Ship of Fools: Let's see where this goes - "Religion is God's punishment for the gullible"

Thread: Let's see where this goes - "Religion is God's punishment for the gullible" - discuss Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025359

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Saw this in a sceptic's sig today and liked it. Struck me as quite a good discussion point, really.

I haven't decided what I think yet, but I do know that I like it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

So many questions in a one liner!

Does God punish anyone? Well, as to this one I would say 'never', so that's a non-starter for me.

Is religion painful? Hmmmm - it can be, but only because other people are a pain and being alone can also be a pain!

Are people of faith gullible? Some are, but some are highly sceptical.

But I like the quote too - made me smile.

[Smile]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it's a really cute quote. I'm not sure it's any more than that. It's not really a serious discussion point, is it?

I think religions tend to become corrupt and jaded, but I don't see that as God's punishment really. Let's face it, most human institutions become corrupt and jaded.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Atheism is the devil's punishment for the arrogant?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think religions tend to become corrupt and jaded, but I don't see that as God's punishment really. Let's face it, most human institutions become corrupt and jaded.

And then someone has to reform it.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

It's like the sign/sig which says "Please ignore this sign/sig." It's the verbal equivalent of one of Escher's engravings

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It reminds me of an interesting looking cake, which on closer inspection, turns out to be mainly air and spun sugar, and collapses instantly. But there are quite a number of similar sayings, which are quite cute at first, but turn out to be empty, for example, nice garden, no fairies at the bottom, etc.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It reminds me of an interesting looking cake, which on closer inspection, turns out to be mainly air and spun sugar, and collapses instantly. But there are quite a number of similar sayings, which are quite cute at first, but turn out to be empty, for example, nice garden, no fairies at the bottom, etc.

*nods*

I think it's banal.

It doesn't make much sense:

- If the sceptic in question is sceptical about God’s existence or whatever, why mention God at all and why the emphasis on God punishing other people? [Confused]

- What have the poor old gullible done, to make them deserving of punishment? Why would God want to single them out, in particular? [Confused]

- Why is religion seen as a punishment, in particular? [Confused]

However, I've been inspired to make up my own Meaningless Quote: 'The Only Way is Essex is God's punishment for reality TV.' [Razz]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Atheism is the devil's punishment for the arrogant?

But you get arrogant christians as well.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

"Religion is God's punishment for the gullible" can be parsed two ways. Well, two at least.

One of them involves a joke at someone else's expense (if you are a sceptic). The other involves putting a sign on your back saying "please kick me - I'm gullible".

Metaphorically.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Atheism is the devil's punishment for the arrogant?
But you get arrogant christians as well.

You get gullible atheists also.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You get gullible atheists also.

I know... anyway, try this -

Atheism is Darwin's punishment for Naturalists.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Doesn't work. "X is God's punishment for Y" is an existing formula; your version isn't.

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Escher's engravings

You have to read a LOT of posts here to have an opportunity to post this.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I think it's banal.

It doesn't make much sense:

- If the sceptic in question is sceptical about God’s existence or whatever, why mention God at all and why the emphasis on God punishing other people?

- What have the poor old gullible done, to make them deserving of punishment? Why would God want to single them out, in particular?

- Why is religion seen as a punishment, in particular?

Well, it's amusing enough at first, but while it doesn't stand up to scrutiny as well as it might, I think some of these criticisms are wide of the mark.

Obviously, it plays on the tired old "X is God's punishment for Y" trope. Like the similar "If Eve was created from a rib, why do we still have ribs?" it turns dodgy Christian cliches around, either to make the flaws more obvious (it's always easier to see them when you want to find them), or just for lulz.

I don't think it needs more justification than that, but I think there are interesting possible interpretations. The obvious one is that God doesn't really exist, but is necessary for dramatic purposes in order to make the switcheroo work, but I think that's a bit mundane.

More interesting is the interpretation that there is a God, but He actually wants us to think for ourselves, rather than believing anything we're told based on little or no evidence. He (being omni-everything) knows that anyone who pursues a religion is doing so based on insufficient information, so He punishes them for this gullibility by making them perform daft rituals, attend tedious services in draughty buildings, and so on. Again, just a Bizarro version of a Christian cliche.

