I posted this on another site and then I thought this would be an appropriate topic for this group as eclectic as the group is. I hope you agree and will be part of a discussion of the ideas contained here.

I wasn't sure where to put this but since the motivation to write it came from seeing the documentary movie "Religulous" I decided to stick it here.

After watching "Religulous", I read myself to sleep with Red Azalea, a memoir of a young Chinese girl who survived Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Both of these activities reminded me of a book I read many, many years ago that had a tremendous influence on my thinking about the nature of faith and belief in society The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher.

As I watched the documentary a quote about the nature of religious belief from "The True Believer" kept trying to creep into my mind. I'm not sure this was it but this comes close:

"The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen will perish."

I think that quote encapsulates what the movie was trying to show, that religion is not about love, compassion and forgiveness but rather about what is "right" to the exclusion of everything else. Talk about a grand illusion... Bill Maher, the narrator, argues for doubt and I agree. Certainty is the death of the mind and the soul. Confusion is the first step on the road to enlightenment. Doubt is the door to confusion.

Anchee Min, the author of "The Red Azalea" was a True Believer. Her "god" was Mao as it was for millions like her. Her bible was Mao's "Little Red Book". She eventually began to question her beliefs which motivated her to seek freedom from the restrictions of a dogma that was inculcated into her very being from the time she was 4 or 5 years old.

What really struck me was how her experience was so like those who espouse their religious beliefs whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other "god" centered belief system.

The irony is that those who believe in "god" are the first to condemn those who believed in Mao and yet, as can be seen in Min's book, the reality of either system is almost exactly the same.

So what's the question here? Do you agree with Hoffer and/or Maher/ and/or Min or do you believe that unquestioning faith is somehow a positive force in society or in the world?

I don't wish to set up rules for this debate but do hope the discussion will adhere to the general guidelines for this site.

Ed, I read The Red Azalea about a year ago, because Anchee Min was one of the authors at the Key West Literary Seminar that I was attending. Here is my review of it:
"Rating this book was tough. If half-stars were available now, I would give it three and a half. The story itself is mesmerizing, but the writing is a little awkward and somewhat choppy. But why shouldn't it be? The author came to the U.S. in her twenties (I think) and didn't know English before that.

Red Azalea is Anchee Min's memoir. It took her nine years to write. (If I had to write my memoir in Mandarin, it would take me a century and a half.) Min was a child of the Cultural Revolution during the last days of Mao. The book takes you right inside that time, so that you feel like you have experienced it. (Boy am I glad I didn't have to.) How sexuality was monitored and controlled was absolutely scary. Much of the book explores sexual feelings and the consequences of such imposed repression.

Very much worth reading. "

I agree with Hoffer/Maher/Min. I grew up in a very religious culture and made my way out of it. Of course, it wasn't politically repressive also, so I was able to stay in the same country! I do think there are a lot of belief systems that can encompass paradox. One can have a spiritual belief without trampling on the rights of all others. And I firmly belief in religious freedom for all. Unfortunately, inherent in some religions (or at least in the political exercise of them) is the belief that they are the one true way and should make all others believe as they do. That's where we start having problems, and have for as far back as history goes.

Sherry wrote: "I do think there are a lot of belief systems that can encompass paradox. One can have a spiritual belief without trampling on the rights of all others. And I firmly belief in religious freedom for all."

I like your comment in the quote above. Accepting paradox eliminates certainty, which as I said leads to death of the intellect.

There is a wonderful scene in "Religulous" where Maher is interviewing a senior priest outside the Vatican and the priest was laughing at Maher's litany of all he had been taught as a Roman Catholic child (me, too, by the way). The priest was basically saying that all of it was B.S. and suggesting we should move beyond believing that such obviously ridiculous legends and beliefs are historically accurate.

I would have liked to have met someone like him when I was an adolescent.

Such a wonderfully pertinent topic.

Ed, living in Hong Kong as you do, you may possibly be aware of the recent focus on the question of religious tolerance in my country. A certain strain of fundamentalist Christianity is gaining popularity here. With its emphasis on the blessings of wealth on believers, it has been especially popular among the upper middle-class Chinese population. As a citizen of a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society, I was appalled to learn that some churches have been telling their young congregations to go home and destroy family altars and Buddhist icons. Given parallel developments in Malaysia of a growing influence of radical Islam, I can only hope that we will not see a return to the race riots of the 1950s.

