Lasto beth Lammen - Is your religion nuts?

[Alatar]

To drop back to Lali's point about Biblical Prophecy I admit to scepticism about these. I'm no Theologian, so this is an uninformed opinion, but I suspect that the literal translations of the Bible have changed dramatically over the centuries. I wonder at how many of these predictions have been made to fit over the years by at best a "Well, obviously the translation should have been this..." and at worst a wilful bending of the text.

Like most kids in their teens I was briefly fascinated by the predictions of Nostradamus. The more I delved into it, however, the more I realised that the predictions were ambiguous and heavily dependant on the translation. It became increasingly obvious that only the events in the past had clear and accurate "predictions" because the translations had spotted a correlation. When it came to the other quatrains the translations were all very vague and generic. Much like horoscopes.

[Túrin Turambar]

I can understand the position Lali is talking about.

The Bible says (or strongly implies) that God created the earth and the universe for the benefit of people, that the earth therefore is the most important thing in the universe and man the most important thing on earth, that man has lived on earth for most of its history, and the creation and end of the universe is closely tied to human history and the struggle between good and evil in the world. It puts humanity at the centre of everything in time and space, and makes the Bible entirely literal and consistent.
Astronomers, starting with Copernicus, has showed us that the earth is not the centre of the solar system, and that our sun is but one of many millions. Geologists and paleontologists, have bought forth evidence that the world is far older than man, and that man’s history is only a tiny fraction of the history of the world. And now biologists, centred around (although not starting with) Darwin, have built a case that man is basically another animal, that he is descended from animals, and that, worst of all, his dominance over the world is not due to divine plan but through the triumph of his genes in a struggle of pain, suffering and death.

Ultimately, the effect of science over the past four or five hundred years has been to make humanity seem far less significant to the big scheme of things. And many people cannot reconcile that with the Bible, Christianity, God or religion in general. In particular, the idea that the diversity and wonder of life on earth is due to struggle and pain is hard on many believers. I recall one creationism debate somewhere where a theistic evolutionist argued that evolution was simply God’s tool for creation. A creationist responded with ‘God does not use broken tools’.

I have to admit that I sympathise with that position. My acceptance of a heliocentric solar system, other solar systems, a four-and-a-half-billion-year-old earth and evolution through natural selection being responsible for the form and diversity of life pretty much foreclosed belief in God, immortal souls, heaven, hell and the like for me. Like Richard Dawkins I don’t really accept the idea of a division between religion and science – a universe with a god or gods is fundamentally different to one without them. So I can understand the creationist feeling the same way on the other side of the fence.

[yovargas]

So, no. Keeping kids from religion doesn't keep them from believing it later on.

Obviously nothing is 100% true across the board. But generally, yes, most people end up believing some version of what they were taught as kids. I imagine that if you don't teach your kid your religious beliefs, the odds that as adults they would happen to adopt their parent's beliefs are pretty slim. At least in societies like ours where many religions views are around.

[Lalaith]

To drop back to Lali's point about Biblical Prophecy I admit to scepticism about these. I'm no Theologian, so this is an uninformed opinion, but I suspect that the literal translations of the Bible have changed dramatically over the centuries. I wonder at how many of these predictions have been made to fit over the years by at best a "Well, obviously the translation should have been this..." and at worst a wilful bending of the text.

Actually, the stats on the accuracy of the biblical texts are pretty astounding. Discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that later versions were accurate. We have more copies of the scriptures or portions of the scriptures than any other ancient manuscript. The rate of agreement is astounding; most errors are very, very minor and do not involve any major doctrinal issues.

Let's see, since there's a nice, warm fire in my fireplace, and my cat is snuggled up by my feet, I'm once again too lazy to walk into the next room and get my theology book. So it's back to quoting websites. Sorry!

The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle.


We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C.

From here: http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability

Actually, I'd say the whole article is worth reading even if the website as a whole is questionable. It talks about how archaeology and history contribute to confirming the Bible, and it has a nice section on biblical prophecy.

