I first heard about Pascal’s Wager when I was in high school. My initial reaction, after I understood the logic of the proposition, was to nod and agree. It was definitely logical. And then, I was struck by the monstrous cynicism of the whole idea…that one should make a cold and detached calculation about the most profound spiritual issue imaginable. The hypocrisy of the thing hit me like a ton of bricks. This famous mathematician and philosopher was suggesting that a person could turn on or off such a belief by throwing some sort of mental switch. I certainly did not think that I was capable of any such thing, but I wondered how many religious people had “decided to believe” because they feared the consequences of nonbelief if they were wrong.
Since then, I have probed a bit deeper into Pascal’s thinking, and found that he was not quite as shallow and cynical as I had thought, although his “wager” was certainly part of his mission as a Christian evangelist and apologist. He warned that choosing to believe was no guarantee of salvation, but that the wager should serve as an impetus to attain the true faith that would lead to salvation. I found his “clarification” unconvincing. It still reeked of hypocrisy.
There were many churches in the small Midwestern town where I grew up, but my parents were not churchgoers, so naturally, neither were their children. Their religious views were never discussed at home. It wasn’t that the subject was avoided. It simply didn’t exist as a subject. Of course, I observed the families of some of my classmates attending church on Sundays, but I never felt any discomfort over our lack of participation. On the few occasions where I attended church activities, I found them boring and dreary.
The two infamous words, “under God,” were added to the Pledge in 1954, when I was a senior in high school. Although I was not courageous enough to openly protest, I refused to say them during the daily Pledge recitation by the class. It was my own little private protest.
Prayers were common in schools in those days. Most group ceremonies, graduations, etc. were preceded by an “Invocation” and ended with a “Benediction.” These were given by pastors from local churches, who rotated the privilege amongst themselves. Most people bowed their heads during these, but from the time I was old enough to understand their significance, I sat erect, looking straight ahead. Even then, I felt it would have been dishonest for me to pretend piety, even though I was risking criticism from others who observed my actions. No one ever commented on it. I don’t know if they noticed or not.
The priest for the local Catholic church was a young, handsome and very personable guy in his thirties or early forties. Everyone called him “Father K,” because his surname was one of those Polish or Hungarian strings of unpronounceable consonants. I was thinking about him recently, and concluded that he was probably not involved in any of the pedophilic crimes that have come to light in the past few years. One of the reasons for my doubt is that the Church had thoughtfully provided him with a live-in “housekeeper,” a very attractive…no, make that voluptuous…young woman. My friends and I, with the help of our raging teenage hormones, fantasized endlessly about what went on in that large house on the corner where they lived. There were some titillating rumors. The good Father was having trouble with plugged drains, and called in a plumber, who found that the toilet was plugged with used condoms. It probably wasn’t true, but the arrangement certainly made a lot of sense, and probably reduced the danger to altar boys significantly. I couldn’t help thinking, though, about the Church’s insistence on the celibacy of its priests, and the apparent condoning of this arrangement. The stench of hypocrisy pervaded the whole thing. Nevertheless, my companions and I were verdant with envy of the good Father.
Even though I found organized religion tedious, unbelievable and boring, I hadn’t given a lot of thought to the question of the existence of God. I was more interested in the really important things in life…football, basketball and girls. It wasn’t until I graduated and started my first year of college that I started to think about it a little more seriously.
In the fall of 1954, I was just starting my first college English class. The professor asked each of us to write a short essay of 500 words on any subject. I chose the topic, “Religion…Its Value to Society.” I wish I had saved that paper. I don’t remember much that I wrote, but the teacher selected it to read to the class and gave me an A+ grade! I think the main theme was that, although I wasn’t sure about the existence of God, and I didn’t believe in the myths associated with any of the Christian religions, I thought that religion probably provided a useful function of social unification. I remember saying that its value went beyond getting the farmer to “wash his neck once a week,” which got a big laugh from the class.
Since those long-ago days, I have continued to study and observe the effects of organized religion on our society, and other societies around the world. Over the years, my opinion of religion has changed considerably. Most people tend to “mellow” as they get older, losing their youthful idealism and passion. In my case, the opposite has happened. The longer I live, and the more I see, the less use I have for religion. I am not sure I would go as far as Christopher Hitchens, who says in his latest book, “God Is Not Great,” that religion is a destructive force in the world. It is beyond amoral. It is immoral and evil.
Other writers on the subject have criticized Hitchens, saying that he goes too far. Even his friends, writers Richard Dawkins (“The God Delusion”) and Sam Harris (“The End of Faith”) are quietly critical. But having just finished “God Is Not Great,” I must say that Hitchens has got it right. I can think of no redeeming value for any organized religion. They are individually, and taken as a group, the single most destructive force humanity has ever seen, and they continue to wreak their mayhem to this day, promoting ignorance, intolerance and misery. If any human organization on the planet is capable of destroying human life, possibly even ALL life on earth, religion is the one.
I have concluded this reluctantly, and with sad forebodings, because I see the current course of events, with escalating confrontations between Christianity and Islam, inevitably leading to nuclear terrorism, followed by massive nuclear war. If that happens, the ecosphere will be poisoned and uninhabitable for untold centuries into the future. Only devoutly religious extremists in both camps could welcome such an outcome. The only way it can be avoided, in my opinion, is if the secular communities come together and refuse to let it happen. And the only way that can happen is if the influence of the organized religions of the world is greatly reduced or completely eliminated. It is the only way we can survive.
I am not hopeful that this will happen, or that it will happen in time to save us. The dominant voices from our pulpits and from the mosques of Islam are spewing hate and intolerance, inflaming their followers, provoking them to riot and attack anyone with opposing views, condoning the most horrific atrocities. As Hitchens says, governments have become adept at manipulating their citizens through sophisticated propaganda in the government-controlled media. This is happening today, both here and abroad. The Rapturists and Islamists welcome the coming Armageddon that they are planning and supporting. It will only be prevented if we non-lunatics, the secular humanists and the less devout Christians and Muslims, take matters into our own hands. We should have done it yesterday. Today is our last chance. Tomorrow may be too late.
I may have started life as a casual skeptic in our God-fearing society, but I have now evolved to the point where I see the approaching danger. The next and final step of my evolution is into a full-fledged activist, seeking to save us from the catastrophe that some of our fellow citizens welcome or accept fatalistically. I do NOT accept such a fate. I want my children and theirs and many more generations beyond to inherit this beautiful planet and live out fulfilling and meaningful lives. Anyone who promotes our destruction is my enemy, and I will fight him with all the self-righteousness that he hypocritically invokes to further his despicable and profoundly immoral religious goals.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 208
Religion is rife with arrogance and hypocrisy. Arrogance to think that one can be certain of the mind, intent or nature of God. Hypocrisy by acts of violence against others of different beliefs, by those who are so willing to do harm to God's works, be it people or planet, and all in God’s name.
Islam means “Peace” and Jesus preaches “Love thy brother as thyself”. I’m down with all of that. Sometimes I feel as if I believe more purely in Jesus than many Christians.
Bringing on Armageddon by the religious extremists may be nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophesy based in an inherent insecurity of belief. Those who are secure in their beliefs have no reason for self-validation and are content to “live and let live”.
I disagree that religion is evil. There are many good works performed by religious groups. Consider the work of Mother Theresa or the many Christians in the Netherlands and elsewhere who risked their lives to save Jews from the gas chambers of Nazi Germany.
It is humans who have the capacity for evil. This evil knows no bounds and can be found in any human endeavor, be it religion, politics, business or society.
