eurydicebound | (no subject)

Current Mood: bemused
Current Music: "i am not descended from mon-keys" spinning in my head

(no subject)

Okay, so yesterday evening I was out in the car with the husband, doing some shopping in Wichita Falls, TX. Got in a check, paid some bills, it's all good, right?

So we're driving along, and I see this billboard ad for a radio station with a little happy-face sun on it and the slogan "just for kids." Since I have two small kids, I was immediately intrigued. I exchanged glances with my husband and we switched over to the station to give it a listen, to see if it would be appropriate for when we have to travel in the car with kiddies.

The first thing I hear is a group of children singing in chorus. A moment later, I realize it's a Christian station, and they're singing about Adam and how children are like him, all beloved by God and given life in the same way, etc. Now, I am Christian, so this doesn't bother me overly. I don't believe that the expression of God's beauty and power by man is only evident in things that praise God directly, though, so I tend to shy away from "music with a message" sorts of things as my sole listening pleasure. The occasional tape is one thing, but a whole radio station is generally just a case of way too much at any one time.

Still, there's nothing wrong in having nice little songs about God's love and children being special in his eyes for little ones, right? I mean, it's all about the good love anyway. So long as it doesn't get into being overly preachy and keeps it on a catchy feel good level, that's a message that is good for kids to hear, right? I'm still disappointed that it isn't more general kid songs and stories and stuff... I'd listen to a station like that, if just to let them be happier in the car when we go places (we're 45 minutes away from the nearest town of more than 4,000 people), which means an hour-and-a-half round trip just to get groceries.

Then, the dreaded chorus hits, and I am utterly blown away. The children's voices, singing sweetly, ramp up a bit and start in: "I am not descended from mon-keys...." My husband and I just stared at each other, then turned the radio off. What the hell is that? Why would you place such a heavy doctrinal decision in a kid's song? It's supposed to be all "Jesus Loves Me" and stuff at that age, not Creationism vs. Evolution. That's for later. They can deal with their own beliefs then, once they're old enough to actually have some experiences with which to form them.

Aside from the surreal horror I experienced, though, it does make me think about some things. See, although David and I are Christian and are trying to teach the children about God and Jesus, we aren't part of any church. David went to the Pentecostal services when he was in Basic training, but we haven't been to a church since then, and never since the kids were born. I have been thinking about finding a church again, but everything I see about them locally just turns me off. I hate the judgemental aspects of the Evangelical Protestant churches, which is most of what we have around here. I hate the assumption that one denomination's doctrine is superior to another's, and must needs condemn those poor folks to hell. I hate that a number of aspects about my chosen profession would be judged sight unseen by many otherwise good individuals around here, and I just don't have the strength right now to educate them. I'm not up to fighting that battle at this point in my life.

This leaves me unsure where to turn, or what else is available to me that my beliefs won't clash with too heavily. I admire the Catholic religion in a lot of ways, but I cannot accept that the Pope as the sole divine authority on Earth, so I think that removes me from the running for Catholic Convert of the Year. I believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and its presence on Earth, but I cannot reconcile that with the behavior I generally see in churches who are centered around those beliefs.

The other thing that troubles me is the question of when something changes from education to propaganda. At what point is it teaching my children my beliefs vs. indoctrinating them? I'm pretty sure the whole monkeys song is right over the line. VeggieTales sometimes treads a bit close to it for me, but I find myself unable to define the line well enough to find it with any regularity. If anyone can help me with this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Hearing some opinions might help clarify the issue in my mind.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

"Mon-keys and I are de-scended from a com-mon an-ces-tor
And we both oppose pig-ig-nor-ance..."

err, sorry, flippant. I'm not sure I can help you with the larger question as I am (technically) an Unbaptized Heathen, which suits me fairly well. My biggest exposure to organized religion was in high school (private, Anglican but largely secular with instruction about lots of other faiths). I don't attend church and I don't especially feel the lack of it. I admire many aspects of the Christian faith (and many aspects of other faiths); like you, however, if I was going to join a church (not especially likely at present but you never know) I'm not at all sure which one I'd join.

But I'd definitely go with one that accepts evolution as a concept... sheesh.

Hey, don't worry about your current religious status as far as I'm concerned. I'm interested in thoughts from all points on the spectrum -- if I wanted strictly Christian opinions, I could simply subject myself to the tender mercies of one of the local pastors.

Unfortunately, I have little faith in any good result, and it's a small enough town I live in that I don't want to burden my mom's business with a rep of "did you know her daughter plays Dungeons and Dragons and worships Satan every other weekend?" I'd just as soon pass, thanks.

The basic question isn't so much one of religion (though there is that too) but of the difference on how to best pass one's values and beliefs onto one's children without violating their own ability/right to decide for themselves when the time is right. I don't think there's a doctrinal requirement for answering that. :)

Well as I believe you may have mentioned to

elissa_carey in a similar context... ;-)

...as far as passing on your own beliefs and values to your children (I have none, but I've been one) I think it happens more or less automatically. Live according to your beliefs. Teach by example. Talk to your kids. Read to them. Discuss thorny issues when they arise. I dunno, who am I to give child-rearing advice? But I'm constantly amazed by how much my parents' values are ingrained in me, even without my necessarily realizing it.

I'm having unformed thoughts about religion, doctrine, sectarianism etc. that are not coming out very well, and I have to get back to work, but if I have any brilliant insights I'll be back...

The basic question isn't so much one of religion (though there is that too) but of the difference on how to best pass one's values and beliefs onto one's children without violating their own ability/right to decide for themselves when the time is right. I don't think there's a doctrinal requirement for answering that. :)

If you are sure of the veracity of your own beliefs, I wouldn't worry. Live and act in accordance with them. Talk about them when questioned. Indeed, encourage questioning of them. There is no surer way to turn a child off to an idea than to stifle questioning about it.

