|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Good religions
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Christianity has brought the kind of goodness to the world that bears the fruit of love, kindness, gentleness, forgiveness, faithfulness, hope, etc.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
No religion...just people doing Good Things - great and small - from any of the religions.
We have all met people from various religious and denominational backgrounds who take their religion seriously and act from it.
(Likewise we have met other people whom we would describe differently...but that does not mean we lump all their co-religionists in with them)
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
No religion...just people doing Good Things - great and small - from any of the religions.
We have all met people from various religious and denominational backgrounds who take their religion seriously and act from it.
Or from no religion.
More and more, I think any real good a religion does is in the areas of good works, help with growing and healing and living, and hope for getting through this life. If it gives the hope of a path after this life, great. But ISTM that's an added bonus.
The Dalai Lama said, "My basic religion is kindness". That's pretty good, too.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The Dalai Lama said, "My basic religion is kindness". That's pretty good, too.
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
How do kind people cope with unkind people? That's probably the ultimate test of just how kind we really are.
I do think a good test of a good religion (or any other belief system) is the extent to which it encourages people to behave kindly towards one another. How effective such exhortations, commands, pleadings are seems to be a matter of how people respond.
I suppose you also have to take into account what company those exhortations take, how important they are within the belief system. Some people seem to me to be drawn towards the hard-edged pronouncements, rather than the gentler ones. I wonder about that. Kindness and gentleness are sometimes seen as signs of weakness. You hear folks say "sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind". I've heard that said about the bringing up of children, particularly when dealing with bad behaviour. You used to hear folks say "spare the rod and spoil the child". That sort of thinking never sat easy with me. But you find it in people of faith and no faith.
I guess another test of a good religion or other type of belief system is how it wrestles with the tendency or the temptation to be cruel, to use power to determine outcomes. Solzhenitsyn said something like that in Gulag Archipelago Part 2. He knew something about being on the receiving end of human cruelty thinly disguised as dishing out "just deserts".
[ 15. December 2015, 07:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions!
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
You will find no psuedo-appeasing emoticons in this post.
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God. In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There's a line in the play Equus:
"without worship you shrink, it's as brutal as that".
I'll take collaboration with someone who believes in some form of the divine any day over a hardcore secularist atheist.
Unintentionally I hope!! but you make it sound as if atheists lack some aspects of sympathy and human emotions!
I can assure you that this is not so, and that
You will find no psuedo-appeasing emoticons in this post.
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God. In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
Of course, I'm coming from the perspective of a person of faith, but this is precisely why I have persisted with my faith in spite of doubts, droughts, and boiling anger with the associated structures. It says something about me as a human being, and puts me in touch with parts of me, that is/are not available by any other means. That is my experience, so that is my understanding. It's simply a matter of integrity between the two.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
TB--
Susan doesn't need me to speak up for her; but it looks like maybe her connection or computer fizzled mid-post.
So I'm just going to say that, from her past posts, I think her atheism and humanism, that world view, is every bit as important to her as your faith. IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I find the "7 years in Tibet" film interesting - Heinrich Harrer is asked by the young Dalai Lama why he climbs mountains - and he describes how it expands his senses, gives him a sense of profound peace and spaciousness and love for the world. And then says he has only ever experienced that feeling in one other place - "in your presence, Kundun". This isn't unique to Buddhism - it's really (at least part of) the essence of spirituality in whichever religion you practice. The nice thing about Herrer's autobiography is that he started off as a brash, egotistical and quite unkind person with very little conscious thought about the spiritual. But at the same time something in him already knew what nourished him profoundly. If there are "good" religions, I'd say that they are ones that nurture and nourish this natural human desire for the numinous. Perhaps more relevantly, I'd also say that the good part of all religions is the part that nourishes this deep and often unconscious pull towards "God". And the not good part is the part that suppresses that or subverts it or over-explains it (and so adulterates the experience) or demands that is done by proxy.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living. The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - we are dealing with truth claims here, and various religions lay claim to be The TruthTM ... or in the case of Christianity we might prefer to say that a Person has laid claim to embodying the TruthTM within themselves ... 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life ...'
However we assess these things, it strikes me that all religions have the capacity to be good or bad ... we can cite examples of things 'going wrong' within each and every belief system we could care to name ...
