|
Jesus wasn't saying, "love people despite their sins", his message was "love people because of their sins".
For some reason, I found this very interesting. Do you have any references that might point a little more into what you are saying?
Also, you said "God doesn't need love" and while that may be true, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was he replied "Love your God with all your heart ..." So while it might be debatable as to whether or not he truly "needs" us to love Him, He did ask us to.
Also, he then went on to say to "Love your neighbor as yourself". Sin really doesn't come into the equation (as I see it). I just don't think that sin has anything to do with whether or not to love.
|
|
Non-Christians are no longer tolerated in many places by a growing number of people: people who seem convinced that we need a "Culture War" to "retake America from those secular-progressivist heathens." I personally have to be very careful here in Texas not to let on around most people that I'm not a Christian, lest I be socially and professionally ostrasized.
Bleah... (and I am sorry that it is happening.)
Quick question though -- do you think that this is "simply" another shift of the "pendulum", just something happening because of the election year, or perhaps something else?
Jesus wasn't saying, "love people despite their sins", his message was "love people because of their sins".For some reason, I found this very interesting. Do you have any references that might point a little more into what you are saying?
I'd be interested in some reference as well. Jesus was indeed unequivocal in his love for all, regardless of their sin. However, he was also unequivocal in his call for someone he's loved to the point of redemption to "sin no more."
Also, you said "God doesn't need love" and while that may be true, when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was he replied "Love your God with all your heart ..." So while it might be debatable as to whether or not he truly "needs" us to love Him, He did ask us to.
Also, he then went on to say to "Love your neighbor as yourself". Sin really doesn't come into the equation (as I see it). I just don't think that sin has anything to do with whether or not to love.
I would agree--sin is not a factor for love at all. It would be very strange for us as Christians to love humans because of sin, as that would logically preclude loving Jesus (who was fully human by my understanding) yet without sin.
Agreed on the point of loving God as well--our ultimate call is not to proselytize, improve ourselves, or any such thing. Our ultimates call is to love God. All other things, including love for self and others, flows from that point.
Quick question though -- do you think that this is "simply" another shift of the "pendulum", just something happening because of the election year, or perhaps something else?
The election year is showing it more clearly, but it's been building. I recall reading somewhere that we're in the midst of the one of the two largest upsurges of fundamentalism in U.S. history (the other was just after the Civil War, and marked the first time "In God We Trust" appeared on the currency). In the '50's we had a big anti-communist Christian push; the national anthem was altered, and the motto changed from "E. Pluribus Unum" to the now-ubiquitous "in God we trust." But that didn't last long; Kennedy (a Catholic) was elected -- many say by shady means, but no matter, he was mourned when he went. That sort of blunted the Protestant fundamentalism. But it's back now in a big way. Some overwhelming % of Americans say they'd never vote for an atheist, nor allow their daughters to marry/date non-Christians.
What bothers me even more than the obnoxious aggressive Christianity, though, is the "faith-based" reasoning that seems in part to be feeding it. And by "faith" in this case I don't mean Christian faith, I mean random opinions not rooted in any verifiable fact. Listen to any debate regarding global warming. Half the participants will scoff and call it a hoax; the other half will claim it's "proven" and that it's the end of the world. None of them know ANYTHING AT ALL about climate science. Same deal with the whole evolution vs. creationism/ID debate -- Ben Stein's movie is a timely addition -- both sides arguing from a lack of understanding of the other. Has Richard Dawkins ever actually read the Bible? I doubt it. On the other hand, not one of the ID advocates I've seen yet (with one exception, Michael Behe) has the vaguest idea what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection actually states; they repeat the same anti- arguments ad nauseum which, rather than "assailing Darwinism," do nothing but highlight the fact that they have no idea what they're talking about.
But people seemingly no longer care that they're arguing from total ignorance; if you call them on it, they say things like "well, I have values, and that's more important!" Christians I have no problem with. People who insist we all become benighted, ignorant, superstitious bigots (whether those people happen to call themselves Christians or Atheists or Republicans or Democrats) make me cringe. Unfortunately, a lot of those people seem to be anxious to self-identify as "Christians." In my view, that's bad for the faith, and bad for everyone outside of it as well. Just bad all around.
People who insist we all become benighted, ignorant, superstitious bigots (whether those people happen to call themselves Christians or Atheists or Republicans or Democrats) make me cringe.
