question for believers

[billydkid]

Ok, the crux of the whole issue for me is this - and I have never seen any answer let alone a reasonable one. I have often heard what Hunster has repeated - that you have to believe first and affirmation of your belief comes later. I don't think anyone will disagree that there countless numbers, in fact an infinite number, of things one could choose to believe for which there is no evidence and no particular reason to believe. How does one choose which non-rational belief to believe since there is no compelling reason to believe any of them? How does one distinguish between one belief system and another in as much as they are all equal in their lack of supportability and equally valid? How are any of the established and respectable religions more legitimate than, say, Scientology? They are all equal in their unsupportability and irrationality. What criteria is used to choose your religion or beliefs when there are an infinite number of beliefs which are every bit as legitimately believable?

[l0rca]

[Inspirational flabberjam]

[Biblical quote out of context]

:)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Brainwashing, in a broad sense of the term. Also, what jibes with your personality.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Right place, right time, right frame of mind.

If you're soul searching, confused and slightly vulnerable, you becoming a christian fundementalist or a scientologist will depend on whether or not you were walking past a bake sale or a stress test.

[Tricky]

Brainwashing, in a broad sense of the term. Also, what jibes with your personality.
Yeah, that's a very broad sense of the term. I'd go more with "culture and environment".

Our minds can rearrange puzzle pieces, but only those pieces that are put in the box. Sure, you may see God in a near-death experience, but if you are a Christian, it's pretty darn sure it won't be Allah.

[simonmaal]

There is the emotional and existential element to consider here. Most religions (and other "cult" ideologies such as Nazism and Communism) involve giving up everything you enjoy, even your own sense of identity. Now, if you are thoroughly miserable and feeling an "emptiness", a lack of meaning in life, then you are driven to re-establish a kind of psychological homeostasis. In other words, to look for something to "fill the hole". In such a situation, if you have nothing to lose, religion offers you a sense of social unity, meaning and also does all the thinking for you. In other words, you felt empty but now you have a purpose!

This is why vulnerable people are drawn to its ranks (bolstered by those who were indoctrinated as innocent children). It's amazing how quickly the brainwashed cease to be the person who friends and family once knew: now they become an ambassador for their new belief system, an evangelist. Everbody else is evil, stupid, decadent. In fact, their friends and family become part of the enemy ranks; this is probably why "retreats" are important or, in some cases, total segragation (e.g. faith schools); they prevent any rational debate or ananlysis of the new ideas.

It took centuries to perfect the psychological techniques that enable such cognitive hijacking to occur, and the Chinese adopted it very successfully in their "thought reform" program in the 20th century. Who will be next to use it I wonder?

[Mr Clingford]

There is the emotional and existential element to consider here. Most religions (and other "cult" ideologies such as Nazism and Communism) involve giving up everything you enjoy, even your own sense of identity.A little bit of a broad brush, don't you think! Hmm, I like walking and alcohol, for instance, and haven't given them up. There is a strong element of trying to order and balance priorities in Christianity but, Puritans and modern examples aside, there is no commanding to give up everything enjoyable.

[billydkid]

A little bit of a broad brush, don't you think! Hmm, I like walking and alcohol, for instance, and haven't given them up. There is a strong element of trying to order and balance priorities in Christianity but, Puritans and modern examples aside, there is no commanding to give up everything enjoyable.

But you would agree there is a fundamental element of "earthliness" versus "heavenlyness" or the spiritual. Nowadays, there are Christians who practice a kind of revisionism in their thinking where God and nature are one are one and even physical love is not damned. However, this whole God vs. nature and spiritual vs. wordly is an essential theme in Christianity - particular on the protestant side as was promoted by Martin Luther. Certainly, there is no way to honestly deny that denial of pleasure is a basic, underlying theme in Christianity. We even see it's effects in our secular day to day lives - blue laws, anti-sexuality, the hysteria over "drug" use and so on.

[Mr Clingford]

But you would agree there is a fundamental element of "earthliness" versus "heavenlyness" or the spiritual. Nowadays, there are Christians who practice a kind of revisionism in their thinking where God and nature are one are one and even physical love is not damned. However, this whole God vs. nature and spiritual vs. wordly is an essential theme in Christianity - particular on the protestant side as was promoted by Martin Luther. Certainly, there is no way to honestly deny that denial of pleasure is a basic, underlying theme in Christianity. We even see it's effects in our secular day to day lives - blue laws, anti-sexuality, the hysteria over "drug" use and so on.Actually I don't agree that it is an essential theme but one that may be present. This 'material is bad/spiritual is good' is Gnosticism and has influenced Christianity at times. Christianity may view the material as good because God became flesh which is seen as validating the 'God made the universe and saw it as good' angle. Christianity is against the abuse of sex and the seeking of pleasure to the detriment of other considerations. I do agree that Prots, especially in the USA with Prohibition, for instance, have been prone towards taking it too far.

