Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Off Topic
>
Is there a correlation between religion and education?
message 51:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
Sep 19, 2011 10:59PM
different opiates for different masses...
reply
|
flag
I'd say "isolation" may be. All the things we mention (and haven't I suppose) TV, video games, central heat and air. I don't even remember the names of my next door neighbors (and I live in a duplex). No one just visits and talks, sits out on the porch and greets people as our grand parent used to. Were all so insular. I probably know many people here better than I do people I interact with.
I'd like to throw in a new angle in the discussion if I may :-)In a society, it's a lot easier to have things working smoothly, and everyone doing their part, if you have a system of beliefs/values, that everyone feel strongly about (in a positive way).
That can be nationalism (God, King and Country!), a state religion like Christianity or Islam, or a political ideology like Democracy or Communism.
All have their pros and cons - if you don't have values/philosophies as well as laws to make people behave/feel part of the group and act to it's advantage, you'll get more corruption, and a society that's very divided. AND people who feel rootless.
If the system is too rigid, there'll be no freedom, and people who don't get 100% with the program/religion/dogma will get harrassed, outcast, imprisoned, stoned or sent to a camp in a cold place.
This often leads to rebellion...
So you have to center your society somewhere in the middle, and that's hard!
Here in Denmark religion isn't very important, and Democracy, freedom of speech, and equal rights for everyone, as well as taking care of the weaker members of society, are some of the main values.
BUT, what specific values do you teach your kids then? We discuss that a lot. Because the system only works 100%, if people don't ask for more welfare than they need, don't cheat etc. (And some of course DO). It only works if taxpayers think paying 45-68% tax to give everyone free hospitals/education is a good idea.
And if you as a parent/school teacher don't have a specific religion/political dogma to teach this from, it's not an easy job!
So while I'm not religious myself, I aknowledge that we humans very much need rituals, a set of values (Philosophy/religion/political dogma), to help us relate to and guide us in our interactions with the world, and laws alone are not enough. Some claim that a lot of substance abuse, loneliness etc are a result of lacking the above.
On the other hand, we need to adapt these values as the world and we evolve, and not use them to persecute those who don't agree with them.
Louise wrote: "I'd like to throw in a new angle in the discussion if I may :-)In a society, it's a lot easier to have things working smoothly, and everyone doing their part, if you have a system of beliefs/valu..."
This is a pretty interesting post. I can see what you mean. Sometimes - I assume because I'm not a parent yet - it has to be difficult to explain to your child a set of values that are learned from experience.
Religion covers a lot of values but not all. Then if you're not too religious, how do you teach your children these values? And even if you are religious, how do you teach these values without alienating your child? Our family is Catholic (I know that's not popular) and my several of my aunts and uncle have strayed from this faith to others in protest of the way they were raised by their parents. That's the part you always want to avoid.
One of the interesting conversations I was having with a friend is the difference in society in the last 50 years or so. My grandfather recently passed at 91. My grandmother is 86? She's never lived alone. She was married young to my grandfather and left her parents home to enter her husband's home.
I, on the other hand, lived alone for quite a few years before hubby.
I think I missed something by not having those same family ties that my grandmother had. Some people, of course, would disagree.
In the old days, here anyway, people we're pretty sure of their path in life, and what was expected of them.It was perhaps rigid and limiting, but also safe and predictable.
Now you can chose whatever path you like, and create your own mix of career, sexuality, relationships and kids/pets/hobbies, it's all very liberal, BUT a lot of people have trouble handling it and finding their way to a meaningful life. So some sort of guidelines are important.
As I mentioned, I do not believe in the existence of any gods whatsoever, but I love rituals, and many of the protestant core values are similar to my own. (There's a reason why almost EVERY culture in human existence had equivalents to baptism, weddings, funeral etc).
I have the most amazing godparents, who played an important part in my life and still do, so my kids have godparents. More as adults taking an interest and spending time with them, than anything to do with religion.
I try to teach my kids, that life is better if everyone try to make the world a little better, and be respectful to others (karma I guess), and to have a good balance between individual and society interests.
They also know a lot of the old Norse folklore, and look for frost trolls in winter, as I believe that makes the world a wonderfully magic place for young kids.
S.J. wrote: "... Science should not be used as a substitute for a belief system, yet that does not stop some people from trying to do just that....Are you suggesting that a "belief system" must include a supernatural element or provide answers to questions that cannot be answered yet using the scientific method?
I have found that one can be very spiritual without being religious or accepting the tenants of a given religion.
Kernos wrote: "S.J. wrote: "... Science should not be used as a substitute for a belief system, yet that does not stop some people from trying to do just that....Are you suggesting that a "belief system" must..."
