The Problem with Religious Moderation

[nige1]

maybe we were talking past each other. I understood you to say that while religious propositions, such as 'god' could not be explained by science, neither could the common belief that it is a good think for humanity to flourish. And I argued that in fact the holding of such a belief by humans is entirely logical and derives from evolutionary ideas: scientific ideas and logic.

 

It seems I may have misunderstood you...and that we are basically in agreement that such a belief may be explicable but cannot be shown to be objectively valid from any but a subjective, human point of view.

I want to believe in free will and so distinguish moral choices from biological imperatives.

[mikeh]

I want to believe in free will and so distinguish moral choices from biological imperatives.

Free will seems like a nice idea, but is so far unprovable, and may well turn out not to exist. I have done a lot of work litigating brain injury cases, and so have done a lot of reading in neuropsychology, as well as the physical characteristics of trauma to the brain. It is difficult to retain a belief in free will when one sees how predictable are the effects of certain injuries, Indeed, the experiments done on people who have had the two hemispheres of their brains disconnected are really fascinating and they also make me very sceptical about free will. That doesn't mean I believe in fate or predestination. I am an agnostic when it comes to this issue, since the evidence hasn't yet seemed to give rise to a coherent, testable theory.

 

I do appreciate the insight in your post...you hold to a theory not because the evidence persuades you of its validity but because you want to believe. I am sure that some of my beliefs have at least some element in common with that approach :D

[kenberg]

I want to believe in free will and so distinguish moral choices from biological imperatives.

 

I look at free will as follows: Perhaps it is the case that if we knew enough about neuroscience, about psychology, about each other, we could predict with confidence and accuracy how each person would decide each thing. Sort of analogous to saying that if we knew enough about the location and velocity of every atom we could say just where they would all go. But even though the physical case is, or seems, simpler even that doesn't work. There is chaotic dynamics. OK, chaotic dynamics accepts determinism if we know with full precision, which we don't. So there is Quantum Mechanics, which as I get it insists on some probabilistic features. But of course when we sum the effects, probabilities obey laws. But more to the point, at least for me, is that we don't know that much and even with all we do know, it's not enough. What good is it to say that some super genius, or some computer, can predict how I will finish this note if I still have to decide for myself what I will do. Maybe the computer knows, but I don't know, so for all practical purposes I have free will.

 

Actually, it matters. I just read The Tiger's Wife, an interesting book by the way. By far my favorite character was the tiger. The author hops around in time, a character is bad, quite bad, and she hops in time a bit and we see how this could be. But still, he is bad. He makes choices, we hold him responsible for those choices. In my view, if we ever decide that person X is so damaged so as to not be responsible for his choices then society must assume that responsibility, but society can only do so if society is also given great control over his actions. Probably we lock him up. Such a power should be deployed only with great caution. But to my mind, it makes no sense to say "He has a right to choose" while also saying "He is not responsible for his choices". We have free will and we are responsible for how we make use of it.

[Codo]

The basic consensus of Christianity is that its truth is derived from the same source: a specific book. After that, all forms of Christianity are simply variations of interpretations of those words.

 

It doesn't really matter that some or even all the Lutherans in Europe now find fault with the misogynist views encouraged by their own holy book. That only shows the secular intrusion into bastions of religion brought about by the cognitive dissonance that occurs when fable keeps smacking headlong into increasing knowledge.

 

Here is the key issue: if the vast majority of the world rejected supernatural beliefs and adopted an evidence-based system of forming worldviews then fanatic Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc would all feel the weight of peer pressure to "stop being silly".

 

But because you continue to "be silly", you can only do what everyone else does, condemn actions taken, but you cannot chastise any fanatic for the core problem that is at the heart of fantasism: they are "being silly", too.

 

Did you eveer study the Bible? I guess you did not. But as a hint: 1. There are passages who simply contradict each other. And there are MUCH more parts,which fit into the times in which they had been written- e.g. about slavery, stoning, burning people etc.

So, the BIble was (like the Choran, who suffers from the same problems if you take it literally) never intended as a book to answer all your questions and to give you rules for any given situation for the next twothousand years. Well okay, maybe it wass intended as such, but it should not been taken as such from any intelligent person, nowadays.

 

Why do you think that a Holy Book must be given rules for any given situation in any given century? Why don't you think that a God will leave it to us and our descission how to act and to give us just something to think about? Do you have the picture of billions of blidn people who are not able to read the Bible/Choran/other holy books on their own andcann see the truth? I mean, of course such blind people exist, I would not deny this. But if their are in the majority in your life, you live between too mayn stupid people, you should think about moving...

