A post about rape.
Russ Allbery
David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> writes:
> Discord <ti...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>> No, there isn't anything wrong with religion in general,
> Yes, There Is.
"Like what?" he asks, curiously, while setting followups....
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
obscurity
On 12 Apr 1998 11:02:00 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> writes:
> > Discord <ti...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
>
> >> No, there isn't anything wrong with religion in general,
>
> > Yes, There Is.
>
> "Like what?" he asks, curiously,
Now *there's* an opening . . .
OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up off
the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
X is good, because my religion says so.
Y is bad, because my religion condemns it.
I hate religion for the same reason I hate GUIs - they both encourage people
to just accept the defaults and mindlessly screw things up, without stopping
to think about what those defaults actually mean and whether or not there is
a better approach. (I keep waiting for the Microsoft keyboard that consists
of just one huge spacebar that people can bash with their foreheads to
indicate that they are now ready for their computer to do the next thing
that Microsoft thinks they should do.)
Anything that discourages people from looking at things with a critical eye,
making their own minds up, and taking responsibility for their decisions
just has to be a Bad Thing.
(Religion is a GUI - hey, I *like* that. I can feel a parody coming on...)
Of course, the annoying thing is that religious people can be difficult to
argue with because, from their point of view, no mere mortal can possibly
have a better idea than their diety of choice.
> while setting followups....
Spoilsport ! :)
--
obscurity. Safety in numbness.
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obscure." - Oscar Wilde
Jim Kingdon
> Anything that discourages people from looking at things with a critical eye,
> making their own minds up, and taking responsibility for their decisions
> just has to be a Bad Thing.
Well, yes, but the question is establishing that religion (in general)
meets this criterion.
I suppose that is why they call this newsgroup net.religion.flame...
Jim Kingdon
> I hate religion for the same reason I hate GUIs - they both encourage people
> to just accept the defaults and mindlessly screw things up, without stopping
> to think about what those defaults actually mean
Hmm. I'm someone who tends to accept the defaults on software that I
use (well, with _some_ exceptions, which I won't go into because this
is net.religion.flame not net.computers.flame).
But I have yet to find a religion which I can make work, either with
the default settings or even with making some tweaks here and there.
So I'm trying to assemble my own, or something like that. I mean, not
exactly my own, because religion is in significant part a social
phenomenon, at least for me. So there are various parts from
Christianity (partly because that is what I know the best), and some
influence from the 12 steps (if we can call that a distinct religion,
which is hardly the point in this context). Mix with a fairly liberal
dosage from the radical faeries (which is in itself highly eclectic),
and stir liberally, and there I am. I mean, the whole result is
rather practical (or at least tries to be), in terms of focusing on
everyday issues such as how to treat people in a personal context, how
to treat people in a business context, how to keep one's own sanity,
and what-not. This practicality is, probably, one of the reasons why
it isn't really a problem to have contradictory belief systems
involved, all of which provide valuable insights.
And to keep life interesting, I just started dating someone Jewish
(oh, OK, we went on _ONE_ date :-)). So if that continues we'll see
if it provides new ideas and outlooks.
Bryan C. Andregg
On 12 Apr 1998 21:50:09 GMT, <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
> pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up off
> the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
> consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
There is more to the definition of religion than organized belief systems.
By saying that religion is bad, in such a general sense, is exactly the kind
of belief system that you are arguing against.
--
Bryan C. Andregg * <band...@redhat.com> * Red Hat Software
"Hey, wait a minute, you clowns are on dope!"
-- Owen Cheese in 'Shakes the Clown'
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 00:41:56 GMT, Bryan C. Andregg <br...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 1998 21:50:09 GMT, <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> > OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
> > pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up off
> > the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
> > consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
>
> There is more to the definition of religion than organized belief systems.
At the basic level, what more is there to religion than a belief and/or
behavioural system ? Serious question.
> By saying that religion is bad, in such a general sense, is exactly the kind
> of belief system that you are arguing against.
"Religion is bad" is not a belief system, it's a belief. It's a single,
non-generic opinion that I have formed after considering the matter in depth
(well, as much depth as a shallow person like me is capable of :) ).
It doesn't colour my opinion on anything except whether I consider religion
to be a good thing or not. I don't see a contradiction between this and my
opinion of belief systems. My criticism of religion is due to it being used
as an alternative to actually thinking - how on earth can that be translated
into a criticism of an opinion that someone has arrived at after thinking
the matter over ?
If you expand my original criticism to be "belief systems are bad"
rather than just religion (can't off the top of my head think of any
non-religious belief systems, but that's probably because I'm tired rather
than because there aren't any), then are you saying it would then be
hypocritical of me to believe anything ?
--
obscurity. Selling ruin to the ruined.
obscurity
On 12 Apr 1998 18:58:02 -0400, Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
> > Anything that discourages people from looking at things with a critical eye,
> > making their own minds up, and taking responsibility for their decisions
> > just has to be a Bad Thing.
>
> Well, yes, but the question is establishing that religion (in general)
> meets this criterion.
Oh, come on. Anything that says "If you do X or don't do Y or even have
thoughts about Z, then you're going to burn in eternal hellfire [or come
back as a slug, or whatever is the appropriate punishment for your
religion]" can hardly be said to be *encouraging* people to make up their
own minds about things, can it ?
Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the right
thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a discouragement.
And I don't need to go into the whole taking responsibility/God's will
thing, do I ?
> I suppose that is why they call this newsgroup net.religion.flame...
This ain't flaming, this is polite disagreement.
(But I can do flaming, if you want :) )
--
obscurity.
Peter da Silva
In article <Apr-13-02.39...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>If you expand my original criticism to be "belief systems are bad"
>rather than just religion (can't off the top of my head think of any
>non-religious belief systems, but that's probably because I'm tired rather
>than because there aren't any), then are you saying it would then be
>hypocritical of me to believe anything ?
Marxism. Environmentalism. Consumerism. Authoritarianism. The scientific
method. Hierarchy. Individualism/libertarianism. Brin's "culture of
relativity".
--
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
| "Open": a warning label on a product or organization to let you know that |
| it is more proprietary and restrictive than its competitors. |
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
> pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up
> off the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
> consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
Looking at precisely the same issues from the other side, the thing about
a religion is that it's a set of beliefs, supposedly self-consistent, that
have been written down and codified for long enough that a lot of
extremely intelligent people have spent a great deal of time thinking
about them and their implications. A religion is not just a pattern of
beliefs; it's a set of literature and analysis surrounding a set of
beliefs, ranging from criticism to interpretation. It contains extensive
analysis of the practical implications for life and the theoretical
implications about the nature of the universe implied by that set of
beliefs, worked out by people who may or may not be more intelligent than
you are, but who certainly have spent more time thinking about those
issues than you've yet had a chance to.
This doesn't mean they were right, of course. But neither should learned
philosophy be discarded without inspection and a fair reading.
To me, exploring either spirituality or ethics without use of the
background and analysis that religion can offer is sort of like trying to
learn how to cook without ever reading a cookbook. It's certainly
possible, and may give you warm fuzzies for being original, but you're
going to end up reinventing a lot of wheels, it's going to be difficult
find a good context in which to discuss your recipes with other cooks, and
you're going to lose the advantage of learning from a lot of people who do
legitimately know tricks you don't yet.
On the other hand, simply picking a religion and following it without
analysis or modification is like learning to cook by picking a single
cookbook, memorizing all of the recipes, and refusing to ever deviate in
any way from the precise instructions in the cookbook.
> X is good, because my religion says so.
> Y is bad, because my religion condemns it.
Equivalent to "pot roast must be made this way because that's how my
cookbook says it should" or "it's impossible to make pnang chicken because
my cookbook doesn't have a recipe for it." But see, neither of those
human idiocies are flaws in the cookbook.
Admittedly, some (most?) religions do try to *encourage* that mode of
thinking, whereas most cookbooks do not. But even if I did encouter a
cookbook that portrayed itself as the One and Only Way to Cook, if I found
a good recipe for a dish I liked in that cookbook, I wouldn't ignore it
just because the philosophy of the cookbook was contrary to common sense.
> I hate religion for the same reason I hate GUIs - they both encourage
> people to just accept the defaults and mindlessly screw things up,
> without stopping to think about what those defaults actually mean and
> whether or not there is a better approach.
I contend that your problem is with the reaction of humanity to perceived
authority, not actually with the religious doctrines. :) (Except for
those that specifically encourage that reaction to perceived authority.)
> Of course, the annoying thing is that religious people can be difficult
> to argue with because, from their point of view, no mere mortal can
> possibly have a better idea than their diety of choice.
This is, of course, true. I'm simply not laboring under the delusion that
my deity of choice has chosen to express the Truth to me, or that I'd be
able to comprehend it or even understand the scope of it if he had. :)
Russ Allbery
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> writes:
> But I have yet to find a religion which I can make work, either with
> the default settings or even with making some tweaks here and there.
> So I'm trying to assemble my own, or something like that.
*grin* Yup. Sounds somewhat familiar. Although in my case, I wouldn't
call it a religion because it will lack all of the surrounding
documentation and literature that I would associate with a religion. More
that I'm just making my own path, and pulling insight into that from a
variety of different places.
> I mean, not exactly my own, because religion is in significant part a
> social phenomenon, at least for me.
It isn't really for me, but I'm more of a lone traveller and never did
understand what other people saw in groups. Religion and spirituality
have never been social for me; lone flights through high, open places
would be a better description.
> So there are various parts from Christianity (partly because that is
> what I know the best),
One of the nice things about Christianity as a basis for thinking about
spirituality (which is, for the record, my word for "religion-like-stuff"
without the baggage of religious doctrine and literature) is that it has a
*HUGE* library of surrounding literature and was used as the basic thought
model and vocabulary for the thinkings of a lot of extremely intelligent
people. Similar to learning Latin (or these days, English), it's probably
worth being familiar with just so that one can understand the language in
which a lot of useful information was written, whether one agrees with the
basic mindset or not.
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> Oh, come on. Anything that says "If you do X or don't do Y or even have
> thoughts about Z, then you're going to burn in eternal hellfire [or come
> back as a slug, or whatever is the appropriate punishment for your
> religion]" can hardly be said to be *encouraging* people to make up
> their own minds about things, can it ?
It's worth noting that while people tend to pick up on the theme of
punishment whenever they're trying to convert large numbers of people to
their religion (and therefore it gets a *lot* of play whenever religion
becomes a political tool, which is far too common in our history), there
are a huge number of religions, and huge sections of religions like
Christianity, that have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment.
For example, whether or not one would consider me to be a Christian is
rather debatable (I believe in Jesus Christ, but I don't believe a lot of
the other surrounding dogma), but I don't believe in Hell. Or rather: "I
think Hell's something you carry around with you. Not somewhere you go."
Neil Gaiman, _Sandman: Season of Mists_ (said by a character, so not
necessarily Gaiman's own belief). I do not believe in punishment systems.
They make no sense to me. *shrug*
> Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the
> right thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a
> discouragement.
Religions *can* do this. They can also *not* do this. One can derive
*lots* of guidance from Christianity without ever touching on or involving
oneself with a punishment/reward system.
> And I don't need to go into the whole taking responsibility/God's will
> thing, do I?
I've always thought that people who try to give up responsibility for
their own actions by claiming that they're simply doing God's will are
displaying absolutely amazing arrogance in presuming to be capable of
*understanding* the will of an omniscient, omnipresent being.
I don't have any bloody clue what God's will is. I just have a sneaking
suspicion that it mostly involves me figuring out what my will is, since
otherwise he wouldn't have given me one. See. :)
Bryan C. Andregg
On 13 Apr 1998 02:28:27 GMT, <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 1998 00:41:56 GMT, Bryan C. Andregg <br...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > There is more to the definition of religion than organized belief systems.
>
> At the basic level, what more is there to religion than a belief and/or
> behavioural system ? Serious question.
There is the discussion and modification of that system into something better.
I am not religious by any reasonable definition. I "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2 and
that quite a lot of the world can be explained by that. I have no qualms with
my death being that simple.
I am impressed though by religious cultures where groups put quite a lot of
thought into making it right. Ancient Judism and rabbi's constently discussing
Torah come to mind.
I am also an egoist so, while I don't put a lot of faith in someone knowing
better than I do what is good for me, I do believe that there are a lot of
people out there that need that help.
Peter da Silva
In article <m3k98tdc...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>To me, exploring either spirituality or ethics without use of the
>background and analysis that religion can offer is sort of like trying to
>learn how to cook without ever reading a cookbook.
You don't have to join a religion to learn from it, yes no?
Russ Allbery
>> To me, exploring either spirituality or ethics without use of the
>> background and analysis that religion can offer is sort of like trying
>> to learn how to cook without ever reading a cookbook.
> You don't have to join a religion to learn from it, yes no?
What does it mean to join a religion? (I grew up Christian by anyone's
definition of the term, even some of the more fundamentalist types, and
I've never been a member of a church.)
At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
Neil Crellin
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
Then the whole flap about Clinton being allowed to participate in
the Catholic communion sacrament in South Africa, despite the usual
Catholic restriciton that non-Catholics can't participate is about
nothing.
Yes, I know, strawman. Of course it's about nothing. But it does
highlight a doctrinal separation of member vs non-member that's highly
structured into a religion.
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Russ Allbery
>> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
>> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
>> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
> Then the whole flap about Clinton being allowed to participate in the
> Catholic communion sacrament in South Africa, despite the usual Catholic
> restriciton that non-Catholics can't participate is about nothing.
Oh, yeah, communion. Right. I'm sorry, I should have remembered that; I
plead being raised in a denomination with open communion.
Anyway, to answer Peter's question more along the lines of what he was
probably expecting, no, I don't think one has to "join" a religion in
either a formal or an informal sense to learn from it. Like most things,
though, I do think one has to, at least from an intellectual perspective,
take some of the premises as given in order to follow the arguments for
long enough to follow the arguments.
In other words, coming back to my standard religious analogy (no, not the
cooking one), if one constantly argues with the definitions at the
beginning of a paper on mathematics, one is never going to learn any math.
One has to accept the definitions given for long enough to read the rest
of the paper in order to find out if there's anything of value there or
not.
Peter da Silva
There is no God but Man and Richard Feynmann is our prophet.
Russ Allbery
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> writes:
> If you accept Jesus Christ you're a member. If you don't, you're not.
> That seems a pretty solid line to me.
I'm not sure that it is. What if one accepts the theory of Jesus Christ
as a personal savior as a basis from which to work out the implications of
that idea? That's "acceptance," but probably not in the way that it's
normally thought of.
Who or what exactly is "Jesus Christ"? What are the parameters of this
belief; what is someone expected to believe in?
What exactly can remain questioned and what has to be accepted for it to
qualify as "acceptance"?
Is one required to completely believe without doubt in the notion? (If
so, I'd say that the number of true Christians who have ever lived could
be numbered in the thousands, and most of them were psychopaths. Normal
people doubt, at least periodically. It's healthy.)
Russ Allbery
Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> writes:
> There is no God but Man and Richard Feynmann is our prophet.
"Everything that is possible to be believed is an image of the truth."
-- William Blake
Catherine Hampton
:> I suppose that is why they call this newsgroup net.religion.flame...
: This ain't flaming, this is polite disagreement.
Then it's offtopic -- try net.religion.interfaith for polite disagreements.
;>
: (But I can do flaming, if you want :) )
It would make your post on-topic here....
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
and is also used as a spamtrap. Send email to the address in my
signature if you want me to see it any time soon.)
Jim Kingdon
> Then it's offtopic -- try net.religion.interfaith for polite disagreements.
Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
> I told you once.
No you haven't.
(That's http://www.uq.net.au/~zzcahern/Humour/Monty/mont_arg.htm for
those who didn't catch the reference).
Catherine Hampton
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
:> I told you once.
: No you haven't.