FWIW, the Pope doesn't have divine authority but a divine mandate to propound the truths of the Faith as passed down from the Apostles. A fine distinction to be sure, but a real one.

Well, that's useful to know. I guess I'm using the wrong vocabulary to state my impasse of belief. My (albeit limited) understanding was that the Catholic faith required the acceptance of the church (with the Pope as its head) as the final arbiter of doctrine, and that one's relationship with God, etc. must needs go through the church, accepting the truths of the faith as given by the Pope and applying them to your life. Am I off base on that? I figure that's probably a very rough simplification, but I'm just trying to see if I'm in the ballpark.

First point: it's not as if the Pope makes up new doctrines for Catholics to believe. His role is as "shepherd of shepherds" to ensure that the individual churches that make up the Church hold true to the faith of the Apostles. That means that, of necessity, he is the court of final appeal and ultimate arbiter of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. However, he rarely intervenes directly in the day to day running of the Church. He certainly does not demand any kind of personal fealty or approbation.

Now, on the point of the Church itself: it's a divine institution founded by Christ, who said that no one comes to the Father except through me. Consequently, the Church is necessary. It is a conduit of grace. It's not the only one, of course, but it's the only sure one. To attempt to be a good Christian outside the fold of the Church is possible, but fraught with peril, which is why Christ prayed that all might be one under his Church.

I suspect, though, that neither of these clarifications will overcome your difficulties. If I'm reading you right, you seem to have some skepticism about organized religion, as well as a, if I may say so, more "mystical" view of religion based primarily on personal experience rather than communal ones. Is that right?

I have skepticism about people as a whole, and their ability to separate the Word of God and his Truths from their own agendas, intentionally or no. I don't exempt myself from this, either, and I'm pretty sure if it applies to me despite my best intentions, it applies to others as well. History teaches as much. The only way through it is an honest attempt to grow and learn, to overcome one's own prejudices and old beliefs and instead to see, as clearly as possible, God's presence in the world and in the life of an individual.

I can't say if mystical is the right word or not. I have never been part of a communal spiritual body for any length of time, so I don't really have any experiences of that type to draw upon. My parents never went to church either (big surprise there). I have personal experience to draw on and upon which I found my faith, but I am well aware that I don't hold all the secrets.

I tried to be part of a church when I was very young, but a lot of the claims they made (Southern Baptist) made no sense to me, nor could anyone provide a real reason why they believed that way. In the end I left, and never found another place to replace it. I've made a few attempts at finding a church home, but I've never run across a place where I felt comfortable. I don't know what that says about me or them, I just know that it is.

I know I'd like to find a church and religious community to call my own, a group among which to raise my children and provide them with a safe, structured place to learn about God, the Universe and everything. I've just grown weary of seeing thinly disguised fear, ignorance and hate behind that veneer of spirituality. The examples I see feel empty to me, and I can't determine why.

Oh, and for the record, the place I gathered much of my limited understanding of the role of the Pope is from communion, as presented in the Methodist and Episcopal services. Secondhand knowledge at best, true, but it's all I've got at hand at the moment. It's also been years since I've been to one of those services, so I'm working off fuzzy memory as well.

I have skepticism about people as a whole, and their ability to separate the Word of God and his Truths from their own agendas, intentionally or no.

A healthy skepticism about everything is good, I believe, but more often than not, it can become a habit of mind that prevents one from seeing the good above all the sordid and tawdry stuff to which we humans are prone.

I can't say if mystical is the right word or not. I have never been part of a communal spiritual body for any length of time, so I don't really have any experiences of that type to draw upon.

I meant "mystical" in the sense that you draw most of your faith from personal experience and use that as the paradigm by which you judge the truth or falsity of others' beliefs. Perhaps that's not right either, but that's what I meant.

I know I'd like to find a church and religious community to call my own, a group among which to raise my children and provide them with a safe, structured place to learn about God, the Universe and everything. I've just grown weary of seeing thinly disguised fear, ignorance and hate behind that veneer of spirituality. The examples I see feel empty to me, and I can't determine why.

Perhaps because I can never remember a time when I didn't go to Mass every Sunday and on holy days, it's hard for me to offer any advice here. It has always seemed to me, though, that it's dangerous to get hung up on the human foibles of believers and churches. You will find those aplenty in every church; no one is exempt. But if the underlying message is valid and you feel the need to praise God and draw closer to him in a communal environment, I don't see what the rest matters.

Oh, and for the record, the place I gathered much of my limited understanding of the role of the Pope is from communion, as presented in the Methodist and Episcopal services.

Well, I can think of few worse places to pick such knowledge up, since both churches arose in opposition to Papal claims of authority. The Methodist hymn "The Church's One Foundation" is a masterpiece of anti-Papal propaganda.

But I digress. :)

Ok, I consider myself to be a decidedly non-religious person so I might be the worst possible person to be giving any sort of advice regarding this subject, but here I am anyways... :)

Ok, I have a huge problem with churches. I have no problem at all with faith (one's personal beliefs about the greater universe) and consider myself a faithful person. I have only mild problems with religion (a structured belief about the greater universe). I do not adhere to a religion because I prefer to have my own personal beliefs about the universe based on my experiences rather than those of another. I have enormous problems with the church because the church is 1) an organization that is 2) run by humans. Corruption and personal agenda, which are natural to human nature, run rampant and make the entire thing beyond distastful. To me.

