expect no forgiveness, merely a fair trial.

“You’d EXPECT” some procedure-of-YOUR-choosing from God whom you now know does exist who TOLD YOU explicitly how you were to act (which you didn’t) and TOLD YOU explicitly what the consequences of not obeying Him would be…!?

Why?

…continued below:

 

[Keikiolu]

…continued from above:

Quote:
The very fact that you consider the fact that you COULD BE WRONG tells me that the thought has crossed your mind, and that points to the fact that the “place” of God exists in your mind.

(( As it must because you’re human. ))

Nope, it has crossed my mind because if there is a deity, it is beyond mere human knowledge and reason**.**

THAT is your assumption, which is of YOUR making. From where, or by what means, do you KNOW that…!!?

Once again, “God only exists if I’m allowed to create Him!”, is your basic thought!

And until this hypothetical divine chooses to make itself directly known to me, I can’t know – and therefore leave the question where it stands. Next problem?

You can leave the question whereever you like, but that doesn’t make it disappear. It’s still out there, somewhere, gnawing at you. So,… on to the next critter that we can have end up gnawing at you…

Quote:
Both you and RM are perfect examples of people who fill God’s place with “the works of men”, because if you could you’d do what you think God SHOULD do.

Aren’t we all? Aren’t you instructed to ‘take up your cross and follow Me’, acting as God would?

Heck YEAH…!! My point is that even though you are a “non-believer” you STILL do God’s work. Nothing is wasted in God’s efforts, as not even the most obstinate are not parts of God’s work.

Quote:
If the universe is pointless, then no act has consequences into the ultimate future.

The ‘ultimate future’ perhaps, but who we are and what we do has consequences for others in the immediate future. Which is more important – how you deciding not to brush your teeth will affect the death of the Sun, or how it will affect your relationship when you try to kiss your SO with garlic on your breath?

Since we can ONLY do (things) in the “immediate future”, ie the present, the question is the GOAL in the future that we choose to aim at, and how that effects our present actions.

Quote:
If you do “good deeds” to relieve the suffering of people you love, for example, then you have pleased someone.

Who is that someone? Why is pleasing that someone of any value whatsoever if the universe will eventually anihilate all effects of your “good deed”?

It is of immediate value.

You value immediacy, I see. Do you value long term value? Your “nearsightedness” is interesting, and typical of non-believers, and may you be successful in getting what you want, as it may well show you what you need.

Quote:
But without a society that is right living, with as few problems, created by wrong living, as possible to hinder the development of ethical science,… we’re not maximizing out potential to live as best we can in this world.

According to one of many religions. There are far more ways to determine ‘right living’ than the Catechism – as a matter of fact, ‘right living’ is a direct Buddhist phrase.

Take your pick of religions, or invent your own. That, actually, inventing your own, is precisely what you ARE doing, which is why we can really agree that “religion is intrinsic to humans” if we accept “why you act” as your “religion”.

Quote:
Agnostics are merely atheists who are too cowardly to state their actual decisions.

You’re merely insulting. It takes more courage than you’ve shown to admit you don’t know, the possibility that you’re wrong, or personal accountability for one’s good and evil.

You are indeed very brave. You show exceeding bravery by showing that you can negate faith with faith, and choose “next question please!” to “Let’s realy get into definitions and actual meanings in search of something interesting to learn about another human being” ways of dealing with things that are uncomfortable to you.

You “jump” to “All Christians are unaccountable for their acts of good and evil!” shows your “bravery” in being actively anti-Christian.

Best to you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Montalban]

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that no religion has a monoply on absolute truth; that our scriptures are flawed, human documents; and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Where does one find ‘absolute truth’?

 

[Fisher]

And the guy who’s going to burn your house down would also agree that Truth is an absolute and cannot be relative. The men who flew planes into our buildings were embracing their absolute truth. The Crusaders who cut down women and children were embracing absolute truth. There’s so much absolute truth in the Sudan right now that over 400,000 have died for it. Where’s the absolute truth in Bosnia? In Auschwitz? In Gaza? Maybe we need less absolute truth and more lies that we can live with.

