posted
BtL, I think that is too "touchy feely" for some people. But, yeah, I imagine that sort of experience would make a difference to some non-believers.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BtL, I think you're right. I also think that "feeling the presence of God" is pretty much as far removed from the scientific method as possible. If you or ssywak ever do believe, it won't be because of a repeatable experiment. If I ever stop believing, it won't be because of scientific proof of any kind.
posted
Hmm. I didn't get anything in my email. Check the Galactic Cactus thread. I'm thinking my plans might have to change.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point with bringing up the "atrocities" is that I wonder some times if the world with religion is any better than it would be without religion.
If "religion" is not required for morality, then why do we need religion?
If "religion" can create horrors equal to what the secular world can create, then what's the benefit there?
If religion allows for the concentration of sexually frustrated men who like preying on young boys, and then fails to protect those victims once it knows about them, then what's the benefit? I know that similar things go on in public and private schools, but I wonder if it's to the same degree, and what the typical administration response is in those other organizations? Is it a cover-up, as we've typically seen in the RC Church?
And I realize that there is an idealized religion: what religion is "supposed" to be, and that differs greatly from what a practiced religion is. Communism, according to Marx, wasn't supposed to have pogroms, either. But since mankind made both of them up, all we have are their earthly incarnations, and that's all we can compare. In their "idealized" forms, all these various systems are supposed to work "perfectly."
But, if religion is a comfort to people when they stare into the abyss (moreso when it starts to stare back), then let's at least admit that.
But therre are other, non-theistic philosophical systems that try to deal with that situation, too.
But religion doesn't really help us understand this world (unless, you're trying to figure out how religion figures in to this world). I guess it tries to help us understand the "after" world, and that's where it stops making sense to me. Unfortunately, that's right where it's supposed to start....
--Steve
[No critical or snarky phrases were removed during this edit]
posted
(still off topic) Actually, my plans are back to a state of non change. But I hope we can figure out the email problem. Maybe I need to turn off my junk mail filter.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak, I will share my own thoughts on this since I cannot speak for anyone but myself. You ask some good questions here. And I am sure there are many that feel just as you do.
Any organization that allows children to be abused and go unpunished is making a grave mistake. I cannot speak for the Catholic church because I don't know enough. Any organization that exists just to make people "feel better" isn't doing all that much good either. But an organization that requires it's members to search their hearts and souls and improve themselves is doing a great service to the world, IMO. And I think there are plenty of religious organizations that do just that.
While secular humanism might have some mighty fine ideals, this world is chalk full of subtle and not so sublte messages of "if it feels good, do it", and "if you want it you can have it." Organized religion counters such messages with expectations of self discipline and sacrifice for the good of others. And, if you want to look at it from your non-believer POV, having faith in God has a great deal of power to unify people in those efforts.
But from my POV, God is very much real, and helps His children in their efforts to be better. He also knows the best way to go about doing it and exactly what we need to have lasting happiness.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak -- society is not some nebulous thing out there. It's just people. I think an important question to ask is "Does religion help people become better or worse people?"
I am a better person because of my religion. I am as sure of this fact as I am about anything.
I'm also a better person because of my family. I am also happier.
I'm also a better person because of my salary. I am also happier.
I'm also a better person because of my %variable%. I am also happier.
If that's what religion is, that's great. But it's always been sold as something much, much more. You've reduced it to its pragmatic value. At that point, it doesn't matter if it's made up or not, it has a value as a "thing." "Belief in God" has a value in and of itself, then, and does not require the existence of God to have that value.
Damn!
I was really hoping I'd find God this time! I'll just have to keep looking.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll agree that just because a religion is good for its members does not make its teachings true.
edit: But you were postulating that religion makes things worse, and that was what I was referring to.
Also, I doubt that you have become a better person because you make more money. Not because of anything about you specifically -- I just don't see anybody becoming a better person because they have more money.
posted
And what if all good things come from God? What if you having a family comes from values and civilization built upon God's principles? What if without God, you would see no reason to come down out of the wild and commit yourself to anything? What if your excellent salary is just as dependant upon the society based on God's laws?
Just because religion produces goodness does not somehow rule out God being the reason for it. It wouldn't matter what the net output of religion is, you will find a way to see it as not being because of God.
Religion=bad Must not be from God since God is good.
Religion=neutral Must not be from God because it makes no difference
Religion=good Must not be from God because it is good by itself.
It's just a no-win situation because no matter what the result, you will choose not to see God there. But just as you choose to see God nowhere, I can choose to see him everywhere.
Actually, Porter, the way I look at it is that inasmuch as the teachings do bring good into the lives of the members, they are true, at least in essence.
quote:But religion doesn't really help us understand this world (unless, you're trying to figure out how religion figures in to this world). I guess it tries to help us understand the "after" world, and that's where it stops making sense to me. Unfortunately, that's right where it's supposed to start....