Not sure what SJ meant but - to me - there is a clear difference between science and a belief system. Science changes year upon year, based upon any new discovers and/or techniques that it learns each year.
A belief system - either religious or not - does not change with that regularity. If you teach your children that X is wrong, that is a part of your belief system. This belief would not change based on a change in the social environment.
Louise wrote: "what Now you can chose whatever path you like, and create your own mix of career, sexuality, relationships and kids/pets/hobbies, it's all very liberal, BUT a lot of people have trouble handling it and finding their way to a meaningful life. So some sort of guidelines are important...."Love this ^. I work in a hospital, and there are a fair number of people that deal with chronic pain--some with a clear, physical cause (like a tumor) and some not so clear. There are huge variations in ability to cope, and I've come partly to the conclusion that some people who are suffering are also suffering from a lack of something , in some cases a community, and in some cases, a sense of spirituality, or meaning in their pain and their lives, and the emotional/spiritual distress has physical manifestations. Religion can fill this for some people.
I'm glad to see this post underway with a gentler wind pushing it. (One of those sailor things). I'd like to toss my ideas into the mix. I apologize before hand for a long post.I think, C.J.'s discussion of a belief system is a good way of thinking about things. I also think more explanation of what we are talking about might be helpful (at least I hope so).
These are things, in my opinion, that are at play (within the context of this thread) definitions in my words and therefor also likely my opinion, of course.
Faith Faith is the ability to believe in something despite having no factual evidence to base that belief on. (Read Ted Dekker Red, White, Black)
Lots of people don't believe they practice faith. I belief nearly everyone practices it regularly, though you may not think of it as faith. Do you turn on the light to see if it's going to come on? Maybe given a reason to you might, but most people don't. They just flip the switch and are unpleasantly surprised when the light fails.
Did you check the chair you sat in to make sure it would hold you, or did you just sit down? Have you ever flown in an airplane? How much do you know of aeronautics?
NPR at one time had explored matters of faith and they had some stories that, suggest that the Human Brain is born with the ability to tell right from wrong, and, that the human brain is wired to act on faith.
Unusual? you scoff? No, not unusual, unbelievably rare in the animal kingdom. Animals don't take things on faith (though we often attach faith to their normal behavior).
Faith is not religion, nor does it imply a religion, rather it works the other way around.
Religion Religion refers to institutions created by man, to understand and better guide or faith. Religion relies on experience, generations old stories passed down, and scholarly studies of everything that can be studied to better understand the nature of faith and how it works. From all of these years of study, learning, and some cases of the miraculous, a code, set of principles and/or set of values has developed.
Case in point, one could argue that the Ten Commandments have been seen as a "code" that has guided Western Civilizations moral development for over 2,000 years. To Members of Western, Euro-American culture, these principles seem almost expected. "Thou shall not kill." (read Ted Dekker Red, White, Black)
Spirituality - refers coming into harmony with self, others, the world around you, people plants animals etc. A Spiritual Journey refers to a quest to find out how I fit into this universe (especially with the people around me) to bring about a sense of harmony. (Read Allen Steele's Coyote Series, specifically about Cha-tong)
Too artsy fartsy? Maybe, but what about the Farmer with little more than a High School Education, who learns farming from his father who learned it from his father etc. and learns to rotate crops and grow things in a way that keeps the soil able to support life almost perpetually?(perhaps we need more of these guys)
Grow one crop that, once plowed under will support the next crop. Hunters who limit the number of animals they are allowed to take so that they'll be there next year (I know all the controversy about this. Please stay in today with the world we have, no blame as to who caused it.)
The person who spends much of their life depressed, then, after deciding to give up floundering in misery, starts to look at themselves, how they treat others, how they treat themselves, past events in their lives that had a roll in how they developed etc. A spiritual journey involves things like "acceptance," "Forgiveness," "Finding purpose" and "making Amends".
education is the quest for knowledge. Not an attempt at finding harmony, but an attempt to understand the world around us through science so we can learn how to get a desired effect. A good example would be a doctor. A doctor seeks knowledge and skill. Once he amasses enough, he then goes out and helps many people who are ill, hurt or injured (Damaged) heal.
A couple comparisons for clarification here.
A person of faith looks to a higher power for strength, courage, protection. "If I do this that will happen." If I flip the switch, the light will come on. If I trust in God I will be saved. The key point here, a person of faith believes help will come from outside of himself (in the form of the moral strength and guidance which gives the individual courage to overcome life’s challenges).
A Spiritual person looks for answers inside himself. What is keeping me from feeling loved? What is the reason we argue, why do cats and children run away from me? Why is our marriage failing. They believe that "awareness" (of self) is key. Change how I act, speak and behave and I will be happier.
