The problem being that you can prove to a person that the sky is not purple and the moon is not made of cheese, but it is difficult to prove with any absoluteness that there is or isn't a God, seeing as religion hinges on faith than any actual physical proof, first and foremost (although some people are convinced by what "physical proof" does exist, reaffirming their beliefs).
I think you weren’t here when we had a grand topic where I repudiated faith at length. It’s the Richard Dawkins thread, and my first specific post on the matter
is here/ (It’s too long for me to post.) Read that post, and really give the entire thread a few minutes your time. Nothing needs to be said here that hasn’t already been said there.
So then, would it be one's job, working to do what is just, to convince someone of faith that they are wrong and that God, or any other deity for that matter, does not exist?
For Socrates, I suppose it would be right to question them on such matters to get them to think more deeply on their faith instead of taking things as they are told, but I'm not entirely too sure he would advocate "correcting" a person's faith.
It isn’t enough to simply encourage people “to think more deeply on their faith.” Folks like Daniel Krispin have done precisely that, and are very intelligent and articulate about it. But they’re no closer to the truth than your common church urchin. In fact, by building up an entire intellectual framework around a faulty premise, they may even be further away from it. Their intelligence, when coupled with any charisma at all, makes them dangerous people who are capable of influencing others to follow a dead-end road.
Working to do what is just never means respecting people’s right to the delusions of faith. In this case, it means teaching all people that faith is the cheater’s path to truth. We can respect somebody’s intelligence without endorsing their irrational wrongdoings. Therefore, instead of inviting people to think on their faith more deeply, we should invite them to question their faith, think more critically about it, and ultimately move beyond it.
It’s easy to prove that people are wrong. What’s hard is convincing them.
I don't think she said specifically that she does not believe in a religion, simply that organized religion seems to be the source of many conflicts, and then went on to express her beliefs of what people do do in the name of God that she does not think God ever intended.
Ah, I think you misunderstood the connotations I associate with the concept of “religion.” To me, any religion is inherently organized, because a religion implies the existence of social structures such as rituals and customs, codified rules of conduct, community interaction, and so forth. “Organized religion” is repetitive, and I only use it to refer to the major religions such as Christianity and Islam, which are organized in the additional sense that they have significant political influence.
Now, perhaps those major religions are what Lena Andreia was referring to—and I could have made myself clearer. But it seemed to me as though she was talking about religion itself, not simply the major religions that have militaries and governments to back them up.
In any case, I would still very much like to hear her answer to my question about why she believes in God without the benefit of a religion.
It is your opinion then, that it is impossible to be a person of faith (the type of the faith in question is irrelevant), and also a man of science? Can an individual live in accordance with the tenets/practices of their particular religion, and yet still deal with reality? And if so, what is the harm in allowing them to do so?
You ask a loaded question. Of course it is possible to be a person of faith and a person of science at the same time. There are many scientists who believe in a god, and many devout who know a thing or two about the way the world works.
Most religious people can live a devout life and yet still function here in the real world. They will visit the hospital when they break their leg, rather than their church. They will go to the grocery store for food, rather than pray for manna. They can believe Jesus is coming back any day now, and yet still buy homeowner’s insurance. The devout are in the majority in this world, and even though it can be a pretty fucked up world sometimes, it still works. Humanity is still here, and still progressing.
So, what
is the harm in allowing people of faith to lead religious lives?
The harm is that faith doesn’t work. Religious faith in particular is like the opposite of King Midas: Everything it touches turns to shit.
Religious faith is inherently unreasonable. It discourages critical thinking and reinforces an arbitrary Authority that exists beyond the realm of fact. It drives a wedge between people, innately, because their competing faiths are contradictory and often exclusive—with no faith having the protection of physical truth—and therefore people’s lifestyles come into conflict. Faith is adversarial. That is why religion precludes a lasting peace. Religions cannot live side by side—at least not under their own power.
People today can go to the grocery store and visit the hospital. That’s because our society is no longer religious. Granted, the
people may still be religious, but the actual institutions of our society have long since become mostly secular. But there was a time when religious power was absolute, and would you really be bold enough to claim that you would have preferred that era to this one?
You too should read that link I gave to Rat:
http://www.chronocompendium.com/Forums/index.php?topic=2733.msg49283#msg49283Religion begets dysfunction. When contained by a strong and healthy secular society, it isn’t much of a threat. But when religion worms its way into the echelons of power once more, society inevitably decays. We see that happening in the United States right now, with the other developed nations leaving us behind in health, science, and education—to say nothing of our image abroad.
When one person balances a religious faith with life in the real world, there isn’t much difficulty. But when everybody does it? History has the answer for
that. So does the Middle East. If a devout Christian can also build rocket ships and play in the symphony, as well as go to the grocery store and visit the hospital, then what is the harm in allowing her to live her life religiously? Because the strength of her intellect and the tumor of her faith are two different things, and mistaking her ability to live with a disease for proof that the disease is not harmful, and then concluding that everybody should be free to have their own, personal tumor…what do you think will come of that?
