I don't want to make a habit of picking on poor Justyna, but after thinking quite a bit about her infamous comments from last week and the big debate over religion that they spawned, I need to throw out a question:
Are her beliefs really all that crazy?
Actually, I should probably clarify that: Of course they're crazy -- but are they any crazier than anyone else's religious beliefs?
After digging through some of the links provided by readers and doing a little research on my own, it looks like Justyna has bought wholly into something called the World Mission Society Church of God. It's a group that was founded back in 1964 by a Korean guy named Ahn Sahng-Hong. I'd run down the individual beliefs of the church's followers, but honestly it makes my head hurt just trying to make heads or tails of the nonsense they subscribe to. Suffice it to say, the World Mission Society Church espouses your average quasi-end times rhetoric and believes that Ahn Sahng-Hong and his successor, someone named Zang Gil-Jah, are the second coming of Christ and the Biblically heralded "New Jerusalem Mother," respectively.
Oh yeah, it's also a cult -- and a careful examination of Justyna's comments makes it clear that it's dug its claws into her pretty deeply. In three short months, she's become an expert on the Bible, or at least her new church's interpretation of it, which includes mumbo-jumbo aplenty on the importance of distinguishing between the "real Sabbath" of Saturday and the more popular man-made counterfeit; she's apparently stopped talking to a lot of her old friends (and I'd imagine they've stopped talking to her in an effort to avoid being preached to 24/7); she tries very hard to convince others to join her for "Bible study"; and she refers to her "pre-enlightened" self in the third person, as if that old tellurian label is something to be ashamed of in the wake of her spiritual rebirth -- Christ Ahn Sahng-Hong be praised.
Obviously, this stuff is relentlessly ridiculous, and most legitimate churches have already said so.
Here's the thing, though: What the hell is a legitimate church?
Sure, the teachings of the World Mission folks are on the fringes, to say the least. But it's astonishing the inadvertent tolerance we as a global society have developed for the fantastical, which makes it laughable that there's an unacceptable level of crazy among people who believe in notions that, at face value, would all seem impossible. Seriously, is the idea of some Korean guy being the second coming of Jesus insane when the entire idea of Jesus as described in the Bible -- the born-of-a-virgin, miracle-performing, died-on-the-cross and rose-from-the-dead the-savior-of-mankind -- is itself completely fucking lunatic? I'd actually argue that a belief in one possibility allows for the other: If you're willing to believe there was a Jesus Christ at all, then it should open the door to believe just about anything -- and denying so is intellectually dishonest. The truth is that modern Christianity (like Judaism, Islam, etc.) is a case of history being written by the winners. The basic tenets of it were forged long ago, haven't changed much since and, through worldwide acceptance, have been legitimized -- becoming little more than our culture's "democratically elected" hallucinations.
But the fact remains that irrational is irrational, no matter how many people claim otherwise.
Case in point: On March 26th, 1997, the bodies of 39 men and women were found on a San Diego estate; they were members of the Heaven's Gate cult, and they believed that by dying, their spirits would be transported to a UFO behind the Hale Bopp comet.
These people were swiftly dismissed as being completely off their fucking rocker.
Even by millions who, four days later, went to church and celebrated Jesus Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven to be seated at the right hand of his father, God.
Irony, thy name is...
Monday, May 04, 2009
Comment of the Week: Post Script
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
Here's my question to you, Chez...what are you planning on doing about Inara's religious upbringing? My ex and I agreed that we would let our children choose for themselves...this, despite the fact that he lets his mom take our 3-yr-old to her MORMON TEMPLE every other Sunday. But now our 10-yr-old has decided that he wants to be Catholic. I was born and raised Catholic...married Catholic, too. And, in all fairness, I have encountered nothing but support from that church, even though I've been in and out (and mostly out) of it for years. At any rate...I do NOT believe in Jesus, not in the Biblical sense, anyway. The Bible itself? Allegory, as far as I'm concerned. But it's a struggle...my son wants to learn this stuff...and I don't want to taint him with my position. I'm not an atheist, per se, but fit no traditional religion, either. Not sure where I'm going with this...and not sure what to do with my children, either. Any advice?
Once again, Chez, I'm not going to try to convert you nor am I going to try to explain to you that faith is not by definiton insanity. I think I've been around here long enough for both of us to have enough respect for each other's points of view to rehash.
But, by point of comparison, you cannot condemn mainstream, millennia-long religions by comparing their belief systems to cults that come up to, as you so aptly put it, "put their claws into people."
Any, and I mean ANY system of philosophy or thought can be twisted and spun into something awful. Take you pick: Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Free Love, respect for animals, etc.
I understand your point about intellectual dishonesty. But at the same time, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, just to name the ones I am closest to, aren't about lifting up some individual human on this earth of some small coterie of them. Whatever you may argue about their origins, what they stand for overall is something positive and that goes far beyond individuals and small groups. Cults are about individual control and power, about total manipulation and taking a person completely OUT of their life. A healthy religious system is about integrating WITH that person's life.
Not to knock anyone's faith, but I think my personal lack of religion can be attributed to my inability to suspend disbelief past a certain point.
I can't enjoy musicals because I spend the whole time telling myself that people don't randomly burst into choreographed song and dance numbers and I can't get into religion because I can't make myself believe that the stories upon which the faiths are based are factual.
well... Deacon said it for me.
(I'd only add that a lot of the "mainstream" televangelist style churches push those limits between the two.)
They are all batty to me, but isn't there some saying about how what is 'normal' is only defined by what people accept as normal? I'd be more eloquent... but I have a migraine starting and it is hard to think straight.
I've had too many weird experiences in my life to knock what other people want to believe.
