A sufficient answer

[sackett]

This past Saturday, I had the opportunity to confront a religious person.

The person in question is an obviously devout woman, to the extent that she can understand her religion’s doctrines, not too pushy and not a bit sophisticated, whose frequent line is, “I’ll pray for you.”

I didn’t expect to get into any sort of coherent exchange, but the atmosphere was free and open, and she’s a simple soul, so I asked her, “Why do you believe?”

She replied instantly – and not angrily, or defensively, or gushingly, or any way at all, just matter-of-factly, “Because I feel like it.”

So much is contained in that answer! How I wish the religious (and the irreligious) could just agree on that simple reply!

[l0rca]

What was your reply to her?

[RenaissanceBiker]

Mine would have been, "Well, that's what really matters."

[ReligionStudent]

This past Saturday, I had the opportunity to confront a religious person.

The person in question is an obviously devout woman, to the extent that she can understand her religion’s doctrines, not too pushy and not a bit sophisticated, whose frequent line is, “I’ll pray for you.”

I didn’t expect to get into any sort of coherent exchange, but the atmosphere was free and open, and she’s a simple soul, so I asked her, “Why do you believe?”

She replied instantly – and not angrily, or defensively, or gushingly, or any way at all, just matter-of-factly, “Because I feel like it.”

So much is contained in that answer! How I wish the religious (and the irreligious) could just agree on that simple reply!

Why would irreligious agree on that reply? It isn't true of many people who aren't religious. They don't do it just on a whim.

Also does it make sence to believe and structure your life in and around a divine will because you feel like it? that's why you have a hamburger for lunch, not why you believe wine magically becomes a two thousand year old decayed corpse's blood.

If someone wants to use that as a reply to stop arguments, fine, but its a lie.

[sackett]

What was your reply to her?

"A sufficient answer."

[sackett]

Why would irreligious agree on that reply? It isn't true of many people who aren't religious. They don't do it just on a whim.

Also does it make sence to believe and structure your life in and around a divine will because you feel like it? that's why you have a hamburger for lunch, not why you believe wine magically becomes a two thousand year old decayed corpse's blood.

If someone wants to use that as a reply to stop arguments, fine, but its a lie.

Many atheists, i.e., guys like me, want to make the point that religiosity is not a matter of reason at all, but a matter of feeling -- of unreason. Believers usually won't buy that, and try to show that evidence and rationality are on their side.

The woman didn't stop the argument, she concluded it. She explained as fully as necessary why she believed in (I think) Roman Catholicism. (She started out a Maronite Christian; conversion was no doubt easy, because she felt like it.)

Reasoning on almost any topic is beyond this woman, but not feeling. I believe that she is actually incapable of lying.

[Apathia]

Indeed, good answer!
Much better than a pretentious philosophical proof as seen in another part of this board.
People believe in Metaphysical stuff for subjective reasons. Agknowledging it promotes tolerance and the opportunity to grow.

[Beleth]

Ahh, the Martin Gardner Reason. Just about the only truly respectable one.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That's the second best answer. The best is "Dude, you should see the chicks at my church. Nothing but Grade A spank as far as the eye can see."

[Solus]

That's the second best answer. The best is "Dude, you should see the chicks at my church. Nothing but Grade A spank as far as the eye can see."

There are many good looking woman at the local church who would love to help a poor misguided atheist like me find his way. I've been tempted before but we must stand by our strongly reasoned beliefs right? ;)

[sackett]

That's the second best answer. The best is "Dude, you should see the chicks at my church. Nothing but Grade A spank as far as the eye can see."

It's true, as they say down South, that "Preacher-man, he get puh-lenty of ACTION!"

However, I don't think that a little old lady would come up with that answer. In this case, I believe that I heard spontaneous, innocent truth.

[David Swidler]

I recently had the pleasure of participating in an intimate lecture (I think 4 of us attended that day) with a prominent Rabbi. He explored various ideas related to personal fulfillment through a relationship with God. The host of the lecture challenged him on one of his points: "So, what if I can achieve that same fulfillment through, say, Scientology? Why is there a problem with that?"

To which the Rabbi responded, "There isn't."

It undermined several huge assumptions about the faith in which I was raised.

[Beleth]

"So, what if I can achieve that same fulfillment through, say, Scientology? Why is there a problem with that?"

To which the Rabbi responded, "There isn't."
Judaism can be spectacularly pragmatic and reasonable sometimes. Rabbis like that one impress me to no end.

[sackett]

...It undermined several huge assumptions about the faith in which I was raised.


You were brought up a Scientologist?






Look, it's my thread. I can act cute if I want.

[Rufo]

Part of what makes the reply so good, so honest and so acceptable is sadly also part of why it's all too rarely used - it has absolutely zero missionary value. If someone has a feeling God exist, that seems (to me) a perfectly good reason to believe in God, but that also means someone without that feeling has as much reason not to do so. Feelings are and have always been worthless for arguments, and those who seek to convert others to their One True Faith might not want to openly admit they base their belief on a hunch.

Which is also why the Marquis' answer if number one. ;)

[Beleth]

It reminds me of a visual analogy C.S. Lewis used in (I believe) Mere Christianity. Faith is a hallway with many doors leading out of it. Some doors lead to rooms you like better than others. Eventually you will find a room you like the best. That's the religion you end up believing.