[Davo]

Ok, the crux of the whole issue for me is this - and I have never seen any answer let alone a reasonable one. I have often heard what Hunster has repeated - that you have to believe first and affirmation of your belief comes later. I don't think anyone will disagree that there countless numbers, in fact an infinite number, of things one could choose to believe for which there is no evidence and no particular reason to believe. How does one choose which non-rational belief to believe since there is no compelling reason to believe any of them? How does one distinguish between one belief system and another in as much as they are all equal in their lack of supportability and equally valid? How are any of the established and respectable religions more legitimate than, say, Scientology? They are all equal in their unsupportability and irrationality. What criteria is used to choose your religion or beliefs when there are an infinite number of beliefs which are every bit as legitimately believable?

Nice point. Further to this after selecting a belief, how does one lead their life and morals according to that belief ?, since all religions are very vague about these things.

[simonmaal]

A little bit of a broad brush, don't you think!

Not really. Although I agree that the ideas of the different cults/religions differ greatly, the techniques of fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail are identical.

Hmm, I like walking and alcohol, for instance, and haven't given them up. There is a strong element of trying to order and balance priorities in Christianity but, Puritans and modern examples aside, there is no commanding to give up everything enjoyable.

I hear where you are coming from, but the problem I have is that liberal Christians are opting to pick and choose which doctrines to follow, in line with modern morality. If this is the case, then the Bible cannot be the unerring word of God. Put another way, modern morality has evolved despite the Bible, not because of it.

[T'ai Chi]

I don't think anyone will disagree that there countless numbers, in fact an infinite number, of things one could choose to believe for which there is no evidence and no particular reason to believe. How does one choose which non-rational belief to believe since there is no compelling reason to believe any of them?


These are just your beliefs.


How does one distinguish between one belief system and another in as much as they are all equal in their lack of supportability and equally valid?


How did you come to believe in your belief system?

[Mercutio]

Ok, sit down, everybody.


I agree with T'ai Chi.

I have written about this on this forum long ago. My classes begin tomorrow, or I would A) dig up the old post and B) expand on it.

Do not think that believers are stupid, or deluded, or even "brainwashed" in any meaningful definition of the word. They learn their beliefs in the same manner that you do. Some (including me) test these beliefs and find confirmation. Skeptical inquiry within a belief community will do that.

I hope to be able to find time to return to this thread.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yeah, that's a very broad sense of the term. I'd go more with "culture and environment".

Our minds can rearrange puzzle pieces, but only those pieces that are put in the box. Sure, you may see God in a near-death experience, but if you are a Christian, it's pretty darn sure it won't be Allah.

This is very true. Do a Google search for Buddhist Near Death Experiences (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=buddhist+near+death+experiences) and once you wade through the woo, you discover that NDEs have a significant cultural component. And though they may exist, I've never heard of anyone having a cross-cultural NDE save someone who was in Seeker mode or considering conversion.

[simonmaal]

The following clip of Darwin's Rottweiler may be of interest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSbDUCCjrE4

[Mr Clingford]

Not really. Although I agree that the ideas of the different cults/religions differ greatly, the techniques of fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail are identical.No. This has not been the case when I attended Quaker meetings for a while as fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail were conspicuous by their absence. Likewise, on sunday mornings these techniques have also been absent. That fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail may be found in religion does not mean that they are at the core in my experience. The message has been 'Here is something good, come and join in', not 'Repent, or burn in hell'. i know that the latter has been used and still is, but you are quite wrong to state that all religion is like that.

I hear where you are coming from, but the problem I have is that liberal Christians are opting to pick and choose which doctrines to follow, in line with modern morality. If this is the case, then the Bible cannot be the unerring word of God. Put another way, modern morality has evolved despite the Bible, not because of it.I think the Pope would be very surprised to discover that he was liberal. What if the Bible is not the unerring word of God? So what? What does 'unerring' mean anyway?

ETA I can't get sound at the moment so couldn't make use of the clip.

[Dancing David]

The basis of the practice of religion varies from person to person. Besides the spiritual belief system there are thesocial and cultural aspects. Even in the US there are secular religionists, those who attend services, mouth the words and then live thier lifes as if the religion was not there.