A scientist (knowledge) seeks to find answers through study. I can cure blindness if we just unlock the right things during research, from there we can move forward and abolish this problem in the future.
As you can see, none of these four things excludes the presence or practice of the others. A Doctor may rely on knowledge, but his patients have faith in him. A person who takes a spiritual journey may find that they really do need the organized principles and values of a particular religion to bring happiness and order to their lives. etc.
"Sure Faith can move mountains ... bring a shovel." (Father Martin) (God will grant all the strength in the world, it’s you that has to do, the doing.)
(---> = leads to)
Belief --->Hope--->Strength--->Courage (to do what needs to be done)--->change
All four of these "disciplines" separately or in combination can lead to "belief".
The problem in my opinion, the atheism vs. education (enlightenment) is a Trojan horse argument. It's presented on philosophical/spiritual terms, but what the real fuss is about is:
Control
Fear
Freedom (free will)
It’s fear dominated. "They are going to make us read about evolving from monkeys! How dare they." or "They’re going to pray when my child needs surgery!" (I used extremes to try and avoid argument. Some of this can be sensitive without clear answers).
Once people start acting out of fear (Fear of rejection? Fear of weakness?) then behavior changes based on emotion, not rational logical thought.
It's like the problem drinker. A problem drinker, most often, will surround himself with heavy drinkers (not all heavy drinkers are "Problem drinker" though heavy drinking may be a problem) Then, after the problem drinker finds one of the above routs to finding a new lifestyle above, their friends will likely shun him, some will even try to sabotage his newfound sobriety. Why? Because your sobriety challenges my drinking. If you had a problem, and I drink as much as you then...it’s easier to get you to fall prey to your alcohol problem than it is for me to stop drinking.
Even more simply, if you’re right then I'm going to hell? or If your right, then my whole life, has been a lie (the way I've lived it).
So, it comes down to romance. (the hell you say?) These schools of thoughts work like this...just like the spouse, who pushes and works to change a behavior in their spouse, if they were really able to "make their significant other change what would they win. Their spouse would resent being forced to change. By the same token, changing a behavior in a patronizing manner doesn't work.
What one spouse wants most of all is for the other to "WANT" to change. So it's a dance of please, I told you so etc... or... forcing Religion on people will not get the desired effect. Practicing religion does not guarantee salvation. Faith without good works does not find salvation. "Wouldn't it be nice if that's what (they) wanted?"
The other side is just as hypocritical. They want freedom and free will to do choose their own beliefs and they believe they are able to take a spiritual journey, or pursue a course of study and skills to bring about positive change. Yet, they are turning their back on those who have already found what is going to help them. As if they're journey will turn out the answer needed by all.
The long answer made short is, if you want free will to choose your own belief system, then you need to accept the beliefs of others. If you have found salvation, you cannot force others to follow you. You have to "Set" the example in how you "live" your life, so they can see the results and be inspired to follow.
Or better yet, (Metaphorically speaking) "there's more than one way to skin a cat."
Intolerance breeds unhappiness. The only behavioral (observable) difference between the defender and the aggressor, after the battle starts, is who hit first. Nobody knows true motivation for action accept the individual.
If your truly confident in your beliefs, they why do the beliefs of others challenge you? (it’s a two way street)
(Sorry to ramble on so. My bad. Hope I made sense. Maybe I should go back to Percocet? I made more sense).
In a way it's hard to move on as the discussion here has no actual focus. The original question was (paraphrasing here so if you disagree that's fine), could an educated person believe in God...or possibly "a god" or "things non-physical"(?) if we carry it to it's logical conclusion. I of course believe and think the obvious answer would be yes (Albert Einstein might agree, though his experience at school wasn't the best LOL).
We're touching on a lot of subjects here. Europe became far less religious over the last century. There were a lot of reasons for that. That's one discussion. Then there's is what do we mean? Are we discussing theism vs atheism (simply the belief in a divine being)? Are we simply discussing "spirituality" and each person's take on it (as in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoist, new age, Wicca, etc. and atheism)?
There are multiple views of God even among Christians. Many people who consider themselves Christian simply because the "sort of believe in God" and their parents or grand parents were Christian may see God as anywhere from a sort of benevolent Santa Claus figure to a stern condemning figure sitting in harsh judgement (neither of which by the way actually reflect the Biblical view, though of course we can talk about it if you disagree with me).
I just wondered if we wanted to sort of state a question.
lol--have at it, Pally :)
I tend to agree with you mike. Why not put something up here by Faulkner, or Dekker that's full of symbology and discuss that, or Allen Steele who is athiest but promots his "Cha-tong" in his books. It's a philosophy and ficticous but there are some very debatable points. What was the original point of the discussin anyway?