The Devil won’t necessarily appear as a horned, red-skinned demon with a tail and pitchfork. Sometimes the Devil looks great in a suit and tie with a flag pin in his lapel, or chooses instead a priest’s collar and apparel.
At best I can only admit to a sense of agnosticism. In the case of a non-physical concept such as God, existence or non-existence simply cannot be established.
I do find myself using terms such as “God”, “prayer”, “Devil”, “spirit” and such in order to communicate on these topics with theists, but I do not have the same interpretation or attachment to these terms as the people I am engaging in conversation.
I do believe that religion, like politics, is divisive. The divisiveness of both religion and politics is due to choosing to elevate our differences over our commonalities. In both cases this is an inappropriate thing to do. Whenever we are severely tested we find our commonality will trump our differences. Why can this not be the nominal state of human affairs? The answer again is human insecurity.
Here’s a clip from one of my articles concerning the role of faith in politics:
To summarize my thoughts on this topic:
- There is a significant difference between faith (i.e. religion) and spirituality.
- Religion does sometimes lead to spirituality, but many times it does not.
- One does not require religion to become a spiritual person.
- One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person.
- Faith is divisive and separates us.
- Spirituality is universal and unites us.
- It is our sense of spirituality, not religion or faith, that compels us to moral and ethical behavior.
I believe one should keep their religion and faith within the privacy of the home and their chosen place of worship. But by all means, DO bring your spirituality to the Public Square.
In addition to all the points you have made, Bert, about the dangers of organized religion, I would add the following. Even those who are not a part of organized religions, even the "quiet believers" are damaging to the progress of the betterment of mankind. It is the mindset of faith based thought that erodes the process of reasonable and logical deduction. This inability to adhere to reality based cognitive reasoning is a huge barrier between the problems we face, both individually and as a society, and workable, definable solutions. "It's in god's hands" is NOT A SOLUTION nor is it a strategy for finding a solution.
And so I have rejected the title of "atheist", although I am an atheist, and I have assumed the title of "anti-theist". If Christianity can have it's "Christian soldiers, Atheism can have it's activists. I'm with you Bert.
You have said that "whenever we are severely tested we find our commonality will trump our differences" and yet you say that this does not happen...in our normal state of affairs...."Why can this not be the nominal state of human affairs?"
You answer yourself..."The answer again is human insecurity"
I submit to you that the reason for "human insecurities" is the practice of self deceit...the practice of "faith" in depending upon that "faith" rather than facing our own problems and finding our own solutions. This is an exact example of the weakness of religion or any faith based spirituality....insecurity.
Eric Hoffer writes, "Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves."
And so, the race for the answers to our questions (and our problems) becomes a circular chase around the same track of insecurity.
If I'm right, there may not be heaven or there may be and all those who have lived their lives trying to make the world better (religion, color, nation, sexual preference etc. regardless) will move forward in whatever plan there is. In my belief system, people who have not done so will either have to start over or, if they're too far gone, they just disappear. So I don't worry whether I have it "exactly" right or not; I just try to be the best person I can. If there is no God, that works too. Being a good person is its own reward, if you ask me.
If I'm wrong, though, and God is the petty tyrant many a religious fanatic claims, I'm still happier believing otherwise because I refuse to worship such a creature, and can't be bribed to hate my fellow man with promises of heaven. I'll be happier in hell with all my friends.
I also found a couple of other things interesting. Your evolution was one. The other thing I've noticed, and this article made me think of it again, is that especially here on Gather, atheists seem to have a compulsion for talking about their atheism. Their thoughts are probably not going to change the mind of a believer, so that can't be the reason that unbelievers choose to make it such an issue. Sometimes I think they do to make it known to others, unequivocally, that they couldn't possibly be involved with such lack of perspicuity.
I know I don't think often about the fact that I do believe. It's really only when I see articles by Atheists here that it makes me pause to think that I do. Sometimes I think Atheists might be, subconsciously, trying to validate their unbelief for themselves and, at the same time, get the corroboration and support of others who think like they do. Do you think that's at all possible, Bert? Good story. Thanks!
This is an excellent essay; well-written, clearly-stated, and thoughtful.
I have no desire to influence your thinking, or to change you in any way.
I do believe that a lot of 'trouble' with the discussions about the word "GOD" are importantly SEMANTIC. We carry 'images' of GOD into our deliberations about creative manifestations (usually about us HUMAN BEINGS) and our human likenesses or unlikenesses about HIM. The great problem -- as I see comparative religions and then the deliberations about the features of each religion compared with another -- is deeply related to the notion of 'ANTHOPOMORPHISM'. GOD AS A PERSON much like each of us EARTH born living human beings. WE need a much broader vision of what the word GOD means.
When I was a young man after gaining a deep interest in mathematics while a teen, I read about Pascal in various places. I was somewhat interested in PROBABILITY THEORY then but didn't really didn't get absorbed in it until I went to Graduate School after WWII. My "BIBLE" in mathematics plus, as a teenager. was E.T.Bell's masterwork titled "MEN OF MATHEMATICS" and his discussion about Blaise Pascal was an eye opener for me (from the perspective of Probability Theory, etc). The Chapter in Bell was titled "GREATNESS AND MISERY OF MAN". Bell's view (he was a professor at the California Institute of technology then) was that Pascal (1623-1662) was a child prodigy and indeed he was. His interests ranged widely and in his early years he was a geometer and physicist, not a probabilist. His later works extended to literature and religious perspectives and theories and he is still noted for his two major literary works : (1) Pensees, and (2) Provincial Letters. Philosophically he should not be taken lightly because, curiously, he was regarded most highly then as a fine physicist.
Recall too that Newton has been described in Wikipedia as "an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian". In those times many great persons were learning to think deeply about the relationship of both religion and sciences. Newton was a Pascal 'near' contemporary : (1643-1727), although Pascal was older than Newton. The quest among great scientists and mathematicians still persists but is casting out the idea of the anthropomorphic imagery that dominates the concepts that most of us have about GOD as a PERSON, and the features of GOD are frequently ascribed to the PROPHETS who are the archetypes of the religion they represent. I would suggest that I suspect that both Pascal and Newton (add in Descartes and Leibniz too) did NOT have a narrow view of the meaning of the word 'GOD'!
There is NOW however a 'driver' that will never be let go -- or at least probably for hundreds more of years: WONDER. EXISTENTIAL WONDER about WONDER and the existence of complex, functioning, living forms are engaging thoughtful persons more and more. Interest in String Theory, Sophisticated particle theory physics, Molecular biology, Evolutionary theory and Evolutionary biology, Astrophysics and Cosmology are 'moving in' -- slowly but carefully on those existent features (i.e. known forces like the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetic forces, and GENERALIZED gravitational forces) -- and find them -- thus far -- wanting in explanatory power to deal with the organizational and information content needs that explain say -- how a human child can be created and then automatically(?) grow into a thinking, feeling, creating human being : a DIVINE entity!
Sciences are on varied paths that are aimed at finding answers for the existence of life forms, to say the least. Anthropomorphisms will give way to deeper and finer notions of the character of what we refer to (carelessly) as a GOD with a long beard and a common loving character. The words that Physics is slowly giving up are indicative: "Natural Laws" are now being referred to as "RULES' and the current accepted notion about the state of 'String Theory' is that "it, STRING THEORY is NOT YET PHYSICS, IT IS STILL MATHEMATICS and PROBABILITY THEORY". The implication here is that NOT ALL can be explained by reference to 'materiality-physicality' and that room must be made to the rational need that must be explored to understand Super-symmetry (ies) and Super-partners and the REALNESS -- if any -- of dark matter, dark energy, AND perhaps something new -- dark information in the make up of the COSMOS.
