Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 15
Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind?
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,021 Views)
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 07:40 AM
I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons. Religion plays no meaningful role in the public discourse, and I suspect far less than 60% of the general population of England believes in the virgin birth or any of the special details of any religion.


I have also been to England many times and have not picked up this same information.

How do you get your survey data? Do you make an effort to ask your survey questions across a broad cross-section of the population or do you just ask whoever might be willing to talk to you?

How many trips did you have to make to England before you arrived at the 60% figure? Do you know the margin of error for this number?

Your survey results are really fascinating.

What were your personal impressions of these poor priests that were desperately trying to believe but couldn’t? Since you have been there so many times I’d like to hear your take on the growing Muslim religion. I wonder if they believe in “the special details of any religion”.

The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Quote:
 
They aren't opposite at all. I'm a scientific realist so i think there is no ontological difference between scientific descriptions of say atoms and everyday descriptions of say chairs. There is a real world and scientists are in the buisness of trying to describe it.

Science however is not about proof, we never get 100% analytical certainty, we can never be absolutely guaranteed our descriptions our correct. We can however have bets that are so good that we can essentially consider them true. (as long as we are willing to revise our ideas in the unlikely event the evidence swings the other way)

My argument with Klaus was that science was not purely about prediction. That it describes the world.

My argument with Dewey is that science does not give us proofs, we are never _analytically certain_ that our descriptions are true. We can however have vast amounts of evidence such that we can certain _beyond reasonable doubt_

See? No contradiction.

Turning to your earlier comment it is true that theoretically there is the possibility that the Earth is indeed 6000 years old however it's ridiculously small. Your objection is akin to objecting to this statement: "AIDS is not caused by Moonbats posts on the www.coffee-room.com, fullstop". Now technically it's true that we cannot have analytical proof that my posts are not drectly causing people's white cell counts to plummet but it is still utterly ridiculous to believe they are. Further more if you're honest with yourself you'll realise that you'd be perfectly happy with such a claim. (You constantly claim certain things are true in your political discussions without falling back on the technically correct but rhetorically clumsy language of probability) So your objection when it comes to the age of the Earth is rather hypocritical no?

As for shackling myself to science and reason that's just incoherent nonsense. I accept that we may not be able to work everything out. I accept that there may be aspects of reality fundamentally unimaginable. I accept the possibility of epistemological limits.

What i don't accept is that any of that makes hypothesise that lack any basis somehow plausible. None of the above implies invisible monkeys are likely, nor does it imply that mystical creators are likely either.

A hypothesis stands or falls by the basis one has for considering it. If you want a chance of being right you better have support for your ideas. Instead of clawing at your own minds by trying to distance yourself from reason and sense themselves. You should be saying "ah yes but look there is a basis, look X, Y and Z imply that my ideas are right". Furthermore what you should do is be aware the information you have is incomplete, perhaps tomorrow an alternative explanation for Z will be found. So then your conclusion will be weaker based only on X,Y. Perhaps a new phenomena will be seen (or some analysis which shows your ideas account for a currently mysterious phenomena) which provides further basis for you ideas so then you you will think it's right because of of A, X and Y.


I really can't quarrel with anything you are saying here (except, of course, the invisible monkeys which I know to be real ;)). The problem is that none of this squares with this:

Quote:
 
If you believe that the Earth is 6000 years old you are wrong, fullstop. If you believe that human beings do not have a common ancestor with other apes you are wrong, fullstop.


Which strikes me as most unscientific and very much dogmatic. You can talk circles around that all you want but your antipathy towards religion and the beliefs of others is betrayed by this sort of thing by you constantly. A true scientist should not be so strident about the beliefs of others or ridicule them with constant allusions to pink this or invisible that since he is engaged in something that, by its very nature, is disinterested in belief.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Apr 8 2007, 10:22 AM
There is quite a lot of confusion on both sides of the fence over that one. The idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old is a relatively new view in the history of Christianity. The problem with it is that in addition to some Christians misunderstanding what is actually said in the book of Genesis, those who reject Christianity have pounced on it and made the mistake even more of a mess due to their desire to mock Christians and their beliefs, and due to their own ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. Jews read the book of Genesis too, it is part of the Torah. They just understand it better.