But that's the problem isn't it? Do they know that they've chosen to believe in it? And, just because they've made that choice, that believing in it doesn't make it true?
Holy crap, was that English? I think the point that I'm trying to make is, believe what you want to believe, but don't tell me how to live MY life.
An atheist far wiser than me once stated (approximately): "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. Once you recall why you have dismissed all other gods, you will realize why I have dismissed your god."
Religious belief goes against anything that could be considered an intellectual endeavor. We are given an end result and expected to believe it without any proof at all, and, we try to prove the truth of religion after the fact. Is there anything else that works on such a backwards premise?
Science and logic are great for explaining, in human-generated and thus human-understandable terms, how things happen. Observe, measure, repeat.
Most people -- myself included -- also torment themselves with the question of why things happen. Religion attempts to fill this void, again in human-generated and thus human-understandable terms. Yet the failures of religion are human failures inasmuch as our understanding is bound by the limits of our sensory input and rational thought. You can't explain why you or Inara are, Chez, yet I would hope that you believe you are. It's just as much an article of faith to believe that science and logic can ultimately provide an explanation for are as it is to believe in any particular religious explanation. It's yet another human failure that many (most?) find greater comfort in the certainty of a fixed belief than in the uncertainty of a rational unknown. For me, the bigger trap lies in believing in the primacy of self.
I share your disdain for proselytizing, though. It's the height of arrogance to believe that what you think you know must be forced onto others. It's spiritual cancer.
The basic tenents were written long ago, though their interpretation has changed dramatically over time. Fortunately, we're no longer burning witches. Most women aren't forbidden to go to church during menstruation anymore, they aren't shunned for not wearing a head covering, and they are no longer considered sinful for speaking out during church (saying "Amen!" with the men when prompted by the preacher). Our description of a whore is no longer about jewelry and the braiding of hair. Nice girls do that now, too. Over time, Christianity has gotten better at picking and choosing what parts of its own book it wants to celebrate. The denominational separation is pretty much just argument as to which parts to ignore.
You gotta' hand it to the Muslims. Sure, you can read a translated Quran, but any Muslim will tell you that it's not real. There is only one Quran, and all "true" copies since have contained even the ink splatters from the original, all considered to be the divine message straight from Muhammed. The image of Muhammed is forbidden because there is no accurate record of what he looked like, and as such, any attempt at guessing will automatically be false. How many of our Jesus paintings do you think accurately reflect what he probably looked like? Our blonde Jesus has had all the Jew painted out of his visage, and he's become a symbol similar to Santa Claus. You have your black Jesus, your white Jesus, your Latino Jesus, and it's about the same as buying whichever Santa on the shelf bears the strongest physical resemblance to the buyer's family. In this sense, Jesus has become a product. American Christianity is dancing Santas, Easter Eggs, chocolate, expensively decorated houses, and a general celebration into materialism. Instead of putting ten percent into the coffers, that ten percent is going to Wal*Mart for crap that lives in the attic eleven months out of the year.
On the flip side, militant athiesm is just as much a religion as the others. Religion comes with the question, "Can you completely prove it without killing me?" If the answer is "no", it's a religion, an assumption on things beyond life for which we have no proof. It then becomes a logical argument. For every pro-athiesm philosopher there's a religious philosopher decent enough to become an educational staple (even if I did have a fantastic time tearing down Thomas Aquinas in college). I'm not arguing against athiesm or any of the others. I just don't know. If there is a God, I definitely believe that there's huge falacy in the idea of a human being able to fathom its will. This assumption is no less crazy than what one would find in a mental hospital. I mean... religiously speaking, if God had to send down a prophet son to be an example unto his will then wouldn't the assumption of a perfect understanding of God be delusions of grandeur?
Modern denominational bickering is counter-productive to the whole movement. This is a good thing for everyone else. They're pretty much split into individual warring clans, and aren't smart enough to form those clans back into an army (Hello? Crusades?). Thank God for petty denominational splits. Without them, we'd be in BIG trouble.
@ Jeremy,
Amen to the televangelism comment. There are some gems in there among the televised preachers (I suspect Charles Stanley is pretty stand-up and clean), but there are also all too many folks who are getting over on folks for their own gain.
@ Heather Hansma,
True enough (and here's hoping that migraine passes soon), but there are a lot of things I find batty too. Mostly folks who insist on full immersion into the macrobiotic, vegan and/or raw food camps. The things those people do to their poor taste buds...
For as long as the response continues to be "don't compare their irrational acceptance of a fable about invisible people with supernatural powers to my irrational acceptance of a fable about invisible people with supernatural powers, because mine is the real one," you won't have much success helping anyone wake up.
Never the less, a valiant attempt, my friend. But they've been sleepwalking for many thousands of years.
I remember, as a girl, really wanting to go to church. I felt that my voice was needed in order to get the songs of praise to god, and that I was part of something larger than myself. There was Good, and Purpose; the things told in the bible really happened. Christmas was magical, earnest, and beautiful.
Then, at maybe 9 or 10, there was the moment when I realized that it didn't really matter if I sang. I was standing at the pew, and looked across at the face of an older woman...and I just stopped singing. No one noticed, and it didn't matter. Such a small moment, but so big. It was all based in my child like ego, in my child sized world. I used to imagine that I could see god and satan fighting among the clouds...then I realized it was just a fertile imagination.
When I got older, I experienced that love/life/purpose, like hopeful daydreams of god, were blurry and sloppy and not at all like what I was told as a child. Fucking fairy tales, happy endings are. I wanted to believe, so badly, that there was something that would make my mess of a mind make sense. I wanted to give my pain over; I was even "saved" in 10th grade by some southern baptists (my catholic-raised mother was, thankfully, horrified). The saving didn't take, partly because I knew in my bones that it was just another way to avoid the truth of life...the same as getting high or drunk.
