eat_the_pudding
Member
Lets be clearer – using religion as a pretext for being a dick, requires faith.
Indeed - respect is a two way street and I have had religious people be pretty offensive to me to my face - without even realising how offensive they were being because their worldview is so distorted
using religion as a pretext for being a dick, requires faith.
No, it doesn't. You can pretend to be religious whilst doing anything you want. Pretty sure that's happened a lot throughout history.
For example, whats the difference between a “God [that] isn’t going to intervene in the material world” and one that doesn’t exist?
Faith, of course. That is the entire point. Although we are now well outside the area of the subject about which I am qualified to talk.
I have had religious people be pretty offensive to me to my face – without even realising how offensive they were being because their worldview is so distorted
Of course - there are dicks, there are religious people, the two areas overlap of course.
Hmmm. What people say they believe, even what they think they believe, do not necessarily correlate with what they act as though they believe. I'll tend to judge people by the latter.
Faith is a concept created by those in power to exert their power on the masses. It originally exploited people’s lack of education to provide something to fear, like a god and hell to keep the peasants in check and prevent them from revolting and rising up against their landlords.
Horseshit.
I don't say that because I need to defend faith, but because the quote above is such a grotesque misconstrual of the history of humanity. Faith is an impulse that lies within the human person (in general), that found its expression in ritual, in art and, later, in systematic statements.
Not all human beings across all time have felt (or feel) this impulse in the same way that @molgrips, above, suggested he has no especial regard for art. But what we have always done is to engage in ritual behaviour - faith or no faith. Historically, that behaviour has been predominantly associated with religion, and members of specific human collectives have engaged in ritual as part of the collective expectation.
So, for example, attending games at the forum in ancient Rome. Surely, someone in the crowd will have balked to see another human being cut up with a sword, or devoured by a lion; yet that person still engaged in the ritual of being there.
Faith - like absolutely anything on Earth - can certainly be used as an instrument of control. But your caricature of faith as a thing per se used as an instrument of control, is just anthropologically, socially, and historically ignorant.
TJ, yup me likewise.
I do think the "respect" question is a big one, its a word that always comes up in these topics and I'm not sure it means the same things to everyone.
Some people seem to think that respect for someone means "accepting all their ideas without criticism", but that doesn't work.
People are due respect (and rightly have rights), but not ideas. If you walk into an internet argument about religion, and then demand "respect" (= silence) about your ideas without producing any evidence, then you've probably made some bad life decisions.
Equally, theres a time and a place. To take an extreme example, going to a religious persons funeral and telling everyone that heaven is a farce and uncle bobby is worm food would be a dick move, in exactly the same way that turning up at an atheists funeral and telling the bereaved that their beloved is in hell being tortured for eternity would be a dick move.
(this second example is close to the way I've had religious people behave towards me that was badly timed and they thought was just "speaking the truth").
For what it’s worth, as Descartes noted, the only thing that you can truly know is your own existence
How can you know this?
Funny thing for me is, it's easy to understand why people need to have faith (religious).
But why do so many religious people not understand why the rest of us don't need it?
If you walk into an internet argument about religion, and then demand “respect” (= silence) about your ideas without producing any evidence,
Respect doesn't mean belief, nor does it mean not questioning someone.
Take the 1x debate that is in the bike forum currently. The respectful position for someone on the 2x side is 'well I don't like 1x personally, but if it works for you then that's fine'. The dis-respectful position is 'why on earth would you want to limit your gear range?' or '1x is fine for people who don't know how to work a front mech' or even 'for people who can't manage using both thumbs at once'
I don't believe in God, but instead of assuming all believers are stupid, I seek to understand why they believe in God and what it means to them. And I can and will question it. But there is a respectful way to question. Respectful questions are not loaded with judgement, and the person asking actually wants to know the answer, or to make the other person think about something. Disrespectful questions are rhetorical and are used as constructs to denigrate the other person.
Respecting someone's beliefs in this case means not treating them as stupid simply because they have a different point of view. They may turn out to be stupid, but they may not.
What faith is NOT is an attempt to explain the existence of the universe and replace science.
Lol.
Religious faith is nothing if it not this very thing. This is self evidently the origin of religious beliefs; a man made construct to answer difficult questions in the absence of quality evidence. Humans always want answers; this provides a vacuum that can be exploited by both well meaning paternal types and power hungry controlling types.
No single human being is better equipped or qualified than any other to understand ‘God’s word’. Those who suggest that they are should be viewed with suspicion.
That being said; Wheatons law should always apply. Pity that a lot of religious types haven’t gotten the memo.
Religious faith is nothing if it not this very thing.
That is incorrect.
Otherwise, how could we have religious scientists? People who believe in God and yet still continue to seek answers about science and the universe?