I don't think a person needs to attend church to be religious. One can adhere to religious beliefs without going to church, having a priest (or whatever) ask for donations, tell you what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong, etc. I think that a religious person knows what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. I think a religious person knows how to live "the right life." You don't need someone to tell you how to do it.

Thus, I don't think you need to take the kids to church to teach them about living a religious life. I think that if you and David live a religious life with them, they will adopt it naturally and in the way that you want them to (because they will have learned it from you). You won't have to worry about subjecting them to propaganda (which I think is entirely too common in most churches...) and you won't have to worry about exposing them to beliefs that you don't necessarily share. Teach them your beliefs.

Like I said, I'm probably the worst person to give advice on a subject like this. I distrust churches 100%. I think the majority of people involved with chruches participate in a political game that is natural to human nature thus making them unfit as "teachers" of their given religion. I think that religion and, more specifically, faith is an entirely personal thing that should not be dictated nor directed by someone else.

Take those two cents for what it's worth... :)

I have enormous problems with the church because the church is 1) an organization that is 2) run by humans. Corruption and personal agenda, which are natural to human nature, run rampant and make the entire thing beyond distastful. To me.

Name me a large group to which the latter does not apply. I know of no one who's willing to dispense with governments or universities or businesses simply because people are foolish and self-centered and prone to corruption. I'd suggest that GAMA is at least as corrupt as the Church and it doesn't even do anything worthwhile. Why not absent oneself from that too?

I hear complaints about ecclesiastical corruption a lot and most of the time there's ample basis for it. But politicians and businesspeople can be crooks too. Unless you expect human beings to be perfect (something even the Church does not ask), this is the way it'll always be. I don't see that as a problem, but a fact of life.

I would happily absent myself from GAMA but it's not my decision. I would happily do away with government, but it would destroy our livelihoods. I think the government is steeped in corruption. The church, for me, can be done away with without any degredation in my way of life and, in my opinion, makes my life better.

And I believe my point was largely that it is human nature for corruption and politics to play into any large (or even small) organization. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was singling out churches. They are but one organization where it is evident, but certainly not the only one. I don't like that. I would be happy to do away with all of it (corruption) but, being human, that is not possible. I will never claim that I nor anyone else is perfect. We are human and thus prone to flaws. Politics is, imho, one of those flaws.

Understand, I do know that there are some good churches out there - there is always an exception to prove every rule. That said, I think that a good church/minister (or whatever, as appropriate) are incredibly rare. I have been to but one service in my memory where I was truly impressed by the service. All others felt like a lecture or a conversion session. If you have found a good church, as I assume you have, I am thrilled for you. I know that it is an important part of your life and I know it makes you a happier person. That's fantastic. That said, for me, the "church experience" has never been favourable and has not meshed with my personal beliefs regarding religion (specifically that religious beliefs and faith are personal not dictated).

First: do not worry; I am not offended by anything you wrote.

I would happily absent myself from GAMA but it's not my decision. I would happily do away with government, but it would destroy our livelihoods. I think the government is steeped in corruption. The church, for me, can be done away with without any degredation in my way of life and, in my opinion, makes my life better.

Ah. I see now. You hold to a "mystical" view of religion as something personal but not communal. Things begin to make sense.

And I believe my point was largely that it is human nature for corruption and politics to play into any large (or even small) organization. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was singling out churches.

Fair enough.

Understand, I do know that there are some good churches out there - there is always an exception to prove every rule. That said, I think that a good church/minister (or whatever, as appropriate) are incredibly rare. I have been to but one service in my memory where I was truly impressed by the service.

Again, I see where you are coming from now, although it's not a direction that I share.

All others felt like a lecture or a conversion session. If you have found a good church, as I assume you have, I am thrilled for you. I know that it is an important part of your life and I know it makes you a happier person. That's fantastic.

To be honest, I'm none to pleased with my local parish, but that's insignificant to me. The veracity of what I believe does not hinge on whether each Sunday's liturgy is enjoyable or entertaining or edifying. Often, I am bored out of my skull.

That said, for me, the "church experience" has never been favourable and has not meshed with my personal beliefs regarding religion (specifically that religious beliefs and faith are personal not dictated).

I presume then that you've somehow worked out a way to deal with the fact that personal beliefs vary wildly. They cannot all be true. Indeed, personal beliefs seem to me a very unreliable way of gaining access to Truth.

Ah, now we get into the heart of the discussion. :)

First: do not worry; I am not offended by anything you wrote.

Good. I know your religious beliefs/faith is dear to you and I certainly hope you don't think I'm knocking you in any way. I'm not. I might be knocking the church, but not the church-goers.

You hold to a "mystical" view of religion as something personal but not communal.

Exactly. I prefer faith because that is truly (imho) personal, but I also feel that religion should be personal. I do not think that you, for example, should tell me what I should and should not believe in when it comes to the spiritual. Who are you to tell me what is right or wrong? There isn't a single person on this planet (again, imho) that knows what goes on beyond the physical realm. Many people have their beliefs (and some hold to them so strongly that they are as unto facts to them...), but nobody has factual evidence to support them. Thus, imho, it is a personal belief. Some hold their belifs stronger than others, but you can't prove your beliefs are right any more than I can prove mine are right. You can't prove mine are wrong any more than I can prove yours are wrong. (*)

* Obviously, since I think faith and religion are entirely personal, I don't think your beliefs are wrong. They are right, for you. Just wanted to clarify, to avoid confusion.

To be honest, I'm none to pleased with my local parish, but that's insignificant to me. The veracity of what I believe does not hinge on whether each Sunday's liturgy is enjoyable or entertaining or edifying. Often, I am bored out of my skull.