Me, I never left the hallway. I spent decades in the hallway. Now I spend my time vacillating between the outside of the house (atheism) and the screened-in front porch (Deism).

[MG1962]

Part of what makes the reply so good, so honest and so acceptable is sadly also part of why it's all too rarely used - it has absolutely zero missionary value. If someone has a feeling God exist, that seems (to me) a perfectly good reason to believe in God, but that also means someone without that feeling has as much reason not to do so. Feelings are and have always been worthless for arguments, and those who seek to convert others to their One True Faith might not want to openly admit they base their belief on a hunch.


Thats a great post. And I have often wondered why people get tangled in these - God exists, God doesn't exist debates. Really neither side has any hope of proving the point. Cause when it comes down to it - the answer is deep inside you, totally unfounded, and unprovable.

In the Catholic faith the issue of missionary work often comes up. As pointed out to us. God gives us two choices. Actions or words. We can talk the talk, challenge atheists etc etc. But really we should use those words and actions to inspire rather than convince.

If you brow beat a non believer all you do is get a "Whatever" reaction from them, and why should they react any differently. People like Mother Teresa got down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta for a lifetime. People see her work, and there is a chance some will be inspired and eventually capture the faith she obviously had

So rather than tell people they are wrong, much better to set an example and hope they follow

[Glen.Nogami]

Thats a great post. And I have often wondered why people get tangled in these - God exists, God doesn't exist debates. Really neither side has any hope of proving the point. Cause when it comes down to it - the answer is deep inside you, totally unfounded, and unprovable.

I think there's some evidence on this board that there is some hope of making your point. I know RandFan converted, and I think some others did, too. Also, the answer isn't really unfounded, at least not on the atheist side. Ultimately, the foundation for the atheist answer is the complete lack of scientific evidence.

In the Catholic faith the issue of missionary work often comes up. As pointed out to us. God gives us two choices. Actions or words. We can talk the talk, challenge atheists etc etc. But really we should use those words and actions to inspire rather than convince.

If you brow beat a non believer all you do is get a "Whatever" reaction from them, and why should they react any differently. People like Mother Teresa got down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta for a lifetime. People see her work, and there is a chance some will be inspired and eventually capture the faith she obviously had

So rather than tell people they are wrong, much better to set an example and hope they follow

Unfortunately, setting an example like that provides very little proof for the connection of the faith to the work. Of course, the work may certainly be attributed to the faith, but how about some demonstration that there is something intrinsic in the faith that boosts volunteerism versus standard human altruism?

The damnably obnoxious thing about all this speculation is that we have no control group. Some 90+ percent of the world is in some way religious, and so we don't have the numbers to run a real study. Oh well.

[Danhalen]

Ultimately, the foundation for the atheist answer is the complete lack of scientific evidence.I disagree. Since the question of a deity's existence is beyond scientific inquiry, the lack of falsifiable deity theories has little, if anything, to do with my disbelief. Simply put, I am not compelled to believe there is a deity responsible for the existence of the universe.

[Sceptic Realist]

I disagree. Since the question of a deity's existence is beyond scientific inquiry, the lack of falsifiable deity theories has little, if anything, to do with my disbelief. Simply put, I am not compelled to believe there is a deity responsible for the existence of the universe.

True. And, by the same token (at least for me), I concede that there is a posibility of the existance of a deity or "God" in some form - it's just that it's just as possible there is none. I'm not sure if this makes me fit into the Atheist catergory or not, but I refuse to dismiss the possibility of the existance of such a phenomenon the same as I refuse to dismiss the possibility of it's non - existance.

[Elizabeth I]

...People like Mother Teresa got down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta for a lifetime. People see her work, and there is a chance some will be inspired and eventually capture the faith she obviously had.

So rather than tell people they are wrong, much better to set an example and hope they follow.

Sorry, I'm not impressed by the example she set by urging that contraception be denied to the poor - or to anyone:

From the speech of Mother Teresa of Calcutta to the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, DC, February 3, 1994

"In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self. This turns the attention to self and so it destroys the gift of love in him or her. In loving, the husband and wife must turn the attention to each other as happens in natural family planning, and not to self, as happens in contraception. Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily."
Source: http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html

Except that if contraception is used correctly, there's much less need for abortion.

[Ginarley]

Thats a great post. And I have often wondered why people get tangled in these - God exists, God doesn't exist debates. Really neither side has any hope of proving the point. Cause when it comes down to it - the answer is deep inside you, totally unfounded, and unprovable.

In the Catholic faith the issue of missionary work often comes up. As pointed out to us. God gives us two choices. Actions or words. We can talk the talk, challenge atheists etc etc. But really we should use those words and actions to inspire rather than convince.

If you brow beat a non believer all you do is get a "Whatever" reaction from them, and why should they react any differently. People like Mother Teresa got down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta for a lifetime. People see her work, and there is a chance some will be inspired and eventually capture the faith she obviously had

So rather than tell people they are wrong, much better to set an example and hope they follow

I think the question of whether a deity of some description exists IS an interesting one, but the question of the validity of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Greek mythology, or pastafarianism, is simply a joke. The only reason they have any validity is organisational momentum.

Breaking this momentum takes effort and reason.