I'm of the impression that the original question as posed by Brandt was whether or not religious people are not as intelligent as educated ones. I think he was expecting a general chorus of agreement, because he clearly had no idea how to deal with most of the responses he got. There really is no reason why 'religious' and 'educated' should be mutually exclusive.
Obviously (again) they are far from mutually exclusive, though I assume he might have questioned the education of those of us who are believers. It's not really fair to comment since he's not here.I suppose we could simply begin with do you believe in a higher power, creator, first cause (in my case do I believe in God) or do you not(?) and why?
Good point, Mike! My two cents on the question at hand:
There are a lot of really intelligent people out there, even scientists, who believe in god.
Myself, I'm an agnostic. Which means I like sitting on a fence. lol
But I don't see why a physicist (for example) can't believe in god. Just because we haven't proven his/her/its existence yet doesn't mean that nothing's there, and vice-versa.
I saw a documentary once based on a similar question, I can't remember what it was called, and they interviewed an astrophysicist who was also a devout Christian.
Some of the Christians I've known in real life are very intelligent men and woman who are fairly successful business people and one who's a lawyer.
IMO, it comes down to this: some people believe and some don't, theism versus atheism as Mike put it, while others, like myself, enjoy their spot on that fence, examining both sides. LOL
So, my answer to this debate is yes, there are people out there who are very intelligent and they believe in a god. Therefore, religious people can indeed be intelligent. It's kind of silly to think otherwise, imo. It's also insulting to religious folks to think otherwise.
Anne, in post #18, links to a study that seems pretty interesting and worthy of discussion.
I could probably say a bunch of things about why i don't believe in god or anything supernatural for that matter but i don't want to insult anyone's beliefs, so i won't. I think religion is very comforting for alot of people and it has it's uses, who would not want to know that when they die everything is going to be honky dory?
Some people need religion and use it as a pillar in their life and there is nothing wrong with that. What i do hate is that alot of religios people are constantly trying to force their beliefs on others.
If you look at religion through history it has caused more damage then good to be honest, no one knows how many millions of people that have died because of some religion or other. Religion has also been a huge hindrance for science and other developments for mankind. Countless men and woman have been burned and hanged for "heresy" by writing or saying something that the church did not improve of. For example Galileo Galilei was condemned for heresy because he said that the Sun was in the senter of our solar system and not Earth as the church claimed.
Religion makes me crazy for a number of reasons, but I feel that if historical analysis is going to be brought up, on the positive side, religion kept reading and writing intact (in Western civilization at least).
Hard to discuss also in many ways. The quote from Psalms is taken out of context (as often happens) and misapplied. the following verse (2, she quotes verse 1) in the Psalm says:2 The LORD looks down from heaven
on all mankind
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
The Psalm is about the Human condition in general and is about humanities need for a Savior. I won't belabor the Christian explanation but my point is that we can't go into a discussion of the article with the assumption that it's unbiased. It has a point to make and attempts to do it with statistics (does anyone remember what Twain said about statistics?).
I will agree with her that atheists stand just as much chance of being "nice" or "good" people as theists or believers. God doesn't stand over us with a club being sure we do as He taught.
My belief is based on a conclusion I came to about 37 years ago. I'd say that each person needs to look at the arguments, evidence etc. an come to an understanding a belief if you will (yay, nay, or undecided).
Of course I believe God is involved in this process. (I'll go into that if anyone wishes, won't belabor it otherwise.)
Carol wrote: "Religion makes me crazy for a number of reasons, but I feel that if historical analysis is going to be brought up, on the positive side, religion kept reading and writing intact (in Western civiliz..."But the church did burn more books then we can count and they banned them too, so if you were caught with a specific book it was very likely that you could be imprisoned and even executed.
I tend to be more Gnostic than Agnostic. (Though technically that tends to work out to be the same thing.) http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
I really put more stock in doing the best I can with life today. I get angry when I see people using religion to brow beat everyone into obedience (particularly children, often women)
again. I'm more of an existentialist than anything. I know that doesn't count as a religion.
I don't know.
(But then, that is the root of aGnosticism isn't it? Je ne ce pas?)
Posts came in while I was posting. LOL Mach, I've read that statement before that the total donations from religious people is mostly negative. I'm sorry, while of course terrible things have been done in God's name (which does not mean He wanted them done. I could run through the streets machine-gunning people and screaming "I'm doing this in Mach's name!" It wouldn't mean you wanted me to do it).Most history books tell about the Inquisition, forced "conversions" and the Crusades (though we don't get as much about Islam sweeping out of the East 300 years before the Crusades and conquering the middle-east, Most of Africa and Spain only being stopped halfway through France).