So what's your understanding of Genesis?
How old do you believe the Earth is today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
So what's your understanding of Genesis?
How old do you believe the Earth is today?


Genesis is an oral tradition passed down from one generation to the other, the purpose being to tell the Jews where they came from. It is a mix things, some literal, some not, that which is not literal being used to help make the information being passed down easier for the people to understand and remember.

Being half Indian, and having been exposed to Indian traditions, I can fully understand in ways maybe others cannot how oral traditions are used to convey information. "On the first day" "on the second day" and so on is not even the point of the book of Genesis. This is a method of passing massive amounts of information orally, in ways those having the information passed to them can understand. Who knows what a "day" means in the context of the information? I'm sure the person who first put it in writing didn't even know, or for that matter, care. If you look beyond the "they claim the earth was created in 6 days, ha ha ha" stuff, you find 6 *periods*, which line up perfectly with the scientific record. The point of the book of Genesis is that "In the beginning, GOD." From there, the part that those who attack the book and the way some have mistakenly interpreted it are arguing over one single chapter in a book of 50 chapters. Were Adam and Eve literally specific people? Who knows. Who cares. That isn't the point of the book. As you move through the book of Genesis, you move into literal information, things that didn't pass down orally but were added to the traditional story to complete the *point* of the book. It would be good if those who reject Christianity but want to honestly understand it stop focusing on the first chapter, and those who accept Christianity stop focusing on the "literal" issue and start focusing on the *real* point of the book of Genesis.

How old is the earth? Who knows. Who cares? I'm far more concerned with the question "where did all the matter that makes up the entire universe come from". Somewhere among all the arguing back and forth between creationists and evolutionists, we go from a vacuum in which nothing existed to a universe filled with megatrillion squared tons of matter, and no one on the evolution side can tell me where it came from. If I take a purely scientific take on that, I am stuck with the reality that you cannot make something out of nothing.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry: "nothing existed to a universe filled with megatrillion squared tons of matter, and no one on the evolution side can tell me where it came from"

Perhaps. I personally am ok admitting there are things we do not currently know, nor do I see any reason to assume that the human species at this point in time must be able to get an explanation for everything (much less an explanation proposed 3000 years ago by a desert tribe). But more importantly, to explain this complicated topic by invoking a personal god, is to explain the complicated and difficult to understand, but the even more obscure and even more difficult to understand, which violates a key principle of explanation (explanations should increase our understanding, not diminish it).

Copper - Hmmm ... I guess the Pope's lament about the a-religious drift of Europe is just based on bad survey data as well. Do you doubt the validity of the survey mentioned in the current NYT Mag (page 48), according to which very large numbers of Anglican priests do not believe the major tenents of their own religion, and are willing to admit it?? If so, please state your reasons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 04:40 AM
Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US.  (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)


Only to highlight that we take the Separation of Chruch and State quite seriously. It took a 100 + years to achieve, but unlike the USA, it does keep the pulpit out of Parliament and Parliament out of the pulpit. Any given politician's belief or lack of belief is never an issue or even discussed during elections. Although there are exceptions, religion is strictly personal and generally not worn on people's sleeves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Copper
Apr 8 2007, 10:29 AM
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 07:40 AM
I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons.  Religion plays no meaningful role in the public discourse, and I suspect far less than 60% of the general population of England believes in the virgin birth or any of the special details of any religion.


I have also been to England many times and have not picked up this same information.

How do you get your survey data? Do you make an effort to ask your survey questions across a broad cross-section of the population or do you just ask whoever might be willing to talk to you?

How many trips did you have to make to England before you arrived at the 60% figure? Do you know the margin of error for this number?

Your survey results are really fascinating.

What were your personal impressions of these poor priests that were desperately trying to believe but couldn’t? Since you have been there so many times I’d like to hear your take on the growing Muslim religion. I wonder if they believe in “the special details of any religion”.

