# Religious Freedom or Plain Stupidity?



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/02/27/1464432-sun.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060228.NATS28-1/TPStory/National

In a nutshell:
17yo girl dies of leukemia. Had refused blood transfusions because she is JW. Her dad tried suing everyone who had a hand in it.

In our day and age of enlightenment, how do we let children die? Do we sacrifice scientific fact to support religious beliefs and fears?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

We only _think_ that this is an age of enlightenment. No doubt many peoples from many eras have fostered this conceit.

Enlightenment? All depends on who and where you are.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

It IS called freedom of religion for a reason.

It is their right, pure and simple.

Kinda like same sex marriage, isn't it?

Many don't like or understand it, but it IS their right.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

Sorry SINC, nobody dies following a same sex marriage.
It's an expression of love, trust and hopes.

To screw-up a teenager's mind in order for her to accept death because a life saving transfusion would interfere with her new beliefs is criminal.
I can understand the father's pain who didn't succeed in protecting his teenage child from herself and from a cult where it is better to die than to enjoy your life.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Principle of rights is EXACTLY the same.

Their freedom of religion gives them the freedom to die. Like it or not.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The original question, "religious freedom or just plain stupidity" fails to recognize that these are not mutually exclusive. I'd call it both.

While I agree with SINC, that you can't legislate against stupidity, and you can't prevent adults from behaving as stupidly as they want (as long as they are not interfering with the rights of other citizens, (and, for the record, I think same sex marriage is stupid, but I support the rights of adults get married to whomever they want)), it is emminently clear to me that religions are harmful mental disorders that our society should put a serious effort into curbing.

So, just like we can't successfully prevent the consumtion of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs by legislating against them, I think we should be taxing the organizations that sell this crap, and impose large fines on anyone caught taking a minor to church or otherwise prostltizing to children.

If, by the time you're an adult, you've failed to develop the critical thinking capacity necessary to protect yourself from these contagious memetic viruses, your on your own, but society has an obligation to protect children, even from the stupidity of their parents.

So, in this case, if an adult refused a simple, effective life-saving medical treatment on the grounds of their religion, I'd say let it go. For a child, I think the state has a right to say that a minor is unable to make such a decision rationally, and therefore the will of society trumps the will of the individual until they're an adult.

Cheers


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

bryanc said:


> The original question, "religious freedom or just plain stupidity" fails to recognize that these are not mutually exclusive. I'd call it both.


I'll agree to that.


bryanc said:


> [...] it is emminently clear to me that religions are harmful mental disorders that our society should put a serious effort into curbing.


Describing stupid opinions as "mental disorders" doesn't help anyone. In fact, the abuse of medical terminology like this is typical of a dictatorship, not a liberal democracy. Many political dissidents have been shipped off to to mental hospitals on such specious grounds.


bryanc said:


> So, just like we can't successfully prevent the consumtion of alcohol, tobacco or other drugs by legislating against them, I think we should be taxing the organizations that sell this crap, and impose large fines on anyone caught taking a minor to church or otherwise prostltizing to children.


Sure, that'll solve all kinds of problems.  You are suggesting that religious beliefs be reclassified as mental disorders, which we'll prosecute using the tax code? Gimme a break!

If JWs do have a mental disorder, using the tax code (or any other laws) to prosecute them is clearly absurb. Can you cure disease with laws?


bryanc said:


> So, in this case, if an adult refused a simple, effective life-saving medical treatment on the grounds of their religion, I'd say let it go. For a child, I think the state has a right to say that a minor is unable to make such a decision rationally, and therefore the will of society trumps the will of the individual until they're an adult.


This child was 17 years old. We've been known to send youth offenders to adult court, so how can we describe all teens as "unable to make such a decision rationally" ???

There is no clear solution to this case. But the child herself did not want the transfusion. It is her body, after all.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

DP004 said:


> To screw-up a teenager's mind in order for her to accept death because a life saving transfusion would interfere with her new beliefs is criminal.


Gee, I somehow missed that clause in the Criminal Code of Canada.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I don't claim to know a lot about the Jehovah's Witnesses, and stand to be corrected, but I understand this issue is further complicated by the fact that the official position of the church, today, allows for use of blood fractions and other blood related medical interventions. 

In the case mentioned, I understand that the girl could have received treatment within the actual church position, but for interference and misinformation from church authorities. In this respect, I could see this as not being a freedom of religion issue at all.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Could somebody ever use the excuse "My religious beliefs say I shouldn't wear a seat belt."

Would this stand up in court?


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

The Omish who shun motor vehicles perhaps.


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

What an act of faith and bravery for that child. 
I would guess that in her mind, she would end up in heaven or this earth. Her choice. Neither one bad. Sad, though.:-(


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> The original question, "religious freedom or just plain stupidity" fails to recognize that these are not mutually exclusive. I'd call it both.
> 
> While I agree with SINC, that you can't legislate against stupidity, and you can't prevent adults from behaving as stupidly as they want (as long as they are not interfering with the rights of other citizens, (and, for the record, I think same sex marriage is stupid, but I support the rights of adults get married to whomever they want)), it is emminently clear to me that religions are harmful mental disorders that our society should put a serious effort into curbing.
> 
> ...


LOL!!!!

Archie Bunker in a lab coat strikes again! Bigotry neatly veiled in scientific babble. This reads like a chapter from Mein Kamph. 

 
Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

If a person wants to take a crap shoot on science/medicine or on their understanding of a higher power who are we to criticize.

Freedoms are freedoms. 

How different is this issue of choosing how to live versus choosing how to die.

Freedom is freedom?


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Religon IS the opiate of the masses...Feeling happy, MacGuiver?

Religion is what holds us back from any sort of intellectual and logical enlightenment, and organized religion has tried to hold back this enlightenment from its followers since its beginning.

bryanc, as per usual: I could not have said it better!

Mel



MacGuiver said:


> LOL!!!!
> 
> Archie Bunker in a lab coat strikes again! Bigotry neatly veiled in scientific babble. This reads like a chapter from Mein Kamph.
> 
> ...


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Melonie said:


> Religon IS the opiate of the masses...Feeling happy, MacGuiver?
> 
> Religion is what holds us back from any sort of intellectual and logical enlightenment, and organized religion has tried to hold back this enlightenment from its followers since its beginning.
> 
> ...


Yeah Mel, we all know how Karl Marx was such a force for positive change in the world. Nothing like some good ol fashioned Soviet style religious persecution to get us to the next level of progress and enlightenment. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Bigotry* neatly veiled in scientific babble.


Interesting YOU should choose that word.......... given it's roots...... Bryanc is the very LEAST likely for it to be applied to. 



> Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.


.....now dat was funny dat by gar....


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

How is it criminal to adhere to your beliefs even if it leads to your demise? Sinc is correct, it's freedom of religion. You may not understand it, but there are plenty that don't understand plenty of things.

Unless you want to start legislating what people can believe in, there is nothing we can (nor anything we should) do to change it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Interesting YOU should choose that word.......... given it's roots...... Bryanc is the very LEAST likely for it to be applied to.


Bryanc has strong beliefs, and while I do not share his views he does put them forward honestly.

I would however, draw the line at calling those who do believe, "mentally ill". That is perhaps a bit strong.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

For me, those that try to force their religion down my throat are only slightly more addled than the militant aetheist set. The vast majority of society will get along fine without those two approaches leaping about condemning the majority for some fabricated failing. 

I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the JW religion, from close observation and from media stories. But (there always seems to be one in this complex world) it would be much worse for me to impose my will over theirs simply because I think their religion is messed up.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Melonie said:


> Religion is what holds us back from any sort of intellectual and logical enlightenment, and organized religion has tried to hold back this enlightenment from its followers since its beginning.l


In the fullness of time, the concept of 'god' will be reduced to a somewhat embarassing footnote in history. The way people wage war on each other, repress (and worse) each other is disgusting since most of the time the issue is who has the 'best' imaginary friend. Religion is fraud, pure and simple - if you or I made our livings promoting something for which there was not a shred of evidence we would be doing time. Throw in diddling children, abusing students in religious schools, ranting on against birth control, aiding, abetting and profitting from war, etc and we'll all be better off when this boogie man is finally expunged.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Beej said:


> For me, those that try to force their religion down my throat are only slightly more addled than the militant aetheist set. The vast majority of society will get along fine without those two approaches leaping about condemning the majority for some fabricated failing.


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Whether you're an atheist or have a belief, you can still have a level of respect for you're fellow human being. Bigotry on either side of the coin, is bigotry and its ugly... and not welcome on ehMac. 

Feel free to discuss your opinions, but this talk of mental illness and wiping one point of view off the planet is way over the top.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> Religion is fraud, pure and simple - if you or I made our livings promoting something for which there was not a shred of evidence we would be doing time. Throw in diddling children, abusing students in religious schools, ranting on against birth control, aiding, abetting and profitting from war, etc and we'll all be better off when this boogie man is finally expunged.


:clap: 

Yowza! And people come down on me for being to harsh.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> Feel free to discuss your opinions, but this talk of mental illness and wiping one point of view off the planet is way over the top.


I want to make my position clear, because I understand the strong reactions I've provoked, and I did not mean for my comment about mental illness to be taken in a hurtful way.

Mental illnesses are real, and we are slowly beginning to develop some effective strategies for dealing with them. Weather those of you who are religious like the idea or not, it is my belief that you are suffering from what I consider to be a mental illness (note that this does not in any way make you less valuable as people, and I think it is to your credit that most of you are largely rational in all other respects). 

So I'm basically saying 'I hope you all get better'. I can't see how this is any more offensive than the Christians who've said that they will pray that I see the light and accept Jesus.

Cheers


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

bryanc said:


> I want to make my position clear, because I understand the strong reactions I've provoked, and I did not mean for my comment about mental illness to be taken in a hurtful way.
> 
> Mental illnesses are real, and we are slowly beginning to develop some effective strategies for dealing with them. Weather those of you who are religious like the idea or not, it is my belief that you are suffering from what I consider to be a mental illness (note that this does not in any way make you less valuable as people, and I think it is to your credit that most of you are largely rational in all other respects).
> 
> ...


Basically about as helpful as someone saying you have an mental illness because you don't believe. 

Either one is not productive and not welcome on ehMac.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I want to make my position clear, because I understand the strong reactions I've provoked, and I did not mean for my comment about mental illness to be taken in a hurtful way.
> 
> Mental illnesses are real, and we are slowly beginning to develop some effective strategies for dealing with them. Weather those of you who are religious like the idea or not, it is my belief that you are suffering from what I consider to be a mental illness (note that this does not in any way make you less valuable as people, and I think it is to your credit that most of you are largely rational in all other respects).
> 
> ...


Faith is not an illness any more than emotion. It's a bad idea to run public policy that applies to millions of very different people off of either, but they are not illnesses.


----------



## DP004 (Mar 9, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> How is it criminal to adhere to your beliefs even if it leads to your demise? Sinc is correct, it's freedom of religion. You may not understand it, but there are plenty that don't understand plenty of things.
> 
> Unless you want to start legislating what people can believe in, there is nothing we can (nor anything we should) do to change it.


Because a teenage girl let herself die because of those beliefs.
Religious faiths exist to help you walk through life, to support you and to guide and not to kill you!
If her father couldn't reach her, any important member of the JW church knowing about that story should have come to see her and make her understand that her young life has infinitely more value than her death. 
No one moved forward. 
I hope that lawsuit will create the new jurisdiction to protect our children.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

DP004 said:


> I hope that lawsuit will create the new jurisdiction to protect our children.


According to what I've read here, she was 17. Also, 'our' children or 'your' children? Society is a major influence in maturing, but it does not superceed parental influence (unless the parents aren't involved, of course). There is much more to this than not liking others' choices. The child didn't choose, based on their learned belief, to harm others. I can't say that of everything that parents teach their children.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I know I'm looking forward to my fraud conviction.

bryanc et al, my objection to your comments is simply that you are failing on an intellectual level. You are allowing yourself to be beholden to the myth that all religious people are the same, and that all expressions of religion and faith are the same. It's too bad, really, because narrowminded thinking of any variety is extremely detrimental to the future of humanity.

On the above, can I simply say how thoroughly impressed I am with our mayor? I've thought it before, but having been a part of far too many fora where the moderators and owners ruled with an iron fist, I thoroughly appreciate ehMax's approach. He has made himself clear, yet he hasn't edited or deleted anyone posts. Thanks for that. (Even if I would have liked to see the insulting atheist scmucks smited )


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

We do have laws that protect us from our own stupidity. Would a "religious belief" be defence enough in a court of law for the following?

Not wearing a seatbelt.
Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.
A minor not wearing a helmet on a bicycle.
Not wearing a life jacket when boating.

Or how about just being plain negligent with your children? Could you claim "religious freedom" for any of the following? These things "might" not kill a child, but most likely will (just like brainwashing your child that blood transfusions are bad).

Leaving toxic cleaners easily accessible to children.
Leaving strong medication easily accessible.
Letting your child smoke.
Letting your child drink excessive ammounts of alcohol.
Letting your child play with a gun.
Letting your child use a plastic bag as a toy.
Letting your child play hide and seek in an old fridge.

There are no laws per se against these items, but all could be considered gross negligence. Could religious teachings be considered the same?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not likely would be my guess.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> We do have laws that protect us from our own stupidity. Would a "religious belief" be defence enough in a court of law for the following?
> 
> Not wearing a seatbelt.
> Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.
> ...


All libertarian, all problems completely outside of religion. We have reasonable limits on religious freedom under larger guiding principles. Other nations have chosen differently and nothing is perfect about our approach.

Not directed at you, just Beej's rant:
The militant atheist approach is a failure in their own understanding. Blithely establishing faith as an individual failure or ailment shows a profound lack of understanding. A clear failure in the militant, or 'orthodox' atheist (nod to lpk on terminology).

The vast majority of humanity has some sort of faith. Before the arguments on various 'failings' in most peoples' views emerge: the vast majority of people in secular, modern, advanced democracies have some sort of faith. Any notion that this is somehow wrong or represenative of an ailment only reflect poorly on the proponents of such ideas. 

Even if atheists were the majority, you'd still have a huge proportion of people, from all walks of life, who have a 'problem' under the odd notion of atheist supremacy. Very simply: orthodox/fundamental/'you sick, me not' approaches to this are highly wrong-headed. This is not about the rare truly demented individuals being outside of commom societal understanding, this is about a complete lack of understanding of the human species. 

It is very disappointing when it manifests itself in mature adults. I can see much reason behind it for those establishing their outlook in a way that is generally more 'right and wrong' as teenage years tend to be (though but no means exclusively as such), but for people who have left the womb of childhood and have lived and interacted with larger society on equal terms: you have a failure of understanding of different persons.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

RM - That's the last place he's failing - if anything perhaps on a "politeness" scale it might be questionable but not in the least on an intellectual one.

An article in the Economist speaks exactly to this - WHY THE HELL SHOULD RELIGION BE EXEMPT FROM INTELLECTUAL SCRUTINY -.

We teach our kids to experiment and question and get things right then try and feed them literal clap trap and say well don't ask too many questions.2+2 might be 5 since it says so..it's religion 'n all don'cha know.



> Mr Dennett's main argument, which is that *religious belief—especially in the United States—is often sheltered from the cut and thrust of intellectual argument and scientific scrutiny, and it should not be.*
> 
> As the writer argues, there is now a huge range of intellectual tools which ought to be used to understand the phenomenon of religion better: from psychology to neuroscience (studying the parts of the brain where religious experience seems to occur) to genetics to social and cultural history. As a passionate neo-Darwinian, Mr Dennett is particularly interested by the “usefulness” of religion in evolutionary terms. And as a rigorous philosopher, he sets about deconstructing, in a few devastating strokes, some of the beliefs that people have held about the “personal” nature of reality.
> 
> ...


Why is you cannot listen to the best minds mankind produces and see just how few buy into the religious nonsense put about.

We've got little enough time to make peace with this planet and our environment without feeding kids fairy tales and nostrums.
Some good deeds, some social positives do not come near to offsetting the incredible sociological damage and conflict that a failure to move beyond superstition and antiquated ontologies leave as a legacy of ignorance.

The special tax status, the "untouchableness", the unearned sanctity in the face of the real nature of the institutions and dogma and engendered violence that history is simply littered with in terms of religion.

There is laughter at phologiston, earth as the centre of the universe, humours, turning lead into gold the list of discounted nonsense goes on and on as the body of human knowledge expands.