: (That's http://www.uq.net.au/~zzcahern/Humour/Monty/mont_arg.htm for
: those who didn't catch the reference).
I didn't catch the reference. I also didn't say what you quoted me as
saying, oddly enough....
TROLL WARNING TROLL WARNING TROLL WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;>
Nick Manka
In article <m3emz1b...@windlord.stanford.edu>,
>> That seems a pretty solid line to me.
>
> I'm not sure that it is. What if one accepts the theory of Jesus Christ
> as a personal savior as a basis from which to work out the implications of
What is this "personal savior" slogan? Before JC, did all the
deities just stamp your hand and say "line on the left?"
Russ Allbery
>> I'm not sure that it is. What if one accepts the theory of Jesus
>> Christ as a personal savior as a basis from which to work out the
> What is this "personal savior" slogan? Before JC, did all the deities
> just stamp your hand and say "line on the left?"
I'm sure other people could cite you the precise origins of the term, but
the "feel" I've always had on it is that it's a leftover from the
Protestant Reformation and is essentially shorthand used to indicate that
one believes that one's relationship to God is personal and direct and is
not mediated by a church, by saints, or by any other religious authority
either in this world or any other.
It may or may not be essentially a backhanded slap at Catholicism; I'm not
sure.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 06:18:51 -0500, Peter da Silva <pe...@taronga.com> wrote:
> In article <Apr-13-02.39...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> >If you expand my original criticism to be "belief systems are bad"
> >rather than just religion (can't off the top of my head think of any
> >non-religious belief systems, but that's probably because I'm tired rather
> >than because there aren't any), then are you saying it would then be
> >hypocritical of me to believe anything ?
>
> Marxism. Environmentalism. Consumerism. Authoritarianism. The scientific
> method. Hierarchy. Individualism/libertarianism. Brin's "culture of
> relativity".
Hey, I said I was tired ! (it *was* 2.30 in the morning)
--
obscurity. Opium for the massacres.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 07:43:17 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > Oh, come on. Anything that says "If you do X or don't do Y or even have
> > thoughts about Z, then you're going to burn in eternal hellfire [or come
> > back as a slug, or whatever is the appropriate punishment for your
> > religion]" can hardly be said to be *encouraging* people to make up
> > their own minds about things, can it ?
>
> It's worth noting that while people tend to pick up on the theme of
> punishment whenever they're trying to convert large numbers of people to
> their religion (and therefore it gets a *lot* of play whenever religion
> becomes a political tool, which is far too common in our history), there
> are a huge number of religions, and huge sections of religions like
> Christianity, that have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment.
Hmmm ? I'm not aware of any religion that does not have negative
consequences for the subscriber if they do not follow that religion's
dictates. This, of course, doesn't mean that they don't exist, and I'd be
interested in hearing about them. I should mention that I'm not just
talking about punishment in the hellfire sense (I chose that because it was
the most obvious), but also such things as the crops not growing etc.
Punishment does not have to be eternal to be punishment.
> For example, whether or not one would consider me to be a Christian is
> rather debatable (I believe in Jesus Christ, but I don't believe a lot of
> the other surrounding dogma), but I don't believe in Hell. Or rather: "I
> think Hell's something you carry around with you. Not somewhere you go."
> Neil Gaiman, _Sandman: Season of Mists_ (said by a character, so not
> necessarily Gaiman's own belief). I do not believe in punishment systems.
> They make no sense to me. *shrug*
Then I would suggest that you do not subscribe to any particular religion,
but rather you have chosen your own beliefs (see comment below).
> > Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the
> > right thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a
> > discouragement.
>
> Religions *can* do this. They can also *not* do this. One can derive
> *lots* of guidance from Christianity without ever touching on or involving
> oneself with a punishment/reward system.
Then one is not subscribing to christianity, one is merely (!) taking
guidance from it. Anyone who's read the bible to any extent will see
that the God described therein is a vengeful one.
I want to go into the whole embracing a religion in it's entirety versus
picking and choosing parts of it, but I seem to remember a more appropriate
place to hang that off of further down the thread, so I hope you'll forgive
me for not going into it twice.
> > And I don't need to go into the whole taking responsibility/God's will
> > thing, do I?
>
> I've always thought that people who try to give up responsibility for
> their own actions by claiming that they're simply doing God's will are
> displaying absolutely amazing arrogance in presuming to be capable of
> *understanding* the will of an omniscient, omnipresent being.
Well, yes, quite. But there's also the fatalistic "It doesn't really matter
what I do because in the end it will be God's will because he is omniscient
and omnipotent and nothing can oppose his will, least of all a mere mortal
such as myself, so although I don't know what his will is, I'm sure that
whatever I do will be because it is his will that I do it" approach.
> I don't have any bloody clue what God's will is. I just have a sneaking
> suspicion that it mostly involves me figuring out what my will is, since
> otherwise he wouldn't have given me one. See. :)
I'm just glad I don't believe in God, so I don't have to worry about things
like that :)
--
obscurity. Killing time till the killing time.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 07:27:16 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
> > pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up
> > off the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
> > consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
>
> Looking at precisely the same issues from the other side, the thing about
> a religion is that it's a set of beliefs, supposedly self-consistent, that
> have been written down and codified for long enough that a lot of
> extremely intelligent people have spent a great deal of time thinking
> about them and their implications. A religion is not just a pattern of
> beliefs; it's a set of literature and analysis surrounding a set of
> beliefs, ranging from criticism to interpretation. It contains extensive
> analysis of the practical implications for life and the theoretical
> implications about the nature of the universe implied by that set of
> beliefs, worked out by people who may or may not be more intelligent than
> you are, but who certainly have spent more time thinking about those
> issues than you've yet had a chance to.
I don't deny any of this. However, none of these sages have tried walking
in my shoes. What may be appropriate for them may not be appropriate for
me; what may have been the right thing in their lifetimes may no longer be
valid in the world today. There is a great deal of wisdom and insight to be
found in religious literature, regardless of whether or not one believes in
God, but there is also a great deal of (trying hard to find a way to phrase
this without offending any devout believers we may have in our midst....oh,
bugger it, this is net.religion.flame; what did they expect ?) complete and
utter bollocks. One must sort the wheat from the chaff, and select only
those aspects that are appropriate for oneself.
But the thing about religion, and thus my comlaint about it, is that you
*can't* pick and choose which bits you want to follow - it's non-negotiable.
I'm going to pick on Christianity here, because it's the obvious example and
the one that I expect most people here to be at least familiar with, but I
think the argument is valid for most religions. If you believe in
Christianity, then you must believe every doctrine, because to not do so is
heresy, and we all know what happens to heretics. This is a central point
in the Christian religion - it's not like Moses was handed the Ten
Suggestions, to be cast aside as soon as they were deemed inappropriate.
If you believe in God, and you believe the Christian religion represents the
will of God, then how can you doubt what it says ? If you don't believe the
Christian church represents the will of God, then you do not believe in
Christianity, because Christianity maintains that it *does* represent the
will of God. To claim to subscribe to a religion, whilst rejecting those
doctrines that you disagree with, seems to me to be an exercise in
doublethink. I maintain that if you pick and choose between religions,
then you are not really subscribing to any of them. To subscribe to a
religion one must accept everything it says as the gospel (!) truth, because
the religion says it *is* the gospel truth.
> This doesn't mean they were right, of course. But neither should learned
> philosophy be discarded without inspection and a fair reading.
As I hope I've made clear, I don't have a problem with religious literature,
but with religion. I agree that it is worthwhile reading whatever words of
wisdom one may come across. I disagree with anything that says that these
words of wisdom must be accepted, in their entirety, without question.
> To me, exploring either spirituality or ethics without use of the
> background and analysis that religion can offer is sort of like trying to
> learn how to cook without ever reading a cookbook. It's certainly
> possible, and may give you warm fuzzies for being original, but you're
> going to end up reinventing a lot of wheels, it's going to be difficult
> find a good context in which to discuss your recipes with other cooks,
I have to add, at this point, that as long as I am capable of feeding
myself, and I enjoy my own recipes, I don't feel much of a need to discuss
my recipes with others. I'm not planning on writing a cookbook any time soon.
(I know...what am I doing here, then ? See below...)
> and
> you're going to lose the advantage of learning from a lot of people who do
> legitimately know tricks you don't yet.
As I've said, I'm all for learning from the lessons of others.
(Up to a point, at least...one could spend one's entire life reading
religious literature. It wouldn't be much of a life, in my book.)
> On the other hand, simply picking a religion and following it without
> analysis or modification is like learning to cook by picking a single
> cookbook, memorizing all of the recipes, and refusing to ever deviate in
> any way from the precise instructions in the cookbook.
>
> > X is good, because my religion says so.
> > Y is bad, because my religion condemns it.
>
> Equivalent to "pot roast must be made this way because that's how my
> cookbook says it should" or "it's impossible to make pnang chicken because
> my cookbook doesn't have a recipe for it." But see, neither of those
> human idiocies are flaws in the cookbook.
>
> Admittedly, some (most?) religions do try to *encourage* that mode of
> thinking, whereas most cookbooks do not.
This is exactly my point - not only do they encourage it, but a lot of them
*insist* upon it. It's bad enough that these tendencies for zealosness
exist in people, but to actively encourage it ? Gack ! That way leads
madness....(and war, and persecution, and genocide, and....)
> But even if I did encouter a
> cookbook that portrayed itself as the One and Only Way to Cook, if I found
> a good recipe for a dish I liked in that cookbook, I wouldn't ignore it
> just because the philosophy of the cookbook was contrary to common sense.
Well, yeah, but you're not going to burn in hell for using someone else's
recipe (unless it's one of mine, that is ("Take two pots of Cayenne
pepper...") :) ).
> > I hate religion for the same reason I hate GUIs - they both encourage
> > people to just accept the defaults and mindlessly screw things up,
> > without stopping to think about what those defaults actually mean and
> > whether or not there is a better approach.
>
> I contend that your problem is with the reaction of humanity to perceived
> authority, not actually with the religious doctrines. :) (Except for
> those that specifically encourage that reaction to perceived authority.)
Well, yes, you have a point. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems with
society (from my point of view, at least). Religion tends to promote
(either actively or passively) mindless acceptance. Therefore I have a
problem with religion.
I think we agree that investigating the options and choosing whatever
behaviour and/or belief one considers most appropriate is a good thing, and
blind acceptance of another's behaviour/belief system is not such a good
thing. Where we may disagree is that I think that religion discourages this
critical examination and considered selection, whereas you would appear not
to. As long as your opinion on this is based on careful consideration, and
I'm sure it is, then who am I to argue ? :)
...
What on earth possessed me to involve myself in a religious debate, I have
no idea - I usually try to steer well clear of them. I have neither the
insight to say anything that hasn't been said before, nor the eloquence to
express it in any particularly convincing manner. So now that I've
expressed my opinions, and made a token stab at explaining them, I'll try to
resist the urge to persuade you all to follow *my* personal belief system :)
--
obscurity.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 15:24:36 GMT, Bryan C. Andregg <br...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 13 Apr 1998 02:28:27 GMT, <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> > On 13 Apr 1998 00:41:56 GMT, Bryan C. Andregg <br...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There is more to the definition of religion than organized belief systems.
> >
> > At the basic level, what more is there to religion than a belief and/or
> > behavioural system ? Serious question.
>
> There is the discussion and modification of that system into something better.
OK, so the belief/behavioural system evolves over time (although not
necessarily *with* the times...). It's still basically a belief/behavioural
system, it's just one that happens to evolve.
> I am also an egoist so, while I don't put a lot of faith in someone knowing
> better than I do what is good for me, I do believe that there are a lot of
> people out there that need that help.
I believe there are a lot of people out there who *want* that help; I don't
believe they *need* it - in fact, I don't think it helps, in the long run.
("You have difficult in thinking for yourself, so rather than teach you how
to think for yourself, we'll just give you a set of thoughts that you can
call your own.")
Any religious people here that I've not managed to offend yet ? :)
--
obscurity. Safety in numbness.
Jim Kingdon
> TROLL WARNING TROLL WARNING TROLL WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There you go. Now we're making progress.
Now, let's see, I'm suppose to come back with how I'm not a Troll, I'm
just pointing out how stupid everyone else in the group is, right?
You'll have to bear with me, I'm not very good as this "flame" thing.
Russ Allbery
>> I am also an egoist so, while I don't put a lot of faith in someone
>> knowing better than I do what is good for me, I do believe that there
>> are a lot of people out there that need that help.
> I believe there are a lot of people out there who *want* that help; I
> don't believe they *need* it - in fact, I don't think it helps, in the
> long run.
> ("You have difficult in thinking for yourself, so rather than teach you
> how to think for yourself, we'll just give you a set of thoughts that
> you can call your own.")
> Any religious people here that I've not managed to offend yet ? :)
*wave* :)
Of course, I don't believe religion or belief in a deity has much to do
with someone knowing better than I do what's good for me, so....
Kate Wrightson
In article <vb6pvil...@wallaby.Stanford.EDU>, Neil said:
>Then the whole flap about Clinton being allowed to participate in
>the Catholic communion sacrament in South Africa, despite the usual
>Catholic restriciton that non-Catholics can't participate is about
>nothing.
>
>Yes, I know, strawman. Of course it's about nothing.
To non-Catholics, maybe.
--
___________________________________________________________________________
ka...@eyrie.org Kate Wrightson www.eyrie.org/~kate
Kate Wrightson
In article <m3emz1b...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>I'm not sure that it is. What if one accepts the theory of Jesus Christ
>as a personal savior as a basis from which to work out the implications of
>that idea? That's "acceptance," but probably not in the way that it's
Here we begin to draw the lines that lead to Protestants calling Catholics
non-Christians :) (the personal savior thing)
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3d8eldb...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> are a huge number of religions, and huge sections of religions like
> Christianity, that have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment.
I doubt the hugeness of those sections.
As to huge number of religion, quite possible - that would necessarily be
mostly very small, obscure religions, because all the others together
cannot possibly qualify for "huge number".
> necessarily Gaiman's own belief). I do not believe in punishment systems.
> They make no sense to me. *shrug*
Nor to me, but then, no religion does. And I've even invented my own.[1]
> > Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the
> > right thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a
> > discouragement.
That's too simple.
> Religions *can* do this. They can also *not* do this. One can derive
> *lots* of guidance from Christianity without ever touching on or involving
> oneself with a punishment/reward system.
But that's the problem right there. It's the "derive guidance" thing that
is the problem.
To put it another way, the problem is that religions - or at least all of
those I've seen so far, all that really qualify for that label - work from
the "this is how it is, and that is what you must do" concept.
I, on the other hand, want to exclusively have "look there, you will find
that actually it's like this. Considering, that might be a wise course".
That is, I want to be convinced, not converted; I want proof, not getting
preached at.
Religions abandon the concept of people thinking for themselves in favour
of them applying pre-digested rules. That is what is bad about religions.
Incidentally, it also applies to a number of non-religious things -
political ideologies are frequently a case in point. But then, I've always
said that there's a remarkable similarity between early Christian ideas
and communist ideas (and don't confuse communist ideas with contemporary
socialist nations, that would be as wrong as confusing early Christian
ideas with the contemporary Catholic Church).
> I've always thought that people who try to give up responsibility for
> their own actions by claiming that they're simply doing God's will are
> displaying absolutely amazing arrogance in presuming to be capable of
> *understanding* the will of an omniscient, omnipresent being.
I have no idea if it would take any arrogance. I've always thought the
concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omni-anything being was ... well
... not very convincing.
> I don't have any bloody clue what God's will is. I just have a sneaking
> suspicion that it mostly involves me figuring out what my will is, since
> otherwise he wouldn't have given me one. See. :)
As for me, I have yet to see any convincing argument why, even if I'd
grant the existence of such a being, I should make any attempts at all of
following his wishes. God-believers kind of seem to take that as granted;
I've never understood why (except that it is yet another excuse of having
someone else doing their thinking for them).
