home

The Mystery of Faith

Atrios comments on E.J. Dionne's column on dogmatic atheists and brings up some interesting points while leading me to think of another.

My daughter recently celebrated her bat mitzvah and one of the readings at the service was the Red Heifer:

According to the Numbers 19:2: "Speak unto the Children of Israel that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke". In other words, it must not have hairs of any other color, it must be in perfect health, and it must never have been used to perform work. . . . The existence of a red heifer that conforms with all of the rigid requirements imposed by halakha is a biological anomaly. . . . The absolute rarity of the animal, combined with the mystical ritual in which it is used, have given the red heifer special status in Jewish tradition. It is cited as the prime example of a chok, or biblical law for which there is no apparent logic, and is therefore of absolute Divine origin. . . .

I have always viewed the Red Heifer writing as being a call for unquestioning faith. It means, I think, that there are matters to which only God can know the why. And that God demands, in essence, acceptance of dogma. It is this requirement of all religions that makes it impossible for me to be religious, or atheist for that matter. I do not, and believe can not, know if God exists. I can not accept the dogma of either path.

Dionne writes:

While some Christians harbor doubts about Christ's actual physical resurrection, hundreds of millions believe devoutly that Jesus died and rose, thus redeeming a fallen world from sin. Are these people a threat to reason and even freedom?

It's a question that arises from a new vogue for what you might call neo-atheism. The new atheists -- the best known are writers Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins -- insist, as Harris puts it, that "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one." That's why they think a belief in salvation through faith in God, no matter the religious tradition, is dangerous to an open society.

The neo-atheists, like their predecessors from a century ago, are given to a sometimes-charming ferociousness in their polemics against those they see as too weak-minded to give up faith in God.

. . . The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious "moderates" who don't fit their stereotypes. [Sam] Harris [writes] "I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance -- born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God -- is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss. We have been slow to recognize the degree to which religious faith perpetuates man's inhumanity to man."

. . . What's really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions. But as Novak argued -- in one of the best critiques of neo-atheism -- in the March 19 issue of National Review, "Questions have been the heart and soul of Judaism and Christianity for millennia."

But that is true, as the Red Heifer scripture demonstrates, only to a point. Some aspects, indeed, one could argue, the critical doctrines of religion, are placed beyond question and reason.

Atrios comments:

[T]he "dogmatism" Dionne discusses isn't limited to those normally characterized as fundamentalists or the Christian Right, it's there for even the new more lovable public face of Christianity, Rick Warren, who doesn't believe in evolution and believes Jews (and, presumably, most of the rest of the world) are going to Hell. He comes off pretty absurdly in this discussion with Sam Harris, and reminds me why discussing religion bores me to death.

I think that is right but I have never thought the problem with religion is its dogmatism, it is when religions try to impose their dogmatisms on society. This is precisely the concern our Founding Fathers had. The famous 1802 letter from Jefferson is the best example:

Jefferson's interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802): "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

I do not believe in arguing the merits of religion. Those are personal matters. I DO believe in argung vociferously for the separation of church and state.

< Equal vs. Splenda: The Lawsuit | Bush Poll Numbers at All Time Low in Calif; Rival Those of Nixon >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Jefferson (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by HeadScratcher on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:51:12 AM EST
    I've always been intrigued by the Jefferson's letter because he begins the Declaration of Independence with the word Creator and it is capitalized, leaving no doubt that the founding document of this country begins a term for G-d.

    Obviously his DEFINITION of the separation of church and state is different than our current INTERPRETATION of same.

    Let's be real, could that document with the term CREATOR pass muster with members of the ACLU, People for the American Way, etc...? Obviously not.

    And by the way, religion is about FAITH. If it was known then it would be science...

    It is an interesting question, (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    and I am sure some would have problems with the word creator, but at the same time, Jefferson could have used the word GOD, but chose not to. He said Creator, instead. Why was that?

    A term for God or a term for something else that is similar, but not quite God? Perhaps he thought of the term Creator as more of an idea that could substitute for evolution. Or, more likely, he was being ambiguous, and chose not to use the word God, but a term that could be applied by many regardles of faith or lack of it.

    Parent

    The Declaration (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:59:13 AM EST
    does not describe our system of governemnt.

    It was a document to persuade. It was akin to a campaign speech.

    Parent

    If only campign speeches, now (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    could be so beautifully written.

