There are two ways to discuss religion. One is an intellectual discussion, with each party sharing facts (or "discoveries" believed to be facts) for the purpose of learning more—a shared objective—in order to have a better foundation on which to base our own beliefs.
The other way is an emotional one. This form does not find itself encumbered by facts or evidence, nor does it feel obliged to consider or even acknowledge anything revealed by such sources as archaeology or written history (especially if this originated in a language other than that of the participants.
A third kind of discussion, an amalgam of the previous two, includes parties who want to discuss from the two different forms. This one is similar to a gang war in which everyone gets bloodied, but no one dies.
Archaeology, like other hard sciences, likes to think of itself as the purveyor of truth in its particular discipline. However, as with other sciences, archaeology depends much on extrapolation, on conclusions based on sparse evidence and patterns discerned from other studies that had similar parameters.
Medical science is a perfect example of a discipline that takes itself seriously, enough that it puts lives on the line with its most recent set of beliefs. For example, is angioplasty more beneficial than it is harmful over the long term for a wide range of patients? Each side has evidence that convinces it that its belief set is true and valid. Eventually, one position will be found to be wrong or angioplasty itself will become outdated.
Even DNA evidence, the scientific "proof positive" in many a court case, is now known to be imperfect, such that cases that depend solely on DNA may be thrown out of court due to possible inaccuracies or misinterpretations. Nevertheless, some legal decisions are still based solely on DNA evidence.
A valid conclusion would be that, in archaeology, facts remain as valid evidence only until they are proven to be wrong because they were taken out of context of a larger picture which was not available to archaeologists at the time the first "facts" were dug up.
Therefore, even an intellectual discussion of religion may not reach acceptable conclusions because of recently discovered evidence. It's like running the bases in baseball when the basemen keep moving the bags.
People have a need to feel secure. Religion provides the security to satisfy that need for some. However, the need for security is often an emotional need, not a real one. To take a more familiar example from another emotional topic, the US is involved with two concurrent wars, based on the fear of its people of "terrorists" based on two incidents (one spectacularly successful) on its own soil.
Conducting wars in another part of the world provides the security that many US citizens need. When these same fear-filled people perceive that their religion is being attacked—whether the attack is real or not—they use the same strategies for defence, verbal war on an all-or-nothing scale.
War is a dirty game, masterminded and conducted by people whose sole interest is in defeat (preferably by death) of the enemy. Ostensibly, they remain within the law, though many incidents of straying across the line may be revealed in any war.
In an discussion of religion where the participants engage in an emotional war of words, there are no holds barred, no laws to uphold other than those of libel or abuse.
No one can win an emotional war. Similarly, there are no real winners in the other kind of war, as both sides suffer. Arguably, the worst suffering results from damage of an emotional nature.
A discussion of religion can only be practical if the parties involved present facts and are prepared to provide sources, if asked. That way each party participating learns more. An emotional discussion of religion usually is no more productive than a cat fight.
We should not avoid discussions of religion, as they can provide us with much information about our own and other religions that we might not otherwise get. However, we should understand that any information we receive might be biased, therefore should be verified from other sources.
If the discussion turns emotional, the best course of action is to walk away before someone gets hurt.
Bill Allin
'Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems,' striving to make the boundaries clear.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
I also can get rather emotional on occasion and in that case I also walk away because I don't want to make irrational and stupid statements in defense of any of my causes because that would just hurt the cause more than help. Too bad more people can't do that. It would make the world a better place if we didn't get so emotional over the issues that we make ourselves blind to reason. But then to me, the bottom line of religion is based on emotion. I have a hard time subscribing to any one religion - though I call myself a Buddhist as that's the religion I was raised in for the most part - because of those emotional factors. That is not to say I don't believe in God. Quite often I find religions or the practioners of various religions to be the antithesis of what my concept of God happens to be.
Tolerance and religious pluralism seem to be in short supply these days. It's interesting that the rise of religious radicalism in other areas of the world has been coupled by a similar rise of religious extremism in the US as well...
Thanks for this, Bill. It is thoughtful and inspiring to think twice about one's reactions.
I would dearly love to debate the existence of God with someone some day. I have enough evidence at my disposal that I could prove beyond a reasonable doubt (at least to a jury) that God exists, though not the nature of God because that would be too complex and debatable. I believe that atheists are simply poorly informed of the evidence that is available. Or maybe they just want to be different from those who believe with their emotions and not with their intellect.
Debra, I wrote and copied from my Word and Gather didn't like the font, then I neglected to pay attention to the size before I published.
It should be beyond the understanding of most people why people refuse to believe anyone who makes a statement about religion today, but they cling as if their lives depended on it to statements made by people thousands of years ago. As if there were no prevarication, no lying, no twisting of acts to suit the leaders in the past as there is today.
Who teaches us that there are two Bethlehems in the Holy Land, for example, the "second" one being in Galilee, close to Nazareth (I believe). The Byzantines had a huge church in the "other" Bethlehem, but it's gone now (though its foundation exists). Did the report about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem get switched to the Bethlehem we know today because the prophets had foretold that the messiah would be born in the city of David?