If there was such a God, I'd need some fairly good answers from him before
I'd be convinced that his judgment in questions of ethics is anything I
want to be associated with. The track record claimed by the believers is
doing a lot to convince me otherwise.
Kai
[1] Which, basically, involved a God whose main interest was learning
about himself. And, incidentally, everything else being part of his mind.
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote on 13.04.98 in <6gssar$i...@bonkers.taronga.com>:
> In article <Apr-13-02.39...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> >If you expand my original criticism to be "belief systems are bad"
> >rather than just religion (can't off the top of my head think of any
> >non-religious belief systems, but that's probably because I'm tired rather
> >than because there aren't any), then are you saying it would then be
> >hypocritical of me to believe anything ?
>
> Marxism. Environmentalism. Consumerism. Authoritarianism. The scientific
> method. Hierarchy. Individualism/libertarianism. Brin's "culture of
> relativity".
Scientific method doesn't belong in there - it's not a belief system. You
might call it a meta-belief system or something like that - it doesn't
tell you what is, it tells you how to find out what is. Personally, I
think the distinction is extremely important - it's similar to the "give a
fish, or teach how to fish" thing.
Now, you may claim that established science is a belief system, though
it's a strange one. But science and the scientific method are two distinct
things.
Kai
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3k98tdc...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > OK, the thing about religion is that what it is, basically, is a
> > pre-packaged belief and/or behavioural system that you can just pick up
> > off the shelf, go home, and apply to your life without a moment's
> > consideration about whether or not it is actually appropriate.
>
> Looking at precisely the same issues from the other side, the thing about
> a religion is that it's a set of beliefs, supposedly self-consistent, that
The only self-consistent set of beliefs I know of is mathematics, and
that's because it has extremely polished tools to make certain it's self-
consistent, and because it puts self-consistency as the most important
goal.
A distant second are some of the natural sciences. At least they know
they're not perfectly self-consistent.
Religions, philosophies, and ideologies I wouldn't even count as also-
runs.
Now, obviously, self-consistency is not the only important goal - I'd even
go so far and say that other goals are often more important. (And I like
math!)
> have been written down and codified for long enough that a lot of
> extremely intelligent people have spent a great deal of time thinking
> about them and their implications. A religion is not just a pattern of
Well, and a lot of them have come to the conclusion that consistency in
religion usually means "there's no fact you could possibly find that could
ever invalidate anything in this religion, because we'll find a way of
claiming that it only proves what we said all along, even if it does no
such thing".
This has always been one of the weakest sides of religion.
> beliefs; it's a set of literature and analysis surrounding a set of
> beliefs, ranging from criticism to interpretation. It contains extensive
> analysis of the practical implications for life and the theoretical
> implications about the nature of the universe implied by that set of
> beliefs, worked out by people who may or may not be more intelligent than
> you are, but who certainly have spent more time thinking about those
> issues than you've yet had a chance to.
Incidentally, it usually _doesn't_ include anything about the reasoning
_behind_ that set of beliefs, which would be the thing I'd want to see
first. That set of belief just appears out of the blue, and is henceforth
considered axiomatic.
That might be a sensible approach in mathematics, but I can think of no
other place where I'd be willing to call that approach "sensible".
> This doesn't mean they were right, of course. But neither should learned
> philosophy be discarded without inspection and a fair reading.
See above for inspection and fair reading.
A religion may have a number of good ideas, but being as the religion
doesn't give me any means of deciding wether a particular idea of theirs
is good or bad (instead insisting that all are good, and don't you ever
ask why), I obviously have to get my ethics elsewhere. All they are good
for is inspirations.
> To me, exploring either spirituality or ethics without use of the
Just as an aside, I don't believe in spirituality (or at least in what I
understand that to mean from the dictionary definition).
> background and analysis that religion can offer is sort of like trying to
> learn how to cook without ever reading a cookbook. It's certainly
> possible, and may give you warm fuzzies for being original, but you're
> going to end up reinventing a lot of wheels, it's going to be difficult
> find a good context in which to discuss your recipes with other cooks, and
> you're going to lose the advantage of learning from a lot of people who do
> legitimately know tricks you don't yet.
Only one problem, religion doesn't manage to fill that void. Not for me,
at least - it's all different cookbooks, and all cooks swearing on their
own and damning the others. No context to discuss recipes, only how to
serve them.
> On the other hand, simply picking a religion and following it without
> analysis or modification is like learning to cook by picking a single
> cookbook, memorizing all of the recipes, and refusing to ever deviate in
> any way from the precise instructions in the cookbook.
That's roughly how most people seem to deal with religions, though - for
values of "most" I'd put at 75% or higher.
> Equivalent to "pot roast must be made this way because that's how my
> cookbook says it should" or "it's impossible to make pnang chicken because
> my cookbook doesn't have a recipe for it." But see, neither of those
> human idiocies are flaws in the cookbook.
However, the fact that nearly every cookbook says "this book contains all
the useful answers to cooking there are" _is_ a flaw in the cookbooks.
> Admittedly, some (most?) religions do try to *encourage* that mode of
> thinking, whereas most cookbooks do not. But even if I did encouter a
And incidentally, I'd probably weed out any cookbook (or computer book, or
...) that did this, as being dangerous to trust. As it is, I get to do
that to religions.
> cookbook that portrayed itself as the One and Only Way to Cook, if I found
> a good recipe for a dish I liked in that cookbook, I wouldn't ignore it
> just because the philosophy of the cookbook was contrary to common sense.
Sure. See "inspirations" above.
> I contend that your problem is with the reaction of humanity to perceived
> authority, not actually with the religious doctrines. :) (Except for
> those that specifically encourage that reaction to perceived authority.)
All do. Or at least all I've actually heard about. That's how they
survive.
Catherine Hampton
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
: I believe there are a lot of people out there who *want* that help; I don't
: believe they *need* it - in fact, I don't think it helps, in the long run.
: ("You have difficult in thinking for yourself, so rather than teach you how
: to think for yourself, we'll just give you a set of thoughts that you can
: call your own.")
: Any religious people here that I've not managed to offend yet ? :)
Only those of us so satisfied with what we believe and what we are that
we think, "the pooooooor little agnostic", pat you on the head, and
remind ourselves to pray for you. <BIG wicked grin>
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Who actually is a "religious" person, if that term means anything.)
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> Hmmm? I'm not aware of any religion that does not have negative
> consequences for the subscriber if they do not follow that religion's
> dictates.
It depends on what you mean by negative consequences; there's a big
difference (at least in my mind) between negative consequences and
punishment. Obviously the people who ascribe to a particular religion
believe that the dictates of that religion will help believers in some
fashion or another, whether to be closer to God or have a better quality
of life or improve all of humanity or what have you. It logically follows
that if one doesn't follow the dictates of the religion, they believe that
good won't happen, or won't necessarily happen, or won't be as likely to
happen. That could be considered negative consequences.
> This, of course, doesn't mean that they don't exist, and I'd be
> interested in hearing about them.
There are a few books (and sometimes small religions) out there now,
mostly new-agey kinds of things, whose near-definitional tenant is that
nothing you do is wrong or can be wrong, and that in fact right and wrong
don't exist. It's sort of an interesting backlash to the culture of
judgement preached by some fundamentalist sects.
> I should mention that I'm not just talking about punishment in the
> hellfire sense (I chose that because it was the most obvious), but also
> such things as the crops not growing etc.
But science has the same sort of "punishments." If you don't water a
plant, then the plant will die. Is the death of the plant punishment for
not watering it? Similarly, if you go through life hating people, you're
likely to end up with people hating you. Is that hatred punishment for
hating? Most of the dictates of religions, when stripped of some of the
trappings, amount to that sort of common sense about how the world works;
they have to, since if they were totally ineffective, no one would believe
in them.
> Then I would suggest that you do not subscribe to any particular
> religion, but rather you have chosen your own beliefs (see comment
> below).
Christianity is such a mass of different approachs and modes of thought,
though, that one really can chose one's own beliefs to a large degree and
still be considered by nearly every Christian to be a Christian. Of some
brand or another. :)
(One may be considered a heretic, but that's a different sort of a thing.)
>> Religions *can* do this. They can also *not* do this. One can derive
>> *lots* of guidance from Christianity without ever touching on or
>> involving oneself with a punishment/reward system.
> Then one is not subscribing to christianity, one is merely (!) taking
> guidance from it.
I think what's happening here, though, is that you're moving away from
defining belief in a religion and towards defining *exclusive* belief in a
religion or mindless belief in a religion, which isn't nearly as common
(although it's quite a bit louder). I'd say that the vast majority of
people who would describe themselves as religious, at least in my
experience, don't have *any* belief in a religion; they have a social
attachment to one, which is a different thing.
> Anyone who's read the bible to any extent will see that the God
> described therein is a vengeful one.
*shrug* Anyone who's read the Bible to any extent will see that the God
described therein seems to change his general method of dealing with the
world so frequently that it's hard to generalize. The God described is a
very different God depending on who he's interacting with.
I think that in and of itself is a lesson, but that's not the most popular
perspective. At least among Christians. :)
One interesting side note: Have you ever noticed, reading religious
texts, how the God described appears to take the exact opposite approach
as most of humanity and rather than refusing responsibility for
everything, *takes* responsibility for everything? There's the obvious
explanation, of course, namely that God is the repository of mankind's
abandoned responsibility, but there are more inobvious explanations that I
find rather fascinating.
>> I've always thought that people who try to give up responsibility for
>> their own actions by claiming that they're simply doing God's will are
>> displaying absolutely amazing arrogance in presuming to be capable of
>> *understanding* the will of an omniscient, omnipresent being.
> Well, yes, quite. But there's also the fatalistic "It doesn't really
> matter what I do because in the end it will be God's will because he is
> omniscient and omnipotent and nothing can oppose his will, least of all
> a mere mortal such as myself, so although I don't know what his will is,
> I'm sure that whatever I do will be because it is his will that I do it"
> approach.
Feh. That's just a cop-out, the same as saying that life is so hard that
nothing anyone can do can ever change it. And this particular cop-out is
actually opposed as strongly by religions as it is by the non-religious.
(Watching people who believe in predestination jump through hoops to try
to avoid the above apparent consequence of that belief is somewhat amusing
afternoon entertainment.)
>> I don't have any bloody clue what God's will is. I just have a
>> sneaking suspicion that it mostly involves me figuring out what my will
>> is, since otherwise he wouldn't have given me one. See. :)
> I'm just glad I don't believe in God, so I don't have to worry about
> things like that :)
It's not actually a worry. :) (Neither is it a positive statement. It's
just neutral.)
Peter da Silva
In article <6roQC...@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6roQC...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>Scientific method doesn't belong in there - it's not a belief system. You
>might call it a meta-belief system or something like that - it doesn't
>tell you what is, it tells you how to find out what is.
And so does Zen Buddhism, particularly in the distilled form (with almost
all the underlying Buddhism filed off) that's popular in the West these
days.
Of course there are people who claim that Zen isn't a religion.
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> I don't deny any of this. However, none of these sages have tried
> walking in my shoes. What may be appropriate for them may not be
> appropriate for me; what may have been the right thing in their
> lifetimes may no longer be valid in the world today.
Certainly true. True of any psychological, philosophical, or ethical
advice. Do I have to have walked in your shoes to tell you that murdering
someone is wrong? No, probably not. To tell you that you shouldn't say X
to person Y? Yes, I probably would.
Religion fundamentally is nothing more complicated than an attempt to
generalize ethics and spirituality and find common principles that apply
to everyone or at least to a large number of people. In its best days, it
fulfills a role in relation to ethics and spirituality very similar to the
role played by science in relation to "how the world works." It tries to
come up with "laws." Of course, ethics and spirituality are inherently
less clear-cut subjects than "how the world works" because they lack the
fundamental element that makes the scientific method possible:
reproducibility of experiments.
(As an aside, that's the reason why religion should always take second
place to someone's individual beliefs. Generalizations should always take
second place to specific experience.)
> There is a great deal of wisdom and insight to be found in religious
> literature, regardless of whether or not one believes in God, but there
> is also a great deal of (trying hard to find a way to phrase this
> without offending any devout believers we may have in our midst....oh,
> bugger it, this is net.religion.flame; what did they expect ?) complete
> and utter bollocks.
Yup. Same thing's true in science, of course (look at some of Tesla's
odder notions), but science is much better at shoving that sort of stuff
to the side and generally agreeing that it's wrong. I think that's
because it's really hard to have an objective opinion about ethics.
Same thing is also true of Usenet. :) Sturgeon's Law applies pretty
uniformly across any human endeavor.
> One must sort the wheat from the chaff, and select only those aspects
> that are appropriate for oneself.
Yup.
> But the thing about religion, and thus my comlaint about it, is that you
> *can't* pick and choose which bits you want to follow - it's
> non-negotiable.
Sure you can. People do all the time. They just don't talk about it, and
sometimes they don't admit it to themselves. :) But, for example, take
going to church every Sunday. Quite a few Christians have chosen not to
follow that. Now if they could just dispense with that pointless guilt
thing, they'd be all set. :)
There is definitely a strong culture of political correctness in most
religions, with the same consequences as in any other arena of life.
> I'm going to pick on Christianity here, because it's the obvious example
> and the one that I expect most people here to be at least familiar with,
> but I think the argument is valid for most religions. If you believe in
> Christianity, then you must believe every doctrine, because to not do so
> is heresy, and we all know what happens to heretics.
Amusingly enough, the term "heresy" is one that isn't intended to have
nearly as strong connotations in the original use of the word amongst
religious scholars as it's acquired through political events like the
Inquisition. All "heresy" means is "contrary to generally accepted
belief."
I do understand what you mean, though. That's one of the reasons why I
don't identify myself as a Christian any more; some Christians seem to get
much more irate with what I believe if I do. Odd but true.
> If you believe in God, and you believe the Christian religion represents
> the will of God, then how can you doubt what it says ?
Actually, what precisely represents the will of God is an interesting
question. Most Christians would agree that it's the Bible, but that
doesn't answer the question; there are a lot of people who believe in
symbolic interpretations. (Biblical literalism, the actual technical
definition of fundamentalism, is a lot less common than I think some
people believe. It's just very loud.) And once you open that floodgate,
you can read just about anything into the Bible.
Whether or not the *church* represents the will of God is one of those big
arguments that Protestants and Catholics have (or at least that
Protestants have with Catholics; a lot of the arguments that date back to
the Reformation are, upon inspection, Protestants arguing with straw men
that really don't have a lot to with Catholicism as it's actually
practiced or taught).
So, again, I think you're presuming here that "the Christian religion" is
in any way a clear-cut thing. It's hard to see all the fuzzyness and
flexibility inherent in most Christians' perceptions of their religion,
both because one has to be familiar with the language (which, like all
definitions, sounds very strict and clearcut) and because many Christians
tend to lock down and become much more rigid when talking to people
perceived to be nonbelievers.
> If you don't believe the Christian church represents the will of God,
> then you do not believe in Christianity, because Christianity maintains
> that it *does* represent the will of God.
To my Protestant ears, that sounds a lot more like Catholicism (which is
undoubtably unfair to Catholicism). Most Protestants have knee-jerk
reactions against any statement that the church represents the will of
God.
> I maintain that if you pick and choose between religions, then you are
> not really subscribing to any of them. To subscribe to a religion one
> must accept everything it says as the gospel (!) truth, because the
> religion says it *is* the gospel truth.
There's some truth to that; most religions hold that they're the only
correct religion.
> Well, yes, you have a point. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
> with society (from my point of view, at least). Religion tends to
> promote (either actively or passively) mindless acceptance. Therefore I
> have a problem with religion.
I think the main thing that I'm arguing is that I think you have the
casual relationship reversed. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
with society, and therefore most major societal structures manifest
elements of mindless acceptance.