 

You may use the Bible to read and think. If you think that you still should be stoning pairs who have sex during the "bloody" phase or that it is okay to kill a whole village just because... ( I have forgotten the reason), I cannot help you. But, hopefully the theists do not share this point of view even in the Bible belt. If they do: May God be gracious. But I do not no ONE single person who thinks this way. But I have the fun to know some people who think that they can convince with citing the Bible, e.g. if you talk about homosexuality. But it is quite easy to make them blush and silent. Search the internet for phrases you may use.

 

But no, this is not the key issue. Mankind has shown million times that it does not need to be religious to be fanatic. If you cannot kill your enemy for religious reasons, you will find others. Had been shown by history a million times.

 

And what do you mean by "evidencebased" system? In its heart, religion is about believe. How can you believe if you have evidence?

 

My problem hereat BBF is that it sounds as if religion is the key to many problems. But so far I see nothing to back up this statement, because everything silly, bloody and horrible which had been done in the name of God had been done in the name of a state/an idea/with no reason at all. ALL religions that I know (okay not too many) have a lot of etics in their heart. E.g. if anybody would follow the ten commitments, life would be nice. An equal set of rules is there for mormons, muslim, etc. Of course you can have the same thing without religion, I would never challenge that. But the problem is allways that people do not stick to these rules. This is the "key issue" and this is true for atheists, christians, muslims, Hindi, etc...

[Codo]

You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, or (and this is more likely, given that you are clearly intelligent) you are unable to see past your own prejudices.

 

Of course any informed person knows very well that there are numerous sects within Xianity, as there are in all major religions. Indeed, some versions of Xianity do treat people fairly, and without prejudice based on gender or colour of skin, etc. Good for them, but as Winston points out they have had to rationalize away many of the teachings of the bible in order to do this.

 

Indeed, without fail, no mainstream Xian sect reads the bible at face value...even those who claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god. All Xians rationalize, and pick and choose which parts to accept as fact, which as metaphor or analogy, and so on. None seem to see the absurdity that is apparent to non-believers of the choices made, and the incredible self-deception that has to be perpetrated to swallow all this.

 

It is that aspect of moderate Xianity that acts as a cover or shield for fundies. The vast majority of humans believe in magic and superstition, but they don't see 'their' beliefs in that light, even tho most of them would cheerfully use such language to describe the religions of the ancient greeks, or romans, or Persians, etc.

 

If, as Winston says, the great majority of humans saw that all religious faith was silly, then the fundies would stand out and be embarrassed, isolated, maybe jailed if they acted out as their books tell them they must.

 

You say I am bashing all xianians. I say that I am asserting that ALL religious belief is silly...ALL of it is utterly disconnected from any empirical evidence and is based on REQUIRING the shutting down of that most precious human trait: the ability to think critically. Moderates of all religions evidently DO have the ability to think critically, since they accept evidence-based reasoning in much of their lives, but none of them can see into or past the blind spot implanted by religious belief.

 

To use your language, it would be funny if it were not so sad.

 

Well Stephanie wrote "all", so no, my comprehensive skills are not challenged. She made simply a statement which can be proven false.

 

But maybe we will find some things we really agree on:

Luckily nobody I knows takes the Holy Book as a simple: How to live a life. But why should we? Someone just had to read and understand the text to get to know that this would be impossible. As I wrote to Winston, there are even disputing claims in different parts. And you can see quite a big change during the times, espacially from the ancient to the new testamony. So, if you agree -say- with the statements from the ancient parts, you are in serious trouble with the new one. E.g. in theancient it says an eye for an eye, in the new "turn the other cheek". Very difficult to follow both at the same time. So, when the Bible was in any way intentional, it was surely not made as a simple signpost but as a descirption of history and some rules to think about.

 

So the question is: Who tells you - or fanatic Bible belivers- that a holy book must be a guide for your live?

 

I think that you may respect the ancient philosophers like Aristoteles and Platon. Do you really think that they wrote the eternal and final truth? I do not. Philosophy did develop. As did mathematics, as did well nearly anything. So why do you think that Christians should stick to the Bible like a novice driver to the road traffic act without the ability to think?

 

So besides your opinion that people like me lost the ability to think critical- any evidence?

Maybe we can agree that fanatics cannot think critically anymore- they would take the Bible/Choran/Hubbard/Dawkings litterally without thinking about it...

[Trinidad]

Are you truly functionally illiterate?

No. Are you really incapable of using normal language and showing a bit of respect?

I said and maintain that the catholic hierarchy would generally assert, today, that contraception is a sin.

I said the same, but that is completely besides the point.