Personally there are two things that bother me enough about religion to challenge it directly:

The first is the undeniable way in which churches browbeat belief into their followers day after day - the nature of christian teachings in particular seriously concerns me, all the "be thankful to the lord", "praise the lord", "give obedience to the lord" stuff that incessantly comes out of sermons and even appears on billboards and other public places. This is not a healthy psychological environment to live in. Among other things, it actively interferes with learning by controlling what people see is true or false and granting absolute knowledge to authority - they aren't given a chance to figure life out for themselves.

The second reason is that its so patently stupid what they teach - there may be some reason to believe in spirituality or perhaps a deity if you see it that way, but the bizarre way the religions of today try to portray that is frankly comical - they are simply self perpetuating organisations built on myths and they waste a lot of resources and effort which would be much better used elsewhere.

[Kopji]

"because I feel like it"?

This seems like a really lame answer. More than that, it sounds like nonsense. And the Rabbi was speaking nonsense too. Maybe it's catching, like being around a virus. By that reasoning no religion is answerable for anything. Sweet for them.

How about this dialog:

A: "because I feel like it"

Q: "so what if everyone believed what they felt like"?

A: No no, that's not ok. It's just ok for me to believe what I feel like. (Everyone else will go to hell if they don't come around to how I feel.)

Q: "and if I feel that my God asks that I kill people in his name"?

A: Humm, well sure I guess that must be ok. Oh! I hope I'm not one of them.

[Mashuna]

It reminds me of a visual analogy C.S. Lewis used in (I believe) Mere Christianity. Faith is a hallway with many doors leading out of it. Some doors lead to rooms you like better than others. Eventually you will find a room you like the best. That's the religion you end up believing.

Me, I never left the hallway. I spent decades in the hallway. Now I spend my time vacillating between the outside of the house (atheism) and the screened-in front porch (Deism).

It's good to get out in the fresh air.

[David Swidler]

"because I feel like it"?

This seems like a really lame answer. More than that, it sounds like nonsense. And the Rabbi was speaking nonsense too. Maybe it's catching, like being around a virus. By that reasoning no religion is answerable for anything. Sweet for them.

How about this dialog:

A: "because I feel like it"

Q: "so what if everyone believed what they felt like"?

A: No no, that's not ok. It's just ok for me to believe what I feel like. (Everyone else will go to hell if they don't come around to how I feel.)

Q: "and if I feel that my God asks that I kill people in his name"?

A: Humm, well sure I guess that must be ok. Oh! I hope I'm not one of them.

Wow. Need more straw?

I can't speak for the nice lady in the OP, but the Rabbi wasn't advocating anything like what you wrote. How does "personal fulfillment through a relationship with God" lead to that?

What part of his words "there isn't" indicates to you anything resembling hell for non-believers? Seems to me the opposite. Feel free to enlighten me as to your understanding of that rather plain exchange.

[ReligionStudent]

"because I feel like it"?

This seems like a really lame answer. More than that, it sounds like nonsense. And the Rabbi was speaking nonsense too. Maybe it's catching, like being around a virus. By that reasoning no religion is answerable for anything. Sweet for them.

How about this dialog:

A: "because I feel like it"

Q: "so what if everyone believed what they felt like"?

A: No no, that's not ok. It's just ok for me to believe what I feel like. (Everyone else will go to hell if they don't come around to how I feel.)

Q: "and if I feel that my God asks that I kill people in his name"?

A: Humm, well sure I guess that must be ok. Oh! I hope I'm not one of them.

I have to agree. While the person may have said "Because I feel like it." There is more to it than that. There is some reason they chose Christianity, even if its because she was raised in it and exposed to its arguments and supports. There is some attempt in the person to deside. And even if they had never been asked before, at that very point that she was asked why, she is presented with a choice over believeing or not an must make an active desicion to do so, based on her life experiences and beliefs in the world. At some point, even if it is on a very interior level, there was decision makeing involved.

[Glen.Nogami]

I disagree. Since the question of a deity's existence is beyond scientific inquiry, the lack of falsifiable deity theories has little, if anything, to do with my disbelief. Simply put, I am not compelled to believe there is a deity responsible for the existence of the universe.

That is, of course, a perfectly legitimate reason for you to assume nonexistence of a deity.. I was simply taking exception with the statement that
the answer is deep inside you, totally unfounded, and unprovable.

Unprovable? Probably. Unfounded? No.

[Ossai]

MG1962
If you brow beat a non believer all you do is get a "Whatever" reaction from them, and why should they react any differently. People like Mother Teresa got down and dirty in the slums of Calcutta for a lifetime. People see her work, and there is a chance some will be inspired and eventually capture the faith she obviously had I know it’s a nit pick, but no she didn’t. MT was a sadistic person. She did nothing to abate the suffering of those in India because she believed it got the suffer closer to god. Yet she received the finest medical attention money could buy.

Ossai

[Beerina]

I disagree. Since the question of a deity's existence is beyond scientific inquiry

Only some deities, specifically, those with the properties of "infinite power" (to hide) and "desire to hide". But at that part, parsimmony takes over, and one should wonder if such a being really exists, or if it's the only possible god left after science has stripped everything else away.

[Kopji]

Wow. Need more straw?

