The dangers of religion

[baby tuckoo]

All due respect, Mith, but that wasn't my question.


My question was from the backside of the issue.


Would you die in battle in a war that focussed on my right not to believe? Is my right not to believe important at all to you, or to the masses who do? Your right to declare publically that you do do do so believe this is something I'd step up and die for when forces against it (probably people opposed in very slight ways to your own) step up to prevent you.


Do you tolerate disbelief as fervently as I protect belief? The question is simple. So is the answer.


You must, or you have spoken fuzzily before about the soft edges of Truth.

[MithLuin]

Religious freedom means precisely that - the freedom to believe (or not believe) as you choose. No one can be forced into any religion (or any lack of religion) if the human right to freedom of religion is recognized.

It's a right we both have and both exercise. I don't see the difference in putting it my way .


There are very few things I'd really die for, bt. I am a passionate person, but also a wimp. I've never had a gun to my head, but I would find it hard to predict my actions under such circumstances. I recognize the value of having enough integrity to become a martyr...but that doesn't mean I have it. At the moment, I hope I will not be put to the test. Should that hope be dashed...then I hope I behave honorably. That is the reason I find your question difficult, not because I have any doubts about human freedom.

The Vatican II document I referred to earlier states:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

Should I decide that child sacrifice was part of my religion, the state could intervene and say something about that. Those are the types of 'due limits' referred to.

For the purposes of this, saying "but I have no belief" is the belief.

I may very well have spoken fuzzily before, but I seriously doubt I've ever referred to Truth as soft. It doesn't sound like something I would say.

[Frelga]

Warning: The Inevitable Pratchett Quote coming up.

"Now if I'd seen him [God], really there, really alive, it'd be in me like a fever. If I thought there was some god who really did care two hoots about people, who watched 'em like a father and cared for 'em like a mother ... well, you wouldn't catch me sayin' things like 'there are two sides to every question' and 'we must respect other people's beliefs.' You wouldn't find me just being gen'rally nice in the hope that it'd all turn out right in the end, not if that flame was burning in me like an unforgivin' sword. And I did say burnin', Mister Oats, 'cos that's what it'd be. You say that you people don't burn folk and sacrifice people anymore, but that's what true faith would mean, y'see? Sacrificin' your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin' the truth of it, workin' for it, breathin' the soul of it. That's religion. Anything else is just ... is just bein' nice. And a way of keepin' in touch with the neighbors."

- Granny Weatherwax, Carpe Jugulum

[superwizard]

Would that True Believer die for my right not to believe in any such superstitious nonsense? It is just as important.

I couldn't honestly say whether or not I would die for anything before such a situation occurs but I will say that I would stand up and defend your right with all that I've got. Why? Because interestingly enough I see even that as a religious duty that I must do for in the Quran itself it says:

There is no compulsion in religion (2:256)

Now I'm not saying that all Muslims would agree with me on this but what I'm saying is that's what I truly believe in and what I would argue for. (and no I'm not alone in my belief in this)

[WampusCat]

I'm not a warrior, but I firmly feel that the right to not believe is worth defending -- just as much as the right to believe. If there is no freedom to reject belief, there is no belief.

My personal view (not expected of others, although I think the world would be better off if everyone agreed on this ) is that each system of belief offers a glimpse of the Truth, a Truth that is bigger than any one of them perceives.

And here's where I'd go further than many believers: I think that even those who reject any faith whatsoever also have a piece of that divine puzzle. Secularists/atheists hold believers accountable. They point out the hypocrisy of actions that wound or degrade humanity coming from people who claim to follow a loving God. Many atheists (not all, of course) are more moral than believers because they treat other people honorably not for a reward in the afterlife but out of compassion.

Their very rejection of God paradoxically reveals aspects of the divine: the gift of freedom, the honesty of doubt and the inadequacy of human certainties.

It would be more convenient for me if everyone shared my exact perception of God. It is more challenging, more real and definitely more interesting that we differ. But the fact that I think -- correction, I know -- that I don't have the entire Truth makes me more passionate about going deeper, not less.

Pratchett had it exactly right (thanks for the quote, Frelga!):

Sacrificin' your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin' the truth of it, workin' for it, breathin' the soul of it. That's religion. Anything else is just ... is just bein' nice. And a way of keepin' in touch with the neighbors.

[Jnyusa]

I missed the Windy sighting!

Windy, come baaaaaack!

[solicitr]

Much as I love Granny, she's not quite on the mark here. While the individual True Believer could and would indeed feel that kind of passion, it can *never* become an official policy; less because religious coercion is bad for people, but because it's bad for religion. If faith isn't freely chosen it's not faith- and where would any religion be then? I think Vatican II's repudiation of the Church's ancient position is not just an acquiescence to Enlightenment-think, but also an acknowledgment that the age of Unam Sanctam was the pinnacle of the Church's pride and corruption.