As has been explained over and over again on this forum, the creation story in the Bible is taken as fable by most Christians.
No single human being is better equipped or qualified than any other to understand ‘God’s word’. Those who suggest that they are should be viewed with suspicion.
I think this was suggested by some 16th century German fellow wasn't it?
But some people who've studied the subject are more qualified to talk about what actual religion is and isn't. Religion being an anthropological and social phenomenon it can be studied like any other, regardless of your own personal faith.
Otherwise, how could we have religious scientists? People who believe in God and yet still continue to seek answers about science and the universe?
Humans are REALLY good at compartmentalising, is my guess.
faith, or the lack of.
Just be yourself by living your life as you wish with faith or not as we will all die one day.
Two possibilities about our next step while we contemplate on our deathbed will be whether there is such thing as another beginning or better off being fertiliser.
While contemplating on our deathbed all our memories of the past start to flash back from the day we were born to the day where we see our all our happiness and regrets passing by ...
Then you ask yourself what have done in this life? Why am I worry?
You will hang on as much as you can because fear prevent you from death until such time as you free yourself from fear. Then final breath and that's it ... gone.
I think this was suggested by some 16th century German fellow wasn’t it?
No idea! There’s precious few new ideas under the sun though, so probably 😏
molgrips, thats what I mean about different people having different ideas about what respect means.
Your example makes sense, but what do you do when you meet ideas that just aren't "fine".
Some ideas deserve ridicule but might be harmless to the holders and those around them, flat earth, young earth, evolution denial or lizards run the world. We haven't lost the cure for cancer and noones probably going to die (unless they fall off the edge).
But what about the other ideas, death sentences for homosexuality or apostasy, genital mutilation of children, vaccines cause autism, eternal torture?
Some people see ideas like that as a fundamental part of themselves and they will squeal "lack of respect" if you argue against them.
Thats where misplaced "respect" can be an issue. People deserve respect, ideas don't.
Maybe we should avoid calling someone a ****ing idiot, but that doesn't mean that we can't call some ideas ****ing stupid or ****ing bigoted.
Humans are REALLY good at compartmentalising, is my guess.
You don't have to guess, it's actually pretty easy to explain and, being to do with actual real humans and their writings, is a matter of historical fact. We even have a resident theologian to help you. You just don't want to listen and/or can't be bothered to research the topic you're arguing about.
As has been explained over and over again on this forum, the creation story in the Bible is taken as fable by most Christians.
The trouble is different bits of the bible change from being literal to fable (I personally think myth would be a better word as it doesn't involve anthropomorphised animals) over time and even today different Christian sects disagree on what is and isn't myth. Early Christian sects couldn't even agree on what should or shouldn't be part of the Gospels and that's before it was translated through several languages.
Some ideas deserve ridicule
No, they deserve to be argued against. Ridicule is something people do to poke fun at others when they think they are superior. It doesn't help, it actually makes matters worse and is just unpleasant all round. Arguing properly against a point of view is fine, and everyone should expect it and be able to defend their position against it.
Some people see ideas like that as a fundamental part of themselves and they will squeal “lack of respect” if you argue against them.
Respecting means not dismissing. So if someone for example is against gay marriage you can attempt to demonstrate why it's nothing bad. What you should not do is insult them, mock them and turn away. This, incidentally, is why our Brexit thread frequently descends into bullying. People can squeal lack of respect if you challenge them, yes, but that's poor engagement with discussion from their part as well.
All ideas may be disagreed with, and some do not deserve respect. But faith is "a different epistemic category" (c) SaxonRider because you cannot prove or otherwise. Note that creation stories and such aren't necessarily the same as faith. It's pretty easy to prove that the Earth is more than 4,000 years old beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not easy to prove that God doesn't exist at all.
The trouble is different bits of the bible change from being literal to fable
They do?
As has been explained over and over again on this forum, the creation story in the Bible is taken as fable by most Christians.
Yep, the ability to pick and choose which bits of the book to take literally interests me; it’s a relatively new thing in the history of Christianity I believe. It’s an interesting development in response to both scientific and moral/ethical advances in society. I wonder at what point we reach the tipping point whereby so much of the book is redacted into allegory that it becomes obvious that it is what it is; a 1900 year old man made collection of contradictions and mostly irrelevant, out of date attempts to explain and codify the universe?
(And the same for the other ‘holy books’ too, for the sake of equality)
Faith – like absolutely anything on Earth – can certainly be used as an instrument of control
Faith lends itself perfectly to organising and controlling people, because it involves voluntarily accepting the truth of something without objective proof.
If you start from that position, it's much easier to go along with everything else your chosen faith system proposes.
They do?
Over time, yes. to be clear I'm talking about many hundreds of years.