I can't speak for the nice lady in the OP, but the Rabbi wasn't advocating anything like what you wrote. How does "personal fulfillment through a relationship with God" lead to that?

What part of his words "there isn't" indicates to you anything resembling hell for non-believers? Seems to me the opposite. Feel free to enlighten me as to your understanding of that rather plain exchange.

No straw, I'm just removing all the theological obfuscation.
How does this not translate to "what's true for me may not be true for you"?

If religion has no responsibility to actually being true in an objective sense, what regulates what can be said or done? Any kind of extremism would certainly be acceptable, as long as someone was 'personally fulfilled' in promoting it.

[NoZed Avenger]

It reminds me of a visual analogy C.S. Lewis used in (I believe) Mere Christianity. Faith is a hallway with many doors leading out of it. Some doors lead to rooms you like better than others. Eventually you will find a room you like the best. That's the religion you end up believing.

Me, I never left the hallway. I spent decades in the hallway. Now I spend my time vacillating between the outside of the house (atheism) and the screened-in front porch (Deism).


And the people hidden in the ductwork or stuffed into the walk-in freezer would . . .



Ah, nevermind. I got nothing.

[ReligionStudent]

No straw, I'm just removing all the theological obfuscation.
How does this not translate to "what's true for me may not be true for you"?

If religion has no responsibility to actually being true in an objective sense, what regulates what can be said or done? Any kind of extremism would certainly be acceptable, as long as someone was 'personally fulfilled' in promoting it.

It's also interesting to notice than so much of the extremism in the world comes from groups that hold to fundamental beliefs in scripture. Liberal interpretation usually seems to come from groups that are more willing to accept other people as well.

So if people, even those of a liberal bent when it comes to interpretation, believe in a holy scripture as at least somhow revealing of gods' will, it seems more logical to argue for the fundamentalist/extremist viewpoint.

[MG1962]

I think there's some evidence on this board that there is some hope of making your point. I know RandFan converted, and I think some others did, too. Also, the answer isn't really unfounded, at least not on the atheist side. Ultimately, the foundation for the atheist answer is the complete lack of scientific evidence.


But I guess the counter question becomes. Show me a scientific study focusing on the existence of God. Lack of evidence doesn't automatically create exclusion. It is like saying Pluto didnt exist before we found it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But I guess the counter question becomes. Show me a scientific study focusing on the existence of God. Lack of evidence doesn't automatically create exclusion. It is like saying Pluto didnt exist before we found it.
No. It's like saying there was no rational basis to believe in Pluto before we found evidence of it.

[MG1962]

I know it’s a nit pick, but no she didn’t. MT was a sadistic person. She did nothing to abate the suffering of those in India because she believed it got the suffer closer to god. Yet she received the finest medical attention money could buy.


Well I am happy to stack her 1979 Nobel peace prize up against Cristopher Hitchens anytime

[MG1962]

No. It's like saying there was no rational basis to believe in Pluto before we found evidence of it.

And thats my point - There was not rational reason. Same with the discovery of Australia. Long before that, people marked a landmass 'Terra Incoginta' because they had a feeling something should be there. There was no logic or scientific principle said a landmass should be there, but cartogrpahers thought the globe looked wrong.

[ReligionStudent]

And thats my point - There was not rational reason. Same with the discovery of Australia. Long before that, people marked a landmass 'Terra Incoginta' because they had a feeling something should be there. There was no logic or scientific principle said a landmass should be there, but cartogrpahers thought the globe looked wrong.

Yes, but now we look at the idea of an off balance globe and laugh, so maybe that isn't the best example. I mean they also thought that there were going to be sea serpents out there.

Just because their is no rational reason to believe in something doesn't mean you should.

Because some peoples' irrational guesses paid off and where right does not mean they all do, the majority don't. I am not going to go to a surgeon that makes guesses about what's wrong with me, I want x-rays and tests.

[MG1962]

Yes, but now we look at the idea of an off balance globe and laugh, so maybe that isn't the best example. I mean they also thought that there were going to be sea serpents out there.

Just because their is no rational reason to believe in something doesn't mean you should.

Because some peoples' irrational guesses paid off and where right does not mean they all do, the majority don't. I am not going to go to a surgeon that makes guesses about what's wrong with me, I want x-rays and tests.

I fear you are missing my point slightly. I am not saying anyone should do anything. My point is although blind faith as a scientific tool is ludircous, it has actually paid off occasionally.

Athiests chose their path for their reasons, those of faith chose theirs. Both sides should respect the other unreservedly

[Marquis de Carabas]

I fear you are missing my point slightly. I am not saying anyone should do anything. My point is although blind faith as a scientific tool is ludircous, it has actually paid off occasionally.
Working a minimum wage job and spending half of every paycheck on lottery tickets sometimes pays off. Going to school and working your ass off yields a much higher average. Of course, anyone should be able to do the former if they so choose. I see no reason whatsoever that I should be expected to respect them for it.

[CapelDodger]

She explained as fully as necessary why she believed in (I think) Roman Catholicism. (She started out a Maronite Christian; conversion was no doubt easy, because she felt like it.)

The Maronite Church is actually Catholic, owing allegiance to Rome. It has a remarkable degree of autonomy for historical and political reasons which I won't digress with. Anyhoo, no conversion was necessary.