I'm not sure I'd single out particular religions as being particularly 'bad' - although one might argue that, if the evidence for large scale ritual sacrifices can be believed, Aztec religion didn't have a great deal to recommend it ...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Ok - it's possible that the accounts from early RC missionaries of hundreds and thousands of human sacrificial victims were exaggerated ... but it does seem that at times Aztec human sacrifice was carried out on an almost industrial scale ...
And besides, human sacrifice on any scale - even if it were one person every 150 years or so would be unacceptable of course ...
We don't know enough about the bodies found in European peat bogs to know whether they were ritually sacrificed or not, but the Romans certainly claimed that the Celtic peoples went in for human sacrifice ...
As for the 'mainstream' religions we have around us today - well, I'd certainly say that Christianity's influence has largely been positive - but also acknowledge that it too can often slide across the line ...
It's one of these both/and things again.
Was Ivan the Terrible terrible because he was Russian Orthodox and extremely Erastian or was he terrible because he had some kind of psychopathic personality?
I'd say both ... the same sun that melts the wax, hardens the clay. Conditions within the Russian Church at that time could create examples of great asceticism and holiness, and also provide a platform for psychos like Ivan.
It wasn't Orthodox Christianity's 'fault' that Ivan used to delight in throwing live puppies out of turret windows as a boy ... but conditions within Russian Christianity at that time created a platform whereby he could rule in a cruel and autocratic way.
It wasn't Roman Catholicism's nor Lutheran Protestantism's 'fault' that Hitler and the Nazis emerged in Weimar Germany ... but they were complicit to the extent that they failed to prevent the level of popular support that Hitler undoubtedly enjoyed.
It's not Western Christianity's 'fault' that forms of gung-ho individualism, the pursuit of personal gain and 'actualisation' have emerged in the USA and across the Western World in a way that can be - and is - detrimental to the more corporate or 'social' aspects of the Christian faith ... but it has helped create a platform where wonky emphases have developed.
It seems to me that each and every tradition or belief system is capable of producing both its St Francis of Assisi and its Torquemada ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
I prefer love. For a fairly recondite reason without much practical application, but I prefer love.
The reason is that in heaven nobody needs to be kind, because there's no suffering. Kindness needs suffering to exist. Love can exist without suffering.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Sure. But we have pretty good authority for understanding that love (the "agape" love described in 1 Cor 13) is both kind and patient. Kindness is the present outworking of that love in times of sorrow, suffering and pain. Patience is necessary for its final fulfillment.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Simon Weil: quote:
“There are two atheisms, one of which is the purification of the nature of God.”
Not for us to disparage those who call themselves atheists, I think.
Look at their fruits to see what their lives show to others, don't just write them off as if atheist describes someone whose purpose is bad.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
"I cider drank much and very drunk became", said Yoda.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
TB--
Susan doesn't need me to speak up for her; but it looks like maybe her connection or computer fizzled mid-post.’/QB]
Oh dear! Yes, I see my sentence was unfinished. I should have deleted the last two words. quote:
So I'm just going to say that, from her past posts, I think her atheism and humanism, that world view, is every bit as important to her as your faith. IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
Exactly so! Thank you. quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Atheists are missing a vital aspect of what it is to be human, because humans are made for relationship with God.
Can you describe this ‘vital aspect’, I wonder? I do not of course accept the unsupported assertion. quote:
In so far as this is achieved and other things do not impede it, this relationship results in good which reflects God's nature. This doesn't disable their ethical framework, or make them incapable of empathy, but it does disable a vital part of the most powerful available mechanism for experiencing and imagining that aspect of our nature.
What makes for good in the world is the evolved, human instinct and nurtured reinforcement for co-operative, altruistic behaviour towards other humans. quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[qb] IIRC, she did have a religious background, but found that leaving it behind was greatly liberating. She feels she's found truth, and is happier for it.
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living.
No, I don't think those of faith are living a lie; they are living with a sincere belief in a God/god – and such has been the predominant way of things for thousands of years. I think that more and more people are realising that, since no-one has ever seen any god and that, although the names of those of, for instance, some ancient gods live on in the days of the week, etc, beliefs in God/god/ss continue. quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty. quote:
] The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
Well, I can’t argue with that, and beliefs which assist in improved ways for humans to live are of course good, but the beliefs are an unnecessary stepping stone, an interim stage which can be avoided by going straight to a realisation that, as I indicated in ‘Bad religions’ , religions are entirely human and therefore gods are not needed.