I was going to note something about this (I'm a bit sensitive to the "Aggressive Christian" argument when it doesn't also acknowledge other groups' aggressiveness) but you did it for me! We agree on this position. I've noted not just a shift in the Christian approach, but rather in the overall ability to dialogue about anything from science to religion to politics.
|
|
What bothers me even more than the obnoxious aggressive Christianity, though, is the "faith-based" reasoning that seems in part to be feeding it. And by "faith" in this case I don't mean Christian faith, I mean random opinions not rooted in any verifiable fact.
Kirth -- you ok? You seem a little more angry than usual. Just checking.
I understand and agree with what you are saying. I saw Ben Stein's movie as well -- and will have to say that I really don't have enough knowledge (even after seeing the movie) to really debate the issues. At the same time, I felt that Ben's ultimate point was that until something more concrete comes up, that intelligent design should at least be as much a possibility as alien "seeding" is (as was mentioned in the movie). At least that's what I got out of it -- and not saying it's "right" or "wrong", just that that was what appeared to be his overall point to me.
I felt that Ben's ultimate point was that until something more concrete comes up, that intelligent design should at least be as much a possibility as alien "seeding" is (as was mentioned in the movie).
Yeah, I'm OK, Moff -- thanks for asking, that really means a lot to me, by the way. I'm just getting worn down. I recently learned that I'm barred by law from ever holding any public office in Texas, because I don't "acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord of all, and the ultimate guide to all of my decisions," and don't ackowledge "Christianity as the one true religion, and the foundation of our nation." I may have misquoted slightly, but that's the gist of it. No religious test for office indeed! Not that I was thinking about running, but it was icing on the cake. That was a slightly older law -- maybe it's been overturned, although I haven't seen anything about that happening, but South Carolina ratified a similar statement in 2006.
Anyway, back on topic. Intelligent design is actually one up on "alien seeding" -- because although neither of them rests on any physical evidence, at least "ID" has the grace to attack the theory of evolution, whereas alien seeding has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Presenting an off-hand nonsense comment like that as if it's part of the theory is a bit misleading. (For the record, the theory of evolution says nothing at all about the origin of life, save that the earliest organisms were less complex and had less variety than the ones we see currently.)
|
Ah, the wit and wisdom of Ben Stein... Take a look at this:
Science Equals Murder:
In an interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network, Ben Stein said the following amazing thing in an interview with Paul Crouch, Jr.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you.
Crouch: That’s right.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Crouch: Good word, good word.
From, of all places, The National Review! Why anyone would want to pay any attention to this character is beyond me.
Moff Rimmer: I have not been uncivil. You have been going out of your way to misinterpret what I am saying, mostly using misquotes and quotes taken out of context. It makes me wonder what I've done to upset you.
I have not in any way, shape or form, criticized this thread. I repeat that: I have not criticized this thread.
I have not said that anything anyone said here was ridiculous. I repeat that too: I have not said that anything here was ridiculous.
The point of my post was that when religious people demand observance of the tenets of their religion by people not of their religion, they want something none of us are able to give. Even if we wanted, we could not observe the tenets of all religious movements. We couldn't do it if we devoted our entire lives to ONLY doing that. We couldn't even find out HOW to do it if we devoted our entire lives to ONLY doing THAT. There are many thousands of moderately small to largish to massively huge religious movements, and this is what I mean by saying an effort to live in accordance with their tenets is RIDICULOUS.
To which you could say: But you only have to do this with religions of people who are nearby. No, because this goes just as much for newspapers, schooling systems and so on. Massive numbers of religions have people who read New York Times, and they can't do this either.
Another argument could be: But really, the only important religion to respect is the one I am from, who cares about the rest of them? The answer to that is that it would be the height of hypocrisy to reason this way, and really not worthy of respect.
So how do well-meaning people adapt to these demands? As I said, everyone is entitled to basic courtesy. Every other demand is, and must be, off limits. If religious people can't handle that, they should rethink their religion and what it demands of its environment.
Moff Rimmer: Don't answer this if you do so only to find things to get angry about. Please answer it if you seriously wish to discuss what I have said.
Stein: When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers [i.e. biologist P.Z. Myers], talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Hmmm. I'm led to understand that my grandfather fled Germany before the Nazis could round him up, so I've got a horse in this race as well.