This lady may, as you say, be unsophisticated, but she appears to be quite insightful. She recognises the fundamental difference between the two of you - she feels like believing, you don't. Whether that amounts to saying "You feel like disbelieving, so you do" is another matter. I guess you had to be there :) .

[Paulhoff]

It reminds me of a visual analogy C.S. Lewis used in (I believe) Mere Christianity. Faith is a hallway with many doors leading out of it. Some doors lead to rooms you like better than others. Eventually you will find a room you like the best. That's the religion you end up believing.

Me, I never left the hallway. I spent decades in the hallway. Now I spend my time vacillating between the outside of the house (atheism) and the screened-in front porch (Deism).
I think the key word here is ROOMS, they can be so confining.

Paul

:) :) :)

[CapelDodger]

Athiests chose their path for their reasons, those of faith chose theirs. Both sides should respect the other unreservedly

I'll give respect to what I damn' well want to, and I have no respect for blind faith. Most believers are of the belief they were born into. I might as well respect Batty Prince Charlie because of his parentage.

[CapelDodger]

I think the key word here is ROOMS, they can be so confining.

Paul

:) :) :)

That "Faith is a hallway ..." visual analogy thing always makes me think of modern prison design. Substitute "cage" for "room" and there's a whole different feel to it ...

[Paulhoff]

That "Faith is a hallway ..." visual analogy thing always makes me think of modern prison design. Substitute "cage" for "room" and there's a whole different feel to it ...
Well, many people lock the doors themselves. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)

[ReligionStudent]

Well, many people lock the doors themselves. :rolleyes:

Paul

:) :) :)


Yes, but their parents put them in the room and hand them the key to lock the door with most of the time.

And JREF forum members stretch the metaphor.

[Paulhoff]

Yes, but their parents put them in the room and hand them the key to lock the door with most of the time.

And JREF forum members stretch the metaphor.
Yes, but some of us know how to use the key.............

Paul

:) :) :)

[MG1962]

I'll give respect to what I damn' well want to, and I have no respect for blind faith. Most believers are of the belief they were born into. I might as well respect Batty Prince Charlie because of his parentage.

Then I can assume a lack of respect for you would not bother you either, well thats fine. At least we know what games a foot

[Kopji]

It's also interesting to notice than so much of the extremism in the world comes from groups that hold to fundamental beliefs in scripture. Liberal interpretation usually seems to come from groups that are more willing to accept other people as well.

So if people, even those of a liberal bent when it comes to interpretation, believe in a holy scripture as at least somhow revealing of gods' will, it seems more logical to argue for the fundamentalist/extremist viewpoint.

Sorry if I sound offensive in this thread, this is annually a difficult week for a variety of reasons.

Harris touches on this in his book 'The End of Faith' but it is an idea I have difficulty with. I am ok with the liberal end of religious viewpoints. I also see the truth that liberalism in religious belief can form a protective shield over more narrow and extremist views.

Science is fundamentally different than religion in this way: although we may not ever know the truth of something absolutely we can test and examine evidence to increase our knowledge and ask new questions. Scientific knowledge increases and makes progress because all things can't be true. Truth is a regulative principle - not everything can be true, so we test things offered as evidence and decide.

To say that it is ok to base how we act and what we believe entirely on feeling seems like the antithesis of this, no matter how liberal the religion is. Feelings are important and inform our view of the world, but that view must be built on a foundation of reason. We see too much in today's world what happens when we base our worldview entirely on how we feel. We need to stand and say it is time to grow up.

[MG1962]

To say that it is ok to base how we act and what we believe entirely on feeling seems like the antithesis of this, no matter how liberal the religion is. Feelings are important and inform our view of the world, but that view must be built on a foundation of reason. We see too much in today's world what happens when we base our worldview entirely on how we feel. We need to stand and say it is time to grow up.

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you at the same time. There are many elements of our life that are not controled by logic. Our approach to our health relationships etc. Humans are a creature that relies on feeling at a very instinctual level. We cant be rational and based on reason when it comes to things like love. It just isn't the human way

On the other hand there is a real case to answer for in religious racial and cultural intollerence based on feelings and perceptions.

So I guess (for me) the dividing line needs to be based on the impact my feelings have on others. As you suggest fundelmentalism can be very damaging, when projected at others. Yet we look at some elements of the Christian faith who while very fundelmental, retain that attitude within their own community rather that trying to project some form of the truth

[David Swidler]

Sorry if I sound offensive in this thread, this is annually a difficult week for a variety of reasons.

Harris touches on this in his book 'The End of Faith' but it is an idea I have difficulty with. I am ok with the liberal end of religious viewpoints. I also see the truth that liberalism in religious belief can form a protective shield over more narrow and extremist views.

Science is fundamentally different than religion in this way: although we may not ever know the truth of something absolutely we can test and examine evidence to increase our knowledge and ask new questions. Scientific knowledge increases and makes progress because all things can't be true. Truth is a regulative principle - not everything can be true, so we test things offered as evidence and decide.

To say that it is ok to base how we act and what we believe entirely on feeling seems like the antithesis of this, no matter how liberal the religion is. Feelings are important and inform our view of the world, but that view must be built on a foundation of reason. We see too much in today's world what happens when we base our worldview entirely on how we feel. We need to stand and say it is time to grow up.