Rather aghast, I have been saying, "Arrggh! Don't these people remember their history? The Maria Hertog riots weren't that long ago?"

The religions of the ancient world asserted the importance of the right ritual. Sacrifice to Zeus or whomever was important not because you believed in him but because it was good for the welfare of the empire. Belief was irrelevant. The Judeo-Christian religions were unique in their development in the ancient world in asserting the importance of right belief. It seems to me, however, that an assertion of right belief carries with it the preclusion of any other form of belief which, perforce, must be wrong.

By my guesstimation,there are many doors an entrances to Heaven. Your walk with God Is your walk and and my walk is mine. As long as the destination is the same who cares .I don't. I do not like it when people proslitize (spelling?) But you know what I mean . I think people should be honest and not hide behind God's banner in fighting wars or rioting. Say it like it is : a war against politics or something that is socially unjust.

I have no use for religion whatsoever.

While there are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted people who attend church on Sunday, I don't believe religious people have a monopoly on those vices. In fact, I think that a careful reading of the gospels (the parable of the Good Samaritan,etc.) would show that Jesus was just as critical of the religious establishment of his day as the New Atheists are of the religious establishment now. And the stories of the 30 days in the wilderness and the stoning of the adulteress certainly address the issues of doubt and forgiveness.

Thinking of the great spiritual works of art that have been created over the ages and the great lives of sacrificial service that have been lived by religious people, it is hard for me to see every religious person as the narrow-minded bigot Hoffer had in mind.

I saw Religulous and was a bit dissapointed in the filmmaker, he goes into the process with a point of view and during interviews he never lets anyone come close to persuading him otherwise. He is very defensive of his own ideas, believes very strong in his own truth, the same behaviour he wants to point out and criticize in Christians.

Sibyl wrote: "I saw Religulous and was a bit dissapointed in the filmmaker, he goes into the process with a point of view and during interviews he never lets anyone come close to persuading him otherwise. He is ..."

Sibyl, Yes he has a point of view and he was not there to be persuaded but he also didn't try to impose his views on those he interviewed.

I wonder if you recall the scene where he joins the Truckers for Christ in a prayer or when he admits he made a bargain with God when he wanted to quit smoking or his conversations with his mother or his conversation with the Genome scientist or the Vatican astrologer.

I also did not see him try to convince anyone he interacted with to his point of view. What I did see was him asking questions that forced people to look at what they believed. Even with the anti-gay evangelist, he never said "Hey, you are wrong" but rather tried to raise issues which of course the evangelist rejected out of hand.

He admitted that the analogy of the three states of H2O to the Trinity got him thinking.

The closest he came to losing it was with the Rabbi who denies the Holocaust and who had attended Ahmandinejad's conference on the Holocaust. I'm not so sure I wouldn't have done the same and I'm not even partially Jewish.

Yes, he is trying to convince those who watch the movie to look at the dangers of organized religion but anyone who read the title of the movie should have figured that one out long before they sat down to see it.

Frankly, I was surprised at how gentle he was with everyone in the movie, having seen his HBO program a few times where he really goes after people with whom he disagrees. My fellow movie-goers, one of who is a devout Christian, agreed with me that it was far more open-ended than they expected.

Perhaps your expectations colored what you saw.

Jim wrote: "While there are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted people who attend church on Sunday, I don't believe religious people have a monopoly on those vices. In fact, I think that a careful reading of..."

Jim, you'll get no argument from me on this point. I think the purpose of the movie, was to help people look at the dangers of Organized Religion not personal belief systems.

The conversation with the Senior priest outside the Vatican was delicious, especially when he asked the priest what Jesus would think of St Peter's Cathedral and the priest laughed and said Jesus wouldn't be here, he'd be out in the slums of Rome helping people.

I actually met Hoffer once and also heard him speak back in the 60's. He had an open and inquiring mind and like Maher he saw the dangers in any mass movement whether religious or political or economic or whatever.

I'm sure there were good-hearted Nazis who tried to ameliorate the excesses of Hitler's rule and maybe paid for it with their lives. There are always people who rise above the conforming crowd.

An interesting question is, "What would have happened to the artists who created the religious art of the Middle Ages if they had painted only secular themes? Would have either starved or been branded a non-believer, I think.

Maher's caricature of Organized Religion is entertaining, but it hardly reflects a much more complex reality. While elements of Organized Religion were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, other very well organized elements have fought for education, peace, and social justice throughout the ages. Martin Luther King and the Peace Movement had substantial backing from main stream Organized Religion if the National Council of Churches could be considered Organized Religion.