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
>> Looking at precisely the same issues from the other side, the thing
>> about a religion is that it's a set of beliefs, supposedly
>> self-consistent,
> The only self-consistent set of beliefs I know of is mathematics, and
> that's because it has extremely polished tools to make certain it's
> self-consistent, and because it puts self-consistency as the most
> important goal.
Why religion is better than mathematics: Mathematics only gives you one
self-consistent set of beliefs, whereas with religion there are so many to
choose from! (Sorry.)
I'm certainly using self-consistent here in a much looser sense than that.
Religions are usually about as self-consistent, upon first inspection, as
an average science fiction novel. Religious scholars tend to carve out
more self-consistent chunks, but those are subsets of the religion as a
whole.
It's also just plain hard to make ethics self-consistent.
> Well, and a lot of them have come to the conclusion that consistency in
> religion usually means "there's no fact you could possibly find that
> could ever invalidate anything in this religion, because we'll find a
> way of claiming that it only proves what we said all along, even if it
> does no such thing".
> This has always been one of the weakest sides of religion.
The proper use of those sorts of lines of argument are to show to oneself
that religion is not approachable via pure logic. People who want to
approach the world via logic and have their beliefs be logically derivable
should stear well-clear of religion; it's not a tool that's going to be
useful for them.
Unfortunately, people turn that lesson on its ear and use it to "prove"
the futility of logic, thereby rejecting a perfectly good tool that just
doesn't happen to apply to what they're trying to talk about.
>> It contains extensive analysis of the practical implications for life
>> and the theoretical implications about the nature of the universe
>> implied by that set of beliefs, worked out by people who may or may not
>> be more intelligent than you are, but who certainly have spent more
>> time thinking about those issues than you've yet had a chance to.
> Incidentally, it usually _doesn't_ include anything about the reasoning
> _behind_ that set of beliefs, which would be the thing I'd want to see
> first. That set of belief just appears out of the blue, and is
> henceforth considered axiomatic.
Depends on what you're reading. The reasoning behind the set of beliefs
belongs in the field of apologetics, which has something of a bad rap in
some religious scholarship circles (in the sense that people who could
probably do a good job at it don't do so because they don't find it
interesting).
That being said, there's some very good apologetics out there; you just
have to look for it. And then dig through the fact that they're probably
trying to convert you, which actually isn't that different than other
fields but which is something of a culture clash. (Most scientific
writers attempt to maintain a veneer of objectivity even if they're trying
to convert you to belief in their theory; most religious writers don't
even bother to try.) C.S. Lewis does a pretty decent job at laying out
his reasoning for Christianity, for example.
> That might be a sensible approach in mathematics, but I can think of no
> other place where I'd be willing to call that approach "sensible".
Religion is very much *like* mathematics, though, in the sense that
there's no obvious place to "start." With physics, for example, one can
start with a moving object. With chemistry, one can start with an
observable chemical reaction. With math, one pretty much has to postulate
the concept of numbers and some basic operations on them before one can
even get started. Religion is somewhat similar that way.
> Just as an aside, I don't believe in spirituality (or at least in what I
> understand that to mean from the dictionary definition).
"Of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit" for me. *shrug*
No problem if you don't, provided that you don't object strenuously to the
fact that I do. :)
> However, the fact that nearly every cookbook says "this book contains
> all the useful answers to cooking there are" _is_ a flaw in the
> cookbooks.
Yup. Definitely. That's one of the appealing things about Judaism; the
religion appears to inherently acknowledge that the scriptures themselves
don't contain all the useful answers and that writing down more things
surrounding them, and commentary on the commentary, and so forth is a
vital and valuable portion of the religion.
>> Admittedly, some (most?) religions do try to *encourage* that mode of
>> thinking, whereas most cookbooks do not. But even if I did encouter a
> And incidentally, I'd probably weed out any cookbook (or computer book,
> or ...) that did this, as being dangerous to trust. As it is, I get to
> do that to religions.
Not a believer in the One True Brace Style, hmm? *duck*
Russ Allbery
>> are a huge number of religions, and huge sections of religions like
>> Christianity, that have nothing whatsoever to do with punishment.
> I doubt the hugeness of those sections.
It's certainly a perception on my part which may not be widely shared.
>> Religions *can* do this. They can also *not* do this. One can derive
>> *lots* of guidance from Christianity without ever touching on or
>> involving oneself with a punishment/reward system.
> But that's the problem right there. It's the "derive guidance" thing
> that is the problem.
I don't think you actually have a problem with the way I intended that
phrase, since....
> I, on the other hand, want to exclusively have "look there, you will
> find that actually it's like this. Considering, that might be a wise
> course".
> That is, I want to be convinced, not converted; I want proof, not
> getting preached at.
...this is what I meant. One has to ignore the preaching to get at the
meat (the convincing part), but one has to do that with a lot of other
things too.
> Incidentally, it also applies to a number of non-religious things -
> political ideologies are frequently a case in point. But then, I've
> always said that there's a remarkable similarity between early Christian
> ideas and communist ideas
Yup.
Along those lines, and speaking of blind acceptance, the single most
common blind acceptance in American society in my experience isn't a
religious belief at all. But people will villify you if you doubt it in
the slightest, believe it is the solution to all problems, believe the
application of it immediately grants legitimacy to whatever it is used
for, and believe that the world must be converted to it whether the world
likes it or not.
Democracy.
It's *scary* how engrained that's become in popular culture. People want
to solve *everything* with a vote. Popular opinion is the be all and end
all of decision making. If you don't put something up for a vote, or if
(heaven forbid) you question the legitimacy of voting as a process, you're
immediately viewed with suspicion and accused of being a dictator or power
grabber.
(And don't even get me started on this "everyone is equal" canard....)
> I have no idea if it would take any arrogance. I've always thought the
> concept of an omniscient, omnipresent, omni-anything being was ... well
> ... not very convincing.
*shrug* Most of my interaction with my deity of choice has pretty much
nothing to do with omni-anything except insofar as it makes "conversation"
much more convenient for me, since I don't have to go anywhere. :) If
you're like me and have a tendency towards always looking at and
anticipating and planning for the worst possible outcomes, contemplating
benevolent omniscience is a good meditation trick for snapping yourself
out of downward spirals, but apart from that it doesn't affect the way I
approach the world.
> As for me, I have yet to see any convincing argument why, even if I'd
> grant the existence of such a being, I should make any attempts at all
> of following his wishes.
I have no idea why anyone would want to do such a thing. I certainly
don't. I follow my own wishes. It coincidentally (actually, not
coincidentally, but that's a more involved explanation) happens that
following my own wishes is what he wants me to do, but that's not why I
started doing it. :)
You can usually get to that point with religions. The trick is to, after
the answer "because God wants you to do it," ask *why* God wants you to do
it. That question tends to get more interesting answers. :)
> God-believers kind of seem to take that as granted; I've never
> understood why (except that it is yet another excuse of having someone
> else doing their thinking for them).
Dunno. Because we've had a specific emotional experience that you haven't
had? Note that I am in no way implying that you *should* have such an
emotional experience, that you ever will, that you are in any way a bad
person for not having had it, that I am in any way a better person for
having had it, or anything else of the sort. For all I know, it just
comes down to personalities. God has proven his existence adequately for
my purposes, via means I couldn't reproduce if I tried let alone tell you
how to reproduce since they're rooted in emotion, and since I have no
desire (and in fact think it would be rather stupid) for anyone else to
believe the same way that I do, that's sufficient for me. :)
But then, I consider atheism or agnosticism to be perfectly valid belief
systems (or lack of belief systems or whatever -- I don't want to get into
the semantic quibble) and quite possibly considerably more useful for you
than a religion would be.
> If there was such a God, I'd need some fairly good answers from him
> before I'd be convinced that his judgment in questions of ethics is
> anything I want to be associated with. The track record claimed by the
> believers is doing a lot to convince me otherwise.
It's my opinion that God doesn't make ethical decisions. People do.
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3n2dpb...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
Well, that seems to be different over here then.
Kai Henningsen
pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote on 13.04.98 in <6gtdi7$n...@bonkers.taronga.com>:
> If you accept Jesus Christ you're a member. If you don't, you're not. That
> seems a pretty solid line to me.
Whatever "accept" means, here.
I'm told that guy is mentioned in the Koran; I doubt those believing that
book would count themselves members, nor do I think other members would
count them in.
Russ Allbery
>> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
>> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
>> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
> Well, that seems to be different over here then.
I should note that people get amazingly upset and worked up over the
social sorts of things. And that I consider knowing a particular language
and a particular set of codewords to be a "social sort of thing."
That may clarify what I mean a little. :)
christian mock
In article <slrn6j2nqk...@lacrosse.redhat.com>,
Bryan C. Andregg <br...@redhat.com> wrote:
> There is more to the definition of religion than organized belief systems.
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Religion \Re*li"gion\ (r[-e]*l[i^]j"[u^]n), n. [F., from L. religio;
cf. religens pious, revering the gods, Gr. 'ale`gein to heed, have a
care. Cf. {Neglect}.]
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of
the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to
whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression
of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,
whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and
ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship;
a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic
religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the
Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts
inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty
toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.
[...]
"the outward act" pretty much sums up what my definition of "religion"
is. note that there may be more related issues, like how somebody
communicates with his deity of choice, and that's OK, because it's a
personal thing.
what I hate about religions (as per the definition above) is that they
really try and tell you what to do, what to think, and what to
believe; most religions I've looked into are dogmatic (buddhism
probably being one of the least dogmatic, catholicism rather heavily,
especially lots of the new religions (or "cults")).
it would even be OK when religions would only try to control the lives
of their followers -- but they don't. as soon as they get a chance,
they try to control other people's lives; they send their most
stupid personnel to schools to indoctrinate children about "god" and
"the devil" and "hell" and stuff; they try to cut your freedom in many
ways ("moral majority" in the US, heavy involvment of catholicism in
politics in austria and germany, political ambitions of scientology,
etc.), and they generally try to carry on with the most stupid and
inhumane beliefs -- they supported slavery, suppression of women,
witch hunting, antisemitism, everything bad you can imagine. OK, it's
not the religion's fault alone, but they were mostly very happy to
provide backing for the ruling classes' beliefs -- backing founded in
some in-questionable deity.
cm.
--
christian mock @ home in vienna, austria
Those silly RFCs are all that separate us from the animals!
-- Kevin Rodgers in a.r.e
Jim Kingdon
> Here we begin to draw the lines that lead to Protestants calling Catholics
> non-Christians :) (the personal savior thing)
No, I think it is more the idolatry that does it.
(sorry, couldn't resist: just trying to keep this on-topic for a
.flame group).
Russ Allbery
christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> writes:
> [...] and they generally try to carry on with the most stupid and
> inhumane beliefs -- they supported slavery, suppression of women, witch
> hunting, antisemitism, everything bad you can imagine. OK, it's not the
> religion's fault alone, but they were mostly very happy to provide
> backing for the ruling classes' beliefs -- backing founded in some
> in-questionable deity.
Continuing to make the causality argument here, I'd say that organized
religions, as a major societal institution that touches a lot of people's
lives, are ripe for political manipulation like any other institution
fitting that description. People who want to support those beliefs, then,
turn to religion to do so.
I don't think the actual motivation for things like, say, the Crusades,
was at its heart religious.
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> Now why couldn't I have phrased it as succinctly ? I would expand that
> a little, though, to 'most religions hold that they're the only correct
> religion, and that they are correct in their entirety' which hopefully
> illustrates what I've been driving at.
*nod* I think that second part appears to be that way from the outside
more than it actually is. Most religions that I've seen have a great deal
of internal disagreement over what precisely *is* the religion, which
shoots holes in "correct in their entirety."
> I can't think of any major societal structure that promotes such
> mindless acceptance to the same degree that I think religion does,
> though. Even polititians get a free vote from time to time !
And what's the re-election percentage? :) Look at the *concept* of
democracy. Seriously. Try disagreeing with it. It's very interesting.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 20:24:47 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> : ("You have difficult in thinking for yourself, so rather than teach you how
> : to think for yourself, we'll just give you a set of thoughts that you can
> : call your own.")
>
> : Any religious people here that I've not managed to offend yet ? :)
>
> Only those of us so satisfied with what we believe and what we are that
> we think, "the pooooooor little agnostic", pat you on the head, and
> remind ourselves to pray for you. <BIG wicked grin>
Oh, that's OK, I'm used to ignoring the insane delusions of religious
people. As long as you're not starting any more wars, you go ahead and enjoy
yourself. <*VERY* wicked grin>
PS: Atheist, not agnostic.
--
obscurity.
Russell Steinthal
In article <Apr-13-03.02...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>On 12 Apr 1998 18:58:02 -0400, Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
>> > Anything that discourages people from looking at things with a
critical eye,
>> > making their own minds up, and taking responsibility for their decisions
>> > just has to be a Bad Thing.
>>
>> Well, yes, but the question is establishing that religion (in general)
>> meets this criterion.
>
>Oh, come on. Anything that says "If you do X or don't do Y or even have
>thoughts about Z, then you're going to burn in eternal hellfire [or come
>back as a slug, or whatever is the appropriate punishment for your
>religion]" can hardly be said to be *encouraging* people to make up their
>own minds about things, can it ?
>
>Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the right
>thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a discouragement.
That's not specific to religion, though- that's what all societies
do. Societies enforce legal and moral codes through whatever means of
persuasion they think will be the most effective- for the secular
society at large, that's imprisonment and, in some cases, execution;
religious communities tend to look to punishments that are more
transcendent, especially if they've taught that one's soul is more
important than one's body (or the afterlife is more important than
this one, or whatever). [1]
Ok, so that's not a great flame. But I've never been a particularly
good flamer...
-Russell
[1] There's also the fact that the secular societies which hold power
in much of the world frown on religions actually doing things like
stoning...
--
Russell Steinthal
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College Class of 1999
<ste...@avnet.org> System Administrator, AV-Network
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 14:20:02 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > Hmmm? I'm not aware of any religion that does not have negative
> > consequences for the subscriber if they do not follow that religion's
> > dictates.
>
> It depends on what you mean by negative consequences; there's a big
> difference (at least in my mind) between negative consequences and
> punishment. Obviously the people who ascribe to a particular religion
> believe that the dictates of that religion will help believers in some
> fashion or another, whether to be closer to God or have a better quality
> of life or improve all of humanity or what have you. It logically follows
> that if one doesn't follow the dictates of the religion, they believe that
> good won't happen, or won't necessarily happen, or won't be as likely to
> happen. That could be considered negative consequences.
I don't mean good things not happening, I mean bad things happening, as a
direct result of the 'transgression'.
> > This, of course, doesn't mean that they don't exist, and I'd be
> > interested in hearing about them.
>
> There are a few books (and sometimes small religions) out there now,
> mostly new-agey kinds of things, whose near-definitional tenant is that
> nothing you do is wrong or can be wrong, and that in fact right and wrong
> don't exist. It's sort of an interesting backlash to the culture of
> judgement preached by some fundamentalist sects.
Well, I've been kinda discussing (umm...what's the right word...)
'established' religions, rather than minor 'one man and his pet dog' type of
outfits :), and I sincerely doubt that there's that many of them when
compared to those that do have a concept of punishment. But I'd be
interested in any pointers you could give me on then anyway, they sound
interesting (not that I'm likely to become a convert, though, you understand).
> > I should mention that I'm not just talking about punishment in the
> > hellfire sense (I chose that because it was the most obvious), but also
> > such things as the crops not growing etc.
>
> But science has the same sort of "punishments." If you don't water a
> plant, then the plant will die. Is the death of the plant punishment for
> not watering it? Similarly, if you go through life hating people, you're
> likely to end up with people hating you. Is that hatred punishment for
> hating?
That, though, is a rather looser definition of punishment than I was using
(indeed, a looser definition than I've ever heard used before !). I mean a
deliberate act taken soley to punish, when the option of not taking that act
is available.