And that census (Roman records were extensive, but no trace seems to exist of it at the time of the birth of Jesus, but no matter), anyone who had to return to the home town of their family would be able to stay with the many family members who still lived there. Why does the Bible suggest that Mary and Joseph had no place to stay? Maybe someone was purposely vague about recording the facts in the gospels.
Dan, let me add to that a bit. Terrorism has existed in every century of history. One hundred years ago it was called Anarchy and the anarchists of the day committed many of the same savage acts as today's militant Muslims.
Why do we say that Muslims are killing Muslims in Iraq, but we don't say that a Christian killed several little Christian girls in Pennsylvania?
Carol, discussion such hot button topics as religion and politics are, I believe, essentail to our understand how people feel about these subjects and even learning some facts. We don't learn anything by ignoraing a subject.
Thank you, Joe. Could we be blood brothers?
Thomas, the most admirable people of any faith that I have ever met are the Baha'is. I wish I knew how to find the group in my home area. "Both perspectives come from the same source" is a mature and thoughtful (though risky) way of saying it.
As I understand it, to the Baha'is, every person is a brother or a sister. Surely it doesn't get any better than that when it comes to religions. To be intolerant of another, to a Baha'i, would be like insulting your own mother.
Debra, I've heard quite a bit about those gospels, and am especially interested in the Gospel of Mary Magdalen. I understand that it may have been supressed because of political power struggles within the group of disciples after Jesus' death. I understand that Mary Magdalen was preaching her version of Jesus' word and had her own loyal followers. One of the male leaders (I forget if it was Peter or Paul) thought it unseemly for a woman to be teaching, especially since she was competing with him for acolytes.
Think of how different the bible would read if it included the perspective of a woman!
Auntie, I wouldn't doubt that Mary (a groupie, if not the girlfriend of the real Jesus--as opposed to the sanitized version reported in the Bible) had some influence on how the gospels were written. The only incident where Jesus did anything but to preach peace and tolerance was when he overturned the tables of the money changers outside the temple. (That's a story I have trouble believing because there was apparently no consequence of that act. Although, wasn't the crucifixion only a few days later? Maybe the money changers had more influence than they are given credit for. It's also possible that Jesus did that one relatively violent act to generate enough opposition among the Jews that they would want him crucified.) My point is that the gospel depictions of Jesus as a total man of peace may have been influenced by Mary.
The gospels of Mary the Magdalen and of Thomas (who told more about Jesus than all the gospels of the Bible put together) were both part of the Nag Hammadi. These are available for reading on the internet, as Debra suggested with her links.
Debra, Luke could likely write because he was a doctor.
The elimination of some of the existing books about Jesus from the first Bible happened in the 4th century, when the newly empowered Church of Rome (thanks to Constantine) sorted through them all, had all known copies of the ones the church wanted to be left out of its Bible burned, had all known Gnostics killed, appointed Jesus as the One and Only Son of God, and generally used the power of the Roman Empire to see to it that only one version of Christianity survived.
Debra, the gospels were written 75+ years after the death of Jesus, not of the disciples. Matthew, Mark and John were Disciples.
Matthew wrote his version in Egypt, though it was approved by the Church of Rome. The Church's Bible and belief set were founded basically on Matthew's version. How much was Matthew influenced by Egyptian mythology?
During the 1st century CE, most of the Church of Rome's activities centred around Egypt and Greece. The Gnostics (as we now call them) had more influence in the Holy Land, but they were concentrated in one place, which made it easy for them to be wiped out.
What we do know about the surviving gospels that made it into the Bible was that the manuscripts were written many decades after the death of Jesus. We do not know if any previous versions existed before that, but were destroyed as the updated versions were brought out. That would make more sense, to me, than having a man 100 years old dictating his memoirs 80 years after the fact.
As the Disciples were all mortal, thus subject to the vagaries of memory and memory loss of elderly people, why does a religion count every word as if it were dictated by God directly at the time of writing? In other words, make it "gospel"?
The Gnostic gospels are full of wonderful, fanciful folk tales. I especially love the stories about Jesus' childhood, like the one about the clay birds that he turned into live birds. I seem to remember another really interesting story about him misusing his divine powers as a child to injure or kill another child, and the consequences that occurred afterward.
I heard once a question that makes some sense in explaining a proof of God that I remember. The question was "Did your father love you?" Of course the answer was "Yes, very much." Then the response of "Prove it!" As an absolute fact, that could be a difficult thing to do......
It seems it is hard to keep emotions out of each subject at times, and some can't do it at all.
Thanks for your thoughts.
The Bible really is a better history book than it is given credit for (mostly because other books were burned in the Dark Ages, except in the few monasteries of Ireland and a few caves, and the library at Alexandria was destroyed). However, it records events from one pespective (like all accounts of history).