I would also argue that works like Bach's B Minor Mass reflect spiritual understanding rather than commercial expediency. Getting paid doesn't mean that you don't believe in what you do. While I have some doubts about the Nicene Creed, I am a firm believer in the B Minor Mass.

Early readers of my prior note please note the crucial edit in the second sentence. It now reads "fought for" instead of "fought". Unfortunately Organized Religion has done nothing for my ability to proofread.

Hello all, I have been around the group for a while, but this is the first time I've ever commented(I really just enjoy reading people's thoughts on books, etc., but I just watched Religulous and have a some thoughts on it.

I will admit from the beginning that I do consider myself a Christian/Christ follower(even with all the baggage that is oft-deserved associated with it), and so I'm interpreting from that angle.

I think in general, what he did was certainly not fair and balanced(probably not a contentious point), and was not a true look at all religions. What this seemed to actually be was a study/criticism on fundamentalism, regardless of the outlook/religion being discussed.

I think he might find his "religion of doubt" in more faith perspectives than he might think. To me, faith and doubt are not polar opposites, but rather hand in hand as a Christian. Having faith can not mean certainty. If it is, there is no longer faith(because faith is believing without absolute certainty).

For myself, I have found truth in the Bible. I recognize that others have a hard time doing this because of what they have experienced(largely from fundamentalists). It is evident that what was in the Bible was irrelevant to Maher, so he found his "truth" in doubt and uncertainty(again, which is also very logical).

What Maher failed to do in this film, however, is meet with a broad spectrum of people from the different major world religions and really try to understand what their belief was and how it influenced them. In the beginning of the film, he seems to have a very open approach and truly seeks to understand why people believe something he deems ludicrous. He fails to do this, unfortunately, and we are left with often one-sided discussions.

To be sure, fundamentalists have done terrible things, in the name of their "God/god(s)", but there is also a rich beauty and openness among them as well that could revolutionize the way people lived(and I definitely do not believe the Bible is the only place to find these truths).

I haven't seen the movie, J.D., but I wanted to welcome you to CR and hope you take part in other discussions as well. You are a very thoughtful and articulate.

I really really love Bill Maher. I'm almost religious about watching his hbo show. I don't out and out agree with everything he thinks or feels...but I love what he is doing.

I really loved Religulous but I winced a few times. Maher is heavy handed like I am and I am sure that is why I like him so much, har! (plus...I actually find him sexy and terribly funny). But he was a little too focused on finding the rotten sides of organized religion.

"While there are ignorant, superstitious, and bigoted people who attend church on Sunday, I don't believe religious people have a monopoly on those vices.'

I agree and I believe an inversion of this thought too. Religious people do not have a monopoly on asking all the big questions in life. Atheists also want to know "why are we here?" "what is the meaning of life" "how do we practice kindness and humanitarian values?" "what is faith?" "why do I always lose socks in the dryer?"

And Bill Maher is an amazing example of an atheist who asks the big questions and comes up with different answers than religion. I wish he had looked for more religious people who lived with ambiguity. Many of us spiritual folks live without answers, with ambiguity as much as any atheist.

I really love Maher...and I think Religulous is an important documentary...you know what I'd love to see? Maher do a mini-series on the subject...not on his tv show. But a whole new mini-series examining the inversions and crossovers between people. The positive comparison and similarity between some atheists and some devout.

I would definitely enjoy a mini-series on this as well, because one documentary does not do justice for the amount of time needed to really give this proper time.

It is definitely an important topic, because it is extremely helpful for us all to understand what each other believes and why. It allows us a window in understanding of each other, and why we do what we do. It is part of being a good citizen, much like being a good traveler. A good traveler will study and learn what they can about a place before they visit, but still remain a humble outsider while they approach and interact with the locals.

I can say I would be a faithful viewer, if he were to do something like this.

P.S. Thanks for the welcome Sherry. I look forward to joining discussions(so long as I have something to add to the conversations!)

J.D. I bet you would enjoy this program...it's called "The History of Disbelief"

http://www.veoh.com/collection/briefhist...

I think you can find the whole thing online. I believe it is very good at helping us all try to understand how others think, why some people feel faith or disbelief. I know several religious and faithful people who found this mini-series very insightful. I hope it might be of interest to you. It gives an interesting view of some of the movement and belief system (is that possible?) of atheists and the history...