I lived in England for 35 years and I would say that Jeffrey's assessment is pretty close to the truth. There's more beer served on a Sunday than communion wine.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
AlbertaCrude
Apr 7 2007, 09:59 PM
Many people, including some Christian denominations, question the mythology of the virgin birth.

Jews don't believe it for a second.

True, AC, but Jews have their own virgin birth theory. It goes like this:

"A land without a people for a people without a land."
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
AlbertaCrude
Apr 8 2007, 12:39 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 04:40 AM
Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US.  (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)


Only to highlight that we take the Separation of Chruch and State quite seriously. It took a 100 + years to achieve, but unlike the USA, it does keep the pulpit out of Parliament and Parliament out of the pulpit. Any given politician's belief or lack of belief is never an issue or even discussed during elections. Although there are exceptions, religion is strictly personal and generally not worn on people's sleeves.

What's really ironic is that Britain doesn't have a separation of Church and State, but there's still an awful lot less religion in British politics than in the US. As Tony Blair said 'We don't do God'.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
here is some info on the report quoted in the ny times article...

From The TimesJuly 4, 2005

Clergy who don't believe in God
Clergy and laity show signs of schism over homosexuality, miracles and the Almighty
By Ruth Gledhill
HUNDREDS of Church of England clergy doubt the existence of God and fewer than two thirds believe in miracles, a study out today says.
The report, published on the eve of the General Synod, refers to “very fragile faultlines along which the Church of England could be torn apart”. Congregations are much more conservative than most of the comparatively liberal clergy preaching to them.

The report says that if committed Anglicans are clear about one thing it is the existence of God: 97 per cent have no hesitation in affirming His existence. Yet, it contyinues, one in 33 clerics doubts the existence of God. If reflected throughout the Church’s 9,000 clergy the finding would mean that nearly 300 Church of England clergy are uncertain that God exists.

Equal numbers of clergy and laity, eight out of ten, believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ but more laity than clergy believe in the Virgin Birth — 62 per cent compared with 60 per cent — and in the miracle where Jesus turned water into wine — 65 per cent compared with 61 per cent. The biggest division comes over the issue of homosexuality. One third of clergy are in favour of the ordination of practising homosexuals as priests, compared with one quarter of laity. Nearly one third of clergy also support the ordination of gay bishops, but among the laity this falls to fewer than one fifth.

Whereas 56 per cent of the laity believe that it is wrong for people of the same gender to have sex together, the proportion falls to 48 per cent among the clergy. The Anglican Church hasbeen brought to the brink of a schism over homosexuality, and the survey shows it to be at risk of further unrest.

“In many ways ordained Anglicans look out on to a somewhat different world from the world viewed by lay Anglicans,” says the 180-page report, Fragmented Faith?. “Overall, it is the faultline between the clergy and the committed laity on the issue of homosexuality which may take the Church of England most by surprise.”

The report suggests that, had he known how deep the divisions were, the Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev Richard Harries, might have thought twice before he conducted his “courageous experiment” in recommending a celibate homosexual, Dr Jeffrey John, to be Bishop of Reading in 2003. The opposition forced Dr John to step aside and he was made Dean of St Albans instead.

The study, by Leslie Francis, Mandy Robbins and Jeff Astley, of Bangor University, grew from a partnership between Bangor’s practical theology department and the Church Times. More than 9,000 people responded, of whom nearly 8,000 were Anglicans in England, nearly 2,000 of them being laity.

Dr Francis says that the divisions “reflect clearly identifiable faultlines in the very structure and composition of the Church of England”.

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Apr 8 2007, 08:25 PM
AlbertaCrude
Apr 7 2007, 09:59 PM
Many people, including some Christian denominations,  question the mythology of the virgin birth.

Jews don't believe it for a second.

True, AC, but Jews have their own virgin birth theory. It goes like this:

"A land without a people for a people without a land."

actually jews cant take credit for that little catch phrase, give credit to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801 – 1885)...a very loyal christian.

but why quibble....