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope. quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, Penny S ... spot on.
Agreed. Also liked your longer post.
(I think I missed a [/B] tag out somewhere....)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If God is real, she hasn't found truth and is living the lie she thinks those of faith are living.
No, I don't think those of faith are living a lie; they are living with a sincere belief in a God/god – and such has been the predominant way of things for thousands of years. I think that more and more people are realising that, since no-one has ever seen any god and that, although the names of those of, for instance, some ancient gods live on in the days of the week, etc, beliefs in God/god/ss continue.
I too think that you sincerely believe that God does not exist, but both of us cannot be right.
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God, as there are more ways of seeing than observing matter with the physical eyes. God is a supernatural being who lives in more than historical memories.
quote:
quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty.
Nor can anyone be certain that God is not real, hence the word 'if'.
quote:
quote:
] The truth sets us free, but what is the truth? If a religion leads us to the truth, does that make it good?
If a religion or lack of it makes us happy, does that make it good?
I maintain that a religion is good if it draws us out of self-centredness and into the highest spiritual values that are the essence of God, such as love etc as above.
Well, I can’t argue with that, and beliefs which assist in improved ways for humans to live are of course good, but the beliefs are an unnecessary stepping stone, an interim stage which can be avoided by going straight to a realisation that, as I indicated in ‘Bad religions’ , religions are entirely human and therefore gods are not needed.
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
quote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Raptor Eye
Interesting - thank you. I'll be back tomorrow!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Raptors Eye:
quote:
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God
This is a poor way to phrase the idea.
The positive and negative of this are a matter of belief, not demonstrably objective.
Your defence of your statement illustrates this.
True, in regards to belief systems, is meaningless outside of those systems.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
My previous post describes the conclusions I have reached about the place of faith and therefore, why I persist with my own rather than jettisoning it, as would in many respects be far more convenient.
As such, I won't be offering a point by point defence, because that would require me to set out my entire life history.
In any case, faith is not a propositional exercise. To make it so would be to denature it, and I'm not prepared to do that however many emoticons are flung in my direction.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
"I cider drank much and very drunk became", said Yoda.
Shouldn't that be "Cider much drank I and drunk very became"? Doesn't Yoda speak OVS?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
"OVS"?? Definition, please? I did a quick look at possible ones, and didn't see anything obvious.
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
"OVS"?? Definition, please? I did a quick look at possible ones, and didn't see anything obvious.
Thx.
I know (and care) nothing about Star Wars, but I assume this means object-verb-subject?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ah! Thanks.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Doesn't Yoda speak OVS?
Wrong you are ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I too think that you sincerely believe that God does not exist, but both of us cannot be right.
Well, I suppose I'll have to concede that ... only grudgingly though!!! quote:
It is not true to say that nobody has seen any God, as there are more ways of seeing than observing matter with the physical eyes. God is a supernatural being who lives in more than historical memories.
I'm on firmer ground here, since there is no valid method to make that assertion credible objectively. quote:
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one. quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?
I shall be out for most of today, but will continue to reflect on the topic while travelling.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO. I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things. Your mileage, may of course, vary.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Leprachaun: I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO. I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things. Your mileage, may of course, vary.
Not sure whether this is a Straw Man or an Excluded Middle, Lep. Possibly a bit of both.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Suzi. You asked:
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
SusanDoris wrote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
That sounds like saying children should only learn about sport by being taught the rules while sitting down in a classroom, but under no circumstances are they allowed to actually experience playing sport. You can only get so far in understanding by standing on the outside or reading books. Sometimes experience is necessary, even if it is just to learn that you didn't enjoy the experience and won't be repeating it (thinking of rugby lessons when I was a lad).
As for the point of the OP, I think something religions do well is create community and bring people together, and this gives a much better platform for social action than when we are unconnected individuals. Looking at my own town, the churches are very good at organising foodbanks, street pastors, hospital visiting, homeless shelters, debt advice services, family support groups, etc. etc. The local humanists aren't. Not because I believe the local humanists aren't caring people, I'm sure they are, but because the social and institutional aspects of religion give Christians a head start in turning their concern into co-ordinated action. Humanists are sometimes involved in local charitable stuff, but in terms of new things being set up the churches seem to be doing the heavy lifting.