Oh and welcome, J.D....I'm a terrible one at keeping track of who has newly joined or seeing new faces.

Oops I think I gave you a link to a trailer. I believe the whole series is here on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcIQb5wK6...

Thank you also for the welcome. No worries. I've actually been in the group a bit, just haven't commented yet.

I will definitely check this out Candy. It certainly is fascinating what leads a certain person to have faith or disbelief, and how a location/culture influences this as well(i.e. As an American, I have been surrounded mostly by Christianity, for good or for bad, and that is where I find myself)

I love talking about this stuff. I'm not Christian (if you want to read about my family history you can read one of my last couple of posts in "the apostophe thread"...I can't re-write all that here har!) but a couple of my friends are Christian. My husband is Catholic. My point is...that I have a girlfriend who is a Christian here in Chicago and although I am a more or less lapsed Buddhist (another long story, met the Dalai Lama when I was a kid...loved him and he taught me meditation and initiation) I went o her church with her last week. My friend and I have many long talks about fiath, service, disbelief...and she wanted me to come with her to her church...because she thought it tended to explore these questions in ways some other churches hadn't...and she felt my feelings were conduive to her experiences there. It was a really cool experience. You know, I'm from Canada...and you can know someone for ten years and not know their religion or if they have one. It's not up front like it seems to be with my experience in this country. I married an American last fall...just to catch you up...religion is so up front here. It's absolutely fascinating to me becauese it feels so different than Canada. We don't do things up large there...many of our traditions and customs look like half assed attempts compared to the pomp and circumstance I see and nejoy here. Anyways, her church was awesome. It was something I'd never encountered before. Hip urban Christians. Seriously, tats, piercing, punk clothing, dark, ironic and what might often be associated with rock and roll or some anarchistic artist movement challenging religion rather than holistically living it. I was really kind of excited by the experience and so happy my friend had such a great community of mutually faithful. I am not sure how to explain the relevance of this experience here in this thread..e.xcept I guess it was kind fo a lesson for me to see that my stereotype of what was hip and urban...closely related to my lifestyle...was also in a Christian setting and community. I think it's always exciting when we get our pre-conceptions blown away or have paradigm shifts of any kind at any level. Do you know what I mean?

it connects to the way we might be able to respect religious folks or religion even if we have no time for it, and don't have belief. It connects to the way we might have even more than tolerance or respect for each others beliefs...but maybe there is a way to have a dialogue between these seemingly incompatable world views? A dialogue that flowed instead of clashed as it often has in the last hundred or so years...

Sorry I said I was going to try not to make long posts anymore today. I guess I am not able to make a sound bite regarding this topic at the moment.

Candy, I almost always come away from your postings, speechless. You pack a lot into most of them.

I don't think Maher intended nor could he have accomplished a survey of "Religion" good and bad. A Mini-series might do it. I'd love it if someone like Ken Burns were to go after the topic. In his Civil War documentary, he managed to never demonize anyone just humanize history.

I'm not sure Maher is an atheist, but so what. His goal was to point out the danger in the excesses that unquestioning religious belief can give rise to.

He, like many of us, does not want the world to end in the name of god.

On another site, where I posted the same questions, someone quoted Aldous Huxley's thoughts about the difference between "Belief" (not good) and "Faith" (good). Oops I just found it. It's from The Island.

"Faith is something very different from belief. Belief is the systematic taking of unanalyzed words much too seriously. Paul's words, Mohammad's words, Marx's words, Hitler's words - people take them too seriously, and what happens? What happens is the seneless ambivalence of history - sadism versus duty, or (incomparably worse) sadism as duty; devotion counterbalanced by organized paranoia; sisters of charity selflessly tending the victims of their own church's inquisitors and crusaders. Faith, on the contrary, can never be taken too seriously. For Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being. Give us this day our daily Faith, but deliver us, dear God, from Belief."

One last comment about the Bible, which could also be applied to the Quran or the Analects of Buddha, etc. To take what is written as literal truth and as the word of god leads to ridiculous beliefs, in my and Maher's opinion. There is beauty and truth in all the holy books. There is also a lot of B.S.

Anchee Min treated Mao's Little Red Book as many people treat the Bible and you can read of the results in her book.

I much prefer how the writings of Confucius and Lao Tse are interpreted by those who follow them. They are looked at as advice not the word of god even though both have been raised to divine status. Much more realistic I think.