"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Apr 8 2007, 09:38 AM
AlbertaCrude
Apr 8 2007, 12:39 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 04:40 AM
Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US.  (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)


Only to highlight that we take the Separation of Chruch and State quite seriously. It took a 100 + years to achieve, but unlike the USA, it does keep the pulpit out of Parliament and Parliament out of the pulpit. Any given politician's belief or lack of belief is never an issue or even discussed during elections. Although there are exceptions, religion is strictly personal and generally not worn on people's sleeves.

What's really ironic is that Britain doesn't have a separation of Church and State, but there's still an awful lot less religion in British politics than in the US. As Tony Blair said 'We don't do God'.

Technically Canada has no separation either; there is no reference to it the the 1867 BNA Act. Outside of the phrase "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" the 1982 Constitution also makes no specific reference. It just *is* and, as in Britian, *we don't do God* in any sort of revelation or manifestation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Axtremus
Apr 8 2007, 08:39 AM
Dewey
Apr 8 2007, 08:13 AM
Quote:
 
But is it really "rational"? Is it "rational" outside that person's own psyche?


Actually, any judgment of whether something is "rational" ultimately comes down to individual interpretation, whether one cares to admit it or not.

...

... The concept of "rational", and "reason" has no absolute meaning outside a specific environment in which it is used. Ultimately, it only means "that which is reasonable to us, or to me, right here and right now."

Once you put the stake down that what's "rational" is a matter of individual interpretation, I suppose that's the crux of our disagreement and I see no way to move beyond this impasse.

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for some one to go from "I found a pepper corn under my dinning table" to "the moon was once made out of green cheese" ("rational, in his own way")

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for the stock trader to claim, in July, that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June ("rational, in his own way")

We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for some one to believe that 2+2 can sometimes equal 5 ("rational, in his own way") [this is actually less far fetched than "the moon was once made out of green cheese", because one can dream up or invent a system of arithmetic that allows 2+2=5 under some condition].

"Reason" is now quite similar to "love," "hope" and "beauty" that TomK trotted out earlier... got nothing to do with logic, and merely in the eye of the beholder.

While I really don't like the consequence of defining/framing "reason" as a matter of individual interpretation, I also admit that my not liking the consequence is not ground to tell you you're wrong. So... I see no way to move beyond this impasse, and just have to leave it there. :shrug:

But you see Ax, "rational" is now, and always has been, defined subjectively, based upon the environment that the specific thing being examined occurs within, and is analyzed from. That's the whole problem with using "rational" as some ultimate determinant. "Rational/irrational" can't really be used to ultimately determine "right/wrong," whether seen as "factually correct/incorrect" or "morally appropriate/inappropriate", because of the lack of the concept's concrete definition. "Rational" to the West is essentially the defintion originating in Greek philosophy and as modified and extended by later western thought. But as you're well aware, there are entire worlds around the globe whose civilizations were as advanced, or were even more so, and whose system of logic, definition of rationality or reason, was quite different.

Of course, there are points of commonality in the various expressions of rationality or reason. But the specifics can be, and have been, quite different. It would be entirely irrational for a person who has been immersed in one culture and view of reason to act in accordance with what someone from another cultural setting would deem rational. Christian missionaries have been drubbed over the years for real and alleged cases of cultural insensitivty, but I believe that the elitist insensitivity of expecting the entire world to operate under the secular Western model in order to be considered "rational" is far worse and myopic.

To dispute my belief that a concrete definition of "rational is impossible, you've offered several examples.

""I found a pepper corn under my dinning table" to "the moon was once made out of green cheese" " I suppose that if there were a culture that held that if one finds a peppercorn under his dining room table, that it is evidence that the moon once consisted of green cheese, then it would be "rational" for the person to make such a statement. It would certainly be "wrong," but the issue of "right/wrong" must not be (although it often is) confused with "rational/irrational." But since I know of no culture that makes such a claim as this, the example doesn't work very well in reality.