The question, especially for anyone who's ever said "X is God's punishment for Y", is how you would disprove it.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Doesn't work. "X is God's punishment for Y" is an existing formula; your version isn't.

Eutychus substituted "God" for "the devil", so why can't I use Darwin?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The heading fits in well with the 'spiritual but not religious' concept, which perhaps applies to most Westerners today.

On the other hand, many confirmed atheists would say that believing in God is gullible in itself, and they wouldn't see any difference between a theist and a 'religionist' in that respect. If religionless theism is preferable to an atheist or to anyone else, that's because it's highly individualistic, has no structures, or authority figures, no cohesiveness, and no shared doctrines. As such it's amorphous, and above all, it poses no threat whatsoever.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Doesn't work. "X is God's punishment for Y" is an existing formula; your version isn't.
Eutychus substituted "God" for "the devil", so why can't I use Darwin?

Darwin is not a a supernatural being.
Darwin did not create belief system.
Darwin was a theist when he originated the concept.
Evolution is not anti-theistic.
Darwin wasn't .... Oh bother, there's tons more, of course. But TGG got it right.

[ 13. March 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

To be fair, I don't think Mark was banging that particular drum.

This time.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

How about: "Religion is God's answer for the fallen."

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
How about: "Religion is God's answer for the fallen."

Or... for the Calvinist... "Irresistible Grace is God's answer for the fallen - well, some of them anyway."

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

Here's another Esheresque take...

Religion is God's punishment for those who think they rightly ought to be punished but aren't sure what for, so construct a god who meets their exacting requirements and who, further, decrees it to be the ultimate offence to deny his existence.

[ 13. March 2013, 16:51: Message edited by: kankucho ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I did wonder whether the quote was a way of looking at a bit of scripture This one from 1 Cor 15.

quote:
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

It's the view from the other side; we're gullible to believe any such thing and so we get what we deserve. Why not "eat, drink and be merry", lay aside all this masochistic self-denial and struggle with our very imperfect faith communities? After all, "tomorrow you die".

To which a good starting point is to assert, following Thomas a Kempis, that "inordinate self love will hurt you more than anything else in the world". And that ain't gullible.

So I like the Jim Elliot quote. "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by Barnabas62

quote:
To which a good starting point is to assert, following Thomas a Kempis, that "inordinate self love will hurt you more than anything else in the world". And that ain't gullible.

ISTM, this is nearly universal.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

The original line makes little sense. If the speaker believes in God, then he/she is self-insulting. If the speaker is an agnostic, then what does he/she mean by "God"?

Some claim that a Deep Truth is a statement whose logical negation is a Deep Truth. I don't think this one passes the test.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

I'm sure the paradox is deliberate — similar to, 'Thank God I'm an atheist'.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I haven't decided what I think yet, but I do know that I like it.

This seems to me the sort of logic that sceptics accuse those gullible believers of using.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I'm sure the paradox is deliberate — similar to, 'Thank God I'm an atheist'.

I never understood what that meant.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Religion is God's punishment for the gullible.

I enjoy the irony in this, but would prefer to rewrite it as:

quote:
Certain religionS, particularly those which specialize in hellfire and damnation messages, are someone's punishment for the gullible.

"Religion," sadly, can't be easily separated from the constructs that fallible humans have invented to define, limit, and often distort the fullness of Gods message.

By the way, I'd like to thank Eutychus and Mark Betts so much for their illuminating contributions. Their brief comments reveal much more about themselves than about the topic, but do not appear (yet) to have taken over the thread.

[ 14. March 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by kankucho:
I'm sure the paradox is deliberate — similar to, 'Thank God I'm an atheist'.
I never understood what that meant.

Joke (n): Something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

Is the point of it not that God and religion are not the same thing?

I read it as saying that those who cling to a religion rather than seeking God for themselves are not going to find much satisfaction in the long term. Obviously it's tongue in cheek, and the idea of God punishing people isn't relevant to the point, just a device to make a point.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Of course in an age of information, where every least bit of opinion, idea and tweet is recorded, gullibility would be the dimension for considering religion. The real issue has nothing to do with gullibility, scepticism and knowledge. It has to do with comfort, with explaining the unexplainable, and with hope.