Like most kids in their teens I was briefly fascinated by the predictions of Nostradamus. The more I delved into it, however, the more I realised that the predictions were ambiguous and heavily dependant on the translation. It became increasingly obvious that only the events in the past had clear and accurate "predictions" because the translations had spotted a correlation. When it came to the other quatrains the translations were all very vague and generic. Much like horoscopes.

Well, my response is twofold. Like you said, most of those types of predictions are vague enough to apply to anything, sort of like those quizzes on Facebook. Then I'd add that there is real supernatural power out there that some can access through ungodly means.


LordM, yes, you've exactly described what I think is the underlying issue.

[narya]

When “millions of years” language is heard/read, our kids should ask, “Were you (or anyone) there?” After all, science is supposed to be testable, observable, repeatable. One can claim that, “given enough time anything can happen.” But, really? A great deal of faith is needed to believe that. Children in our schools shouldn’t be subject to such unsubstantiated ideas.

Oh dear. We should only be subject to your neighbor's faith?

As for me, and my lack of faith, it was a Saruman-like endeavor - I took apart the watch and it broke. I now consider myself a Retired Catholic (I don't work at it anymore). I tried to delve more and more into what I believed and it all slipped through my fingers like sand.

I think it started when I started to listen a fundamentalist radio station and found myself picking and choosing what I accepted. It was that "cafeteria" attitude that started me questioning everything else as well.

One of the biggest questions for me was "What is the purpose of prayer?" Why would I want to remind or beg an omnipotent watchmaker to throw a monkey wrench in his perfect watch on my behalf? If he has a plan for everyone, why would an imperfect and ignorant person like me ask him to change it? Every miracle would be, in effect, God breaking the beautiful and complete physical laws he put into place to make his universe "tick". When I asked my priest about this, he said that I should not be making petitions to God, and that the only prayer that is worth praying is "Thy will be done". In other words, I should talk myself into doing the right thing rather than talking God into changing things to what I want. Which begs the point of why pray at all? I can repeat the mantra "do the right thing" without God.

Back to the original question - is one religion more incomprehensible than another? I would say that the older religions have more trappings, mystery, ceremony, that is both attractive and repulsive, and harder to comprehend for the outsider. I enjoyed being part of the intricate fabric of Catholicism - it was like an ethnicity for me. I could go into any Catholic Church in the world and though the language would change, the rituals would be recognizable and I would feel a sense of belonging. Whereas when I go into a Buddhist temple with walls covered in a pantheon of multicolored demons and deities, I most emphatically do not feel at home. I am much more at home in an austere Zen temple, with minimal trappings. As I suppose a non-Christian might feel more at home in a simple Methodist chapel than an ornate Catholic cathedral.

[Pearly Di]

Thanks for opening such an interesting and diverse discussion, Al.

They believed that Dinosaurs and Humans lived on the Earth simultaneously. (Proven apparently by the fact that diamonds can be created in a lab)
They believed that the Grand Canyon was created by the actual events of the Flood.
They believed that there was no possible rationale to excuse abortion, even if their 16 year old daughter had been raped. In fact I was informed that they would feel privileged to raise the child and that their daughters would be both happy and thrilled to raise the child of a rapist.
They believed that Jesus Christ and God were personally known to them and that they "could not wait to die" so that they could "meet him face to face".

Now, I consider myself to be a Christian, and a Catholic, but these proclamations seemed to me to be the ravings of lunatics. Lovely people, yes, but inherently unstable.

I would say that 'believing that one can know Jesus personally' is a tenet of mainstream Christianity. However one phrases it: the actual terminology no doubt varies within the various streams of Christendom (it's not a phrase actually used in the Bible ). But the claim of Christianity is that an omnipotent, all-powerful God is also a personal God and can be known personally by His people. A Christian might well be dismissed as a lunatic by an increasingly secularised society for believing this, but it's something I believe, and I sincerely hope nobody is coming to come and lock me up for that belief, or declare me 'mentally unstable'. I'm pretty certain I am not. You guys have been posting with me for the best part of ten years and I've not got the impression any of you think I have mental health issues.