 

You stated that the views of the RC hierarchy are mainstream RC views. I state the views of the RC hierarchy are extreme within the RC church, as evidenced by the relatively limited population of this planet. You call that "absurd", denying the obvious evidence, which makes you as religious as the people you are combatting.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Many Catholics follow the doctrine but use the explicitly-permitted calendar-based method of preventing conception.

Perhaps.

 

My impression is that the vast majority of catholics use other (better working and not permitted) methods. But that, indeed, a minority uses a calendar-based method. Those few couples stand out since they usually have more than 2 children...

 

Rik

[mikeh]

No. Are you really incapable of using normal language and showing a bit of respect?

 

I said the same, but that is completely besides the point.

 

You stated that the views of the RC hierarchy are mainstream RC views. I state the views of the RC hierarchy are extreme within the RC church, as evidenced by the relatively limited population of this planet. You call that "absurd", denying the obvious evidence, which makes you as religious as the people you are combatting.

 

Rik

You repeatedly claimed that I had made certain statements: statements that are to be found nowhere in anything I have posted. You doubled down on that attitude: I called you out on it.

 

You are either incapable of reading and understanding plain English or you are deliberately misstating my views, in order to create the appearance that you have a strong rebuttal. That is a common trick of unethical debaters: assert that the other debater has made a claim and refute it, without regard to the fact that the other debater said something far different.

 

If you want me to be polite towards you, to afford you the respect you think you are worth, then stop stooping to such tactics. Now, if you really think I said that I blamed a few popes in Rome for the world's overpopulation, or that (after you refuted that assertion) I expanded the blame to priests, bishops and nuns, let me suggest that you take the time to actually read what I have written. I will unreservedly apologize to you if you can show where I made those assertions.

 

Once you treat my arguments with respect, then and only then will I treat you with respect. You don't get to grossly distort my arguments, refuse to acknowledge that you have done so, and then whine about my not respecting you enough.

 

I do not mean, by treating my arguments with respect, that you accept them or consider them to be well thought out. I don't mind if you disagree with me, and I positively enjoy being shown where I have made mistakes. What I don't accept is someone lying about what I said and then demanding that I respect them for doing so.

[mikeh]

Well Stephanie wrote "all", so no, my comprehensive skills are not challenged. She made simply a statement which can be proven false.

 

But maybe we will find some things we really agree on:

Luckily nobody I knows takes the Holy Book as a simple: How to live a life. But why should we? Someone just had to read and understand the text to get to know that this would be impossible. As I wrote to Winston, there are even disputing claims in different parts. And you can see quite a big change during the times, espacially from the ancient to the new testamony. So, if you agree -say- with the statements from the ancient parts, you are in serious trouble with the new one. E.g. in theancient it says an eye for an eye, in the new "turn the other cheek". Very difficult to follow both at the same time. So, when the Bible was in any way intentional, it was surely not made as a simple signpost but as a descirption of history and some rules to think about.

 

So the question is: Who tells you - or fanatic Bible belivers- that a holy book must be a guide for your live?

 

I think that you may respect the ancient philosophers like Aristoteles and Platon. Do you really think that they wrote the eternal and final truth? I do not. Philosophy did develop. As did mathematics, as did well nearly anything. So why do you think that Christians should stick to the Bible like a novice driver to the road traffic act without the ability to think?

 

So besides your opinion that people like me lost the ability to think critical- any evidence?

Maybe we can agree that fanatics cannot think critically anymore- they would take the Bible/Choran/Hubbard/Dawkings litterally without thinking about it...

I agree with your point that only fundamentalists claim to believe that their holy book is inerrant. I don't know enough about the Koran to assert that it is internally inconsistent but, having been raised catholic, I can say with certainty that it is impossible to comply with everything in the Bible, as you observed.

 

However, the point that some of us have been trying to make is that all religious believers have faith that there is a god...moreover, each has his or her own version of that god, and many (but not all) assert that one needs to believe in their flavour of god in order to be saved. It is this belief in a god that has created humans as special and that will allow us to live on beyond death (in heaven, hell, or some other version of an afterlife) that gives shelter to the fundies, by making them part of a generally accepted worldview. They become not aberrant deluded freaks but merely more extreme members of the faith-based community. Indeed, the faith-based community is so broad that even identifying where moderate belief ends and fanaticism begins is difficult. In this forum, for example, we have Rik so bent out of shape over my posts that we find Rik describing the beliefs of the leaders of the RC Church as 'extreme' (admittedly, as 'extreme within the church').

[mikeh]

 

So besides your opinion that people like me lost the ability to think critical- any evidence?