That's unfortunate. I don't think that Sunday visits to church should necessarily be filled with bells and whistles and feel like a better bang for your buck than the latest big-screen release, but it would be nice if it was at least thought-provocking or interesting or entertaining somehow. In all honesty, I am curious, why do you go if you are bored out of your skull most of the time? (I am asking this seriously because I truly don't understand why you would go if you didn't derive some pleasure from it)

I presume then that you've somehow worked out a way to deal with the fact that personal beliefs vary wildly. They cannot all be true. Indeed, personal beliefs seem to me a very unreliable way of gaining access to Truth.

Yes, I have worked it out - as I describe above, I do not believe that there is One Truth that is above all others. Further, even if there is one (because I do conceed that there may be one - part of not knowing is knowing that anything is possible), I do not believe mortal man (or woman) knows what it is. I do not believe that any person has figured out the great mysteries of the universe. Thus, everyone's personal beliefs are as valid as the next persons. Well, ok, some are just wack-job, flakey crap, but you know what I mean... Nobody can prove they are right and I can't prove they are wrong. Do we reincarnate? I don't know. I also know you don't know. I (strongly) suspect I know what your beliefs on reincarnation are, but you can't prove your beliefs are right. Thus, why should my beliefs on it be wrong and yours right or vice-versa?

Who knows? In the end, you may be right and I'll burn in hell for not believing... :)

There isn't a single person on this planet (again, imho) that knows what goes on beyond the physical realm.

Unless you believe in divine revelation, which is a cornerstone of almost every organized religion I can think of.

* Obviously, since I think faith and religion are entirely personal, I don't think your beliefs are wrong. They are right, for you. Just wanted to clarify, to avoid confusion.

Not sure how this works. If I believe, by faith, that Statement A is true and you believe, by faith, that Statement Not-A is true, we both can't be right. Now, it may be that you can't prove that Not-A is the case, but I don't see how you can hold that my belief in A is correct for me or anyone else. By your choosing to believe Not-A you are implicitly rejecting A, yes?

In all honesty, I am curious, why do you go if you are bored out of your skull most of the time? (I am asking this seriously because I truly don't understand why you would go if you didn't derive some pleasure from it)

The celebration of the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament, a sign instituted by Christ as a means of grace. Whether I enjoy it or not, going to Mass every week provides me with spiritual nourishment that allows me to make it through my life. God can work his wonders even through fallible and boring priests. There are often times when I am surprised by how much I do learn despite all the inadequacies of the liturgy. I'd be a fool to deprive myself of the possibility that another such surprise might occur.

Thus, why should my beliefs on it be wrong and yours right or vice-versa?

As I said above, it's not an issue of whether one can prove one's beliefs, but I still can't see how you can think a belief in direction contradiction of your own is "valid" in any sense other than from political tolerance. I tolerate many stupid beliefs because it's a cornerstone of a free society, but that doesn't mean I think most of them are worth anything.

Who knows? In the end, you may be right and I'll burn in hell for not believing... :)

If you go to hell, I suspect lack of belief will be low on the list of reasons. ;-)

Stupid fucking computer!! Crashed just as I was a heartbeat away from hitting send in my reply... Have to start over again... Sorry if this is abridged... Don't feel like trying to rewrite all my thoughts again... sigh...

As I said above, it's not an issue of whether one can prove one's beliefs, but I still can't see how you can think a belief in direction contradiction of your own is "valid" in any sense other than from political tolerance.

The summed up but lost in the computer-ether reply was this: think of it a different way and it may make more sense to you. Since nobody can prove that their beliefs are right and others are wrong, I elect to believe that we are all equally wrong. We all don't know The Great Truth and thus all options have equal merit. Your belief is just as right as mine, which is to say, almost certainly, not right at all. Since we are all equally wrong, we are therefor, similarly, equally right. Make sense?

If you go to hell, I suspect lack of belief will be low on the list of reasons. ;-)

I do remember my reply to this: Hey! Smart ass! :)

The summed up but lost in the computer-ether reply was this: think of it a different way and it may make more sense to you. Since nobody can prove that their beliefs are right and others are wrong, I elect to believe that we are all equally wrong. We all don't know The Great Truth and thus all options have equal merit. Your belief is just as right as mine, which is to say, almost certainly, not right at all. Since we are all equally wrong, we are therefor, similarly, equally right. Make sense?

I follow it, if that's what you mean, but it doesn't make much sense. Well, it does. It means you're in the ballpark of being a classical Skeptic, which kinda takes you out of the running for stating opinions about just about everything since whatever you say will almost assuredly fall woefully short of the ultimate Truth none of us can ever reach. It's philosophically consistent -- just not very compelling to me.

Nor to anyone who holds opinions strongly. I'm surprised you claim this as your outlook.

I claim this as my outlook regarding religion because I can't prove someone else wrong but I am similarly confident that nobody can prove me wrong.

For example, I'm sure you do not believe in reincarnation. Prove to me that it does not exist. You can't. There is no possible way to prove it. I can't prove it does exist. I can prove that I believe in it (or not - I'm actually not sure of my thoughts on reincarnation but it's being used for this example simply because...) and possibly tell you why I believe those things. The only thing that can be proven is your belief, not the reality.

I can prove to you that printed red is made up of yellow and magenta. I know that for a fact and will argue with anyone who claims otherwise. I can't prove that people reincarnate after they pass on. Why should I strongly hold an opinion to something I don't know, something that may be wrong?

I simply elect to not hold strongly to beliefs of religion and faith because I may one day be shown something that tells me that another belief is "the right one." Since I do not know my beliefs are right, I am not going to discount other beliefs.