I am a scientist. So was Albert Einstein. So was Albert Schweitzer. The men at the showers were not; they were butchers.
Science is explanatory in function, not commanding. It provides explanations for observations about the natural world; it doesn't tell you what to do. Stein conveniently forgets that science has led to cures for any number of horrifying diseases, alleviating untold amounts of suffering. Science didn't lead to the death camps; fanatics did.
This was directly as a response to what you, Moff Rimmer, posted to my post. I do not know of anyone named Ben who has said anything about this.
|
|
The point of my post was that when religious people demand observance of the tenets of their religion by people not of their religion, they want something none of us are able to give. Even if we wanted, we could not observe the tenets of all religious movements. We couldn't do it if we devoted our entire lives to ONLY doing that. We couldn't even find out HOW to do it if we devoted our entire lives to ONLY doing THAT. There are many thousands of moderately small to largish to massively huge religious movements, and this is what I mean by saying an effort to live in accordance with their tenets is RIDICULOUS.
Ok, so it looks like this is really the point of things. But I'm still not entirely sure where this comes from. At worst, it appears to me that all religions want you to follow their tenets -- not all tenets. Who is asking you to follow all religious tenets?
To which you could say: But you only have to do this with religions of people who are nearby. No, because this goes just as much for newspapers, schooling systems and so on. Massive numbers of religions have people who read New York Times, and they can't do this either.
Another argument could be: But really, the only important religion to respect is the one I am from, who cares about the rest of them? The answer to that is that it would be the height of hypocrisy to reason this way, and really not worthy of respect.
So how do well-meaning people adapt to these demands? As I said, everyone is entitled to basic courtesy. Every other demand is, and must be, off limits. If religious people can't handle that, they should rethink their religion and what it demands of its environment.
Then you mention these things which seem to imply that you follow what each individual group is telling you to believe or follow or what have you.
I'm not angry. I was just trying to figure out what you were saying.
How does anyone do this with anything? Be it politics, religion, global warming, or what have you. Truthfully, I don't think that anyone expects everyone to follow everything. I have a hard enough time following the "tenets" of Christianity. How can I possibly expect others to follow all edicts of all religions?
So -- "How do well-meaning people adapt to these demands?" You are right -- it would be impossible to adapt to every possible religion in its entirety.
But even with that (since you already knew the answer), it still didn't look like you were looking for an answer to that question. Your post still felt like a rant to me. Something along the lines of "will people please stop trying to push their beliefs on me." And while I understand the frustration with that, I have done my best to be careful not to do just that.
Something along the lines of "will people please stop trying to push their beliefs on me." And while I understand the frustration with that, I have done my best to be careful not to do just that.
One of the reasons I consider you a friend, Moff (and Erian as well).
I can sympathize with Corian's feeling the need to rant, to a large extent. In high school, my brother was harassed and even beaten up semi-regularly for being a "jewboy" (he was actually agnostic, as near as I can tell, but no matter). Last time my wife ran a race, everyone at the Houston marathon had to participate in a Christian prayer, led by the mayor himself. That's a bit much for me, but I sucked it up because my wife was competing. In the army, I was told by my squad leader: "Chapel is on Sunday. Legally, I am not allowed to order you to attend Christian services. But hear me well -- you WILL go to church!" Do these people force you to follow Christian tenets? Well, no, but they force you to pay lip service to them. And the last time I ran out of beer in South Carolina and found myself in the grocery store on Sunday... well, no beer that week, because supposedly it's "against God" to sell alcohol on the "holy day." Not just to sell it to Christians, but to sell it to anyone.
No, no one is being told to follow all religious beliefs. But the majority (and in much of the U.S., that's fundamental Protestants, by a large margin) has a way of making you step into line with their particular beliefs, like it or not. That's the "tyranny of the majority" that James Madison so wisely spoke against.
Stein: …Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.
Huh. Interestingly enough, science has led me TOO compassion because it has humbled me. Since we are all more or less equal in the eyes of science and the physical laws that govern the universe, there can be no claim to natural superiority that is rooted in anything but human arrogance.
You say that following ALL edicts of ALL religions is impossible... yet ignore the follow-up question: Why should I respect one religion I am not part of, and not another? Are the religious feelings of mainstream catholicism more important not to hurt than those of muslims?