So: is my religion nuts?

- Yes, I'm sure it is to some people. Believing that God became Man, in order to identify with the human race, suffer on our behalf and offer us redemption by dying for our sins, must seem completely nuts to ... many. (Once you accept the Incarnation, everything after is almost a piece of cake, if I can put it so crassly.)

Am I nuts?

I don't think so ...

In what other ways is religion nuts?

-- A religion that denies science is pretty nuts. I don't agree with Al's fundamentalist family on the age of the earth. OK, so why would I claim to be less nuts than them because I do agree with them that a personal relationship with the Divine is possible? Isn't that me being insufferably arrogant? All I can say in my defence is that a doctrine like the Incarnation is completely outside a scientific remit. Whereas the age of the earth is provable, scientifically.

(And when the Psalmists wrote in praise of G-d that 'the sun rises from one end of the earth to the other', they weren't making a scientific statement ...)

-- A religion that endorses cruelty in the name of God is nuts. Following Jesus Christ, to me, is completely incompatible with cruelty, but sadly history is littered with professing Christians who felt that their cruelty was wholly justified.

Of course I am raising more questions than answers with this post. But this quote from Jean Vanier, the Canadian Catholic philosopher who founded L'Arche Community, has always resonated with me:

We all have chosen between "two ways of being crazy": the foolishness of the Gospel or the insanity of the world's values.

There's plenty of insanity and cruelty in the world about me. I don't see anything insane about actually following the teachings of Jesus.

[Maria]

One of the biggest questions for me was "What is the purpose of prayer?" Why would I want to remind or beg an omnipotent watchmaker to throw a monkey wrench in his perfect watch on my behalf? If he has a plan for everyone, why would an imperfect and ignorant person like me ask him to change it? Every miracle would be, in effect, God breaking the beautiful and complete physical laws he put into place to make his universe "tick".

Omnipotency means a god can do anything. Granting or denying requests is not only planned for, but in the eyes of a being that can step outside of time- it's already happened. Miracles and their consequences (good or bad) are already part of the big picture. If you weren't meant to ask for them, it wouldn't be possible to ask.

Either your god is omnipotent or it isn't. I don't think it's possible for an omnipotent being to make a mistake. Artisitic decisions of dubious merit that we really don't appreciate , yes, but accidents? I don't think so.

[Cerin]

And then again, for some reason, people seem more keyed into evolution than quantum.

I'm assuming that teaching evolution begins quite early whereas children wouldn't be ready to learn about quantum until later?

But generally, yes, most people end up believing some version of what they were taught as kids.

You're an exception to that idea, aren't you?



I think the notion is odd, that everything about an infinite being should be able to be apprehended by our finite minds and squared with the little bit about the world that we are able to understand.

[Aravar]

Actually, the stats on the accuracy of the biblical texts are pretty astounding. Discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that later versions were accurate. We have more copies of the scriptures or portions of the scriptures than any other ancient manuscript. The rate of agreement is astounding; most errors are very, very minor and do not involve any major doctrinal issues.

Except, for example, the end of the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16 verses 9-20 is absent from the earliest versions.

[yovargas]

But generally, yes, most people end up believing some version of what they were taught as kids.

You're an exception to that idea, aren't you?

Yup, as I suspect are most folks in this forum.
Ooh, I'll start a survey to see!

[Lalaith]

Actually, the stats on the accuracy of the biblical texts are pretty astounding. Discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that later versions were accurate. We have more copies of the scriptures or portions of the scriptures than any other ancient manuscript. The rate of agreement is astounding; most errors are very, very minor and do not involve any major doctrinal issues.

Except, for example, the end of the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 16 verses 9-20 is absent from the earliest versions.