It's all the same grade of nonsense to me. Whether it's a guy that walks on water, or a many-armed creator and destroyer of worlds, or a peaceful ascetic that brings the lotus from the mud...I see them all as ways to interpret/slog through the horror and beauty of being alive. It's a way for greedy and selfish charlatans to manipulate others. It would be nice to know more, to really Know, but I simply don't think our minds have the capacity for it. Wee little meat sacks, are we.
I've come to find a peace in simply admitting that I don't have a fucking clue, and neither does anyone else. It's cold, and lonely. But I feel the beauty of being alive in every small moment that I can, and I make that enough. For all the pain and shit (and there is so much), I hungrily take the loveliness of a breeze and the shape of a leaf. I eat poetry, and drink wine, and fuck, and sing, and create, and Love to keep the darkness at bay.
And that is enough.
It has to be.
I've got a great joke for all you non-believers out there!
Q: What happens when you pray?
A: The same thing that happens when you don't pray!
Thank you, thank you. You've been a wonderful audience.
I think there are "mainstream" churches that are considered legitimate that are cults; my parent were once involved in one. To me the difference isn't the amount of logic in the core beliefs, but the effect that the church in question has on the individuals. The amount of manipulation is an important aspect.
Are you pressured to give all your money to the church? Are you allowed to have differences in opinion with the church leadership in matters of theology? Are you encouraged to study Bible scriptures and historical (secular) references on your own? Are you able to easily keep relationships with friends and family outside the church without trying to convert them? Can you have conversations with people without bringing up your religious beliefs? Is there more to life than your church? These are the types of things that make a difference to me.
There are many churches that are considered mainstream that have the same manipulative factors as a cult, so I don't think we should pick on just the fringe groups. But there are also churches that don't. Personally I would worry just as much about someone who has the exact same belief system that I subscribe to if they were that obsessed with it. People's beliefs are personal, and as long as it isn't causing them any actual harm who am I to judge their ideas when I believe in unprovable things myself?
Jason 11:44 --
You don't pray to change the world (outside yourself), you pray to change yourself. With that understanding in mind, your punch line loses its punch.
Anon 10:03 --
No advice. I know that Jayne and I plan to keep Inara away from religion as best as possible -- to teach her to be rational and thoughtful. That said, if she chooses to want to learn about any faith, or all of them, I doubt we'll stand in her way. We'll give her the tools we can; what she does with them is up to her.
One pray's to get things. A car, a fancy house, clothes, diamond rings. The works!
VOTAR, I don't know if you were aiming that at me specifically or in general, but look to Jenean's post for my response.
My point isn't to say, my way is the right way and that's what makes those other ones wrong. My point is that what I'm involved in and what I promote isn't using/abusing people and trying to cut them off from family, friends, etc.
I respect all sorts of religions with which I don't agree. As long as they aren't trying to control people's lives but rather to give them spiritual tools to help them live it better.
the only difference between a cult and a "religion" is the number of people subscribing to their respective madness. I fail to see how catholicism's approach to children is different from that of the cults - while cults usually recruit adults and need to brainwash their life's experience out of them, standard religions such as catholicism get you while you're young. one of the perks of growing up in a communist country (ex-Yugoslavia) was the official atheism. But i decided on my own that i wanted to go to church with my friend. then at the age of 12 i dropped out when i realized that asking questions and difference of opinion was frowned upon. I will never forget all the guilt that these people put into 8 year olds preparing for our first communion. the lessons from our catechism classes will remain with me for some time and i doubt that i will be as open-minded with my kid(s) as my parents were when they let me go to church. you wouldn't let your kids learn about fire on their own skin - why would you let them be "educated" by a bunch of deviant, delusioned sad bastards?
All BELIEF SYSTEMS seem uninformed at best and silly at worst to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to them. Ace Hare says religious belief isn’t an intellectual endeavor, yet a believer would say that a belief system based on the intellect alone was obviously limited. Science is a great way to find out things, but any physicist will tell you that there are hundreds of “constants” in physics that seem arbitrary. Yet unless they were set at the precise values they have, the universe as we know it would simply not exist. Values for the gravitational constant, the four primeval forces, the weight of sub-atomic particles, and dozens of other “givens” in the universe have to be precisely set for the universe to support the formation of stars, let alone life complex enough to ask such questions as “Why do stars form in the first place?” And there is no theoretical basis for any of these ‘constants’ to have the values that they have, either in Einsteinium, quantum, or string theory. Lee Smolin has come up with a theory that universes evolve and every singularity (black holes to the layman) is the genesis for another roll of the cosmic dice, and the anthropic principle implies that we might just be the outcome of one stable configuration of such chance. Hell, even without the exotic thinking of physicists, mere astronomers postulate such imaginary concepts as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ to explain why our observations have only uncovered about 1/20 of what seems to be the entire universe. And they aren’t looking at things like the Copenhagen Interpretation or the multiple dimensions inherent in string theory.
The bottom line is that we are intelligent and rational (sometimes, at our best) but we have no guarantee that we can understand the universe we can observe. As Einstein said, the most amazing thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all. To assume that we might understand it is no more arrogant than to assume that the creator (if, indeed, the universe is an artifact) might want to communicate with us on some level. Perhaps Buddha was closest to the truth when he said that contemplation of such questions is a waste of time since you will never know the answers in this life. But that isn’t satisfying. We are curious creatures. We WANT answers. And in spite of the fact that the chances that the universe would exist in the way it does (1 x 10 exp233 according to Smolin- a chance against the universe existing that is greater than the total number of sub-atomic particles in the universe) we think that our brains (containing neuron connections somewhere on the order of 10 exp66- still greater than the number of atoms in the universe, but woefully simple nonetheless) can find answers to these questions. Science has claimed preeminance over spirituality since we started making fire with flint rather than simply gathering it from the lightening strikes provided by the ‘gods’. But we still know so little that either side is basically incapable of explaining either why the universe exists or even why we want to know.
Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta ask: why, why, why?
Tiger gotta sleep, bird gotta land, man gotta say: I understand.
Kurt Vonnegut
This is pretty much off topic and so purely out of my damn head that it can only be appreciated for its creativity or ridiculed for its silliness...but Memphisto's comments sparked a memory of this germ of an idea I had once as I was juggling possible topics to handle as a novel one day.
And what I wondered was, what if every solar system (or maybe every galaxy) has a God? What if there are Gods who are sterile-minded, tidy sorts who like nice lifeless solar system and others who want life and reveal themselves openly and still others who want the life therein to remain under a cloud of mystery?
What if the universe was created by Gods, or it created Gods as well as physical matter in the process of coming to be...and the only reason that is athere is an existence at all and some basic predictably physics is because millions or billions of Gods have essentially agreed upon a basic set of rules, and run their own infinite power as they see fit in their little corners of the universe.
Hey, now that I've thrown that out there, anyone want to build a big cult around me like they did for L. Ron Hubbard? I could use the dough...and preferably before I die...
"It is impossible to imagine the universe run by a wise, just and omnipotent God, but it is quite easy to imagine it run by a board of gods. If such a board actually exists it operates precisely like the board of a corporation that is losing money."
-- HL Mencken
A parable.
I will never fault someone who finds strength through faith.
In fact there is nothing wrong with faith. (Spoken like a true agnostic, no?)
There is a tendency to look down upon a faithful person as if it is some source of weakness. You will never reach these people because in the end, their faith is stronger than truth.
The problem begins when we fail to see that the basic teachings of the worlds religions are essentially the same and the manner with which people have chosen to worship were not written by a diety, but by men.
@ Votar
I've said it before, and Che Grovera says it above very well also.
Much of the secular world view is also based on faith. Faith that Freud was on the right track with the Id, Ego, and Superego. Faith that the scientists calculating the age of our universe got all their math correct. Faith that the only things that exists are those things we can observe and palpate.
It's faith in people or the abilities of humanity, but its still faith. (And I've been let down plenty by people, so my faith in them ain't too strong, but that is beside the point.)
@Che Grovera
Well there is all the proof you need then. 2,000 years of praying for self improvement and people still do sinister things to each other.
So the punch line is still very applicable.
And religious zealotry is still very laughable. Any attachment people have to "god" is just a sublimated fear of dying. That's it, nothing more.
Dear "Deacon Blue" spare me. All that talk about "the point is not I'm right, you're wrong, man. I respect you." I just spent too long browsing your blog, man.
Why don't you tell us how we poor sinners (that you totally respect, man) burn in hell, tortured forever because we don't think like you think. How does that gibe with your whole respect bullshit "I just ain't sayin' I'm right" crap? Because seems to sinner me that you think you're right. No matter what you say, in your black and secret heart you know everyone, but your own personal groupthink will burn.
You're full of shit, bro. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent, yo?
Religion sucks. (What is the difference between a Methodist and a Presbyterian anyway?) But if it wasn't about god, people would still kill each other for equally stupid things.
-Clessie S.
Clessie, what the fuck are you talking about? I mean, really. Some of my blog posts speak to Christian matters, for Christian readers. Others speak to politics. Others speak to general behavior and spirituality. Some are DVD reviews of R-rated flicks that the Christian Coalition would definitely not want me watching. And I'm writing a damn novel in installments. Where the hell can you point to a single place in my blog where I disrespected any religion?...please, tell me so I can correct it.
In fact, I have several regular commenters who are atheists, agnostics, Jews and otherwise, and have no problem with me personally nor do they feel assailed by me.
In fact, the only person I have ever banned from my blog was a fucking Christian.
Grow up. You can disagree with my viewpoints, but the moment you call me a closed-minded judgmental asshole you prove that you only skimmed my blog to convince yourself of an crime you already convicted me of in advance.
(Apologies to Chez for the rant, if indeed he decides to let this through.)
Chez, regarding your H.L. Menken quote...it's not THAT far-fetched...isn't the universe moving toward entropy anyway ultimately?
Sound like losing money...and a lot like our current economic doldrums...to me.
And yes, to my newfound and perhaps even old-time critics, I'm joking.
@Jeremy,
With all due respect, no.
Secular thought is not rooted in faith. When properly applied, it is rooted in critical self-examination. It is the weakness of group-think that ideas are accepted without the necessary vetting process (which -- unlike religion -- empirical thinking not only allows for, but encourages).
Freud's ideas were theories, and were always presented as such. They gained some popularity, but were also subject to widespread criticism and rejection. Secular thought makes room for these contradictions and adjustments. Religion does not.
Evolution, Origin Theory, Global Warming, take your pick. These theories are presented in the spirit of attempting to solve mysteries by collecting a knowledge base of what can be observed about them... not by concocting fantasies and then demanding unquestioning acceptance of them. If that knowledge base changes over time, because methods of observation change or improve, all the better! The theory is tested, and knowledge is advanced.
Not so with religion.
It is astonishing to see an argument that invalidates what we "can observe and palpate" as an inadequate understanding of Reality... at least we can observe and palpate the world around us! AT LEAST WE HAVE THAT! It's a pretty good knowledge base to start from. Religion instead offers promises and primitive fables, and quite deviously sets up the IMPOSSIBILITY of ever proving them wrong, as the "proof" that they are the truth.