There are two demands in this:
"I want you to respect MY religious feelings by observing the tenets of MY religion, don't worry about those other religions and their tenets" - this is hypocrisy, and should never be taken seriously by anyone. In effect, it says that you should follow certain tenets because hurting the religious feelings of the one demanding this is worse than hurting the religious feelings of other people.
"I want you to respect the religious feelings of EVERYONE by observing the tenets of ALL religions" - this has some moral merit that the other kind lacks, but is sadly utterly impossible due to the sheer volume of work involved.
So, neither is acceptable basis for changing any sort of behaviour. People should follow the tenets of whatever religion (if any) they follow, and extend basic courtesy to all other people. Those religions that can't accept this are in the wrong.
And yes, it is a rant. Even so, it's an important point that so many people today miss.
|
|
Why should I respect one religion I am not part of, and not another?
So your question really is -- Why is Christianity (or any other religion) right (or more right) than any other religion?
Eventually it needs to come down to the individual in question. That person needs to ask himself/herself what they want out of the religion (or lack of religion). In some cases a comparative analysis might be helpful. Possibly watching the actions of others as well.
But in any case, I believe that this site has shown that trying to push or force people to believe or act or behave a certain way because they feel it is "right" generally has an overall negative reaction rather than a positive one.
Something that (as you point out) it would be good if more people would take note of.
EDIT: An additional thought...
Why are there only the two options? Why are the only options 1) You (the non-believing whatever) MUST follow all my beliefs or 2) You (the non-believing whatever) MUST follow ALL beliefs? I feel like I understand what you are saying with the two points, but is there really absolutely no room for any other options?
|
|
Are the religious feelings of mainstream catholicism more important not to hurt than those of muslims?
I apologize -- I still feel like I am missing points that you are trying to make...
Are you saying that we (religious peoples) want you (non-believers) to follow what we want you to do simply so that we are not offended? Is that what you are saying?
(And please be patient with me. I feel like you have some really good insight -- I'm just trying to understand it.)
Hmmm. It may be that there are more options. These two were really just all I could think of that were based on the "you mustn't hurt people's religious feelings". There are other possible arguments for following tenets of various religions, such as perhaps some of them are the law somewhere, but I am really just discussing those based on respecting others' religious feelings. Feel free to suggest other alternatives to my two options. =)
And mainstream catholicism and islam were really only examples. Substitute with methodist/flying spaghetti monsterism/buddhism/judaism/presbyterian/calvinist/jehova's witnesses or anything you like.
My main point is: live and let live. Don't force your beliefs on anyone not part of your religious movement. It's a really good idea too: without this, we get intolerance at scales we've never even been able to imagine before. And yes: many religious people act every day to force nonbelievers into following the tenets of their religions. This is things like censoring stuff in the newspapers that doesn't follow your tenets, not selling alcohol to anyone on sundays, and so on.
When someone tells me they believe in astrology, I nod and smile. Good for them, I think. Really. I'm sincerely happy that they're happy.
When they then invariably tell me who I am, relating what they think they know about me back to their belief system, I politely ask them not to.
When they bring that @!$# a third time I tell them what I really think about the hubris of believing we're so imporant that the stars are there to tell us when we're going to get laid or when best to go for that job interview, and I promise you it is a professorial reading down.
"So a baby born next to me at the same time in the same hospital is going to turn out much like me, with the same predilections and chances in this life? What are you... early man?"
One more person tells me, [vomitdie]"You capricorns..."[/vomitdie]
Twice, I've had unblinking freaks approach me on secluded woodland paths and ask me if I've taken Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. Cue horror music. Sometimes I choose to just agree with everything they say because I find it sort of upsets them. They're really looking to convert. This one southern kid on a train back in '92 kept reciting stuff from Romans about the circumcision of the jews and it was such out-of-context nonsense, but he had three other young people in his tiny cult and they were rapt. One was an 18 year old guy from Italy who somehow got sucked in and was partially paying for them all to travel. I just kept nodding until the train stopped and then shut off my dictation machine. I saved the entire conversation because it was just so deranged and specific. It would have been hard to write. I always save conversations with nutjobs.
|
|
... "you mustn't hurt people's religious feelings".
"feelings" -- that's really the touchy part. I feel like it is similar to "sexual harassment". I could say something that I feel is perfectly "safe" and it could still be looked at by one person as insulting even though that never was the intent.