Ed, that is an interesting contrast between faith and belief.

I think of faith as something internal, a person's individual state of being. Belief, on the other hand, is something adopted from the outside, and it tends to end up being imposed on others. We talk about "belief systems" but I've never heard the term "faith system."

One of the things believers get from religion is a sense of community, generated I guess by the shared belief. I don't think that someone could get a sense of community from faith. I guess the problem with belief based community is that it can so easily turn ugly and bite non-believers on the ass.

Theresa

Ed, you write:

One last comment about the Bible, which could also be applied to the Quran or the Analects of Buddha, etc. To take what is written as literal truth and as the word of god leads to ridiculous beliefs, in my and Maher's opinion. There is beauty and truth in all the holy books. There is also a lot of B.S.

Almost all Christians would agree with you and Maher that taking the Bible as literally true without analyzing the meaning leads to ridiculous beliefs. Today few, if any, would want to use the Book of Philemon to justify slavery as some did in the past.

There is a vibrant Christian school of thought going back at least to the scriptural scholars of the early twentieth century suggesting that the Bible is not meant to be historically or scientifically accurate. After all, there are four versions of the life of Jesus, and they do not entirely match in terms of either tone or chronology. You could argue that even the early Church Fathers were uncertain about the accuracy of the scriptures.

However, when you say "there is a lot of B.S. as well", I have a hard time accepting that for a well considered opinion. While I have no idea how many years you have spent studying scripture and my own studies are spotty, I think it might be more accurate to say that scripture has been used to justify a lot of B.S.

Not every Christian accepts all of the supernatural events in the Bible as literally true, and I doubt that even the person who wrote the Book of Jonah thought it was anything more than a parable. We all read books all the time that are complete fiction but that are far from "a lot of B.S."

I suppose my basic point is that there is long, strong, intellectually defensible tradition in Christianity that stands apart from the narrow-mindedness, cheap hucksterism, and Sunday School simplification which Maher satirizes. While some Christians deify the Bible, many do not. It's a shame that all this gets lost in the noise.

As you wait for the PBS documentary on religion, (a long wait, I suspect), you might look into a book such as Paul Johnson"s History of Christianity, which I recall as very readable and historically objective.

J.D. said: "What Maher failed to do in this film, however, is meet with a broad spectrum of people from the different major world religions and really try to understand what their belief was and how it influenced them. In the beginning of the film, he seems to have a very open approach and truly seeks to understand why people believe something he deems ludicrous. He fails to do this, unfortunately, and we are left with often one-sided discussions."

That was one of my issues with Religulous as well. Maher has picked some religious movements that are interesting to look at, but do not necessarily represent the average believer. I know I'm asking for something that isn't possible in just one movie, but it feels like he's going for the easy entertaining stereotypes, like the ex-gay. Another example, in Amsterdam he visits the cannabis church. Of course that's interesting to look at, different from the traditional church, but it's also a giant, ever returning stereotype. Maybe I'm a bit too offended because it's my country, but I suggest that for a mini-series he visit a small protestant church in the country. We have more of those than we have coffeeshops. Also, it felt like a lot of the interviewees had a lot more to say than they were given the upportunity for. That they had something more 'intelligent' to say, but it just didn't fit the concept.

Jim wrote: "Not every Christian accepts all of the supernatural events in the Bible as literally true, and I doubt that even the person who wrote the Book of Jonah thought it was anything more than a parable. We all read books all the time that are complete fiction but that are far from "a lot of B.S."

I suppose my basic point is that there is long, strong, intellectually defensible tradition in Christianity that stands apart from the narrow-mindedness, cheap hucksterism, and Sunday School simplification which Maher satirizes. While some Christians deify the Bible, many do not. It's a shame that all this gets lost in the noise."

Even if someone, like myself, accepts the Bible as literally true (talking snake, 6-day creation, all-inclusive), that doesn't mean they are a part of the "narrow-mindedness, cheap hucksterism, and Sunday School simplification." That is at least two doors further down the road.

Sibyl,

I don't think that Jim's statement necessarily lumped you in with this group. He is more arguing that those shown in the movie seemed to display this attitude, not merely because they were literalists, but rather the way they carried themselves.