Diabolical anti-logic. But thankfully, there are enough of us not being fooled.
There can be no doubt that religion of any sort requires an extreme leap of, well, faith.
But, if you accept the core belief that there is a God and he is all powerful, the rest of it doesn't seem so screwy.
After all, doesn't an all-powerful being have the power to do all the things you described?
Sure, if you don't accept that general fact, it all sounds like crap.
I understand that.
But, refusing to acknowledge the Christians do accept that central fact, and that's what drives all of their beliefs, is kind of dishonest. You can't ignore that key belief, because it justifies all of the other beliefs.
Jason:
The concept of "God" doesn't originate from fear of death. It actually comes from the same part of mankind from which science was born. It is our desire to understand things that are bigger than ourselves. In primitive human history we sought answers for things like earthquakes, weather patterns, plagues of insects, and all the other terrible things thrown our way by mother nature. Back then, though, a drought wasn't a lawn watering advisory, but starvation. Our curious minds came up with it as a way to cope with (and attempt to control) things we don't understand. The idea of being helpless is one that we don't like too well.
Beyond that, it's cultural and familial. Religion can easily sink into the minds of a child as reality when encouraged by parents, just like belief in a tooth fairy or whatever other magical stories are told. The big difference, though, is that children will eventually figure out that Mom and Dad are their magical figures, and children are not expected to believe in childish fantastical things once they grow up, except for one.
Then it becomes fear of death (and force of habit, Linus' blanket, etc.).
No sooner do I talk on my blog about cleaning up my language than I use the F-bomb twice...and one of my regular readers Big Man here to catch me falling off the wagon already.
;-)
VOTAR,
You're an excellent writer and I enjoy reading your comments when you're able to stretch out a bit. I really wish that you would, or could, find the time (or desire) to write more often.
~k~
Of all the wonderful arguments presented here, none are more beautifully put than Gina's:
I've come to find a peace in simply admitting that I don't have a fucking clue, and neither does anyone else. It's cold, and lonely. But I feel the beauty of being alive in every small moment that I can, and I make that enough. For all the pain and shit (and there is so much), I hungrily take the loveliness of a breeze and the shape of a leaf. I eat poetry, and drink wine, and fuck, and sing, and create, and Love to keep the darkness at bay.
And that is enough.
It has to be.
Well put...it's not that lonely as you are FAR from alone on this one.
I'm an agnostic and I weary of Richard Dawkins and his "followers" about as much as I weary of Jimmy Swagert and his followers.
I enjoy a world with many different viewpoints and I've read enough philosophy, religious doctrines, poetry etc. to understand that the concept of Truth (dig the proper noun) is simply beyond human expression or cognition. It goes something like "I know there is a computer I am currently typing on, but when I try to qualify that statement as "true," I find it's impossible."
That said, I can't view Bible literalists as anything but a little simple and arrogant.
In the previous post about Justyna's comments someone brought up the "Jesus said disease was caused by demons, why didn't he say germs?" argument ... and minutia on both sides ensued. I simply say that it was an extremely irresponsible comment for an all knowing god, and if it was simply said "in a way the people of the time could understand" that naturally opens the question of what else in the Bible is said "in a way the people of the time could understand." You can't have it both ways my good Christians Literalists.
I have no gripe with Christians who see the Bible as a guide book, not an irrevocable expression of absolute Truth.
I realize that Votar has already corrected Jeremy about the difference between faith in a religion and trust in the scientific method but I've always been amused by the faith argument for a couple of reasons. First, just like the "science is a religion" nonsense, it isn't an argument that faith is superior but simply an attempt to bring science to the level of faith. A tacit admission that science is a superior world view, though this point is seemingly missed by the people who espouse it. The second is that the bible itself defines faith as "things hoped for and not seen", placing faith squarely in the realm of wishes rather than observations. Since science relies on observation even the bible directly states that it is not based in faith.
Cheryl, Issac Asimov says in one of his essays in THE TYRANNOSAURUS PRESCRIPTION that religion actually stems from a fear of losing your parents and the fear of death is secondary. A theory that makes a lot of sense to me. Nevertheless, making things up to explain the unknown and assuage fears is a poor way of relating to the universe.
As to the idea that faith is OK because it brings joy and comfort to the faithful, the same could be said of heroin. I don't know why one form of escapism is all right while the other is not.
Memphisto,
First, I totally agree with you.
Second, I think what most intelligent Christians are trying to get across about people who rely on science to provide answers is not about the scientific method, rather it's about what laymen "trust in the Scientific Method." I don't have any training in science or biology, yet I trust that the people who do have not led me astray BECAUSE of the Scientific Method. So I, personally, can't tell you why the Earth is millions of years old, yet I respect the thought and research and methods that went into that statement to accept it as true... that, indeed is a kind of faith.
Thank you, Stephen. *curtsy*
Arguments from the "science rules, religion drools" branch of discourse are tiresome. There are questions surrounding our existence for which science has not provided conclusive answers -- and for which scientific answers seem unlikely. Are you (Votar, memphisto et al.) suggesting that a belief -- while we're all waiting -- in the ability of science to provide answers to the "unknowables" (such as the existence of eternity) is somehow different from a spiritual belief in higher power? If so, then you come across as arrogant as any Bible-thumper. Admitting that there might be limits to the applicability of scientific inquiry is not to dismiss science wholesale; arguing that it can't exist if it can't be observed is its own form of irrationality.
I am always late to these things! Damn these opposite time zones. Now everyone's said so much that I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
Just wanted to put this out there though: Chez (and others), if you call yourself an "atheist", would you be willing to subscribe to an atheistic religion like Buddhism?
