If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , d.nesbit says...
This was sent to me from one of my relitives in the USA. ithought i'd pass it on .. Sure, just stupidly, uncritially, pass it on... Fortunately, in the USA, we also have people who make it their business to look into these things: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp The story is false. Banty |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
Banty wrote:
In article , d.nesbit says... This was sent to me from one of my relitives in the USA. ithought i'd pass it on .. Sure, just stupidly, uncritially, pass it on... Fortunately, in the USA, we also have people who make it their business to look into these things: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp The story is false. Banty ---------------------------- The story may be false, but it's still true! Steve |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , Banty
wrote: I am interested in the flow of ideas. Why does one lot of Christians think it OK to practice apartheid, while the rest do not? Why does one lot of Muslims think it is OK to kill ordinary people via suicide, and others do not? How do they come to those beliefs? There is a logic to people's beliefs that can be followed and understood (unfortunately, it makes better TV if mad axe-murderers commit axe-murders *because* they are mad, and Muslim extremists commit murder *because* they are Muslim extremists.) But I think we need a 'heresy cutoff' if we're going to apportion blame. Does that make more sense? Um, no. Especially after you've enumerated all the established religions (and whole categories of religions) that are indeed heresies of other religoins. What you've presented is a long-winded version of the bad apple argument, that's all. "It's those guys; don't blame us." So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious' people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as unfair. The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian' -- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to blame a particular group for something. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , Chookie
says... In article , Banty wrote: I am interested in the flow of ideas. Why does one lot of Christians think it OK to practice apartheid, while the rest do not? Why does one lot of Muslims think it is OK to kill ordinary people via suicide, and others do not? How do they come to those beliefs? There is a logic to people's beliefs that can be followed and understood (unfortunately, it makes better TV if mad axe-murderers commit axe-murders *because* they are mad, and Muslim extremists commit murder *because* they are Muslim extremists.) But I think we need a 'heresy cutoff' if we're going to apportion blame. Does that make more sense? Um, no. Especially after you've enumerated all the established religions (and whole categories of religions) that are indeed heresies of other religoins. What you've presented is a long-winded version of the bad apple argument, that's all. "It's those guys; don't blame us." So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious' people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as unfair. I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel or kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village by having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being to the village. It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was the brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions. So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at the feet of religion. The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian' -- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to blame a particular group for something. And religion is a kind of *idea*! I wouldn't favor discrimination against religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and religious ideas. Banty |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
Chimp wrote:
... That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing -regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one might have committed. I think that is an oversimplification. The teachings of various Christian sects are many and varied, of course. But they do share several common elements beyond the "doctrine of faith", which you have identified. Works are commonly viewed as being a result of belief. Belief causes behavior. If you believe, then you will do good works. Hence, lack of good works is viewed as evidencing lack of belief. The second notion is that of "forgiveness". If you have done evil in your life, you may repent and change your ways. Then the sins you may have committed are forgiven, and you proceed to live according to your new belief. (The notion of a deathbed conversion is just an extreme example, with little opportunity for subsequent acts. If such conversions were not allowed, it would be difficult to draw a bright line as to exactly when it was too late.) Both of these effects are beneficial to society. And it is that valuing of the act of believing that I described as a "religious approach". In science, the act of believing-without-adequate evidence is deprecated while believing-given-sufficient-evidence is fine, but not something meritorious or worthy of reward. I think most people actually operate by a third approach: Belief-in-a-working-theory, until/unless contrary evidence is known with enough certainty to overwhelm that belief. Each religion provide a working theory, which seems to work for the people who believe it. The theory of "karma", for Buddhists, is an example of a theory that seems to work, but has no scientific evidence. The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with reduced conflict and increased cooperation. The key is, of course, that absence of evidence _for_ a theory is not the same as evidence _against_ it. Steve |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
Steve Hansen wrote:
Chimp wrote: That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing -regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one might have committed. [large snip] The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with reduced conflict and increased cooperation. Some of the effects of "faith" are good, yes, but some are harmful. See, for example, Chookie's explanation in this thread on Aug 24th of why the traditional punishment for heresy is death, and usually a nasty death. If you allow that the act of believing the right thing is virtuous to the extent that it can be rewarded by heaven, then it almost inevitably follows that believing the wrong thing is wicked. And that very often leads to conflict between those who believe different things. Hence the number of wars in which a difference of religious opinion has been a major factor. Chimp |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , Banty
wrote: So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious' people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as unfair. I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel or kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village by having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being to the village. It is? Not sure about that -- but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the events there. It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was the brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions. So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at the feet of religion. A *particular form* of a *particular religion*. Or *should* I hold traditional Aboriginal religion responsible for the Salem witch trials? The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian' -- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to blame a particular group for something. And religion is a kind of *idea*! Well, which particular idea *is* it? I shall trot out my own theory at this point, which is that any ideology -- any big idea on which people disagree -- can be used as incitement to mass murder. There must be an organisation with which to conduct the killing. In the Third Reich, or during the Great Terror, there was a vast machinery. In Rwanda, that organisation was just a mob. It need not take much. But you need an idea on which people divide -- even if it is which end of a boiled egg you open! I wouldn't favor discrimination against religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and religious ideas. *How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without* discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in containers called people... -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , Chookie