I've never met anyone in times of extreme duress who doesn't have at least some semblance of yearning for something in addition to the cold hard facts. Such a price for sentience. Which makes me consider that 'religion is a punishment for being human'. We are all Homo non sapiens I think

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Is the point of it not that God and religion are not the same thing?

You beat me to it. This could be spoken by a deist of sorts, one who believes that God exists but He slaps those who bother Him too much. (I use the male pronoun unapologetically here, trusting that no one would prefer to think of such a deity as a goddess).

Anyway, there are many religions, some more keen on punishment than others. Why gravitate towards the more sado-masochistic kind? Atheists can well ask believers to state what good going to church (or any other practice of their religion) has ever done for them. Believers had better be ready with an objective reply. (An appreciative chorister can answer easily, while others might be more at a loss).

But even subjective replies might parry a claim that one's religion is a punishment rather than a blessing. I'm reading God's Funeral by A.N. Wilson, about various developments in the nineteenth century (especially in Britain) that made Christian belief more difficult. The situation is poignantly described in Thomas Hardy's poem of the same title, written shortly before World War I: it looks more and more as if is just a human construct, but how are we going to live without Him? Not all readers, however, are convinced that Hardy had society at large in mind, in view of the subtitle which refers to the state of theology. So the poem could be a sort of satire reflecting the same impatience with religious intellectualism as Blaise Pascal expressed when he said that he wanted the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not the God of the philosophers and savants. At any rate, if Hardy and many of his contemporaries decided that atheism was inevitable, they tended to regard it as a disappointment and burden rather than as a relief.

I can have a lot of respect for that kind of honest atheist, but the happy-go-lucky kind is a hazard. It isn't real atheism unless it is thoroughgoing, which means seeing past and resisting many more popular follies than those generally labeled religious. Popular culture offers all the same fool's gold to children of atheists as those of Christians. If parents get sloppy, their children will not inherit the atheism.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

So, Karl - is this how you thought the thread would go?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Religion is our broken, perverted, fear ridden, psychtoic response to God.

Evensong - you are so right for me. The whole concept of punishment, even in Jesus' own language, is about Him meeting us as us, with and in our horrible constricted language.

We have to DARE to transcend it. I'm in tears as I write that. In fear before God and praying for Him to correct me. I'm in tears a lot nowadays, which shows how frail and damaged I am and have no where else to go but that daring that I feel He endorses.

Am I wrong?

ONLY here and in the emergent and ancient church do I hear voices that go beyond the premiss of damnation.

Posted by Gextvedde (# 11084) on :

It's a witticism, yes mildly amusing, but nothing more. We could spend days pulling apart the logic structure of it but why bother when William Lane Craig has probably already written a book doing just that [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
So, Karl - is this how you thought the thread would go?

For once I didn't have a clue.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Barnabas62

quote:
To which a good starting point is to assert, following Thomas a Kempis, that "inordinate self love will hurt you more than anything else in the world". And that ain't gullible.
ISTM, this is nearly universal.

"Nearly" is a nice word. My late dad had this saying that I never quite got.

"Nearly's half way, and half way's nowhere". Was about car journeys IIRC.

Seeing the damage of inordinate self-love is indeed a common religious value. But it's only a start point. Learning how to live out that value without gullibility may take a while longer.

You don't need to start with Thomas a Kempis, or "take up the cross". Start somewhere else if you like. But I always encourage people to start.

Living out the journey can teach us the truth about how deeply selfishness is built into all of us. It is a wrestling match, from first to final bell.

But it is not a gullible journey. Rather, it is a journey during which we find out just how gullible we can be, and have been.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

ISTM that God isn't trying to make us holiness bots, or religious, or even Christian. She wants us to be our whole, best selves.

To the extent that Christianity and/or religion help us with that, great. If not, then we've got them wrong, or they're wrong to begin with, or maybe we just don't need them. (At least, individually. sometimes, the best thing you can do for your faith is to forget about it, for a while.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Clearly it's an advertisement for a book on being "spiritual but not religious."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

What does the word 'religion' mean?

Any ideas?

'Cos I ain't got a clue about this (especially considering that even atheists can be 'religious'!)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0