> Most of the dictates of religions, when stripped of some of the
> trappings, amount to that sort of common sense about how the world works;
> they have to, since if they were totally ineffective, no one would believe
> in them.
Oh stop it ! You'll have me giggling for hours if you carry on like that !
Since when did effectiveness, plausibility or anything of that ilk ever have
any influence on what people believe ? People believe that playing the
national lottery is worth their while, that Elvis is still alive, and that
Microsoft produce the best software available.
> > Then I would suggest that you do not subscribe to any particular
> > religion, but rather you have chosen your own beliefs (see comment
> > below).
>
> Christianity is such a mass of different approachs and modes of thought,
> though, that one really can chose one's own beliefs to a large degree and
> still be considered by nearly every Christian to be a Christian. Of some
> brand or another. :)
>
> (One may be considered a heretic, but that's a different sort of a thing.)
I've discussed this elsewhere, I couldn't phrase it half as well as I'd have
liked to there, and I'm not about to make another pig's ear of it ! :) I
think I'll just have to leave this to one side.
> I think what's happening here, though, is that you're moving away from
> defining belief in a religion and towards defining *exclusive* belief in a
> religion or mindless belief in a religion, which isn't nearly as common
> (although it's quite a bit louder).
In my personal experience, it's a lot more common. It also appears to me
that most religions 'require' an exclusive (or, yes, even mindless) belief.
But, as I just said above, I don't seem to be able to articulate my thoughts
on this very well at the moment.
> I'd say that the vast majority of
> people who would describe themselves as religious, at least in my
> experience, don't have *any* belief in a religion; they have a social
> attachment to one, which is a different thing.
We must move in entirely different circles - the people I know who have only
a social attachment to a religion would never describe themselves as
religious ("Are you religious ?" "No, but I do go to church").
> > Anyone who's read the bible to any extent will see that the God
> > described therein is a vengeful one.
>
> *shrug* Anyone who's read the Bible to any extent will see that the God
> described therein seems to change his general method of dealing with the
> world so frequently that it's hard to generalize. The God described is a
> very different God depending on who he's interacting with.
OK, but God is certainly depicted as vengeful at times, certainly enough to
'put the fear of God' into people, so that if you believe in the God as
depicted in the bible, you are likely to be wary of his punishment.
> I think that in and of itself is a lesson, but that's not the most popular
> perspective. At least among Christians. :)
There was a documentary on television a short while ago which looked at the
concept of the devil and how that concept has evolved over time and affected
various religions. Part of what was touched on was a discussion of how the
devil came into the christian faith. The theory that was espoused was that,
during the 200-odd year gap between the old testament and the new testament,
the poor christians had a really really rough time, what with being
persecuted by the Romans and all that, and they found their situation so
dire that they couldn't possibly believe that a benevolent and omnipotent
God would treat them in such an abyssmal manner, so they came up with the
notion of the devil to blame their woes on, and retro-fitted him into the
bible, with revelations being tacked on to the end as a kind of
wish-fulfillment fantasy where God came down and gave the Romans the kicking
that they so thoroughly deserved. Now, I don't know how valid that theory is,
but the idea of making such a fundamental change to your belief system (from
single all-powerful diety to two 'warring factions', as it were) and
re-writing your holy book to make it fit with your current beliefs certainly
doesn't add to much weight to the 'bible as literal word of God' school of
thought :)
> One interesting side note: Have you ever noticed, reading religious
> texts, how the God described appears to take the exact opposite approach
> as most of humanity and rather than refusing responsibility for
> everything, *takes* responsibility for everything? There's the obvious
> explanation, of course, namely that God is the repository of mankind's
> abandoned responsibility, but there are more inobvious explanations that I
> find rather fascinating.
Care to elaborate ?
> > Well, yes, quite. But there's also the fatalistic "It doesn't really
> > matter what I do because in the end it will be God's will because he is
> > omniscient and omnipotent and nothing can oppose his will, least of all
> > a mere mortal such as myself, so although I don't know what his will is,
> > I'm sure that whatever I do will be because it is his will that I do it"
> > approach.
>
> Feh. That's just a cop-out, the same as saying that life is so hard that
> nothing anyone can do can ever change it. And this particular cop-out is
> actually opposed as strongly by religions as it is by the non-religious.
But it's a cop-out that's never practised the non-religious, of course.
(we just find our own excuses :) )
> (Watching people who believe in predestination jump through hoops to try
> to avoid the above apparent consequence of that belief is somewhat amusing
> afternoon entertainment.)
A spectator sport I've not yet had the pleasure of.
(Any predestinationists out there fancy having a shot at it ? :) )
> >> I don't have any bloody clue what God's will is. I just have a
> >> sneaking suspicion that it mostly involves me figuring out what my will
> >> is, since otherwise he wouldn't have given me one. See. :)
>
> > I'm just glad I don't believe in God, so I don't have to worry about
> > things like that :)
>
> It's not actually a worry. :) (Neither is it a positive statement. It's
> just neutral.)
No, but it'd be a worry for me ! I have enough problems trying to decide
what I consider the ethical thing to do without having to worry about
whether or not my choice would necessarily be what God would want. :)
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 14:44:56 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
[A lot of stuff snipped where I had been unable to express myself as
coherently as I would have liked (although I *was* quite proud of the
Ten Suggestions bit), and Russ has, predictably, made a much better job of
expressing his disagreement. :)]
> > I maintain that if you pick and choose between religions, then you are
> > not really subscribing to any of them. To subscribe to a religion one
> > must accept everything it says as the gospel (!) truth, because the
> > religion says it *is* the gospel truth.
>
> There's some truth to that; most religions hold that they're the only
> correct religion.
Now why couldn't I have phrased it as succinctly ? I would expand that a
little, though, to 'most religions hold that they're the only correct
religion, and that they are correct in their entirety' which hopefully
illustrates what I've been driving at.
> > Well, yes, you have a point. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
> > with society (from my point of view, at least). Religion tends to
> > promote (either actively or passively) mindless acceptance. Therefore I
> > have a problem with religion.
>
> I think the main thing that I'm arguing is that I think you have the
> casual relationship reversed. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
> with society, and therefore most major societal structures manifest
> elements of mindless acceptance.
I can't think of any major societal structure that promotes such mindless
acceptance to the same degree that I think religion does, though. Even
polititians get a free vote from time to time !
--
Russell Steinthal
In article <Apr-13-20.45...@burnout.demon.co.uk>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
>Any religious people here that I've not managed to offend yet ? :)
Me. It's quite difficult to actually offend me, but feel to try. :)
nehr...@phone-home.stanford.edu
In article <m3ra315...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,[snipped]
>
>> I can't think of any major societal structure that promotes such
>> mindless acceptance to the same degree that I think religion does,
>> though. Even polititians get a free vote from time to time !
>
>democracy. Seriously. Try disagreeing with it. It's very interesting.
>
Bravely jumping randomly into the middle of a thread...
I find it interesting that you bring democracy in as a good example of
something that is mindlessly accepted by our society (speaking of
America here - other societies aren't quite as mindlessly gung-ho about
it). It's a good example on a few levels as a parallel to religion.
1) The vast majority of Americans profess a belief in it, but rarely, if
ever, practice it. With regard to democracy, we have lower than a 50%
voting rate, without even getting into people not actually thinking
about issues, and discussing them on a rational level beyond the
media-induced wildly-polarized kneejerk-reaction straw polls. Religion,
I think, has been covered well enough by others (or, rather, I could do
no better :) )
2) People never really examine _why_ they believe it's a good thing in
the first place, and what the alternatives are. They just accept it as
what they were brought up with, and therefore, it must be the best,
because Dad (or other authority figure) said so.
3) People have a really terrible reaction when you don't believe in what
they do. My roommate last year called me a "commie" (half-jokingly...I
think) for not thinking democracy is a particularly good political
system (I could get into my feelings on democracy, but that would belong
in net.politics.flame if that exists, and i wouldn't have time to read
that newsgroup anyway). And, having grown up in a 95+% relatively
fundamentalist Christian town (Wheaton, IL, whose college has the Billy
Graham center in honor of its most famous alum), I know all too well
what some religious types feel about non-believers.
4) From the outside, each is perceived as only containing a couple
"reasonable" options. In American politics, you have your Democrats
vs. Republicans (don't blame me, I voted for Nader :) ); in religion,
it's "Christianity" vs. Judaism vs. Islam vs. Buddhism. There's your
contenders, pick one and run with it. Anything else can be co-opted by
the big players.
Okay, it's late and I forgot the other parallels I was going to draw.
But I thought it was pretty interesting that what looked at first glance
to be maybe a throw-away analogy really has some strong similarities to
the topic under discussion.
I should note that I'm pretty down on both democracy and religion,
mostly because I'm a terrible elitist at heart, and don't feel others
can make better choices than I can for me :). So any venom directed at
either or both is probably intended...
>--
>Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
Eric Nehrlich
http://phone-home.stanford.edu/~nehrlich
christian mock
In article <6gud3f$buq$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
Russell Steinthal <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> >Religions coerce people into doing whatever the religion considers the right
> >thing, by a threat of punishment. That is surely a discouragement.
>
> That's not specific to religion, though- that's what all societies
> do. Societies enforce legal and moral codes through whatever means of
> persuasion they think will be the most effective- for the secular
> society at large, that's imprisonment and, in some cases, execution;
OK, but there's a subtle difference: I can start a discussion in a
"democratic"[0] society about the rules it has, and about the
assumptions those rules are based on. I cannot argue with gods will,
because he is, by definition, always right.
of course, god's will, or it's interpretation, is also changing, but
it is in a more dishonest way, slowly adapting over time and mostly
depending on somebodies interests, and those interests are not clearly
defined -- they can't be, because as a priest you can't say "despite
the commandment, we're now considering killing to be good if it's
organised" (net.military.flame, anybody?).
cm.
[0] for different values of "democratic"
Jim Kingdon
> I can't think of any major societal structure that promotes such mindless
> acceptance to the same degree that I think religion does, though. Even
> polititians get a free vote from time to time !
Well, have you ever known any Unitarians? I mean, granted their way
of approaching things is somewhat outside the religious mainstream,
and I suppose one could even argue about whether they are a religion
in any meaningful sense, but pretty much every vote is a free vote
with them.
The Catholics have a highly formal system of defining exactly what is
a free vote and what isn't (with probably categories of "semi-free
votes" in between, I don't know all the details but one of the most
obvious distinctions is infallible versus non-infallible teachings).
Likewise, the Episcopalian court which acquitted the bishop who was
charged with being pro-gay ruled that homosexuality is a free vote (I
think the wording is "not an essential tenet of the faith"). This was
controversial, but the controversy was over whether this issue is a
free vote, not whether free votes exist.
The Presbyterian situation is more or less analogous ("core doctrine"
versus things on which "reasonable Presbyterians can differ", or
whatever the wording is from the denomination's constitution).
I mean, I find it a bit hard to believe that I seem to be defending
these religious hierarchies, because on the whole I find them rather
too much in the top-down authority mode for me, but at least for these
denominations the situation is rather more complex than "mindless
acceptance of everything".
Jim Kingdon
> Ok, so that's not a great flame. But I've never been a particularly
> good flamer...
Oh, keep trying, we'll get it someday.
I thought we were making progress when someone posted the full
definition of a word from the dictionary. But then no one followed up
to quibble about just what it means. So a promising opportunity
to bring this back to flaming fizzled.
We could always flame Vince Sabio. That generally seems to work in a
pinch.
Peter da Silva
In article <6gv2pr$qbl$1...@bauer.tahina.priv.at>,
christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> wrote:
>OK, but there's a subtle difference: I can start a discussion in a
>"democratic"[0] society about the rules it has, and about the
>assumptions those rules are based on. I cannot argue with gods will,
>because he is, by definition, always right.
Go talk to Brad Templeton over in comp.org.cauce some time.
Neil Crellin
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> > r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
>
> >> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
> >> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
> >> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
>
> > Well, that seems to be different over here then.
>
> I should note that people get amazingly upset and worked up over the
> social sorts of things. And that I consider knowing a particular language
> and a particular set of codewords to be a "social sort of thing."
>
> That may clarify what I mean a little. :)
Is this where we get to talk about sectarian violence in Northern Ireland?
No, I'm sure that's net.current-events.general. Never mind.
Would hardly call that social, except perhaps in the anti-social sense
of tearing a society apart.
Ok, so this fails the "within a denomination" disclaimer, but still...
-Neil Crellin <ne...@stanford.edu>
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3yax97...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> > r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
> > That is, I want to be convinced, not converted; I want proof, not
> > getting preached at.
>
> ...this is what I meant. One has to ignore the preaching to get at the
> meat (the convincing part), but one has to do that with a lot of other
> things too.
Well, my experience so far has been that while religions do tend to have
some right ideas, they don't seem to have a lot in the convincing
department - for that, I need to look elsewhere. See also below.
> Along those lines, and speaking of blind acceptance, the single most
> common blind acceptance in American society in my experience isn't a
> religious belief at all. But people will villify you if you doubt it in
> the slightest, believe it is the solution to all problems, believe the
> application of it immediately grants legitimacy to whatever it is used
> for, and believe that the world must be converted to it whether the world
> likes it or not.
>
> Democracy.
>
> It's *scary* how engrained that's become in popular culture. People want
> to solve *everything* with a vote. Popular opinion is the be all and end
> all of decision making. If you don't put something up for a vote, or if
> (heaven forbid) you question the legitimacy of voting as a process, you're
> immediately viewed with suspicion and accused of being a dictator or power
> grabber.
>
> (And don't even get me started on this "everyone is equal" canard....)
Too true. It's a case of following concepts they don't quite understand.
Democracy is, as we all know, a very bad system, but at it's main point of
application, the others seem to be worse. The qualification here is
important: for other applications, different systems may be better.
(And of course, the voting thing is only one part that's important in
today's political systems. Independant justice, laws to protect minorities
are also very important, to name just two.)
As to equal, everyone is not equal - but everyone should, by default,
considered equally worthy, and selections should be based on merit, not
superficial groupings. After that, it's up to them.
> > As for me, I have yet to see any convincing argument why, even if I'd
> > grant the existence of such a being, I should make any attempts at all
> > of following his wishes.
>
> I have no idea why anyone would want to do such a thing.
Nor have I, but one nearly universal trait of religious people is to argue
good or bad based on their deities pronouncements, only.
> You can usually get to that point with religions. The trick is to, after
> the answer "because God wants you to do it," ask *why* God wants you to do
> it. That question tends to get more interesting answers. :)
I don't know - that question tends to get me answers along the lines of
"we can't understand God, and shouldn't even try". YMMV and all that.
> Dunno. Because we've had a specific emotional experience that you haven't
> had?
Well, I cannot think of any _emotional_ experience that would convince me
of something like that. That seems fundamentally incompatible with the way
I think.
> But then, I consider atheism or agnosticism to be perfectly valid belief
> systems (or lack of belief systems or whatever -- I don't want to get into
> the semantic quibble) and quite possibly considerably more useful for you
> than a religion would be.
Make that "class of belief system" :-)
> It's my opinion that God doesn't make ethical decisions. People do.
Well, all I can say is that the religions I've met so far seem to
disagree.
Kai Henningsen
obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) wrote on 14.04.98 in <Apr-14-00.41...@burnout.demon.co.uk>:
> On 13 Apr 1998 14:20:02 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> > obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> > There are a few books (and sometimes small religions) out there now,
> > mostly new-agey kinds of things, whose near-definitional tenant is that
> > nothing you do is wrong or can be wrong, and that in fact right and wrong
> > don't exist. It's sort of an interesting backlash to the culture of
> > judgement preached by some fundamentalist sects.
It's sort of funny to call stuff new-ageish that is at least as old as
SIASL ("Thou art God") ... then again, the world has invented words like
"postmodernism".