If religion reveals the purpose of existence, I'd say it helps us understand the world a lot more than knowing the thrust needed for a satellite to achieve escape velocity.
According to Bev, the purpose is to become a God. Then to make worlds. Then to make people. Those people can then become Gods. And so on.
Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose?" Bev, and the LDS Church, may think this is the greatest thing since sliced bread---but why?
What do other religions have to say about the purpose of existence?
How are they any better (or worse) than an atheist's "purpose".
All I can offer is mine:
quote:It *is* difficult to wrest meaning from "life" with an atheistic POV. There's no denying that we all end in death. The atheist believes that the sense of self (self-awareness) also fades at the moment of death (through disease and other causes, it can actually fade well before death. Think delusion, think coma).
But here's the gift of atheism: if this life is all you have, then you are free to make of it what you will. You get to determine what is important in your life. You get to decide what you want to achieve.
Money/wealth/power/fame? There is no reason why this is not a worthy pursuit.
Helping people in need (a la Mother Theresa)? Equally worthy.
And, there's always Bill Gates (not a personal hero, mind you), who may even be trying to do both.
Instead of creating a worthwhile "everlasting soul" that will meet with the approval of God (however that approval is defined, however "He" is defined, by whatever religious group is seeking to define him), you get to create a worthwhile life. Your legacy is the memory of yourself and your acts that you leave behind. Your legacy is the family which you may desire to create. Your legacy is whatever large or small way your life has conributed to the improvement of the state of the world you were born into.
For myself, my legacy also includes the inventions and creations I have developed and built (I am an engineer), as well as the others. But, since my designs have typically led to the joy of others (I have designed technical effects for Broadway musicals, among other things), I feel that's covered under the heading of "small-scale improvements to the world."
But the next question an atheist would probably ask is: "Why does any of that matter?" It matters because it's all that we have. This life, this world, this universe. Life is a gift (not from God, of course; it's a gift of random natural mutations--but didn't your parents teach you never to look a gift horse in the mouth?!?). Life is an opportunity to live! It's an adventure!
The dark side to watch out for is: not to use it up too quickly. Jumping out of a plane without a parachute is really exciting for the first 30 seconds or so, but then, all of a sudden, it really sucks. There are enough books out there illustrating this live fast/die young aproach, but I, myself, am really opposed to this approach.
Again, being an engineer, I look at the "integral" of joy; the area under the curve. Plot a curve of joy vs. time. Measure the area under that curve. The "no parachute" approach leads to a high peak, but a short duration. The area under the curve is small. I've maintained a reasonably high "joy" factor (with the ocassional dips below the zero-mark, too) for a reasonably long time (forty-some-odd years). So, my "area under the curve" is nice and big. And my "joy" curve is still continuing, and should for at least another forty years.
posted
People are that they might have joy. That is the ultimate purpose of existance. I know you were looking for something more practical, but . . . maybe existance itself is impractical.
posted
Considering the LDS belief in the Circularity of Existance (i.e. One Eternal Round and What was is, and what is will be), I am not surprised by your assessment.
posted
In the LDS belief there is hope of more than what this brief life has to offer. There is the hope of all the same things that bring us the most joy in this life continuing forever. Let me define what "joy" means to an LDS. Joy to an LDS is distinctly different than temporary, self-serving pleasure. Yet we believe both pleasure and pain are part of joy. The pain I speak of is the pain felt when your child makes foolish choices that will cause them pain. It is a pain borne out of love for others.
This is why becoming a parent is so highly valued to LDS. We believe that becoming a parent is the best way to emulate God and learn to become more like Him. In trying to raise our children with love, the joy of seeing them grow and learn and become functioning, fulfilled adults, and then their children and grandchildren, expanding forever and ever, that is the joy that the LDS glories in most and has great hope in continuing beyond the bounds of this mortal life. And developing perfect love for all of God's children, a love that scripture calls charity, is crucial to being able to fulfill this capacity and great responsibility.
Those who see no joy in parenting will see little value in this vision of eternity. But many who have chosen to be parents will catch glimpses of what we believe to be God's plan for us.
posted
That is a very interesting question. It is one I have never really thought about before. As several people on the forum here have mentioned, unmarried members of the church tend to feel "left out" because of the importance placed upon marriage and parenting.
But the LDS church offers the same basic gospel of Jesus Christ that most Christian churches offer: The hope of forgiveness and healing through Christ, and yes, the promise of eternal happiness even if one does not receive what we believe is the highest blessings God has to offer. The church teaches what a person must do to have peace and joy in both this life and the next, ways to draw nearer to God. We do believe that part of becoming like God is becoming a parent though, since according to LDS belief God is, literally, a (married) Father.
