a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by coffeesp00ns
coffeesp00ns  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Religion broad topic, what are your experiences?

So, my thoughts about this are thus:

Some people need faith in their lives to live a fulfilling and whole life. Some people don't need that, or find that fulfillment in other places. Whatever gets you through the night, to quote the song, is the most important thing.

I was not raised in faith, and when I tried organized religion, i found my morals did not jive with the morality therein. I also don't see the evidence for a higher power or afterlife. Where I live, in Canada, church doesn't hold the sway it once did even 50 years ago, and most people I know personally are either not a person of faith, or don't attend an organized church on the regular - it's just not part of our culture at this point.

There are a couple of broad realities that one needs to confront when they are a person of faith living in and navigating our modern world:

1.) Just because you are a person of faith does not mean that you have to deny the validity of scientific ideas. Science and faith have intermingled successfully for hundreds of years. Indeed, the Catholic church was a huge element in the scientific world via the Jesuits (including the current pope).

2.) There are millions of people in the world who are of a different faith than you, or of no faith. They are, as a whole, frankly uninterested in what you believe and just want to go about their daily business. Proselytism is the second worst thing about people of extreme faith.

3.) there are lots of details of faiths that do not jive with a secular society. Christianity, for example: LGBT discrimination, in particular, is included in some of the more archaic parts of the bible along with slavery, women being possessions, not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, not trimming beards, etc. The things to remember are that these are not (and frankly never were) core tenets of the faith. They are an extant example of what life was like when the bible was being written, translated, and condensed.

Religions of all kinds are, at a fundamental level, guidelines for life. How one should treat themselves, treat others, and treat the environment around them.

I don't think this is what you wanted, but that's the thoughts I had when reading your post.





rob05c  ·  2888 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    for example: LGBT discrimination

    along with slavery, women being possessions

Complete tangent, but that reminds me of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's awesome rebuttal, during the Obergefell v Hodges case last year, when the US Supreme Court ruled gay marriage discrimination unconstitutional.

The prosecutor argued the government didn't have the right to redefine marriage. Ginsburg pointed out they already have:

    Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female. That ended as a result of this Court's decision in 1982 when Louisiana's Head and Master Rule was struck down. And no State was allowed to have such a [] marriage anymore. Would that be a choice that a State should be allowed to have? To cling to marriage the way it once was?
coffeesp00ns  ·  2888 days ago  ·  link  ·  

and THAT is why I have The Notorious RBG on my audio book list. It's up next, in fact.

steve  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    2.) There are millions of people in the world who are of a different faith than you, or of no faith.

even billions...

coffeesp00ns  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

steve  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

bwahahahaha. I should have posted that!

OftenBen  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Just because you are a person of faith does not mean that you have to deny the validity of scientific ideas.

There are plenty of people who would disagree with you on that one friendo.

coffeesp00ns  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

those people are usually either misinformed, or "biblical literalists". Or, y'know, prejudiced (of course they'd never admit it).

I hope they don't drive or use satellites, because those things don't work without modern science.

OftenBen  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  
user-inactivated  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Hey, I don't want to dog on you or anything, but cherry picking extreme examples to try and make a point is a pretty unhealthy way to discuss an issue that is historically speaking extremely complexed and nuanced, especially when extremes can be found on both ends of the faith spectrum. People of faith, of any type, deserve a fair shake. After all we really are all in this together and there is a huge difference between condemning behavior we see as unhealthy and painting people in an unfair light at best and dehumanizing them at worse. I'm not saying that's what you're intentionally doing, but it can easily come across that way. Historically speaking, the world of science and mathematics has benefited immensely from people of all faiths and walks of life and we owe a lot to them. On a similar note, there are rational men and women of faith today and they have a right to be appreciated and accepted just like everyone else.

Just to kind of balance out the cherry picking, I'll leave these here . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_scientists_and_philosophers

OftenBen  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I would never make the claim that religious people as a class are bad.