You may (and probably do) view that as a lack of conviction. It is. I am unconvinced. Totally and utterly. You are convinced of your beliefs. From what I know of you, totally and utterly. I don't think that lack of nor possession of conviction makes either of us more right nor wrong than the other. It simply means that, until proof is provided, one is more likely to stand firm while the other is more likely to consider. One works for you while the other works for me. And in the end, as I've said, that's all that matters.

Yeah, this is firmly falling into the realm of rambling now so I'll stop... :)

But why should religion be treated differently than any other type of knowledge? You seem to be claiming that religion is, by necessity, beyond proof and therefore no one can know the truth. But that's true of many elements of, say, astrophysics too. Do you not believe in black holes because no one has ever been to one, let alone experienced what it's like to be drawn over its event horizon?

You appear to be favoring "scientific" knowledge over other types because it can be shown to be true before your eyes. Is that right?

Get the feeling Michelle is regretting bringing this up... :)

Yes, I do have a scientific approach to the issue. I want proof before I believe. That is why I view religion as faith - it is belief without proof. It is pure belief.

I believe in black holes because they have been proven. There are aspects about them that we are still learning (for example, some things can escape black holes) but that is the way of learning - new truths are discovered regularly. The world is flat! Oh, wait, it's round... But it's the center of the universe! Oh, wait, it's actually pretty far from the center of the universe... There is no life in outer space! Oh, wait... Microbe were found on Mars... Knowledge is a fluid thing, obviously. Facts today can become falsehoods tomorrow.

Religion, in my opinion, can never fall into the realm of knowledge. It is always going to remain in the realm of faith. It can never be knowledge because there can be no proofs nor falsehoods. It is always going to be belief without proof. Well, we might have proof but not while we live... :)

In short, tell me what you know about "The Truth." Don't tell me what you believe, tell me what you know - what you can prove. The only thing you can tell me is that you believe - that you have faith. That you can prove - you can prove you have beliefs. Everything else is faith in those beliefs. Thus, to you, that belief is true because your faith is true. Facts don't matter because your faith is not founded in facts. It is founded in one thing and one thing alone - your beliefs.

Heck, I've never had this many replies, and I find the discussion quite absorbing. Don't stop on my account. :)

In the interest of saving Michelle's comments from a lengthy disputation on epistemology, I'll have to end here. Suffice it to say I think you place to much -- dare I say? -- faith in the reliability of scientific knowledge and too little on intuitive knowledge. That said, I cannot on your terms prove to you almost anything about my own beliefs.

(continuing only because Michelle said we could :)

I think you misunderstand (which I blame on a conversation of this degree being had over the 'net while I'm at work... :) - I place an enormous amount of weight, regarding faith and religion, on intuitive knowledge. I believe than one's entire religious/faith/spiritual belief is based entirely on their own intuitive knowledge. That is the precise reason why I have a problem with a church and, to a lesser degree, a relegion. I do not think anyone else can tell me what I have faith in because nobody else can know what I intuitively know. How can a priest tell me what I should believe in? Am I to trust his intuitive knowledge over mine? Am I to accept his beliefs when my own intuitive knowledge may be telling me something different? That is why I believe that the church has no place in dictating one's faiths and beliefs. Each person should form his or her own beliefs based on what they know - what they sense is "The Truth." They can't prove it but they believe it. They have faith in it because it is what they sense is right. Not because the church told them it's right - because they sense it in their soul.

I know, you're probably thinking we're dancing in a circle now... :)

Because each person has their own, individual instinctive beliefs, each person is right in regards to their beliefs. Your beliefs have no bearing nor impact on my beliefs. They can be totally in opposition but they work for each of us because they are ours. My beliefs are right because they give me strength and yours are right because they give you strength. And the church has no place in directing those beliefs.

All, obviously, in my humble opinion. :)

I place an enormous amount of weight, regarding faith and religion, on intuitive knowledge. I believe than one's entire religious/faith/spiritual belief is based entirely on their own intuitive knowledge. That is the precise reason why I have a problem with a church and, to a lesser degree, a relegion. I do not think anyone else can tell me what I have faith in because nobody else can know what I intuitively know.

Well, sure, but it doesn't follow that all intuitive knowledge is correct. We often make mistakes.

How can a priest tell me what I should believe in?

Who said they did? I detect a faint anti-authoritarian streak in your critiques of religion.

Am I to trust his intuitive knowledge over mine? Am I to accept his beliefs when my own intuitive knowledge may be telling me something different?

Unless the church is really funky, that's not what the priest is doing. Indeed, he shouldn't be doing that at all. A priest is there to provide you with the collective experience of the Church over 2000 years, as well as insights into what it believes to be divine revelation. You can accept it or reject as you wish, but understand that religion isn't just "a priest's opinion."

That is why I believe that the church has no place in dictating one's faiths and beliefs. Each person should form his or her own beliefs based on what they know - what they sense is "The Truth."

Again, the anti-authoritarianism of your position shows itself. More importantly, though, how does one judge the veracity of one's beliefs. At what point does a personal belief go over the edge into madness? Where do you draw the line between opinions and personal beliefs? There must be a standard by which you judge whether a belief is possibly valid or just crazy.

Because each person has their own, individual instinctive beliefs, each person is right in regards to their beliefs. Your beliefs have no bearing nor impact on my beliefs. They can be totally in opposition but they work for each of us because they are ours. My beliefs are right because they give me strength and yours are right because they give you strength. And the church has no place in directing those beliefs.