Religion is benign only so long as we can contain it. Yet it yields so little good…so little value. It offers
nothing that the real world does not already offer in far richer detail. You tell me which is more amazing: The thought that some omnipotent deity created a goofy little planet with the snap of a finger, or the thought that all the life, diversity, art, and technology this world has ever known was able to arise from a single cell, ages ago, long before the continents and oceans of today even existed?
Secular society doesn’t hold a grudge. Religious freedom was guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and today most of the developed world is historically tolerant of people’s religious beliefs. But religion will never,
ever make that same deal with us. It is only the luxury of superior power that allows secularism to tolerate religion. And look how tenuous that superior power really is: Look at all the Christians in this country—Christianity being the historical and majority religion—who want to persecute anyone who is not like them, and would gladly do so were it not against the law. Look at those who see the law and ignore it, and persecute others anyway. Look at all those people who want to change the law entirely, and make this country into a Christian state.
That is the harm in being tolerant. Faith is a disease of the mind. Religion is a pox on society. A devout person can still function, and a religious society can still endure, but why would we encourage these things to ever flourish again, having finally escaped them? I tell you what, Silvercry: We created God. We were the means of our own oppression for tens of thousands of years. It took a lot of suffering and sacrifice to escape from our own, self-made prison. Why would we
ever want to go through that again? Just because many people have forgotten the lesson of the past—or never learned it in the first place—does not give the rest of us the opportunity to ignore the threat of religious resurgence.
Tolerance of evil is a sordid game. If we play, we can only lose. Let people have their faith, their religion…but it has no place in public, let alone in the government. And when the opportunity arises to tolerate a person’s faith, as a show of goodwill, or of respect, or even of gratitude…we must always resist. Faith really is no different than a disease of the mind. We must never encourage it.
Does faith in oneself apply? I have faith (bound by limits of common sense and reason) that I can accomplish something if I devote every ounce of my being and love to it. It may be irrational in some cases, and some tasks may be summarily impossible. But it draws on my philosophy of 200%. In certain areas, the mind is conditioned to believe that performing under maximum capacity is actually doing one's best. As a result, I believe the concept of going "beyond 100%" can actually help, though it is impossible mathematically.
This kind of faith, ZeaLitY, is not religious in nature. No faith is exempt from the intrinsic flaw of circumventing the truth, but your ardor, inasmuch as it can be called faith at all, is less virulent than religious faith. I think you would benefit from a restructuring of your phraseology and its philosophical framework, because nothing you have said needs to rely upon faith at all. You need to realize that for yourself. You’re very close already:
The philosophy of 200% is maintaining optimism and belief in oneself to the point that one tries to break perceived limitations. Motivation can come from anywhere -- imagine someone will shoot you if you don't reach a mile, or that you will fail a class if you do not do a paper a month before it is due. It is not total self-deception, but it helps reach that overall concept of reaching as far as possible.
I say your next epiphany awaits!
Geez, Lord J. You act like you're donating your job to the new blood, and yet you type out a veritable encyclopedia. I'll be in a corner wallowing in insecurity and brain-envy now…
Don’t do that. Like Mark Twain once said, the better a writer you are, the less you have to write to make your point.
--that, and hiding from Rock Lee, who seems to enjoy pointing me out lately. (I expect the showering of flowers, expensive jewelry and marriage proposals to commence any time now, Lee. I am not a cheap date. :d)
This would be fun to watch.
Ironic, though, that Lord J wants a better world, without hatred and discrimination, and yet to achieve these ways you insult Christians, and think it would be a better world without them.
You’re getting stuffier in your old age, Zeppy. “Hatred” isn’t the right word for how I feel about the religious devout.
Disgust would be closer to it. My discrimination against these people’s faith-based zeal is not based in prejudice, but in judgment itself. The impact of religious doctrine on society is well-documented. The proof is there for all to see. No other judgment is reasonable. Religious faith is a mental illness.
So, if in your world, one that you controlled, people were to become Christian again, what would you do? Get rid of them, and be no different from the "evil" rulers before you?
No, I don’t think I would “get rid” of anybody. You’re thinking from inside the box of your own religious limitations. The punitive and vengeful characteristics of faith-based retribution are as outdated as prayer shawls. I’m not interested in hurting or punishing people for being ignorant. To the contrary, education is what I would “do” to them. Perhaps some parts of the world really would benefit from a “kill anybody over the age of two” policy, but I don’t know of any such places myself, and I would be very reluctant to ever choose destruction over rehabilitation. A good public propaganda campaign, some legislation that defangs religion’s power to acquire money, and an intense campaign to teach our children that wisdom which their parents never learned, ought to be the only medicine we need.