I hope that the Sunday Assembly movement might give the non-religious more of a platform for getting together and co-ordinating some good in their local communities, but at present it is a very small movement, and whether it flourishes or fizzles out in the long term remains to be seen.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God, as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
You don't think that your neighbour's virtues have anything to do with God, neither does (s)he, but I do. God gives good gifts to us all, but we don't have to accept them.
You have not addressed the question of transformation, however.
quote:
quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?
To tell a child that there is certainly no god is OK in your eyes, but to tell a child that there certainly is a God is not? We naturally give our opinions to children, but how far should we impose them? I would tell a child that I believe in God because I found God when I prayed and asked Jesus, if he existed, to help me to know whether or not God was real. Do you think I should not tell this true story?
I think that I might say that a lot of people do believe, like me, but they must find out for themselves. Similarly, I would encourage them to find out for themselves which religions were good or bad, perhaps with a few starter questions to ask themselves. I think that it is more important to help a child to make observations than to test everything by scientific evidence.
If someone is demonstrating harmful behaviour, attributing it to his religion, while someone else demonstrates gentle behaviour, attributing that to the same religion, it perhaps is not the religion that is bad.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Leprachaun: I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
Interesting. And where does science give us evidence for what people living successfully together is like? I would have thought science is at best neutral on that question, is it not?
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Curiously enough, modern science is quite keen on these things as being part of the shared heritage which led to our being where we are now. Not sure about humility, but the others are part of the altruism which is seen as essential for groups of people to get on successfully with the business of living together. There was something in New Scientist in the last couple of weeks about the way that language and culture are part of this, as none of us is capable of surviving alone, without the fund of knowledge acquired by the group.
There are surely contradictions here too. Why if altruism is part of our dna are so many people nasty to each other, including those of their own families, and why do so many have tendencies to violence, selfishness, etc?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
There's a very simple neurological reason for that. The triune brain contains heaven and hell. the fontal lobes are supposed to provide a moral guidance and reality check. They do this by being in an emotion of love/gratitude which a) entrains the mid and hind brains, and b) is physiologically more efficient (and therefore physically healthier). If the frontal lobes no longer run the brain, then it usually falls back to the hindbrain (interested in sex, food, territory) and the mid brain (with its capacity to fall into fear-based pattern recognition via the amygdala). The amygdala are neutral in that they only do pattern recognition - the problem is when that is focussed on fear. Altruism is not compatible with fear or with a hindbrain-drven personality.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Steven Pinker
And the question is not why are so many nasty, but why are so few that way. Unless, of course, you are living somewhere rather different from the places most of us live.
[ 17. December 2015, 11:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Steven Pinker
And the question is not why are so many nasty, but why are so few that way. Unless, of course, you are living somewhere rather different from the places most of us live.
So Steven Pinker says we're not as bad as we used to be. That doesn't explain why some people are bad at all if altruism is an evolutionary by-product.
Anyway, saying "science shows how we evolved so that we get on together so it's really great" assumes the inherent value of us getting on together/life continuing/ happy society or whatever. My only point to SusanDoris was that you are teaching values whatever you teach, rather than it being value driven education versus scientific facts.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
As far as I can make out, the argument is not that altruism is an evolutionary by-product, but that it is for human beings, an evolutionary driver. With a bit of garlic and a crucifix or two, I might mention Dawkins as a holder of this sort of hypothesis as well.
Through game playing experiments and simulations it can be shown that a group which is internally altruistic is more likely to survive and pass its genes on than a group which is primarily composed of selfish individuals. I have got so used to seeing reports of this sort of science that I can't lay hands on references.
This does not rule out that individuals may arise who are selfish, and violently so, nor that such individuals may pass on their genes. What it does say is that the group as a whole will thrive by being altruistic. (In a way, this is a weakness, since sense would suggest eliminating the aggressive, selfish, dominant types from the gene pool.)
In Cumbria there were far more cases of people supporting each other after the floods than there were of looting.
In the supermarkets, the tubs for collecting food for food banks fill fast, when the donors don't even know the people they are supporting.
Some of us are better at extending a trait which developed in small foraging groups who needed to share the fruits of their food searching to others.