Yet when it comes to religion the same conceptual nonsense is somehow sacred, off limits and not open scrutiny. Horse****

When a bishop in Manila tells a starving woman with eight kids - go on have more  he's WRONG in every way that can be imagined.

You cannot say "strive for excellence" and yet tolerate this kind of ignorance.
You want the brightest minds to teach your kids, create your world, feed masses engendered by religious ignorance ......but you don't listen when the same "best and brightest" say with almost one voice.

Get rid of the ignorance and superstition and religious claptrap and make knowledge and learning consistent.

There is enough wonder and awe in the universe - get minds out of the dusty tomes full of long dead mutterings - especially young minds and give them the tools - the intellectual tools, not the superstition and confused messages and methodologies, to deal with a crowded and fractious future coming on far too rapidly for our primate instincts to deal with.

At some point Victoria must grow up and realize "Yes Victoria there is NO Santa......and that's alright."


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

OK, let me be clear one more time - religion should never be exempt from intellectual scrutiny. And I maintain he does fail if he persists in treating all religion as the same. As does anyone who makes that assumption.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

DP004 said:


> Because a teenage girl let herself die because of those beliefs.
> Religious faiths exist to help you walk through life, to support you and to guide and not to kill you!
> If her father couldn't reach her, any important member of the JW church knowing about that story should have come to see her and make her understand that her young life has infinitely more value than her death.


Maybe surviving at the expense of her beliefs wasn't good enough?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Any notion that this is somehow wrong or represenative of an ailment only reflect poorly on the proponents of such ideas


That's EXACTLY the cop out. It does not matter one wit how many. 
99% of the people in the middle ages thought the world was the centre of the universe and sun went around it and THEY WERE ALL WRONG.

It's not an ailment tho it can be just as gambling can be. It's ignorance and it's born of the same evolutionary history that makes us suspicious of "not us" - makes us tribal, makes us react with violence.

We have to fight hind brain reactions all the time to create a civil society yet then we cater to the "holy roller", the rapture, the speaking in tongues.

A fifteen year old today is required to know more about the universe than the wisest scholar of antiquity and immensely important bodies of knowledge have grown up around the intellectual centres of the planet in the universities and libraries.

It is critically important that the disciplines and rigour that marks that progress over time be continued and celebrated not hobbled by some kowtowing.....oh it's okay - it's religion"....as it has been time and time and time again and is again under threat from ignorance especially in the US.

Would you have a guy who believes whole heartedly that "god will provide" running your nuclear power station or a person trained as an engineer to KNOW what to do and WHY it is that way.

If you recognize why the Nobel prizes are rare celebrations of human advancement in knowledge then pause a bit a recognize these same people have a wisdom about "religion".
They've thought long and hard and found it..........passé. Quaint as Victorian's covering table legs, a pinch of salt over the shoulder or music of the spheres.

Time to move on.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> OK, let me be clear one more time - religion should never be exempt from intellectual scrutiny. And I maintain he does fail if he persists in treating all religion as the same. As does anyone who makes that assumption


No you are either broadening religion beyond the "godshead" definitions or descending purely to a "known by their actions level" on a sociological level where indeed there are differences.

There may be "harmless superstitions" and harmful ones. - they remain superstitions. See above.....dead 17 year old  And for her and her family Bryanc's mental illness comment rings oh so true.

Rigourous intellectual debate about the functional effectiveness of a religious organization I can well envision - I know gay marriage has challenged some for inclusiveness. 
But underlaying that is still the religious codicile laying out the role of man and god which is not open to question and requires "belief".

Passé - no matter how you carefully flavour and disguise it. 
It's antithetical to knowledge based on rational progression, experiment, proof, disproof and change.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Religion and the pursuit of knowledge are not exclusive, no matter how many straw men militant atheists create. That argument is the standard 'with us or agin' us argument'. Time to move on: orthodox/fundamental/militant relgious people aren't 'religion' anymore than their atheist counterparts are 'atheism'. 

How many nobel prize winners were agnostic or atheist? Is that the right ratio for us all the aspire to? This issue is so much more than 'I'm right, you're wrong' but extermist proponents on both sides just don't get it and refuse to understand the diversity of humanity.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> How many nobel prize winners were agnostic or atheist


I'd be thrilled if the ratio was reflected in the general populace. Only 7% of eminent ( Nobel material or winners ) scientists are religious.

as to human "diversity" - that's a pablum cover for "well a lot of different people have a lot of different ideas."
All the diverse ideas in the world won't save you if you "believe" you're invulnerable and still step in front of a bus.

"Diversity" in your thinking appears as "good for it's own sake" and says nothing about "knowledge" and method.

In this arena of assessment of reality and ontology it's not like having diverse foodstuffs to taste and sample.

ONE methodology allowed man to walk on the moon.....and it wasn't a shaman's.

•••

Are you equating knowledge and belief???


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> I'd be thrilled if the ratio was reflected in the general populace. Only 7% of eminent ( Nobel material or winners ) scientists are religious.
> ...
> "Diversity" in your thinking appears as "good for it's own sake" and says nothing about "knowledge" and method.
> 
> ...


7% religious meaning organised? Considering the scientific proof (or complete lack thereof) how many are atheist? The rest are all 'unscientific'. Even agnostics have no proof or reason or their notions.
...
The religion versus science approach. Not surprising. Argue against a position of your creation. That's must easier.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> And I maintain he does fail if he persists in treating all religion as the same. As does anyone who makes that assumption.


If by 'he' you are referring to me, I certainly do not fail on those grounds. I no more think all religion, or all religious adherents are the same than I think that all schizophrenics are the same. There are certainly similarities, but it is clear that the individual variations are far greater than any similarities. This makes the problem vastly more difficult, but difficult problems are the most interesting.

Where I have failed in this thread is clearly in that I used language that was too insulting. I was obviously being intentionally provocative, and I think the ensuing discussion has, apart from some unpleasantness, been informative and vigourous. However, in hindsight, I would like to have toned it down a notch.

While I stand by the meaning of my 'mental illness' statement - that religions are like computer viruses of the mind and should be addressed as such - I apologize for any personal insult any of you may have felt. I would hope that none of you would fault me for having a cold, and I will fault none of you for having a religion (but please try not to sneeze on me).

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> 7% religious meaning organised? Considering the scientific proof (or complete lack thereof) how many are atheist?


There was a study on this published in either Science or Nature, back in 2000. I don't have the reference handy, but I could probably find it if anyone really wants it.

I do remember that the data on religious adherence was collected across scientific disciplines for over 30 years, and that there were a few general trends. As is true for the rest of society, religious adherence among scientists is on the decline. However, scientists are *much* more likely to be atheists/agnostics than the rest of society (incidentally, I consider myself to be both an atheist and an agnostic, but that is rather a semantic tangent), and biologists are much more likely to be atheists/agnostics than any other discipline.

I don't remember what the raw numbers were, but atheist/agnostics were in a significant majority. Certainly this is consistent with my own experience in the biological sciences, in which I have a small number of colleagues (3) who are members of organized religions, probably a few more who are vague theists, many who are deists, and hundreds (literally) who are atheists/agnostics.

The only group I can think of where an individual is even more likely to be an atheist/agnostic is philosophers. I don't think I've ever met a professional philosopher who had any religious beliefs (I'm sure there are many out there).

Cheers


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> We do have laws that protect us from our own stupidity. Would a "religious belief" be defence enough in a court of law for the following?
> 
> Not wearing a seatbelt.
> Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.
> ...


Can Native Canadians possess marijuana?

Sikhs who wear turbans may be exempt from helmet laws. I know there was a controversy some time ago, but I don't know how it turned out.

As for "letting your children smoke" - it happens all the time. I have *never* heard of a parent facing charges for allowing their children to smoke. I do know many teenagers who smoked with their parents' knowledge and consent.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> There was a study on this published in either Science or Nature, back in 2000. I don't have the reference handy, but I could probably find it if anyone really wants it.


I would like to see the study, but the atheist/agnostic difference is important for this discussion. It is always important to keep in mind not only the variety of organised religions, but also the variety of personal spirtuality, uncertainty and militancy of non-belief and belief. To me, the faults are in behaviour and lack of understanding of others (worst of all, lack of desire to try to understand...the orthodox-*insert personal belief*), not religion, uncertainty or disbelief.

As an atheist, I know that I am right but I don't think there is anything wrong with people who believe otherwise. There is a big difference in thinking that someone's belief is wrong, and that there is something wrong with the believer. There doesn't seem to be reason or proof behind blurring the two concepts, yet some who place reason and science at odds with religion can often miss this weakness in their approach. What usually follows are scattered historical lessons that only display the violence and stubborness of the species, not of faith.

Emotion, faith and reason are characteristics of the species that can result in good and bad. Trying to parse the human from the humanity is a joke, at best. That's why debates on policy (for the 'people') strongly favour separation, but characterising the person displays a significant lack of understanding, to me.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Well... I was raised Roman Catholic however I became disenchanted with the policies and behaviours of that faith so I call myself agnostic now... but I'm not entirely sure if that's the right term or not:



> agnostic |agˈnästik| noun a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


From OS X's Dictionary.

I don't know what I believe in at this point... a higher power? Yes I can say I believe in that but I don't know that I call it God or ??? So maybe I'm more of an atheist? I don't know... it's sometimes almost impossible to pin labels on oneself... I suppose I leave myself open to different ideas. Personally I tend to find "blind faith" hard to accept.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Beej said:


> I would like to see the study


I'll try to dig it up... I don't have it handy.



> but the atheist/agnostic difference is important for this discussion.


I agree with the previous definition of agnostic - the idea that nothing is or can be known about the existence of god(s).

And because I'm rational, I don't have beliefs about things I know nothing about. Given that I know nothing about the existence of god(s) I therefor have no beliefs about them. Having beliefs about god(s) is 'Theism', and Atheism is not having such beliefs. I don't. Consequently, I am an agnostic atheist.



> There is a big difference in thinking that someone's belief is wrong, and that there is something wrong with the believer.


This is an extremely important and well expressed point. I still hold that the superstitions embraced by so many people are unhealthy, but that does not make the people suffering these delusions less deserving of my respect and consideration.

Cheers


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> If by 'he' you are referring to me, I certainly do not fail on those grounds. I no more think all religion, or all religious adherents are the same than I think that all schizophrenics are the same. There are certainly similarities, but it is clear that the individual variations are far greater than any similarities. This makes the problem vastly more difficult, but difficult problems are the most interesting.


I was referring to you. One example that represents the tone:



bryanc said:


> So I'm basically saying 'I hope you all get better'. I can't see how this is any more offensive than the Christians who've said that they will pray that I see the light and accept Jesus.


I would never pray such a prayer. I would consider such a prayer to be offensive. Statements like the above gave me the general sense when reading your comments that you were operating out of commonly held biases.



bryanc said:


> Where I have failed in this thread is clearly in that I used language that was too insulting. I was obviously being intentionally provocative, and I think the ensuing discussion has, apart from some unpleasantness, been informative and vigourous. However, in hindsight, I would like to have toned it down a notch.
> 
> While I stand by the meaning of my 'mental illness' statement - that religions are like computer viruses of the mind and should be addressed as such - I apologize for any personal insult any of you may have felt. I would hope that none of you would fault me for having a cold, and I will fault none of you for having a religion (but please try not to sneeze on me).


Continuing to compare what is a rational choice for me, and not only a choice that I made once, but one that I re-examine on an almost weekly basis, to a virus is insulting whether you say it politely or not. I don't really care, but again, it seems to me representative of a certain narrowness of thought. It appears to you to be completely impossible to conceive that religion is compatible with thought.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

A reminder to all:



> You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, *hateful*, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by ehMac.


The tone of this thread has gotten out of hand. Saying you disagree with something and stating reasons why is one thing. Stating that people who disagree with you suffer from mental illness etc.. *Is not welcome on ehMac*

I don't want to close this thread, but I will if members from any point of view make hateful remarks.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

ehMax said:


> I don't want to close this thread, but I will if members from any point of view make hateful remarks.


Hey, why bother with that idea when you can just delete posts, like you did mine?

 

Mel


----------



## ErnstNL (Apr 12, 2003)

Can science prove/quantify love exists? 
Declaring "science" is the only proof one needs of God's existence is just a rationalization of your own beliefs.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Melonie said:


> Hey, why bother with that idea when you can just delete posts, like you did mine?
> 
> 
> 
> Mel


Let me explain it to you again so you understand. You're free to argue against religion all you want. You're free to argue for religion all you want. I don't care. 

What is not acceptable on ehMac is to say that people who have a certain point of view are mentally ill. In Canada, we have freedom of religion. (And freedom from religion). To go on with a post proclaiming hatred, and you deliberatly used the word hate many times, is not welcome on ehMac. 

I don't know how I can be more clear.


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

What the???

Censorship lives, eh?

I prefaced my post with "hate is a strong word" and went on to say that I hate what religion has done to women, children, animals. What is wrong with that?

Put up my post and let the members decide.

The word demagogue comes to mind.

But hey, it's your sandbox. Crap in it all you want.

Mel




ehMax said:


> Let me explain it to you again so you understand. You're free to argue against religion all you want. You're free to argue for religion all you want. I don't care.
> 
> What is not acceptable on ehMac is to say that people who have a certain point of view are mentally ill. In Canada, we have freedom of religion. (And freedom from religion). To go on with a post proclaiming hatred, and you deliberatly used the word hate many times, is not welcome on ehMac.
> 
> I don't know how I can be more clear.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> I would never pray such a prayer. I would consider such a prayer to be offensive.


I appreciate that. You might ask yourself two questions regarding this particular point:

1) are you unusual as a Christian that does not pray for the salvation of others?
2) how do you internally justify the belief that people who have not developed a relationship with your personal God are, at the very least, missing out on one of the 'most important aspects of their existence' and at worst, doomed to eternal damnation with such a flexible attitude towards the beliefs of others.

One of the things I find interesting about most religions is the role that evangelization plays in the belief system. Most religions ascribe a very high value to converting others. This is one of the characteristics that makes the analogy to a virus so apt.

At any rate, I'll accept that you are much more polite and restrained about your beliefs than most Christians I've met, and that is definitely a highly commendable characteristic. However, you have to admit that there are a lot of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, and etc.) who are more evangelical. I have certainly had a lot of people respond with the "I'll pray for your salvation" line as soon as they've discovered I don't share their beliefs.

And, apart from semi-anonymous internet forums populated by apparently bright, articulate and well-educated people, I don't generally advertise my lack of beliefs, nor engage others on this subject. So it's not like I'm running around offending theists by telling them they're mentally ill on a regular basis (although, I have to admit I've used that line on JWs who come to my door... but I just wanted them to go away).



> Continuing to compare what is a rational choice for me, and not only a choice that I made once, but one that I re-examine on an almost weekly basis, to a virus is insulting whether you say it politely or not.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but that does not change the fact that it seems to me the best explanation for the data.

Cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Just did a quick Google to define mental illness:


> A state of being in which an individual has difficulty in handling situations and feelings of an everyday nature. In certain instances, conditions are characterized by impairment of intellectual functions, the experience of shallow and unstable emotions, and difficulty in adapting to one's environment.


I don't believe having strong religious beliefs could be considered a mental illness. Can't mental illnesses typically be treated with medication and diet? I don't think any magic pill will make people stop believing in their god.

I feel that religious beliefs like the JW belief about blood transfusions ranks right up their with kids being scared to go to sleep because of the monster in the closet. It's an irrational fear based solely on a belief, with no actual fact to support it.

Here is some reading to add insight:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm
http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abstain.shtml

Does this mean that all JWs are vegetarian?

Reading all the published literature about it leads me to an interesting conclusion. They keep changing their mind. They keep reinterpreting their scripture. At what point are they going to say "You know what? We really don't know what this all means. We've had it wrong before. Maybe we have it wrong now."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Melonie said:


> What the???
> 
> Censorship lives, eh?
> 
> ...


As I said, I don't know how I can be more clear. If you want to continue to be rude and abusive, and its too much for you to be on a forum that would like to mantain a certain level of decorum, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> I don't believe having strong religious beliefs could be considered a mental illness. Can't mental illnesses typically be treated with medication and diet? I don't think any magic pill will make people stop believing in their god.


Exactly. It is a very poor comparison, not to mention rude and insulting to folks who _choose_ to believe in a certain religion. 

Choosing to accept a religion is a decision made by rational and informed people in most cases. 

I wish I could say the same about people who choose to reject any beliefs as "mental illness".


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

beej said:


> As an atheist, I know that I am right but I don't think there is anything wrong with people who believe otherwise.