Granted, much like many major religions today, Buddhism has so many schools of practice deriving from many interpretations (or distortions, however you want to look at it) of the original teachings. However in its core, Buddhism believes purely in the highest self of humanity as being the object of worship (or "faith") and the ultimate aspiration of existence, rather than some mysterious outside being.
I don't mean to ramble on but something struck me deeply about the previous posts about this same subject. In one of the comments, Jeremy had said this:
Accepting Jesus was supposed to help me understand that I wasn't saddled by those things, that despite my humanity I didn't have to live in Hell, either self-imposed on this earth or some fiery punishment after I shuffled off this mortal coil.This is in fact, exactly what Mahayana Buddhism teaches - that you may have committed evil acts in the past (in this life or in possible past lives - if you believe in that sort of thing) but you are not a slave to them.
You DON'T have to suffer in Hell for all eternity because of your mistakes. And "hell" isn't an outside place where you go after you die - it is a state of your own life. One which you CAN get out of.
It offers a more concrete, real world solution to this than "embrace Jesus" or "embrace Buddha" though - work to create value in your life, in the lives of others, and in the world, and if anything embrace the ultimate potential for good in all humanity.
Ahem. I think that's enough "proselytizing" for the day. Sorry if I carried on a bit too long there, but really all I wanted to ask was the question up top.
Because if the answer is no, then would "non-religious" be a better description of your beliefs that "atheist"?
We seem to be so caught up in the view that "religion" equates to "other worldly being(s) with mysterious and divine powers that we cannot fathom". But there ARE non-theist religions as well.
And for the record, I ask this because I myself have been pondering this in my own life lately (along with the exact thing you've written about in your post Chez). Am I too late to get answers from anyone because they've all moved on from this post? >_<
Memphisto:
Though it makes sense on the scale of an individual, I'm sure everyone has their reasons for initially accepting faith, and there definitely isn't one specific explanation which applies to all religious folks across the board, brilliant as Isaac Asimov was.
As for heroin... that's a pretty loose point. I've never met anyone personally who's died from a faith overdose, though I've lost several people to heroin. You're saying that religion can be compared to heroin because they both bring positive emotions. In the same line, my marriage brings joy and comfort to me. The rest of my family does, as well. Pets and friends can also be included in the joy factor. My artwork, fire poi... There are a lot of things which bring joy and comfort to me that have yet to kill my friends or are deserving of a comparisson to something which has.
Really, are the concepts of joy and comfort themselves needing of attack? By this logic, everything good is actually bad because it causes positive emotions and can then be compared to heroin.
Your heroin argument states that, since A causes C and B causes C, A and B must be alike, even though they're completely unrelated. A good workout at a gym makes my muscles hurt. Having the flu also makes my muscles hurt. Therefore, a good workout at the gym must be like contracting a flu virus. This statement makes about the same amount of sense.
Faith is okay. It's not okay because of the comfort and joy thing, but because faith is completely harmless. It's people's reactions to faith that have the potential for trouble.
In one person, faith can bring incredible compassion leading to good actions such as volunteering at a soup kitchen. In another person, it can bring spitefulness and hatred. However, those people would've found some way to be spiteful and hateful without religion, as the compassionate person would've also been.
The problem isn't religion or faith. The problem is that there are nasty people who see it as an opportunity for power, something to take advantage of, and church is a good place to find weak people who want to be led anywhere as long as they aren't forced to navigate their own destinies or take responsibility for the events in their own lives. Those weak people would still be weak without religion. Not all religious folks are weak, but the weak are drawn to religion out of fear of being in control. The stronger ones will shop around for a church, instead of settling for whatever is closest, biggest, most entertaining, or most convenient. They will look harder for one that suits them as an individual through skepticism. The stronger ones will listen to the pulpit but bring home their own ideas from it. The problem is when weak people and narcissistic assholes wind up in the same room with one another for two hours every Sunday, and the narcissistic asshole is holding the microphone. There's a reason they call a congregation a "flock". These are not the norm, but we're always going to hear more from the people who make the most noise. The kinder and more respectable churches are usually pretty quiet.
Aconite,
While this commentary may be petering out, it seems like it ain't over yet.
;-)
I don't know if anyone's got any good responses for you. I don't have any raging insights, except to say that things like Buddhism to me seem to straddle a gray area between philosophy and religion, which themselves have plenty of overlap.
I agree with Stephen, excellent post by Gina......
My problem with "God" are the dinosaur and fossil records....
If there really is an omnipotent being that is running everything and the world really is only 2000 (or so) years old, did God really just make up the dinosaurs and plant them in the ground for us to find and drive us crazy for the rest of eternity trying to figure out our true origins?
Really?
Che Grovera said...
>Are you (Votar, memphisto et al.) suggesting that a belief -- while we're all waiting -- in the ability of science to provide answers to the "unknowables" (such as the existence of eternity) is somehow different from a spiritual belief in higher power?
Yes, absolutely. Even though in the previous thread on this subject I went out of my way to point out that science couldn’t answer, or even theorize, answers for basic questions about the formation of the universe. Nevertheless, science is the only path to real understanding of the universe around us. The scientific method (observe, hypothesize, theorize, test, assimilate new data and return to step one) isn’t just science- it’s the basic problem solving methodology. Belief is just that- deciding to believe and being done with it. One is expansionist and the other is self-limiting. One engenders further observation and the other stops inquiry. The two are diametrically opposed.
Cheryl Robbins said...
>Though it makes sense on the scale of an individual, I'm sure everyone has their reasons for initially accepting faith, and there definitely isn't one specific explanation which applies to all religious folks across the board, brilliant as Isaac Asimov was.