You may well know that Pascal had intellectual and emotional issues in his life (read E.T.Bell) but in those days almost 400 years ago we didn't have the sciences we have now to speculate and to seek the meanings and the complex material entity forms to start to understand better the concepts of both BEAUTY and WONDER. Religions of the future will have to deal with these emergent realities, and then ALTER their beliefs and their specialized semantics. Our UNIVERSE is HUGE : billions and billions of galaxies and stars and solar systems and planets and black holes and etc, etc. WONDER FULL is this UNIVERSE (or perhaps UNIVERSES) of ours and there may be many other miraculous entities all over the 'place'.
On our planet, Bert, there are GODS.
I see human beings, and most every-thing and every-thought , as divine, mysterious, and miraculous and potentially very unique and creative when personal consciousnesses and skills are sufficiently developed. Therefor WE THE PEOPLE are the important DIVINE purpose that is slowly being created by whatever is busily creating -- out there and in here. PASCAL's WAGER is a good way to start ruminating about the deeper meanings implicit in his early insight that possibly saved his sanity. Its a bet worth making. Or is it?
Dick
You stated, "I have concluded this reluctantly, and with sad forebodings, because I see the current course of events, with escalating confrontations between Christianity and Islam, inevitably leading to nuclear terrorism, followed by massive nuclear war."
This is religion and science merging for the destruction of the living.
I'm not atheist. There is a chance of a God, indescribable to any human. It may be a living entity.. and it may not be full of love for man or beast. It may be a God who propagates lies in order to control, and may be the head of all organized governments. In that sense, God and religion are not separate.
As for Pascal’s Wager, it's manipulative, begging for us to gamble away free thought, still live in fear of an eternal hell and separation for not having the mindset of conformity and obedience to an unknown monstrous authority.
Certainly, as we consider the writings of Pascal...his personal struggle with the conflict of reason and rationality vs faith....hard cold mathematics vs intuitiveness...we can gain from his frightened perspective...a perspective formed in part by his place in time and the prevalent attitude of his era, about religion ...as you have mentioned. Pascal's sanity may have been saved by his acceptance of science with it's imperfections and his daring to face the question of god as a creator.
Thomas Hobbes thought that the inherent religiousness of man further complicates the advancement of fearless inquisition. I agree and this is why I do not agree that Pascal's Wager is one worth making. It is a useless tangent to the subject of our search for real answers. If we agree to assign certain questions be be left answered by our scientific discoveries, haven't we in effect defeated our purpose? Haven't we assigned a point at which we can no longer pursue our effort to explain our mysteries?
The assumption of the divine...that we have been created by whatever is "busily creating" is one of limitations, in my opinion, and a hindrance to open minded inquiry.
Did you miss the whole point of Bert's post? I think you must have or you wouldn't have made that comment and indeed the same as been said about the efforts of the "believers" to spread the gospel. Have you considered that the opposition to the efforts of the evangelical believers would not be necessary if religion was quiet and did not seek to recruit....to spread the "good news". If the faithful were quiet and spiritualness was private...you would not have read Bert's post. He would never have written the article.
I was reading a Time magazine yesterday while waiting for a doctor's apptmt and the cover story was about Mark Twain (living in the Hartford area, his is a name that comes up on a fairly regular basis). His writings, some not published until after his death, on religion and god were surprising, and very honest.
The author of the article, Roy Blount, JR., states:
"Religiosity prevailed in Twain's era but not in his heart. Though one of his closest friends, Joseph Twichell, was a minister, Twain derided religons - Christianity, in particular - and the notion of a benevolent deity.... He was a more interesting disbeliever in some ways than today's Bill Maher or Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens, who readily dismiss religion as inflammatory nonsense. ....What put Twain off about religion was its bossiness and its alignment with corrupt community values that peple - those stnading to profit - insisted on calling a higher power. The very expression "moral sense" made him curl his lip. He denounced his own conscience, which frowned upon his anarchic instincts, his love of enjoyment, and made him feel guilty and rebellious...."
The article goes on....I would highly recommend it to you as I think you would enjoy it. I am a huge fan of Twain. It is in the July 14, 2008 Time issue.
Again, thanks for a great article.
Unless I'm missing posts, I just don't see articles evangelizing here, but what I do see are lots of articles by Atheists, in one way or another, talking about their atheism, why they think the way they do, why it's illogical to think any other way, etc. It was just a thought that I had before that they're looking for support and corroboration, or as I also offered, a way to distinguish themselves by making sure everyone is aware that they are far away and apart from the inscrutable thinking of believers. This article was just another reminder of my previous thoughts.
I agree.
"Unless I'm missing posts, I just don't see articles evangelizing here,"
You are missing a lot of posts.
You may have a valid point, that in SOME cases, SOME of us who share the non-belief of the atheists do need to know that we are not alone or that we have support. The effort to pray in public, build structures that command attention, recruit followers, save souls, convert the "sinful non believers", proselytize, put fish symbols on cars and control Sunday morning television is an effective announcement to the believers that they have company....and support. The atheist has few methods by which he can associate himself with those who share his non belief. Is the effort of the atheist so seek the company of like minded people to be condemned?
I won't speak for Bert to explain the purpose for his article and I don't really see how his point can be mistaken. I see YOUR POINT about your thoughts of atheists needing "support and corroboration", but I see no connection with what Bert has said and your perception of the "needs" of atheists.
A few comments on your comments:
To Sue, who wonders why I wrote this...Michael has it right. This is part of my "evolution." I am becoming more outspoken about these things in my old age. I agree that I will not change any truly devout minds, but I hope there are some waverers out there who might be swayed. Of course, Gather is not the place to have a noticeable effect. But one has to practice to develop the skills for any game. Gather is my "gymnasium."
To Mike...You should read more about Mother Teresa. Her clinic glorifies suffering instead of healing...she adamantly opposes supplying condoms in Africa to limit the spread of Aids...she preaches humility and poverty, but lives a very different and comfortable life herself. There's more.
Dick...I always learn much from your posts. You speak of the other 'miracles' that we may discover in the Universe, and that "religions of the future" will have to deal with them. As Michael H says, religions don't try to explain or understand. In fact they are a hindrance to understanding, attributing unexplainable phenomena to supernatural powers. And then, unless these new religions show an unprecedented tolerance, investigation of those phenomena will be discouraged because it would undermine the faith. Heresy! Blasphemy! Or at least pressure on government and businesses to withhold funding from any activity deemed threatening to the faith. Stem cell research is a good example of how this works today, and I am skeptical that any future religion would act differently.
Sheryl O...I share your admiration of Mark Twain. I just read two essays that he wrote on this subject: "Thoughts of God" and "Bible Teaching and Religious Practice." The first is a marvelous little satirical piece about the "design" of the fly. It anticipates the "Intelligent Design" efforts to impose Biblical teachings in our schools with an artful little piece asking why God designed the fly. The second piece is more serious, and deals with religion's role in may of the atrocities of human history, in particular, slavery. It's a truly damning piece, if you'll pardon the expression. These essays, along with 45 more, are collected in another book by Christopher Hitchens, "The Portable Atheist...Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever." It contains essays by important philosophers and thinkers from Medieval times up to the present. I am in the middle of it at the moment, and I highly recommend it.
"The distinction, Sue B, though, is that most other ideologies can be questioned and may fall due to logic or education. Why organized religion can be tied to so much historical atrocity is that it tends to discourage independent thinking and can be wielded sans logic based on faith."