Whet isn't discussed are the quiet efforts by Christians throughout history to feed and care for the poor, the hungry and the sick. To educate and as noted save the knowledge that was already there. To this day where Christians go hospitals and schools are built, people are fed and in the majority of cases no one says "only Christians can eat or get care". All are cared for. it just doesn't make good reading to tell about that sort of thing.
Christians are human and most, even the best make horrible errors... We just happen look to a time when all that changes.
That may be how it is today but i can asure you Christanity has not always been that tolerant. The inquisition is a good example that christianity was spread with violence, the indigenous people had no choice it was either convert or die. They tortured people to find out who was still worshiping the old gods, then tortured them to get more names, they destroyed all kinds of artefacts and pretty much obliterated everything. The christians have destroyed dosens of smaller religions over the centuries so good we don't even know what they believed in! we only know that there were some kind of religion there before the christians arrived.
Mach, while what you say is true to a point, that isn't the complete picture. We're about to go into a "yes it is" "no it's not" thing here, so...Christianity was originally considered a Jewish sect by Rome. It went through periods of toleration and persecution, with huge numbers of Christians killed.
Then Christianity became THE religion of the Roman Empire. By then however Christianity was no longer monolithic, it had splintered, with it's texts hidden and kept secretly in different places. The Emperor for a while was the head of that part of the church, it was still a struggle.
Yes I mentioned forced conversion, it was the rule of the day. For a while Rome let people keep their own religion so long as they agreed that the gods they worshiped were "part of the crowd" and subservient to the Roman deities (which caused problems for Jews and Christians among others). But to argue that Christianity on the whole had a convert or die mentality misrepresents the situation. The Inquisition largely persecuted other Christians. Most of examples you can find of Christian book burning are accounts of them burning competing Christian texts (still not good I agree). In the Middle ages were it not for the Church (whatever part) far more books would have been lost than were.
But all that aside to argue that Christianity in particular and religion in general has been an over all negative is an emotional statement. A study of history will reveal negative actions by Christians and positive actions by Christians (many times things meant for good ended up having negative results). I doubt I'd ever convince you, but the teachings of Christ were always "tolerant". The Apostle Paul noted that Christians should be all things to all people. We are to spread Good News and the Biblical record is plain that no one can be convinced against their will. The fact that Human Christians did the wrong thing does not mean that Christianity itself is at fault.
I'd like to point out that in the 20th Century political factions that were often proudly pagan or atheist managed to kill more people than any Christian denomination ever managed to. So perhaps the lesson we should take to heart here is to be wary of anyone who claims to have the One True Answer.
S.J. wrote: "I'd like to point out that in the 20th Century political factions that were often proudly pagan or atheist managed to kill more people than any Christian denomination ever managed to. So perhaps th..."
[Citation Needed].
[Citation Needed].
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "we can't go into a discussion of the article with the assumption that it's unbiased. It has a point to make and attempts to do it with statistics"You're missing a very important point- it's a RESEARCH PAPER. The author was required, by definition, to select a thesis and support it with evidence. That is how a research paper works (I've had to write dozens throughout the course of my education). It was published in a professional journal, so it has been peer-reviewed for factual or other errors. That doesn't mean no errors could exist, but it does make it much less likely that overt distortions of other's research are present. There is an extensive bibliography at the end if you want to review his sources.
The psalm was just a hook to try to get reader's attention; it was not the point of the paper to debate theology. He cited dozens of studies during the course of what is basically a literature review. Also, whether or not the psalm was interpreted correctly, in my experience it is commonly used with exactly that interpretation. In fact, it was parroted back at be multiple times in the last week by people belonging to different Christian denominations as they were calling me bad names. (I made the mistake of commenting that having the government impose Christianity on American citizens is intolerant to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. As my reward, I got called evil, intolerant, and one woman accused me of somehow taking away her rights.) Not all Christians are intolerant, but I know I'm not the only non-religious person to be threatened and called names because I don't share someone else's beliefs.
My point was that as a discussion piece it would be difficult to use for the reasons I mentioned. I wasn't arguing with the writer's point of view or her right to hold it. We'd simply have to start searching for numbers with sources and counter numbers with sources.I can't answer for what has been said to you, and I'm sorry if someone ever said anything like threatening things in Christ's name. Obviously that's not Christian. I wasn't there so that's about all I can say.
And speaking of "obvious" I suppose an obvious problem is showing up. Phrases like "many times" and "commonly used" will simply be answered by like comments or requests for source sightings (which will be difficult unless you happen to have a photographic memory or have just looked up whatever was said on line).
It is against the very founding documents on the US to establish a religion as a state religion. The same amendment that says there can be no abridgement of religious practice states that the US can't have a state religion.