I don’t think Asimov was trying to suggest all people are attracted to religion for the same reason (although there is a case to be made that needing a “higher power” to fall back on is the root of it for most, if not all) but why we invented religion in the first place. Anyway, that is irrelevant. The bottom line is whether you are able to stand a world in which there are unanswered and unanswerable questions or whether you want answers whether they may be right or not. So, in essence, Asimov did hit on a primal human need that we all share. Childhood is a time when one can depend on their parents to be the ultimate protectors and authorities. Adulthood is full of ambiguity which many find very uncomfortable.
>As for heroin... that's a pretty loose point. I've never met anyone personally who's died from a faith overdose, though I've lost several people to heroin.
To risk being snarky about a subject that I feel very serious about- religion has cost far more lives than heroin ever began to be responsible for. And that isn’t even counting the lives thrown away in belief of the supernatural when they could have been spent actually learning about the objective universe. And if belief isn’t the problem, but what people do with that belief might be, then I could say the same about heroin. It is, after all, just a molecule. It’s how people use it that causes the problem. Q.E.D.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that both may provide comfort for the individual but are retreats from the hard questions of reality. And as such, basically serve the same purpose- to make the individuals life less painful. That isn’t an ignoble thing in itself, but to say one is great and the other is wrong is to deny the basic purpose both have in the lives of the users. Faith is basically an abdication of the rules you use in every other part of your life. You wouldn’t buy a car, rent a house, deal with a businessman, accept a proposal, choose a career, or even sit in on a card game based on faith without doing everything you could to make sure it isn’t a mistake. Yet, when it comes to your immortal soul you go on feelings and throw due diligence to the wind. I could tell you anything and you wouldn’t believe it without proof. But religion has a completely different set of standards for acceptance. That’s the thing I don’t understand. For instance, I am a man who is 6’6” tall and weighs over an eighth of a ton. Believe me? It’s absolutely true, but without seeing there is no believing. Yet you espouse belief in a Supreme Being without the same kind of skepticism. In spite of the fact that I am communicating with you directly, that everything I’ve said about myself is easily verifiable, and that you have no real reason to doubt me. Therein lies the rub.
Well, the full-on Bible literalists who think the geneologies from Adam to Jesus are complete and all-inclusive actually put the Earth at 6,000 or 7,000 years old, littlebitoffeisty...
...but that's still pretty batshit crazy in my opinion.
The Earth is as old as the fossil record and carbon dating and everything else say it is, as far as I'm concerned, and I have no problem believing in God and evolution myself. Or God and cosmology. Or anything else.
The only thing that makes me doubt the existence of God is the existence of people like Michele Bachmann, Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, Victoria Jackson and a few others...
Che: yes. There is a wide gulf of meaning between the two.
What's making it difficult for you is the misuse of the semantics. Words have specific meaning. TRUST in the methods and skills of trained observers to identify HOW things work, has nothing to do with putting FAITH in the veracity of fables concocted by our unlearned ancestors in an attempt to explain WHY things are.
Asking "why" presumes there is a reason something happens, which falsely presumes the causal manifestation of intent and purpose. Therefore just by asking "why," religion deviously inserts a biased pathway to the pre-selected answer to the question, into the structure of the question itself. We spend our existence fruitlessly searching for the source of the purpose that we are conditioned to assume exists, since we've been instructed to ask "why," and "why" structurally demands a "because."
"Why" is the wrong question, and religion exploits the impossibility of finding the "because." Religion creates the illusion of enlightenment by inventing the need to know the answer to a loaded question. Find god, and your "why's" have their "because."
Secular curiosity ("science," if you want) doesn't waste time with "why," but asks "how." Belief is irrelevant. The sun doesn't give off light because I believe it does, it does so through a process that smart people studied and figured out. Until they did, we had no choice but to accept other explanations until they were refuted. Science allows for this. Science accepts changes and expansions in the catalog of knowledge. Religion does not.
Secular thought allows for ignorance and contradiction, and in fact celebrates these. Not understanding something is an opportunity for growth and discovery. Science revels in asking new questions, and accepts that not yet knowing the answers is what nourishes curiosity.
Questioning the tenets of religion is heresy, and is damned.
So, yes, my humble acceptance of my own ignorance, and my sense of anticipation when I consider how much we do not yet understand, is a fundamentally different thing than surrendering my curiosity to a canon of commandments, epistles, and exaggerated folklore which commands unquestioning obedience in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Or, uh, in other words, what mephisto said.
I think one huge division between science and faith is the idea that the entirety of the universe can be explained by either side. A person who follows the Scientific Method shouldn't say things like "Science will explain everything"...we don't have the technology to fulfill that statement and the Earth will be a cold husk before we even approach that level. Anyone that proclaims that their idea solves and explains all of existence is skipping a few logical steps.
@ kanye:
Thank you for the kind words.
I like your videos. The one where you are Evil Knievel in that rocket cycle and the babe from Baywatch is in it, man, that was rad!
That rabble rousing guy I follow, Jesus, pointed out the difference between things of the world and things of the Earth. Went something like "Render unto God what is God's, and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" There's a lot packed into that little sentence, and it ain't just about taxes an tithes, methinks.
I look to science for things that relate to the functioning of us humans on this world and the environment around us. I look to God for things that relate to the spirit and my soul. I look to basic human decency when it comes to interacting with fellow humans.
What bugs me is the notion that religion and science cannot find a place to be harmonius neighbors. They don't have to meld or hang out regularly...but would a simple pleasant nod or wave every day across the yard be all that hard?
The sooner that some atheists stop trying to say there is no possible way a spiritual world or spiritual aspect can exist...and the sooner that some religious folks stop trying to explain the physical world with religious text...the happier everyone will be.