I agree with you -- "live and let live". But I also feel like people need to get a backbone and understand that just because someone else says something or does something that is contrary to your beliefs, that you shouldn't feel "hurt" or "offended". If I say "Merry Christmas", regardless of what your beliefs are, people should still at least understand that all I'm trying to do is be nice. Otherwise you would end up being paranoid about saying or doing anything for fear of offending someone or hurting their feelings.
Now you got me ranting.
At least we will be able to buy alcohol in Colorado on Sundays soon. (Apparently)
|
|
This one southern kid on a train back in '92 kept reciting stuff from Romans about the circumcision of the jews and it was such out-of-context nonsense, but he had three other young people in his tiny cult and they were rapt. One was an 18 year old guy from Italy who somehow got sucked in and was partially paying for them all to travel. I just kept nodding until the train stopped and then shut off my dictation machine. I saved the entire conversation because it was just so deranged and specific. It would have been hard to write. I always save conversations with nutjobs.
I would love to hear that. Sounds priceless.
I would love to hear that. Sounds priceless.
It's one of my many tapes. I'll try and dig it up and make a wav file.
If I say "Merry Christmas", regardless of what your beliefs are, people should still at least understand that all I'm trying to do is be nice.
Right on! I love when people say "Merry Christmas" to me; it's pleasant to be greeted instead of ignored. I like Christmas trees a lot, too, and would like to see more of them on display during the second half of December. The lights are pretty, and the fir trees smell equally nice to people of any faith.
I just hate it when, increasingly, people don't stop there, though, and feel the need to start ranting about how "Christmas is the One True Holiday and this country was founded personally by God using Judeo-Christian values and didn't you realize that the Constitution is just taken out of the Bible and anyone who doesn't celebrate Christmas or who says "happy holidays" has no values and is going to hell and I wish that would happen to them all RIGHT NOW and if you're one of them I wish I could just shoot you and in fact please say something anything because if you do then I can claim I was afraid for my life because we all know that only Christians have morals and I could gun you down like the true noble virtuous culture warrior for God I am and then we'd be one step closer to going back to a Christian paradise where everything was perfect and the founding fathers had angels over to Christmas dinner before you heathens showed up and ruined everything!" And, yes, I hear rants like that relatively often, if I'm so bold as to offer in return a "happy holidays," or a simple "thanks!" or anything other than a "Merry Christmas And God Bless."
Thankfully, most often Paizo is free of those rants. Is it any wonder I post here so often?
I ... need ... to hear this...It's one of my many tapes. I'll try and dig it up and make a wav file.I would love to hear that. Sounds priceless.
Consider me motivated. :)
|
|
Kirth -- man, did someone piss in your Cheerios last Christmas (or was that Sebastian)?
Either a) I'm apparently immune to this sentiment since I am apparently lumped in with that sect, b) the sentiment is much more regional and isn't happening as much where I'm at, or c) I have just really lost touch with current events since they generally make me angry anyway and so I choose not to watch much of the news and such.
For what it's worth, I think that I hate it more than you even -- since often times it directly is a reflection on what I supposedly believe.
It doesn't take many freaks, does it?
It doesn't take many freaks, does it?
No sir, that it doesn't. Thanks for listening (/reading) by the way. I just felt the need to vent a bit there; I'm over it now. In answer to your question, maybe it is just regional; I do live in Texas, after all. After 5 years, I should be used to it by now. I do try hard to assimilate, and I don't offend the local freaks, because they are entirely correct in one point: "if you don't like the way it is here, you can always leave." Still, sometimes I get a bit down, like I said earlier. My non-freak, Christian fellow Paizoans like you and Erian always cheer me up.
And I still love Christmas trees.
...And nothing says "Christmas" like a Hallmark Borg Ship ornament. :-)
It always interests me when the Borg are brought up in a discussion about religion.
|
I hate Christmas. Nothing to do with religion, in fact, just the opposite.
In my family, growing up, Christmas always meant spending s++!loads of money on people you'd met once, sending out hundreds of cards to my father's employees (which I had to address - wacky fun for a ten-year-old), and catering to my parents' bizarre (in a bad way) relatives.
Christmas was never about religion. I can't remember going to Christmas Eve mass once. Instead, it was about greed, about pandering to the right people so they'd pay you.