The big danger of religion, politics, ideologies, etc. is that when one person feels they have the "absolute truth," a chasm can be created between those that differ. This chasm can lead to much of what Maher was showing in his film and is arguably what he is truly opposing/warning of. Within each framework, however, is a loyalty that is placed by acknowledging and accepting a certain truth and you can choose to be inclusive of others or not. I believe The Bible speaks in considerable amounts of humility, and this is certainly a good characteristic for anyone to have, especially in regards to divisive issues. We have a faith in what is unseen and that is far different from the certainty which is often portrayed.

I am enjoying that all this discussion is extremely level-headed as it should be. I appreciate a dialogue from all sides, especially on topics such as these, so I thank everyone involved for keepint it in this manner.

J.D., I agree that this has been quite a civil discussion of a challenging topic.

I also agree that firmly held beliefs (let alone ones thought to be "absolute truths") can create chasms between those who differ. I am all for firmly-held beliefs. As I've mentioned in numerous discussions here, I am a devout life-long Catholic; I hold a number of beliefs strongly. It is possible to hold beliefs strongly -- even, I submit, to see them as "absolute truths" -- without demonizing those who don't agree. It is a real tragedy, IMHO, that our society is increasingly polarized so that the refusal to listen to the other is something of a badge of honor for believers in many contexts -- religious, political, among them.

Have never seen Maher's film, but it sounds like he took the easy cases to make his point. Well, a film is supposed to be entertainment... and perhaps Maher largely aimed to be preaching to the choir anyway.

Mary Ellen

Jim wrote: "However, when you say "there is a lot of B.S. as well", I have a hard time accepting that for a well considered opinion. While I have no idea how many years you have spent studying scripture and my own studies are spotty, I think it might be more accurate to say that scripture has been used to justify a lot of B.S."

Hey Jim, You got me. This was definitely not a considered opinion, more of a reaction. I meant that great chunks of the so-called Holy Books are just made up. I might have better used the word "fiction" than B.S. or stated it like you did.

I went to an R.C. Parochial School for 8 years so the Bible wasn't so much studied as jammed into our minds. But early on I figured that a lot of the Old Testament was more like a collection of Fairy tales than anything.

I believed, pretty much, what was written in the New Testament excluding Revelations, of course, which was avoided like the plague, until I realized that the gospels were written, much later than I originally thought. Raised a lot of doubt.

I hope we do not forget that "Religulous" was meant to entertain (and sell)as well as inform. Both Maher and the Director wanted wide distribution so they undoubtedly picked situations that titillated rather than educated. They wanted a large audience. A PBS type documentary would not draw crowds.

Nevertheless, as I'm sure everyone has guessed, I applaud the effort.

Mary Ellen wrote: "J.D., I agree that this has been quite a civil discussion of a challenging topic.

I also agree that firmly held beliefs (let alone ones thought to be "absolute truths") can create chasms between..."

Mary Ellen, I attended the movie with a life long dedicated Catholic who was not unduly upset by the film.

In fact, in my opinion, Maher was pretty easy on the Catholics. He was raised as a Catholic. Two of the most gentle interviews were with the Vatican Astronomer and a Senior Priest outside the St. Peter's.

BTW, I wonder what you think about the Huxley quote in message 21 above. he postulates a difference between Belief and Faith. I think it makes sense. Could it be that your beliefs are actually acts of Faith?

I go with Robert Anton Wilson who said, "Belief is the death of intelligence." and "I don't believe anything, but I have many suspicions." and "...when dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." I offer these purely as my own favorites and hope you do not see them as trying to provoke you or anyone else.

To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the utmost your right to say it.

My apologies, Sybil. I didn't mean to give any offense. Certainly there are sincere literalists who are by no means narrow-minded.

Ed, the first part of Huxley's quote (where he basically equates belief with a dogmatic intolerance of the non-believer, among other nasty things) is a rather narrow definition of the word "belief," IMHO.

His definition of "faith": "Faith is the empirically justified confidence in our capacity to know who in fact we are, to forget the belief-intoxicated Manichee in Good Being." Well... among other things, this definition excludes any faith in God, or a god, or gods... which faith would be, for him, "belief," and ipso facto, intolerant, leading to atrocities, etc.

I don't see my life of faith, which includes holding certain beliefs to be absolutely true (while at the same time realizing that God is so "other" that no human "idea" of God is sufficient to contain Him), to fit within the Huxley schema. No, no, my "belief" is not what Huxley would call an act of "faith."