> > Most of the dictates of religions, when stripped of some of the
> > trappings, amount to that sort of common sense about how the world works;
> > they have to, since if they were totally ineffective, no one would believe
> > in them.
>
> Oh stop it ! You'll have me giggling for hours if you carry on like that !
> Since when did effectiveness, plausibility or anything of that ilk ever have
> any influence on what people believe ? People believe that playing the
> national lottery is worth their while, that Elvis is still alive, and that
> Microsoft produce the best software available.
People believe in astrology. From all I've ever heard, it's proven to be
"totally ineffective".
The problem here is that people, in general, have absolutely no grasp of
statistics. When something works out as much as would be expected from
purely random results, they tend to conclude it's proven.
> > I'd say that the vast majority of
> > people who would describe themselves as religious, at least in my
> > experience, don't have *any* belief in a religion; they have a social
> > attachment to one, which is a different thing.
>
> We must move in entirely different circles - the people I know who have only
> a social attachment to a religion would never describe themselves as
> religious ("Are you religious ?" "No, but I do go to church").
Same for me.
> > *shrug* Anyone who's read the Bible to any extent will see that the God
> > described therein seems to change his general method of dealing with the
> > world so frequently that it's hard to generalize. The God described is a
> > very different God depending on who he's interacting with.
That's not quite been my impression. There's a big difference between OT
and NT, of course, and there's a difference insofar as people belong to
the chosen ones (or not), or do what he wants (or not), but those are all
pretty expected differences.
> doesn't add to much weight to the 'bible as literal word of God' school of
> thought :)
Most adherents of that school seem to live on the other side of the pond
from me. It's a view fairly hard to find over here.
Instead there are all those Catholics worshipping Mary (except of course
they say it's not really worship, if you read the small print).
> > One interesting side note: Have you ever noticed, reading religious
> > texts, how the God described appears to take the exact opposite approach
> > as most of humanity and rather than refusing responsibility for
> > everything, *takes* responsibility for everything?
Not really. He seems to blame us very often. He choses very carefully what
he will be responsible for :-)
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3sonh7...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> > r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
>
> >> At least within most Christian denominations I'm familiar with, there
> >> don't seem to be any firm "you are a member" or "you aren't a member"
> >> lines drawn apart from social sorts of things.
>
> > Well, that seems to be different over here then.
>
> I should note that people get amazingly upset and worked up over the
> social sorts of things. And that I consider knowing a particular language
> and a particular set of codewords to be a "social sort of thing."
>
> That may clarify what I mean a little. :)
If anything, it confirms the difference. The lines I see here are not
related to knowing codewords; it's more like nationality works.
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3pvila...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> writes:
>
> >> I'm not sure that it is. What if one accepts the theory of Jesus
> >> Christ as a personal savior as a basis from which to work out the
>
> > What is this "personal savior" slogan? Before JC, did all the deities
> > just stamp your hand and say "line on the left?"
>
> I'm sure other people could cite you the precise origins of the term, but
> the "feel" I've always had on it is that it's a leftover from the
> Protestant Reformation and is essentially shorthand used to indicate that
> one believes that one's relationship to God is personal and direct and is
> not mediated by a church, by saints, or by any other religious authority
> either in this world or any other.
I'm pretty sure it's older than that. It's suspiciously similar to what JC
told people.
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m3ra315...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > Now why couldn't I have phrased it as succinctly ? I would expand that
> > a little, though, to 'most religions hold that they're the only correct
> > religion, and that they are correct in their entirety' which hopefully
> > illustrates what I've been driving at.
>
> *nod* I think that second part appears to be that way from the outside
> more than it actually is. Most religions that I've seen have a great deal
> of internal disagreement over what precisely *is* the religion, which
> shoots holes in "correct in their entirety."
Not really. They may disagree about the contents of the package, but they
do, in general, agree that it's a package deal.
Kai Henningsen
r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote on 13.04.98 in <m31zv18...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>:
> Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> > r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
> The proper use of those sorts of lines of argument are to show to oneself
> that religion is not approachable via pure logic. People who want to
> approach the world via logic and have their beliefs be logically derivable
> should stear well-clear of religion; it's not a tool that's going to be
> useful for them.
Well, that's not quite my world view :-)
I do use logic a lot, but not exclusively; I do, however, rely nearly
exclusively on logic when I need to sort out facts.
In areas like ethics, there's still a lot "how do I want this to come
out", and then sometimes logic to see if I can make that stick (or what
base assumtions I need to make it stick, and can I live with those).
Always if there's a conflict.
Or to put it another way, there's facts, there's logic, and there's some
things that just have to be decided one way or another, and I use a lot of
lazy evaluation :-) But it's the logic that ties everything together.
> > That might be a sensible approach in mathematics, but I can think of no
> > other place where I'd be willing to call that approach "sensible".
>
> Religion is very much *like* mathematics, though, in the sense that
> there's no obvious place to "start."
Huh?!
> With physics, for example, one can
> start with a moving object. With chemistry, one can start with an
> observable chemical reaction. With math, one pretty much has to postulate
> the concept of numbers and some basic operations on them before one can
> even get started. Religion is somewhat similar that way.
I don't think I can follow you there.
> > Just as an aside, I don't believe in spirituality (or at least in what I
> > understand that to mean from the dictionary definition).
>
> "Of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit" for me. *shrug*
> No problem if you don't, provided that you don't object strenuously to the
> fact that I do. :)
The obvious problem here is "the spirit" :-) (And no, I don't, on
equivalent conditions.)
> > However, the fact that nearly every cookbook says "this book contains
> > all the useful answers to cooking there are" _is_ a flaw in the
> > cookbooks.
>
> Yup. Definitely. That's one of the appealing things about Judaism; the
> religion appears to inherently acknowledge that the scriptures themselves
> don't contain all the useful answers and that writing down more things
> surrounding them, and commentary on the commentary, and so forth is a
> vital and valuable portion of the religion.
Well, one thing they got right is that learning is important. Jews have
traditionally been much better educated than average. Hey, most could read
and write!
And that's one thing Christianity promptly forgot (or rejected) about its
roots. Too bad.
> >> Admittedly, some (most?) religions do try to *encourage* that mode of
> >> thinking, whereas most cookbooks do not. But even if I did encouter a
>
> > And incidentally, I'd probably weed out any cookbook (or computer book,
> > or ...) that did this, as being dangerous to trust. As it is, I get to
> > do that to religions.
>
> Not a believer in the One True Brace Style, hmm? *duck*
Of course I am. My brace style is oviously the one true way. And all you
heathens better shape up and do the same, or else ... or else ... or else
*something*. (Incidentally, it's derived from my begin/end style. Pascal
was my first "real" language.) ("Or else"? I once knew that language ...)
But I don't trust books claiming that.
Wednesday
In article <6rpYq...@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6rpYq...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>That's not quite been my impression. There's a big difference between OT
Oh, I dunno. I could come up with lots of similarities between the god of
the Old Testament and WIndows NT.
--
wedn...@tezcat.com ======================================================
"...by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it." -- RA
Catherine Hampton
:> > Only those of us so satisfied with what we believe and what we are that
:> > we think, "the pooooooor little agnostic", pat you on the head, and
:> > remind ourselves to pray for you. <BIG wicked grin>
:> Oh, that's OK, I'm used to ignoring the insane delusions of religious
:> people. As long as you're not starting any more wars, you go ahead and enjoy
:> yourself. <*VERY* wicked grin>
:> PS: Atheist, not agnostic.
Sorry. "Pooooorrr little atheist." ;> May the curse of G.K. Chesterton
fall on you. (Chesterton was once berated by a fellow Catholic for
having so many agnostic and atheist friends. The individual who was
giving him the hard time asked him if he really believed an atheist
might go to heaven. Chesterton replied that he was certain there
would be many atheists in heaven -- good people who just didn't get
it about God -- scratching their heads and wondering where they were.)
;>
: Is this where I follow up with "agnostic heretic" and try to start a
: cascade, to induce flambeaux? (Hey, look, probly a spelling flame target :)
DON'T YOU HAVE A SPELL CHECKER, YOU UNEDUCATED IDIOT!!!!!!!
: Or just start ranting about the concepts of responsibility for "fate" and
: such, and the alternatives (such as, "If it's really your fault and not
: mine that that happened, come down here so I can kick your ass back a few
: thousand years")?
: Dammit, I'm *trying* to stay on-topic!
And doing rather well at it.... D*mn, nothing to flame you about. ;>
--
Catherine Hampton <net-reli...@hrweb.org>
Net Religion Czar, Despot, Chief Cook and Bottlewasher ;>
(Please note that the address in the From: line exists, is valid,
and is also used as a spamtrap. Send email to the address in my
signature if you want me to see it any time soon.)
Catherine Hampton
Wednesday <wedn...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> wrote:
: Oh, I dunno. I could come up with lots of similarities between the god of
: the Old Testament and WIndows NT.
Hey, watchit. This is net.RELIGION.flame, not net.COMPUTERS.flame.
Although, come to think of it.... Nah, never mind. ;>
obscurity
On 14 Apr 1998 21:04:30 GMT, Catherine Hampton <x...@hrweb.org> wrote:
> :> PS: Atheist, not agnostic.
>
> Sorry. "Pooooorrr little atheist." ;>
That's much better, thank you :)
> May the curse of G.K. Chesterton
> fall on you. (Chesterton was once berated by a fellow Catholic for
> having so many agnostic and atheist friends. The individual who was
> giving him the hard time asked him if he really believed an atheist
> might go to heaven. Chesterton replied that he was certain there
> would be many atheists in heaven -- good people who just didn't get
> it about God -- scratching their heads and wondering where they were.)
> ;>
That would be hell.
obscurity
On 13 Apr 1998 18:43:52 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
>
> > Now why couldn't I have phrased it as succinctly ? I would expand that
> > a little, though, to 'most religions hold that they're the only correct
> > religion, and that they are correct in their entirety' which hopefully
> > illustrates what I've been driving at.
>
> *nod* I think that second part appears to be that way from the outside
> more than it actually is. Most religions that I've seen have a great deal
> of internal disagreement over what precisely *is* the religion, which
> shoots holes in "correct in their entirety."
Well, as I'm on the outside looking in, I can't really argue that point.
But I do think that (damn, forgot who it was) someone's follow-up about
'package deals' is a valid point.
> > I can't think of any major societal structure that promotes such
> > mindless acceptance to the same degree that I think religion does,
> > though. Even polititians get a free vote from time to time !
>
> And what's the re-election percentage? :) Look at the *concept* of
> democracy. Seriously. Try disagreeing with it. It's very interesting.
*Try* disagreeing with it ? I *do* disagree with it. Wholeheartedly. I'm
white, middle-class and male, yet even *I* feel the tyranny of the majority
thwarting me at every turn. ("Victimless crime" ? What *are* these people
smoking ?).
The question is, what would be a better system ?
I'm in two minds over it, myself. Part of me thinks some form of meritocracy
would be the way to go, only how do you decide who has the most merit ? (put
it to a vote ? :) ). The other half of me thinks "fuck that - I'm all for
tyranny, with me as the tyrant" (after all, I can't possibly trust anyone
else's ethics as much as I can trust mine...I can't even begin to *know* them
as well as I know mine).
Ideally, I'd like to declare my flat as an independant nation :)
But we're drifting off topic here, and if we're not talking about religion,
I may have to start flaming you to stay on-topic :)
christian mock
In article <m34szx8...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> > Well, yes, you have a point. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
> > with society (from my point of view, at least). Religion tends to
> > promote (either actively or passively) mindless acceptance. Therefore I
> > have a problem with religion.
>
> I think the main thing that I'm arguing is that I think you have the
> casual relationship reversed. Mindless acceptance is one of the problems
> with society, and therefore most major societal structures manifest
> elements of mindless acceptance.
nope. religions are there to teach us to be "better", or so they say
-- so they shouldn't use and abuse this tendency of mindless
acceptance, but try to teach people to think for themselves -- I do
know some people that are religious whom I believe that they did think
for themselves before associating themselves with a religion; most
people, even of the kind that only casually go to church, most
certainly don't; they've been risen as catholics (or whatever), and
they still are, because it's always been like this. and they have
accepted lots of social/religious prejudices without thinking.
on a related issue: I head austria made it to the CNN headlines today
with cardinal groer's story -- the pedophile guy that managed not only
to get away unpunished for years, and even years after the initial
uncovering of the accusations, but also got backing (at least by
silence) from most of his peers, until they were so deep in the shit
that they just had to call the pope to do something about it. hell,
this is the 20th century and not the dark age of jus primae noctis or
something, and there's this priest that not only had sex, but had
non-consensual sex with dependant minors of the same sex -- it's all a
big pile of hipocrisis (sp?), and this story is only the tip of an
iceberg. it's rotten, and it will stay so unless people begin to think
for themselves, regardless of which belief they subscribe to.
cm.
Alexander Koch
On 13 Apr 1998 13:06:16 -0700, Kate Wrightson <ka...@eyrie.org> wrote:
[snip]
> Here we begin to draw the lines that lead to Protestants calling Catholics
> non-Christians :) (the personal savior thing)
And black people not being Christians because of their "evil" colour of
their skin... Argh.
I know...
Since my father is a catholic and my mother a protestant I know both of
the most typical views.
The thing I hate most are Christians (or non-Christians, it doesn't
really matter) denying other people to call themselves Christians as if
they know who's and who's not.
Now, if someone commits suicide and a priest is denying him a "church
burial" (sp??) -- who's he to deny him that right. If this God exists
(which I believe in, by the way) then he's to sort that out in a way
surely above that priests' mind.
Alexander
Kai Henningsen
c...@tahina.priv.at (christian mock) wrote on 14.04.98 in <6h0qcg$qil$1...@bauer.tahina.priv.at>:
> iceberg. it's rotten, and it will stay so unless people begin to think
> for themselves, regardless of which belief they subscribe to.
From what I hear (and it's been news material in Germany for a long time
now), this partly happened *because* people wanted to think for themselves
- and the Vatikan needed to find a candidate that would tell them not to,
and bugger (pun not unintended) any unpleasant stories about the guy.
Seems that was a case of shooting oneself in the foot. At least in
Austria, there seem to be a lot fewer Catholics than before.
Now I hear the guy wants to live in a Swedish nunnery[1]. Maybe there are
some more Catholics over there he can convince to leave?
Kai
[1] My dic claims that's a word.
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
luc...@prophecy.lightbearer.com (Joel Baker) wrote on 14.04.98 in <slrn6j7eit....@prophecy.lightbearer.com>:
> I believe the quote is "If a religion is a set of beliefs which must be
> taken on faith, and cannot be proved, then mathematics is not only a
> religion, but the only religion which can prove itself to be one".
I believe I ripped that nonsense apart before. It should be in DejaNews.
In short, all it demonstrates is that someone completely misunderstood
Gödel. Again.
I could probably write a long rant about that, but I don't have the time
today.
> All this based on the nebulous "IIRC", which I may not be doing.
That's one way to put it.
Kai
Peter da Silva
In article <6ruW6...@khms.westfalen.de>,
Kai Henningsen <kaih=6ruW6...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
>> I believe the quote is "If a religion is a set of beliefs which must be
>> taken on faith, and cannot be proved, then mathematics is not only a
>> religion, but the only religion which can prove itself to be one".
>I believe I ripped that nonsense apart before. It should be in DejaNews.
>In short, all it demonstrates is that someone completely misunderstood
>Gödel. Again.
Or someone misunderstood the bit about never explaining a joke.
Jay Denebeim
In article <6grcuh$4l$1...@basil.clues.com>,
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> wrote:
> (I keep waiting for the Microsoft keyboard that consists of just one
> huge spacebar that people can bash with their foreheads to indicate
> that they are now ready for their computer to do the next thing that
> Microsoft thinks they should do.)
You've just described webtv.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.ml.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.ml.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.ml.org *
Matt McLeod
Personally, I'm not a fan of religion taken to
extreme. But then I'll be fairly surprised if
anyone here is.