May I suggest that you don't _know_ you are right, but believe (firmly, resolutely, unshakably) that you are? None of us knows the unknowable.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Choosing to accept a religion is a decision made by rational and informed people in most cases.


It seems to me that a rational and informed person does not choose their beliefs. A rational person is compelled to believe by reason and evidence.

There are certainly many who choose their beliefs on the basis of what makes them happy, or what they've been told by parents/priests/teachers/authorities, but none of these are rationally held beliefs.

As a professional skeptic, I recognize that I don't have the time or resources to critically examine every idea I come across, so those concepts that seem reasonable and don't conflict with available evidence are generally not given the same scrutiny that extraordinary claims are.

To me, the claim that there is a magical sky-daddy who created the universe and who desperately craves the adoration of a certain species of hairless ape on an unremarkable blue planet in the backwaters of the western spiral arm of the milky-way galaxy seems pretty extraordinary. But whatever turns your crank. Just keep it out of the schools.

Cheers


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> I appreciate that. You might ask yourself two questions regarding this particular point:
> 
> 1) are you unusual as a Christian that does not pray for the salvation of others?


Again, we have definition difficulties. A large spectrum of Christianity does not believe that there is only one way to "salvation" (ignoring, for the moment, the arguments about what that word means). We are quite comfortable with other faiths, and with other ways of being in touch with what we understand as God. We are also quite comfortable with those refuse the existence of what we call God. This is why Beej and I fight about him being a dirty capitalist, not about him being an atheist . And, as I have already said, very little of what I claim is outside of the mainstream policies of my denomination, the United Church of Canada. And, again, we are the largest non-Roman Catholic Christian denomination in this nation. So even ignoring those of other parts of the world who agree with us, I am quite comfortable saying that I am not "unusual".



bryanc said:


> 2) how do you internally justify the belief that people who have not developed a relationship with your personal God are, at the very least, missing out on one of the 'most important aspects of their existence' and at worst, doomed to eternal damnation with such a flexible attitude towards the beliefs of others.


My God is not my personal God. Beyond that, I have to say that while I am comfortable with other faiths and no faith, I don't understand it. All I ask of anyone, whether they are in my congregation or elsewhere, is that a person be honest in their expressions of what they believe, and be open to question and doubt. We believe that God is not coercive, and allows us to choose the manner in which we relate to what we call God. It would be hypocritical to suggest that God does not therefor also accept the reality of those who choose not to relate, or, indeed, choose/are unable to believe in the very existence of that which we call God. I don't hold it against them, and I don't believe that God does, either.
Again, I feel the need to point out that you are taking one very narrow view of Christianity, and assuming that it applies to the whole. Given that liberal Christianity, by it's nature, isn't self-promoting, I can't blame you, really. But there is a lot more to Christianity than the slice that one sees one TV. I can't speak for other faiths authouritatively, but it is my personal experience that that is true of every faith I have had contact with.



bryanc said:


> At any rate, I'll accept that you are much more polite and restrained about your beliefs than most Christians I've met, and that is definitely a highly commendable characteristic. However, you have to admit that there are a lot of Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, and etc.) who are more evangelical. I have certainly had a lot of people respond with the "I'll pray for your salvation" line as soon as they've discovered I don't share their beliefs.


Thank you. And of course I admit it. If it makes you feel any better, those same "Christians" usually react much more hostily to me than to you. "I'll pray for your salvation" is about the politest I've ever gotten.



bryanc said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way, but that does not change the fact that it seems to me the best explanation for the data.


What I'm suggesting to you is that your data set is vastly incomplete.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> It seems to me that a rational and informed person does not choose their beliefs. A rational person is compelled to believe by reason and evidence.


And personal experience is a form of evidence. It is the most common "proof" for those who choose to believe.



bryanc said:


> There are certainly many who choose their beliefs on the basis of what makes them happy, or what they've been told by parents/priests/teachers/authorities, but none of these are rationally held beliefs.


Fair. And this is why it is important for everyone to be open to challenge.



bryanc said:


> To me, the claim that there is a magical sky-daddy who created the universe and who desperately craves the adoration of a certain species of hairless ape on an unremarkable blue planet in the backwaters of the western spiral arm of the milky-way galaxy seems pretty extraordinary. But whatever turns your crank. Just keep it out of the schools.


Yeah, see, again. The paragraph above, even with sarcasm removed, bears no resemblance to what I believe. And do you not think that a critical study of all the world's religions would be a valuable aspect of education?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> To me, the claim that there is a magical sky-daddy who created the universe and who desperately craves the adoration of a certain species of hairless ape on an unremarkable blue planet in the backwaters of the western spiral arm of the milky-way galaxy seems pretty extraordinary. But whatever turns your crank. Just keep it out of the schools.


LOL! Well said. I don't agree with the notion of religion as virus, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. And though it's been suggested that your dataset is complete, I have to wonder who possesses the complete set. Too, it seems to me that you as a scientist would readily acknowledge that your dataset is incomplete. You simply have to work with what data you have.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> May I suggest that you don't _know_ you are right, but believe (firmly, resolutely, unshakably) that you are? None of us knows the unknowable.


That's the faith part. 

This shows up all over life, especially related to scientific concepts that we 'know' more through conventional wisdom than actually proof and understanding. Almost nothing is 100% certain, yet people seem to 'know' a whole heckuva lot about these unknowables. So yes, I do know, in the sense of common usage of the term and beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> This is why Beej and I fight about him being a dirty capitalist, not about him being an atheist .


Believe in the invisible hand, for it slapeth thee around.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> LOL! Well said. I don't agree with the notion of religion as virus, but I can certainly see where you're coming from. And though it's been suggested that your dataset is complete, I have to wonder who possesses the complete set. Too, it seems to me that you as a scientist would readily acknowledge that your dataset is incomplete. You simply have to work with what data you have.


For the record, I don't claim to have the complete dataset. If we want to go with this continuing analogy, then, I would like to hear whether my comments and additions change his analysis or not. I can always provide some good titles of books to read.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> Believe in the invisible hand, for it slapeth thee around.


:lmao: For a moment there I was afraid you had missed that cheap shot!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> Choosing to accept a religion is a decision made by rational and informed people in most cases.


Not related to the issue in terms of derogatory language used previously...

So how does one approach this subject when related to a child or someone with a developmental disability in that community? clearly they are not in a position to make a rational or informed decision.

I don't know the answer to this one... but it seems to me that which values are more important? the values placed on individual by a certain community to which they belong? or the values held by society in general?

Which has more say than the other?


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Not related to the issue in terms of derogatory language used previously...
> 
> So how does one approach this subject when related to a child or someone with a developmental disability in that community? clearly they are not in a position to make a rational or informed decision.
> 
> ...


Two things come to mind. Firstly, as human beings, I would wager that the majority of the decisions we make are not made from a rational point of view exclusively, unless you are willing to accept personal experience as rational. In which case children and disabled individuals are perfectly able to make an appropriate decision, provided they are allowed and encouraged to do so. I will grant right now, before someone else points it out, that far too often religions aren't willing to take the time to encourage that discernment. But it is possible.
Secondly, in terms of children, most religions that I am aware of include some element of a second ritual, whereby children are asked to decide for themselves when they are old enough. Granted, that's not a perfect system, but the concept is there. And no religion in this nation is capable of, or even tries to force people to stay in.

I don't really understand what you are getting at by that second paragraph.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> Two things come to mind. Firstly, as human beings, I would wager that the majority of the decisions we make are not made from a rational point of view exclusively, unless you are willing to accept personal experience as rational. In which case children and disabled individuals are perfectly able to make an appropriate decision, provided they are allowed and encouraged to do so. I will grant right now, before someone else points it out, that far too often religions aren't willing to take the time to encourage that discernment. But it is possible.
> Secondly, in terms of children, most religions that I am aware of include some element of a second ritual, whereby children are asked to decide for themselves when they are old enough. Granted, that's not a perfect system, but the concept is there. And no religion in this nation is capable of, or even tries to force people to stay in.


So in the case of the original example do we know if the child was given the option of choosing the transfusion? And that the child refused it, or did the parents do so on the child's behalf... I think you can see the difference, right?



RevMatt said:


> I don't really understand what you are getting at by that second paragraph.


When I said community, I meat that in the abstract sense, such as religious community someone might belong to (it could just as well be ethnic or social, but in this case we are talking about religious community). 

Let me put it like this.

Do the social values of a particular religion outweigh the social values of the society in general? Here are some examples...

#1 Abortion, clearly the Catholic church says abortions should be banned, however our society has said that in certain circumstances abortions can be allowed.

#2 Religious Adornments, Sikhs are allowed to wear a Turban if they serve in the RCMP. The issue about this came up in the 80's and people argued that if they serve in the RCMP they should be bound by the RCMP guidelines regarding uniform.

#3 Religous Practices, Sikhs are required to carry a Kirpan, however in some cases the notion of carrying a concealed weapon (even a ceremonial one) is disputed in some schools.

#4 Circumcision, Jews and Muslims require the circumcision of infant males. Some argue that circumcision is an unnecessary act which can border on the cruel treatment of children.

In these cases society in general has views which may often conflict with the views of these religious communities. The question I have is which has more say than the other? Do the views of the society in general outweigh the views of any particular religious group?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

ErnstNL said:


> Can science prove/quantify love exists?
> Declaring "science" is the only proof one needs of God's existence is just a rationalization of your own beliefs.


There is no need for proof of events of direct perception. If you feel an emotion, no proof is necessary that you are feeling that emotion. (Whether that emotion is justified is another matter...)

We only need to prove things that cannot be observed. We cannot see atoms, but we prove their existence by their effects on things we can see.

As for "quantifying love," we already do that. No science is necessary to know you love your wife more than you love your dog, or you value your computer more than you value your coffee table.

By the way, science isn't the discipline that proves or disproves the existence of God anyway. That is a matter for philosophy, not science.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> So in the case of the original example do we know if the child was given the option of choosing the transfusion? And that the child refused it, or did the parents do so on the child's behalf... I think you can see the difference, right?


Yup, I do, and I have no idea what happened in this case. Most religions, however, define adult somewhere around 14. I don't know about her case specifically, but it is not unlikely that she had already made the choice to remain. As I recall the media coverage, she was quite vocal about not wanting the transfusion.



da_jonesy said:


> #1 Abortion, clearly the Catholic church says abortions should be banned, however our society has said that in certain circumstances abortions can be allowed.


Firstly, I don't think a hard and fast rule is possible. Each issue has it's own particulars. My response to this one, would be to say that what a religion has to say about the conduct of it's own members bears no relation to what society does, *so long as there is no significant harm being done to anyone.* That last bit is the tricky bit, of course.



da_jonesy said:


> #2 Religious Adornments, Sikhs are allowed to wear a Turban if they serve in the RCMP. The issue about this came up in the 80's and people argued that if they serve in the RCMP they should be bound by the RCMP guidelines regarding uniform.


And those who argued that were correct. The REAL issue was whether the guidelines were sufficiently flexible to recognise the realities of our culture. They weren't. They are now. iirc, Sikhs have to wear a certain colour of turban to match the uniform.



da_jonesy said:


> #3 Religous Practices, Sikhs are required to carry a Kirpan, however in some cases the notion of carrying a concealed weapon (even a ceremonial one) is disputed in some schools.


Tough one here, but we are bordering on the above bold bit about significant harm to others. I wonder if anyone has explored with the Sikhs community whether a blunted Kirpan, or one that is glued into it's sheathe might be an acceptable compromise for while on school property?



da_jonesy said:


> #4 Circumcision, Jews and Muslims require the circumcision of infant males. Some argue that circumcision is an unnecessary act which can border on the cruel treatment of children.


Yeah. Also a tough one. My wife and I decided we wouldn't do it, should it be an issue. (we had a girl, bullet dodged ) My gut reaction is to say that this is something that will require much care in addressing. I don't really know what to say here, other than my own circumcision didn't scar me for life (other than physically of course).



da_jonesy said:


> In these cases society in general has views which may often conflict with the views of these religious communities. The question I have is which has more say than the other? Do the views of the society in general outweigh the views of any particular religious group?


Like I say, I don't think there is one answer to your questions. My general statement on rules is that any time we think we can make one rule that applies to all situations, we are deluding ourselves.

edit - Bad code! Go sit in the corner!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> And personal experience is a form of evidence. It is the most common "proof" for those who choose to believe.


C'mon - pick one or the other.
Say it's belief - metaphysical - and leave it at that and stop with the "proof" nonsense" as it's not repeatable of verifiable in any way shape or form ....it's unfounded "belief" as much as luck or leprechauns and hardly a sound basis to build a functional civilization on.

Speak of the social needs of humans as tribal primates and how your human welfare organization addresses those needs both physical and metaphysical and then you get respect for realism which you've shown but not acknowledged.

Tell us straight out the belief structure is entirely metaphorical and useful for functioning as a human in an uncertain world and THAT engenders respect.

Talk about proof and you lose all credibility.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

da_jonesy said:


> #1 Abortion, clearly the Catholic church says abortions should be banned, however our society has said that in certain circumstances abortions can be allowed.


The Catholic church only has "jurisdiction" over Catholics. Legal abortion does not infringe on the rights of Catholics not to have one. 



da_jonesy said:


> #2 Religious Adornments, Sikhs are allowed to wear a Turban if they serve in the RCMP. The issue about this came up in the 80's and people argued that if they serve in the RCMP they should be bound by the RCMP guidelines regarding uniform.


Uniforms are rarely "uniform." Exceptions for medical necessity (glasses), gender norms (long hair, skirts, jewelry, make-up for women), religious items (turbans) are quite common.

Some exceptions are actually institutionalized. For instance, the ceremonial dress for the Canadian Forces is largely standardized, but exceptions exist for regiments with strong ethnic roots, like Highlander regiments that wear kilts, or Pioneer platoons that wear beards. The Navy can wear beards, but the Army cannot.



da_jonesy said:


> #3 Religous Practices, Sikhs are required to carry a Kirpan, however in some cases the notion of carrying a concealed weapon (even a ceremonial one) is disputed in some schools.


Either option is fine, really. Sikhs themselves are divided over whether a kirpan is a "requirement" so a push for "safer schools" would likely be successful. On the other hand, the presence of kirpans doesn't appear to have created a problem either, so why try to solve a non-issue? Remember that students can also be found legally carrying around baseball bats or wearing steel toe shoes, which could be used as a weapon in an instant.

Like I said, this is a non-issue. Why waste energy on a non-existant problem when bullying and guns in schools are a real danger? First things first.



da_jonesy said:


> #4 Circumcision, Jews and Muslims require the circumcision of infant males. Some argue that circumcision is an unnecessary act which can border on the cruel treatment of children.


Jews do not perform circumcision until around puberty.

And the medical community is still divided over whether circumcision is painful or not, or whether it affects sexual satisfaction. Give the lack of consensus, the time for a rule is clearly premature.

Here is an important thing to remember about "customary practices." They arise out of cultural circumstances. As the culture changes, so should the rules. Uniformity is easy when everyone is the same religion and gender and ethnicity. As Canada becomes more diverse, the rules need to adapt to the diversity.

In regards to issues of safety and medical necessity, it should take time for practices to filter down from the "scientific authorities" to the man on the street. We've known for decades that smoking causes cancer, but imposing a blanket ban on smoking against a population that wants to smoke is a guarantee for failure. Slow, piecemeal legislation will be more effective in the long run in such matters.

Here is the important thing to remember about laws and rules. They are not a means of radical social change, but codification of already established practices. In other words, customs are the basis of laws, not the other way around. Trying to use law to change customary practices (like smoking) is unlikely to work unless it is implemented gradually.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Can science prove/quantify love exists?


lpk answered this in general but the phsyiological state of love is quite well understood from brain chemistry and hormone/pherome tho the term "love" has a very wide net of meaning.



> Cuddling
> 
> The chemical oxytocin has been termed the cuddling chemical. Linked to milk production in women, oxytocin makes women and men calmer and more sensitive to the feelings of others.
> 
> ...


The sooner humans acknowledge the reality of their primate roots and get rid of the "special being" clap trap the sooner we can perhaps deal with the many issues confronting a society and planet with too few resources for the level of population.

Understanding how geography, genetics, evolution mold our persons and institutions is the start in curing social and personal problems and understanding and perhaps resolving conflict.

there's enough "noise" in the system of adding to human knowledge without mixing in superstitious nonsense and burdening the best minds with religious minefields they need to tiptoe through. 