 

 

What evidence, beyond the bible, is there for the existence of the Jesus depicted in the bible?

 

In particular, what evidence is there in support of the miracles he is said to have performed, and the resurrection, to name the most implausible of the biblical tales describing Jesus?

 

I accept, by the way, that there were many messianic cults in Israel at about the correct time. I accept that many of the historical facts asserted in the NT are correct....for example, Pontius Pilate and King Herod.

 

However, the fact that a tale includes some verifiable facts doesn't assist in determining the truth of other matters described in the text. Any reader of historical fiction knows that :P .

 

Furthermore, archeology shows, convincingly in the opinion of this layperson, that the stories of the wanderings, wars, and genocides in which the Jews participated are ahistorical, so why accept the NT at face value? We know that the ability to create fiction long-predated the modern novel!

 

If Jesus didn't exist, or perhaps more accurately, if the Jesus who became, post-death, the Jesus we now 'know', wasn't in actuality a performer of miracles and wasn't resurrected, and so on, where does that leave Christianity?

 

You say, correctly, that modern Christians do not see the Bible as inerrant (even those who say they do, don't in practice).

 

Can you identify the changes in the attitudes towards the Gospels since the early 6th century? Why is it that you, today, have a privileged, more correct view of the meaning of the Gospels, and their guide to proper living and moral virtue, than did the believer in 1014, or 1514?

 

Leaving that to one side, what evidence is there that a god closely modeled on human psychology created the universe with us in mind?

 

How plausible is it that god set in motion the cosmos of hundreds of billions of galaxies, with hundreds of billions of stars per galaxy, 13.8 billion years ago, and then after our tiny planet was formed almost 9 billion years into the timeline of the universe, waited another 4.5 billion years to see humans evolve and THEN decided that finally a form of life had evolved that was suitable for religious indoctrination....that was capable of sin...that needed salvation from sin....and that that salvation was going to be attained by that god insubstantiating itself as a human in a small province of Rome, and then, after doing some preaching for a few years, would have itself killed so that it could resurrect itself in secret so that some of its followers could start a church....which church would over the centuries determine that it should bring salvation to others by killing and torturing them.

 

if you reply that I am not describing your particular form of belief, I hope you accept that I have approximated the basic beliefs of many of your co-religionists (bearing in mind that it is impossible to do justice to any complex idea in so few words as I use here). I also suggest that if you have a more 'new age' version of Christianity, one that makes jesus an incidental figure, or that suggests he really wasn't the son of god, and wasn't sent by his father to redeem us by his sacrifice, or that his relationship was metaphorical, rather than really father-son, then you are not mainstream, and are dangerously close to theism, rather than Christianity. BTW, the notion that theism is correct, in the narrow sense that a god-entity created the universe and thereafter played no role, is far more difficult for atheists to refute than is the traditional god created by men in their own image :P

 

I don't doubt that you, and almost all other believers are capable of critical thinking.

 

I am sure that you have done a lot of it in your life. I don't know what you do for a living, but I am willing to assume that it requires critical thinking, in the sense that you make decisions based on information assumed or known by you to be reliable...to reflect reality.

 

I assume, for example, that if you become ill, you don't go to a priest or rabbi to cast out the evil demons causing the illness but, instead, go to a doctor who practices evidence based medicine.

 

I may be wrong there: you may be a believer in homeopathy or reflexology or some other bunk, but even so I would accept that you do know how to evaluate evidence and analyze stories for plausibility.

 

However, I think the Jesuits got it right when they claimed (and I am paraphrasing) that if one gave them a boy to educate at age 5, they'd own the man. There is also much truth in the saying that the child is father to the man (nowadays, one should say, I think, the child is parent to the adult, but I learned the saying many years ago).

 

Most people in societies in which religion is prevalent are exposed to religious teaching before they develop the shield made of critical thinking. The acceptance of religious notions as fundamental is instilled BEFORE the child has the ability to doubt what it is being told.

 

Religious sects count on this. It is fundamental to their success. It is this inculcation of belief before the onset of critical thinking skills that inoculates the belief from later critical examination. I don't doubt that many and maybe most believers do spend a lot of time worrying about their faith, and struggling with some of the obvious contradictions that come to light as one becomes adult, but nevertheless it remains my view that for most the ability to truly step back and re-examine 'why' one believes as one does is very difficult. Almost every discussion I have ever had has the believer retreating into excuses and stories that the believer would ridicule if they were offered up by someone else in a non-religious context.

