Next entries »
July 12, 2007
Posted at 2:33 pm by Richard and tagged atheism, belief, christianity, church, definitions, evangelism, religion. Popularity: 14% [?]
Here’s a concept I hadn’t come across before - an irreligious Christian. The post at DeConversion centres around the quote from an apparently irreligious Christian:
“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”
While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it - sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.
For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.
I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.
Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)
Permalink
Share This
June 20, 2007
Posted at 3:40 pm by Richard and tagged belief, christianity, climate-change, creationism, dinosaurs, evolution, fundamentalism, global-warming, jesus, politics, psychology, religion, science. Popularity: 13% [?]
I found an interesting article today about why some people resist science, and what these authors suggest is that distrust in science can be traced back to how science and alternative views are presented to children.
Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.
Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.
It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.
(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.
If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree - although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?
I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed if I could find it again - help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters, and not politicians or the church.
(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)
Permalink
Share This
June 10, 2007
Posted at 1:38 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, belief, conflict, eclecticism, omnipotent, religion. Popularity: 10% [?]
When someone asks me if I’m religious, my standard answer is “no, but…”. The “but” refers to my issues with religion specifically, but not the underlying teachings and spirituality. I like to call myself “eclectic”, as I don’t subscribe to any one religion, but at the same time I think each one of them has some founding in truth. Personally, I’ve found that every religion I’ve looked into (notably: Christianity, Buddhism, … even Pastafarianism!) has some very good ideas, but also has some which I just cannot believe.
I came across a post by Paul Hartigan on Open Source Theology recently which outlined 7 reasons that make it hard to believe in traditional christianity. I think his arguments can be summarised by two very common theological issues, and one I’m not sure I’ve thought of before, but is important none the less:
- The problem of evil - why does God allow bad things to happen? Even worse, why does God allow bad things to happen in his name?
- Conflict between claims made by different religions (and even conflict between branches of Christianity), some of which seem entirely illogical (”how can Christ be both God and man”)
- Problems with the belief that the universe (as large as it is) could somehow “revolve around” one short period in history, or one particular person on earth. In other words, what could possibly make us (the followers of religion “x”) so special? (Jesus in a universe of 125 Billion Galaxies)
I think Paul makes some very valid points, and these can be further generalised to almost all religions (not just Christianity). The problem of evil definitely causes issues with and idea of a God that is both omnipotent and benevolent, which it seems many religions (the Abrahamic ones, at least) claim God is. There are definitely other ideas about what God could be that would render the problem of evil void - but these ideas are not generally labelled “God”. It’s partly for this reason that I take issue with the traditional views of God, and probably why I try (although often fail) to not use the word God when discussing my views of spirituality.
Conflict between religions is definitely an issue that I’ve had problems with myself, as I tried to address in my posts “Religious Eclecticism” and “The Eclectic Agnostic’s Wager“, but it doesn’t cause issue for specific spiritual beliefs, the conflict occurs when you must accept the whole package. Taking the simplest ideas or teachings from any religion, and it’s likely you’ll find the same idea or teaching in another (although, almost certainly from a different perspective). The “golden rule”, or “ethic of reciprocity” is found in many variations by many spiritual leaders, for example.
On the third point - there seems to be an eclectic way of accepting the leaders of all religions without needing to think that the universe revolves around any one teacher or religion. What if every person is inspired by (or, “is”) “God”, and the ones we call spiritual leaders are just more in touch with that connection? Each person would interpret this connection through their own life experiences, and each would therefore describe the same “truth” in different ways.
What do you think would happen if we could get Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and every other spiritual leader in a room together - would they see mostly eye-to-eye, or would there be massive disagreements? Personally, I’m sure each would have his own (human) views that differ from the others, but I believe they would each agree that every one of them is fighting for the same cause.
Yes, I have a problem with religion - because each one seems to take the word of their prophet, God or leader as the one true interpretation of “God’s message”. I certainly don’t have an issue with the teachings of any of our great spiritual leaders, I think they were all attempting the same thing - to make this (and possibly the next) world a better place. We need to stop fighting about which religion is right or better, and just learn from each of them.
Edit 11 June: Right after posting this I came across another article which expands on the 3rd point perfectly - An Exercise in Perspective.
Permalink
Share This
June 3, 2007
Posted at 10:18 pm by Richard and tagged agnosticism, belief, eclecticism, pascal, religion. Popularity: 7% [?]
In my last major post, I look at the idea of “religious eclecticism“, and how I think it’s likely that all religions share the same basic ideas. I also said I’d try and use a variation of Pascal’s wager to help justify my position.
Pascal’s wager goes something like this:
Living your life as if God exists will bring infinite benefit (you go to heaven) if, in fact God exists. If it turns out that God does not exist, then you haven’t missed out on much. If, on the other hand, you were to live as if God didn’t exist, but you turned out to be wrong, then you’d suffer infinitely (hell and damnation). Even if you were right about God not existing, the benefit you’d gain while you were alive would be minimal compared to eternal damnation. In a more graphical format, Pascal’s wager looks like this:
| |
God exists (G) |
God does not exist (~G) |
| Living as if God exists (B) |
+∞ (heaven) |
−N (none) |
| Not living as if God exists (~B) |
−∞ (hell) |
+N (none) |
The Wikipedia article on Pascal’s Wager notes a few rebuttals to this wager, most notably that Christianity is not the only religion which claims God will judge you based on your beliefs. Pascal also assumes that God rewards belief, and even if he did one might assume that God wouldn’t be too happy with simply accepting his existence based on the probability of damnation as this is not a “true belief”.
While I don’t claim to have the answers to all these problems, it seems that, given many of the world’s major religions share some fundamental aspects (belief in one ultimate power, be it Allah, God or Brahman, for example) it might be easier to accept a more general belief in a higher power than in the God of a specific religion. Let’s look again at the options discussed in my last post:
- The teachings of all religions are wrong
- The teachings of some religions are wrong
- The teachings of all but one religion are wrong
or
- All religions are right
If all but one religion is “wrong”, then we have such a small chance of choosing the right one, it hardly seems worth it. Similarly, if all religions are “wrong”, then we have even less chance unless we try something radically different. If all religions are right, however, or even if many of them are acceptable to God, then by following the fundamental teachings of as many as possible, you would increase your chances of entering heaven.
Permalink
Share This
Next entries »
Posts