The LDS view of the afterlife includes different kingdoms of glory. The highest kingdom includes those who are married eternally and able to continue to progress and become as God is, and those who are unmarried and serve as angels but receive the glory and presence of God. I imagine that those who fit the second description will be there because that is what they most desired for themselves and it was the thing that would make them the most happy.
That is an interesting part of LDS doctrine, the belief that the final state of the soul will be to receive as much of God's gifts as they were willing to receive. God does not give gifts to those who would not enjoy and appreciate them. The idea is we eventually end up where we desired to be.
quote:While secular humanism might have some mighty fine ideals, this world is chalk full of subtle and not so sublte messages of "if it feels good, do it", and "if you want it you can have it." Organized religion counters such messages with expectations of self discipline and sacrifice for the good of others
quote:In the LDS belief there is hope of more than what this brief life has to offer. There is the hope of all the same things that bring us the most joy in this life continuing forever. Let me define what "joy" means to an LDS. Joy to an LDS is distinctly different than temporary, self-serving pleasure. Yet we believe both pleasure and pain are part of joy. The pain I speak of is the pain felt when your child makes foolish choices that will cause them pain. It is a pain borne out of love for others.
So the difference between the secular humanist "if it feels good, do it" and the religious (in this case: LDS) approach to "the things that bring us joy in this life continuing forever" would be....the fact that you defined "joy" for deep-thinking peoples as including both pleasure and pain (and, yes: I understand the joy that can be found in some pain, even though I'm a secular liberal bleeding-heart pinko commie tree-hugging sensitive wuss)?
Something in there...secularists (apparently) just want to feel good for the brief time they exist on earth, while religious peoples want to feel good forever?
So the reason that secular humanism is wrong (as you implied: good ideals, bad execution...where have I heard that argument recently?), the reason it's wrong would be...?
So, just to double check, Bev. The reason we're here is to find a way to feel good for all eternity. That's what you said, right? This reminds me of the scene with that older engineer in "Brainstorm," who makes that special tape loop for himself...
MPH,
quote:
quote: Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose"?
Because this is the reason why we exist on earth in the first place.
We've been disagreeing here a little bit, so I'm not sure about this next question: "You're kidding, right?"
posted
I didn't say that the "if it feels good do it" sentiment came from secular humanism. I meant it was the subtle and not-so-subtle messages sent out regularly in the media and the trends of society. (I didn't specify before) I actually think that secular humanism tries to be a bit wiser than that, actually tries to follow "the golden rule" which takes others into account. "If it feels good do it" takes no one into account but yourself. It is a selfish, and ultimately hurtful, sentiment. Hurtful to society, and hurtful to self. Selfishness may bring instant gratification, but it does not bring about my above definition of joy.
But I think religion often does a better job at convincing large numbers of people to actually follow "the golden rule". I think part of that is "the promise of eternal reward", but I think another important part of it is the influence of the goodness of God in the hearts of those seeking Him.
ssywak, your points would come across much better sans snarkiness. Snarkiness has no place in intelligent, civil conversation.
1) To find a way to feel good ("Joy") for all eternity.
2) To get the masses to obey the "Golden Rule." (Oh, Karl! Karl! There's a phone call for you!)
3) To better understand the physical universe
4) To posit a non-physical universe, and to better understand that universe. (Sounds like science fiction to me! Oh, wait! That's why we're here! Here as in "on Hatrack," not anything metaphysical)
My last post (except for the "Brainstorm" reference) scored pretty low on my snark scale. I'd have given it a 2 out of 10. The "Brainstorm" reference probably added 3 snark-points, though (so you're right). I will admit, though, there have been some posts where I'm up to 11, or higher. This one is a 3.5.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, Bev, you "close-coupled" that "Secular Humanist" reference and the "If it feels good, do it" reference. It's a reasonable assumption that you meant for the first to imply the second.
I do appreciate your clearing it up, though. At (on) that point, we're agreed.
posted
I would change #1 to be have peace and joy in this life and the next.
Maybe it is just the way that you have sounded to me, but it sounds more like you are trying to "shut me (and others) down" than you are actually interested in what I have to say. But it is difficult to communitcate through writing without all the subtle cues we normally depend on to "read" one another.
quote: We've been disagreeing here a little bit, so I'm not sure about this next question: "You're kidding, right?"
Absolutely not. I was completely serious.
Bev shared her views on the purpose of life (become more like God, and progress eternally). You said
quote: "Why is this so important? What makes this a great "purpose?"
I was saying that this is important because this is the way things are. The whole reason why the earth was created and we were placed on it was to do these things.
I don't say this to try to convince you. I thought you were asking why anybody should care about these ideas. I was just trying to help you understand why they are important to us -- because we believe they are true.
Can you at least admit that if these ideas are true, then they are pretty important and should make a difference in how we live?
posted
Nothing substantive to add, but I have to say that I love the idea of posts being stamped with a snarkometer reading.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
"I was saying that this is important because this is the way things are. The whole reason why the earth was created and we were placed on it was to do these things."