And that's why the sky is blue, kids.
Put me down for feeling completely indifferent toward Baby Jesus Day. I've just seen too much b&*#+~~+ dragged into the celebration.
Now my daughter loves it, and I love her loving it, which gets me pretty excited, but then that's not because of Christmas but because I love my little girl.
I actually tend to agree. However, many people unfortunately don't actually know what they believe, be it religion or some other subject. They "lock in" on something, whether due to cultural influence, heritage, etc. and then isolate themselves from exposure to alternate concepts because that path leads to uncertainty. And again as Moff noted, we humans don't often like the unknown.Pesonally I have never really understood why reading certain books would shake the foundation of a religion. I would think that it would be good to read books filled with 'hereasy' because then you would have to make sure that you really did believe all of the things that you thought you did.
Thanks for all of the explanations.
Exactly! I would think that reading something that questioned your beliefs would make you answer those questions for yourself, and if you could do that then it would mean that the belief truly was right for you.
The truth is, Christianity (and most religions, for that matter) is not easy. It is not mass-marketable. What one might call "Cultural Christians"--those that self-identify as Christians due more to cultural influence than actual maturity of faith--may indeed have their religion shaken by reading a single book that is counter to their notions.
I would agree with you on that as well. I have respect for the Christians that truly know what they believe instead of just agreeing with what the church or their family says.
I have high respect for those who live according to the values they believe in, even if it costs them something, naturally somewhat dependent on the values. For example, I have met very impressive people who are christians, who act in good ways and don't force their beliefs down the throats of those who don't want to listen. This is a fact, and I wonder if it's not part of why people consider religion a necessity for living a good life.
However, it's not. Thing is, anyone acting in a morally well thought-out manner lives a good life, and can be an inspiration to anyone. But doesn't religion give us morals? Absolutely not. We are moral creatures, we understand what is good and what is not. However, in complex situations, it's very important that you make a moral standard of your own. Now, anyone can do this, and not only from religious sources. Fact is, even if you DO get your morals from the bible, or the quran, you STILL need to choose how to evaluate various parts of the teachings of those books.
It should be obvious that even deeply religious people can do horrible things, and some can't even see that these things are horrible even to their religious teachings.
There was an interesting study made about this subject. You took a number of fundamentalist religious people and a number of atheists, and put the question "if you would suffer no consequences of it from the outside world, would you kill a helpless man?" to them. Everyone answered "No." Then you asked them "if you knew there was no God, and you would suffer no outside consequences for doing so, would you kill a helpless man?" The atheists said "No." But the religious people...
Many of them apparently answered "Yes."
This shows something interesting: Morals are either based on external codices like the bible or other texts, or the individual struggles to find a set of morals he can accept for himself. Now... given this, it's understandable if religious people, who generally tend to assume morality is dependent on religious teachings, see atheists as dangerous. Simply put, religious people can't see that atheists have ANY morals.
There was an interesting study made about this subject. You took a number of fundamentalist religious people and a number of atheists, and put the question "if you would suffer no consequences of it from the outside world, would you kill a helpless man?" to them. Everyone answered "No." Then you asked them "if you knew there was no God, and you would suffer no outside consequences for doing so, would you kill a helpless man?" The atheists said "No." But the religious people...Many of them apparently answered "Yes."
I'd like to see a cite for this study so I can look at it myself 'cause I don't buy it. I simply don't believe that humans give up their morality that easily. Without some kind of context or a reference so that the study can be looked up the whole paragraph simply strikes me as being inflammatory.
That said I think you might be on to something interesting with the idea of looking at where our beliefs and values come from. Specifically it would be interesting to study if human behaviour changes if one believes that their moral imperatives come from an outside source (such as a holy book or holy teachings) versus the belief that ones moral imperative comes some how from inside oneself.
My hypothesis would be that their really is no true difference. Most of our morality is probably instilled into us at a fairly young age - too young to really understand religious teachings as something separate from other rules and therefore not really different from the same kind of moral foundation that would be laid in a more secular family.
After that its simply a matter of refining our morality and in this case one is basically just picking and choosing from what sources one chooses to take their morality which can be anything from advice of a trusted minister, arguments found in an animal rights book, paragraphs from a holy text or oratory from an impassioned university professor.