OK, this post makes your earlier ones much more understandable. And I think we actually think alike, but our premises differ.

The assumption underlying your objection to basing a worldview on feelings is that those feelings are the only thing informing the decision. But that's seldom the case. Any lifestyle choice has its mix of reason and emotion behind it. We're incapable of keeping the two separate in most cases.

Let's take the lady in the OP. You're reading all sots of things into her response. It could just as easily mean, "After weighing the alternatives to the best of my ability according to reason, I can't decide what lifestyle is best, so I let my emotional satisfaction tip the balance" as "It feels good and that's all I care about." Both can be expressed as "I feel like it" when a concise response is called for. There's all sorts of contextual information we're missing that might help determine what she meant, but absent that information, the most revealing thing is not about her, but about how others (choose to?) interpret her words.

As it happens, the Rabbi's world view stems from the first-century BCE Hillel the Elder, who was challenged by a would-be convert to teach him the whole Torah standing on one foot: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. The rest is commentary. Go and learn."

[Kopji]

I see this problem as being the difference between being oriented, and driven by what we believe. I have a rather simple understanding of those two words: Oriented is like what a ship's rudder does, and driven is what wind does with the sails.

If a person is oriented by their beliefs, I can accept the role of feelings.

If beliefs take the form of a system, someone is driven by them. I am not so willing to accept 'feelings' as an adequate response. We can say that it is good to treat others as we wish to be treated, but how should we want to be treated? We cannot answer 'whatever makes us happy' without setting ourselves as an authority.

The question I guess, is if we are to set our course by something in addition to feelings, what is that thing?

I tend to see things like conspiracy theories and belief in the supernatural as essentially rooted in this same inability to choose a course: how to rightly choose between 'this' and 'that'?

[ReligionStudent]

I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you at the same time. There are many elements of our life that are not controled by logic. Our approach to our health relationships etc. Humans are a creature that relies on feeling at a very instinctual level. We cant be rational and based on reason when it comes to things like love. It just isn't the human way

On the other hand there is a real case to answer for in religious racial and cultural intollerence based on feelings and perceptions.

So I guess (for me) the dividing line needs to be based on the impact my feelings have on others. As you suggest fundelmentalism can be very damaging, when projected at others. Yet we look at some elements of the Christian faith who while very fundelmental, retain that attitude within their own community rather that trying to project some form of the truth

While love may not be entirely controlable by logic, going into a relaitionship without logic is what gets women to stay with abusive men, teenagers knocked up at prom, or any number of other terrible relaitions.

And just because fundamentalists keep their opinions to their own community doesn't mean anything. At the very least this can rob their children of choice and the ability to be a for functional member of society, at worst it lets children die because of no blood transfusions or become 12 year old brides to some polygynous jerk.

Non-fundamentalist religion also causes problems of course. Those abortion protesters outside of the hospitol aren't all fundamentalists, and many non-fundamentalists support ID in classroooms.

[sackett]

All I asked her was, "Why do you BELIEVE?" I didn't ask about her actions; I didn't ask how much her various behaviors are driven by her religion. All I really asked about, I realize, was her feelings, and she answered that question.

I should explain that the poor woman suffered a stroke some years back. She drags one leg. She can't manipulate objects very well. Jane's mind is a patchwork of incomprehension, confusion, platitudes, and -- perceptiveness. (When one of my grown nieces visited the pottery class I share with Jane, she instantly said to my niece, "You're a singer, aren't you?" Bingo; Gretl is a semi-professional vocalist. How the hell did that brain-damaged little old lady spot that?)

We aren't accountable for our feelings, and I'm not sure we're even accountable for our concious thoughts. We're certainly accountable for our acts -- but I doubt you could find much in Jane's behavior that has a thing to do with her feeling that she wants to be religious.

Never knew that about the Maronites. The farther back in time you look, the more bizarre Christianism becomes!

[ReligionStudent]

All I asked her was, "Why do you BELIEVE?" I didn't ask about her actions; I didn't ask how much her various behaviors are driven by her religion. All I really asked about, I realize, was her feelings, and she answered that question.

I should explain that the poor woman suffered a stroke some years back. She drags one leg. She can't manipulate objects very well. Jane's mind is a patchwork of incomprehension, confusion, platitudes, and -- perceptiveness. (When one of my grown nieces visited the pottery class I share with Jane, she instantly said to my niece, "You're a singer, aren't you?" Bingo; Gretl is a semi-professional vocalist. How the hell did that brain-damaged little old lady spot that?)

We aren't accountable for our feelings, and I'm not sure we're even accountable for our concious thoughts. We're certainly accountable for our acts -- but I doubt you could find much in Jane's behavior that has a thing to do with her feeling that she wants to be religious.

Never knew that about the Maronites. The farther back in time you look, the more bizarre Christianism becomes!

But at some point you do ask yourself why you feel like that, even if that is only at the point you asked her the question. There is thought involved and a decission. Even if that decission is based on something like the feeling that god has effected one's life.

Even if she just feels like being religious, she chooses to not go become a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindew, etc.

It seems that you are almost arguing that this woman is incapable of looking at religion as more than a feeling and at any point in her entire life have thought about why she is Christian or why she is not Jewish (maybe the answer is that Jesus was a good person, but that does not make it a feeling and not a choice).