says... In article , Banty wrote: So who gets the blame for the Salem witch trials, then? All 'religious' people? Including, say, the Australian Aboriginal peoples? Seems a bit unfair to me -- well, to be precise, it seems intellectually lazy as well as unfair. I think there's merit in this outlook - the Salem witch trials arose from the same category of beliefs that lead, for example, an animist village to expel or kill a member for supposedly having brought some misfortune on that village by having insulted a diety or having attracted the attention of an evil being to the village. It is? Not sure about that -- but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the events there.. Sure. Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of misfortunes, cultures turn to superstitious explanations, and that gets directed toward their own members. Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices to please the spirits. It can also very reasonably be viewed as an extension of the long and vicious persecution of "witches" by Christians of the middle ages which really was the brutal suppression of practicioners of pre-Christian European relgions. So, yes, that sort of thing, more than many other things, can be placed at the feet of religion. A *particular form* of a *particular religion*. Or *should* I hold traditional Aboriginal religion responsible for the Salem witch trials? I think what you're doing is to ascribe ANY evil perpetuated in the name of, or for the sake of, ANY religion to whatever particular sect is responsible, and thereby deny that religion per se could be responsible for ANYTHING. Do, or do not, religions seek to eliminate competing religions? Christianity has done that quite violently in the past. Do or do not religions claim for themselves spiritual superiority? Most do. The one you belong to does. On balance, is it a good thing to have religion as all or part of the way people define their conflicts? I'm not sure of the answer. But to dismiss it all piece by piece saying "oh, that's that particular sect", "oh that's that other particular sect" is just avoidance of the issue. The concept of 'religious' people is a bit like the category 'Asian' -- it's a construct invented by people from outside that group (Europeans) to describe the Other, but it's sometimes too broad to be useful, and resented by those whom it describes. So -- I favour tracking *ideas* if we are going to blame a particular group for something. And religion is a kind of *idea*! Well, which particular idea *is* it? I shall trot out my own theory at this point, which is that any ideology -- any big idea on which people disagree -- can be used as incitement to mass murder. There must be an organisation with which to conduct the killing. In the Third Reich, or during the Great Terror, there was a vast machinery. In Rwanda, that organisation was just a mob. It need not take much. But you need an idea on which people divide -- even if it is which end of a boiled egg you open! I agree that any ideology *could* be used to justify murder (how I entered this thread). I also agree that many conflicts which are actually over power or land, are said to be over religion. But that's NOT the same as saying that religion does not incite, give rationalization to conflicts over land or power (who DID give that eastern Mediterranean land to whom??), never directly created conflict, or does not have serious potential to cause conflict today. I wouldn't favor discrimination against religious *individuals*, but surely it's valid to oppose religion and religious ideas. *How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without* discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in containers called people... The same way any other set of ideas is opposed - by discussion and persuasion in the public arena of ideas. Banty |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
In article , Banty
wrote: Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of misfortunes, cultures turn to superstitious explanations, and that gets directed toward their own members. Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices to please the spirits. snip I think what you're doing is to ascribe ANY evil perpetuated in the name of, or for the sake of, ANY religion to whatever particular sect is responsible, and thereby deny that religion per se could be responsible for ANYTHING. snip Do or do not religions claim for themselves spiritual superiority? Most do. The one you belong to does. On balance, is it a good thing to have religion as all or part of the way people define their conflicts? I'm not sure of the answer. But to dismiss it all piece by piece saying "oh, that's that particular sect", "oh that's that other particular sect" is just avoidance of the issue. I think that our disagreement is actually more over whether "religion" per se is a useful category. I think it's either too broad to be useful, or not quite broad enough. Ideology is broader. Religions are ideologies, but not all ideologies are religions. Any ideology will, (to use your phraseology), incite or give rationalization to conflicts over land or power, directly create conflict, or have serious potential to cause conflict today. Are the various religions more likely to do these things than any other ideologies? I don't think so (can't see any way to prove it, though). I can rephrase the para I have quoted from you above: Without a rational means to determine guilt or innocence, and without a propensity to go to rational means to determine and address the causes of misfortunes, cultures turn to *ideological* explanations [...] Salem witch trials. Voodoo. Sacrifices to please the spirits. Invading Iraq. Our new Industrial Relations laws. The Purges. The Inquisition. (Our propensity to rationality is much smaller than we hope!) *How* would you propose to do oppose religion and religious ideas *without* discriminating against adherents? Religious ideas tend to be found in containers called people... The same way any other set of ideas is opposed - by discussion and persuasion in the public arena of ideas. That's a relief -- I had visions of book-burnings and re-education camps... But I should think you would have to oppose any and every ideology, and I suspect humans won't function too well without them. -- Chookie -- Sydney, Australia (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply) "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled." Kerry Cue |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing my religion
"Chimp" wrote in message oups.com... Steve Hansen wrote: Chimp wrote: That is what I mean by the Christian doctrine that the act of believing -- the attaining of a state-of-mind-of-believing -regardless-of-the-evidence -- is considered so virtuous and meritorious as to outweigh any and all sins one might have committed. [large snip] The theory of "belief" or "faith", for Christians, is also an example of a theory that seems to work. Both help society to function with reduced conflict and increased cooperation. Some of the effects of "faith" are good, yes, but some are harmful. See, for example, Chookie's explanation in this thread on Aug 24th of why the traditional punishment for heresy is death, and usually a nasty death. If you allow that the act of believing the right thing is virtuous to the extent that it can be rewarded by heaven, then it almost inevitably follows that believing the wrong thing is wicked. And that very often leads to conflict between those who believe different things. Hence the number of wars in which a difference of religious opinion has been a major factor. Chimp I Agree. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Parent-Child Negotiations | Nathan A. Barclay | Spanking | 623 | January 28th 05 04:24 AM |
Example of teaching religion in the schools | Claire Petersky | General (moderated) | 34 | October 29th 04 03:19 AM |
(OT) That Mel Gibson Movie | Connie Johnston | General | 115 | May 27th 04 07:28 PM |