As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

I was never baptised or anything so I guess I'm pagan.

Catholic atheist?

I am a Catholic, moreover a practizing one but, as I had stated before on these pages, I don't think you can convince somebody only by words of anything, mostly not faith. Besides, it has never been my intention.
Just three things:

1. I do think that you have to have that certain "God- experience" to really become involved in faith. This is not something that can be explained rationally. Of course, you can always say that this experience is just something biological, chemical thing in your mind, but I honestly think it is much more than that.

2. I see much more point of the whole life and world if I have faith. That, again, is not a strictly rational thing.

3. Since I don't have an agenda to prove, I have never felt the urge to debate over this. I have many atheist friends and we never argue. I accept them the way they are and they accept me the way I am.
But it seems to me that some atheist have such an anger towards faith and religion in themselves that they feel it's their duty to "enlighten" people. That's the kind of atheist approach I find a bit pathetic and amusing at the same time. Maybe deep down they are not so sure of themselves? I can't think of any other reason to act like this. People who are certain about their worldview or faith never feel the urge to constantly prove it or speak against different worldviews.

You don't have to particularly kick religion for these things, I guess. The majority of believers or the clergy are not as bad as it seems from movies or the news, trust me.

Well, you can, and rightly so (otherwise formal education would have a hard time getting off the ground).

Faith is an entirely different matter: it's about belief - and religious faith is most commonly an emotional deduction of the world (God's existence makes me feel good, therefore God exists), usually coupled with some sort of logical deduction (life is complex therefore God exists etc.). Trying to change someone's mind about their faith, about God, is about as hard as trying to convince Romeo and Juliet that they don't love each other. Not that anyone would want to convince either Romeo or Juliet not to love each other of course, just the same that an atheist is not trying to convince others not to believe in God (believe it or not), but rather get those who do believe in God to look at it in a different light, to challenge their belief and perhaps not accept things so blindly just because an old book with grandiose language tells it and authority figures themselves teach from this same book.

An atheist is uncertain about the world, you're quite right to point that out, and technically any 'good' atheist is an agnostic (though not equating the likelihood of God's existence or non-existence with equal measure as traditional agnosticism would imply) - but we celebrate that uncertainty, we're free to admit it. We're comfortable in having questions without answers, but we are not content. That's why we have science.



That is very much one of the things Fry discussed: there is nothing wrong with the individual finding solace in their faith. Nothing wrong. But those who argue against religion aren't demanding those with faith to neglect that faith, to suddenly not believe in those things that comfort you in times of hardship, we're not saying you mustn't find comfort in your faith, but, rather, at least try to couple it with common sense. Ask yourself the questions, be intellectually honest with yourself. That is the what the atheist argues, or puts forward, to the individual religious person. Certainly not anger.



I think atheists' anger towards religion is well placed. Organised religion continues to have a detrimental effect on so many things all over the world. It is not the individual the atheist is angry towards, I certainly feel no malcontent toward you or any of the other religious members on this forum. Atheists are simply arguing against the maliciousness and 'intellectual high treason' -as it was once put- of religion itself, even though there are many many kind, warm, loving etc. etc. religious people.

Absolutely true, Ravi.

Most religions have marvellous ideals and points of view that make eminent sense (it's actually a pretty damn good idea to be nice to each other!). But sadly it's not the ideals that have shaped history. It's man's inept or intended (mis)interpretations and (mis)translations, and the (mis)deeds based upon them.

And accountability is not for what you think.
It's for what you do.
Hence my inescapable conclusion: you cannot artificially separate religious principles from those who excercise them. Hence it's not a matter of a good religion mucked up by bad people. After (a minimum of) centuries of abuses, they are inseparable. Man has made his religion intolerable.

I don't think that a Mother Theresa made her religion intolerable. Or all those millions of other believers who really live their lives according to their faith.

Anecdotal evidence hardly ever works to illustrate a point.
You come up with Mother Theresa, I mention Torquemada. Or Pius XII. Or Khomeini.

And again: I have nothing against believers adhering to their faith (as long as they do no harm).

It's annoying when someone replies just before you so that you have to edit your post isn't it? Sorry. Happens to me all the time!



Edit: Like right now.

I think it's important to challenge any belief system that accepts dogmas so blindly without substantial evidence. Not just religious, but political ideals too.