No, they deserve to be argued against. Ridicule is something people do to poke fun at others when they think they are superior. It doesn’t help, it actually makes matters worse and is just unpleasant all round. Arguing properly against a point of view is fine, and everyone should expect it and be able to defend their position against it.
Your position would make sense if people were actually convinced by rational argument but they're not. The point of ridicule in many instances is not to convince the person with the ridiculous view but rather the other members of the audience.
Thanks for joining in Saxon rider but I am afraid you are generalising - I certainly have no need of faith nor does anyone in my family.
Organised religion is certainly a means of controlling people and faith is a human construct not an innate thing in any way. Faith is an invention of organised religion to control the credulous
You are conflating things that are not faith based with faith.
You don’t have to guess, it’s actually pretty easy to explain
No, I DO have to guess. Or take someone’s word for it. Because as you point out, this is a discussion completely devoid of fact, it’s a matter of ‘faith’. Which means, ipso facto, my opinion is as valid as anyone’s...
Horseshit.
I don’t say that because I need to defend faith, but because the quote above is such a grotesque misconstrual of the history of humanity. Faith is an impulse that lies within the human person (in general), that found its expression in ritual, in art and, later, in systematic statements.
Right back at you. Faith or religion is not an impulse within humans. Nonsense. Understanding the world around us is the real natural instinct we have and the gaps have been filled in through here history to enable people to Weil day power over the tribe/villagers/peasants etc. Faiths and religion are entirely man made constructs and not natural or human instincts at all.
Let’s be clear – having faith is completely separate from using religion as a pretext for being a dick.
Definately, & when I sit on a chair, I don't have faith in it, I have trust in it.
My Mrs was in hospital last week & a gobby woman was also on the ward. A conversation came up about their illnesses & Gobby said to another patient, 'haven't you found the lord yet? because he'll take all your worries away'.
WTF?
quite a can of worms this.
one thing that made me think last night was the people in Jerusalem at the church of the holy sepulchre.
why is the chosen priest the only person allowed in to see the Holy Flame appear?
makes you think eh?
Saxonrider - I wonder if you make the mistake I have seen many times confusing your own mental processes where faith seems self evident and natural (??) with those of non believers where faith seems nonsensical.
I know enough to understand that I have no idea how those with faith think - its incomprehensible to me. Do you think you understand the secular mindset?
Faith or religion is not an impulse within humans. Nonsense.
I think you'll need to argue with anthropologists on that subject. As far as I know, there's evidence for a form of religion in every single human culture ever studied, past or present.
Bring your evidence please!
Or take someone’s word for it.
Well, there are real people who actually exist who have faith and are scientists. You could ask one - or read what they've written. So you don't have to guess what their motivations are.
So you don’t have to guess what their motivations are.
You miss my point. Those people could I’m sure tell me what their motivations are; but they will be absent of fact, based in ‘faith’ (which is just opinion put on a pedestal) and therefore absolutely no more (or less, to be fair) valid than my guess.
I believe in God.
But to me, God is just a better version of me, somewhere inside of me, with a proper functioning conscience, and mostly inaccessible to the conscious real me.
But it makes me feel better to speak to him, call out in times of need and plead "help me ride down this bloody section without falling off JUST FOR ONCE won't you?" Just like everybody else's God. And just like all the other Gods he's helped reinforce all my prejudices (both nice and nasty. Yes, Birmingham City fans, I'm talking about you - bluenose scum).
And exactly like everybody else's God, he's never intervened, changed anything, manifested himself or done anything remotely helpful. Except helped me feel better (and maybe be a better person) by talking to him.
Those people could I’m sure tell me what their motivations are; but they will be absent of fact
You're missing my point. Their motivations are facts. You may not think that they are in turn based on facts, but that is a separate issue.
which is just opinion put on a pedestal
Only someone who's never bothered to really listen to an intelligent person of faith would think that.
Soorry molgrops - faith is belief without evidence - thus its merely an opinion with nothing to back it up.
Don't be dazzled by sophisticated arguments.
I believe in God.
But to me, God is just a better version of me, somewhere inside of me, with a proper functioning conscience, and mostly inaccessible to the conscious real me.
That’s a fascinating insight. And I can completely relate to what you are saying. But respectfully, it doesn’t sound like you actually believe in ‘God’; more like you believe in mostly trying to be a better person and you call that system of ‘conscience in hindsight’, God.
I’m pretty sure it’s different. The religious do NOT have the monopoly on morality.
I wonder if you make the mistake I have seen many times confusing your own mental processes where faith seems self evident and natural (??) with those of non believers where faith seems nonsensical.
I know enough to understand that I have no idea how those with faith think – its incomprehensible to me. Do you think you understand the secular mindset?