"We now have to admit that it can be "rational" for the stock trader to claim, in July, that XYZ has indeed fetched $85 a share in June " Again, if there were some culture that held that 25 were in fact, equal to 85, then it would be "rational" for the person to hold such a viewpoint, even if it were factually "wrong." Here again though, I know of no such culture that espouses the concept that 25=85, so if anyone made that statement, they would be both "irrational" as well as "wrong."

Quote:
 
"Reason" is now quite similar to "love," "hope" and "beauty" that TomK trotted out earlier... got nothing to do with logic, and merely in the eye of the beholder.


Yes, reason is similar to those other intangibles in that it is not quantifiable or concretely definable. To say that it has "nothing to do with" logic is a jump that you're making from my position, though. I believe that reason has a great deal with logic, but I further believe that logic may be seen quite differently given different times, places, and data points. In other words, reason is something that is not entirely, but to a significant degree, by the eye of the beholder, or more accurately, by the eye of the beholder's particular culture and environmental setting.

I saw in another post that Larry mentioned that his American Indian heritage enabled him to read the Genesis account from a different vantage point than many others. Frankly, I agree with him here (and I agree entirely with his entire post; it was excellent). One very valuable thing that Christians trying to learn from the Scriptures can do is to read the writings of theologians coming from different cultural backgrounds and heritages. Often, their cultural background will help to illuminate different aspects of the Scriptures that the Anglo/American/Western mindset glosses over, or misses entirely. This is very closely related to the point I'm trying to make here. People from different backgrounds and experiences will be able to approach the same problem, interpretation, or issue, and very "rationally" come up with many different ways to solve or see the issue. This is true whether one is talking about differences of nationality/ethnic heritage, believer/nonbeliever, of even among various subdivisions within larger groups.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
And I doubt that Anglican priests are more liberal than the laity.


Don't doubt it. Surveys have long shown that (admittedly painting with a broad brush here):

Mainline Protestant denominations, into which the Anglican/Episcopal Church would fall, are generally more liberal than their evangelical, and much more liberal than their fundamentalist, brethren; and that

The mainline clergy is generally more liberal than the average person in the pews.

Quote:
 
These people have committed their lives to a belief system, and have every reason to try desperately to believe it. But they cannot.


Don't confuse what it is, and isn't, part of the belief system that they've committed their lives to. I'm not carrying water here for any clergy member who would deny the divinity, virgin birth, or resurrection of Christ here; frankly, I don't see how those individuals can even be considered Christian, much less Christian clergy, and they shold be bounced form the church. But there are any number of other non-essential, non-creedal issues upon which Christians may be equally devout and committed to Christ, while disagreeing on certain details. And don't think that clergy have, in any way, any higher a degree of commitment to their faith than the true believer in the pews. Clergy aren't religious supermen/women; they put their pants on the same way as any other person, and they wear their flaws the same way, also. They have merely sensed a call to live their life of faith in a particular way, relative to education, leadership, caring and service. That doesn't mean that they're more sincere or committed than others, who are called to live out thee same faith in different ways. I don't know of a single clergy member who hasn't marveled at the deeper faith of some lay parishioner in their congregation. The depth of one's faith can't be narrowed to a discussion of how liberal or conservative the believer happens to be; Christ doesn't offer a gospel of Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, despite the shameful attempts by all four of those groups to directly or indirectly claim to the contrary.

Quote:
 
I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons.


This is very true on several counts. Many, if not most, of the established churches in England have become museum pieces, places all but empty of worship but maintained for their aesthetic appeal. That doesn't mean that there aren't many wonderful, devoted believers, but their numbers are quite a small percentage of the overall population.

As to many churchgoers being members for social reasons rather than religious ones, that's not something limited to England, or current times. That situation has occurred for almost the entire life of the Church, in varying degrees, and in any location where practicing the faith isn't a persecutable offense. As someone once said, "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
bachophile
Apr 8 2007, 02:06 PM
jon-nyc
Apr 8 2007, 08:25 PM
True, AC, but Jews have their own virgin birth theory.  It goes like this:

"A land without a people for a people without a land."


actually jews cant take credit for that little catch phrase, give credit to Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury (1801 – 1885)...a very loyal christian.