Maybe. But it's also fun, so why not?

I understand what you say, but I guess this is not a reply to the point Spephan Fry made?

He explained several times and quite clearly too it was not an argument against faith or religion but an argument against the church institute and dogmatism.

<- a well deserved beer for Peter

That's not what I meant. I meant that you believe you are in possession of the greatest and most essential knowledge one can possibly have as a human being, and that having this belief is required for eternal salvation. I don't understand how one can harbour these extraordinary beliefs, and not be vocal about it. For example, if I had witnessed Bigfoot, and knew for certain that he existed, I'd consider my discovery so important and fascinating that I'd commit my life sharing this knowledge with the world. God is not Bigfoot however. He's supposed to be infinitely more important, explains our entire existance, provides the meaning to our lives, and belief in him and his sacrifice is required for eternal salvation.

To sum up, considering the immense importance of such knowledge, I don't understand how one will not try to help others see the light at every opportunity, even if the chance of successful conversion is very small. Unless of course the belief isn't as certain as asserted...



I'm not sure it's that simple (though doing good and inspiring others to do good is certainly something I support). My impression is that people convert for numerous and incredibly diverse reasons. That said, my point was that even if there's the tiniest chance that preaching, debating and providing sound arguments can push people in the right direction, then it must be pursued. That's the only moral consequence from the belief system, and not doing everything in one's power wouldn't just be amoral, it would be immoral, considering the eternal consequences.



I thought that your church teaches that salvation can only be achieved through belief in Christ, and without salvation, one will be eternally separated from God, i.e. Hell. Some say good works can help, but the essential premise is to accept JC as one's savior. As far as I understand it the catholic church currently accepts Hell in a non-literary sense, in that the fire and torment is a symbolic representation of the suffering of not being with God. I might be wrong though, so feel free to correct me.







I think it's important to keep in mind that beliefs within christianity are very diverse and "theology" or "modern theology" doesn't simply say one single thing. The belief in a real Hell, with fire, brimstone, wailing and gnashing of teeth, everlasting punishment and torment (as the Bible puts it) has always been prevalent and still is today. This idea is no doubt sickening and silly and I can only support the non-literal interpretations, but let's not pretend that the literal interpretation doesn't exist, or even that's it's an insignificant fringe element.



True, unless one is totally isolated, one will encounter challenges. But that said, one can certainly be part of an open community but still apply several psychological mechanisms to shield one's beliefs from scrutiny. Shying away from debate by telling oneself "it won't make a difference even if I tried", "they're too closeminded to listen" and dismissing opposing viewpoints by telling oneself "they're just angry and miserable", "they're attacking what they don't understand" are all powerful and very prevalent mechanisms.



Certainly, many are. But that doesn't make debate in general worthless.



I see what you mean. I agree that being vocal can actually be a sign of insecurity. In my impression this is seen when people are excessively vocal, thereby drowning out any counterarguments that might come their way; another psychological mechanism to isolate beliefs from scrutiny. Being vocal isn't enough to declare people insecure though, as there can be many other reasons.



Yes, I understand that you disagree about the harm. I just wanted to point out that if one thinks that religion causes more harm than good, that would be a reason to explain why they speak out against it. I made this point because you first said that you couldn't see any other reasons than insecurity for why people would speak out against religion.



True, but that wasn't my point. My point was adressing your claim that "People who are certain about their worldview or faith never feel the urge to constantly prove it or speak against different worldviews". My example shows that one can be certain and still feel the urge to speak out at different worldviews. My example also shows that in some cases it's important and necessary to speak out when you see a worldview you disagree with.



Agreed. I personally don't like to simply call religions bad either. They all have good elements and bad elements, which is an important thing to keep in mind.

Peter

Good point, Bregje. Fry showed the utmost respect and understanding of religious faith. His arguments against the catholic church was:

1.Against the current power structure, that has been protecting pedophiles, in order to protect the image of the church, rather than doing what's right (The current Pope himself participating in a cover up).
2.The senseless antipathy against condoms, spreading lies about them and pressuring governments in Africa to end programs, and as a result causing many thousands to suffer and die horrible deaths.
3.The bigotry against homosexuals, the current Pope basically calling them evil.

He offered more criticism, but these were some of the essentials. I think Fry wants catholics not to support the church blindly, but to acknowledge the problems and demand changes from within.

Peter