    Parent
    What was Jefferson campaigning for? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    This would be an interesting diary, BTD.

    Parent
    A revolution! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:20:33 PM EST
    He was persuading the colonists by delaring Independence from Britain. I am amazed that most Americans have not read this document. I think I was in my thirties when I first read it. Why is it not required reading in our gradeschools? For one, because it is so persuasive and its written from a radical perspective. Its a threat to any powerful and controlling government. Read it and you will get the answer you are asking for.  

    Parent
    Some did (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    It was on the bulletion board of my jnuorhigh/highschool and we studied it in 6th and 12th grades. American history was mandatory.

    Parent
    Yeh, but (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    You're older than I. ;)

    I think it was removed from the national curricullum sometime in the recent past. There might be a summary in a histroy textbook with a picture of the document, but it is rarely studied and analyzed anymore in our public schools.

    Parent

    My grade school concentrated on (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    Magellan and Vasco di Gama.  Endlessly.

    Parent
    How come you missed the idea (none / 0) (#45)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    about overthrowing monarchy?



    Parent

    Purposely vague.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    To me, the "Creator" in the Declaration is planet earth aka mother nature.  To others, it could be the christian/jewish/muslim "god".  To somebody else, it could just mean your parents.

    Jefferson was vague on purpose, and wisely so.

    Parent

    It didn't name the Creator though (none / 0) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    leaving open that the Creator could be circumstances of nature.

    Parent
    "a sometimes-charming ferociousness " (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    What a great line--must remember.

    BTW:   what does "halaka" mean?

    Wasn't Jefferson the equivalent of a present-day Unitarian, the Big Tent religion?

    halakHa (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:28:57 PM EST
    Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה; also transliterated as Halakhah, Halacha, Halakhot and Halachah with pronunciation emphasis on the third syllable, "kha"), is the collective corpus of Jewish religious law, including biblical law (the 613 mitzvot) and later talmudic and rabbinic law as well as customs and traditions. Judaism classically draws no distinction in its laws between religious and ostensibly non-religious life. Hence, Halakha guides not only religious practices and beliefs, but numerous aspects of day-to-day life. Halakha is often translated as "Jewish Law" . . .


    Parent
    faith and Gomorrah (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by orionATL on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:31:28 PM EST
    btd -

    thee does not write like (i imagine) a lawyer speaks.

    i would think a lawyer would prefer pascal's wager-

    if god exists but i don't believe in him, i could be in hot, very hot, do-do for a long time.

    if he doesn't exist, and i believe in him, it's not going to cost me a dime.

    my congratulations to your daughter and to her parents, that's a big, wonderful  step forward in life.

    for all concerned.

    A funny line (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    But cold comfort no?

    Parent
    Type I and Type II error (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by N in Seattle on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:36:10 PM EST
    I'm too lazy to look up which is which, but statisticians identify two types of error in their reasoning.

    One of them is the form you describe as Pascal's wager -- why not believe, since being in error results in a really, really bad outcome.  The other is exemplified by packing parachutes:

    If your parachute has been packed correctly, it's irrelevant whether or not you believe it was done right.  If you believe, you'll jump successfully; if you don't believe, you won't jump and you'll still be just fine.

    If it's packed improperly, belief means death (or worse) when you jump.  As in the previous circumstance, if you don't believe, you won't jump and you'll still be just fine.

    Both types of error can be conceived as 2-by-2 tables (existence of the phenomenon on one axis, belief in the phenomenon on the other).  Only one cell of each table results in a seriously bad outcome ... but it's a different cell in the two tables.  Those two different bad outcomes demonstrate the two types of errors of inference.

    Parent
    Courtesy of Answers.com: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:56:48 PM EST
    The present aspect of the Kingdom refers to the changed state of heart or mind (metanoia) within Christians (see Luke 17:20-21), emphasizing the spiritual nature of His Kingdom by saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within (or among) you." The reported activity of Jesus in healing diseases, driving out demons, teaching a new ethic for living, and offering a new hope in God to the poor, is understood to be a demonstration of that Kingdom in action.



    Parent
    Separation of church and state (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by jerry on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    I do not believe in arguing the merits of religion. Those are personal matters. I DO believe in argung vociferously for the separation of church and state.

    Excellent post, and congratulations to your daughter and your family.

    Thank you (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:43:15 PM EST
    Best haftorah reading EVER!!!

    Parent
    But how was the singing? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    A nice cantor (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:21:20 PM EST
    But some was not great.