Its not the coining of the phrase that constitutes the Jewish virgin birth theory - its the continued belief in it as the founding myth of the state of Israel.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Dewey: "People from different backgrounds and experiences will be able to approach the same problem, interpretation, or issue, and very "rationally" come up with many different ways to solve or see the issue. "

Except that there is a proper criterion of rationality in the present case, namely the process of the human mind that discovers the truth about reality. Only science has proven the ability to do this, across cultures and times, and between people who initially disagree. Religion has been stuck in the same place with no progress or improvement of belief. Thus Ax's definition of rationality is correct, and the other definitions are incorrect.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
A good quote, from Nobel Laureate in physics Steven Weinberg, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Apr 8 2007, 09:38 AM
AlbertaCrude
Apr 8 2007, 12:39 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 04:40 AM
Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US.  (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)


Only to highlight that we take the Separation of Chruch and State quite seriously. It took a 100 + years to achieve, but unlike the USA, it does keep the pulpit out of Parliament and Parliament out of the pulpit. Any given politician's belief or lack of belief is never an issue or even discussed during elections. Although there are exceptions, religion is strictly personal and generally not worn on people's sleeves.

What's really ironic is that Britain doesn't have a separation of Church and State, but there's still an awful lot less religion in British politics than in the US. As Tony Blair said 'We don't do God'.

Having separation of Church and State and "doing God" is our unique Hell.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Daniel
Apr 8 2007, 04:23 PM
John D'Oh
Apr 8 2007, 09:38 AM
AlbertaCrude
Apr 8 2007, 12:39 PM
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 04:40 AM
Canada is largely agnostic/atheist (certainly more so than the US), but has a broadly similar political structure to the US.  (AC will now raise some point I am sure.)


Only to highlight that we take the Separation of Chruch and State quite seriously. It took a 100 + years to achieve, but unlike the USA, it does keep the pulpit out of Parliament and Parliament out of the pulpit. Any given politician's belief or lack of belief is never an issue or even discussed during elections. Although there are exceptions, religion is strictly personal and generally not worn on people's sleeves.

What's really ironic is that Britain doesn't have a separation of Church and State, but there's still an awful lot less religion in British politics than in the US. As Tony Blair said 'We don't do God'.

Having separation of Church and State and "doing God" is our unique Hell.



Might I point out that NOBODY, but NOBODY, 'does God'... it is quite the other way around I should think. ^_^
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Except that there is a proper criterion of rationality in the present case, namely the process of the human mind that discovers the truth about reality. Only science has proven the ability to do this, across cultures and times, and between people who initially disagree.


Close, but not quite. Science has proven its ability to find fact, not truth. While obviously related, one must not be confused for the other. The former can point toward the latter, but at most is only an indicator, and an incomplete one at that. Truth is something that no honest scientist would ever claim to be able to find; it's out of his area of expertise.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DivaDeb
HOLY CARP!!!
For what it's worth, Jeffrey, I would very nearly agree with Weinberg's quote, because I have faith in Jesus Christ but am not religious. A lot of horrific things have indeed been accomplished in the name of religion. I am not a defender of any of them.

For the atheists, I think when all is said and done, you will be proven wrong, and, at that point, you will understand exactly why you are wrong. In fact, I think you will realize that you knew all along. Suffice to say that my prayer would be that you would have understanding before that time.

I realize how galling that sort of talk is for you unbelievers. Tough. I take it on the nose plenty with all your BS about Christianity, so...today being a day of reflection for me, and remembrance, and profound gratitude for all that I have been given, I think I have earned the right by my usual silence, to tell you this:

Never would I treat another person, believer or unbeliever, with lack of respect, humility, and compassion. I pray for strangers, and those who hate me as well as my friends and loved ones. I am a good teacher. I am a nice wife, an excellent mother and a pretty decent friend. Even so, I am fallen, a sinner, and it's a constant struggle for me to try to reform my thinking to the mind of Christ. I have been given a fine mind, and I do put it to very good use. If there is one thing you really have no right to accuse me of, it's an inability to think, or an unwillingess to think. Out of all the balderdash, that is the most egregious. If you believe that, you truly are kidding yourselves. You want it to be true, I suppose..the idea that a well educated, intellectually gifted, strong willed and independent woman would choose to submit to the Lord must be pretty much your worst nightmare...better to tell yourself I've been duped, or am just plain dumb as a box of rocks. Fine...if that makes you more comfortable, then put your thumbs in your mouths and suckle on your assessments of my stupidity. Rock back and forth, if you like...I understand that can be helpful as well.