The Philistines, for example, were a sophisticated, cultured and well organized culture, while the Israelis that entered their territory were hillbillies by comparison. Although David beat Goliath (Hmmm, a one-on-one battle to settle a potential war) the Philistines (rather than fight endlessly as many defeated peoples so) integrated with the Israelis and others in the area, leaving precious little evidence of themselves.
Many existing books were left out of the Bible because they conflicted too much with each other, which would make the church look weak and disorganized. Others were omitted because they reported things that disagreed with the message the church wanted to preach.
It may not have been the story tellers (the writers, the recorders) who had imaginations, but the person from whom they received the stories. (Was Jesus divine before being baptized by John? Many say no. Maybe he was simply an ordinary person whose great future lay ahead of him.)
Welcome back, John. I once wrote a paper about the "proof" for the existence of God put forward by St. Anselm. His was the first known argument. Unfortunately, the "given" of his logical argument (following the rules of logic) was also his conclusion, that God existed. Well, they made him a saint anyway.
Why do people buy lottery tickets, knowing that the odds of winning are so small (one in millions, in many cases)? The evidence for the existence of a Creator is all around us in such abundance that one scientist estimated that the chances that life as we know it was NOT created by a designer would be roughly the same as the chances of winning a lottery every day for 100 years.
Accidents like that (as proposed by evolutionists who see no reason why genetic mutations could not have resulted in what we have today, without a deity) just don't happen anywhere else in the known universe.
As to whether it happened 6200 years ago and all in six earth days, that is a stretch for me. Evidence, evidence, evidence!
But how long is a God Day? And why should a creator not continue to create, as any human inventor would? Why could a creator not create something perfect, then tweak his (or her) work to make something even better? Not that the original was imperfect, but something more was needed to account for the built-in changes of the natural system.
It may not be easy to read that into the crucifixion story, but that interpretation would lend a great deal more meaning for me than any previous interpretations of the three crosses or of the Holy Trinity.
The Holy Trinity is dealt with poorly in the United Church of Canada, in which I grew up. I once button-holed my minister, in his office, to ask him to explain the Holy Trinity. In the end, he failed and I argued to the point where he agreed that they were three forms of the same deity.
You used words that I can't even pronounce.
There was and is a group (today in Iran) who worship John the Baptist as the Messiah, the only Messiah.
At the point when Jesus died, Mary the Magdelen was the only other person present at the crucifixion (no mention of the other two crosses). That has a strong message for me. Why did so many others leave their dying saviour? I remember hearing (speculation, maybe? a book or movie?) someone say that Mary was pregnant at the time of the crucifixion.
Did they have to go home for supper?
I see no reason why God should not be within me. He might need a place in my brain, where there is extra room, because the rest of my body is sort of filled up.
The "curse words" part relates to Tourette's.
I don't care much for the "hard-wired" way of describing it. I could argue without much trouble that we are each sons and daughters of God and that Yeshua was our most powerful leader. That would come closer to the Islamic interpretation of the "God-part" than the Christian one, I believe.
In that case, it would not be that we are "compelled to perceive a spiritual reality" but that our feeble lips and minds have trouble explaining the wonders within us, much like Yeshua was before being baptised.
Why would we have "evolved such an instinct?" There is no reason to believe that it was part of evolution. There is no reason I can discern why it would not be present in every living thing. I believe it is, and I could argue a good case for it.
As to fearing death, there is no need. Every part of nature suggests that recycling is the norm. That's not reincarnation, as is believed by Buddhists and Hindus. There's more to it than that.
When you go to a fair, you may go on a ride. To do this, you must buy a ticket (conception), waiting in line (40 weeks), then you get to go on the ride. When the ride is over, you must leave, even if the operator shortened your ride by a couple of minutes. However, once off, you have more choices.
In our case, the ride is not for fun or to challenge the limits of our fear, but to learn. Some learn more than others. Some create more than others. Some raise up more than others. Some just recycle oxygen into carbon dioxide to feed the plants.
Of course God does not have a gender. We only use "he" as a means of reference, the third person pronoun, instead of repeating the name.
God would be pure energy, as would we and all matter if observed from the nano-level. Matter is merely a stronger concentration of energy. There is nothing "solid" about matter--gamma rays go through us constantly and never 9or rarely) hit anything.
The big question would be where we are located in the mass of energy that is the universe we know. Where we are determines our function.
The problem with the creation story is mostly that the Bible says it happened in six days. Nothing about evolution denies the existence of God. In fact, evolution give God a more real sense of purpose, as Darwin saw it.
I don't believe in reincarnation, as I said above, because the concept makes our earthly existence separate from our eternal one. This is a very long story and I don't have time now.
The facts and the matters of faith are entirely on different planes, though facts are sometimes partially used to support faith.
A religious discussion rarely gets other than an emotional one. However, I agree with you that we should not avoid discussions on religion. The suitable atmosphere for such discussions is, first and foremost, to agree to disagree.