We're alone in a totally wonderous and uncaring universe and we best make a strong, clean, sustainable and peaceful environment before we're just another fossil in the record of failed species.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Jews do not perform circumcision until around puberty.
> 
> And the medical community is still divided over whether circumcision is painful or not, or whether it affects sexual satisfaction. Give the lack of consensus, the time for a rule is clearly premature.


UUUmmmm you sure about that? I'm pretty sure it happens to infants and the ceremony is called a Bris (spelling?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bris

But, that is beside the point, I didn't raise those issues to be taken down one by one, everyone will have their own opinion about those topics. The issue I am trying to raise whether or not collective rights/practices of religious groups should take precedence of the collective/practices of the societal rights at large?



lpkmckenna said:


> Here is an important thing to remember about "customary practices." They arise out of cultural circumstances. As the culture changes, so should the rules. Uniformity is easy when everyone is the same religion and gender and ethnicity. As Canada becomes more diverse, the rules need to adapt to the diversity.


I think I disagree with you... perhaps this is why I'm having issue with this argument in general. I do disagree with the comment...

_"customary practices." They arise out of cultural circumstances. As the culture changes, so should the rules. _

So what you are saying is that it is perfectly fine for people coming to Canada to assimilate rather than maintain their cultural/ethnic identity? I don't think that is what you are saying, but that is how it is coming across to me.



lpkmckenna said:


> In regards to issues of safety and medical necessity, it should take time for practices to filter down from the "scientific authorities" to the man on the street. We've known for decades that smoking causes cancer, but imposing a blanket ban on smoking against a population that wants to smoke is a guarantee for failure. Slow, piecemeal legislation will be more effective in the long run in such matters.


Again, I'm not sure that I agree with you... First off, the argument is not exactly analogous in that we are talking about a health issue and not a religious issue.

But how then do you apply that to issues of religion? are you suggesting that "Slow, piecemeal legislation" be introduced to weed out those undesirable elements? I don't think you mean that either.

In regards to your smoking point, perhaps in the beginning we need to move slowly, however at this point I think that given the evidence, society is perfectly within its rights to put a total ban on tobacco sales, or at the very least have members sign a consent document that makes it quite clear that they are opting out of any societal health care benefits because of their practices. 



lpkmckenna said:


> Here is the important thing to remember about laws and rules. They are not a means of radical social change, but codification of already established practices. In other words, customs are the basis of laws, not the other way around. Trying to use law to change customary practices (like smoking) is unlikely to work unless it is implemented gradually.


I disagree... laws and rules are absolutely tools to provide radical social change in certain circumstances... the Charter is one example of that. I think that the same sex legislation that has arisen out of the recognition of the Charter is a perfect example of that and an example of where it only benefits society in general.

The issues I brought up, however show where there a clear gray areas in recognizing the rights of any particular affinity group as opposed to individual/collective rights of society as a whole.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

DJ I think perhaps you need to look at the ACTUAL dynamic of laws and social acception. SHOULD and DOES are very different.

Blanket social reconstruction like abolition and even the current soft drug situation are good examples.
When society deems a law to be unjust, unfairly applied or too far out of concensus of human behaviour then it often does far more societal damage than it purports to address in the first place.

Human foibles, gambling, drinking, etc have been gradually brought into socially acceptable forms to benefit society as a whole through taxation and controlled activity levels etc while putting a brake on the socially destructive aspects such as criminal exploitation.

Soft drug use and prostitution have yet to undergo that in Canada tho other countries like Holland have bought laws and human behaviour into a balance that works quite well in these areas.

The law and social adherence to it and even respect for the institution is very much a two way process.
The revolution of the Charter was in embedding minority protections very deeply into the guiding document for the nation.

Without quite widespread support laws no matter how high minded will be eroded or avoided or disrespected so in the real world instead of the theoretical one ......common sense has a large role to play.

"Common" and "custom" that evolve into legislation from the day to day practice of human interaction are a huge part of legal system and process.
Best legislation simply codifies existing practice in a uniform manner.
Worst disrupts existing practice badly and ends up causing more harm thatn good.

Smoking elimination has been a tricky bit of social and legislative engineering.

•••

Where the Charter truly shines is in giving individuals protection FROM their culture which seeks in their eyes to impose unwanted restrictions or enforce cultural norms which the individual disagrees with . One reason I approve of Ontario's removal of it's legal sanctioning of religious courts.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> And, as I have already said, very little of what I claim is outside of the mainstream policies of my denomination, the United Church of Canada. And, again, we are the largest *non*-Roman Catholic Christian denomination in this nation.


Sorry, I missed the *non-* before... I was having a lot of difficulty trying to bring your statements into line with what my Catholic friends (oddly, I have a lot of Catholic friends) tell me about their religion. In my experience, the UC is the least objectionable flavour of Christianity... you folks remind me a lot of the Buddhists I know (if I had to be religious, I'd pick Buddhism).



> All I ask of anyone, whether they are in my congregation or elsewhere, is that a person be honest in their expressions of what they believe, and be open to question and doubt.


Except maybe if they're a biologist/computer-geek who has studied evolution and population genetics extensively and sees very strong parallels between the nature of biological viruses, computer viruses, and organized religions? Or between the delusions caused by schizophrenia and the delusions apparently caused by these beliefs? 

I'm certainly not the only scientist who has made these connections. There is now an entire field of neurotheology (complete with a peer-reviewd journal publishing reports investigating the neurochemical/neurophysiological basis of religious experiences) and Memetics (a good friend of mine is a cultural anthropologist at Stanford who's Ph.D. thesis included epidemiological modelling of the spread of religions explicitly based on the premise that religions are informational viruses).



> If it makes you feel any better, those same "Christians" usually react much more hostily to me than to you. "I'll pray for your salvation" is about the politest I've ever gotten.


I've had more hostile responses as well. My point was, you wouldn't be insulted by someone saying "I'll pray for you" or "Bless you", and you shouldn't be insulted by my suggestion that I think you've been infected with a memetic virus, but I hope you get better. That doesn't mean I don't like you, or appreciate the valuable perspective you bring to this discussion (quite the contrary, I think you've made very good points and you have changed my perspective on this issue somewhat).



> What I'm suggesting to you is that your data set is vastly incomplete.


This is almost trivially true. 

Here is a little bit of biology for you to consider. The relationship between hosts and parasites is governed by several factors, one of which is that a parasite that kills (significantly reduces the fitness of) it's host can only be successful if there is a very large host population and low competition. There is a strong selective advantage to reducing the deleterious effect of infection, and long-term parasites are often almost without negative effects on their hosts. For example, we are all infected with a bunch of viruses that generally do nothing but hitchhike in our DNA. Some of these can cause cold-sores under certain conditions, or turn into unpleasant diseases like shingles in old age, but many of these viruses have become completely dormant, and are simply genetic hitch hikers. Having lots of these hitch hikers (with their recombination-favoring repetitive elements) may actually be advantageous, because it favours the sort of genetic reorganizations that allow rapid evolution of new characteristics.

Where I'm going with this is that I see many of the Abrahamic religions starting to show signs of evolving into memetic organisms more compatible with a modern, civilized conceptual framework (i.e. becoming less dogmatic, and more flexible... the UC is a good example of this). This is analogous to a virus evolving such that it causes less stress in its host. Hopefully see the evolution of these belief systems such that they cease to be the cause of so much strife in our society.

Finally, I should also say that I do think science is a memetic system as well, the primary difference between it and religious systems is that science is constrained to beliefs that are congruent with observable facts (i.e. the selective pressures on science are the results of experimentation). Religion appears to me to be constrained by the rules of marketing, rather than the rules of nature.

Cheers


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> ...So yes, I do know, in the sense of common usage of the term and beyond a reasonable doubt.


Nope, you have no basis to elevate atheist belief to knowledge whereas religious belief is something else. You can't know what can't be known.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> UC is the least objectionable flavour of Christianity... you folks remind me a lot of the Buddhists I know (if I had to be religious, I'd pick Buddhism).


I agree on both counts tho the Quakers rank pretty high for me.

Good post B. :clap:

I would also add that religion is also often a buffer against future shock of all sorts and that "conservatism" is used as a powerful tool by those who would drive it to their own advantage.

Some like a powerful voice saying "This is the way it is".....

the scientist's views often couched in obscure and highly precise but difficult to "condense" language hampers the clarity and simplicity desired by some in viewing the world and change. 

YOUR voice in it's strength and clarity is very very welcome for me :clap: 

.......and is fun to poke the hornets nest from time to time


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Nope, you have no basis to elevate atheist belief to knowledge whereas religious belief is something else. You can't know what can't be known.


It's a language thing. Most of what we 'know' is really highly likely to be correct, not known, yet the word is used nonetheless.

You can make up almost any item in your imagination and it cannot be proven to not exist, but we 'know' it doesn't. So there is a basis, that basis being any reasonably pragmatic approach to the usage of 'know'. If this were a philosophy journal, the usage would be much more limited, but in conversational English, we 'know' things.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

nxw I'm surprised....please don't descend into citing mystic phrases such as unknowable to turn atheism into a religion.....its not.

Belief does not require proof.

Knowledge demands it.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc, as a philosophy major, do you know the proper phrasing to describe the concept I'm trying to get across on absolute 'knowing' (only exists by a purely logical framework) and what I'm referring to as pragmatic or practical knowing that is based on likelihood? Fun example: I know I'm not an alien, but I don't 'know' I'm not an alien.

Maybe it's along the lines of: proving something exists just involves finding it, but proving (absolute philosophical proof) something doesn't exist involves essentially peeking under every particle in existence to verify it isn't there. There must be a more concise and clear way to say this.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

It's not a language thing. The proofs of God's existence or non-existence are philosophical, not scientific. You have no rational basis to elevate your personal belief to knowledge.

And while Atheism isn't a religion, per se, it is a personal philosophy, even a religious belief, and has the characteristics of one.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> Belief does not require proof.
> 
> Knowledge demands it.


This looks pretty good. In fact, I want to buy it, because it's wrapped up with a pretty bow and it feels so definitive.

Unfortunately, I can't buy it, myself. Too neat. Too pat a reduction.

On the other hand, a great contribution to a fascinating and ongoing discussion.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It is very much language, unless you apply absolute proof instead of probable proof to your daily functioning. There is no absolute proof of many things you believe (know, in the common use of the word). 

You can not prove that you are not an alien, or that the whole of existence is in your imagination, in an absolute sense. Elevating the existence of God to a much higher standard of proof than pretty much everything else in life is a position (presumed importance of the idea) but just arguing by that standard for this case while ignoring the context of such an approach is peculiar.

Probable proof, the basis of experimental science and much of knowledge, is a rational basis. It's like the principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt...not proof beyond all doubt. Absolute 'truth' can be a useful thought exercise, but it does not apply to much of daily life. This basic concepts permeates daily life and, in particular, the legal system.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> And while Atheism isn't a religion, per se, it is a personal philosophy, even a religious belief, and has the characteristics of one.


This could be part of our difference. I don't elevate the existence of God to a philosophical standard of absolute proof. I treat it just like any thing else (economics, climate change, that car coming down street that could probably damage me, but you never know, etc...). 

If you elevate it to a philosophical arena and the specific language involved then very little is known. If, however, you treat 'knowledge' on the same terms as other topics then it is known, to me. I know God does not exist in any practical sense of the word 'know'. In strictly absolute usage of the word, virtually nothing is known by anyone (including whether or not anyone exists). Useful thought exercise, like a good jog for one's brain, but not practical in any sense.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I am not talking about absolutes at all. In fact, the issue is the basis of your belief relative to mine, i.e. you have no more evidence on which to base your belief than I do mine. As such, you have no basis to elevate your beliefs to a higher plane of "knowledge" as opposed to a belief, which you obviously characterize as something less.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

bryanc said:


> It seems to me that a rational and informed person does not choose their beliefs. A rational person is compelled to believe by reason and evidence.


Compelled is the wrong word. What makes a man rational is that he *chooses* his beliefs based on the evidence, not in the absence of (or contrary to) the evidence.



bryanc said:


> As a professional skeptic...


Gee, that sounds like a good job. (I'm gonna *kill* my guidance counsellor!) Are the hours good? How's the benefits? 



bryanc said:


> To me, the claim that there is a magical sky-daddy who created the universe and who desperately craves the adoration of a certain species of hairless ape on an unremarkable blue planet in the backwaters of the western spiral arm of the milky-way galaxy seems pretty extraordinary. But whatever turns your crank. Just keep it out of the schools.


I'm not very fond of this type of statement. To describe an opponents beliefs in the most hostile terminology possible violates the principle of rational accommodation. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

For instance, you state "desperately craves the adoration." No believer has ever said this, and in fact there are many imaginable reasons why God might expect worship. I doubt it's because he "craves adoration" but perhaps he expects respect, the way a father expects respect from his children. 

By narrowing down the imaginable reasons to the most hostile interpretation, you are at best putting words in your opponents mouth. At worst you are setting up a straw-man (which is what you've done here).

A rule of thumb for philosophy (or any other debate): describe your opponents views with terminology that is mutually agreeable. That's the principle of rational accommodation (or "principle of charity").

Consider this: "To me, the claim that God who created the universe and expects worship of all humans on Earth seems pretty extraordinary."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> Consider this: "To me, the claim that God who created the universe and expects worship of all humans on Earth seems pretty extraordinary."


An extraordinary post lpkmckenna. :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nxnw: Someone who believed that there is a small pencil on the far side of Alpha Centauri that controls our minds could say the same thing. You have no evidence that it isn't true because absolute proof of non-existence is a specific philosophical standard. It is a completely ridiculous example, but that is what you open yourself to when requiring absolutist proof. This was not meant to insult, just to demonstrate the truly demanding nature of absolutist proof of non-existence. For further clarity: I am not comparing the example to a belief in God, the example demonstrates the weaknesses with requiring a certain standard of proof. 

I see no analytical framework or evidence for God's existence. I know God doesn't exist. The 'higher plane' is expecting absolute standards of proof on this issue instead of conventional proof. That is a position to take, as long as it is honestly presented as something outside the norm of how we treat knowledge. It is a very different standard of 'knowing' than we commonly use. 

I don't characterize a belief in God as something less, I characterize it as a belief and as faith. 

Faith, emotion and reason. One isn't less or more than the other, they are all a part of humanity. As I've said, reason is what public policy needs, but that doesn't mean I'm characterizing the other two as 'less'. [Edit: for further clarification, they all interact in an individual]

Do not mistake a disagreement over when to apply and not apply a very demanding logical standard with me characterizing theism [Edit: added for clarity] as something less.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

lpkmckenna said:


> Gee, that sounds like a good job. (I'm gonna *kill* my guidance counsellor!) Are the hours good? How's the benefits?


:lmao: 

You may want to check this link... it claims to be about the issue of women in science, but it's really about science as a career. Very accurate in my experience.



> I'm not very fond of this type of statement. To describe an opponents beliefs in the most hostile terminology possible violates the principle of rational accommodation.


Sorry, it was an attempt at humour, not hostility. I should've used a  For those who didn't get it, it's a nod to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.



> Consider this: "To me, the claim that God who created the universe and expects worship of all humans on Earth seems pretty extraordinary."


That is exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> 
> You may want to check this link... it claims to be about the issue of women in science, but it's really about science as a career. Very accurate in my experience.


Interesting article. Reminds me of why I didn't pursue a Phd. The best advice I got was: don't do a Phd for the money or career aspirations or recognition. Do it because you want the Phd in and of itself.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I'm still not convinced in any way, bryanc, but I suspect we have reached an impasse. By all the definitions that you have provided, I could just as well argue that humanity as a whole is a virus (see: The Matrix), as is every other living thing. I suspect that if you want to think something is a virus, the definition can almost always be made to apply. And the fact that someone or group of people has invented a scholarly field is really proof of nothing.

As for the knowledge question, I know that God exists. Can I prove it by empirical standards? Absolutely not, and I wouldn't even try. At the core of my knowledge is my personal experience, and that is not something that can be taught, even to a willing pupil. I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but I cannot help but proceed based on the knowledge that I possess. Or, rather, I choose to follow what my personal experience has taught me. (nod to lp's excellent distinction there). I respect your right to do the same, even if your knowledge is different than mine (and, therefor, flawed ).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

RevMatt said:


> As for the knowledge question, I know that God exists. Can I prove it by empirical standards? Absolutely not, and I wouldn't even try. At the core of my knowledge is my personal experience, and that is not something that can be taught, even to a willing pupil. I accept the possibility that I may be wrong, but I cannot help but proceed based on the knowledge that I possess. Or, rather, I choose to follow what my personal experience has taught me. (nod to lp's excellent distinction there). I respect your right to do the same, even if your knowledge is different than mine (and, therefor, flawed ).