Stephanie, when it comes to groups and the group mentality is to promote their agenda and wield their power through that organization, all logic goes out the window. There is no logic to the corruption that absolute power can engender through its employment by any group. To think that logic is involved when people wield power to destroy then we're talking about barbarian thought. Perhaps it is just, as you say, other groups do use logic, but I've already defined that kind of logic.
I'm out the door, and late as usual...
I feel like I should frame that and put it on the wall over my computer, Stephanie.
Of course, that is EXACTLY what religions are all about.
The Christian religion has been the biggest contributor to this problem since it's inception. That due to the early framers of it's concepts such as (Saint) Augustine who distorted Plato's and Aristotle's higher truth into the Duality that has evolved to this day, a separation between the divine and the worldly with no recognition for all practical purposes of the Spiritual involvement that is actually ubiquitous, recognised or not.
The Spiritual, being symbolized as (=) between polarized dualities (+=-), that which "bridges" (=) the "void" (/) of dualism as it at the same time transforms and transcends the former to the latter, (+/-)<(+=-).
The point being, that "Theists" generally look at God in a dualistic manner as the (+) related to the non-Godly, the (-) ...
Atheists then look at themselves the same but reversed, they see themselves as wiser (+) than the Theists who are then (-) ... all a matter of dualistic preferences.
Enter generic Spirituality, a relatively 3rd choice, a compromise of sorts, yet a true personal relationship with the Spirit of God that allows God to be basically the source of all as a simple neutral concept of unconditional love and higher truth only experienced fully during life by the Spiritual Intelligence that permeates all of the universe, that which acts to connect and bind it all together throughout all time and space as we know it.
Spirituality then amounts to natural truth, has no rules nor regulations, needs no institutions nor organization, it is naturally organizing, based upon the deepest principles coded into our very DNA, that of (+=-). In this regard, it is the epitome of the "grey area" that religion condemns. It is the mystical in experience and the esoteric in understanding, extremely subjective, liberal and forgiving, unconditionally loving and of the very highest truth ...
All reasons that dualistic (exoteric) religions would reject all such, because it is both outside of their understanding and is antithetical to their principles of controlling the masses ... Spirituality is all about personal freedom with the understanding that there is Spiritual accounting via Karma and and all good and bad deeds are noticed, and will be resolved with required experiences in order to learn the rules of cause and effect, thus the greatest rule of all will be the Golden Rule voluntarily lived by each and all ... knowing that there are no accidents nor "innocent" victims involving Karma.
Thus I offer the 3rd choice of (=) in Trinity (+=-) ... rather than the conflicts of polarized Duality (+/-).
(+=-)>(+/-)
(+/-)<(+=-)
IMnsHO.
You speak of "personal freedom" but then there is the "accounting."
That doesn't sound all that different from conventional religions and their god's "judgment" to me.
Bert, God as I know of "IT" is really not so definable other than to list the things one "thinks" their God is all about. Thus a dualist sees God as (+) ... (at least one who claims to believe in a God).
I could also call God a (+) ... in some cases ... but only in a "relative" sense compared to a (-) ... otherwise God is a neutral (=) as is God's Spirit that I mentioned.
Said Spirit is then that which is throughout all space and time as we perceive of it, Karma is just about "balance" (=) between (+=-), the fulfilment of "cause and effect."
I may have called it a rule earlier, and I may have said there are no laws, but there is one major law in the universe which is that of the BET, the Basic Equation of Truth as (+=-) ...
It states that for everything there will be an equal but opposite ... and those interconnected by the Spiritual "equalizer" (=).
God (=) "created" (allowed, is, whatever) the universe ... has no requirements of the aspects of the universe (which are just panentheistically "parts" of said God) other than that they operate, as they naturally must, within the parameters of (+=-) where God is the outer defining limit of any consideration (the nature of an entire universe) as the symbols ( ) ... which withIN the very center of any natural truth, the strongest there, is the Spirit (=) of said God (=) ...
In other words, any chaos seen in the universe is only that "apparent" disorder viewed by the non-spiritual that is not aware of the completely ordered nature of the universe through God's Spirit which interconnects everything and makes sense of it all, providing a time and place for the orderly happenstance of everything that transpires based upon cause and effect, action and reaction, ... Karmically accounted for based upon truths, and NOT judgemental because there are no rules to be "broken" because Karma is the only (so called rule) and it can never be broken because it is all about eternal balance ... and balance is a given in the spiritual universe of (+=-).
Thus one who knowingly participates within (+=-) knows without a doubt (some may call it mere faith) that what goes around comes around, that to live by the sword means to die by the sword, that as you sow, so shall you reap ... there being no fear for those doing what they believe right based upon (+=-) because they know that the lessons will be taught in the best way at the best time for their greater overall good.
Karma is thus also neutral in that it is simply accounting, non-judgemental, absolutely equal because that is what God and Spirit are ... giving us complete freedom to experiment in that learning for however long it takes us to learn, in however many different realms or dimensions, however many differing "lifetimes" ... free choice does mean the eventual self responsibility realization.
As for atheists feeling a need to explain their beliefs, 80-plus % of Americans claim to believe in "God". I suspect that many of them are reluctant to admit to a pollster that they DON'T. It's far easier to just say "yes" than to explain the shades of belief expressed above. Too many Americans have that "duality" that Jerry mentions.
Gather, on the other hand, is a forum where such ideas can be discussed, understood and even accepted by participants.
"Most of you I know well from past discussions, and I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I am sorry that we did not get any response from the "other side." But this is the way discussions on Gather seem to go usually. Nobody wants to jump into the "lion's den." It's safer to stick with kindred spirits...if you'll pardon the expression."
Bert, I find this to be a rather interesting comment. I couldn't possibly be more diametrically-opposed to your way of thinking. However, that does not preclude me from complimenting you on your expression, and your writing.
I knew that you disagreed, from our previous discussions, and I appreciate your comments.
So, don't stop now...dive in and tell my why my atheistic views are wrong. I GUARANTEE you that your arguments will be treated seriously and with respect.
The hypocrisy of the thing hit me like a ton of bricks.
That ton of bricks is the gift that keeps on giving.
The underlying irrationality of your perspective rendering the conclusion that Pascal was being hypocritical, is revealed, I believe, in this statement;
"And then, I was struck by the monstrous cynicism of the whole idea…that one should make a cold and detached calculation about the most profound spiritual issue imaginable."
You see, if there is in FACT no God, then there is nothing particularly "profound" about the "issue". That is indeed, a part of what Pascal was saying, I think. Without God, there is nothing at all significant about spirituality. It is whatever one makes of it, for there is no other mind but man's to give a rodents rear end about such things. Even the concept that man has "spirituality" fades to mere speculation, never, ever, to be resolved.
I appreciate that there is an element of "cold hard" logic in what Mr. Pascal spoke, but then there is a cold hard aspect to existence itself. Much as many decry the God of the Book for dealing straight forwardly with the blatant reality of man's violent nature, and the obvious history of wars and persecution; as if that were some sort of evidence that God must not be loving, and somehow therefor not really the "True" God, the Book claims to have been "authored" by . . . so too the notion that facing the cold hard facts of life, is somehow an indication that folks that believe in that God are hypocritical.
If God had written a Book that denied the history, and nature of man revealed by it, I could easily see dismissing it as non-sense. And if believing in God did not add up to cold hard wisdom, all the way down to the nitty gritty of the self's interest in such matters . . . I could see finding religious folks gullible too. It seems many have little patience for thinking things through. For it cannot both be true that "believers" are too gullible, and too realistic. You've left no place for them to even exist.