[WampusCat]

Much as I love Granny, she's not quite on the mark here. While the individual True Believer could and would indeed feel that kind of passion, it can *never* become an official policy; less because religious coercion is bad for people, but because it's bad for religion. If faith isn't freely chosen it's not faith- and where would any religion be then? I think Vatican II's repudiation of the Church's ancient position is not just an acquiescence to Enlightenment-think, but also an acknowledgment that the age of Unam Sanctam was the pinnacle of the Church's pride and corruption.

I agree completely.

[MithLuin]

Yes. I did not say that I would not preach, or that I would not sincerely wish that everyone would find the Truth and reconcile with God and neighbor. One could say that the entire reason I am posting here rather than packing for the international trip I am leaving for in 1 hour is that I think it important to be a witness to the Truth.

But I know that I cannot convince. I can merely state it to the best of my ability, and let you all take it as you will. And there are times when I'm wrong, after all, so it's not like I don't gain anything from the conversations either. Believing in absolute truth isn't quite the same thing as being a know-it-all .

I think it is different to know about the fire of zeal...and to experience it. I've experienced it, and I know what it will and will not drive me to. I only duel with words, not real weapons. The fire turns inwards, and burns away at you, rather than setting the world on fire. It's only once all that chaff burns away that you become a beacon for eyes to see that can. Yeah, I'm not there yet . But I have met people who are, and it's frickin' awesome!

Zeal, done correctly, wins souls and burns no one at the stake. The Vatican II document (in its entirety) does nothing to shy away from the firm conviction that the Catholic Church is where it's at. It merely establishes that all believers should be free, and that compulsion should not go into choosing or practicing a religion. So, yes, bt, the Church does not think you are right (I know that's a shock ), but they do think you have the right to think as you do, and they have fought governments (well, diplomatically, of course - they have no army these days) who would deny their citizens that right.

[Cerin]

Whether the common truths of the great religions come from mankind or some divine source is for each person to decide. But the commonalities themselves are undeniable and should be a potential source of comfort to you, rather than a source of fear or anger.

Hi, Windy! It's so good to see you!

The commonalities between the world's religions are neither a source of comfort, nor of fear or anger to me. This is because there are specifics of my faith that are part of its core and essentials, not mere outer trappings or corrupting and impoverishing influences.


Let me highlight some key phrases from your post in order to make a point afterwards:

there are certain essential truths toward which all of the great human faith traditions point.

When we strip away the outer trappings of religious traditions, inevitably corrupted by human greed and hunger for power

you might begin to rid yourself of the notion that religions, at their core, contradict each other at all.

I would say that the very real danger of religion <snip> lies in the fact that so many of us get caught in those outer trappings (for example, impoverishing the concept of faith by equating it to the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions are true

For those who subscribe to a particular set of spiritual beliefs -- those things you refer to as 'outer trappings', and by implication 'non-essential truths' -- these beliefs may be part of the very core and essentials of their faith to them. You can't define 'essential' and 'core' for anyone else, only for yourself. Taking your definition of what is core and applying it to the beliefs of others, and then based on that, coming to conclusions about the faith of those who don't share those definitions, defines their faith for you, but not for them.

I have no objection to someone labeling the essential elements of my faith as dangerous, corrupting, impoverishing, etc. -- we're all entitled to our opinions. But I do object to a suggestion that these labels are undisputably accurate rather than merely reflecting an opinion. I thought that idea came across a little in your post (not saying you intended it to or that it might not be due to a misreading on my part).

Would that True Believer die for my right not to believe in any such superstitious nonsense? It is just as important.

Of course it is just as important. It is the same right, at the bottom of it.

Yes, I believe I value your right to disbelieve as fervently as I value my own right to believe.

(Please forgive my re-wording, but I couldn't quite embrace the notion of 'fervently tolerating').

[Frelga]

Much as I love Granny, she's not quite on the mark here. While the individual True Believer could and would indeed feel that kind of passion, it can *never* become an official policy; less because religious coercion is bad for people, but because it's bad for religion.

Begging your pardon, but I think Granny is smack dab on the mark. Because when you burn with that kind of passion, when you are so sure of the Truth, how can you see others walk blind? How can you not want, NEED to make them open their eyes to it? How can you stand it?

Well, I can , but then my religion does not tell me that anyone who fails to adhere to it is any worse off for that, except of course for that walking around blind part.

I'll never forget the lifeboat vs. walk in the park conversation I had with Cerin back on b77, because I think we hit it smack dab, too.

If faith isn't freely chosen it's not faith- and where would any religion be then?

Where Christian churches had been for many an age and still is in some places, where Islam is getting now in other places, and where Orthodox Judaism wouldn't mind being in Israel.

My personal view (not expected of others, although I think the world would be better off if everyone agreed on this ) is that each system of belief offers a glimpse of the Truth, a Truth that is bigger than any one of them perceives.