:clap: :clap: :clap: 

Well put. I would add, in my statistical lingo, that I acknowledge a non-zero probability of the existence of God. Nonetheless, I know that God doesn't exist. I respect your right to do the same, even if you are a shameless socialist.  

Nxnw: Now THAT was characterising an idea as something less!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

The United Church of Canada. What a nice, accommodating place. Otherwise known as "the church of what's happening now." Going to the United Church website, the "church" looks more like an political activist group than a church. See: http://www.united-church.ca/action/

"Liberal" churches like the United Church amuse me because they are attempting to make what is essentially exclusionary and intolerant appear to be the opposite. Jesus was a harsh moralist, demanding perfection from his followers, but the United Church presents him as an accommodating guru.

I can understand when Christians don't accept everything in the Bible, but to directly contradict what Jesus himself evidently said doesn't sound much like Christianity to me. See some of my comments below.

(Feel free to utter reject my observations about what "sounds like Christianity," since an atheist lecturing a reverend on Jesus is pretty odd. I just want to explain why I rejected both orthodox Christianity and "pick'n'choose" Christianity like the United Church.)

I find liberal and orthodox churches to be little more than opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin. I want to stress that fundamentalists and evangelicals get mocked quite a bit, but liberal churches like the United Church also deserve a good mocking now and then.



RevMatt said:


> Again, we have definition difficulties. A large spectrum of Christianity does not believe that there is only one way to "salvation" (ignoring, for the moment, the arguments about what that word means). We are quite comfortable with other faiths, and with other ways of being in touch with what we understand as God.


Gee, that doesn't jive with some things Jesus said, like:

*John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." *

or 

*7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.*



RevMatt said:


> It would be hypocritical to suggest that God does not therefor also accept the reality of those who choose not to relate, or, indeed, choose/are unable to believe in the very existence of that which we call God. I don't hold it against them, and I don't believe that God does, either.


Gee, I hope you're right, because as an atheist that works out pretty well for me. I get to go to heaven, and I don't have to do anything to get there!



RevMatt said:


> Again, I feel the need to point out that you are taking one very narrow view of Christianity, and assuming that it applies to the whole. Given that liberal Christianity, by it's nature, isn't self-promoting, I can't blame you, really.


Isn't evangelizing Jesus necessary to being Christian? Didn't Jesus say:

*Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 24:48 You are witnesses of these things. 24:49 Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.”*



RevMatt said:


> But there is a lot more to Christianity than the slice that one sees one TV.


I suppose there is the biblical Jesus to consider, though.

When I chose to become an atheist, I didn't merely leave Catholicism, I left the belief that Jesus was a worthwhile moral teacher. How can anybody believe in a man who says: 

*Matt 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so. 19:9 I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries her when she is divorced commits adultery.”*

or 

*Matt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, * ‘You shall not commit adultery;’* 5:28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.*

or 

*Matt 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’* 5:39 But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 5:40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.*

or

*Matt 7:6 “Don’t give that which is holy to the dogs, neither throw your pearls before the pigs, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.* Who are the dogs and pigs here?

Jesus did properly discuss an issue which I think is crucial: forgiveness. But to ask forgiveness, one must first recognize guilt. And I don't feel guilty for this:

*Matt 6:19 “Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal; 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don’t break through and steal; 6:21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.*

Frankly, I love my guitars and my Mac and my camera, my collection of books and films, and a whole lot of other "earthly treasures." Where I'm from, that's called "culture."

Jesus loves to lay on the guilt. But consider this: "The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt." (from Ayn Rand)

Jesus just doesn't measure up to the truly great moralists, like Socrates or Spinoza (or Rand, of course....).


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> I see no analytical framework or evidence for God's existence. I know God doesn't exist. The 'higher plane' is expecting absolute standards of proof on this issue instead of conventional proof.


Not at all. Both existence and non-existence are restricted to philosophical arguments, and one can make fine arguments for both.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

lpkmckenna said:


> Frankly, I love my guitars and my Mac and my camera, my collection of books and films, and a whole lot of other "earthly treasures." Where I'm from, that's called "culture."


Yeah, we got a lot a that "culture" stuff on our barn floors too.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Jesus just doesn't measure up to the truly great moralists, like Socrates or Spinoza (or Rand, of course....).


We disagree on Rand, quite strongly I suspect. I wouldn't put 'truly great' near anything to do with her ideas, although some of her writing and story telling was very good at exposing weaknesses in other philosophies. I may go so far as to say there are great excerpts and snippets of insight from Rand, but not much else.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lp, to be honest, I have no real interest in engaging that level of hostility in a place I come in my time off. I get enough of that the rest of the time. Suffice it to say that proof-texting is not a technique that I give any weight to. It is shallow and virtually always in error. All scripture needs to be read in context.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Lpkmckenna

Your knowledge of scripture is impressive. Heck as a former Catholic, you have a better grasp of it than 99% of the practicing ones. You obviously did some serious research and soul searching before you left the church. Its refreshing to here an atheist making his case against christianity that actually knows something about it.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Beej said:


> We disagree on Rand, quite strongly I suspect. I wouldn't put 'truly great' near anything to do with her ideas, although some of her writing and story telling was very good at exposing weaknesses in other philosophies. I may go so far as to say there are great excerpts and snippets of insight from Rand, but not much else.


I was a huge fan of Rand during my late teens. This was derived from reading most of her most famous fictional works - _The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem_. In a few short years I was utterly annoyed with myself for having ever fallen for her brittle polarities of characterization - her magnificent heroes and heroines on the one hand, her abject and disgusting sheep-like hordes who had no brains and followed the wrong people on the other - and simply nothing in between. They were cartoon worlds permitting no shades of grey, only stark choices and terribly momentous consequences stemming from them.

I did however appreciate the sentiment of self-reliance she was always projected, and it's an aspect of small-c conservatism I quite admire. But Rand as a novelist? _Bleh._ No complexities, just predictable tales and stern morality plays.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> But Rand as a novelist? _Bleh._ No complexities, just predictable tales and stern morality plays.


Yeah, but I remember there being good bits in Atlas Shrugged (repeated ad nauseum to turn a good short story into an 1100 page rant). So I would agree overall, but if you look at individual chapters or paragraphs there were well written parts, in my opinion. Of course, the tales also said a lot about her psychology, as any personal book will. As for her actual ideas (instead of way with words)...probably a topic for another rolicking thread.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

When it comes to Rand as a novelist, I too have many issues with her. Atlas Shrugged was really bad in regards to "preaching."

But the Fountainhead changed my life. I still love the story and the characters.

As for "disgusting sheep-like hordes who had no brains," Ellsworth Tooey was a great villain. He is an amazing example of how men like Hitler and Stalin really think.

And I have met many people like Peter Keating. "He didn't want to build, but be admired as a builder." Love that line.

The news publisher (forget name) was a great commentary on the empty power held by William Randolph Hearst.

Ultimately, it's Rand's philosophy that I admire.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. Certain passages were pretty mesmerizing. It was the daunting, relentless repetition of the same ideas, and accompanying tenor, which eventually soured me on her writing. But her ideas are certainly very interesting, if not a bit problematic at times.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> But her ideas are certainly very interesting, if not a bit problematic at times.


What ideas? The big ideas all predated her. She had logical constructs with the assumptions that generally go with such philosophies and she had ways of communicating them and communicating some bad implications of other constructs. A very successful advocate of existing good ideas, who added some of her own tweaks and assumptions to build an alternative mix, would be my polite evaluation.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> As for her actual ideas (instead of way with words)...probably a topic for another rolicking thread.


Whoops, forgot already.  Sorry.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> lp, to be honest, I have no real interest in engaging that level of hostility in a place I come in my time off. I get enough of that the rest of the time. Suffice it to say that proof-texting is not a technique that I give any weight to. It is shallow and virtually always in error. All scripture needs to be read in context.


What level of hostility? I was stating my reasons for leaving Catholicism, and why I didn't go the route of "liberal Christianity."

Didn't you say this: "OK, let me be clear one more time - religion should never be exempt from intellectual scrutiny." http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=364256&postcount=34

After hearing you say this, I thought you could handle a little give'n'take. I guess not. Too bad.

You also said this: "And this is why it is important for everyone to be open to challenge." http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=364511&postcount=60 Except for you. You come here to "relax."


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Ellsworth Tooey was a great villain. He is an amazing example of how men like Hitler and Stalin really think.


 I remember him, if only faintly. 1979 was a long time ago, and I never picked up another Rand book after that.

(;->))

Perhaps it's time to revisit some of it. I thought _Anthem_ was pretty pure and suffered less from Rand's predictable excesses than her later works. The thing I most recall about Rand's villains and ne'erdowells is that she described them in certain habitual terms which read like code. If we as readers were not meant to admire certain characters, but rather fear or despise them, there'd be something wrong with their eyes - they'd be filmy or shifty, or strangely fixated. They sneered rather than laughed. Their posture couldn't compete with that of Rand's saviour protagonists, who were seemingly cut from an elite stratum of society. There was almost a sense of historical inevitability to their rise in prominence. I thought there were interesting parallels with fascism and its peculiar charms.

Anyway, it was too much for me. But initially I sure found Rand's embedded themes terrifically galvanizing, because they seemed to grant me license to do all sorts of things and justify it in the name of something grand called 'objectivism.' Only much later was I to even to begin to realize that all philosophies and ways of living involve sacrifice, hardship and dedicated effort to understand. And I guess I also realized that I love literature perhaps even more than I admire philosophy or religion.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> What ideas? The big ideas all predated her.


 Well, shucks - I didn't mean to suggest that her ideas were brand-new! Nothing new under the sun, anyway. No, I was just talking about the most resonant themes of her books - self-reliance and discipline, the heroism of individual action, the morality of the individual in the face of mob behaviour and its perilous dynamics... stuff like that. They were, clearly, the notions which most passionately drove her.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Max said:


> Well, shucks - I didn't mean to suggest that her ideas were brand-new! Nothing new under the sun, anyway. No, I was just talking about the most resonant themes of her books - self-reliance and discipline, the heroism of individual action, the morality of the individual in the face of mob behaviour and its perilous dynamics... stuff like that. They were, clearly, the notions which most passionately drove her.


Agreed. Her ideas on how to communicate outside of philosophy and into literature were good. Pity about the ranting tendency though.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> What ideas? The big ideas all predated her. She had logical constructs with the assumptions that generally go with such philosophies and she had ways of communicating them and communicating some bad implications of other constructs. A very successful advocate of existing good ideas, who added some of her own tweaks and assumptions to build an alternative mix, would be my polite evaluation.


Holy! So many of Rand's ideas were completely original I don't know where to begin.

I'll pick a personal "favorite": the link between values as a necessity for survival, and values as the psychological root of emotions. (Can't find a relevent quote.)

Another favorite: the link between intellectual freedom and economic freedom. No one ever said anything like this before:
*When I say "capitalism," I mean a pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism - with a separation of economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as a separation of state and church.* 

or 

*Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.*

Ayn Rand's defence of self-interest is unique, too. Before her, advocates of "enlightened self-interest" said businesses should be permitted freedom to make money because "society as a whole will benefit." Rand disagreed. She was the first to advocate self-interest as the basis of moral thinking.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Her ideas on how to communicate outside of philosophy and into literature were good. Pity about the ranting tendency though


Yeah, well, my own theory is that, as a writer of fiction, she tended to come off as a somewhat shrill ideologue. But as a theorist and philosopher, she made much more sense. But I suppose she had intended to use the novel as an entry point with which to popularize her ideas. I just don't think she was particularly good at it. But all the same, here we are, decades later, discussing her. So she was quite successful in propagating her viewpoint. Still lots of ardent Rand people out there. I used to run into them more often in past years, but maybe that's because I've largely stopped going to parties and hanging out in the kitchen, engaging in sloppy chin-wags while the drinks slosh about. Once or twice I dimly recall having made some offhand remarks which seriously annoyed a Rand fan - which events made me think these people simply had no sense of humour. Certainly, I found precious little evidence of good humour in Rand's own novels. They were always so dreadfully serious and purposeful.

But the more we discuss it, the more obliged I feel to take a sounding and see if I still feel the same way after a re-reading of at least a passage. I really ought to go down into the basement and pop open some of those mouldy cardboard boxes. I know I still have all of those Rand books somewhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Holy! So many of Rand's ideas were completely original I don't know where to begin.
> 
> I'll pick a personal "favorite": the link between values as a necessity for survival, and values as the psychological root of emotions. (Can't find a relevent quote.)
> 
> ...


This is where we will disagree a lot. I don't mean these to be personal attacks on something you respect, but I don't really have much positive to say about her actual philosophy, as opposed to her communication of concepts.

Her system assumed inherent morality for the individual pursuing self interest (what the individual was made to do). There was also a patch to cover off anarachy (don't hurt someone else's pursuit). From there, the observations are simply what self-interest as a moral good means (ie what should morally good self interested people do). As such, the concepts founded on the assumptions are, from what I've seen, straight-forward implications of an imposed morality. Not really big philosophical ideas, more of a 'what if self-interest were morally good and all else bad? Then what else would be morally good and bad?'. Maybe some of her papers had really remarkable implications, but I haven't seen them.

Her statements were true in her assumed moral framework. This allowed her discussion of existing ideas (e.g. economics, individual freedom) to take on religious tones of righteousness. But the core leaps of human philosophy were not hers. This is why her work is more of interest as a 'movement' than as important philosophical works.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> Maybe some of her papers had really remarkable implications, but I haven't seen them.


Haven't seen what? The papers, or the remarkable implications?

It's late. Bedtime. Tomorrow, I'll start a thread on Rand so we can stop de-railing this one.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_rand

A decent writeup on the 'controversy'. Exerpts:

Within the dominant philosophical movement in the English-speaking world, analytic philosophy, Rand's work has been mostly ignored. 
...
A notable exception to the general lack of attention paid to Rand is the essay "On the Randian Argument" by Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick, which appears in his collection Socratic Puzzles. Nozick's own libertarian political conclusions are similar to Rand's, but his essay criticizes her foundational argument in ethics, which claims that one's own life is, for each individual, the only ultimate value because it makes all other values possible. To make this argument sound, Nozick argues that Rand still needs to explain why someone could not rationally prefer the state of eventually dying and having no values. Thus, he argues, her attempt to deduce the morality of selfishness is essentially an instance of assuming the conclusion or begging the question and that her solution to David Hume's famous is-ought problem is unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, Nozick respected Rand as an author and noted that he found her books enjoyable and thought-provoking.
...
Rand's views on sex have also led to some controversy. According to her, "For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man." (1968) Some in the BDSM community see her work as relevant and supportive, particularly The Fountainhead [10].
...
Another source of controversy is Rand's view that homosexuality is "immoral" and "disgusting" [11], as well as her support for the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality, such as in their hiring practices. Specifically, she stated that "there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality" because "it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises".
...
On the topic of non-governmental discrimination, Rand's defenders argue that her support for its legality was motivated by holding property rights above civil or human rights (as she did not believe that human rights were distinct from property rights) so it did not constitute an endorsement of the morality of the prejudice itself. In support of this, they cite Rand's opposition to some prejudices — though not homophobia — on moral grounds, in essays like 'Racism' and 'Global Balkanization', while still arguing for the right of individuals and businesses to act on such prejudice without government intervention.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Haven't seen what? The papers, or the remarkable implications?
> 
> It's late. Bedtime. Tomorrow, I'll start a thread on Rand so we can stop de-railing this one.


Ooops, cart over the wiki link to the new thread if you like.

Years ago I read some of her work (beyond Atlas Shrugged) and related work in Objectivism and don't remember coming across anything remarkable. I haven't read all of her work or all Objectivist work (or even close) though.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> What level of hostility? I was stating my reasons for leaving Catholicism, and why I didn't go the route of "liberal Christianity."





lpkmckenna said:


> The United Church of Canada. What a nice, accommodating place. Otherwise known as "the church of what's happening now." Going to the United Church website, the "church" looks more like an political activist group than a church. See: http://www.united-church.ca/action/
> 
> "Liberal" churches like the United Church amuse me because they are attempting to make what is essentially exclusionary and intolerant appear to be the opposite. Jesus was a harsh moralist, demanding perfection from his followers, but the United Church presents him as an accommodating guru.
> 
> I can understand when Christians don't accept everything in the Bible, but to directly contradict what Jesus himself evidently said doesn't sound much like Christianity to me. See some of my comments below.