I disagree that Pascal was only applying the logic to the "non-existence" case. In fact, quite the opposite. He was using his "wager" to tilt others toward belief.
I will leave for others to debate you about whether there can be spirituality without God.
I am not the one to answer that, since I believe in neither.
I will say this...the existence...or non-existence...of God has nothing to do with the mind of Man. That is a solipsism, suggesting that nothing exists outside the mind of Man. I think what IS...IS...(regardless of Clinton's questioning that definition.)
The "God of the Book" not only dealt with man's violent nature...he contributed to it, extolled it, encouraged it, COMMANDED his followers to commit all manner of atrocities. (I am talking here about the Old Testament, of course.)
I think my introspection is what others consider their God or spirituality. I have the knowledge and strength and need only to go inside to find it.
You're as good as a comedian for me at times;
"I will leave for others to debate you about whether there can be spirituality without God.
I am not the one to answer that, since I believe in neither."
Yes I know that, and yet, there you are speaking of the hypocrisy of those who introduce the actual ramifications of denying an all-powerful God's existence . . . you crack me up . . .
"I will say this...the existence...or non-existence...of God has nothing to do with the mind of Man. That is solipsism, suggesting that nothing exists outside the mind of Man. . . . "
You really need to think things through a bit further. You just declared yourself a solipsist dude. A person that believes there is a real God, beyond their mind, cannot be a solipsist, by definition.
"The "God of the Book" not only dealt with man's violent nature...he contributed to it, extolled it, encouraged it, COMMANDED his followers to commit all manner of atrocities."
Oh, I see, you happen to KNOW that the beings God had excised from His own family, were innocent victims of His irrational violence . . . Never mind the story itself, from which ALL such speculation necessarily derives, wherein He clearly gives perfectly rational reasons for why it was actually His concern for the non-mutants we call 'humans', which led Him to employ an obscure slave population to "surgically remove" only those whom were NOT intended to be here. No, it would be ever so kind of Him to allow the complete corruption of the entire human race . . . or just off the whole she-bang, so Bert could feel all warm and cozy about His cuddly nature . . .
I thank God, you're not God.
We're all getting somewhere by these ever deepening discussions as we try to UNDERSTAND 'the WONDER of our MYSTICALLY derived UNIVERSE.
You, Jerry. seem to be on your way to giving us a 'deep 'equation' pattern' to explore : (+/-) < (+=-)
>> The first collection of terms, (+/-), suggests to me the need to explore the finitistic character of all religions as we seek to find an ever improving path toward a grander 'ecumenism by RECONCILIATIONS' among the religions of our (infinitesimal) WORLD. I think we all see the advantages of dissolving differences and conflicting dogmas among -- especially -- the largest religions on our precious planet;
>> the less than symbol , "<" . speaks to me to two aspects of needed further inquiry : (1) we must embark on ways to clarify the meanings and implications of (+/-) [the too many disparate doctrines we note that are present in our collections of religions and thus beliefs], and (2) introduce into our deliberations the notion of the character of the spiritual IDEALS that all of us seem to be reaching out to find and implement;
>> Finally we must come to a deep understanding that knowledge, via aesthetic and experimental and scientific awarenesses in our search for truth, must hinge on the notion of (+=-) which I see as a search for the deepest meanings of LIFE ON EARTH needs of all of us human beings. and the bases for growth of HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS rooted in EXISTENTIAL and SPIRITUAL (intellectually based) WONDER (that in physics terms are both visible and not visible; fermionic and bosonic).
The BET that you suggest Jerry, bears a lovely relationship to Pascal's ''WAGER'. the Basic Equation of Truth. I do think, as you have often expressed in the past -- that our futures are (at least) a major part of the human responsibility for each of us (with SPIRITUALITY's help, I presume). It is my contention that each human being on this planet is a living miracle from an engineering perspective and is, in a meaningful sense, DIVINE (especially our progeny).
My concern, as you know, is to place the great question of the existence of the inscrutable CUP (Creating Universal Process) into human deliberations to clarify what we mean by the 'POWERS of GOD or of an inscrutable (intelligent) NATURE'. It is very important to distinguish notions of GOD in discourse : the anthropomorphic view and the non-anthropomorphic view. GOD as PERSON; GOD as PROCESS. We must learn to KNOW how to exploit the notion that the human race (on THIS -- one among billions of other planets in this mysterious UNIVERSE) must reach some cross-over point in UNDERSTANDING of our WONDROUS (living?) UNIVERSE before we can know with some acceptable degree of CERTAINTY that the creation of ISNESS was not a Universal local effect of some unintelligent chaotic formative tendency of the NON-LIVING Universe.
This thread, which Bert has set for us via his personal quest for ever deeper self-revelation and exploration can be backed up by many similar experiences that I suspect many of us have had as we lived our lives to this point. The basis for inquiry into Spirituality and its diverse meanings will go on and on (just as it has in the past) while PROGRESS -- via mistakes and understandings --come and go, and get remembered or forgotten. That's the nature of PROGRESS toward a grander IDEAL, I guess and suggest.
Jerry, thanks for the important simplifications in thought and feeling creation.
Dick
I believe the existence or non existence of god has EVERYTHING to do with the mind of man. I believe god is man's creation and that man created a god because of the psychological "need" to do several things...to accomplish several different but intertwined effects. The two most distinct requirements of man are a spiritual craving for the comfort of having answers or assurances and a political need to unite and control. The bottom line is that man needs an authority, an ultimate authority, an authority who cannot be challenged. and that authority can be used for his purpose of personal comfort and for political control.
But the problem of describing this ultimate authority has resulted in many different notions of the portrayal of god. Some have seen god as an immanent force IN the world....the god of the pantheists....a concept of the universe being contained by god, but with god in control...god as nature but being readily available for our contact and even allowing humans to speak for him.
Or we have described god as a remote god....a hands off god who allows us to make our mistakes, fight our wars, suffer our diseases. We can ask for his help, but he may not be willing to give help. He has abandoned us for the most part, but will intervene at his will and by his own method. We may not understand his will or his method, but that is not our place. Some believe that the remote god has placed intermediary gods between Him and us to act as His agents, but who sometimes do a lousy job and who are sometimes evil themselves.
We also have the transcendent god. The transcendent god is the god of the Hebrew Bible. He is not from this world nor is he remote from this world. He is the only god and he is beyond the world but omnipresent. He acts to punish us and to reward us and He offers explanations for his actions.
All of these gods and all of the variations of these gods are the concepts of man. This is why I feel that the existence or non existence of god has EVERYTHING to do with the mind of man.
I don't think we have tired to deceive ourselves...made conscious efforts to pacify ourselves....but mankind has fallen for or been led to falsehoods of convenience.
"The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds." ERIC HOFFER
Thank You for the invitation.
I certainly won't tell you that your atheistic views are wrong! What you say "of Religion" is accurate. And those "accuracies" have spawned the misconceptions held in the many comments above. Allow me a most simple example, as stated by a Mike W., above:
- "One does not require religion to become a moral or ethical person."
This statement is certainly accurate. Surely, one who is without "religion" is capable of moral and ethical behaviour. Conveniently omitted, however, is the Truth; Religion is not that issue. Deception is a powerful tool.
So, Bert, the Answer is there for All to see; and the Gift of "sight" is for All to enjoy.
"The Wisdom of the Wise He will frustrate"...and this issue will forever remain between You... and Him...
Thanks for coming back. I respect your views and would not try to change them, any more than you try to change mine. Your faith gives you something that you need...solace?