RE: Maher's film. That he doesn't mock Catholics as much as other people of faith would not necessarily make me happy with the film. (BTW, I've read some of his comments about Catholicism and, to this Catholic anyway, they weren't pretty.) The point of the film, I gather, is to show that religious belief is ridiculous; or perhaps, to allow his audiences to laugh at religious beliefs that they, the tolerant and enlightened, deem ridiculous. Not my cuppa, as others have said in different contexts here!

Mary Ellen

Jim wrote: "My apologies, Sybil. I didn't mean to give any offense. Certainly there are sincere literalists who are by no means narrow-minded.

"

That's ok, I wasn't really offended, just thought I'd point out that there is a difference. People seem to forget that sometimes.

Ed, I went back to your first post, to think about the question you originally posted:

"Do you agree with Hoffer and/or Maher/ and/or Min or do you believe that unquestioning faith is somehow a positive force in society or in the world?"

I have never known "unquestioning faith" myself. I find my own faith challenged and stretched by many life experiences (personal and vicarious). I imagine it is the same for many believers, who "believe" but don't "know."

I have, however, known a number of people of apparently very simple faith, who appear not to question what they hold to be true, what their life experiences have affirmed for them. I have found many of such people to be very kind, generous, charitable. I don't think their unquestioning faith is doing the world any harm.

I guess the key to a malign unquestioning belief, is sthe conviction that everyone else MUST believe what I believe. It's that "belief" which leads to oppression and violence in the name of ... whatever the beliefs may be, whether Christianity or Islam or National Socialism or the Little Red Book.

The next book up on the Reading List, "Every Man Dies Alone," gives a pretty chilling portrait of life in Nazi Germany: the fear, the suspicion, the ruthless extermination of any dissent. Based on real incidents, it shows some people doing evil because they are "true believers," others because it is a way to get ahead, others because they are afraid to risk their lives by standing up to the government. It certainly illustrates some of the ideas raised in this thread.

Mary Ellen

Mary Ellen wrote: "Ed, I went back to your first post, to think about the question you originally posted:

"Do you agree with Hoffer and/or Maher/ and/or Min or do you believe that unquestioning faith is somehow a positive force in society or in the world?" ..."

Mary Ellen, In retrospect, I wouldn't have used the word faith but rather belief or belief system. Maybe I'll go back and change it although it's a little late to do so.

I'm sure you are right that Maher has had nasty things to say about the Catholic Church. Since I live in Asia, I don't see his program except when I'm in the U.S. and have access to HBO.

I too have bad feelings about my experience of the church but since I haven't been near a Catholic church except for weddings and funerals in the last 57 years, I pretty much keep my opinion to myself except when I'm with close friends.

BTW, my criticisms of the church do not extend to Catholic individuals, with obvious exceptions for those who are intolerant of others' religion or ideas. Unfortunately in the 40s and early 50s there were a great number of such people in the church including many of the clergy and nuns.

Thanks for the heads up on Every Man Dies Alone. I plan to add it to my own TBR list. BTW, the PB edition that's coming out early next year is titled Alone in Berlin.

Thanks for taking the time to present a view that may not be as widely shared on the Goodreads site as the opposite.

Mary Ellen wrote: "I guess the key to a malign unquestioning belief, is sthe conviction that everyone else MUST believe what I believe. It's that "belief" which leads to oppression and violence in the name of ... whatever the beliefs may be, whether Christianity or Islam or National Socialism or the Little Red Book."

I think that's a very important point. I WANT others to believe what I believe, because I think they would benefit of it, I sincerely believe it could make the world a better place because in the particular branche of faith I refer to there is a very strong emphasis on love and forgiveness. The methods I would use to achieve this however is another question. To me love, of God for the people, and of the people for each other, is the point around which my faith revolves. Any violent method, such as a "holy" war, a crusade, exclusion of society etc. is in direct conflict with that concept. Faith or belief can not and should not be forced.

Sibyl wrote: "Mary Ellen wrote: "I guess the key to a malign unquestioning belief, is sthe conviction that everyone else MUST believe what I believe. It's that "belief" which leads to oppression and violence in ..."

I don't force my beliefs on someone else. Their walk with God ,Supreme Being etc. is their walk. Who am I to say they would benefit from my belief structure. If someone wants to worship a tree and they find comfort in it I can not say that it isn't the right belief. Most people have a moral code to follow. Sometimes we become fanatical and try to foist off our beliefs through violent means. Then it becomes a hazard to mankind. I feel the pathway to God has many doors. As long as the direction is the same who cares if it is over, under inside ,outside through the back. I don't care. Sooooooo that said I will exit the stage.