And that's where we can meet and embrace without holding back a thing from each other. Because if THAT'S the heart of our faith, if we see each other as struggling to the same place over a different path, then yes, bt, I would fight for your right not to believe as fiercely as I would for my own right to believe. Possibly even die. Of course that ain't exactly Plan A, to quote Mal Reynolds.

[Cerin]

Begging your pardon, but I think Granny is smack dab on the mark.

The quote reflects the suppositions of someone about beliefs they don't share, which you also don't share, Frelga, so it makes perfect sense to me that you would think Granny is on the mark. What I don't understand is why either you or Granny would suppose you would know what it would be like to believe something you don't believe.

Because when you burn with that kind of passion, when you are so sure of the Truth, how can you see others walk blind?

What choice do you have, when you don't have the power to make them see?

How can you not want, NEED to make them open their eyes to it?

If you are feeling a need to do something that is only God's prerogative, I think you might be in a bit of trouble.

How can you stand it?

How can you stand any difficult thing that is beyond your power to affect or control?

I'll never forget the lifeboat vs. walk in the park conversation I had with Cerin back on b77

I have forgotten it. But since our first stumbling attempts here in the TE forum, I've decided it is best to avoid trying to discuss the specifics of belief on a messageboard, so perhaps that's for the best. I would that you could forget it, too, Frelga, as I fear I am probably responsible for some unfortunate misconceptions, given my propensity for putting my foot in my mouth.

[Windfola]

Hi Jnyusa!! :)



Cerin wrote:

For those who subscribe to a particular set of spiritual beliefs -- those things you refer to as 'outer trappings', and by implication 'non-essential truths' -- these beliefs may be part of the very core and essentials of their faith to them. You can't define 'essential' and 'core' for anyone else, only for yourself. Taking your definition of what is core and applying it to the beliefs of others, and then based on that, coming to conclusions about the faith of those who don't share those definitions, defines their faith for you, but not for them.

It isn't my definition. And I am not defining the essential or core aspects of the various religions based upon my personal opinion. I am simply pointing out that study and comparison of the major faith traditions over the past few thousand years provides us with evidence that a very few important core concepts and ideas are shared by all of the world's religions.

Now, I would agree it is certainly a personal matter what importance one attaches to that fact, but that it is a fact is irrefutable.

As I suggested in my last post, IMO, that nexus seems an obvious place to begin (and some would argue end) one's search for Truth.

[Frelga]

The quote reflects the suppositions of someone about beliefs they don't share, which you also don't share, Frelga, so it makes perfect sense to me that you would think Granny is on the mark. What I don't understand is why either you or Granny would suppose you would know what it would be like to believe something you don't believe.

Cerin, I did not necessarily mean any specific faith. Granny is speaking to an Omnian, and I don't think we have any of those on this board. I am speaking about any strong belief that makes the believer carry that absolute certainty in their heart. I don't see why you would suppose that I don't, for my own faith, even if it's different from yours.

Because when you burn with that kind of passion, when you are so sure of the Truth, how can you see others walk blind?

What choice do you have, when you don't have the power to make them see?

And there you hit it again. What choices you make when you DO have the power is what matters. When your Church has the power over Kings, when justice in your country is dispensed by a religious court, when the majority of your elected government shares your faith, what choices do you make then? Because you know, really know, that that voice in your head comes directly from God.

[yovargas]

Hi Windy!
Great posts.

[Cerin]

And I am not defining the essential or core aspects of the various religions based upon my personal opinion.

I believe you are identifying the commonalities as essential and core; that leaves the non-commonalities as non-essential and non-core, what you called the 'outer trappings'. Am I incorrect?

I am simply pointing out that study and comparison of the major faith traditions over the past few thousand years provides us with evidence that a very few important core concepts and ideas are shared by all of the world's religions.

I thought you were going farther, by also commenting on the beliefs that are not commonalities; for example, you define 'the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true' as an 'outer trapping', and you say that having as a concept of faith the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true, impoverishes the concept of faith.

Well as it happens, the essence of my faith is the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true. I can understand that you could view my beliefs as an impoverishment of the concept of faith as you understand it, but I would want to correct the potential implication that it is an impoverishment of the concept of faith for me.

Now, I would agree it is certainly a personal matter what importance one attaches to that fact, but that it is a fact is irrefutable.

I agree that it is irrefutable that there are certain commonalities among the world's religions.

What I am refuting is the notion that those commonalities can be indisputably said to constitute the essential or core beliefs of those religions, and that the non common beliefs can be indisputably said to be outer trappings corrupted by human greed and the hunger for power, which impoverish the concept of faith. I can understand why a non-adherent to any of those religions might see the non-common beliefs in that way, I just wanted to point out that not everyone necessarily sees them that way.