You seemed to imply that science has nothing to say about what you define as values, and that it is not worth taking notice of. If we take on board what it does say about human nature, and see the violent and the selfish as aberrant rather than the natural state of humanity, we are for more likely to establish a peaceable society than if we don't.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
You seemed to imply that science has nothing to say about what you define as values, and that it is not worth taking notice of. If we take on board what it does say about human nature, and see the violent and the selfish as aberrant rather than the natural state of humanity, we are for more likely to establish a peaceable society than if we don't.
I am absolutely NOT saying science is not worth taking notice of. But it simply does not answer value questions: it may be an established scientific fact that the group survives better when we are altruistic - but why should I care about the group more than myself or my beliefs? (A failure to answer this question is probably the root of every decision we describe as evil)
I'm also wondering - and I may just need to read Pinker - where "survival of the fittest" fits into this. It's only 100 years ago that the "science only" school of thought was advocating eugenics on that basis. In fact, from reading Dawkins, I'm surprised to hear he advocates the view of altruism you are describing; in , for example, The God Delusion he seems much more to say we can "rise above" our evolutionary background, our selfish genes to be nice to each other if we so choose. (Rising above is also a question begging phrase here, because why should altruism be "higher" than selfishness in scientific terms)
I think, to be frank, if you think you can just start with the scientific method and out of it will fall, eventually, a liberal, tolerant, other-people serving view of the world, you are naive. I may be wrong, I guess only time will tell.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Here is the problem with asserting the value of religion: if it so fantastic, why is its track record so objectively bad?
This is not an attack on religion, but a questioning of religion. There are religions and philosophies I admire greatly. But they should make us better people than we are.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The problem is with our own tendency to focus on the bad but not to acknowledge the good. We do it all of the time. Friendships end because of one remark that hurt, while all of the kind remarks are forgotten. Sometimes people do bad things in the name of a religion, and all of the good things brought by that religion are forgotten. Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Looking at the latest posts just now, I see that I should probably alter some of the following, but I think I’ll leave it and post again if necessary. Also, I’ve been typing this on a document and instead of it going down and down page by page, it puts pages 1and 2 side by side, then 3 below 1 – very confusing! quote:
Raptor Eye wrote: I will ask you to reflect on this for a while, if you will. You believe that people can transform themselves to become more patient, more kind, more loving, more gentle, more faithful, more forgiving, more gracious, etc. I believe that the goodness and love of God as given to us in the form of the Holy Spirit, is a necessity for that transformation to take place.
To begin with, what method could you use to distinguish between an apparent ‘transformation’ from not such a good way of behaving caused by God/Holy Spirit/etc, or an exactly similar improvement which had nothing to do with any God or faith etc?
Each human being is born with a set of genes which means they are outgoinggregarious, happy or morose, grumpy and sad, with of course an infinite range in between. The nurture received will influence the use each one makes of his/her characteristics, but there is in my opinion no transformation, caused by any imagined spirit. The choice of how to behave is entirely human and all influences which help or hinder a person’s thoughts and actions are from other humans. quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence.
Indoctrinating children with the modern historically aberrant and inhumane view that the only things that actually exist are those which can be discovered using the scientific method (if we could even agree what that means) is almost abuse IMO.
I can see why a lack of belief in any god was ’historically aberrant - life must have been impossible for atheist - but not how it is 'inhumane'. Humanists, secularists, atheists seem to have a common view that teaching ABOUT is essential so that indoctrination or brain-washing of any sort does not take place. What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method? Of course there are many things for which total answers will have to wait, but in those cases, a ‘don’t know just yet’ is the best interim response. quote:
I want to teach kids that love, kindness, humility, respect and tolerance a sense of our shared humanity (and so on!) are real things.
Absolutely agree, and these are all human values promoting survival in the best possible way.
Penny S has said it better! quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Suzi. You asked:
So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles.
Ah, well, simply leave out the words ‘in God’s image’ and I agree! quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
SusanDoris wrote:
In my (yes, strongly held!) opinion, children should not be taken through the stage of religious belief, although teaching about them is essential, but for the moment I fully appreciate that is a forlorn hope.