 

We don't even need to be sent to Sunday School, or the like. In most western countries, references to god and Christ, etc are ubiquitous. Heck, even I, as died-in-the-wool atheist as I am, will refer to 'god!' or 'Christ!' as an exclamation. We celebrate religious holidays, even when devout Christians deplore the commercialization of them. We have people swear on the bible in court. We have oaths of allegiance. We can't avoid the underlying, pervasive presence of religion, and so it can become not merely omni-present but also largely invisible to the conscious mind...making it even more resistant to critical thinking.

 

Anyway, that's (part of) how I see it :D

[Vampyr]

And you can see quite a big change during the times, espacially from the ancient to the new testamony. So, if you agree -say- with the statements from the ancient parts, you are in serious trouble with the new one. E.g. in theancient it says an eye for an eye, in the new "turn the other cheek". Very difficult to follow both at the same time.

 

Well, here the change was intentional. The gods of the ancient world were cruel, capricious, and had little regard for human life (indeed, they often enjoyed watching the loss of same in pointless wars and massacres, and the god we meet in the Old Testament is very much a part of this tradition.

 

Then Jesus came along, hoping to usher in an era of a kinder, gentler deity, and a human/god relationship based on love rather than fear.

 

So Jesus was consciously contradicting the other god's teaching and practice. All reports of him recount his doing good things, while virtually all reports of the previous god recount the latter doing bad things. Or maybe the previous one is the same one as before, who had a change of heart.

Or maybe the Hebrews had run out of neighbours to kill, united as they all were under the Roman Empire, so the previous god had no more ideas.

 

My impression is that the vast majority of catholics use other (better working and not permitted) methods. But that, indeed, a minority uses a calendar-based method. Those few couples stand out since they usually have more than 2 children...

 

This wasn't true when I was growing up Catholic, and I would be surprised if there has been a huge change since then. Maybe your "impression" is not accurate?

[Vampyr]

Well Stephanie wrote "all", so no, my comprehensive skills are not challenged. She made simply a statement which can be proven false.

 

No, "all" is correct, but it is true that some sects have in modern times changed their views to conform with a changing society, while others, not so much.

[Trinidad]

You repeatedly claimed that I had made certain statements: statements that are to be found nowhere in anything I have posted. You doubled down on that attitude: I called you out on it.

To maximize the chances of humanity flourishing in the long term requires understanding the universe as it is, not as we would like it to be. It requires assessing evidence and making decisions based on evidence, even when that evidence suggests that long-cherished religious beliefs are not merely false but actively harmful (as in the Xian imperative, no longer followed by many sects but still there to propagate and to avoid birth control).

(emphasis mine)

Mike,

 

The discussion is about religious moderates.

 

Do you seriously consider people who don't use birth control -for religious reasons- to be moderate?!?

 

Rik

Do you seriously consider the vast majority of Christians to be fundies? What about the biggest Xian church of all: the roman catholics?

 

As it happens, the RC doctrine is against birth control, and the church boasts 1 billion members. Do you hold that the RC church is an extremist organization?

In the above post, you are equating the RC doctrine to the RC church.

 

If this equation were true, the RC doctrine would be responsible for overpopulation. But since you think it is true, you logically hold the RC doctrine responsible for overpopulation.

I will unreservedly apologize to you if you can show where I made those assertions.

Though I did above, I am not waiting for an apology.

 

But simply admitting that there is a huge discrepancy between the views of the RC hierarchy (the "fundies", birth control refusers) and those of the RC church (with many "moderates", birth control users) would be nice.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

But, hopefully the theists do not share this point of view even in the Bible belt. If they do: May God be gracious. But I do not no ONE single person who thinks this way.

 

Well, every single American who is fundamentalist or evangelical believes that the Bible is a historical, factual record.

 

The world was created in six actual days, there was a real Noah's Ark (and the Flood created eg the Grand Canyon), Jesus existed as recorded in the NT, was born to a virgin and did perform miracles like bringing back dead people, etc.

 

And we are talking about a LOT of Americans. Possibly half.

[Trinidad]

My impression is that the vast majority of catholics use other (better working and not permitted) methods. But that, indeed, a minority uses a calendar-based method. Those few couples stand out since they usually have more than 2 children...

This wasn't true when I was growing up Catholic, and I would be surprised if there has been a huge change since then. Maybe your "impression" is not accurate?

Perhaps so. But my wife used to work for a major birth control pill manufacturer (the official business term is "Women's health" and also includes fertility enhancing methods), so I have pretty good confidence in my impression. ;)

 

(Obviously there are regional differences. "The pill" is not as wide spread in regions where catholicism is the "opposing minority" or "underlying party", since people will identify themselves foremost as catholics and stick to the doctrine. But in regions where catholicism is not an issue (because everybody is, or because there is religious tolerance) "the pill" is pretty common.)