I don't need it, have never needed it. I think we both can live with our differences. It's too bad that so many people have found that they cannot, because it poses a great threat to the rest of us.
Michael...Of course, I agree with you that God is an invention of man...but that doesn't make him any more real than the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
You are speaking in circles, John. God "excised" people whom he had created! If he is so all powerful and all-knowing, why were such undesirables allowed to exist? And why didn't he just whisk them off the planet? Why bother with delegating that task and enabling all the blood and mayhem? To say that man is a "non-mutant" is to deny the known evolutionary path of the human species for the past 150,000 years or so. You need to read a little paleoanthropology. I recommend "Evolution...What the Fosils Say and Why It Matters," by Donald R. Prothero.
As for what I would do if I were God...read this.
You are right, unfortunately. But wouldn't it be nice if they were "quarantined" so the rest of us could live in peace, at least for awhile?
But wouldn't it be nice if they were "quarantined" so the rest of us could live in peace. . .?
Don't stop there Bert - think "Final Solution", think "Eugenics". . .You're standing on the shoulders of giants. . .of supermen. . .
-Mark
I'm glad Micheal has (perhaps unintentionally) revealed the apparent sloppiness in your use of language which generated an extremely complex "declaration" of your own solipsist condition . . . for I dreaded actually laying out the logos here. I believe what you "meant" to say, was; The existence, or non existence of God, is not dependant upon the mind of man. Which is something I agree with. "Has nothing to do with", introduces a whole host of potentials, I don't think you actually intended.
Unfortunately, you display a similar "disregard for the details" of your own rhetoric, in this little number;
"You are speaking in circles, John. God "excised" people whom he had created! If he is so all powerful and all-knowing, why were such undesirables allowed to exist?"
First you speak as though you didn't get that I implied that God did not "create" those He had excised, and then you immediately begin speaking a though you got that . . . ? It's an indication, I believe, of the inconsistency of your reasoning, which may be responsible for your failure to grasp the ramifications of a "real God", as opposed to the "idea of a God" which seems to be as far as you've gotten in your personal exploration of this whole "question" of God.
In other areas of thought, that limitation rarely shows its "teeth" the way it does when approaching the question of God. If one skips about in their reasoning, as you do when speaking of the supposed "hypocrisy" of Mr. Descartes in this matter, one has virtually no chance of grasping the significance of any of it. One MUST not allow the "freedom" within one's reactive mind, to be mistaken for one's freedom in reality. The reactive mind, simply has no "Law", for its very function is to provide alternatives to what seems "reasonable" to the being at any given point.
Your questions along the lines of; "Why didn't God just . . . ", are best answered by God, through careful inspection of the Word, for it is the very best explanation possible of these matters, and not just the word 'dogma' repeated millions of times. You are essentially asking for the most intricate and beautiful literary work in the history of man, to be summarized like a TV News sound bite, so you don't have to actually deal in anything more than mere opinions.
I can answer your questions (to some extent), but I cannot reproduce the wisdom of the Book, which gives life to those answers. I will simply say that God is so unbelievably fair, that He will not violate any of the "rules" He imposes on any other beings. He operates exclusively within His own framework of justice, and affords EVERY opportunity imaginable, for beings to "snap out of it", and do what is right.
The creatures we speak of which were not human, in the fullest sense of the word, were given such opportunities, as they are still. There is in fact, only one specific individual already condemned beyond any possible "salvation" (at the time the Book was written anyway), and that of course would be the one called Satan. His crimes are of a nature so inherently incompatable with an orderly universe, that he is actually "dying", in the ultimate sense, through his own self contradiction. One could say, that Satan has adopted a stance, for which there is no place to stand.
For me to explain such things in simple language, is not possible, but it is possible for a person to feebly grasp the explanation (which is all I can manage), through reading God's discussion, with an open-mind, which is to say; Listening as though one were actually listening to God, and not just some human minds, giving their own interpretations. He alone can explain Himself, but not to those who dismiss His voice as one similar to their own. One MUST listen "obediently", as a good student listens to their teacher not as simply another child's voice. A child that does that sort of "equating" of their teacher's thoughts with their own, cannot actually learn, but merely quibble.
Think; Does it not make sense that God (in a communication) would be Himself beyond a human's casual grasp? Does it not make sense that reducing His words ever to the equivalent of those of "wise men", would prohibit the observer from getting the full impact of His voice?
I have not read God is Not Great, The God Delusion or The End of Faith. I do know Hitchens is an avowed atheist and has personally stated so publicly several times. I have learned of the unease his colleagues feel when he becomes the subject of a discussion, due to the militancy of his stance.
The concept of a loving Heavenly Father, Bert, has always comforted me from childhood--whether imagined or real. And as a rule, I try to avoid discussing my beliefs in the open because, as a few of my enlightened colleagues have already pointed out, one's beliefs should be kept private. I wholeheartedly believe that. However, people have come to me and asked and my response is almost always prefaced by this: "I believe in God and this is why. . ."
Depending on what organized religion or religious organization we are writing about here, there is tremendous hypocrisy rampant in both. However, a great deal of that hypocrisy originates from the practitioners, and not the material which serves as the foundation for the belief. Their actions have denigrated the reputation of these specific beliefs from their lofty, historic standing as gospel to a weak sales pitch which might be construed as being deceptive.
And then of course, the Believers (which, Bert, you point out that an alarming number are un-educated and illiterate; sadly, this is true) are avid practitioners of the "louder is better" communication strategy, and consistently talk ten decibels louder than they need to, and oftentimes with a sizable backup chorus. These guys don't help their cause by preventing and preempting penetrating inquiries and investigations into the substance of their beliefs; and the integrity and the authenticity of the material they use to justify their actions, or as tools to compel an unbeliever to convert.
And certainly Pascal's Wager goes against the concept of loving a benevolent holy spirit unconditionally, Bert. Worshipping God with the intent to get to a paradise of some sort is equivalent to marrying a rich person to gain financial freedom; both are relationships of convenience and are invalid as examples of genuine love, due to the impersonality of such arrangements.
When one uses religion in place of education, one is attracting opposition. In truth, there have been many efforts to marry secular teachings to theological curricula, without much success.
I will say this much more about this very alarming work of yours, Bert. Pending my personal analysis of the selected works of Hitchens and Dick Dawkins and Sam Harris, my faith in an entity greater than I is unshakeable. And I still have a desire to accumulate the knowledge necessary to save lives. And any religion that is used to promote hatred of any kind, divisiveness of any sort, violence in any context should be banned vigorously and aggressively, for such is not a religion but an agent of terrorism endorsing unmitigated and senseless hatred, and could even be an instrument to use in mass suppression and obtaining power.
While I find much of your reasoning sound, I have no real choice but to condemn this statement;
"one's beliefs should be kept private. I wholeheartedly believe that."
Freedom has no meaning whatsoever, if one that comes upon something as unspeakably valuable and "enlightening" as the existence of God, is to remain silent about it. There is no possible better discovery one could make, and if speaking of what one has seen with their own eyes, which caries such vast significance and hope, is improper, then nothing at all is to be served by speech of any kind.
you write:
And any religion that is used to promote hatred of any kind, divisiveness of any sort, violence in any context should be banned vigorously and aggressively, for such is not a religion but an agent of terrorism endorsing unmitigated and senseless hatred, and could even be an instrument to use in mass suppression and obtaining power.