You make the assumption that these two mindsets are a binary choice, that people are either believers or not.
The real word is much more nuanced than that. What of clergy who have lost their faith?
What about those, like me who were raised in an atheist household and only found faith as rational, self determining adults?
Do I not understand the secular mindset?
Don’t be dazzled by sophisticated arguments.
So wait - you're telling me not to believe arguments that might contradict my viewpoint?
Isn't that just having faith that you're right and they're wrong? Just about the most ironic thing I've ever heard.
I'll believe well reasoned and intelligent arguments if I want, thanks! FFS
Literally the entire point of faith is choosing a viewpoint where no evidence either way is available or even possible.
Only someone who’s never
bothered to really listen tobeen convinced by an intelligent person of faith would think that.
Now that’s just rude, so I’ve fixed it for you. Can we stay away from adhoms please?
PP - it was a question. I'd also question rational 😉
I do know I have no idea of how the mind of someone with faith works bar that I have read up a little on the science of it where they are beginning to discover some differences in structure and process and parallels with mental illness!
I do not know if you understand the secular mindset. I would suggest not but how can I know - hence making it a question
Not a believer, but underneath the smiting and miracles, the Bible is not a bad starting point for a civilised communal society, which is definitely something to be be respectful and faithful to. The ten commandments are the minimum foundation for a collective of people to live cohesively, most religions use the same if not similar tenets.
there is a great deal of content in the main religious texts on cleanliness, proper eating, creating healthy relationships and striking down those who seek to strike you.
So in short it's not about having faith it's about, being faithful to something even if it's some principles in an old book, or yourself.
Molgrips - you make my point! Faith cannot have a rational argument because its belief without evidence - the very opposite of rational thought.
Rational thought is based around evidence and facts. Faith is by definition irrational
Anyway - time for me to get out of this before it becomes too heated. religious debate on here never goes well
PP - that was not intended to be insulting btw. Please do not take it as such.
Now that’s just rude, so I’ve fixed it for you. Can we stay away from adhoms please?
You're reading my comments through the god/no god glasses. I'm not arguing about the existence of God, and I'm certainly not saying that an intelligent person would be able to or even want to convince you of the existence of God. That's no my point at all.
You made a guess as to why a believer could be a scientist. I said that you don't have to guess because scientists with faith definitely exist and they could tell you why they believe. I'm not saying they would make you agree with them, but many of them have thought about it a great deal and are happy that their beliefs are consistent with their work.
Rational thought is based around evidence and facts.
Not really.
If I were religious, I might say that I feel the presence of God. That is a real feeling, so faith derived from it is entirely rational.
Wether or not that feeling is actually God is the real question, and that is purely faith ON BOTH SIDES. No-one's ever really going to know, because God isn't even a well defined concept, so faith is all there is. That is rational.
Arguing for the truth of something that is unknowable is foolish, this is why these arguments go round in circles all the time. TBH the issue here is a philosophical one relating to people's ideas of reality and existence...
You make the assumption that these two mindsets are a binary choice
Bingo
I do not know if you understand the secular mindset. I would suggest not but how can I know – hence making it a question
The answer to your question is yes, of course I do.
Until I was in my thirties I believed nothing. I was as cynical and snarky as anyone on here, but never rude enough to publicly decry anyone else for it.
The Bible was just another boring book in the library and I believed in God to about the same degree as I believed in Timmy the Dog from the Famous Five. They were both equally fictional characters.
There was no big revelatory flash of inspiration that changed my mind.
Just a growing realisation that there was something missing from my life and it couldn't be filled externally.
No one pressured me or converted me to go to Church, or do or think anything other than what I wanted. Equally I would never dream of doing that to another person. It's an entirely personal thing, driven from within. I don't really like talking about it, if i'm entirely honest.
It's not something that I can adequately explain and I'm okay with that. I don't need anyone else to understand or approve or join in. It's just for me.
I tried it for myself, liked what I found and it's made me, in my opinion, a better person for it. I have an additional set of tools and a support structure that I didn't have before.
I feel a degree of pity for those (either sceptic or true believer) who feel they need to attack others for their beliefs ( or lack thereof)
Not because they lack faith though, but because they lack the self awareness to see how they appear to others. Maybe they have something missing that even God can't fill?
I’d also question rational
Rationality is vastly overrated in my opinion. It's way more fun to be irrational once in a while.
I don’t have any real faith to speak of and find all religions fascinating and bizarre in equal measure. One thing religion and faith appear to have given us is some really nice architecture. Other than that, live and let live.
Life, to me, is just one big fluke. As long as you’re not being a dick just enjoy it whilst you can. If having certain beliefs or faith in something helps make life easier or better for people that can only be a good thing. I don’t have the need for it myself but wouldn’t judge others for it.
