Re: Are lies and misconceptions the basis of Christianity?
Terry wrote:Are lies and misconceptions the basis of Christianity?
Christianity itself is a bit of a moving target, so it's a hard to say what its core tenets are, or were (last week, or a thousand years ago). But it seems clear that any faith based system will leave itself unavoidably open to manipulation, misinterpretation and deceit (from internal sources as well as external). Unfortunately, in a faith based thought process, without a foundation upon which to measure anything, misinterpretation and understanding lose their meaning because whatever you choose to believe becomes the truth, by definition.
I am suprised that the Godfeinds haven't moved to shut that site down.
Thomas, thanks for the "Viruses of the Mind" link.
Did you ever take that test that told you to read the entire test before beginning and watch the people around you doing all sorts of silly things because they began before reading the last question, which instructed them to skip all of the previous questions and only write their name? Perhaps the real test is not whether we can conform to pointless rules, but whether we can figure out what matters most in life.
Perhaps God gives extra credit to people for endless repetition of prayers, self-denial, flagellation, penitence, or other "proofs" of their devotion, but I suspect that how you treat other people counts for more.
Frank, I guess the desire to believe in Messianic prophecies overrides anything that the Bible actually says.
---
Husker, I haven't read "Private Thoughts" so could you summarize Paine's ideas?
caprice, unsubstantiated claims that any one sect has a pipeline to God cannot prevent wars, since such contradictory claims are the source of conflict. What we need is for God himself (herself? itself?) to transmit his Holy Word directly to mankind, in such a way that there is no question about what God wants from us.
Murder is not clear cut. Is bombing civilians in time of war considered murder? What about capital punishment?
Why do you suppose that God designed humans to be so weak that not one of the 6 billion people alive today could voluntarily refrain from offending god? Why were we set up to fail?
Genesis relates Jewish creation myths, not literal truths. But in spite of all the evidence, some people still insist that God created everything in 6 days, killed millions of people in a world-wide flood, made the sun stand still, etc. Why do you suppose that these misconceptions still exist?
rosborne, if one defines "truth" as whatever one chooses to believe, how can the conflict between your truths and those of others be reconciled? Is everybody "right"?
Wouldn't a righteous god have an ethical obligation to set the record straight, if its followers were being manipulated or deceived?
Setanta, why do you suppose that some people adhere to religious dogma while others reject it? Are some minds naturally more receptive/less skeptical, or does childhood training and experience determine your level of belief?
I suppose, and it is only supposition, that people adhere to dogma, whether religious or political, because it relieves them of the need to think for themselves. I do not hold to some elitist view that some of capable of deeper thought than others. I do recognize that most learning of real value to the individual must take place relatively early, and that therefore, many children do not develop critical thinking skills. If you are introduced to "truth" on a "because i said so" basis, even changing your opinions later in life is likely to be simply switching one set of revealed truths for another. I am not a pessimist who believes that the human race will never change, but the pace of change is likely to be glacial, because many relatively intelligent people find it to their advantage to push dogma, so that many relatively less-well-educated people will continue to consider dogma a source of truth. If dogma tells you that racism is bad, as an example, and you believe it dogmatically, you could be casually racist and not recognize it because the parameters of your racism do not fall within the dogmatic definition. But if you oppose racism because you have come to the conclusion based upon a careful consideration of society and people and the interactions involved, you are more likely to understand the ramifications of people's attitudes and actions in a manner to more effectively identify and condemn racism in all of its guises. People continue to cling to revealed truths, to dogma, because they haven't the habit of thought. This make their knowledge of "truth" incomplete, and it makes them fertile ground for superstition, "folk wisdom" and the manipulations of demagogues.
Terry- I believe that some people are more outer directed, some more inner directed. There are people who are very concerned about matters that religion encompasses. For many, there is comfort in a structure that spells out answers that some find too difficult or frightening to contemplate on their own. Add that to the tendency for many people to desire validation of by others.
Once again, I don't agree with Setanta often -- but his reply to Terry pretty much said some of the things I had in mind.