    Parent
    Attended an entire Bat Mitzvah last year. The (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    Lutheran confirmation is sooooo easy compared to what is expected of these young Jewish teenagers.  I was very impressed with the acknowledgement by the kids of their responsibilities to others.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    Easy to do, tutor and hours of rote memorization. A job. What is hard for most is following through with Talmud studies after you get the cash.  If by chance further study is interesting, and not a responsibility, then it is not hard at all, but difficult in an exciting way.

    Parent
    Religious talk at TalkLeft! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    BTD writes:
    It is this requirement of all religions that makes it impossible for me to be religious, or atheist for that matter. I do not, and believe can not, know if God exists. I can not accept the dogma of either path.

    If we accept that there are some things which defy proof (or disproof) then our acceptance is only based on faith. But it isn't mere faith that "perpetuates man's inhumanity to man," as Sam Harris writes. Rather, it is how the believer treats his faith. He may choose to impose it on others or he may believe that we are each responsible for finding our own faith.

    Dionne quotes this line from Harris:

    "certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one."

    It bothers me that this line seems incompatible with the neo-athiest position as I understand it. Is Harris saying that neo-athiests are not sure about life after death? Because it seems to me that they are asserting just as final a belief in what happens after death as some religious folks.

    I googled the line and discovered that it is from Harris' book Letter to a Christian Nation. Here is a little context:

    Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed. Once a person believes--really believes--that certain ideas can lead to eternal happiness, or to its antithesis, he cannot tolerate the possibility that the people he loves might be led astray by the blandishments of unbelievers. Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one.

    Even with context, it appears that Harris is incapable of the introspection which reveals that his criticism of religious believers is equally applicable to believers in atheism.

    I agree with this (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    If we accept that there are some things which defy proof (or disproof) then our acceptance is only based on faith. But it isn't mere faith that "perpetuates man's inhumanity to man," as Sam Harris writes. Rather, it is how the believer treats his faith. He may choose to impose it on others or he may believe that we are each responsible for finding our own faith.

    I wish I had written that in my post.


    Parent

    I thought you did. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    I thought you were all up on that when you said:

    I think that is right but I have never thought the problem with religion is its dogmatism, it is when religions try to impose their dogmatisms on society.

    I'm not sure about the "dogmatism" language (mainly because arguments over what constitutes dogma are like black holes), but I just stuck with "faith" because Harris seems to have a real problem with the whole idea.

    You and I may agree that there are some things beyond proof, but not Harris. For him, a religious believer carries the burden of proof. Since some faith is beyond proof, it literally cannot meet that burden of proof. It is a classic fallacy; "absence of proof is not proof of absence."

    Parent

    You said it better (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    Congrats to your daughter (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    I had my bar mitzvah in 1998, and lost all of my faith shortly thereafter.

    Heh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    oh, and Mazel Tov to your daughter! (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by N in Seattle on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:45:56 PM EST
    My nephew celebrated his Bar Mitzvah last weekend.  

    His Torah portion, on the last Shabbat before Pesach, was much more prosaic than your daughter's.  It had to do with the voluminous, highly specific, perhaps even "legalistic", rules and regulations for preparing and carrying out ritual sacrifice.  

    In his commentary, my nephew mused on why there were so many rules for this "divine barbeque" (his mother -- my sister -- had a career as a professional caterer).  The question is pertinent in retrospect, because we no longer practice anything even remotely like the animal sacrifice.  Whether the voluminous, highly specific, definitely "legalistic", rules and regulations arising from the centuries of rabbinical interpretation in (and since) the Talmud adequately supplant those Biblical provisions is an intriguing question.

    It is interesting (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    The Red Heifer ritual obviously has come to have a deeper meaning I think. Or maybe always did.

    Parent
    Lovely stuff, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by leoncarre on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 03:12:30 PM EST
    On Good Friday, too.

    Which means to me, a day we remember
    when they tortured and executed the wrong man.

    Put him on trial... what did he do??
    Take responsibility... not me said Pilate, not me said Herod...

    Throw him to the crowd... let them decide.
    What happened next is the mystery...
    it's all politics.

    Did the crowd yell, "Give us Barabas" to let the criminal free, or were there plants in the crowd shouting for the innocent man's death??