I will make the claim that in the modern day, the most active and popular religions often cause great harm to believers and non believers alike, and often even so called 'moderates' can be active participants in perpetuating that harm. I'll cite the example of Catholic Bishops protecting pedophile priests, and allowing them to continue to prey on the young for decades. I can cite more extreme examples and I'm going to choose not to.

I'm all in favor of laying everything, good and bad about religion out in the open. I would also make a distinction between public, organized religion, and personal pursuits of spirituality or the search for meaning.

Also, 'Unhealthy' is a very tame term for the kinds of awful things people do in the name of their god.

user-inactivated  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I spent a long time really pissed about religion in general, and really vocal about it, too. I don't regret that; I came by it honestly, and I'll bet you did too. There's a joke Aleister Crowley told I saw quoted by Alan Moore somewhere that convinced me to be more cautious about when I spoke up

    There is the story of the American in the train who saw another American carrying a basket of unusual shape. His curiosity mastered him, and he leant across and said: "Say, stranger, what you got in that bag?" The other, lantern-jawed and taciturn, replied: "mongoose". The first man was rather baffled, as he had never heard of a mongoose. After a pause he pursued, at the risk of a rebuff: "But say, what is a Mongoose?" "Mongoose eats snakes", replied the other. This was another poser, but he pursued: "What in hell do you want a Mongoose for?" "Well, you see", said the second man (in a confidential whisper) "my brother sees snakes". The first man was more puzzled than ever; but after a long think, he continued rather pathetically: "But say, them ain't real snakes". "Sure", said the man with the basket, "but this Mongoose ain't real either".

If an imaginary mongoose is what someone needs, I don't think it's fair to fault them. Of course some religions give people imaginary snakes instead, and those deserve your anger, but it's not obvious which is which from the outside. Better to let it go until it's being inflicted on people who didn't opt in.

OftenBen  ·  2886 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Better to let it go until it's being inflicted on people who didn't opt in.

So, you mean, constantly and globally.

I could pull up a laundry list of examples. Pedo-priests. Daesh. Abstinence-only sex education that is one of the best predictors of teen pregnancy. The religious indoctrination of children before they are even able to read or form coherent thoughts that occurs worldwide.

user-inactivated  ·  2889 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    'Unhealthy' is a very tame term for the kinds of awful things people do in the name of their god.

To be fair, people will do awful things when the mood strikes them and will find many different reasons to justify them. Religion, for a lot of people, is a very touchy subject. I find using terms that are less emotionally charged, such as "unhealthy," helps to keep conversations civil and respectful. Trust me, there's a lot of things that I've seen and learn that frustrate me just as much as they frustrate you.

    I would never make the claim that religious people as a class are bad.

I'd never claim that you would either, to be honest. Just that, when it comes to discussing religion, it's important to chose our words carefully. Religion is something that permeates through our worlds history so broadly and so deeply, that the barriers that it has created between many people are so tall and so strong, it's much, much easier to add another brick into the wall than it is to take one out.

    I will make the claim that in the modern day, the most active and popular religions often cause great harm to believers and non believers alike, and often even so called 'moderates' can be active participants in perpetuating that harm. I'll cite the example of Catholic Bishops protecting pedophile priests, and allowing them to continue to prey on the young for decades. I can cite more extreme examples and I'm going to choose not to.

I see where you're coming from. I do. I'd wager though, that in the modern day, with people who are more educated, more prosperous, and more able to share and receive information, that the ill influences of religion are steadily receding. Thanks to the internet and international news for example, the Catholic church is no longer able to sweep things under the rug anywhere near as easily as even fifty years ago. As an aside, and I'm sure you know this, when it comes to religious organizations (especially ones as massive as the Catholic Church), it's important to understand that there is a huge difference between the members of any said organization and the organization itself. There's give and take of course, because like I'm sure you would, I sometimes question the rationality of anyone being an active member of an organization that they don't trust and/or agree with. Martin Luther certainly had his grievances and he would not keep quiet about them and look how he changed the world as a result.

    I'm all in favor of laying everything, good and bad about religion out in the open. I would also make a distinction between public, organized religion, and personal pursuits of spirituality or the search for meaning.

I think we're in agreement.