Maybe the absolute truth is that to survive we have to love each other and acknowledge the value that each of us have. If that is the absolute truth, it can be found in several religions. There can be more than one story that is told to convey a truth.

God is in control.

“The undermining power of sin is always the cause of decay and deterioration in earthly kingdoms”

“And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.” Jude 1:22-23

 

[dranzal]

:byzsoc:

 

[Mirdath]

I swear, this thread… it’s been a year, for crying out loud!

That’s a perfetly acceptable opinion. Except that it’s more a non-opinion than an opinion, really. It screams, “I don’t want to deal with it!” to me,… which entices me to wonder why your DO like to “deal with it” in this forum? Hmmmm…

I have dealt with it, that’s the thing. I hold God unknowable – and that is not a declaration of faith, but of mere lack of deductive and inductive evidence. If God makes himself known to me, I’ll have inductive evidence, and quite possibly change that stance.

We can agree on this IF we can each agree to allow each other our own definitions of “religion”. Are you willing to do that?

No. Your definition of religion includes its ubiquity, a trait I deny it possesses. How could we agree on that?

An “outsider” can’t. That’s why it’s called a,… wait for it,… wait for it…

FAITH…!!

Exactly!

God,… via the Magisterium.

Well done. A beautiful act of faith. You stated your belief without defining the terms. Boldly asserted facts you don’t have, and added a lovely dose of emotionality to the mix.

Why would I have faith – trust in the unknown – in something I know altogether well enough? I believe in no deity not because I have faith in no-God, but because I do not have knowledge of any God.

“You’d EXPECT” some procedure-of-YOUR-choosing from God whom you now know does exist who TOLD YOU explicitly how you were to act (which you didn’t) and TOLD YOU explicitly what the consequences of not obeying Him would be…!?

Why?

Because Catholicism tells me that that’s about what I’ll get, and I’m discussing it with a Catholic.

I do not know God exists. If he does and has made some pronouncement on right action, I do not know whom to trust for an accurate transmission of that statement; if there is some punishment for not following this code, I do not know which portrayal of that is correct – and if I am to be eternally punished for ignorance in spite of my best efforts to do good by my fellow humans, I will go joyfully to that punishment giving that deity both figs, because I could never stand an eternity with a malevolent God.

You can leave the question whereever you like, but that doesn’t make it disappear. It’s still out there, somewhere, gnawing at you.

No, it really isn’t. Trust me on this.

Heck YEAH…!! My point is that even though you are a “non-believer” you STILL do God’s work. Nothing is wasted in God’s efforts, as not even the most obstinate are not parts of God’s work.

Well then, what’s your problem with my disbelief? I’m not at all obstinate about it – assuming God’s work includes stuff like ‘not being a jerk’ (my first commandment).

You value immediacy, I see. Do you value long term value? Your “nearsightedness” is interesting, and typical of non-believers, and may you be successful in getting what you want, as it may well show you what you need.

Depends, long-term as in ‘when I reach retirement age’, long-term as in ‘my grandkids will like this’, long-term as in ‘you know, we need to have a plan for when the Sun goes red giant’, or long-term as in ‘forever and ever, amen’?

Take your pick of religions, or invent your own. That, actually, inventing your own, is precisely what you ARE doing, which is why we can really agree that “religion is intrinsic to humans” if we accept “why you act” as your “religion”.

Why should we accept that? Religion has a fairly strict definition, and ‘explanation for why someone acts’ is not part of it.

 

[Valke2]

Where does one find ‘absolute truth’?

I don’t know. But it seems that religion, any religion, is an attempt to express a certain kind of truth. And you can explain the same truth with different stories.

 

[Theist]

I don’t know. But it seems that religion, any religion, is an attempt to express a certain kind of truth. And you can explain the same truth with different stories.

Or the same stories interpreted differently. People confuse Faith, which is a firm belief in something without any proof, with Truth, which can be proven.

Once someone thinks they know a Truth that others do not, they develop a superiority complex. Religion feeds into this complex by teaching that only those who believe as they do will be saved (whatever form that takes) in the afterlife.