That sounds like saying children should only learn about sport by being taught the rules while sitting down in a classroom, but under no circumstances are they allowed to actually experience playing sport. You can only get so far in understanding by standing on the outside or reading books. Sometimes experience is necessary, even if it is just to learn that you didn't enjoy the experience and won't be repeating it
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
I think this is Raptor Eye:
quote:
In my equally strongly held opinion, it would be cruel to deny children the opportunity to seek and find God for themselves, and of great detriment to society as a whole.
To deny them access to information about God/god/s would certainly be quite wrong, but to tell them that there is definitely such a thing as a god to search for and which can be found would be a falsehood, since this can only be backed up by opinion, anecdote, belief, etc, not by scientific evidence. Would you, for instance, say to them that, since so many millions of people believe that God exists, it must be true? And since the topic is good religions, what would you say about those religions you believe to be 'bad' or wrong?[/qb][/QUOTE]To tell a child that there is certainly no god is OK in your eyes, but to tell a child that there certainly is a God is not? We naturally give our opinions to children, but how far should we impose them? I would tell a child that I believe in God because I found God when I prayed and asked Jesus, if he existed, to help me to know whether or not God was real. Do you think I should not tell this true story?
I think that I might say that a lot of people do believe, like me, but they must find out for themselves. Similarly, I would encourage them to find out for themselves which religions were good or bad, perhaps with a few starter questions to ask themselves. I think that it is more important to help a child to make observations than to test everything by scientific evidence. [/QB][/QUOTE]That sounds thoroughly reasonable!
Apologies for any repetitions, messed up tags or quotes.
[ 17. December 2015, 18:52: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Love is complicated 'tho, isn't it?
Such a mixture of hormones - dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin. Such a mixture of rewards and motivations. So many ways of showing 'love' to friends, family and strangers.
All those biblical words for love, agape, philia etc none of which are straightforward.
"God so loved the world" then caused all living things to need to eat each other to survive (?)
I don't think saying 'God is love' is simple at all.
[ 17. December 2015, 19:25: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
As I recall, "survival of the fittest" wasn't Darwin, but Thomas Huxley, but even so, he didn't mean what many people think. He didn't say "brightest", "fastest" "strongest", "most able to enforce his wishes on others". (You might argue with the "his" there, but I would counter that with the general view of what "fittest" means, that is the most probable pronoun.)
Imagine a group of chimps. There is an alpha male. (This is appropriate for chimps, but I could get quite aggressive with some human male who wanted to assert that he was an alpha. The best human males show other characteristics.) He asserts his rights over the females, even to foregoing food at times, and faces off any male he thinks is challenging his place. But there is another male, quite down the bashing up order, but clever, empathetic, and devious. He smiles (or chimp equivalent) at a female he likes the look of, quietly, when alpha is out of the way. Eventually, she sneaks off into the bushes, and he has a tender moment or two with her, as a result of which her next baby is his, not the alpha's, a matter of which the alpha is never aware. (This behaviour has been observed.) Who is fittest?
Fittest means the ones most able to pass their genes on to the next generation and see that generation on the way to parenting the next. And being part of a group which tends to nurture all the young is going to be a good way of ensuring that. (Originally, of course, the group would have been closely related, so caring for other people's young would have been helping one's own genes.)
The eugenics business was a total perversion of what had been the theory put forward by Darwin and Huxley. But what would you argue if you thought you were an alpha and wanted all the goodies for your offspring instead of Tiny Tim and Stephen Hawking? It's nothing to do with the science.
[ 17. December 2015, 20:09: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Kindness is a good word. It smacks of benign, rather than malign, of benevolence, rather than malevolence. Making common cause with kind people is a good idea.
I prefer love. For a fairly recondite reason without much practical application, but I prefer love.
The reason is that in heaven nobody needs to be kind, because there's no suffering. Kindness needs suffering to exist. Love can exist without suffering.
I've always thought of the word kind as being based on the idea of "one's own kind (or kin)". From that point of view kindness means treating people as if they are one of the family. What is radical about the Christian gospel is that it enables people to transcend cultural barriers, "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility". But how has the cross put to death hostility? It is surely because "when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God". God was 'kind' to us and so we are to become 'kind' to one another. Now I know that there have always been those who profess to be Christian who have struggled to overcome cultural boundaries but there have also always been those who strive, endeavour and succeed in doing precisely that.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