While I agree that religion should not be used to PROMOTE hatred, etc. I think it is naive to assume that adherence to true truth will not produce the hatred and divisiveness you seek to avoid. Evidence these passages from Holy Writ:
Jesus' parents were surprised at what Simeon had said. Then he blessed them and told Mary, "This child of yours will cause many people in Israel to fall and others to stand. The child will be like a warning sign. Many people will reject him, and you, Mary, will suffer as though you had been stabbed by a dagger. But all this will show what people are really thinking.
Luke 2:33-35
Jesus said:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Matthew 10:34-35
If the people of this world hate you, just remember that they hated me first. If you belonged to the world, its people would love you. But you don't belong to the world. I have chosen you to leave the world behind, and that is why its people hate you. Remember how I told you that servants are not greater than their master. So if people mistreat me, they will mistreat you. If they do what I say, they will do what you say. People will do to you exactly what they did to me. They will do it because you belong to me, and they don't know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have no excuse for their sin.
John 15:18-22
We have no qualms about receiving a stock tip or a recommendation for a great new Italian restaurant. Just don't bring me that stuff about Jesus Christ - keep that to yourself!
-Mark
But it comes down to this: You justify and defend God's actions to "excise" these people. What do you use for his defense? Scripture! Hold on! The Bible is the Word of God...you keep telling us that. Then the "defense" that you cite is...the Bible, the Word of God. So the Word of God is defending God's actions. Um, circular reasoning, no?
So, let me sum this up: Some people doubt the existence of God. The events in the OT that you discuss are also subject to much doubt. They may never have happened!
So...and this is a CRACKUP, John, really hilarious:
You are using faulty logic, circular reasoning, to defend a God who may not exist, against alleged horrific crimes that may never have happened.
Is this a monstrous practical joke, inflicted on us by some truly evil people thousands of years ago?
Maybe it is all Much Ado About Nothing.
Certainly, nobody in this discussion has a clue about what really happened and who was involved, John.
But it has been an interesting discussion. I am already thinking about another article I could write about this.
Seeya later, John. And stop smokin' that stuff, willya?
"You are using faulty logic, circular reasoning, to defend a God who may not exist, against alleged horrific crimes that may never have happened."
Ain't nothin' circular about it; One cannot dismiss the very story, which one is citing as reason to find fault with a character in the story. Ain't rocket science Sherlock, it's just called reason.
God is not just a "character" in the story. He is the supposedly the author.
How can you possibly call such a defense "reason?"
Sigh. This is pretty silly.
Do we change the rules of reason when God is involved?
No, to see by faith, one must shut the eye of reason. Ben Franklin said that.
So faith-based belief in the stories of the Bible are...beliefs. They have nothing to do with reason.
Now, I have no objection to you believing whatever you want to believe, John.
As you should have none about my beliefs. As Mark-John said, he doesn't agree with me, but he won't try to change my mind. You and I have argued about this stuff for a long time now, and we both know that neither of us is going to change a single neuron in the other's brain. So once again, I leave the floor to you for the last word.
I may come back and read it, but I'm done here unless somebody else shows up with something interesting to say.
I have no idea what the hell you're even talking about half the time. YOU began defaming the God of that BOOK. You did that. I, spoke of the need to actually find out what the Book SAYS of what God does in there, for it makes no sense at all, to ignore the very story, which one is basing such accusations on, and instead just ramble off a bunch of cliche dogmatic judgmentalism based on one's own imaginary God of the Book. Only a tremendously egocentric person, would fail to realize that just defaming any old notions of what that God does in that Book, without regard for what the Book itself says, is LUNACY. Its no different than calling the men that displayed such valor and honor on the beaches of Normandy, murderers, because the accuser figures they were awfully violent that day.
The concepts of a God which you speak of as if self evident, such as that people got hurt, and no all-powerful being would EVER allow that to happen . . . are so incredibly childish, that I can't believe you've given this matter a moment's serious thought, since you were a teen. I mean, really, the notion of a great big God of vegetables, that would NEVER expose his children to anything that even SEEMED to be dangerous or significant, is just so primitive, and unthought out, that its amazing a man your age has gotten no further in considering what such a Being would be faced with, in attempting to raise "children". You're like a kid crying at the end of a Bambi movie, forever . . .
"All nations have represented their gods as wicked, in a constantly increasing progression, that mankind has gone on adding trait after trait till they reached the most perfect conception of wickedness which the human mind could devise and have called this God, and prostrated themselves before it. This ne plus ultra of wickedness (is) embodied in what is commonly presented to mankind as the creed of Christianity. Think of a being who would make a Hell...who would create the human race with the infallible foreknowledge, and therefore with the intention, that the great majority of them were to be consigned to horrible and everlasting torment. The time, I believe is drawing near when this dreadful conception of an object of worship will be no longer identified with Christianity, and when all persons, with any sense of moral good and evil, will look upon it with...indignation.
"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory. . .
Romans 9:14-23
Bert, you are a rebel. I hope that you get the heart surgery you so desperately need. . .
-Mark
Keep on keepin' on, Bert! I don't know how you can tolerate the bible thumping "quoters" who can't write an original word from their own free thinking thoughts.
God is evil by the very writings of The Book they so love to hurl at others.
My heart is fine, thanks...and in the right place.
I do not fear the wrath of your god or any other god...but I do fear the people who worship those gods, declare that only their god is the right god, and demand that others live by their rules. That is the great danger that we all face.
Jerry...very interesting site. Thanks for posting it.
Do you not realize the staggering research and documentaion which exists for any to examine, which demonstrates beyond a rational doubt, that the Book is far and away the most dependable of any ancient writings . . . ten times over? Any bozo can put the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in a shoe box, and claim they don't paint a picture.
And any bozo can pull the pieces of a waterfall out of the box, put them together, and declare it a waterfall. But the rest of us know it is only a picture of a waterfall.
Here is a compilation of several hundred "problems" with the "facts" of history, science and mathematics as they are presented in the Bible.
Here are almost a thousand instances of cruelty and violence incited by God and/or his followers that are documented in the Bible.
There is much, much more...about women and slaves as property, about attacks on homosexuality...it just goes on and on.
But of course, the Koran is just as bad.
God is God , religion is religion.
God is not about morality
Morality is not about GOD
The belief in divinity has existed since time began and will not stop.
How human shape and interpret that experience is called religion.
Most of us here have been raised in the shadow of a religious culture and even if you are atheist you found it necessary to reject it because you thing it creates problems.
People will always be at war wether there is a god or not...it is their nature to find disagreement. The use of god is simply an excuse.
Neither the israeli nor the arabs follow their religion to the letter, they simply use it for their own perverse power struggle.
I believe there is a divine [for lack of a better word] force that guides the universe.
How it works I am not sure but I do know that we are as responsible as any god for the good and the bad that affect us.
The reason we have not destroyed ourself yet might be the variable we are not fully aware of as yet.
The audacity of humans is to claim to know that which they cannot understand, on both side .
you cannot deny something that does not exist.
I'm always glad to see you, but especially appreciate your fresh perspective on the last to threads I've visited.
you cannot deny something that does not exist.
Perhaps. . .but you can deny something that does. God has been clear about Who He is and what our responsibility is toward Him.
He is there and He is not silent. . .
-Mark
I did not deny he exist, only that one cannot deny it if one believes he does not as in the case of an atheist.
All of that because we have open minds and garner our truths from more than two books ... geesh !
Gee whiz Jer, go easy on yourself, for goodness sake. I have every confidence you will eventually realize that NOT reading a book is a rather unreliable way of opening ones mind. Or even not reading two . .