    When people say that habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta... I would say that it dates to this day 33AD... when the justice system caved in from corruption, and the verdict was left to "vox populi"

    More theology than history (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:45:41 PM EST
    The Romans (and their collaborators) viewed Jesus as a threat and the Romans put him to death. The depiction of Pilate in the gospels is at odds with what is known about the man. He wouldn't have thought twice about crucifying anyone thought to be a threat to Roman rule and it is unlikely that he would have left the matter to the rabble.

    Crucification is a Roman punishment.

    Also Barrabas wasn't a thief. He was an insurrectionist, possibly a Zealot.

    Later after the insurrection of 66 and the subsquent Bar Kochba revolt it was not politically expedient to be Jewish in Rome.. or to be seen a s part of a rebellion. Throw in Paul's deification of Jesus and his rejection of  Judaism and theology, not history dictated the gospels.



    Parent

    Brilliant (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by leoncarre on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:30:13 PM EST
    This explains "I wash my hands of it"

    Barrabas was the known, and Jesus the unknown??  Was it the tradition to let a prisoner free on the Passover??

    Is there any traces of the historical record in the Gospels at all at all?

    Parent

    There's an interesting study on St. Mark's (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    Gospel account of Barrabbas at:

    sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Jesus_and_Barabbas.html

    Parent

    my thanks to you (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by leoncarre on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 07:05:36 PM EST
    i have some ideas of my own... like what if Mario Puzo, author of "The Godfather" had written the four gospels.... or given them his treatment in a modern setting

    it is as a narrative that I can never forget this story... and I think it will never go out of circulation... not for the miracles and the supernatural element... but for this and this alone:

    The Theme of Betrayal

    it's a literary classic... picked up by Dante in the Inferno... did he not save the lowest ring of hell for the betrayers... Judas, Brutus and Cassius

    so I read it as literature, and always have... my mother was a "free thinker" and she gave me license to use my own mind to figure things out..

    maybe sometimes I read it as a "historical novel".... i don't deal with the divine part of it, because I am not divine... but on the human end, as a study in human psychology, and social theory I rate these four books five stars!!!

    Parent

    Who knew? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    i don't deal with the divine part of it, because I am not divine...

    No argument here.

    ;-)

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by leoncarre on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:58:42 PM EST
    i don't relate to the divine character... don't pretent i can understand the divine workings of the divine mind... unlike st. paul

    i cannot speak for god....  subtract that narrative from the novel (those who thought they could speak for god), and you have my very thin gospel...

    %;>}

    Parent

    way off topic (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    but try When the Sacred Ginmill Closes. It is a "Christ Novel" and murder mystery. Like most such novels it is imperfect in its retelling of the story, but it follows just enough to that the parallels are there. The major theme of the work is betrayal. The protaganists are surrounded by disciples, including a traditional Mary Magadalene character and possibly a Virgin Mary character.



    Parent

    Lawrence Block (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    One of my favorite books. I have written on it at daily kos.

    Parent
    One of mine too. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 11:24:43 PM EST
    It is probably the only murder mystery Christ novel in existence. My interpretation is Caroline functions as Mary Magadalene and eitherTelephone Tommy's wife is a Virgin Mary or Scudder's ex could be. Neither are major characters.

    Betrayal by your friends and by alcohol, the biggest betrayer of all. Sorry I missed it at Kos. That would have been a discussion I would have enjoyed.



    Parent

    N in seattle (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by orionATL on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 08:00:49 PM EST
    thanks for the very interesting comment.

    i love this kind of stuff. i'll try to go back and see if i can make sense of type I and II  vis-a-vis  blaise pascal's "wager".

    thank god for wikipedia, or i'd have to make a trek to the library, or go thru my oldy-moldy stat books

    as one born without the requisite gene for religious activity,

    i was never too much impressed by the implications of pascals' wager

    but,

    i have to say,

    putting it in terms of parachutes that do, or do not, open

    got my immediate and complete attention.

    thanks.

    Hilarious. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by walt on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 08:39:15 PM EST
    The comments about Jefferson using an upper case "C" for the word "creator" is comical & comedic.  The sprinkling of "capitula" across a document in that era was on the order of Laurence Stern printing a few pages of punctuation at the end of a book & suggesting that the reader "salt & pepper to taste."

    Hence:an excellent edition.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    [my underlines]

    As you can read, "rights" is capitalized, then not; similarly with "men."  There is no generalization that fits the usage.

    Favorite epitaph (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Edger on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 11:00:49 PM EST
    BILL MOYERS: I think the best arguments about God come from atheists.