This is far more psychological an interpretation of belief than the one I hold. Do you think, then, that a person who derives strength from his belief that, say, Keanu Reeves is the Messiah and The Matrix is a secret religious text is sane? Neither you nor I can prove he's wrong, especially if his conception of "Messiah" is properly worded. But I suspect you and I both would think he's insane or at least deluded. Given that, on what basis do you make that judgment?

Well, sure, but it doesn't follow that all intuitive knowledge is correct. We often make mistakes.

Exactly.

Who said they did? I detect a faint anti-authoritarian streak in your critiques of religion.

Whatever do you mean? [innocent grin]

Ok, as I said before, I very, very rarely go to church, but most of my experiences have involved "the church" telling people what beliefs they should hold, spiritually. As always, there are exceptions, but from my observations (*), churches often direct and guide the "acceptable" beliefs of their flock.

* Admittedly, I don't follow church issues closely because of my dislike of churches so I do admit freely that my observations are highly limited.

Unless the church is really funky, that's not what the priest is doing. Indeed, he shouldn't be doing that at all. A priest is there to provide you with the collective experience of the Church over 2000 years, as well as insights into what it believes to be divine revelation.

Again, that hasn't been my experience in the services I've attended. I can think of one in my memory which was enjoyable and not "preachy." All others felt like I was being told what to believe and what not to believe. Entirely possible that was just my anti-church views tainting the services, but...

Again, the anti-authoritarianism of your position shows itself.

Whoops. Sorry. Hate it when that slips out... :)

More importantly, though, how does one judge the veracity of one's beliefs. At what point does a personal belief go over the edge into madness? Where do you draw the line between opinions and personal beliefs? There must be a standard by which you judge whether a belief is possibly valid or just crazy.

Intuitive knowledge. You know a belief is a load of shit when you see it.

This is far more psychological an interpretation of belief than the one I hold. Do you think, then, that a person who derives strength from his belief that, say, Keanu Reeves is the Messiah and The Matrix is a secret religious text is sane? Neither you nor I can prove he's wrong, especially if his conception of "Messiah" is properly worded. But I suspect you and I both would think he's insane or at least deluded. Given that, on what basis do you make that judgment?

Are you trying to say Keanu isn't The One?...

Seriously, it falls back to the intuitive knowledge. One should intuitively know that a belief like that is simply the insane ramblings of an idiot. The belief that the soul reincarnates, however, does have an intuitive resonance that makes it possible. One may not believe in it (and some may think it is a similar load of crap as Keanu being "The One...") but there's enough spiritual ... evidence (for lack of a better word) that the reincarnation of the soul is a possibility. Most people who hold some spiritual belief agree, to one extent or another, that the soul is eternal. Does it move on to a higher (or lower...) place or does it come back for another kick at the can? Who knows, but if you believe that the soul lives on beyond the mortal coil, you can at least accept the theory that both options are possible. Thus, intuitively, both seem as right and as wrong as the other. And intuitively we know Keanu isn't "The One."

Neve Campbell is The One.

For me...

What??

Ok, as I said before, I very, very rarely go to church, but most of my experiences have involved "the church" telling people what beliefs they should hold, spiritually. As always, there are exceptions, but from my observations (*), churches often direct and guide the "acceptable" beliefs of their flock.

How is this bad exactly? Religions exist to give people a support network to hold true to a set of beliefs that they've come to accept as true, as well as to expand upon those beliefs through reflection and prayer. Plus, in many cases, religions provide something else: access to rituals that many people believe are efficacious in aiding one's spiritual development. Seems to me it's the duty of those who devote their lives to ministry to remind believers of what they believe and why they believe them.

Again, that hasn't been my experience in the services I've attended. I can think of one in my memory which was enjoyable and not "preachy." All others felt like I was being told what to believe and what not to believe. Entirely possible that was just my anti-church views tainting the services, but...

Remember, a church service is intended for those who already believe, not those who don't. It's a reminder and often an expansion of beliefs the congregation already holds in common. I suspect it'd be rare that anyone who comes to a Mass, for example, and who didn't already believe would be converted by the experience.

Seriously, it falls back to the intuitive knowledge. One should intuitively know that a belief like that is simply the insane ramblings of an idiot. The belief that the soul reincarnates, however, does have an intuitive resonance that makes it possible.

Sure, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. For example, there are now more people alive than there ever were in all the previous ages of human history combined. Where then are all the extra souls coming from? Do we each only get part of a soul or are new souls being created all the time? If the latter, how is that different than what I believe? For me, religious beliefs are subject to rigorous questioning and appeals to things other than intuitive knowledge, even if they begin that way.

My point is that appeals to intuition aren't enough. Neither is scientific knowledge. A more holistic approach is necessary when dealing with these matters.

I hate LJ's reply size limit...

Religions exist to give people a support network ... [snippage for space]]

I think that if churches did that, they would be fantastic things. On paper, I think a church is great. It's like communism - on paper it works so well but once you introduce the human element, complete with all our foibles and failings, it starts to fall apart. Providing an environment for like-minded people, teaching them about the foundation of their beliefs to thereby strengthen them, to provide guidance and counsel, and so forth is excellent. I've just seen and heard of very few churches of that sort. Most, as you yourself said, are boring as hell.

Remember, a church service is intended for those who already believe, not those who don't.

Very true.

Sure, but I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. [[space saver]]

Well, I can certainly provide theories that could support the idea but since it isn't a belief I hold strongly it would purely be an exercise in conceptual thought rather than a debate of beliefs. I do feel, however, that for something like that, where there is enough of a foundation for the concept (hell, there are religions that are centered around the concept...), it is easy to provide all the answers to someone's questions. Maybe not answers that convince another person, but answers that reaffirm the questioned person's beliefs.