 

Rik

[ArtK78]

Well, every single American who is fundamentalist or evangelical believes that the Bible is a historical, factual record.

 

The world was created in six actual days, there was a real Noah's Ark (and the Flood created eg the Grand Canyon), Jesus existed as recorded in the NT, was born to a virgin and did perform miracles like bringing back dead people, etc.

 

And we are talking about a LOT of Americans. Possibly half.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public. H. L. Mencken

[gwnn]

Codo: http://www.c-b-f.org/documents/survey_population_general.pdf is an interesting study from 2008 on various things regarding the Bible, what struck me is how many people think the Bible should be taken literally. Of course many of the questions are vague. But still, according to slide 20, Germany has 13% of people who (think they) believe the Bible should be taken as literally true (for people too lazy to click on the link: US had 27%, the Netherlands 8%). If we assume that most people who believe this did read the Bible in the last 12 months (2007-2008), the rate is even more alarming. 28% of Germans read the Bible in that period, so that would mean that almost half of the bible-reading Germans believe in biblical literalism! Whenever I heard of this magical Germany where (almost) every Christian is a moderate and take most of the Bible to be allegory, I was a bit skeptical, but now I'm happy that I finally checked the facts. Note that this still doesn't include people who believe in Old Earth Creationism, or people who think the New Testament is inerrant but the Old Testament is not, people who think that the church should be based on largely on what Paul describes in his epistles (and yes, Paul was one of the most blatant misogynists in the history of religion), ...

[Winstonm]

Did you eveer study the Bible? I guess you did not. But as a hint: 1. There are passages who simply contradict each other. And there are MUCH more parts,which fit into the times in which they had been written- e.g. about slavery, stoning, burning people etc.

So, the BIble was (like the Choran, who suffers from the same problems if you take it literally) never intended as a book to answer all your questions and to give you rules for any given situation for the next twothousand years. Well okay, maybe it wass intended as such, but it should not been taken as such from any intelligent person, nowadays.

 

Why do you think that a Holy Book must be given rules for any given situation in any given century? Why don't you think that a God will leave it to us and our descission how to act and to give us just something to think about? Do you have the picture of billions of blidn people who are not able to read the Bible/Choran/other holy books on their own andcann see the truth? I mean, of course such blind people exist, I would not deny this. But if their are in the majority in your life, you live between too mayn stupid people, you should think about moving...

 

You may use the Bible to read and think. If you think that you still should be stoning pairs who have sex during the "bloody" phase or that it is okay to kill a whole village just because... ( I have forgotten the reason), I cannot help you. But, hopefully the theists do not share this point of view even in the Bible belt. If they do: May God be gracious. But I do not no ONE single person who thinks this way. But I have the fun to know some people who think that they can convince with citing the Bible, e.g. if you talk about homosexuality. But it is quite easy to make them blush and silent. Search the internet for phrases you may use.

 

But no, this is not the key issue. Mankind has shown million times that it does not need to be religious to be fanatic. If you cannot kill your enemy for religious reasons, you will find others. Had been shown by history a million times.

 

And what do you mean by "evidencebased" system? In its heart, religion is about believe. How can you believe if you have evidence?

 

My problem hereat BBF is that it sounds as if religion is the key to many problems. But so far I see nothing to back up this statement, because everything silly, bloody and horrible which had been done in the name of God had been done in the name of a state/an idea/with no reason at all. ALL religions that I know (okay not too many) have a lot of etics in their heart. E.g. if anybody would follow the ten commitments, life would be nice. An equal set of rules is there for mormons, muslim, etc. Of course you can have the same thing without religion, I would never challenge that. But the problem is allways that people do not stick to these rules. This is the "key issue" and this is true for atheists, christians, muslims, Hindi, etc...

 

Perhaps I did not make myself clear because your rebuttal is to a point I did not intend to make, if I did so.

 

The basic thrust of my message is that a belief in a supernatural presence (with either a book or word-of-mouth as means of expressing the story) by some gives others cover for their belief in a similar supernatural being.

[mikeh]

(emphasis mine)

 

In the above post, you are equating the RC doctrine to the RC church.

 

If this equation were true, the RC doctrine would be responsible for overpopulation. But since you think it is true, you logically hold the RC doctrine responsible for overpopulation.

 

Though I did above, I am not waiting for an apology.

 

But simply admitting that there is a huge discrepancy between the views of the RC hierarchy (the "fundies", birth control refusers) and those of the RC church (with many "moderates", birth control users) would be nice.