I don't know what the circumstances were that you refer to as "having the government impose religion". By the same token, allowing a moment of silence in a public forum where someone "might" pray or allowing someone to offer a prayer "IF THEY CHOOSE TO" before a graduation exercise or some other public function is not forcing religion on anyone. It's allowing those who wish to give thanks to do so. If a person doesn't wish to pray or finds the idea of prayer incomprehensible or whatever they need not participate in that prayer. Don't bow your heads or whatever. Simply allow we poor benighted backward souls to pray and then move on. I don't know what the circumstances you refer to are so if that has no bearing it was all that came to mind that might be called "forced religion".
And "Christians" of any denomination calling names seems incomprehensible to me, whatever that was it's obviously not Christian behavior. I can't answer for the given situation as I'm ignorant of it, but it should never happen. I assume that there was an argument and "strong words" were exchanged. As i said Christians are still human and lose their tempers etc. We do and say things God would not have us do and say, not good. If an apology is appropriate I offer one.
The writer was a MAN. You keep saying "she."To give you a fuller view: the conversation started because the woman posted a facebook status saying the only way for the US to come together is to put Jesus back into the government. That's very clearly unconstitutional. I did not call anyone names or use heated language. I even asked several other people to review the thread, and they couldn't figure out why she was attacking me. I did not retaliate in any way. I kept asking for religious tolerance, and affirmed her right to believe as she chose but that I also have the same rights.
When I said it was commonly used that way, I said clearly that I was speaking from my own experience. I've heard some variation on that phrase several dozen times from roughly the same number of different people.
It may not be Christian behavior, but it happens a lot. I have never believed, not even as a child. When I was 10 years old and innocently said that I didn't think God was necessary, a friend's parent started scolding me and told me I was evil. As I got older I learned to be very selective in who I discussed religion with. Many people are very tolerant, but there is a significant minority who are not. A few times they've even threatened physical violence. (I didn't say something disrespectful. I just said I wasn't interested in their religious pamphlet or joining their church. The fact I'm a very petite female is probably what prevented them from actually following through with the threat.) This behavior is atypical, but it's not as rare as many Christians would like to think.
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "If an apology is appropriate I offer one"You don't owe me an apology. You have no reason to apologize for other Christians, just as I do not speak on behalf of all atheists, agnostics, or other non-religious people. Your own comments are respectful of the rights of people to believe other than you. I'm not offended by moments of silence or other people practicing their beliefs. I just don't like another person trying to dictate what I believe. It's a little scary when you say "no thank you" to a religious brochure and someone starts following you around and harassing you (another "interesting" thing that I've experienced).
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I'm one of the Christians Carol and as I said, I'm happy to discuss "why". I think we should be able to "Disagree, agreeably" but maybe I'm being naive.Maybe we could discuss how intelligence and..."
YES!!!! Please let's do that so I don't have to keep defending being a fantasy fan to family and friends.
Sorry I said she, my error.As for the rest, it can't be answered as it's your experience and I have no way to account for the behavior of others. I can only say they were human and had they lived in Salem they'd probably have been in the front row for the hangings...I just don't know why some people feel they must get aggressive. I've dealt with it to, but not usually from Christians I've disagreed with.
I've discussed "disagreements" with Christians, other denominations and so on, but even if they got "heated" they seldom got in anyway threatening.
I used to participate in a Bible study with an interdenominational component (it was at the house of a man who couldn't get out much). There were arguments, even loud but I don't recall, names etc.
I'm sorry. It's apparent you've got a bad taste in your mouth and another sad thing there is that's something Christians are warned not to do, offend or hurt others. It simply shows again that we're human. This kind of thing is a caricature of Christians, the self righteous, pushy Christian and it's left you with a negative over all view, I'm sorry. It probably started with the woman who didn't have enough understanding to know that we are supposed to introduce people to Christ, not call them evil, especially not children.
I'm sorry your view of Christians has been turned that way. I can only say I guess it happens and assure you that that is not Christian behavior.
I would agree that it's not Christian behavior. The people who have done these things have a very distorted view of what it means to be a Christian. I do not think that this is what Christianity is supposed to teach (although some more extremist sects do just that). I went to a Jesuit college, so I've even taken an introduction to theology course. The Jesuit priest who taught the course was actually really nice. When he found out that I wasn't a Christian, he was very supportive. I got an excellent grade without having to believe in any of the teachings. He didn't think it was his role to convert anyone; he was just there to teach a course. Mostly it was a history of the church and what its teachings were, and he never assumed any prior knowledge. My friends come from very religiously diverse backgrounds- Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, and even a Jehovah's Witness. Some are also non-religious like me (of varying degrees of certainty in the existence or non-existence of a god). We all get along because we respect the rights of others to have other beliefs. I wish everyone could be that way.