    SALMAN RUSHDIE: Yes, there's a famous, the great Spanish film director, Luis Bunuel, once teased his friends by saying that he wanted his epitaph on his tombstone to read: "Thank God I died an atheist." And they were all so upset that he had to tell them he was just kidding.
    ...
    BILL MOYERS: What is morality?

    SALMAN RUSHDIE: Well, it's as I see it, I think, something intrinsic in us, which wishes to distinguish between right and wrong. And I think we are hard-wired to it. You know, in the way that scientists now believe that language is an instinct. That we're hard-wired to develop it. You know. And I think that morality is somewhere in there in the DNA. That we are created, born as creatures who wish to know is it okay to do this or not okay to do this, you know. And we ask ourselves that question all the time. And religion is one of the answers.

    But it's in my view only one of the ways. It's a lot of the answers. But it's perfectly possible for me to say that we can as civilized people create moral codes to live by. We do not need that ultimate arbiter. And one answer to the question is democracy.
    Link

    Immorality a Disability? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:22:05 AM EST
    It is, I think... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:33:57 AM EST
    ...in a psychopathic personality.
    a self-centered, callous and remorseless person profoundly lacking in empathy and the ability to form warm emotional relationships with others, a person who functions without the restraints of conscience. If you think about it, you will realize that what is missing in this picture are the very qualities that allow human beings to live in social harmony.

    link
    Maybe that is the reason behind some people gravitating to authoritarian religion? As an attempt to convince others that they have a conscience, when they really don't? Is the hard-wiring that Rushdie describes missing in these people?

    Parent
    bad link above (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:34:58 AM EST
    I think that is why some (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    gravitate to authoritarian religions.  I believe that others can find themselves there because they have been taught since birth to distrust their own internal morality.  They have been taught that it is of the flesh and can't be trusted and only an external morality administered by somebody else's flesh can be fully trusted ;).

    Parent
    There is no mystery of faith (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 12:45:47 PM EST
    Only the mystery every single one of us faces, no matter WHAT your faith OR lack thereof: the unfathomable mystery of existence.  That mystery terrifies many people and is too much for their minds to bear, so they medicate it with religion, drugs, sex, whatever they choose.

    Religion is dogma, spirituality is life.  Atheism can be just as dogmatic as religion, agnosticism can be just as spiritual as life.  And vice versa.

    The unfathomable mystery of existence is all we share.  

    We shall never know the asnwer.  

    And that is what keeps us going, striving, wondering, pondering, trying to make sense.  

    I guess, then, I am a mystic.

    Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 08:29:26 PM EST
    I guess, then, I am a mystic.

    Thank God. For a while there I thought you was a Leftie...

    Parent

    Does God exist? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Edger on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 06:04:21 PM EST
    I don't know. I guess it depends on the definition. But I have always liked the myth and metaphor that Alan Watts in the mid sixties used his "The Book: On The Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are":
    "There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can't have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn't be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or white unless side-by-side with black.

    "In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn't, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it; now you don't. So because it doesn't get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It's like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It's also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it's always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn't always hide in the same place.

    "God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when he wakes up they will disappear.

    "Now when God plays hide and pretends that he is you and I, he does it so well that it takes him a long time to remember where and how he hid himself. But that's the whole fun of it-just what he wanted to do. He doesn't want to find himself too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self-the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.
    ...
    "God is the Self of the world, but you can't see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can't see your own eyes, and you certainly can't bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self is that cleverly hidden because it is God hiding.

    "You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that he isn't really doing this to anyone but himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It's the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world."

    "The Ultimate Ground of Being" is Paul Tillich's decontaminated term for God" and would also do for "the Self of the world" as I put it in my story for children. But the secret which my story slips over to the child is that the Ultimate Ground of Being is you. Not, of course, the everyday you which the Ground is assuming, or "pretending" to be, but that inmost Self which escapes inspection because it's always the inspector. This, then, is the taboo of taboos you're It!
    I highly recommend his book.

    Sounds like you are an atheist (4.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Otm Shank on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    It is this requirement of all religions that makes it impossible for me to be religious, or atheist for that matter. I do not, and believe can not, know if God exists. I can not accept the dogma of either path.

    It sounds like you are an agnostic atheist. If you do not affirmatively believe in gods, you are an atheist. There is no dogma inherent in it. Is a newborn dogmatic in lacking belief in gods?