 

Rik

*sigh*

 

If only you actually read my posts. Or tried to learn something beyond your 'impressions'.

 

The RC Church leadership, including the new pope, are adamant that contraception is an evil. Some bishops, and for all I know, maybe some cardinals as well, are opposed to this position, but they are a small minority in the church leadership.

 

I have always acknowledged that there are differences between church doctrine, as set out by leadership, and actual practice. Indeed, those differences underlie what I consider to be a strong argument against organized religion. Many, and maybe most, members of a faith will pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they obey, and seem to see no problem in doing so: they remain convinced that by obeying those parts that suit them, they are still being good followers of the religion. Logically, that makes no sense. Religion, even when finely nuanced, is based on revealed truth: somebody somewhere, purporting to have the information directly from God (eg Moses, Mohammed) or to be god (jesus) has made statements that are absolutely true.

 

Adherents to a religion founded on this understanding of the universe accept these revelations. They also, generally, accept a number of idiosyncratic strictures or rules, since it is in these details that sectarianism arises, and which play a role in many conflicts and persecutions both historically and today.

 

After all, an Anglican will recognize many commonalities with a Catholic, but few in either church see them as identical.

 

If an outside observer is to make sense of the differences between the sects, where else can or should he or she start other than by looking to see what the official doctrine of the church is?

 

Of course doctrine changes, and I have touched on that in numerous posts.

 

However, it is truly absurd to suggest that the Pope, the majority of cardinals, the majority of archbishops, bishops, priests and so on are to be seem as extremist fundamentals. They may well be at the 'right' end of the spectrum of 'moderates' but take a look at the respect paid to the Vatican. It has a seat in the UN!!! many countries maintain embassies or missions to the Vatican. Not to the 'members' of the church, but to the leadership of the church. The Pope gets national television coverage whenever he visits a country or pontificates (there's a word for you...he is the pontiff, of course) on whatever strikes his fancy. Elections to the office of pope are covered even more widely than, and just as annoyingly as, weddings in the British Royal family :D

 

As for what I wrote about the RC church being opposed to birth control, I wrote that in the context of how we, as a species, move forward. I argued, and argue again, that if we are to avoid calamity, we need leadership that acts based on evidence. The RC church leadership, by virtue of its opposition to contraception, is an obstacle in the path of population control.

 

That is not the same as it having been the cause of overpopulation. Only an idiot (Edit:look: I know you're not an idiot...even if I disagreed with everything you say, you aren't a kook or idiot like 325, and I have, in the past, agreed with much of what you write, but your recent posts seem to have gone from probably innocent misunderstanding to intentional distortion)would think that I was suggesting, for example, that the dictates of any Christian leader played a significant role in the population explosions in India or China, or Indonesia etc. It is not the same as saying that the RC Church is 'the' main problem in terms of population control. It is saying that when the leadership of an organization that claims 1 billion followers, and that gets front page coverage for its activities and pronouncements on the world stage describes contraception as evil, then that is a problem. Do you disagree?

 

When a drunk driver careens into my path on the highway, the fact that someone places a call to me on my cell just before I would notice the danger didn't cause the danger, but may well be an obstacle to my being able to avoid the accident that now threatens. So too, the fact that socio-economic conditions caused humanity to favour large families may be the reason that overpopulation is such a problem now, but the resistance to population control by an influential church may well be an obstacle to resolving the problem.

 

Do you finally understand the points I have been trying to make?

[Vampyr]

Maybe there is a reason for the seeming lack of communication:

 

Is there anything truly "moderate" about believing that there is a Sky Fairy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Friend etc that is invisible, sees what we do, punishes or rewards us after we are dead, and can do magic (but doesn't anymore)?

 

But at least one poster has expressed the view that he would be a mass murderer if he didn't believe in this reward mechanism. A victory for religion, or an example of the stunted moral development of someone who is still at the stage where "it is wrong to do X, because if I do it Daddy will spank me"?

[Trinidad]

Maybe there is a reason for the seeming lack of communication:

 

Is there anything truly "moderate" about believing that there is a Sky Fairy/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Invisible Friend etc that is invisible, sees what we do, punishes or rewards us after we are dead, and can do magic (but doesn't anymore)?

That depends on the definition of "moderate". To me, and a few others, the principal difference between a "moderate" and a "fanatic" lies in the amount of tolerance for others with different ideas, not in the question how loony or correct their own ideas may be.

 

So, if someone believes that the martians are among us, but let's everybody else believe that they're not, he is a moderate. Probably he is a loony moderate, but loony moderates are moderates too. And if someone believes that the martians are not among us (which is much more likely to be correct, at least in my view) and wants to eradicate any belief in "martianism", he is a fanatic.