I assume you mean "become more like God, and progress eternally", correct? Those were the only "things" you reference in your post.
"If they are true, then they are important" Yes, of course. If it is true that God put us here to "become more like God, and progress eternally" then it's incredibly important.
But asides from that?! Is it important on its own? Is it a worthy goal, a worthy purpose? Or is it just an aspect of "how to feel good for as long as possible and not hurt anybody doing it"? Is it good because God made it that way, or did God make it that way because it would have been good (in essence, 'independent of God')." Or something like that--you know the line.
If it's true that 1) there is a God, and 2) that's why He put us here, then I'll vote for that in a second! But there's no "proof" for either (in my mind). Without "proof," "truth" is a difficult thing to acquire. And, to quote Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" (which I wholeheartedly agree with).
And we arrive back at the beginning of the whole discussion.
posted
Important on its own, i.e., independent of whether or not it's true?
I don't know. If it's not true, then to me it doesn't have much value.
Why whould you care about it? The only response I have to that is that if you really care about whether or not you should care, then you should try to find out for yourself if they are true.
off-topic: Is it possible to have a negative score on the snark-o-meter?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is it good because God made it that way, or did God make it that way because it would have been good (in essence, 'independent of God').
We believe the two concepts coexist, neither causing the other but both required for the other to exist. We believe that nothing from God is arbitrary, but it is "the way things are".
So while secular humanism attempts to remove God from morality, an LDS (or other religious-minded person) looks upon the attempt as doomed to fail eventually. The idea is that if man attempts to cut themselves off from God and rely on their own judgements and interpretations, they are doomed to go astray from true, innate, eternal goodness.
I look at it like my 5 year old son taking over the parental authority for himself and his two sisters. It is a lot easier to see in this example of how things could go wrong, but I think it is a decent analogy considering my beliefs on God's view and understanding in comparison to ours.
Hmmm, you know, I honestly don't find my LDS belief's claims all that much more extrodinary than a universe with no God. I think it is a matter of perspective. And science sure hasn't offered me any proof of God's non-existance.
posted
Seriously, though. If God is indeed eternal (retroactively as well), what the heck was He doing before He made this universe?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah Porter, it is. If a post has a snarkometer reading of 3 or higher, and the post that responds to it contains absolutely no snarkosity whatsoever, then a negative reading is possible.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So the chicken and the egg both came into being at the same time?
Eternity is confusing, ain't it?
If you believe in evolution, by the way, it's not hard to determine which came first.
1) An egg is defined by what comes out of it - a chicken egg is a chicken egg because what hatches out of it is a chicken. 2) According to ET, the species we know as chickens had a chicken-like ancestor that was not a chicken. 3) At some point, one of these CLAs laid an egg from which hatched a chicken. 4) Since a a chicken hatched from the egg, it was a chicken egg. 5) Therefore the egg existed before the chicken.
quote: So the chicken and the egg both came into being at the same time?
I've never seen it put that way, but that's pretty good. Not perfect -- the concept of time doesn't really fit, but still pretty good.
There is no chicken without the egg, and no egg without the chicken, and it is meaningless to ask which came first.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
That presumes that there is a God to cut oneself off from. If there is no God (if I was being snarky again, I would have said "Since"), then mankind pretty much had better come up with a sense of morality on his/her own, hadn't we? An atheist view is that the "religious" morality is just morality put forth by a select group of human (my definition) individuals, who then use the concept of God to help them impose their belief system--hopefully (but obviously not always) for the betterment of their own clan/tribe/state/country/world/etc. It's just like your "enforcing the Golden Rule" statement from before.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: That presumes that there is a God to cut oneself off from. If there is no God (if I was being snarky again, I would have said "Since"), then mankind pretty much had better come up with a sense of morality on his/her own, hadn't we? An atheist view is that the "religious" morality is just morality put forth by a select group of human (my definition) individuals, who then use the concept of God to help them impose their belief system--hopefully (but obviously not always) for the betterment of their own clan/tribe/state/country/world/etc. It's just like your "enforcing the Golden Rule" statement from before.
Yup, I was just stating things from the believer's POV. I understand this is how things look from the non-believers POV. I would much rather have them trying to do their best than to throw morality to the wind! So from your POV, it appears that religion is trying to enforce "the Golen Rule" through a grand deception.
The practical question for the athiest is then, are they doing a better job of it? Some non-believers may think they are doing a better job. Some may think they are actually doing a worse job. Some may see a combination of the two. For example, the idea that organized religion is doing some good, but it is also harming people in a different sort of way. If you look at it as a deception, well, no one likes to imagine masses of people being deceived. The idea is unsettling.
I think I understand yours and other's discomfort at the idea of religion. But I can't say for sure, since that POV is not my own.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