I find your reasoning most sound, but feel you depart from that foundation, when you speak of what is not possible for a person to know. This notion that one's own lack of knowledge or experience MUST pertain to all humans, is I feel a very limiting one. It is unwise I think, to "decide" what a God might do, even if one doubts such a Being actually exists. The logical ramifications of such a Being's reality, demand that one surrender completely, any notion that one is capable of surmising that Being's limits, or intentions.
As I tried to explain to Bert, not being able to "Know" God, in a comprehensive sense, ought not be mysteriously transformed into such a Beings inability to make them-self known in the same way we speak of knowing anything else. After all, who can rightly speak of knowing another person, or even oneself, in a comprehensive sense? We can't, of course, but we can know each other, and ourselves, in a "familiarity" sense, naturally.
When the factual truth exists, that billions of humans have indicated they believe they "know" such a Being, in that familiarity sense, there remains no possible basis for speaking of the foolishness of believing such a thing, except a form of "narcissism", which prohibits one from accepting that they themselves may be "missing" something. You do not so speak, yet to say that others are audacious for thinking they know God . . . comes pretty close. Consider; IF I have been "contacted" by such an Entity . . . what exactly is my choice when speaking of these matters? Do you not think you would be hesitant to deny "in any way shape or form", that They had done such a thing ?
Atheists would do well, I think, to rid themselves of any illusion that they are going to get those whom are cinvinced of that God's existence to shut up about it. Folks ought to realize, that's not a realistic option, for those who "believe" seriously. As they say "wild horses couldn't drag me away . . ". Even the threat of death itself, has no real impact on a man of true faith. One might as well tell them to go to hell, intentionally.
Get over it folks, I say, the chatter will continue about that God.
THIS atheist has no such "illusion" about quieting true believers. The best I can hope for is the preservation of our collective rights to free speech and the freedom to believe or not believe...although I don't see the definition of "freedom to believe or not believe" as being one that is voluntary or completely of free will....at least not entirely. You John, believe what you believe and cannot deny or change your feelings...even if you had the "will" to change your beliefs, you can't. You simply believe and nothing can change your mind.
But just as you, John Knight, and the others who "believe" do so with the complete and confident conviction that you are correct in your beliefs...I and those who share my point of view that there is no supreme being do so with the same self assuredness.
Atheists can be accused of having closed minds... of not being willing to see the "truth" and believers can be accused of the same...."seeing" that which is not there.
No converts to the "side" of religion, faith in a supreme being have been made here. I don't expect any new atheists have been "born". But that is not the point. Bert has vocalized his fear that religious dogma has reached a dangerous level of saturation and produced a new wave of religious zealots. The danger of unbridled "faith"... is when "faith" becomes "fanaticism". It is the fanaticism of religion that is alarming to many of us, both the believer and non believer.
Most believers respect the right of others to not share their views. They think the others, the non believers, are wrong, but still aren't fanatical enough to try to force religion on those who are not of the opinion that a god exists. I have no problem with these believers other than I think they are wrong with their beliefs. (I have a few other problems, but the specifics of my personal perspective aren't really the issue here) But many believers have become religious zealots and fanatical with their effort to "save or convert" everybody on the planet to their specific form of religion. This is the danger of which Bert speaks (I think) and this is the danger of which many atheists are most concerned.
Your sentence is incomplete logically. One can deny the EXISTENCE of a supreme being. Just as one might say..."I don't think (I deny) that the tooth fairy is real or exists (I deny the existence of the tooth fairy).
Granted...neither the atheist nor the believer has proof.
"It may be contended that revelation must be real because it arouses so much response in so many human bosoms. This does not follow without a leap of the reason into the realm of hypothesis. Nothing is proven by this general response except than men and women are everywhere much alike.
Being so much alike, they tend to agree upon a few primary desires. One desire by which the human mind is often teased is the desire to live after death. They see themselves cut off before their will to live is exhausted. Naturally enough, they wish to survive...but their wishes afford no possible proof. Life covers the earth with wishes as it covers as it covers it with plants and animals. No wish, however is evidence of anything beyond itself. Let millions hold it and it is still only a wish."
Carl Van Doren
Michael H states my concerns about religion very precisely...and also reiterates my earlier statement that I harbor no illusions about converting John or any Mike W or any other devout believer to my views.
No converts to the "side" of religion, faith in a supreme being have been made here. . .
Perhaps . . . but do you fancy Michael that if the sovereign and Living God should set His sights upon you and gift you with faith that you'd have any choice in the matter? Puny man - would you resist the irresistible One?
True, it is still now. There is no breeze stirring and you speak about the dead calm in your soul confidently as though you could guarantee this fetid lull forever. Perhaps, like the mariner in Coleridge's rime:
And I had done an hellish thing,
And it would work 'em woe :
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow.
Ah wretch ! said they, the bird to slay,
That made the breeze to blow !
Perhaps you have killed the albatross, eh? Proud hunter - you had better hope not. I will pray that the bird be not hung around your neck. . .
The Lord knows His sheep and the wind blows wherever it wishes. . .
-Mark
And the believers continue to proselytize...as their religion demands of them.
That would would remain to be seen Mark. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to resist him and perhaps I wouldn't even want to resist...the "irresistible one"...IF..."If" is the operative word here. But this has not been the case. The "the sovereign and Living God " has not set His sights upon" me.
Obviously, we wouldn't be having this conversation had God decided he "wants" me. His existence would be perfectly clear to me. IF......."if" he exists and "if" he wants me.
But we are not speaking hypothetically.
You’ve written an outstanding account of your personal journey. Thank you for sharing.
I came here this morning following Michael H. Believe me, I’m delighted I did for there is much in your saga that reflects my own experiences. I too hatched Catholic and from the Midwest, though I came of age abound 15 years after you. I also have grown more militant with time and am less inclined than ever to suffer fools, and foolishness, gladly. It seems a natural extension of my adult evolution that I have come to eschew religion.
In fact, I like almost everything about this post except the unfortunate buzzing of Gather’s resident fear-filled verse monger, Mark M. It’s not that he is Christian; it’s that he has the incorrigible self-righteous style of Mark M. (Good afternoon, Mark!)
Respectfully and appreciatively submitted,
~ Ken
I just wrote a comment on my most current article today on this very matter.
"It is a gift of faith that we are given. I don't like to use that phrase because I know, left undefined, it will warrant comments like, "So you do think you're better. You are given some gift that we aren't worthy to have," or some such equal nonsense.
To clarify, the gift of faith is freely given to any who will accept it. Should one choose not to accept it, that's fine, but it's not because it hasn't been offered. One man's treasure is another man's trash. If you don't wish to accept belief in God through faith that is your choice, but it is not because some people are more special. All of God's creation is special to Him. He does not play favorites with the gift of faith."
But...Mark M states that I would be powerless to resist the "irresistible one"...IF...IF he wants me. Mark M will have to speak for himself, but he seems to imply that man has no will of his own...IF gods decides to take that will away from a particular person by setting his "sights' on or selecting that particular person (for conversion to a believer).
In either case, your belief or Mark's...like I have said...we are not speaking hypothetically. Either I have not been given the gift or I have ignored the offer...I still do not accept as a possibility, even a remote possibility..that a supreme entity exists.
But...and this is a big B-U-T...the issue is not one of the existence of a god, at least this is not the issue for me.... the issue is the behavior, sometimes hypocritical activities, the spewing of hate filled rhetoric (by those believers who are terrorized by persons and activities of some persons of whom the believer does not approve and the insistence of furthering the religious views of one particular group at the expense of all others.
The issue of the existence of non existence of a god has entered this discussion at the insistence of those who believe. I can understand this, but it really has little to do with the original topic as presented by Bert.