There was an interesting study made about this subject. You took a number of fundamentalist religious people and a number of atheists, and put the question "if you would suffer no consequences of it from the outside world, would you kill a helpless man?" to them. Everyone answered "No." Then you asked them "if you knew there was no God, and you would suffer no outside consequences for doing so, would you kill a helpless man?" The atheists said "No." But the religious people...Many of them apparently answered "Yes."
I'd like to see a cite for this study so I can look at it myself 'cause I don't buy it. I simply don't believe that humans give up their morality that easily. Without some kind of context or a reference so that the study can be looked up the whole paragraph simply strikes me as being inflammatory.
** spoiler omitted **
I think the point of the study is that some religious people THINK that who don't believe would kill if there were no consequences, not that they themselves WOULD kill. It speaks about their attitudes toward atheists.
I've heard some of my friends give voices to such attitudes so it in no way surprises me. On the other hand the study sounds like a question based survey, which sets off all kinds of warning bells for me, and just having a reference to it would do little to allay my doubts - I would want to read it for myself.
I think the point of the study is that some religious people THINK that who don't believe would kill if there were no consequences, not that they themselves WOULD kill. It speaks about their attitudes toward atheists.
Interesting spin on it...I still don't buy it and we can't really gauge this without some kind of a reference. Heck know I'd like to know if they managed to control for this kind of a confounding variable - 'cause you've thought up quite the doozy there.
I totally understand your suspicion Jeremy.
But I've heard some of my faithful friends state in no uncertain terms that without God, and without laws, people would be killing each other left and right. This has a lot more to do with the attitudes they have learned from their families and churches than a problem with religion itself, and it certainly doesn't describe many of the faithful people I know. Moreover, it's not accurate.
It turns out that people have some kind of innate resistance to killing each other. A lot of work in overcoming this resistance has been done by military psychologists over the years, some of which I found in this book: On Killing.
|
|
Might it be possible that some people who have belief- who follow the teachings of a particular religion- might want other people to follow the tenets of that religion to some extent because they sincerely think that doing so will benefit those people, even if those other people are apparently not ready to believe or to for the whole teachings of that religion?
The short answer is "yes" -- it is more than "possible".
There are a couple of further thoughts on this. I have known a number of people who send their kids to a Christian school or to church so that they can get "morals" but don't go themselves and their "morals" are often times questionable to begin with. The truth is that kids get much more of their basis for "morals" from their parents than the couple of hours a week that they might spend at church. And I have a suspicion that they could be doing more harm than good since they would be getting conflicting messages on what they should be doing or behaving.
That's not quite what you were saying but I felt it was at least related.
It's interesting that "morals" are coming up again. I believe that Corian was saying that everyone innately has morals or possibly the same morals. I don't buy that. I personally believe that most morals are learned through experiences and through role models -- generally their parents. Further from that, I think that people do their best to justify their "morals" using whatever means is at their disposal. Be that the Bible, the Koran, the Constitution, or what have you.
Which then leads us to "...they sincerely think that doing so will benefit those people..." There seems to be a fine line regarding "beneficial". Spinach is good for you. It becomes less good for you if I end up cramming it down your throat telling you that it is for your own good. I may want people to follow my tenets -- I think that the world would be a better place if we all did more of "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either." - Luke 6:29 -- but even more than that, I would want people to have the same experience that I have. Forcing people to go through the motions doesn't accomplish that.
|
|
But I've heard some of my faithful friends state in no uncertain terms that without God, and without laws, people would be killing each other left and right.
I will admit that at one point I kind of had this feeling. Mostly -- if there isn't any afterlife, then why not do whatever you want regardless of who it hurts? Since this is your only time on this planet, why not do whatever you want to do? (I never felt that people would be killing people left and right.)
I'm still not sure I fully understand (since I am coming from a different point of view), but it appears that most people simply feel like we are in this together. If we don't work together and make the most of it in a cooperative manner, then the end result will simply be much worse for everyone -- the person in question as well. Making the short time we have an overall miserable experience rather than a good one.
|
|
We are moral creatures, we understand what is good and what is not.
(At the risk of taking your quote out of context...)
"We understand what is good and what is not" -- but it is not always the same with different people. One person may think that X is right and another person may think that it is wrong. I really think that morals are a difficult subject to deal with and have much more to do with upbringing and family life than most other things.