For me, religious beliefs are subject to rigorous questioning and appeals to things other than intuitive knowledge, even if they begin that way.

I agree because, invariable, some yahoo like me comes along and asks some stupid question that challenges your faith and beliefs. Or someone with their own set of (strong) religious beliefs comes along and a (hopefully) interesting discussion follows where one's beliefs are tested against the others.

My point is that appeals to intuition aren't enough. Neither is scientific knowledge. A more holistic approach is necessary when dealing with these matters.

Quick note about terms I use and what I mean with them: I view "faith" as personal beliefs. I view "religion" as a codification of those beliefs into a whole. I view "the church" as an organization being built around a religion. "A church" is the church down the street that you attend once a week.

I think that you're right - a religion grows in a holistic manner. Individual beliefs are formed, questioned, refined, revisited, and questioned again over time. To one degree or another, they need to survive the scrutiny of both scientific and intuitive questioning (maybe not to the satisfaction of the questionner but, at the very least, to the satisfaction of the questionned). For example, I can ask you to prove that God exists. You might answer with something like "look at my son and daughter - when I look at them I see proof of God." That answer may be enough proof for you while, for me, it just proves that you and Di got pregnant (*). It doesn't matter that your answer didn't convince me because it was sufficient for reaffirming your belief in your religion.

* Actually, for me it does prove that there's a higher power in the universe. I don't believe in god because I don't believe in an individual supreme being above all others. I do believe, however, that life is such an incredible thing that it cannot simply be the result of random chemicals and elements coming together. Some power beyond "this mortal coil" had a hand in the creation of life. Thus, the above is just an example for discussion, not an actual point of my beliefs because the answer of "look at my kids" would be enough to prove to me that some sort of higher power exists... :)

Man, I haven't thought about religion this much in a very, very, very long time...

On paper, I think a church is great. It's like communism - on paper it works so well but once you introduce the human element, complete with all our foibles and failings, it starts to fall apart.

A poor comparison in my book, because Communism didn't even work on paper unless you accepted the dubious labor theory of value, but I digress.

Providing an environment for like-minded people, teaching them about the foundation of their beliefs to thereby strengthen them, to provide guidance and counsel, and so forth is excellent. I've just seen and heard of very few churches of that sort. Most, as you yourself said, are boring as hell.

Remember, though, that that's not all the churches do, especially those based on the notion of efficacious rituals.

I do feel, however, that for something like that, where there is enough of a foundation for the concept (hell, there are religions that are centered around the concept...), it is easy to provide all the answers to someone's questions. Maybe not answers that convince another person, but answers that reaffirm the questioned person's beliefs.

I guess that's where the trouble starts for me. There are always foundational "leaps of faith" in all religions and these are largely exempt from rational critique. However, if one of these foundational elements obviously runs into basic problems -- such as the multiplication of souls in reincarnation -- I tend to look very unfavorably on the religion in question.

I agree because, invariable, some yahoo like me comes along and asks some stupid question that challenges your faith and beliefs. Or someone with their own set of (strong) religious beliefs comes along and a (hopefully) interesting discussion follows where one's beliefs are tested against the others.

I have never feared questioning, no matter what the source. Remember, I enjoy debating with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to my door.

For example, I can ask you to prove that God exists. You might answer with something like "look at my son and daughter - when I look at them I see proof of God."

See, that kind of argument is just metaphorical and it's good as poetry but not as a debating point. If I wanted to prove the existence of God, I have a large selection of possible proofs that depend on logic and observation.

* Actually, for me it does prove that there's a higher power in the universe. I don't believe in god because I don't believe in an individual supreme being above all others.

Is this belief based on anything other than an intuition? That is, do you have any reason to believe it beyond the fact that you do?

I do believe, however, that life is such an incredible thing that it cannot simply be the result of random chemicals and elements coming together. Some power beyond "this mortal coil" had a hand in the creation of life.

This is the "argument from design" and is a popular one with many people. It has its points, but I've always found it only a few steps removed from the metaphor of "look at my kids." There's nothing inherent in life that demands there be a design at work, although I agree that the arrangement of the universe is highly suggestive of intelligent rather than random action.

I guess that's where the trouble starts for me. There are always foundational "leaps of faith" in all religions and these are largely exempt from rational critique. However, if one of these foundational elements obviously runs into basic problems -- such as the multiplication of souls in reincarnation -- I tend to look very unfavorably on the religion in question.

Ah, but that is simply because you do not accept the answers provided. They do not fit with your vision of how the universe works and thus ring false. They don't work for you. There are elements of the Christian religion that don't work for me. There are fundamental leaps of faith that I think run into basic problems. That's why I don't consider myself Christian - there are leaps of faith I have been unable to make because they don't fundamentally work (for me).

I have never feared questioning, no matter what the source. Remember, I enjoy debating with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to my door.

Yeah. I know. You do tend to enjoy the intellectual challenge. :)

Is this belief based on anything other than an intuition? That is, do you have any reason to believe it beyond the fact that you do?

My belief that there is something greater is largely intuitive. A feeling. Getting deep, it might be my desire for this to not be all there is to life. Or a heritage of my upbringing (my mother is religious and my grandparents (on her side) are quite religious). I'm not positive what the source of the belief is - I do know that there isn't one single event that formed the belief - nothing that I can point to and say "that is why I believe."

Ah, but that is simply because you do not accept the answers provided. They do not fit with your vision of how the universe works and thus ring false. They don't work for you.

That's certainly true, but it's not the whole story. I also object to reincarnation because it is internally inconsistent. Whether it is consonant with my beliefs or even with reality isn't the issue so much as the fact that it contrtadicts itself. I think any foundational religious belief that does that is bogus.