    Sounds like I am an agnostic (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    While the concepts of atheism and agnosticism occasionally overlap, they are distinct: atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs" while agnosticism is usually defined as "an absence of knowledge (or any claim of knowledge)". An agnostic may identify as an atheist or a theist in certain circumstances (see Agnostic theism).



    Parent
    but do you have theistic beliefs? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Otm Shank on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    If not, you are an agnostic atheist.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    and I am not trying to be clever.

    Parent
    My favoprite epotaph (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    Here lies an atheist. All dressed up and no place to go.


    favorite epitaph (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    thnaks (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    Faith is what you get (none / 0) (#26)
    by Al on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    when you're afraid to think for yourself.

    Faith is what you get when you're afraid to make the wrong decision.

    Faith is what you get when you're afraid to accept your own limits.

    Then you look to an authority, because then at least you can think you've been good.

    speaking of dogma... (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    Not making a decision is a decision. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    What if, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 04:31:30 PM EST
    you make a decision that you won't make a decision on whether of not to make a decision?

    I think that's another discussion we might have had over beers when we were 17 y/o. ;)

    Come to think of it, thats when I was serious about figuring out whether or not there was a God and all, too. As I got older I just kind of forgot what was so improtant about it.

    Parent

    It was.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 09:35:35 PM EST
    Depends on whether or not you actually make the decision to not make the decision.

    .... Wish I was there again, arguing so keenly with friends.. Most gone, so they know the answer... but can't tell..

    What a helluva way to win a debate...

    Parent

    Belief is the issue (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jakebnto on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    Belief can't be chosen.  It can be inculcated.

    Pascal's wager is so much bs.  Can one choose to believe in Santa Claus?  Not many adults, that is for sure.  No more, even less actually, can one choose to believe in a supernatural being that never provably does anything.  If you find the religion pursuasive, then belief is possible.  If you don't, it isn't.

    Atheists don't believe in a supernatural being.  It's really that simple.  Everything else is piled onto atheism by axe-grinding religion apologists.  Yes, some atheists go further than simple disbelief to argue that no such being could exist, or at least no such being as is usually described by the Abrahamic religions, for example.

    I have read some of Harris' stuff.  From recollection, I think his main point (and certainly mine) is that religion is often, though not always, a root of evil, and that if people stopped believing in a God, then religions would dry up and blow away and the world would be a better place for the loss of belief.

    Communisim seems to be the test that disproves that theory, but in my mind all that has been proved is that communism became another kind of religion, with all its attendant ills and abuses.

    Power mad sociopaths will use whatever tool is available to them.  The tools of mob psychology work equally well for communists or christianists.

    Jake

    Well said (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    Power mad sociopaths will use whatever tool is available to them.  The tools of mob psychology work equally well for communists or christianists.
    and both, when not used by power mad sociopaths, can benefit man.

    Parent
    Hear, hear (none / 0) (#36)
    by tworivers on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 02:24:16 PM EST
    Even with context, it appears that Harris is incapable of the introspection which reveals that his criticism of religious believers is equally applicable to believers in atheism.

    Well said.  

    In my opinion, the manner in which Harris presents his arguments often exhibits the same kind of smug certitude and intolerance for differing beliefs that one sees in the fundamentalist right
     

    oh yes (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    atheists can be just as annoying as fundies

    Parent
    Atheists can be annoying (none / 0) (#46)
    by Al on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 05:32:44 PM EST
    but for a different reason. Non-conformists in general can be annoying when something they say creates discomfort. Fundies are annoying when they try to tell you how to think and how to act. You won't get any atheists coming to your door to preach at you and insist on leaving atheist literature for you to read. No atheist will try to convince you that you will burn in hell if you believe in God.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#50)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 06:23:30 PM EST
    No atheist will try to convince you that you will burn in hell if you believe in God.

    Well it is hard to argue with that!

    Parent

    door to door missionaries (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jen M on Fri Apr 06, 2007 at 07:19:45 PM EST
    are so fun to play with.

    >:)

    There are SOME advantages to being a preacher's kid.

    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 07, 2007 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    But what they will do is tell you that you can't say "Merry Chreistmas" to customers if you are a store clerk, you can't have "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, etc......

    They are, on the whole, as eager as those beating on your door to tell you what you must and must not do.

    As I slip towards my seventh decade I have learned that the essence of the good life is quiteness, tolerance and belief in what sustains you.

    Parent