But as for choosing religions, it depends upon tempermant and the latitude some poeple have ot don't have.

[RenaissanceBiker]

Religions are cultural superstitions.

[simonmaal]

No. This has not been the case when I attended Quaker meetings for a while as fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail were conspicuous by their absence. Likewise, on sunday mornings these techniques have also been absent. That fear, guilt, manipulation and emotional blackmail may be found in religion does not mean that they are at the core in my experience. The message has been 'Here is something good, come and join in', not 'Repent, or burn in hell'. i know that the latter has been used and still is, but you are quite wrong to state that all religion is like that. (my emphasis)

The statement: "Here is something good, come and join in" is comparative: good in comparison with what? What is the "something good" to which you refer? I acknowledge that the Quaker belief and practice system is one of the most tolerant and open-minded that I know of. And idyllic scenes of people sitting together in a big, happy community are all very well. But why do we need religion to provide this? We have evolved to be social animals: there is adaptive advantage in working together and protecting each other. We see similar reciprocal altruism in other primates. We are pre-programmed to be that way. And I personally find the universe to be a fascinating place; there are so many spine-tingling realities that religion would deny us, appealing as it does to supernatural cop-out explanations. For example, when I consider my relationship with my wife and think of the inordinate number of occurrences that had to happen in order for us both to exist and for our relationship to form, I cannot help but marvel. It would take an omnibus to list them all. To reduce that kind of thing to the insipid "God's will" explanation is a huge damp cloth.

I think the Pope would be very surprised to discover that he was liberal. What if the Bible is not the unerring word of God? So what? What does 'unerring' mean anyway?My main point is that moral values have developed despite the Bible, not because of it. The Bible and Koran contain many rules and stories that most of us would find utterly abhorrent today (e.g. Job, Sodom and Gomorrah, most of Deuteronomy). This has happened as the clergy have steadily "cherry picked" the best bits out of the Bible such as "love thy neighbour" (which, when read in context, only applies to other believers anyway). So on what grounds are the clergy deciding to accept or reject this or that passage? It would seem that they are doing so in accordance with the changing mood of the time. Therefore, to re-iterate, morality develops and evolves despite the Bible, not because of it.

[qayak]

Do not think that believers are stupid, or deluded, or even "brainwashed" in any meaningful definition of the word. They learn their beliefs in the same manner that you do. Some (including me) test these beliefs and find confirmation. Skeptical inquiry within a belief community will do that.

I think the word "deluded" fits, just as it does in the title of Dawkins' book. This is the "fooling yourself" or "I've been fooled" definition of deluded, not the wacked out, raving lunatic definition. :D

[RemieV]

Oh, so this is just about Christians then?

Another anecdote saved for later then :D

[Darth Rotor]

Ok, the crux of the whole issue for me is this - and I have never seen any answer let alone a reasonable one. I have often heard what Hunster has repeated - that you have to believe first and affirmation of your belief comes later. I don't think anyone will disagree that there countless numbers, in fact an infinite number, of things one could choose to believe for which there is no evidence and no particular reason to believe. How does one choose which non-rational belief to believe since there is no compelling reason to believe any of them? How does one distinguish between one belief system and another in as much as they are all equal in their lack of supportability and equally valid? How are any of the established and respectable religions more legitimate than, say, Scientology? They are all equal in their unsupportability and irrationality. What criteria is used to choose your religion or beliefs when there are an infinite number of beliefs which are every bit as legitimately believable?
Please post this in Arabic, on a board frequented by Muslims. You'll only get a partial answer, in English, to your burning question.

DR

[ceo_esq]

This has happened as the clergy have steadily "cherry picked" the best bits out of the Bible such as "love thy neighbour"

In that case, you'd really have to blame Jesus for reducing all of the Pentateuch and the Prophets to the two basic commandments of love of God and love of neighbor. The clergy have just been following his lead.

[Tanstaafl]

But Jesus also said he came to uphold the law, every jot and tittle.

Maybe it depended on his mood.

[Solitaire]

These are just your beliefs. How did you come to believe in your belief system?
What do you do if you have no beliefs?

[Beth]

(my emphasis)

The statement: "Here is something good, come and join in" is comparative: good in comparison with what? What is the "something good" to which you refer? I acknowledge that the Quaker belief and practice system is one of the most tolerant and open-minded that I know of. And idyllic scenes of people sitting together in a big, happy community are all very well. But why do we need religion to provide this?

Clearly we don't. Plenty of people in this world get along without religion. But many people feel it is a useful and desirable addition to their lives. What's wrong with that?