What makes one person's morals good or bad? What does it mean if one doesn't have any morals? I just feel like it gets murkier the more we go down this path.
I'm still not sure I fully understand (since I am coming from a different point of view), but it appears that most people simply feel like we are in this together. If we don't work together and make the most of it in a cooperative manner, then the end result will simply be much worse for everyone -- the person in question as well. Making the short time we have an overall miserable experience rather than a good one.
You're not wrong, but I'd go even a step further. Most of the things we consider "moral" are more often than not pragmatic, when living in a society. This is especially true if you look at "morals" that cut across cultures and religious traditions:
Don't murder - "immoral" - when people can do so without restriction, vendetta and possibly sectarian/tribal warfare results, and you often get wiped out. Net loss for everyone involved.
Don't eat people - "immoral" - opens you up to all kinds of horrible diseases (e.g., "kuru") that eating other critters won't give you. For the Biblically-literate:
That's just two examples, but the trend should be clear. The Bible is not the only source listing these types of guidelines (and it has others that simply foster a cultural identity, but don't serve a pragmatic function outside of that), and they can be inferred through experience as well as through reading. As a former teacher, I've learned that most children aren't born with too many morals, but they do learn them through experience. The ones who behave properly merely to avoid punishment eventually learn to behave properly because it WORKS. On the other hand, people whose social environment rewards ruthlessness and double-dealing tend to learn those traits as "morals" instead - and only find that they're counter-productive when they leave that environment and move into the larger world around it.
EDIT: Note that the above post applies equally if there is a God, or if there isn't. The only caveat is that, if there is, the implication is that no one religion has a monopoly on Him.
I was with you all the way up to this point -- monopoly on God or morals? I guess that I'm not sure how that statement relates to what you were saying about morals.
My wife explains it this way... she's more eloquent than I am... if morals can be learned through experience, and if all the most pragmatic ones are common to almost all religions, what does that say about one of those religions in particular being "right" and the others "wrong"?
I suppose a Hindu could make the argument that they had it right all along, and the other religions "stole" the good parts, but that would seem a weak argument -- and the newer religions couldn't even make that claim.
The end result is that Muslims would have to accept that Hindus actually can have morals, and Christians would have to accept that Muslims can have morals, and they'd all have to accept that maybe atheists could have morals, too. And that those morals are for the most part the same.
So, if God is the source of those morals (as many religious people assume), and if those morals are the same for all of those religions... well, then if that God exists, it would almost have to be the same God for all of them. And that thought makes many people extremely uncomfortable.
|
|
Look at it this way... if morals can be learned through experience, and if the most pragmatic ones are common to most religions, what does that say about one of those religions in particular being "right" and the others "wrong"? I suppose a Hindu could make the argument that they had it right all along, and the other religions "stole" the good parts, but that would seem a weak argument -- and the newer religions couldn't even make that claim.
It feels like you are talking about a monopoly on morals rather than a monopoly on God. In which case I fully agree. Many (most?) religions are similar enough on their definitions of "right" and "wrong" that it is pretty silly to me to say that any one is more morally right or wrong than another. However, there are enough differences between religions (that have little to do with morals) that a "monopoly on God" seems to me an odd statement. I feel like, almost by definition, each individual religion feels like their own religion is the "right" way to whatever as opposed to religion X or Y.
I just thought that a "monopoly to God" was a little off.
(And I really have no desire to rehash the "Why do you feel your religion is the only right religion.")
EDIT -- you changed your post while I was writing this one.
|
|
So, if God is the source of those morals (as many religious people assume), and if those morals are the same for all of those religions... well, then if that God exists, it would almost have to be the same God for all of them. And that thought makes many people extremely uncomfortable.
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I guess that I don't necessarily see that all morals are "divinely inspired". I think that Jesus put it pretty succintly though -- "He who knows the good he ought to do and does it not, to him it is sin." This is one of the most common sense things that I see. I'm not going to debate where the texts originated from (divine or otherwise), but I think that most morals (and legal systems) are just common sense stuff anyway -- most likely what happened is that people need to be reminded and someone just had the foresight to actually write it down.
(And I really have no desire to rehash the "Why do you feel your religion is the only right religion.")
Fair enough. And I wouldn't say yours is "wrong"; I'd only suggest that maybe one of them being right doesn't automatically prevent others from ALSO being right as well.