I've come to the conclusion (after a lot of
thought) that there are so many possible gods
(if, for a moment, we assume that some god or
other does actually exist) that without some real,
hard evidence it's plain silly to pick one and
stick with it - the chances are way too high that
you're going to pick the wrong one, and then
you're going to be in *real* trouble. :-)
So I leave out the god-worship thing, and just stick
to trying to behave in an ethical manner. Which
is pretty safe, unless it turns out that we've got
some really perverse god(s) - in which case I'm
in as much trouble as the folks who picked the
wrong horse, but at least I'll have acted rationally.
--
Matt McLeod | I have at least three hats. Right
<Ma...@McLeod.dropbear.id.au> | now I'm wearing my "loudmouth private
http://attila.apana.org.au/~mjm | citizen" one - it's a lovely deep blue.
Russ Allbery
It's been a bad week; apologies for the delay in getting back to this
discussion. I was actually enjoying it quite a bit.
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> On 13 Apr 1998 14:20:02 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> It logically follows that if one doesn't follow the dictates of the
>> religion, they believe that good won't happen, or won't necessarily
>> happen, or won't be as likely to happen. That could be considered
>> negative consequences.
> I don't mean good things not happening, I mean bad things happening, as
> a direct result of the 'transgression'.
I think the line is fairly fuzzy there. There are a lot of Christians who
consider Hell to simply be the absence of God, in which case the single
most visible punishment in the religion *is* just good things not
happening.
> Well, I've been kinda discussing (umm...what's the right word...)
> 'established' religions, rather than minor 'one man and his pet dog'
> type of outfits :), and I sincerely doubt that there's that many of them
> when compared to those that do have a concept of punishment.
One reason for that is that religions that don't have strong concepts of
"right" and "wrong" tend to fragment heavily, since it's the concept of
right and wrong that causes the religion coherent (in the scientific
definition of the term). In other words, unless one can identify things
as "this is what we believe" and "this isn't what we believe," figuring
out who does and does not believe in a religion is pretty hard.
> But I'd be interested in any pointers you could give me on then anyway,
> they sound interesting (not that I'm likely to become a convert, though,
> you understand).
_Conversations with God_ by somebody Neale (I forget his full name
off-hand and I don't have the book with me) is the primary one that I'm
thinking of, although I've seen similar sorts of things in the Seth stuff
and books related to that.
I have a very hazy understanding of and acquaintance with new age
religions in general, though, so take anything I say there with a grain of
salt.
> That, though, is a rather looser definition of punishment than I was
> using (indeed, a looser definition than I've ever heard used before !).
> I mean a deliberate act taken soley to punish, when the option of not
> taking that act is available.
I don't think you'll find a lot of Christian scholars who have that view
of punishment, at least divine punishment. It's a *very* common Christian
teaching that God doesn't have a *choice* in whether or not to punish us,
that the only thing that makes salvation possible is that Jesus Christ
chose to bear that punishment for us, and that punishment is the natural
and inevitable consequence of sin. Looking at it from that view, it's a
lot closer to the cause and effect sorts of relationships one sees in
scientific descriptions.
I will certainly concede that individual preachers warp that quite a lot
for their own purposes, and that there are entire "fire and brimstone"
styles of religion that emphasize punishment to a very large degree. But
that's really not supported in the broader literature.
>> Most of the dictates of religions, when stripped of some of the
>> trappings, amount to that sort of common sense about how the world
>> works; they have to, since if they were totally ineffective, no one
>> would believe in them.
> Oh stop it ! You'll have me giggling for hours if you carry on like
> that ! Since when did effectiveness, plausibility or anything of that
> ilk ever have any influence on what people believe ?
It has much more of an effect than people believe, I think, but you have
to understand what I mean by effectiveness. And I didn't say anything at
all about plausibility. People believe a lot of implausible things; that
doesn't have much to do with it at all.
(Look at quantum mechanics, for example. *grin, duck*)
> People believe that playing the national lottery is worth their while,
Sure. Because people win. Playing the national lottery is of proven
effectiveness; someone who played the national lottery won it, and no one
who didn't play the lottery has ever won it.
I'm not implying that people analyze the *probabilities* here; I'm saying
that unless people have some *perceived* evidence that something is
effective, they're highly unlikely to do it.
> that Elvis is still alive,
This is a different sort of belief, because it can't really be either
effective *or* not effective. It's a null belief; it doesn't, in the end,
actually mean or imply anything.
> and that Microsoft produce the best software available.
But they've used the software and it's worked for them. It may have been
hard to use, but they don't really have any reference for that. There may
have been bugs, but in the end it was functional.
I'm not saying that people make informed decisions on the basis of
evaluating the relative effectiveness of all the options. I'm saying that
if Microsoft software never worked for *anyone* doing *anything*, no one
would buy it.
And specifically related to religion, I'm saying that people who have
followed the teachings of a religion have found it to improve their life
and make them happier. And religions which do *not* do those things are
unlikely to be generally successful (although they may be successful in
isolated pockets, like cults are, for entirely different reasons). This
is why, if you take the teachings of most any religion and strip them of
their trappings, you'll find a lot of fairly common-sense notions about
how to deal with other human beings that are, on the whole, likely to
produce fairly sane and reasonable behavior.
(The Ten Commandments are a good example there.)
>> I'd say that the vast majority of people who would describe themselves
>> as religious, at least in my experience, don't have *any* belief in a
>> religion; they have a social attachment to one, which is a different
>> thing.
> We must move in entirely different circles - the people I know who have
> only a social attachment to a religion would never describe themselves
> as religious ("Are you religious ?" "No, but I do go to church").
Quite likely. It's worth keeping in mind that I *do* live in the Bay
Area, and furthermore know most of the people I know in person through a
university. A lot of the people I know actually tend to *think* about
things more than the average, and that applies to the religious as well.
>> *shrug* Anyone who's read the Bible to any extent will see that the God
>> described therein seems to change his general method of dealing with
>> the world so frequently that it's hard to generalize. The God
>> described is a very different God depending on who he's interacting
>> with.
> OK, but God is certainly depicted as vengeful at times, certainly enough
> to 'put the fear of God' into people, so that if you believe in the God
> as depicted in the bible, you are likely to be wary of his punishment.
Yup. (Old Testament in particular, although there are some instances of
things in the New Testament as well.)
>> One interesting side note: Have you ever noticed, reading religious
>> texts, how the God described appears to take the exact opposite
>> approach as most of humanity and rather than refusing responsibility
>> for everything, *takes* responsibility for everything? There's the
>> obvious explanation, of course, namely that God is the repository of
>> mankind's abandoned responsibility, but there are more inobvious
>> explanations that I find rather fascinating.
> Care to elaborate ?
Well, if you combine the idea that God takes responsibility for most of
what happens with the idea that we're supposed to emulate God as much as
possible in our dealings with others, it implies quite a bit about
personal responsibility that a lot of people seem to be missing.
Hard to put more words to it than that. It's more of a feeling sort of
thing. I suppose how much that really means depends on how much one buys
into a karmic system or otherwise believes that the world is shaped by
what we believe the world to be (not at the physical level, but at the
level of how other people react to and interact with us).
>> (Watching people who believe in predestination jump through hoops to
>> try to avoid the above apparent consequence of that belief is somewhat
>> amusing afternoon entertainment.)
> A spectator sport I've not yet had the pleasure of. (Any
> predestinationists out there fancy having a shot at it ? :) )
I'm being somewhat unfair, as there are explanations that I can largely
buy. But this *is* net.religion.flame. :)
>> It's not actually a worry. :) (Neither is it a positive statement.
>> It's just neutral.)
> No, but it'd be a worry for me ! I have enough problems trying to decide
> what I consider the ethical thing to do without having to worry about
> whether or not my choice would necessarily be what God would want. :)
That's where conscience comes in; your choices about the ethical thing to
do are made on the basis of your conscience which is connected to the
divine, so you're already worrying about whether or not your choice is
what God would want and you don't even know it. :) (No, I don't really
believe all of that; I just think it's an interesting idea to play with.)
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> obsc...@obscure.org (obscurity) wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 1998 14:20:02 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> There are a few books (and sometimes small religions) out there now,
>>> mostly new-agey kinds of things, whose near-definitional tenant is
>>> that nothing you do is wrong or can be wrong, and that in fact right
>>> and wrong don't exist. It's sort of an interesting backlash to the
>>> culture of judgement preached by some fundamentalist sects.
> It's sort of funny to call stuff new-ageish that is at least as old as
> SIASL ("Thou art God") ... then again, the world has invented words like
> "postmodernism".
Heh. I don't classify it; I just use other people's classifications. :)
> People believe in astrology. From all I've ever heard, it's proven to be
> "totally ineffective".
That's an amusing example to bring up, given that I have a little bit of
exposure to astrology and have always been amused by how close the
descriptions of the personality I'm "supposed" to have jive with how I
perceive myself. Not that I'm making any life decisions on that basis or
anything. :)
There are two things involved in astrology that might explain this. One
of them is the placebo effect, which explains a lot of this; if you go
into a day expecting it to be bad, it often is, and likewise if you expect
it to be good, it often is. The other is that it wouldn't surprise me if
some of astrology happens to coincide to biorhythms, which last I heard
*might* have some basis in common periods for chemical cycles in the human
body.
I have no particular explanation for the fact that the astrological
explanation of my personality is surprisingly close apart from sheer
random chance. (Which is somewhat less likely in my case since I happen
to have been born on a cusp, but which is still well within the realm of
believable random chance.)
> The problem here is that people, in general, have absolutely no grasp of
> statistics. When something works out as much as would be expected from
> purely random results, they tend to conclude it's proven.
Yup. Definitely true.
I personally don't rule out astrology as working for some people and not
for others, but then I don't require these things to be reproducible, nor
do I particularly care if they're true or not. Astrology doesn't seem to
work for me in terms of predictive ability, which is pretty much the limit
of my curiosity on the subject.
Russ Allbery
obscurity <obsc...@obscure.org> writes:
> *Try* disagreeing with it ? I *do* disagree with it. Wholeheartedly.
> I'm white, middle-class and male, yet even *I* feel the tyranny of the
> majority thwarting me at every turn. ("Victimless crime" ? What *are*
> these people smoking ?).
*grin*
> The question is, what would be a better system ?
Oh, but that's a completely different subject. If I could just get people
to consider the possibility that democracy might not be the best tool in
every circumstance, I'd consider the battle won and go on to other things.
I mean, it's interesting to debate what might be better than democracy,
but one immediately marginalizes oneself by even opening one's mind to the
question.
> I'm in two minds over it, myself. Part of me thinks some form of
> meritocracy would be the way to go, only how do you decide who has the
> most merit ?
Meritoracy is the system that I like the best whenever it's possible. One
of the things that I like about Usenet (and similarly about the free
software community) is that it *is* still possible here. People who get
things running and keep them running generally end up being the people who
get to decide how they run.
Generally, I decide who has the most merit through a web of trust system.
A reputation system. If someone I believe has merit vouches for you as
having merit, I'll conditionally believe that you have merit (awaiting my
own observations). It works wonderfully for relatively small groups of
people (up to about ten times the size of the number of people one can
meaningfully interact with in a lifetime, I think, numbers pulled totally
randomly out of a hat). It breaks down pretty badly once one starts
talking about governing hundreds of thousands of people. I have no web of
trust path to determining whether a random political candidate deserves to
be in charge.
> But we're drifting off topic here, and if we're not talking about
> religion, I may have to start flaming you to stay on-topic :)
Heh. :)
Russ Allbery
christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> writes:
> nope. religions are there to teach us to be "better", or so they say --
> so they shouldn't use and abuse this tendency of mindless acceptance,
> but try to teach people to think for themselves
Heh. And the facts of the matter are that religions are no better and no
worse than any other large human institution. They primarily attempt to
support themselves and ensure that they survive, secondarily attempt to
fulfill their mission as the various layers understand it, and are focuses
for most anyone who has an urge to control what other people do. I think
there are *teachings* in religious doctrine which honestly do teach people
to be better, and I think there are people *affiliated* with religions who
have made that their life work, but the religion as a whole, if it's of
any size, is just like a government or a multinational corporation or any
other large societal institution. It really doesn't have any purpose; it
just exists.
> hell, this is the 20th century and not the dark age of jus primae noctis
> or something, and there's this priest that not only had sex, but had
> non-consensual sex with dependant minors of the same sex -- it's all a
> big pile of hipocrisis (sp?), and this story is only the tip of an
> iceberg. it's rotten, and it will stay so unless people begin to think
> for themselves, regardless of which belief they subscribe to.
The primary means by which a child abuser manages to keep their abuse
silent is by making the child afraid to report it, usually by making the
child believe that they did something wrong. Religions are a very
powerful tool for making other people believe they did something wrong,
due to the mindset with which people approach religions (and due to the
religious training that people give their children), so it makes perfect
sense to me that a child abuser would seek out that sort of power
structure and exploit it for their own ends.
Just an individual example of what people have been using religion to do
for years. Most all of the "religious" disputes during the Middle Ages
had pretty much nothing to do with religion and everything to do with
power.
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote:
>> Nick Manka <ni...@taronga.com> writes:
>>> What is this "personal savior" slogan? Before JC, did all the deities
>>> just stamp your hand and say "line on the left?"
>> I'm sure other people could cite you the precise origins of the term,
>> but the "feel" I've always had on it is that it's a leftover from the
>> Protestant Reformation and is essentially shorthand used to indicate
>> that one believes that one's relationship to God is personal and direct
>> and is not mediated by a church, by saints, or by any other religious
>> authority either in this world or any other.
> I'm pretty sure it's older than that. It's suspiciously similar to what
> JC told people.
Oh, I'm sure that's where it came from, but that's not the meaning the
code words have. Lots of phrases repeated by religions have double
meanings and hidden doctrine behind them, particularly when there's been a
disagreement between two different religions or religious branches and
people are looking for some way to distinguish.
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> Nor have I, but one nearly universal trait of religious people is to
> argue good or bad based on their deities pronouncements, only.
People fall back on authority when they feel threatened, so as long as
they feel like you're claiming that they're wrong, they resort to
arguments from authority. More simple human psychology than anything
else. People do the same thing with democracy, with (over here) the First
Amendment, with some legal system or another, with their favorite author,
and so on. Sometimes success can be had through shifting the basis of the
argument into something that feels more theoretical to them, so that they
don't feel threatened.
Whether one cares to make the effort is, of course, another matter; often
it isn't worth it.
>> You can usually get to that point with religions. The trick is to,
>> after the answer "because God wants you to do it," ask *why* God wants
>> you to do it. That question tends to get more interesting answers. :)
> I don't know - that question tends to get me answers along the lines of
> "we can't understand God, and shouldn't even try". YMMV and all that.
*rolls eyes* I'd completely give up on someone who gave me that answer.
It's evidence of a fundamental disagreement on how one should approach
life; I don't believe there is *anything* we shouldn't try to understand.
I've found people who won't stop at that level, thankfully, or I wouldn't
have any religious people to talk to. :)
>> Dunno. Because we've had a specific emotional experience that you
>> haven't had?
> Well, I cannot think of any _emotional_ experience that would convince
> me of something like that. That seems fundamentally incompatible with
> the way I think.
Quite possible. *shrug*
Spirituality is an entirely intutive and emotional thing for me. I can
make some logical deductions about pieces of it, or explore theoretical
concepts with the same sorts of tools I would bring to bear on a math
problem, but all of the axioms are rooted in unreproducible personal
experiences, emotional impressions, and intuitive feelings about the world
that I couldn't ask other people to believe in if I wanted to. No way to
put them into words.
>> It's my opinion that God doesn't make ethical decisions. People do.
> Well, all I can say is that the religions I've met so far seem to
> disagree.