That hostility. Although to be fair this:



lpkmckenna said:


> Didn't you say this: "OK, let me be clear one more time - religion should never be exempt from intellectual scrutiny." http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=364256&postcount=34
> 
> After hearing you say this, I thought you could handle a little give'n'take. I guess not. Too bad.
> 
> You also said this: "And this is why it is important for everyone to be open to challenge." http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=364511&postcount=60 Except for you. You come here to "relax."


is pretty hostile, too.

Yes, I believe that I need to be open to criticism and questioning. I also believe that I have the right to put some boundaries around when I am willing to engage in that. My time, particularly my highly limited time off, is mine. You want to come into my office, we can talk. You want to join Beej and I at the bar and pay for my beer, I could be amenable. But when you start that post as you did, it turns me off instantly. Not because it is particularly offensive. I've heard all of that before, many times. My local Free Methodist "colleague" (before I moved last week) was fond of referring to me as a heretic, even. But because an opening like that is, in my experience, most often indicative of a closed and hostile mind. And arguing with closed and hostile minds is tiring.

That being said, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try and carve a chunk out of the day to give you a proper response.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> The United Church of Canada. What a nice, accommodating place. Otherwise known as "the church of what's happening now." Going to the United Church website, the "church" looks more like an political activist group than a church. See: http://www.united-church.ca/action/


The United Church believes first and foremost that being a person of faith requires us (yes, requires) to be at work in the world. In particular, we talk of what scripture calls the Kingdom of God, and what in modern terms we refer to as God's realm, or vision, or, my personal favourite, God's dream. That dream is enunciated over and over again in scripture - a world of justice. At the heart of the United Church, we have chosen from our beginning to see Micah 6:8 as descriptive of what we are about as a church. When we chose to leave behind the Apostle's Creed and other historic creeds of the Christian church and compose our own New Creed (originally in 1968, updated since then), we reflected that language of Micah in the creed.
So, yes, we are a church who is committed to justice as it's primary action in this world. Being committed to justice requires being active in the political arena - not with the aim of making everyone Christian, but with the aim of promoting a more justice way of being. Before anyone else says it, I freely acknowledge that we have not always lived up to our ideals, and that we still fail occasionally, and will continue to. But we have a long list of decisions for which we can justly be proud. To name a short few off the top of my head: We have opened ordination to women since our inception in 1925 (women were only just being allowed to vote at the time); we were among the first denominations to fully accept divorce (not sure of the exact chronology), we were the first denomination to apologise for our role in Residential Schools; we were the first denomination to declare that homosexuality was normal and to explicitly open ordination to homosexuals (they were never explicitly excluded); and we were the only mainstream denomination to actively lobby the Federal Government to make same-sex marriage legal.
We are not "the church of what's happening now." Far too often we continue to lag behind society. But we strive to be the church that is inexorably fixed on the quest for a just world. If you really find that to be a negative, I am astounded.



lpkmckenna said:


> "Liberal" churches like the United Church amuse me because they are attempting to make what is essentially exclusionary and intolerant appear to be the opposite. Jesus was a harsh moralist, demanding perfection from his followers, but the United Church presents him as an accommodating guru.
> 
> I can understand when Christians don't accept everything in the Bible, but to directly contradict what Jesus himself evidently said doesn't sound much like Christianity to me. See some of my comments below.


I will say a few specific things about your proof-texting, but not much, for two main reasons. Firstly, as has been evident at several times, most recently in the silly fight about what "fundamentalist" means, you are clearly one who is most comfortable operating in the realm of the absolute and unchangeable. As such, I am not really surprised that you choose to engage Christianity on a proof-texting basis. And you are hardly alone - that is probably the most common approach to the Christian faith, both from within and without. The problem with proof-texting, is that if you are so inclined, anything in the world can be supported with a few short texts from scripture. Hell, I can justify infanticide with scripture if I want to. As such, engaging in debate with someone who favours proof-texting is about as productive as beating my head on the wall. Roughly as painful, also.
On a related note, then, I choose not to engage each and every quote individually because that is not how I approach scripture, and my response, in any case, is going to be some variation of the same: "this is removed from it's historical context, and, therefor, indicative of nothing other than the reality at the time."
Finally, just about everything that you have thrown out as proof here is based on a basic assumption that I do not share: namely that the scriptures are literally true and dependable in a virtually scientific manner. Again, you are certainly not alone in that approach to scripture, but it is not one that I or my denomination share. I will be happy to explain my point of view to you, but such a foundational difference makes any real conversation between us virtually impossible. In fact, let me say right off the bat - if I understood scripture and scriptural truth in the way that you appear to from your comments, I would not be able to attend church, let alone work in it.



lpkmckenna said:


> I find liberal and orthodox churches to be little more than opposite sides of the same counterfeit coin. I want to stress that fundamentalists and evangelicals get mocked quite a bit, but liberal churches like the United Church also deserve a good mocking now and then.


Mocking is good for us. Keeps us humble. Methinks atheists could use some, too 



lpkmckenna said:


> Gee, that doesn't jive with some things Jesus said, like:
> 
> *John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." *
> 
> ...


John is of virtually know *scholarly* value. As a testament of faith, many individuals find it useful, and even I find bits of it helpful, but it's just about my least favourite book of the Bible. Right after Revelations. John's gospel is not an accurate indicator of anything other than that that is what the writer of the gospel thought. It does not pretend to be a historical account of Jesus, and it most certainly isn't. More to the point, we need to recognise the context in which John's gospel was written. It was written for a small community of the faithful who were under considerable siege both from the forces of established Judaism, and from the secular forces of the Roman Empire. As a people under siege, they have specific theological needs. John's gospel is assembled for one purpose only - to meet those needs, and reinforce the people in their fight. As is always the case, people in a fight need certainty. So John's gospel is all about certainty. As such it is far more militant than the other gospels.
As a general rule when reading John - anything that is in John and not in any of the other Gospels can be assumed to have been invented by the writer. And since John was written well after the other three gospels, anything that is both in John and in one other gospel was most likely copied, rather than based on any actual experience of the writer. Only when one finds something in John and more than one other Gospel should one give it credit from an academic/historical point of view.
I hope I have been clear - John's gospel has considerable value as a religious text, even if I personally am not that keen on it. It is only it's historical accuracy, or use as "proof" that I am addressing here.



RevMatt said:


> It would be hypocritical to suggest that God does not therefor also accept the reality of those who choose not to relate, or, indeed, choose/are unable to believe in the very existence of that which we call God. I don't hold it against them, and I don't believe that God does, either.





lpkmckenna said:


> Gee, I hope you're right, because as an atheist that works out pretty well for me. I get to go to heaven, and I don't have to do anything to get there!


The concept of a heavenly reward in the next life is not something I particularly care about, not give much thought to. But since God's essence is forgiveness, I would suspect that if God really is upset about you being an Atheist, She will forgive you. I doubt He actually is upset, though.



lpkmckenna said:


> Isn't evangelizing Jesus necessary to being Christian? Didn't Jesus say:
> 
> *Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 24:48 You are witnesses of these things. 24:49 Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.”*


re: Evangelizing - to preach what Jesus is about does not require that you force those ideas upon those who don't wish to encounter them. The only reason I am doing any preaching here at all is because you requested it. In my life in the real world, I am open about what I do for a living, and before I did that, I was simply open about the fact that I went to church regularly. If someone wanted to have a conversation about that, I would be happy to engage and respond. But evangelizing by force is another thing altogether, and it is one that I find repugnant. Look, Christianity has been around for plenty long enough that virtually everyone on earth knows it exists. The days of needing to start the conversation are long past.



lpkmckenna said:


> I suppose there is the biblical Jesus to consider, though.
> 
> When I chose to become an atheist, I didn't merely leave Catholicism, I left the belief that Jesus was a worthwhile moral teacher. How can anybody believe in a man who says:
> 
> (snip a bunch of quotes from Matthew)


Yeah, see above. Understand the context. (if anyone wants a similar treatise on Matthew's context, ask. But my fingers are tired ) Beyond that, scripture and faith are evolving things. What was claimed once is no longer claimed, and that is true in every denomination. Any which claims otherwise is flat out lying. Even if you can't understand the historical context which might have led Jesus to say those things (assuming he even did), the far more relevant fact is the current stance of the faith.
If instead of viewing the scripture as an endless stream of individual verses (I curse whichever church founder first set up that verse numbering system sometimes) but instead as an organic whole, the most important question is no longer "what does this chunk say" but rather "what is the over-arching message of the scriptures, and how does this particular chunk relate to that message?" This is the approach that I take in my sermons, by the way, and thanks for giving me a chance to write one on my only week off between my old and new job . I believe, and, as you note, Jesus does too, as do our Jewish ancestors and legions of theologians since then, that the over-arching message of scripture is that ultimately, God is a God of love. Love is the driving force behind creation, and love is the force that binds us together. It is because of that desire for a creation that lives out it's love in the fullest that we are committed to the shorter term goal of justice and a resistance of evil. And so, each individual chunk of scripture need to be evaluated in light of that over-arching message. Often, when we understand the historical realities that lay behind a specific teaching, we can see how they did, in fact, once reflect love or at least justice, even if that is no longer true. Sometimes that cannot be found, and so such a chunk must be determined to be inconsistent, and, therefor, not of significant instructive value. 
That, in a nutshell, is how I approach scripture. I recognise that for some who are in greater emotional need such an approach may not be helpful, but since this started as a mostly logical discussion about why some believe and others don't, I have responded in that vein.



lpkmckenna said:


> Jesus did properly discuss an issue which I think is crucial: forgiveness. But to ask forgiveness, one must first recognize guilt. And I don't feel guilty for this:
> 
> *Matt 6:19 “Don’t lay up treasures for yourselves on the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal; 6:20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consume, and where thieves don’t break through and steal; 6:21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.*
> 
> Frankly, I love my guitars and my Mac and my camera, my collection of books and films, and a whole lot of other "earthly treasures." Where I'm from, that's called "culture."


The key here is the last verse - where your treasure is, there your heart will be. I am quite fond of a number of my possessions, too, but they are not definitive of my life. My choices and actions are. If you choose to base your life primarily around the things of this culture, than so be it. But such a choice is, indeed, inconsistent with the Christian faith. One faith cannot be all things to all people.

As for the need to recognise guilt before being able to ask forgiveness, this is a principle that even our justice system acknowledges, at least in theory. Are you suggesting that you disagree?



lpkmckenna said:


> Jesus loves to lay on the guilt. But consider this: "The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt." (from Ayn Rand)


Nowhere does Jesus suggest taking on an unearned guilt, only a brutal honesty with yourself.

nb: I apologise in advance if there are any coding errors. This is a lot of quoting!
edit - bah. Got one of 'em. Any others?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

:clap: 

Anyone who has the courage of their convictions to put together a reply with that much thought and honesty is deserving of respect.

You Sir, have that from me.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Sinc and I are in concurrence regarding your post RevMatt.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Her system assumed inherent morality for the individual pursuing self interest* (what the individual was made to do)*.


Oh spare me. Have you actually read Atlas and Foundation and the smaller works??



> "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."





> Rand’s concept of man as a heroic being – *her vision of human beings as able to achieve great things, and of the universe as open to their efforts -- is a hallmark of her thought*, and certainly a significant part of her widespread appeal. Happiness she holds to be the emotional state that results from the achievement of objective values. Such values and the means to them can only be identified by reason, and Rand holds that they cannot be achieved without such virtues as independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.
> 
> Rand’s virtue-focused rational egoism differs from traditional eudaimonism in that Rand regards ethics as an exact science. Rather than deriving her virtues from a vaguely defined human function, she takes “Man’s Life” – i.e. that which is required for the survival of a rational animal across its lifespan – as her standard of value. This accounts for the nobility she ascribes to production – “the application of reason to the problem of survival” (1966, p. 9). For Rand, reason is man’s means of survival, and even the most theoretical and spiritual functions – science, philosophy, art, love, and reverence for the human potential, among others – are for the sake of life-sustaining action. This, for her, does not demean the spiritual by “bringing it down” to the level of the material; rather, it elevates the material and grounds the spiritual.
> 
> ...


http://www.aynrandsociety.org/

This is a good core of the concept and as a day to day operating concept is works remarkably well. I have some arguement with her lack of taking nature of perception into account but her fous is on "action" and "'choice" in the individual and society as made up of individuals that ....whehter they acknowledge it or not .......do *ALWAYS act in what they perceive as their own best interest.*

The latter is where the minefield lays.

What I like is her taking the next step beyond the freeze and despair existentialism can engender ( Camus/Sartre - on the beach ) and walks right past that to ACT and CHOOSE.

Her popularizing of the concept of the individual as society changer ( Frank Lloyd Wright was the real world model for Foundation ) I think is her best contribution.

Her politics and economics in my mind were highly coloured by her Soviet experience but the fact that Atlas and Foundation continue as enduring tales speaks to her core concept of the importance of individual creativity and it's power very well.

I don't beleive she had the range of scholarship of Colin Wilson or Arthur Koestler.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbmorgan/cwintro.html

She is and was able to inspire individuals through her novels to question just where the power in society resides.
For that I and others are grateful - informed and entertained - inspired too. :clap:

btw.....Where IS John Galt?

There's been times of late when I see what is going on in the US that I think he's about ready to setup shop in Canada........or has already


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Add me RevMatt... excellent post! Thank you... :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Mocking is good for us. Keeps us humble. Methinks atheists could use some, too


That is the essence of the scientific method and just about every Nobel winner has been mocked for their thesis before being PROVEN correct.  It is indeed a requirement for change and progress.

Trading biblical quotes is an hilarious waste of time since the various stories making up any particular version having been mangled, masticated and "revised" for various purposes as to be about effective as astrological aphorisms.

As a social organization serving human life - birth death, coming of age the UC has shown a remarkable willingness to move forward and change.
That it addresses the abuse of the religious schools does not absolve the organization of underlying drive to proselytize, tho softened perhaps by time and hard experience, that created the Residential schools in the first place.

Tell me RM, what's the age demographic of the congregation against Canada's?
Relevance lies there.



> So, yes, we are a church who is committed to justice as it's primary action in this world. Being committed to justice requires being active in the political arena - not with the aim of making everyone Christian, but with the aim of promoting a more justice way of being. Before anyone else says it, I freely acknowledge that we have not always lived up to our ideals, and that we still fail occasionally, and will continue to. But we have a long list of decisions for which we can justly be proud. To name a short few off the top of my head: We have opened ordination to women since our inception in 1925 (women were only just being allowed to vote at the time); we were among the first denominations to fully accept divorce (not sure of the exact chronology), we were the first denomination to apologise for our role in Residential Schools; we were the first denomination to declare that homosexuality was normal and to explicitly open ordination to homosexuals (they were never explicitly excluded); and we were the only mainstream denomination to actively lobby the Federal Government to make same-sex marriage legal.
> *We are not "the church of what's happening now." Far too often we continue to lag behind society. But we strive to be the church that is inexorably fixed on the quest for a just world.* If you really find that to be a negative, I am astounded.


This is an admirable credo for an organization and were it down to

I beleive in a higher power and have that call to action
vs
I don't beleive in a higher power and have that call to action

We would have little to argue beyond best method of achieving it.

I just prefer to take Occam's razor to the issue and say as is circled around in your post- the source of the drive to achieve is within and solely within the individual.
The supernatural trappings are just noise in an otherwise worthy set of goals......as our best and brightest have concluded en masse.

IF humans need a religion ....then the UC I can certainly tolerate if only for it's works and willingness to change and willingness to undertake the social apsects of human life - births, deaths etc which secular organizations are sometimes less adept at.

I think the Quakers in losing the heirarchical aspects still have the edge tho 

Good post tho your scholarship and humanity shows :clap:
Know thy.....................enemy?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Before I begin, I want to indicate a couple of my favourite "religious" websites.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/
http://www.ebible.org/web/indexfr.htm



RevMatt said:


> Being committed to justice requires being active in the political arena - not with the aim of making everyone Christian, but with the aim of promoting a more justice way of being.


Just understand me: I am suspicious of politics motivated by religion. Religion corrupts everything it touches.



RevMatt said:


> we were among the first denominations to fully accept divorce


Hmmm, then why did Jesus explicitly reject it? Could you put that idea in context for me?