The number of bad experiences was increased by living in large cities (downtown Milwaukee and the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area). The shear number of people you are exposed to on a regular basis increases the odds that you will meet up with some bad ones.
I don't believe in God(s), and agree with Freud, that it's a tool we humans invented, to deal with a world we don't fully understand or control.But it doesn't have to be a bad tool - if used correctly :-) It's just not for me.
When you look through history, humans have battled for power and domination, and religion is a fantastic power tool. Just like other means of power, it can be used with good or with evil in mind - depending on the user.
It's about monopolizing the truth (in the power context). That's why, for many years, the bible was only available in latin, and why the first man who translated it into English was burned by the church.
I think it is enormously important that church and state/laws be separated, so laws can be fair for all, and not favour a particular group of people, and that you can change laws to accommodate the world as it is now - not as it was 2000 years ago (that's where I have a huge problem with the way it works in large parts of the Islamic world. Mohammad is said to have been a very modern man (as you can also read by the texts that survive him), I don't think he'd approve of the dark, medieval way the Taleban and others want to run things - AND the Koran actually says, that men and women are equal! Wonder if they skipped that part?).
By the way, I'd love to hear your take on this speech by Stephen Fry, as I think it illustrates the dilemma very well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwkiJD...
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Obviously (again) they are far from mutually exclusive, though I assume he might have questioned the education of those of us who are believers. It's not really fair to comment since he's not here...."Of course they are not. I have known numerous "educated" people with a strong belief in God. That is anecdotal and doesn;t prove anything. There is reproducible evidence, however, that the more educated one is, the less likely they are to be fundamentalists.
For me Nature = God and I call it Nature, deserving respect, but not worship.
I won't get into it if it causes friction...that said. "Fundamentalist" is a word we've lost. It carries around a penumbra of meaning that has been attached to it that the word itself (nor fundamentalist believers) deserve. The word has become confused with "radical". There is a two volume work that goes back to the 19th century on Christian Fundamentals. It's a long study and not about violence etc. It does cover the basics or fundamentals of Christianity that were intended to be a base line. They include the Virgin Birth, the Divinity of Jesus, and the infallibility of the Bible "AS ORIGINALLY INSPIRED BY GOD" (not in ever translated version) and other doctrines. There is a difference in a fundamentalist Christian, a fundamentalist Islamic (and I make no claims as to what a fundamentalist Islamic believes), a fundamentalist Buddhist or for that matter fundamentalist Amish. In some cases Christian denominations will disagree on the basics and simply redefine what is "fundamental".
My pastor says I'm beating a dead horse here and we'll never reclaim the word. I suppose it's true, that ship may have sailed and forevermore the word "fundamentalist" will be confused with the word radical. Still, I can't help but wonder, would people like a doctor who didn't understand the "fundamentals" of medicine?
As for the number of PHDs in whatever field who are believers, I doubt we really have actual numbers only anecdotal evidence. And even then just because 80% of a given group believed one way or another it wouldn't effect the fact that I have to look at the evidence and reality around me and come to my own conclusion.
Belief is more than an emotional crutch (though it is that in some cases of course). I once had a "debate opponent" ask me if I didn't have God did I think I'd need some other crutch? The only answer to that is, when you don't have a logical counter argument do you always try to illicit an emotional response?
So many of the things that always come up in a discussion like this are by their nature imprecise...
So, we all have to decide for ourselves. I believe God has a hand in it of course. To go into that would make this long post even longer LOL.
I'm not a Christian or a Muslim, so someone please enlighten me. Is Fundamentalist the same as Orthodox (i.e. rejecting modern revisions of religion) or is there more to it?
Not necessarily. In Christianity Orthodox tends to have multiple meanings (like fundamental LOL). In actual usage it refers (mostly) to Eastern Churches that never accepted Rome's authority and hold some different doctrines. Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, etc... I'm sure there's a more detailed and/or scholarly answer but that's a basic.
Fundamentalist Christianity- belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Catholics and main-line Protestants (non-fundamentalists) reject literal interpretations and believe in filtering faith through reason. The literal interpretation is insupportable based on archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence. It also cannot be reconciled with the many contradictions contained in the Bible itself (multiple chronologies for the same events, for instance). The bible is a book of lessons, but it is not a book of science or a completely factual and unbiased account of historical events. Many of the events weren't written about until centuries after they occurred, and some facts were altered to suit an author's agenda. Translation errors have altered meanings of some passages.