 

I believe in moderate... and I can be pretty fanatic about that. ;)

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Someone is wrong on the internet .....

 

I think it is pointless to discuss things which both parties have strong (but opposite) opinions about on an open forum. I sometimes sent luke_warm personal messages about my opinion on some issues and it could move things a little bit further and at least ease the tensions between us. But having such discussions in public would be pointless. If someone challenges your hard-held beliefs on a public forum, wouldn't your knee jerk (no pun) reaction be to attack back, even if you knew that your "opponent" actually had a point? Mine certainly would.

 

It is like having ATB discussions with partner while the opps listen. Worse than pointless. (A petty that we don't do the POTY anymore because Rik's post about the AKQ convention certainly would fit. But I digress...). Of course, forum discussions at least can be successful if your true aim is to show the rest of the World that your opponent is a moron. Fair enough. Just don't tell yourself that your aim is to change your oppponent's viewpoints. Because you are smart enough to know that cognitive dissonance works the opposite way: the stronger arguments you pose for the theory that the Eart is round, the more stubbornly the flat-eartherners will stick to their belief.

 

Btw, Father, I have sinned. I didn't keep my new year resolution of not upvoting religion, CO2 or gun related posts in the water cooler.

 

Maybe a bit paradoxal that I posted this instead of PMing it to everyone. Now everyone is going to hate me. Oh well ....

[Trinidad]

Someone is wrong on the internet .....

Someone?!?

 

Everybody!!

 

;)

 

Rik

[Codo]

Codo: http://www.c-b-f.org...ion_general.pdf is an interesting study from 2008 on various things regarding the Bible, what struck me is how many people think the Bible should be taken literally. Of course many of the questions are vague. But still, according to slide 20, Germany has 13% of people who (think they) believe the Bible should be taken as literally true (for people too lazy to click on the link: US had 27%, the Netherlands 8%). If we assume that most people who believe this did read the Bible in the last 12 months (2007-2008), the rate is even more alarming. 28% of Germans read the Bible in that period, so that would mean that almost half of the bible-reading Germans believe in biblical literalism! Whenever I heard of this magical Germany where (almost) every Christian is a moderate and take most of the Bible to be allegory, I was a bit skeptical, but now I'm happy that I finally checked the facts. Note that this still doesn't include people who believe in Old Earth Creationism, or people who think the New Testament is inerrant but the Old Testament is not, people who think that the church should be based on largely on what Paul describes in his epistles (and yes, Paul was one of the most blatant misogynists in the history of religion), ...

 

So if there is a study, this must be true despite the fact that we simply do not burn our witches, stone our rapist- which should be true to some parts of the bible.

I guess you never made a survey to reach a result....

 

But to be fair: My own sister - who is one of the most intelligent persons I know- ( A-Level with 15, study summa com laude...) does share this point of view that you should take the Bible literally So, I know that there are more then zero persons who CLAIM that they do... But she had never been able to explain why some parts are the obvious truth and others are obviously not...

[Codo]

I agree with your point that only fundamentalists claim to believe that their holy book is inerrant. I don't know enough about the Koran to assert that it is internally inconsistent but, having been raised catholic, I can say with certainty that it is impossible to comply with everything in the Bible, as you observed.

 

However, the point that some of us have been trying to make is that all religious believers have faith that there is a god...moreover, each has his or her own version of that god, and many (but not all) assert that one needs to believe in their flavour of god in order to be saved. It is this belief in a god that has created humans as special and that will allow us to live on beyond death (in heaven, hell, or some other version of an afterlife) that gives shelter to the fundies, by making them part of a generally accepted worldview. They become not aberrant deluded freaks but merely more extreme members of the faith-based community. Indeed, the faith-based community is so broad that even identifying where moderate belief ends and fanaticism begins is difficult. In this forum, for example, we have Rik so bent out of shape over my posts that we find Rik describing the beliefs of the leaders of the RC Church as 'extreme' (admittedly, as 'extreme within the church').

 

Yes, we do have FAITH, so we do not have any evidence, else we would know.

 

I am well aware that many religions do have this flavour that you need their special way to serve God to be saved. I never could understood this point from a theological point of view, I guess we agree that this has other reasons: Of course it has to do with mightiness. If you have more followers, your power will increase. And I guess it has to do with something how the mind of people works. If you make a descission, you better rationalize this descission and support it. This is true for soccer clubs, Apple-Computer religions and well nearly any other descission you make.

 

And about fanatics: Anybody who is fine with other point of views and other believes looks quite moderate to me. (And if I understood him right- to Rik too.)