So if the only point you were making is that there are certain ideas common to all the world's religions, and you were not at the same time equating the non-common beliefs with corrupt outer trappings that impoverish the concept of faith, then we have no disagreement.

I don't see why you would suppose that I don't, for my own faith, even if it's different from yours.

No, I would not suppose that, Frelga.

I should have made it plain that I was unfamiliar with the quote. I took it to be referring to Christianity, for some reason. Just overly defensive, I guess.

What choices you make when you DO have the power is what matters.

Yes. That's why I think our separation of church and state is so important. And why I fall back on my initial point, that the problem with religion is people. People don't respond well to power, whether or not they think they're hearing from God.

[Frelga]

I don't see why you would suppose that I don't, for my own faith, even if it's different from yours.

No, I would not suppose that, Frelga.

I should have made it plain that I was unfamiliar with the quote. I took it to be referring to Christianity, for some reason. Just overly defensive, I guess.

Ah, I see. Didn't mean to snap at you.

No, the quote is from a fantasy book by Terry Pratchett set in a fantasy world, and while it speaks to certain our-world ideas it is not a direct parallel, IMO. Applicability rather than allegory, you know. It is a very good look at religion, though. Granny, the witch, is talking to a young Omnian priest whose implicit belief is at odds with his intellectual doubt. He learns a thing or two about faith, in the end.

Yes. That's why I think our separation of church and state is so important. And why I fall back on my initial point, that the problem with religion is people. People don't respond well to power, whether or not they think they're hearing from God.

And when it turns out that it's actually the voice of VP on the answering machine... Yes, I agree on the importance of separating church and state. But not all persecution is done by a government.

I want to think on this "the problem is people" riff. Because, well, of course the problem is people. What else is here but us people? But I'm not ready to write it down.

[Cerin]

Thanks, Frelga!

I look forward to your further thoughts.

[Windfola]

Cerin wrote:

I believe you are identifying the commonalities as essential and core; that leaves the non-commonalities as non-essential and non-core, what you called the 'outer trappings'. Am I incorrect?

I am agreeing with what I believe is a powerful analysis that assigns the definition of "essential" and "core" to certain commonalities precisely because of the fact that they are found in all religions throughout history. I certainly understand that you, and probably the majority of believers throughout history, will disagree that this fact alone makes them essential and core. In fact, I'm certain that most believers from all faiths will insist on the fact that there are non-common beliefs from their particular brand of religion which are indeed essential and core.

Cerin wrote:

I thought you were going farther, by also commenting on the beliefs that are not commonalities; for example, you define 'the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true' as an 'outer trapping', and you say that having as a concept of faith the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true, impoverishes the concept of faith.

I do believe that the evidence of history shows the "outer trappings" of religion to be at best non-essential to true communion with the divine, sometimes a barrier to it, and at worst, responsible for some of religion's atrocities both great and small - i.e. the things that Nin felt compelled to write about in starting this thread.

I do not believe that the core essential commonalities are ever associated with the "dangers of religion". The dangers always come from the non-common aspects. And I think that is a very compelling and powerful fact.

I now regret making the comment about the concept of faith being impoverished, because that is part of a much more complicated discussion about the concept of faith which would take this thread hopelessly off course, so I'll not say more about that here. Sorry!

Cerin wrote:

Well as it happens, the essence of my faith is the belief that a certain set of unprovable propositions is true. I can understand that you could view my beliefs as an impoverishment of the concept of faith as you understand it, but I would want to correct the potential implication that it is an impoverishment of the concept of faith for me.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that your belief that a particular set of unprovable propositions is true is not an impoverishment of the concept of faith for you!!

Cerin said:

What I am refuting is the notion that those commonalities can be indisputably said to constitute the essential or core beliefs of those religions, and that the non common beliefs can be indisputably said to be outer trappings corrupted by human greed and the hunger for power, which impoverish the concept of faith.

As we both agree, that the commonalities exist is irrefutable. That the commonalities constitute an essential/core truth that points us closest to the divine is certainly a matter of dispute, though based upon my readings, I would say there are mountains of evidence to suggest that this is indeed so.

I can understand why a non-adherent to any of those religions might see the non-common beliefs in that way, I just wanted to point out that not everyone necessarily sees them that way.

Not only is it true that not everyone sees them that way. I would venture to say that most adherents to established religions don't see them that way!


Cerin said:

So if the only point you were making is that there are certain ideas common to all the world's religions, and you were not at the same time equating the non-common beliefs with corrupt outer trappings that impoverish the concept of faith, then we have no disagreement.

I would say that I am convinced that the non-commonalities are in fact, never essential to communion with the divine, though understandably, a person's own faith tradition can certainly provide a conduit, a "thin place", as Marcus Borg likes to call it, where believers may glimpse the Truth.

[Windfola]

Hi Yovargas!!!