(And btw, once again, would people please stop blaming religion for all the evils of the world. It's done its fair share, but damn, economics/greed and politics/imperialism have done way more damage than religion to lives, nations, etc. Before you stamp out religion, try dealing with the real offenders first.)
...and off to the races we go.
I happen to be of the opinion that science and faith are not mutually exclusive but are in fact complementary. However, it is just my opinion since I cannot prove it empirically and I cannot reasonably ask that it be taken on faith (tautology, anyone?).
If the set of all that is humanly knowable is finite, then science is all that is needed and faith is indeed an unnecessary artifact. If the "knowable set" is infinite, however, then there will always be a gap between what is known and what is not. More to the point, how will we know when we know it all? Faith simply allows for the possibility that we can't know it all. In the spirit of fair play, I'll be the first to renounce faith when it has been established that we know it all -- or even when it is established that we can know it all.
Please note that I have assiduously referred to faith in the abstract. The whine of axes being ground throughout this thread has been deafening. Faith and religion are not synonymous, and I have not equated them at any point -- unlike some others. Faith is not religion, nor is science a religion. The demon against which many of you have been railing is systemic belief, which can be construed as faith run amok but should not in and of itself be an indictment of faith.
Che,
Many thanks for that last paragraph in particular. In my circles, a related line of argument is Christianity vs. Churchianity. Do you follow the teachings and example...or do you follow an institution?
For me, the former is much more appealing.
I debated for what seemed an eternity to comment. Frankly, it's a huge waste of time, as it will fall on deaf ears.
Irony, thy name is… IRONY!
"Anon 10:03 --
No advice. I know that Jayne and I plan to keep Inara away from religion as best as possible -- to teach her to be rational and thoughtful.”
Oh, that’s rich!
It’s peculiar that you no longer believe in (an) organized religion, or even a higher power, and mock and consider those who do believe in such, fools or irrational. What do you know of thoughtful or rational?
By your own admission, via DEM and DST, you are/were a heroin addict. For a time, you indulged in Ecstasy, which apparently impaired/clouded your judgment enough for you to betray your so called best friend, in so much that you felt it perhaps contributed to his death? You are now most likely at the end of your now, what, 3rd marriage? Are any more examples necessary? Oh, thoughtful, and rational, you are!
Here’s to hoping that Jayne is slightly “rational,” and more “thoughtful,” but there are doubts, seeing that she apparently thinks as you do, and bought into your particular brand of BS.
All people are full of crap. The real question is to what degree. Congratulations, you’ve reached the level of CrapMaster Grand Wizard of the highest order.
A friend convinced me to read you, and I semi-enjoyed some of your “stuff,” but am frankly, just over it.
Good luck, and thanks for the laughs.
Ex-Malcontent.
Aw, you can't go -- all the plants are gonna die.
I find the most personal happiness by keeping my relationship with "God" just that, a personal affair (with the very real possibility that this relationship is one-sided). I refuse to adhere to any (spiritual) institution's demands for my time and money, and I do my best each day to learn a little more about myself and be thankful for the good things in my life (Gratitude CAN be non-directional. Simply acknowledging your appreciation for something can help you feel happier about your life).
Humility, skepticism, inquisitiveness, gusto, and gratitude. These "virtues" work for me, and I don't need anybody else's idea of what works to feel good about myself. Isn't that all anyone can ask for?
God makes the end known from the beginning. We are fulfilling a prophecy.
Micah 4:1
"In the last days
the mountain of the Lord's temple will be established as chief among the mountains;
it will be raised above the hills, and peoples will stream to it.
Many nations will come and say, "Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever."
you can deny that 2 + 2 = 4 all you want, but it's still 4. same way, you can philosophize till the end, but God thinks of human knowledge as "high sounding nonsense". We're nothing, our sin deserves death. Persecuting Church of God without coming to the Spirit and the Bride, you are fighting merciful God, who came to this earth to save us sinners. If anyone exalts himself, he will be humbled. If anyone humbles himself he will be exalted. Aren't bloggers especially good at detecting truth? Good job, Chez :)
I'm so sorry to have to say this, honey, but you're insane -- and what you're spouting is unadulterated nonsense. Pure and simple.
Hopefully somebody who loves you will come along and forcibly remove you from the cult you've joined.
Just so sad to see you this way.
Listen to yourself. Listen to the lunatic dogma you're spouting. You're being lied to. Your little Korean second coming is a fraud and so is the "New Jerusalem Mother." It's all horseshit.
But hey, technically none of this is my problem -- particularly since the divine retribution you prophecize will never happen. You're wasting your life on a fantasy that someone else put in your head.
Now have a nice day.
Chez said...
"Listen to yourself. Listen to the lunatic dogma you're spouting. You're being lied to. Your little Korean second coming is a fraud and so is the "New Jerusalem Mother." It's all horseshit."
I wonder how many people where told this in the days of Jesus. Can you imagine a Jewish person living in the days of Jesus. These people where expecting a Saviour to come in the clouds waging war against their enemies! Yet he came as a man. Not only a man, a son of a carpenter! Can you imagine that... If the Saviour didn't come blazing out of the clouds, at lease he should have come from Royalty right? ... OH YEA, That's why Judaism still exits, cause this Jesus was a fraud, and all those that bought into his dogma were lunatics!
I just think it's funny how we sit here debating the same crap people in the days of Jesus debated. Developing one's Critical conscience is about engaging in dialog and letting go of one's old dogma to embrace truth he or she may never have expected before.
I heard these people out (World mission ...) and while I'm not jumping on their band wagging, I have expected the fact that I need some personal studying and enlightenment. Most of what I know have come from what I was taught...it's time to change that.
P.S. By definition, All religion's are consider cults (We should really stop throwing that word around)
Post a Comment