If I believed in your flying spaghetti monsters, or pink unicorns, then I would expect you might have a point in judging me as deranged as you seem to be willing to judge the group to which I, gratefully and humbly, belong. But I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac ,and Jacob, and His Son, Jesus Christ, not flying spaghetti monsters...and they are not the same. I will always go to bat for freedom of speech...for another's right to say whatever they want to say about reality, existence, even how freaking stupid they think I am for believing what I believe. I assume you'd be all for that freedom of speech as well. In light of our presumed concensus....once in a while, I think it's just fine for me to point out that I think you're totally, and completely, full of crap. :smile:

Having said that...nothing changes with me. I am *happy* to know you, happy to have the opportunity to read your thoughts listen to your stories about music, kids, life etc. I am not angry and you can't possibly hurt me with anything you want to say about what I believe, no matter how denigrating you try to be, or how condescending. It doesn't matter. There's a promise in the fifth chapter of Matthew that assures me that God has my back. Everything thing I have, I have through His grace. In all times, no matter how difficult, I will thank the Lord for His matchless grace. I am so blessed. I thank God for each of you and the ways in which He uses you to challenge me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
A good quote, from Nobel Laureate in physics Steven Weinberg, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."


Not so good at all. Religion is not about "good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things." At least, this is not at all what Christianity is about. It's all about understanding God, and laying out God's complete, ultimate reason for creating the universe, and how God will ultimately complete the process. It's all about explaining that the exact opposite of demanding that a person be good to earn his way into God's favor: That in fact, we can't be good enough to ever achieve that, and that contrary to other religious systems, the entire faith is about God acting to reconcile humans, unilaterally, before any human ever lifts a finger to even attempt such reconciliation. In Christianity, the heavy lifting is already done, completely independently of anything that we have done, currently do, or will ever do. And the "being good" part isn't the end goal, or a threat to beat people over the head with under fear of damnation. Rather, such goodness is to be done as an act of gratitude for the gift of reconciliation already given.

And no, it hardly takes religion for good people to do evil. I think there's more than sufficient evidence to refute that opinion.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Dewey
Apr 8 2007, 04:39 PM
Quote:
 
A good quote, from Nobel Laureate in physics Steven Weinberg, "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."


Not so good at all. Religion is not about "good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things." At least, this is not at all what Christianity is about.

Who 'da ever thunk we Christians would ever be thought of as "good people?" I'm Christian and I hope nobody ever things of me as good. Look at the other professing Christians around here (besides for Dewey :rolleyes: of course!) Who's good among us?

We're not Christians because we're good, or good because we're Chrtistians. We're Christians only because we know what and where the "Good" is. That's all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Look at the other professing Christians around here (besides for Dewey  of course!) Who's good among us?


Oh Tom, you need a whole lot more eye rolls there. If you only knew...

:lol:
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Jeffrey
Apr 8 2007, 10:50 AM

Copper - Hmmm ... I guess the Pope's lament about the a-religious drift of Europe is just based on bad survey data as well.  Do you doubt the validity of the survey mentioned in the current NYT Mag (page 48), according to which very large numbers of Anglican priests do not believe the major tenents of their own religion, and are willing to admit it??  If so, please state your reasons.


You want to know what I doubt?

I doubt people who make statements like this:

Quote:
 

I have been to England many times, and the populace is largely agnostic/apathetic in orientation, although they sometimes like the Anglican church for social/patriotic reasons.


It's nice that you went to England, but that doesn't qualify you to make wild statements of fact like that. Even if the statement is true, the fact that you went there isn't the reason why.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 15