A literal interpretation ignores the well-established reality of symbolism and allegory being used in the Bible. For instance- "40" does not actually mean literally 40 of anything. It just means "a lot" or "a long time." The "7 days of creation" were also not literally 7 earth days unless you decide to ignore all factual evidence to the contrary. The idea that the earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old is based on a bunch of faulty math, discredited science, and false assumptions (these are the ages often promoted by fundamentalist sects). Not surprisingly, young earth creationism is rejected by 99.9999999999999999999 . . . % of all scientists (I won't use 100% because there could be some equivalent to the flat-earth society out there). Conversely, evolution and an age of the earth in the billions of years is accepted by a similarly large percentage. There is no controversy in science about the existence of evolution; it is only controversial to the misinformed and to people whose religious faith rejects science. Belief in Young Earth Creationism is found almost exclusively among the less educated, and rejected by an overwhelming majority of people with college degrees.
Interesting conclusions at the end of your post.
Yeah Ann I was with you till the very end. Thanks for answering my question, though.
Still waiting on that citation, SJ
I was pointing out what the data actually says about who believes in young earth creationism. At most 22% of people with postgraduate degrees are young earth creationists (I've seen polls with varying numbers). It's closer to 50% among the less educated (high school or less). Evolution (with or without involvement of a god) is accepted by around 75% of people with postgraduate degrees and around 60% of people with college degrees. People who go to colleges affiliated with fundamentalist religions drag down the percentages a bit. Here's one gallup poll, but there are many other studies/polls on this topic. Many show even greater discrepancies between the beliefs of the uneducated vs. college educated. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/fou...
This is true only in America. This type of denial of science is frowned upon in Europe, for instance.
I won't try to counter all that. First the 6000 year age theory is not found in the Bible, it's an extrapolation by certain people. The Bible has been over and over supported by the Historical record, and it's important to realize that the Bible specifies that some things are symbolic and others literal and some admittedly are not specified either way. The famous contradictions in the Bible are mostly due to translation differences or the fact that the accounts in question are the result of two (or more) eye witness accounts. The accounts may vary in detail, but that doesn't change underlying truths.
For example a couple always brought up are the accounts of Christ's resurrection one account says two angels were seen the other mentions one. The accounts themselves are from a variety of people, the women who arrived first, John who got to the tomb first but didn't go in, only looked through the door and Peter who rushed past John into the tomb. It's quite possible that one saw 2 angels and the other one without changing the account of Christ's resurrection or an angel's testimony.
Then there's Paul's conversion. The first account is in Acts written by Luke based on testimony he collected, the other is in a letter from Paul himself. One says that the people with Paul heard a voice but saw no bright light, the other says that they saw a bright light but heard no voice. It's probable Luke simply remembered it wrongly, it doesn't change the events or Paul's conversion.
Again, I realize that in the end both belief and unbelief, theism and atheism depend on faith. I don't kid myself I'll convince anyone. There are so many things that are based on assumptions. Right now I am "assuming" that you believe young earth belief to be the same as fundamentalism, it's not.
Personally I don't know the Earth's age. I do believe that there was a time when man made a choice. Whether you believe the Biblical creation story to be a blow by blow account of creation or a symbolic story told in a way that could be understood by people from every age, the point is the same. Humanity says to God, we don't need you, we'll decide for ourselves what's good and what's evil. God says, okay go ahead the world is yours to build and do with as you please...but I will make provision that you don't destroy yourselves, because I love you.
I know...my belief, I'm not trying to force it on anyone.
S.J. wrote: "I'd like to point out that in the 20th Century political factions that were often proudly pagan or atheist managed to kill more people than any Christian denomination ever managed to. So perhaps th..."I have read my fair share of history and i have no idea what you are reffering to. Please tell me when did these atheist's kill all those people? and under what circumstances was this?
Let's see...The Communists under Stalin
The Communists under Mao Tse-Tung
The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot
And the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of Jewish descent.
So you blame the communists lack of religion on atheists? It was their political belief in communism and not lack of religion that made them a power in these countries, and able to do what they did.By the way Hitler was christian.
S.J. wrote: "Let's see...The Communists under Stalin
The Communists under Mao Tse-Tung
The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot
And the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of ..."
Those leaders did not slaughter people because of or in the name of atheism; they killed political opponents during their attempts to gain and maintain power. They were leaders of oppressive regimes who denied their citizens any rights. Plenty of "Christian" leaders have ruled much the same way. The death tolls are just better known because these happened in modern times. Go back in time and look at the estimated death toll from the wars of religions, the inquisition, the crusades, etc. The Christians don't come out smelling like roses in any of those.
Hitler did not kill Jews because he was an atheist or pagan. His religious views are very much in dispute, but saying he slaughtered Jews because of atheism is a complete distortion of the historical record. Racism and political opportunism are far more credible motives.
I didn't mention Hitler at all.I am not saying that it was atheism that induced the communists to do what they did. I'm merely pointing out that they did some terrible things, and that communism was atheist.
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)
Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)