Setanta wrote:I suppose, and it is only supposition, that people adhere to dogma, whether religious or political, because it relieves them of the need to think for themselves. I do not hold to some elitist view that some of capable of deeper thought than others. I do recognize that most learning of real value to the individual must take place relatively early, and that therefore, many children do not develop critical thinking skills. If you are introduced to "truth" on a "because i said so" basis, even changing your opinions later in life is likely to be simply switching one set of revealed truths for another. I am not a pessimist who believes that the human race will never change, but the pace of change is likely to be glacial, because many relatively intelligent people find it to their advantage to push dogma, so that many relatively less-well-educated people will continue to consider dogma a source of truth. If dogma tells you that racism is bad, as an example, and you believe it dogmatically, you could be casually racist and not recognize it because the parameters of your racism do not fall within the dogmatic definition. But if you oppose racism because you have come to the conclusion based upon a careful consideration of society and people and the interactions involved, you are more likely to understand the ramifications of people's attitudes and actions in a manner to more effectively identify and condemn racism in all of its guises. People continue to cling to revealed truths, to dogma, because they haven't the habit of thought. This make their knowledge of "truth" incomplete, and it makes them fertile ground for superstition, "folk wisdom" and the manipulations of demagogues.
Hey Boss - not buying that all the way.
make a chart if you will on the human condition and character of the Believer and Atheist and lets compare the differences and variables- that sound fair?
We can work on it as a group????
What i wrote was speculation, as i posited at the beginning. A believer, who adheres dogmatically to a belief, could be a "good man" or a "bad man." I contend that belief in god never made a bad man good, nor did lack of religion ever make a good man bad. If you would more clearly state what it is that you wish to do, i have no objection to exploring the subject. I will simply add the caveat that i oppose dogmatic belief, whether theistic, or atheistic.
ok - lemme see
how can we chart the fundamental difference between the two groups then?
Which two groups would that be, Husker? If you see dichotomy here, consider that it may be because you see the world in an "us and them" manner--it is not axiomatic that everyone in the world is either Christian, or the enemy. There are many other religions, there are many ways in which people are not religious, or irreligious. My central points, which i've tried to make in threads which did not concern themselves with religion, is that people frequently (i would opine, usually) hold their beliefs unexamined, and that dogma provides answers without requiring thought of the believer--in fact, requiring that the believer not think, if to think would lead to questioning the belief held.
So that might be the core essential difference?
Validation or non-validation due to a dogma that is
self-fulfilling for the non-critical thinker?
inquiring minds want to know (or is that non-critical) :wink:
Terry wrote:rosborne, if one defines "truth" as whatever one chooses to believe, how can the conflict between your truths and those of others be reconciled?
It can't. The true believer believes that he/she is right, and that everyone else is wrong. End of story.
Terry wrote:Wouldn't a righteous god have an ethical obligation to set the record straight, if its followers were being manipulated or deceived?
You and I may think so, but a true believer can rationalize anything. That's one of the strengths of the philosophical position; it allows you to dictate the rules.
Terry wrote:Setanta, why do you suppose that some people adhere to religious dogma while others reject it? Are some minds naturally more receptive/less skeptical, or does childhood training and experience determine your level of belief?
This is an interesting question, and one I've been trying to answer for years. This was the core question I was trying to probe with my "do you believe in Magic" threads (here and on abuzz). In those threads, I was trying to see how many people believe in the supernatural, and why they choose to believe this.
The distinction between belief and skepticism seems to be a choice which people make early in their lives, and I don't know what makes people lean more in one direction than the other.
It's an interesting choice because it's one which must be made with no information. The two philosophies cannot be measured from the outside, yet it's from the outside that we must all start, so what makes us choose what we choose?
truth
What directs our choice? I can't say with any specificity, but it's probably a biographical combination of personality traits (drives), social pressures and cultural conditioning.
husker wrote:So that might be the core essential difference?
Validation or non-validation due to a dogma that is
self-fulfilling for the non-critical thinker?
inquiring minds want to know (or is that non-critical) :wink:
You keep speaking of a "difference." A difference between what and what? A difference between whom and whom? If you are trying to get at a statement that there are those who believe in christianity and who are critical thinkers not reliant upon dogma, please note that my speculation regards "most people," and not all people. I've not denied that there are those who might believe as they do because upon consideration it makes the most sense to them personally.
Setanta wrote:I suppose, and it is only supposition, that people adhere to dogma, whether religious or political, because it relieves them of the need to think for themselves. I do not hold to some elitist view that some of capable of deeper thought than others. I do recognize that most learning of real value to the individual must take place relatively early, and that therefore, many children do not develop critical thinking skills. ... People continue to cling to revealed truths, to dogma, because they haven't the habit of thought. This make their knowledge of "truth" incomplete, and it makes them fertile ground for superstition, "folk wisdom" and the manipulations of demagogues.
So do we let people cling to their superstitions and dogma, or try to lead them to the truth (as WE know it, of course. :wink: )? Perhaps we could take up a collection each Thursday and and send out missionaries to all parts of the world to teach critical thinking skills ...