RevMatt said:


> But we strive to be the church that is inexorably fixed on the quest for a just world. If you really find that to be a negative, I am astounded.


It's not the "just world" part that scares me, but the church part. In a liberal democracy, we need to keep religion out of politics.



RevMatt said:


> Firstly, as has been evident at several times, most recently in the silly fight about what "fundamentalist" means, you are clearly one who is most comfortable operating in the realm of the absolute and unchangeable. As such, I am not really surprised that you choose to engage Christianity on a proof-texting basis.


What I said there was "fundamentalist" is a highly insulting word to a Muslim, but a badge of honor for an evangelical Christian. The term "fundamentalist" arose in a "historical context," (your favourite expression) and applying it to the Muslim world blurs distinctions and creates deliberate misunderstanding. There is no reason to insist upon the word "fundamentalism" when "orthodox" is more accurate and completely agreeable to all sides.

As for being "one who is most comfortable operating in the realm of the absolute and unchangeable," nothing could be further from the truth. A philosopher and a scientist knows that the truth is dependant upon the evidence. When evidence changes, the truth changes. That's called the "contextual theory of truth."

However, "liberal Christians" don't change beliefs based on changes in evidence. They just change to "keep step" with social trends. That's nowhere near the same thing.



RevMatt said:


> Hell, I can justify infanticide with scripture if I want to.


Given how atrocious the bible is, I don't doubt it. But all my quotes are things Jesus himself was alleged to have said.



RevMatt said:


> On a related note, then, I choose not to engage each and every quote individually because that is not how I approach scripture, and my response, in any case, is going to be some variation of the same: "this is removed from it's historical context, and, therefor, indicative of nothing other than the reality at the time."


Again, all my quotes were of things Jesus allegedly said. I would hope that the Son of God could be capable of seeing beyond "the reality at the time." Or at least pick a couple of biographers who weren't complete morons.



RevMatt said:


> In fact, let me say right off the bat - if I understood scripture and scriptural truth in the way that you appear to from your comments, I would not be able to attend church, let alone work in it.


When I read a book, and realize it's loaded with absurdities and atrocities, I generally don't waste my time filtering through the pages and pages of injustice looking for its tiny nuggets of "scriptural truth." I go and find something better to believe in.



RevMatt said:


> John is of virtually know *scholarly* value. As a testament of faith, many individuals find it useful, and even I find bits of it helpful, but it's just about my least favourite book of the Bible. Right after Revelations. John's gospel is not an accurate indicator of anything other than that that is what the writer of the gospel thought.


Is any gospel historically accurate? And I thought *all books* were "an accurate indicator of ... what the writer ... thought."



RevMatt said:


> It does not pretend to be a historical account of Jesus, and it most certainly isn't.


All the gospels fail miserably in that regard. Unless you actually believe he was virgin-born, healed illnesses, and rose from the dead.



RevMatt said:


> The concept of a heavenly reward in the next life is not something I particularly care about, not give much thought to.


Jesus spoke about it a lot, however:


Matthew said:


> ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 25:42 for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 25:43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
> 
> 25:44 “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’
> 
> 25:45 “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 25:46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”


The United Church seems to be very interested in feeding the hungry and helping the sick, but doesn't seem too interested it what happens to those who'd rather rob old ladies or pound little children. Does God himself do anything to punish them, or does he just wait for the United Church to establish "a just world."


RevMatt said:


> Evangelizing - to preach what Jesus is about does not require that you force those ideas upon those who don't wish to encounter them. [...] But evangelizing by force is another thing altogether, and it is one that I find repugnant.


JWs don't "force" anything on to anyone. There is no such thing as "evangelizing by force" unless you are refering to governmental action.

Whenever I encounter someone wishing to "preach" to me, I tell them I'm not interested. Then those "forceful preachers" go away. So much for "force."


RevMatt said:


> Look, Christianity has been around for plenty long enough that virtually everyone on earth knows it exists.


Too bad Christians can't seem to agree on what Christianity is. Perhaps if God actually cared about whether people did what he wanted, he might consider an effective method of telling us.



RevMatt said:


> I believe, and, as you note, Jesus does too, as do our Jewish ancestors and legions of theologians since then, that the over-arching message of scripture is that ultimately, God is a God of love.


Ya know, that's not what I get from the Bible at all. What I get is:
1. a lot of puritanical rules;
2. with an offering of easy forgiveness;
3. providing you accept Jesus died for you. 
If you don't at least try to follow #1 and accept #3, you don't get #2.

That's not love.



RevMatt said:


> As for the need to recognise guilt before being able to ask forgiveness, this is a principle that even our justice system acknowledges, at least in theory. Are you suggesting that you disagree?


No.



RevMatt said:


> Nowhere does Jesus suggest taking on an unearned guilt, only a brutal honesty with yourself.


Jesus, at least the biblical one, wants me to feel guilty for looking at a woman in lust, or wanting to stand up to the bully who struck me, or just wanting to enjoy happiness in life. That's unearned guilt.

Jesus, of the United Church form, wants me spend my time advocating trendy causes, and calling believers in the biblical Jesus "intolerant hatemongers."

Frankly, I'd rather just forget about Jesus altogether. He didn't put much care into having his message understood, and as a result it never was.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Beej said:


> This is where we will disagree a lot. I don't mean these to be personal attacks on something you respect, but I don't really have much positive to say about her actual philosophy, as opposed to her communication of concepts.


Don't be concerned about hurting my feelings. I'm not so fragile that criticism of a long-dead writer is going to affect me. Criticizing Ayn Rand is not a personal attack on me in any way, and won't be interpreted as such.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

By the way, all, my criticism of "liberal Christianity" isn't a criticism of political liberalism. I consider myself a liberal.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> At the heart of the United Church, we have chosen from our beginning to see Micah 6:8 as descriptive of what we are about as a church. When we chose to leave behind the Apostle's Creed and other historic creeds of the Christian church and compose our own New Creed (originally in 1968, updated since then), we reflected that language of Micah in the creed.


The New Creed is interesting, because it leaves out much of what I remember as being important.

It mentions "life beyond death" but not heaven?
No mention of the virgin birth?
No mention of the forgiveness of sins? :yikes: How can a Christian creed be missing the key message of Jesus' teachings and of the crucifixion?

"To resist evil" doesn't jive too well with "turn the other cheek."

It is mentioned he was crucified, but doesn't mention who did it. This is an important point because the Apostles' Creed stated that Jesus was a political martyr. ("He suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried.") This was an important rejection of the idea that Jesus was killed "by the Jews." Jesus was killed for political reasons, not because he was considered a heretic.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> And I thought *all books* were "an accurate indicator of ... what the writer ... thought."


As a writer, I have to disagree. What I write is solely an accurate representation of what I chose to write, which may be:
1) What I think
2) What I want you to think I think
3) What I imagine, regardless of what I think or believe
4) What I decide is the best way to generate a particular response out of the reader, regardless of what I think
5) Many other possibilities.

It is a pet peeve of mine to see people assuming that a writer necessarily thinks or believes what they have written. You cannot know that unless (here's where I veer somewhat on topic):
1) You are the writer
2) You know the writer personally and are well acquainted with his or her thoughts (though perhaps you don't know them as well as you think)
3) The writer explicitly states that this is what they think (although, this may also be a device to convince the reader of what the write wants you to think)
4) You know enough (presumably from other sources) about the writer's purpose in writing the piece, the historical context, and the intended reader to make some reasonable assumptions about what the writer thought.

This is why I believe literal interpretations of any text (religious or not) is problematic--however, with a good understanding of the contexts in which these texts were written (in addition to how they are understood or used today), these problems may be mitigated.

This is my long-winded way of saying that context is important.

Carry on.


----------



## Makr (Jul 21, 2005)

Sonal said:


> It is a pet peeve of mine to see people assuming that a writer necessarily thinks or believes what they have written. You cannot know that unless (here's where I veer somewhat on topic):
> 1) You are the writer
> 2) You know the writer personally and are well acquainted with his or her thoughts (though perhaps you don't know them as well as you think)
> 3) The writer explicitly states that this is what they think (although, this may also be a device to convince the reader of what the write wants you to think)
> 4) You know enough (presumably from other sources) about the writer's purpose in writing the piece, the historical context, and the intended reader to make some reasonable assumptions about what the writer thought.


Yay i'm not the only one with that pet peeve. it drives me nuts when people create meanings in books that are probably the complete opposite of what the author originally intended.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> :clap:


Yeah, me too. :clap:

However, I really do think you're trying to build a just world with an albatross (or crucifix) around your neck.

I know you're not too impressed with my suggestion that your Christianity may be a mental illness, and you can ignore it if you want, but it seems to me that you're unnecessarily encumbering yourself in what is a very valuable effort to improve the human condition with a bunch of bronze-age mysticism that isn't helping much.

I think Christianity (and Islam, and Buddhism, and all the other mythologies we know about) have a lot to offer if you take them for what they are: well-honed stories that *resonate* with the vast majority of people. I *agree* with much of the core message of Christianity, I just don't believe in the magic. Frodo Baggins has a great deal to teach us about how to live a valuable life... but you don't have to believe that he's real. Jesus is just another Frodo, except the story of Jesus is not the creation of a single literary genius, but rather, the creation of several (maybe many) authors, which has subsequently been edited and tested on humanity ad-nauseum until we have a story that has been given the best polishing an advertising exec could wish for. That's why it works so well. And in that sense it is absolutely *true*... what works about this story is an accurate reflection of many aspects of human nature (and that scares me).

Anyway, I'm sure that if I met RevMatt face-to-face I'd like him. We've come to very similar basic values from almost diametrically opposed premises. There probably a valuable lesson in that somewhere. But I've got to get some sleep.

Cheers.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Sonal said:


> As a writer, I have to disagree. What I write is solely an accurate representation of what I chose to write, which may be:
> 1) What I think
> 2) What I want you to think I think
> 3) What I imagine, regardless of what I think or believe
> ...


Good points. If one was a writer of fiction or poetry, the suitability of using "differing voices" is apparent. But if one were to write scientific tracts or history books with such an approach it would only create noise instead of clarity.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Good points. If one was a writer of fiction or poetry, the suitability of using "differing voices" is apparent. But if one were to write scientific tracts or history books with such an approach it would only create noise instead of clarity.


I can't speak to science texts, but there are lot of history books written to persuade.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

RevMatt said:


> As a general rule when reading John - anything that is in John and not in any of the other Gospels can be assumed to have been invented by the writer. And since John was written well after the other three gospels, anything that is both in John and in one other gospel was most likely copied, rather than based on any actual experience of the writer. Only when one finds something in John and more than one other Gospel should one give it credit from an academic/historical point of view.


Interesting "general rule." Does it apply to this John-only story?



Gospel of John said:


> 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery. Having set her in the midst, 8:4 they told him, “Teacher, we found this woman in adultery, in the very act. 8:5 Now in our law, Moses commanded us to stone such.* What then do you say about her?” 8:6 They said this testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of.
> 
> But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground with his finger. 8:7 But when they continued asking him, he looked up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.” 8:8 Again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
> 
> ...


This story has always bothered me, because it has little applicable value. Obviously, adultery is not a matter of criminal law. But what if this had been a rapist? Or a murderer? Or a child molester? Would Jesus have done the same thing? Executions of murderers and brigands were commonplace in ancient Israel, but no account of him opposing their executions exists.

The perennial question: what would Jesus do? 

I find this story interesting for several other reasons. Many Christians believe this adulteress was Mary Magdalene, but this woman isn't named, and no connection with Mary Magdalene is present. (In _The Passion of the Christ_ this woman was presented as Mary Magdalene.) Also, she is often remembered as a prostitute, but that isn't mentioned here either.

Christians clearly have a knack for embellishing Bible stories. 

One last comment about this story: it is the root of the expression: "to draw a line in the sand." I love learning about the origin of common expressions, so I thought I'd pass that on. 

Night all!


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Some interesting posts that can help in our understanding. I especially liked RMs discussion on his thinking about his religion. 

The notion of religion as some sort of drag on oneself or humanity as a whole is odd to me, but others seem to feel this way. Of course, that doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> She is and was able to inspire individuals through her novels to question just where the power in society resides.


On this I'll agree, even though I suspect I won't get a hug for pointing it out.

As I've said, her communication for and against the ideas of her time was something of note. Inspiring individuals to question. Her formal philosophical ideas were founded on assumed morality and a lot of hand waving. So, again, separating her inspiring writing, snippets and quotes from the formal philosophy itself is important. Just as it is very important to separate Rand from Objectivism. Marxism can be connected with some nice phrasing...until you dig in and see the foundational flaws, or step back and see the implications of following through. But, at just the right controlled level of detail and wording, people get inspired:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Marxism can inspire great things, unless rigidly and dogmatically applied and imposed. Objectivisim, Christianity, self-help books etc...same deal. These things aren't inherent drags on a person and/or humanity, but they can be, just like many things in life. The same things can also promote the person and/or humanity.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

lpkmckenna said:


> Good points. If one was a writer of fiction or poetry, the suitability of using "differing voices" is apparent. But if one were to write scientific tracts or history books with such an approach it would only create noise instead of clarity.


This does apply to scientific and historical texts. A text that is written to be read by someone else brings into question what the writer thinks they want you to think. (Diaries are typically an exception to this.)

As PB pointed out for historical texts, this are frequently designed to persuade. (Isn't history written by the victors?  ) At best, they are a particular interpretation of events--which may simply be a thought exercise for the author. Understanding, or at least questioning, the author's bias' or why they chose to write the work is important in reading history. 

Even in science, the writer carries a bias--typically to prove or disprove a particular theory. While science writing becomes more persuasive when it is appear more objective, the writer's can still show biases through the presentation, selection and the interpretation of facts and observations. Or else, the writer may be including some elements not because they believe they are important, but because they believe that it is necessary to persuade some outside group (peer review, for example.)

Then we get into the whole issue of the business of publishing, and how texts may be changed to make them more sellable.

That's not to say that you have to read everything accompanied by a mass of research documents about the writer. Just read knowing that any writer choses to present the text in a particular way for a reason. That reason is not necessarily what the writer thinks, and should be questioned.

In controversial texts, this becomes particularly important.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

To get back to the original topic. I am often disturbed by the JW's stance on many issues and their inability and unwillingness to tackle the issue of child molestation within the church. That said the articles in question do not claim the transfusion would have saved her.
Almost as much as the JWs, the medical industry is a religion too. Cancer treatments are often very invasive and very often not effective. Given the often poor prognosis of Leukemia patients and the fact that cancer "medicines" often hasten the end of life and reduce the quality of what is left, I'm not so sure her decision was completly irational. There are many quality of life issues none of the previous responders have (apparently) even touched uppon. It seems to me wrong to assume that getting treatment is the only rational responce to terminal illness. Sometimes the treatment is born out of desperation and is anything but rational. (anyone remember Layatrill (spelling?))
PS: I too am an athiest.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> It seems to me wrong to assume that getting treatment is the only rational response to terminal illness.


 :clap:

Yet for a 17 year old!!!???........harder to accept from society's view ( and mine for that matter) than in the case of a 70 year old.
We haven't even got the latter's "right to die with dignity" worked out 

Really speaks to the power society should wield in determining an individuals choices.
In this case there was no "waiting period" available to allow for sober reflection.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> in the realm of the absolute and unchangeable


 ....you DO have a streak of that ........if you recall *evil* 

Mores change - even some churches accepted that tho it's rarely "embraced".

I concur with the suspicion of motive given hierarchal structures and the dissonance with "serving two masters". I find it so ironic in the hymns with harking back to feudal knee bending within a democratic society. Does NOBODY see the immense ironies? 

lpk - What are your feelings on the Quakers who have clearly eliminated the heirarchy and very much are private in their personal view while active as a social force for change ( slavery, woman votes and others )??

My biggest beef with religion is "special status" particularly with regard to taxation and also the general tho not universal expectation of "respect without earning it"..........ie "don't criticize we're religious" mindset.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Gah. I wanted to respond to you all, but I'm not even getting here until 11:30. I concede for tonight.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

What I have is a desire to use accurate terminology. I like to avoid terms with insulting inferences, like "fundamentalist," because it violates the "principle of charity." I use the word "evil" because it is an accurate term to apply to men with deliberate desire to rule others thru violence. It's all about accuracy - i.e. being understood.

Why use a vague term like "fundamentalist," when you can use an accurate word like orthodox? Especially when Muslims find the word deliberately insulting, but Christians wear it with pride? 