[Earthborn]

I have often heard what Hunster has repeated - that you have to believe first and affirmation of your belief comes later.Of course, Huntster is wrong in this. If you listen to many people who came to a particular religion, you will notice that many of them did not really believe at first, but something happened to them that they felt supported a particular religion.

How does one distinguish between one belief system and another in as much as they are all equal in their lack of supportability and equally valid?The problem is that you believe that they are all equal in their lack of supportability and are equally valid. But to people who convert to a particular religion, this is not true. To them, one belief system is more valid than all the others.

How are any of the established and respectable religions more legitimate than, say, Scientology?Scientology is an established religion. Whether you consider it "respectable" is matter of personal opinion.

What criteria is used to choose your religion or beliefs when there are an infinite number of beliefs which are every bit as legitimately believable?Whatever criteria one choses to use. There really is no other answer. Just imagine what you think a religion should be like for you to believe in it, wait for a sign that you can interpret as confirming it and believe it.

[Mr Clingford]

The statement: "Here is something good, come and join in" is comparative: good in comparison with what? What is the "something good" to which you refer?The 'good' is 'good news', that lives that are going wrong can be turned around, that there is something worth seeking in this life - that kind of good.

I acknowledge that the Quaker belief and practice system is one of the most tolerant and open-minded that I know of. And idyllic scenes of people sitting together in a big, happy community are all very well. But why do we need religion to provide this? We have evolved to be social animals: there is adaptive advantage in working together and protecting each other. We see similar reciprocal altruism in other primates. We are pre-programmed to be that way.You have encountered some Quakers, then?
The aim for Christians is to be salt and light in the world, not just meet up once a week on a sunday.

And I personally find the universe to be a fascinating place; there are so many spine-tingling realities that religion would deny us, appealing as it does to supernatural cop-out explanations. For example, when I consider my relationship with my wife and think of the inordinate number of occurrences that had to happen in order for us both to exist and for our relationship to form, I cannot help but marvel. It would take an omnibus to list them all. To reduce that kind of thing to the insipid "God's will" explanation is a huge damp cloth.I too marvel at the amazing nature of the universe but I don't see how believing that God created it takes away any of this.

My main point is that moral values have developed despite the Bible, not because of it. The Bible and Koran contain many rules and stories that most of us would find utterly abhorrent today (e.g. Job, Sodom and Gomorrah, most of Deuteronomy). This has happened as the clergy have steadily "cherry picked" the best bits out of the Bible such as "love thy neighbour" (which, when read in context, only applies to other believers anyway). So on what grounds are the clergy deciding to accept or reject this or that passage? It would seem that they are doing so in accordance with the changing mood of the time. Therefore, to re-iterate, morality develops and evolves despite the Bible, not because of it.But the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) portrays the 'neighbour' as the 'other', a Samaritan not a Jew; and what about Jesus arguing that we should love those who persecute us - it is inclusive.

I think I would argue that morality develops both inspite and because of the Bible, ie, in some circumstances people rigidly try to apply codes belonging to very different cultures and in others they try to see what principles might have been underlying the original code and how they might work in more recent and different circumstances.

[Ossai]

Beth
Clearly we don't. Plenty of people in this world get along without religion. But many people feel it is a useful and desirable addition to their lives. What's wrong with that? Nothing, in a completely abstracts sense. But, let’s bring it in from an abstract. Some ancient cultures, Aztecs for instance, believed in human sacrifice. When they were ripping out hearts they were just practicing their religion, but do you see anything wrong with that situation?


Mr Clingford]
I too marvel at the amazing nature of the universe but I don't see how believing that God created it takes away any of this. IMO, I too look at the universe and marvel. But to propose that some god created this universe, then to ascribe traits to that god, the omnipotence and omnibenevolence combo in particular, and take a look at this universe makes me despair. Not only because the way the universe is setup because even with my limited intellect I could think of better, but also because that god is the best we have come up with.

Ossai

[ImaginalDisc]

Beth
Nothing, in a completely abstracts sense. But, let’s bring it in from an abstract. Some ancient cultures, Aztecs for instance, believed in human sacrifice. When they were ripping out hearts they were just practicing their religion, but do you see anything wrong with that situation?

When religion forms a whole social system, it's bad, because religion isn't based on objective measurements of benefit and harm to people. When people claim that religion isn't harmful, it's to remind them that it most certainly is. Even if religion has given us our modern society (which it hasn't, but let's concede the point for now) that's just an appeal to tradition.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/695845b139eed6bb6.jpg
http://www.thepaincomics.com/