[sackett]

Yes, I am saying that Jane is incapable of looking at religion as more than a feeling. I suspect that a whopping whale of a majority of believers are the same way.

The small number of religious people who think about their religion coherently, perhaps even questioning their beliefs, and who yet remain believers, do so because they feel like it. I'd say that there's no other reason, and can be no other reason.

[Glen.Nogami]

Well I am happy to stack her 1979 Nobel peace prize up against Cristopher Hitchens anytime

Nobel Peace Prize? Like the one they gave to Kissinger and Arafat?

At this point, I'd almost be embarassed if they gave me that thing.

[ReligionStudent]

Yes, I am saying that Jane is incapable of looking at religion as more than a feeling. I suspect that a whopping whale of a majority of believers are the same way.

The small number of religious people who think about their religion coherently, perhaps even questioning their beliefs, and who yet remain believers, do so because they feel like it. I'd say that there's no other reason, and can be no other reason.

So she has never, in her entire life, met someone of another faith or no faith and realized/known that she is not their faith for some reason, even if that reason is completely Christian centric, such as the thought that she would go to hell?

I really don't think so. Being a specific religion, especially in a plauralistic society like ours, entails the knowledge that their are other choices and at some point a decision beyond feeling to be a member of a faith. In such situations one does not just feel Christian, maybe one follows blindly the faith they were born into, but there is still a choice involved not just a feeling. I believe saying that you just feel a specific faith ignores the actual reasons/problems behind your beliefs.

[ReligionStudent]

Nobel Peace Prize? Like the one they gave to Kissinger and Arafat?

Kissinger has been accused of various war crimes right?

[Glen.Nogami]

Kissinger has been accused of various war crimes right?

Yeah, that was the point.

ETA: Also, in the Nobel Peace Prize front, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all nominated at one point, and Teddy Roosevelt and Yitzhak Rabin also won.

[MG1962]

Yeah, that was the point.

ETA: Also, in the Nobel Peace Prize front, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all nominated at one point, and Teddy Roosevelt and Yitzhak Rabin also won.

Yes and you gloss over the fact they were nominated and didn't win. Anyone can be nominated.

But lets look at Kissinger - what was the nomination for, and who was the joint nominee?

As with Arafat - Again who was the joint winner and why.

To quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving an issue, or creating world peace rather than upon the resolution of the issue. Since the Prize can be given to individuals involved in ongoing peace processes, some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable, particularly when those processes failed to bear lasting fruit

Hindsight can be a valuable tool sometimes, cant it

[ReligionStudent]

Yeah, that was the point.

ETA: Also, in the Nobel Peace Prize front, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini were all nominated at one point, and Teddy Roosevelt and Yitzhak Rabin also won.

Yea I think Rush Limbaugh was nominated too, and he is a war mongering bigot.

[sackett]

...I believe saying that you just feel a specific faith ignores the actual reasons/problems behind your beliefs.

I believe that too. I also believe that 99.99% of religious people cheerfully ignore the problems inherent in their faiths. They just drive BLOOMP! right over them.

Religion isn't something you think, it's something you feel. And I have the testimony of a holy innocent to back me up.

[ReligionStudent]

Yes and you gloss over the fact they were nominated and didn't win. Anyone can be nominated.

But lets look at Kissinger - what was the nomination for, and who was the joint nominee?

As with Arafat - Again who was the joint winner and why.

To quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving an issue, or creating world peace rather than upon the resolution of the issue. Since the Prize can be given to individuals involved in ongoing peace processes, some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable, particularly when those processes failed to bear lasting fruit

Hindsight can be a valuable tool sometimes, cant it

I think the point here is that it is not a reliable judge of a person's character.

[CapelDodger]

Then I can assume a lack of respect for you would not bother you either, well thats fine. At least we know what games a foot

Or at least that the game's not "Intellectual Relativism".

[Glen.Nogami]

Yes and you gloss over the fact they were nominated and didn't win. Anyone can be nominated.

But lets look at Kissinger - what was the nomination for, and who was the joint nominee?

As with Arafat - Again who was the joint winner and why.

To quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_peace_prize

Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, the Nobel Peace Prize may be awarded to persons or organizations that are in the process of resolving an issue, or creating world peace rather than upon the resolution of the issue. Since the Prize can be given to individuals involved in ongoing peace processes, some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable, particularly when those processes failed to bear lasting fruit

Hindsight can be a valuable tool sometimes, cant it

First, no, I did not "gloss over" the fact that they did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Just in case, though:
Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini have never won any sort of Nobel Peace Prize. I do not imply otherwise.

Sufficient?

Anyway. The point was not an indictment of Teresa's character. Rather, the point was that a Nobel Peace Prize is a poor indicator of her character. As Wiki says,

some of the awards now appear, with hindsight, questionable

Could it not be so for Mother Teresa's?

[CapelDodger]

I see this problem as being the difference between being oriented, and driven by what we believe. I have a rather simple understanding of those two words: Oriented is like what a ship's rudder does, and driven is what wind does with the sails.

A useful analogy.

It's important not to over-estimate the driving influence of religion. History tends to report conflicts, crises and bursts of hysteria; biography reports on activists, who are generally in the minority. The common experience of religion is a comfortable, undemanding, and useful aspect of life. Blissed-out zealotry or the Spanish Inquisition are not by any means the norm.