Most words have multiple meanings. That's great, and it doesn't hinder understanding provided the context is clear. When the context isn't, the most accurate word must be chosen to maximize understanding.

Several other words are really bothersome too, like "right-wing" or "left-wing," because of their non-specific nature. Right-wing can imply "capitalist" or "fascist" or "morally conservative," and several other things besides. I am a capitalist, so I use that term, because I don't want to leave any impression that I'm either a fascist or a moral conservative. I'm not "right-wing," I am a liberal capitalist and a liberal democrat.

Liberal is another word that has been twisted beyond anything recognizable, but I belong to that small group who thinks it must be rescued from that corruption. Liberalism is the root ideology of the west (not Christianity), and to lose that crucial word cannot be permitted. Europeans still recognize the original meaning, but here in North America we have forgotten.

One of the most important influences on me was George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language." In it, he discusses how corrupt language use can corrupt politics, and vice versa. He explored this idea further in 1984, with Newspeak as a means for the state to restrict understanding. Orwell's mark on me is unshakeable.

Many of my favorite books of philosophy deal with accurate terminology. I think here of Symposium (what is love?).

Ayn Rand said it best: *Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.* If you corrupt political terminology, you can corrupt politics.

I think I'm tired of debating about definitions, however. I'm getting bored of all this.

I'm taking a week off from ehMac. My thread about Ayn Rand will have to wait.

I don't know much about Quakers, so I don't really have an opinion. But I have said before: religion corrupts everything it touches. Advocacy for women, or against slavery, is easily accomplished without reference to "God's will." In fact, arguing on a secular basis will always be a more secure platform, since it can then be rooted in evidence and not "faith."


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ipmckenna said:


> Why use a vague term like "fundamentalist," when you can use an accurate word like orthodox? Especially when Muslims find the word deliberately insulting, but Christians wear it with pride?


I would argue that the term "fundamentalist" the way is it most often used these days isn't vague at all. Overused? Sure. Misused? Absolutely; as is every emotionally/spiritually/culturally/etc charged word in the book. But I don't think it's vague.

And FWIW, I sincerely doubt that only muslims find it distasteful, given the negative connotations it caries when used by western media. But that also doesn't make it an invalid term.

And, as a side note, calling anyone other than Christians orthodox is not without its confusions. What about Orthodox Jews? The Orthodox Greek Church? The Russian Orthodox Church? Or the whole Eastern Orthodox movement in general?

Either way, here are the dictionary definitions for both:

<strong>fundamentalism</strong>: a religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, rigid adherence to those principles, and commonly by intolerence of and opposition to other points of view and/or secularism.

or 

<strong>Fundamentalism</strong>: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

<strong>Orthodox</strong>: adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith.

or 

Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.

or 

of or relating to the any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church or Orthodox Judaism.

or 

Adhering to what is commonly accepted, customary, or traditional: <em>an orthodox view of world affairs</em>.

Note the differences: while they are similar, fundamentalism is characterized by strong opposition to secularism and other points of view. Even in the original definition (the second one), organized and militant, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

In other words, they are similar terms, but they broadly apply to different groups. Speaking in terms of Islam, I'd be willing to bet that almost every Muslim is orthodox, but the ones we hear about in the news most often are the fundamentalists.

(note: definitions paraphrased from dictionary.com.)



ipmckenna said:


> But I have said before: religion corrupts everything it touches [including] Advocacy for women


As an interesting side note, Islam was a fairly big step forward for women at the time it came to be, and IIRC Mohommad originally wanted Islam to change with the times. of course, later on down the road it was decided that they'd go no further. Interesting story, it is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Why use a vague term like "fundamentalist'


Yet you consider your use of evil accurate?? YOUR definition, not even any aspects of your definition show up in dictionaries.
It's most often employed in a theistic world views assuming there is an absolute unchanging set of mores for an act to be set against as "evil" or as an independent force or aspect of supernatural being.

And beside you gave the fairer sex a complete free ride 

Give you a tip - ........trading biblical quotes and bantering theistic terms lends MORE credence to theism not less. The inherent contradictions are self evident.
Revm could rightly do a far better job of pointing those out while at the same time rightly understand why they are in most cases ignored.

One thing that has not arisen here is Rand's distrust of ANY *organization* especially those with hierarchies and especially those that demand obeisance and "dues.

Organized religions, unions, communist govs and architectural *committees* to name a few fav targets of hers.......

One more reason why the Quaker's are an admirable human social group in at least striving for a flat organization chart tho I'm SURE alpha males and females exert their magic there too.
The woman that led the suffragette movement in the US to victory, Alice Paul surely was alpha in every sense, much to the discomfiture of her male opponents in Congress. 

If you get a chance to see *Iron Jawed Angels* covering this struggle do so. Terrific cast and story.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Time to come back to this topic.

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=365852&postcount=140


lpkmckenna said:


> What I have is a desire to use accurate terminology. I like to avoid terms with insulting inferences, like "fundamentalist," because it violates the "principle of charity." I use the word "evil" because it is an accurate term to apply to men with deliberate desire to rule others thru violence. It's all about accuracy - i.e. being understood.


Seems I have made even more comments about accurate terminology before, including this thread:

http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=363765&postcount=7


lpkmckenna said:


> Describing stupid opinions as "mental disorders" doesn't help anyone. In fact, the abuse of medical terminology like this is typical of a dictatorship, not a liberal democracy. Many political dissidents have been shipped off to to mental hospitals on such specious grounds.


or
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=352858&postcount=22


lpkmckenna said:


> "Islamophobia"
> 
> I hate it when the term phobia is tossed around like that. A phobia is a psychological disorder.
> 
> ...


Back to "fundamentalist" and "orthodox."


PosterBoy said:


> And FWIW, I sincerely doubt that only muslims find it distasteful, given the negative connotations it caries when used by western media. But that also doesn't make it an invalid term.
> 
> And, as a side note, calling anyone other than Christians orthodox is not without its confusions. What about Orthodox Jews? The Orthodox Greek Church? The Russian Orthodox Church? Or the whole Eastern Orthodox movement in general?


I didn't say fundamentalist was an invalid term. I said that it was inaccurate to use it to describe Muslims. And, they would say, offensive.

As for the Orthodox Churches, the distinction between "Orthodox" and "orthodox" is as clear as the difference between liberal and Liberal, or democrat and Democrat.

And orthodox Jews could be called "fundamentalists" by your definition, but I doubt they would thank you for it.

Finally, my (admittedly off-hand) definition of evil is still accurate.

From Dictionary.app:
adjective 
• *profoundly immoral and malevolent* 
• (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil 
• *harmful or tending to harm *
• (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant 

noun 
• *profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity*, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force 
• a manifestation of this, esp. *in people's actions *
• *something that is harmful or undesirable*

Emphasis mine, as those parts clearly favour a non-religious usage.

I find bullets 1 and 2 of the noun usage to be somewhat contradictory, since they use "esp" to describe completely opposite things. I think a more clear phrasing could be:
• a supernatural force of profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity
• profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity in people's actions
(But now I'm re-writing the dictionary for clarity, I suppose....)

I just read bullet #2 (_a manifestation of this_), and I ask: is the manifestation of _a supernatural force_, or is the manifestation of _profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity_???

And here's Wikipedia:


Wikipedia said:


> Evil is a term describing that which is regarded as morally bad, intrinsically corrupt, wantonly destructive, inhumane, or wicked. In most cultures, the word is used to describe acts, thoughts, and ideas which are thought to (either directly or causally) bring about withering and death — the opposite of life. However, the definition of what counts as evil differs widely from culture to culture and from individual to individual. Some philosophers reject the idea of evil. Plato, for example, argued that what we call evil is merely ignorance, and that the good is that which everyone desires.
> 
> For those who accept the existence of evil, there are two main beliefs about evil. In some belief systems, evil consists of deviation from the norm. According to this definition of evil, people who, for example, reject the majority religion or engage in sexual practices different from the majority are evil. According to other belief systems, evil consists of doing harm, and so-called "victimless crimes" should not be considered evil.


The first two sentences and the last sentence both jive with my usage, MacDoc.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

ipmckenna said:


> I didn't say fundamentalist was an invalid term. I said that it was inaccurate to use it to describe Muslims. And, they would say, offensive.


Do you think that when I say "fundamentalist" I'm referring to Islam as a whole? I mean, seriously, where is the disconnect here? Do we only get to talk about things if we do it on your terms?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Do you think that when I say "fundamentalist" I'm referring to Islam as a whole?


No. 

But all mainstream Muslim groups regard the Qur'an as inerrant, but only a fringe of Christian groups regard the Bible as inerrant. By your definition of "fundamentalism" all Muslim group would be "fundamentalists." That's part of the reason "Muslim fundamentalist" is such a sloppy concept.


PosterBoy said:


> I mean, seriously, where is the disconnect here? Do we only get to talk about things if we do it on your terms?


Yes.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> But all mainstream Muslim groups regard the Qur'an as inerrant, but only a fringe of Christian groups regard the Bible as inerrant. By your definition of "fundamentalism" all Muslim group would be "fundamentalists." That's part of the reason "Muslim fundamentalist" is such a sloppy concept.


By my definition, most Muslims are orthodox. Only the ones who fly planes into buildings or kill themselves and others in the name of a god who preaches against killing or etc. are fundamentalists. Again, while both terms imply adherence to scripture and tradition, only one of them implies a militant nature.

You're willing to admit that there is a difference between Orthodox and orthodox, why not that there is a difference between Fundamentalist and fundamentalist?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> By my definition, most Muslims are orthodox. Only the ones who fly planes into buildings or kill themselves and others in the name of a god who preaches against killing or etc. are fundamentalists. Again, while both terms imply adherence to scripture and tradition, only one of them implies a militant nature.


Actually, the term "fundamentalist" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with militancy or terrorism. The correct word here would be "zealot" or "terrorist."

Your point-of-view is now clear. Your usage of "fundamentalist" is a substitute for "terrorist." Why not just use the word terrorist?

Christian Fundamentalists are not inherently militant and definitely not terrorists. The overwhelming majority of Fundamentalists are simply conservative Republicans or conservative Democrats, or are just indiff`erent to politics altogether. Conservative religious groups have asinine and odious views, but lumping them in with terrorists replaces clarity with stupidity.



PosterBoy said:


> You're willing to admit that there is a difference between Orthodox and orthodox, why not that there is a difference between Fundamentalist and fundamentalist?


Because there are no "Fundamentalists." There is no organization that calls itself that, unlike the Liberal party or Canada, or the Greek Orthodox Church.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

1. Some fundamentalists are terrorists, not all terrorists are fundamentalists. Remember, "return to fundamentals" + "militant about it".

2. You've said over and over again that there is a group who calls themselves Fundamentalists. That Christian group in the US. In fact, if you look it up in the dictionary it's result 2a, "often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture."


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I've said there are "fundamentalists," not "Fundamentalists." There is no institution, as it's just a _movement_ within other institutions (like the Baptist church).

As for "militant": how many terrorist assaults were organized by these "militant Evangelicals?"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*Several million were "assaulted".....it's called Iraq.* 
Bush is a died in the wool "born aginner" out to "save" the world 

••



> I don't know much about Quakers, so I don't really have an opinion. But I have said before: religion corrupts everything it touches. Advocacy for women, or against slavery, is easily accomplished without reference to "God's will."


You don't know much about Quakers........indeed.



> I have traveled with many different kinds of passports, but none commanded more respect than the single word Quaker. It is a word which carries its own currency throughout the world. In Australia, in Italy, the word has won long and lasting respect...
> 
> This has naturally caused me some concern, for obviously I am not the man to whom the word—in its world-wide connotation—applies. There is some over-Quaker who is referred to in the world's mind when the word is used. He is peaceful, honest, quiet, sincere, trustworthy, helpful, generous and progressive...In religious matters he is unassuming, cooperative and uncontentious...He is reported to spend more than the usual portion of his income on the education of his own and others' children. In politics he is sane, liberal, trustworthy, and hard working. In his daily life he is a friend to all men.
> 
> ...


IF, as it would appear we MUST have religion of some sort......I'll go with this kind as exemplary....as Michener did.

•••



> Definitions are the guardians of rationality, the first line of defense against the chaos of mental disintegration.


Definitions are indeed important but also critical is use of the *language* of the game in question something Fowles explored wonderfully in *The Magus* ( Fowles use of language is incredible ).

Using contract bridge terms in speaking about chess is patently silly yet I see discipline dependent usage mixed all over the the place here.

Language has power beyond the specific statement that builds images and echoes. I say to you* John Galt* - you immediately have an informed reaction to a simple name, others do not. Is there a "definition" attached?? .......not particularly - is it a powerful vision.....yes indeed.

Definitions occur within the discipline under discussion - anthropological, religious, political, sociological even biological.
The nature of the topic and the mode of discussion come into play beyond the individual words used as their definitions are in a feedback with the particular "game rules" or "playing field".

Wiki takes a useful approach right off the bat



> This article is about *the general notion of determinism in philosophy. For other uses of the word "determinism" see:* Deterministic (disambiguation).





> This article discusses *liberalism as a major political ideology *as it developed and stands currently. For other uses, see Liberal (disambiguation)


So the venue is very important and it's what I'm referring to when I say you ( lpk) occasionally damage your writing clarity by word use more closely associated with other fields than the one under discussion.

Your discussion of things military is exemplary in using the terms associated with that field so your writing is clear and to the point showing a high degree of comfort and familiar ground. I on the other hand would be ( and was ) struggling to get some accurate terms within that discussion arena.

Your "clarity" doesn't extend as well to other areas you are not so familiar with whereas Rev Matt has a strong capability in that "arena" - hence the hand claps.

Definitions are important but perhaps more so is the contextual accuracy and use of language appropriate to the discipline or arena of thought.

Once more an exemplary Wiki sentence


> In academia, in the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism.


Breakthroughs CAN occur when one discipline crosses into another Biology and Chemistry comes to mind and the understanding of "cooperation as a survival trait" in evolutionary terms for instance but they are are rare and usually Nobel worthy. 

For these ad hoc discussions identifying the "arena" of discussion as Wiki did above and trying to stick to the "general use of the language" serves us all, and perhaps avoids some protracted "word use" issues.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/25/quebec-inuit-evolution.html

....
The ministry is investigating a complaint made last week by high school science teacher Alexandre April, who said he was given a letter of reprimand for discussing Darwin's theory in his biology class at Ikusik High School in Salluit.
....
"There's a part of the world thinks they came from apes, but we know that we have been human," said Molly Tayara, who sits on the Salluit education committee. "We should be telling our kids that. That shouldn't be a taboo."

Astroff said that while evolution isn't being taught in the class, the Kativik board is meeting the objectives set out by the ministry.
....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: There are no apes in the frozen north....explain that!!!!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It is written:

Ape must not kill Ape.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

But Max:

Ape HAS killed ape...
Ape has killed ape...
Ape has killed ape...
Ape has killed ape...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But that is the evil work of the belligerent General Urko and his ilk. They are the undoing of Ape CIty and all of its inhabitants. These gorillas are the rogue elephants of the ape world. I'm not talking about _them_... they are worth less than scum.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think we can agree that the branch DID NOT crack. It was cut by a sword....


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Could somebody ever use the excuse "My religious beliefs say I shouldn't wear a seat belt."
> 
> Would this stand up in court?


I know I'm jumping into this late but if one could prove their religion was opposed to it, then yes it would stand up in court.

I remember some lawsuit over the fact that Muslim women were required to have their facial covering (I don't know the proper name) to take a photo for their drivers license. They refused and sued based on religious discrimation.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> I can't speak to science texts, but there are lot of history books written to persuade.


History will always been written by the victors.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bandersnatch said:


> History will always been written by the victors.


If we make up a coalition of Chimpanzees, Humans, Orangutans, and yes...even Gorillas, then neither prejudice nor radiation-scarred mutants with nuclear weaponry can ever stand in our way. We shall all be victors.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I will not go bare-assed in public, no matter what our primate brethren think. A cute little (human) thing requesting it for a favour, however, is another thing.


----------



## bandersnatch (Dec 26, 2004)

Macfury said:


> If we make up a coalition of Chimpanzees, Humans, Orangutans, and yes...even Gorillas, then neither prejudice nor radiation-scarred mutants with nuclear weaponry can ever stand in our way. We shall all be victors.


Sounds like a plan. Let's roll.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No apes in the north ? - the Inuits are NOT amused


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Wouldn't it be cool if they taught scientific theories in science class and religious beliefs in religion class?


----------