There are elements of the Christian religion that don't work for me. There are fundamental leaps of faith that I think run into basic problems. That's why I don't consider myself Christian - there are leaps of faith I have been unable to make because they don't fundamentally work (for me).

You don't have to keep hedging your opinions like that. Even if you violently disagree with Christian dogma, I'm not bothered or offended.

My belief that there is something greater is largely intuitive. A feeling.

That's always seemed insufficient to me. I expect a bit more than that in discussing faith, because I'd say that at least half of all my particular beliefs are built upon a foundation of logic and observation rather than blind faith.

You don't have to keep hedging your opinions like that. Even if you violently disagree with Christian dogma, I'm not bothered or offended.

I appreciate that but I also know religion is one of those dangerous subjects of discussion. I may not offend you, but I may offend Michelle. Or someone else. Thus, I take the extra moment to be careful about my words...

That's always seemed insufficient to me. I expect a bit more than that in discussing faith, because I'd say that at least half of all my particular beliefs are built upon a foundation of logic and observation rather than blind faith.

I am honestly curious what the logical basis is for your belief in God (*). I do not think it is possible to have a logical belief in God - I think the believe in one supreme being must be a leap of faith with no foundation in logic. I could be wrong, but I do not think it is possible to logically believe in God. Honestly and sincerely, but not logically.

* Since I assume the cornerstone belief of your religion is one of the beliefs you have founded in logic and observation.

oh, I'm not going to be offended. Don't mind me. You might make your next reply a reply to the original message, though, so you don't end up with a 1 inch wide message. :)

Spoilsport. I was looking forward to the 1 character wide message. :P

Following Michelle's advice, I'm replying to the original message thusly.

I am honestly curious what the logical basis is for your belief in God (*). I do not think it is possible to have a logical belief in God - I think the believe in one supreme being must be a leap of faith with no foundation in logic. I could be wrong, but I do not think it is possible to logically believe in God. Honestly and sincerely, but not logically.

I think, Jeff, you need to know more Catholics. We have a reputation among most Protestants, especially those who call themselves "Bible Christians" of being "too intellectual" (in addition to being secret pagans), because the Church asserts that man can find God by reason alone. Not the God of the Bible, of course ("The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," as Pascal calls him), but the Supreme Being ("The God of the philosophers"). It is a leap of faith to equate that Supreme Being with the God described in the Bible, yes, but I don't think it's impossible to arrive by deduction that there must a single, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe.

There are quite a lot of logical arguments I could offer, but some are more complex than these comments would allow. The one that most impresses me begins with the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and goes on from there.

I think, Jeff, you need to know more Catholics.

:) I'mn sure there are many jokes in there, all at my expense so I shall leave them alone... :)

There are quite a lot of logical arguments I could offer, but some are more complex than these comments would allow.

Very true and some day I think we should have that conversation. In the absence of Ian because I'd like it to be a productive discussion... :)

The one that most impresses me begins with the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and goes on from there.

Ah, but I think all major religions' cornerstone beliefs can begin by answering the same question, merely with slightly different answers. And that, from my observation, is one of the key roles of a religion - to answer those questions to which there doesn't appear to be answers. Why do we exist? Uh, I don't know... That's where most religions step in and help provide answers. Thus, to me, the answer to that sort of question doesn't prove the existence of God, unless you are looking for that proof.

To put it differently, you look at reincarnation and see faults with the premise because it is a belief that you have not been raised to agree with. You look at it through the lense of "I disagree because..." You have been raised to believe in God so you look at God through the lense of "I believe because..." I think the answers to the skeptical questions regarding God and reincarnation are both as plausible and implausible - they become believable or unbelievable depending on which lense one is looking through.

I think one man's proof is another man's theory.

Thus, to me, the answer to that sort of question doesn't prove the existence of God, unless you are looking for that proof.

I think one of the things we'll need to discuss as well is what you mean by "proof," "belief," and "knowledge." Without a sense of that, I'm not how much farther this can go.

I will say, though, that it appears you treat religion so differently from all other forms of human knowledge that it'd be likely impossible to get you to treat it as rigorously as, say, astrophysics, even though your belief in the existence of black holes is no more well founded than most people's belief in God. You know it only be appealing to authority, whose ultimate veracity you can't know because you're not an astrophysicist.

To put it differently, you look at reincarnation and see faults with the premise because it is a belief that you have not been raised to agree with. You look at it through the lense of "I disagree because..." You have been raised to believe in God so you look at God through the lense of "I believe because..." I think the answers to the skeptical questions regarding God and reincarnation are both as plausible and implausible - they become believable or unbelievable depending on which lense one is looking through.

That suggests a radical division of human understanding that I think is ultimately problematic. It divides up human experience into little boxes and suggests they don't -- and can't -- interact. Therein lies the way to double think and relativism.

I think one man's proof is another man's theory.

Only when what one man considers "proof" is just metaphor or when what another man considers "theory" is just undue skepticism. Honestly, I think this is about as far as we can go unless we start doing the whole epistemology discussion and I'm not sure anyone wants that. God knows I don't at this time of day. :)

You are entirely correct - I am a man of logic/science/whatever and not a man of faith. I am willing to trust certain knowledge from scientists because that is the way I think and the way I view the world. I am skeptical of the knowledge of the clergy because I do not view the world in that way. There is no question I separate the two and view them differently. Like I said at the very beginning of all this, I'm not a religious man so I'm the worst person to be giving any sort of advice on the subject...

:)

Mon-chi-chi, mon-chi-chi, so soft and cud-dl-y!

:D

/herr kartoffel

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only