People personify God quite a bit, and project their own nature onto their
deity. The theoretical literature often paints a very different picture
than what one hears from individual believers.
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) writes:
>> *nod* I think that second part appears to be that way from the outside
>> more than it actually is. Most religions that I've seen have a great
>> deal of internal disagreement over what precisely *is* the religion,
>> which shoots holes in "correct in their entirety."
> Not really. They may disagree about the contents of the package, but
> they do, in general, agree that it's a package deal.
Point. I suppose I just reject that by ignoring it.
Russ Allbery
Kai Henningsen <kaih> writes:
> r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote:
>> The proper use of those sorts of lines of argument are to show to
>> oneself that religion is not approachable via pure logic. People who
>> want to approach the world via logic and have their beliefs be
>> logically derivable should stear well-clear of religion; it's not a
>> tool that's going to be useful for them.
> Well, that's not quite my world view :-)
Didn't mean to imply that. :) I try to never imply anything about other
people's world views that they haven't actually stated.
> Or to put it another way, there's facts, there's logic, and there's some
> things that just have to be decided one way or another, and I use a lot
> of lazy evaluation :-) But it's the logic that ties everything together.
*nod*
I'm a fundamentally dual sort of person; half of me approaches life in a
similar sort of way as you're describing, and the other half just...
doesn't. It's a deep enough duality that I can consciously choose to drop
into one mode or another sometimes, and I tend to associate different
modes with different noms de plume and different parts of my life.
Writing is the spiritual side, programming is mostly the logical side,
etc.
That makes these sorts of conversations interesting to me, since I'm
generally in logical mode for them. The spiritual side just doesn't care,
since I don't care what you all believe, don't have any desire to convert
you, and figure that whatever you believe is likely to be the best thing
for you to believe anyway. So you're getting my logical analysis of my
own illogic. :)
>> Religion is very much *like* mathematics, though, in the sense that
>> there's no obvious place to "start."
> Huh?!
Well, suppose you want to attempt to derive "mathematics" or at least some
relatively large chunk of it from "basic principles." There are a variety
of ways that one can go about doing this; usually, you just pick some
relatively core set of basic principles (like set theory or a chunk of
number theory or what have you) and a logical proof system and start from
there.
With physics, you can start on mechanics by picking up a rock and throwing
it. Performing experiments and measuring the results. Deriving a little
bit of applied mathematics in the process so that you can do curve fitting
and pull out the constants and so forth. Probably easier to derive
mechanics from physical observation if you're in zero-g, but we manage.
With math... well, it's fairly hard to get very far just from counting,
since before long you need *some* sort of proof system and conceptual
framework before you can get all the way to something like category theory
or what have you. Math has a lot of axioms that one simply starts with
because they're as good as anything else. Math is more inherently
symbolic and abstract than science.
Religion is different than this, granted, but it's similar in the sense
that pretty much anyone "doing religion" does so the way one does
mathematics, by picking some basic set of axioms and not questioning them.
(The difference, of course, is that the axioms of mathematics are rooted
in attempting to describe reproducible experiments in a reproducible way,
whereas the axioms of religion aren't.)
I'm not sure if this makes much sense; the analogy falls apart pretty
badly in a lot of places, so I'm not sure if the point where it works is
visible through all the points where it doesn't.
Russ Allbery
christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> writes:
> OK, but there's a subtle difference: I can start a discussion in a
> "democratic"[0] society about the rules it has, and about the
> assumptions those rules are based on. I cannot argue with gods will,
> because he is, by definition, always right.
But see, I'd happily engage in that conversation with you about God's
will, and there are tons of people who will tell you that democracy is, by
definition, always right and refuse to argue any assumptions.
So the experience you're seeing isn't inherent in either religion or
belief in democracy.
Peter da Silva
In article <m3k98mb...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>The primary means by which a child abuser manages to keep their abuse
>silent is by making the child afraid to report it, usually by making the
>child believe that they did something wrong.
And convincing the child that they're bad no matter WHAT they do is, over
the long term, probably the worst part of the whole ordeal.
Peter da Silva
In article <m3pvieb...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>it to be good, it often is. The other is that it wouldn't surprise me if
>some of astrology happens to coincide to biorhythms, which last I heard
>*might* have some basis in common periods for chemical cycles in the human
>body.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were cycles like that, but the charts
people cut are completely meaningless, because there's no mechanism to
entrain them so close to any arbitrary frequency over an individual's
lifetime.
>I have no particular explanation for the fact that the astrological
>explanation of my personality is surprisingly close apart from sheer
>random chance. (Which is somewhat less likely in my case since I happen
>to have been born on a cusp, but which is still well within the realm of
>believable random chance.)
Random chance almost demands that coincidences must occur, or it wouldn't
be really random.
Peter da Silva
In article <m3n2dib...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Generally, I decide who has the most merit through a web of trust system.
>A reputation system. If someone I believe has merit vouches for you as
>having merit, I'll conditionally believe that you have merit (awaiting my
>own observations). It works wonderfully for relatively small groups of
>people (up to about ten times the size of the number of people one can
>meaningfully interact with in a lifetime, I think, numbers pulled totally
>randomly out of a hat). It breaks down pretty badly once one starts
>talking about governing hundreds of thousands of people.
Sure, then you have to assume that there are more trustworthy people in the
society than untrustworthy ones, and hope for the best. That's the way you
DEVELOP democracy in the first place.
>I have no web of
>trust path to determining whether a random political candidate deserves to
>be in charge.
So maybe you need to select a representative who thinks like you and has
the time to do the research. But if they spend all their time studying
people, instead of doing whatever it is you do, how can you possibly expect
to find them? Particularly in the small area from which you're allowed to
select this representative...
Personally, I like "at large" seats.
Jim Kingdon
> I have no particular explanation for the fact that the astrological
> explanation of my personality is surprisingly close apart from sheer
> random chance.
My suspicion is:
(1) Astrological explanations are written to make the reader want to
say "oh, that's me".
(2) One pays more attention to the part of the explanation that
matches than the part that doesn't match.
Furthermore, I see nothing at all wrong with #2, and even #1. For me,
the value of the Tarot, I Ching, &c (I suppose one might even include
Christian concepts like righteous anger, love, &c, although I'm having
trouble thinking of an analogue from mainstream Christianity), is what
it reminds one of, or associations that it brings to mind, rather than
anything supernatural.
Of course, sheer random chance could also happen.
Russ Allbery
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> writes:
> My suspicion is:
> (1) Astrological explanations are written to make the reader want to say
> "oh, that's me".
> (2) One pays more attention to the part of the explanation that matches
> than the part that doesn't match.
That doesn't explain experiments that I've done where I've read all of the
potential explanations without knowing which one would apply to me and the
only one that even remotely fit was the one that happened to be "mine."
I don't think I've done that experiment with astrology, but I have done
that experiment with Tarot.
(Again, I'm not arguing that implies anything at all. It's still very
easily explainable as random chance. I just find it interesting.)
christian mock
In article <m367k6b...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
> But see, I'd happily engage in that conversation with you about God's
> will, and there are tons of people who will tell you that democracy is, by
> definition, always right and refuse to argue any assumptions.
Your'e neither a church official nor a state official, I suppose -- so
your point is moot.
Of course I can discuss my personal religious points of view with
anybody who's interested, as I can with my political issues. If I want
to propose political changes, however, there's a clearly defined way
to do so: found a party, try to be elected, etc. What am I supposed to
do if I want to change churches politics?
Russ Allbery
christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> writes:
> Of course I can discuss my personal religious points of view with
> anybody who's interested, as I can with my political issues. If I want
> to propose political changes, however, there's a clearly defined way to
> do so: found a party, try to be elected, etc. What am I supposed to do
> if I want to change churches politics?
The time-honored way appears to be to start a new church. :)
The Green Man
In article <m37m4l8...@windlord.Stanford.EDU>,
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>christian mock <c...@tahina.priv.at> writes:
>
>> Of course I can discuss my personal religious points of view with
>> anybody who's interested, as I can with my political issues. If I
>> want to propose political changes, however, there's a clearly
>> defined way to do so: found a party, try to be elected, etc. What
>> am I supposed to do if I want to change churches politics?
>
>The time-honored way appears to be to start a new church. :)
I see the smiley, but there's more truth in that than humor. You've
just pointed out religion's fatal flaw.
It is said that during the U.S. Constitutional Convention, Benjamin
Franklin was initially opposed to the inclusion of rules of
impeachment. Until someone pointed out that if such rules were not
included, the only way to remove a President from power before his
term was up would be assassination.
Religion lacks rules of impeachment for its theories. How can it
have them? Religions are based on revealed knowledge. To even
consider the idea of impeaching them implies that revelations cannot
be trusted, and that would destroy the very foundation of religion!
The only way to modify a religion is through a new revelation.
As a result, religions are as prone to strife as a system of
government where the only method of reform is violent revolution.
Change one doctrine, no matter how minor, and you've created two
warring factions with no hope of reconciliation. After all, if two
people claim to have conflicting revelations from God, at least one
of them must be wrong.
Russ Allbery
The Green Man <ernu...@the.satanic.org> writes:
> Religion lacks rules of impeachment for its theories. How can it have
> them? Religions are based on revealed knowledge. To even consider the
> idea of impeaching them implies that revelations cannot be trusted, and
> that would destroy the very foundation of religion! The only way to
> modify a religion is through a new revelation.
And herein you have pinpointed the reason why I don't like any large
structured religion, regardless of its origins or setup. I like lots of
small religions, hopefully cooperating or at least tolerating, but at the
least fragmented. That way, people can choose.
But then, I as a person have much less need to be part of something large
than a lot of people I know, and I think the structure fulfills a need for
some people. So.
> As a result, religions are as prone to strife as a system of government
> where the only method of reform is violent revolution. Change one
> doctrine, no matter how minor, and you've created two warring factions
> with no hope of reconciliation. After all, if two people claim to have
> conflicting revelations from God, at least one of them must be wrong.
There are a lot of religions that seem to have tolerance for there being
"more than one way," though. Judaism is a major one; Islam at least has
some leanings that way despite their reputation.
Jim Kingdon
> Change one doctrine, no matter how minor, and you've created two
> warring factions with no hope of reconciliation.
On the whole I think that is true, and a very salient point.
But it is also interesting to look for counterexamples or
counterexample-like situations. Two spring to mind off the top of my
head:
* The Quakers have a pretty conservative and Christ-centered theology.
However, because they don't push their theology the way that other
Christian denominations do, a lot of the newer converts don't buy into
this anymore. I don't know if this is really a non-problem, or
whether the warring factions merely have yet to develop in a
full-fledged way.
* Around 1900 (or so), keeping the Sabbath was a very central teaching
for Presbyterians. Preachers preached about it a lot, there were lots
of specific things you couldn't do on Sunday, and so on. Within a
relatively short period of time (a few decades), maybe around 1940 or
so, the denomination just totally dropped the subject. They never
"changed" any of these teachings, but everyone forgot them.
I doubt these are the only two or the best two examples, but they were
the ones which I thought of first.
Jim Kingdon
> There are a lot of religions that seem to have tolerance for there being
> "more than one way," though. Judaism is a major one; Islam at least has
> some leanings that way despite their reputation.
Hmm, I'm curious about this one especially vis-a-vis Judaism. I mean,
it isn't really on the front burner for me at the moment but I have
been having somewhat more contact with Jews that usual as of late and
I've been thinking a bit about what Judaism is like as a
religious/spiritual path. I'm somewhat intrigued, but one of the
sticking points is the whole "chosen people" thing.
Granted, I realize that Jewish attitudes towards gentiles is a
complicated subject (as nearly as I can tell), but your comment makes
me wonder whether this tribal religion thing isn't quite the way I've
been thinking about it.
Jeremy.
In net.religion.flame, Jim Kingdon (kin...@panix3.panix.com) said...
Hmm, I quoted all of that because I'm not really sure where or how to quote
it best. It just seems so strange to me. But then, I grew up in Evanston,
IL (right next to Chicago for those looking for it on a map and next to
Skokie for those wondering why it's relevant) and a friend and I figured
out our first year's out here that we think well over half of the people we
interacted with in High School had at least one Jewish parent (I have two,
she had one). It was truly bizarre being out here where of whole dorms of
people I'd know one or two who were Jewish in anything more than the "my
parents say they were Jewish" sense of the word and not even very many of
those.
I went to religious and Hebrew school from about 2nd grade through High
School graduation (and still try to make it to the weekly discussions of
the week's Torah Portion when I have a chance) and the one lesson I got
over and over and over was that questions are always encouraged and
"because we said so", while still sometimes the answer, is never provided
as the answer without extra backing. It's a tradition where the second
most important text (the Talmud) is the writing of oral tradition and is
basically centuries worth of debate, argument, and questioning. I find the
religion extremely intellectual, extremely receptive to internal and
external dialogue, and even a pretty fair moral grounding for a human
being.
I also don't think I've ever, except from a few people who I would write
off as snobs who are Jewish rather than Jewish snobs, encountered "Chosen
People" type talk. It comes up when we're discussing motivation of the
people who transmitted the written text or explanations of where some
traditions came from, but never in attitudes about how others are treated.
Actually, I went to an Evangelical Christian Easer service once and an
Episcopalian Mass and Baptism and found both of them far more invasive and
insistent on their belief systems. I had a much harder time feeling like a
comforable Jew at those services than I think the people there would have
felt at the services I attend.
At the same time, there is the same cliqueishness that any group has. I
know a number of nonobservant people who still insist they won't marry a
non-Jew. Just 'cause. But then I know far more Asian people with that
perspective (s/non-Jew/non-(Chinese|Japanese|Korean|...)/) than I do Jewish
people. Actually, Judaism is (was?) the only major demographic group that
worldwide was suffering a decline in population year to year. I will say
that, even with a group of other Jewish people with whom I don't
particularly have much in common interestwise, the conversation is still
often free-er and easier and I feel more at home than I do with many close
acquaintances or casual friends who are gentiles. But that's just culture.
-Jeremy.
On a random barely related note, I just finished a history of Israel in the
20th century by a British historian named Martin Gilbert that was very
good, though toward the end some of his language about the current Likud
policies was a bit less than neutral.
--
No lover's ever faithful / No contract truly signed...
Never take a stranger's advice / Never let a friend fool you twice...
Never stay a minute too long / Don't forget the best will go wrong.
--"Nobody's on Nobody's Side", _Chess_
Jim Kingdon
> a friend and I figured out our first year's out here that we think
> well over half of the people we interacted with in High School had at
> least one Jewish parent
Well, yeah, I've known quite a few Jewish people over the years. So
in one sense it is somewhat strange for it to sometimes feel foreign
to me. Then again, I haven't necessarily discussed
religion/culture/identity with those people enough for me to pick up a
lot that way.
> I also don't think I've ever . . . encountered "Chosen People" type
> talk.
Well, maybe this is talked about more in Christian circles (in
reference to the Jews, particularly ancient Jews). Or perhaps what
might bug me is still there, but just further from the surface.
> At the same time, there is the same cliqueishness that any group
> has.
Well, yes, something like this is sort of what I was getting at with
my post. Up to a point, cliqueishness is not a bad thing. But if
something is getting to be too much of a clique, I tend to get
uncomfortable (whether I am part of it or out of it). I don't have
any clear idea of where I draw the line. And vis-a-vis Judaism, it is
pretty much of a non-issue unless I keep dating the Jewish guy that
made me think about these issues in the first place.
Russ Allbery
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix3.panix.com> writes:
> Well, maybe this is talked about more in Christian circles (in reference
> to the Jews, particularly ancient Jews).
As someone who was raised fundamentalist Christian, I can say from
experience that nearly everything I was ever taught about Judaism from
that cultural perspective was totally wrong. (Starting with the incorrect
notion that the Old Testament is the Jewish scripture, which seems to be a
fairly pervasive believe among Christians.)
Christians have some very odd notions about Judaism.