The general experience of religion is as a rudder. Hatched, matched and despatched without any great demands being made. Religions are shaped to fit their societies as much as vice versa.

It's easy to forget that today, but think back to '79 before the Iranian Revolution and the fundie surge in the US. Religion was entirely under the radar. Even Palestine was still a secular, nationalist issue. Who saw this coming? OK, Frank Herbert, but who else?

[CapelDodger]

I think the point here is that it is not a reliable judge of a person's character.

To make a wider point, Milton Friedman got a Nobel Prize for Economics.

The science prizes carry the kudos. Only after the dust has completely settled do they get awarded.

[CapelDodger]

... Yitzhak Rabin also won.

And look where it got him. Shot in the back by a believer. (It wasn't the gun that killed him, it was the believer.)

[CapelDodger]

I believe that too. I also believe that 99.99% of religious people cheerfully ignore the problems inherent in their faiths. They just drive BLOOMP! right over them.

I tend to the view that they just don't drive there at all.

Religion isn't something you think, it's something you feel. And I have the testimony of a holy innocent to back me up.

Religion can be something people do. It brings them attention, it brings them status and the respect of a certain audience. It may well be the only way they'll get it, which makes their belief even more intransigent. In this regard religion is no different from a conspiracy theory or an ideology. When you're a big fish in a small pool, you sure as heck believe in the pool.

[Kopji]

From my bag of life stories.

I remember a lady 'Carol' I knew when I was younger - she had a tiny bit of a beard. This was an effect of some kind of chromosome disorder that also left her slightly mentally retarded (is that pc?)

Anyway, that's how I had thought of her - "the bearded retarded lady" until a common friend of ours was killed in a motorcycle accident. It had not occurred to me until then how much like a child she was, and our shared grief was an emotional struggle she needed help with like a child might.

Somewhere in the process it became impossible to think of her as the 'bearded retarded lady' any more.

We went to her house to visit, and in her room were piles and piles of little yarn flowers about three inches tall. Carol worked at the local GoodWill industry, and in her spare time knitted little yarn flowers. She would walk up to the local hospital and give them away to patients, she would always have few with her in her bag.

To find a room full of them was startling, it was a sudden realization that she understood something that I still struggle with. I have one of her little flowers on my shelf to remind me of my lesson, and it represents what I think you mean by 'because I feel like it'.

The word I would use rather than 'feeling', is 'arete'. There is not an easy translation from the Greek, but it essentially means 'excellence'. The yarn flowers express a kind of virtue that is not religion, science, feeling, or reason. They are a kind of excellence that arose from her life as it was lived.

I did not ever ask her why she believed, (and what she believed would make her a great sinner in some people's eyes). 'Belief' was just not a question that would get to the core of her actions. The flowers were more like the work of an artist, and belief was just another outward aspect of a deeper thing.

[sackett]

An excellent post, Kopji. I think that Carol, and you, will be enrolled among the righteous.

My poor Jane isn’t capable of knitting, but she makes clay objects, little shapeless things she calls penny-dishes and gives away freely. She also makes even more shapeless objects, some larger, some smaller, that would be hard to characterize as anything; a five-year-old could do better.

But, funny thing, her work was included in last year’s Student Show at Pewabic (we all get to exhibit a piece or two) – and, arranged with great artfulness by a talented curator, it came out quite striking. The title (Jane may not have chosen it) was “Soup For Us,” and it somehow conveyed the idea of a nurturing community: Just little lumpish upright things, hardly to be called even figurines, and a roughly basin-shaped form in the middle. If Louise Nevelson had made it (or if critics were told that she had made it), the price-tag would be well into the upper five figures, and all manner of meaning would be found in it. “Museum quality!” somebody would exclaim, and, of course, they wouldn’t be wrong.

[ReligionStudent]

An excellent post, Kopji. I think that Carol, and you, will be enrolled among the righteous.

My poor Jane isn’t capable of knitting, but she makes clay objects, little shapeless things she calls penny-dishes and gives away freely. She also makes even more shapeless objects, some larger, some smaller, that would be hard to characterize as anything; a five-year-old could do better.

But, funny thing, her work was included in last year’s Student Show at Pewabic (we all get to exhibit a piece or two) – and, arranged with great artfulness by a talented curator, it came out quite striking. The title (Jane may not have chosen it) was “Soup For Us,” and it somehow conveyed the idea of a nurturing community: Just little lumpish upright things, hardly to be called even figurines, and a roughly basin-shaped form in the middle. If Louise Nevelson had made it (or if critics were told that she had made it), the price-tag would be well into the upper five figures, and all manner of meaning would be found in it. “Museum quality!” somebody would exclaim, and, of course, they wouldn’t be wrong.

I certainly do not want to make it seem like I do not think that people who say they believe because they feel like it are any less human, any less important, or in any way any less than anyone else. And I certainly would praise them for any of their creations. I am especially happy to hear anything about someone who knits

[Paulhoff]

But, funny thing, her work was included in last year’s Student Show at Pewabic (we all get to exhibit a piece or two) – and, arranged with great artfulness by a talented curator, it came out quite striking.
Any pictures...............:)

Paul

:) :) :)