Yes, of course, there are examples. And there are counter-examples. And there are scholars who say "yes" and scholars who say "no." Definitely not the type of discussion I want to have. If others do, have at. I've been down that road too many times to want to go there again.

ETA: Sorry to be grumpy about it, but I do know the controversies that are out there. And I'm really just not interested in nit-picking. I've nit-picked already, reached a tentative peace with what I believe, and am not wanting to revisit the nit-picking stage.

But, like I said, if others enjoy that sort of thing, then, by all means, proceed.

[Lalaith]

Hate to post back-to-back, but I thought I'd add this.

I started reading the book I mentioned, which is an outsider's perspective of Evangelicals and Evangelical churches. I should clarify that the author is a secular Jew and an atheist. Anyway, from her descriptions of things, I can totally, totally see how this particular brand of faith seems nuts.

[Inanna]

Hate to post back-to-back, but I thought I'd add this.

I started reading the book I mentioned, which is an outsider's perspective of Evangelicals and Evangelical churches. I should clarify that the author is a secular Jew and an atheist. Anyway, from her descriptions of things, I can totally, totally see how this particular brand of faith seems nuts.

That you can see that is absolutely incredible, Lali, and speaks volumes about you as a person, and how you view your faith as well.
If more of us could have this capability, it'd be a better world.

[Lalaith]

Oh, thanks.

To see it through her eyes is very interesting. I am already finding the book quite thought-provoking.

[yovargas]

That you can see that is absolutely incredible, Lali, and speaks volumes about you as a person, and how you view your faith as well.
If more of us could have this capability, it'd be a better world.

Yup. She's pretty amazing.

[Frelga]

IAWM

"Nuts" is a pretty interesting term to use about religion, at a slightly different angle than Al did. We generally suspect insanity when people act contrary to what we see as our objective reality. Religion is about the only thing that gives us a pass to go into something other than empirical world, for lack of better term, without being locked up.

And it's amazing how much religion shapes what we think of as reality. You meet a person who is perfectly nice and rational, and as you come to know them a bit deeper you realize that the way they look at the world is at the right angles to the way you look at the world. It's quite a wrenching experiencing, especially for those who spend most of their lives with the like-minded folks.

[Pearly Di]

Religion is about the only thing that gives us a pass to go into something other than empirical world, for lack of better term, without being locked up.

I do love the way you put things, Frelga.

Lali ... I Googled this, about Gina Welch's book:
http://www.brightestyoungthings.com/fëa ... ina-welch/

Wow. Fascinating, for all sorts of reasons. (She was undercover for five years? Why so long, I wonder ... )

The reaction of the Christians she befriended when she finally came clean, is very interesting. I was also struck by what she says in the interview here:


Was self-awareness something you found rare in the Church?
No. That's really I think one of the things that I really admire about evangelical Christians. There was this constant soul scrutiny. I don’t really think that this is true in the leadership.

I have to say that I would probably find Jerry Falwell's church pretty scary too.

[Lalaith]

Thanks, guys.


I have heard Jerry Falwell speak in person. I even drew a sketch of him while he was talking (which I still have somewhere). This was about 6 or 7 years ago, I think. I think he died shortly thereafter. In any case, I really, really disliked him. And he was really, really boring!

I wouldn't have wanted to go to his church when he was alive. I wouldn't want to go there now, but I'm sure I could blend in. I'm used to churches like his.

[anthriel]

I think the notion is odd, that everything about an infinite being should be able to be apprehended by our finite minds and squared with the little bit about the world that we are able to understand.

Right there. Yes. In a nutshell.

(And I did mean the pun, if anyone is wondering)


There is a bit of a troubling undertone to some of these comments, and they don't bother Anthy the Christian (who has, already, admitted her religion is nuts), but rather Anthy the Scientist.

Science cannot become the new secular religion, in that people will always hold current scientific beliefs up as examples of Absolute Truth. It distresses me greatly that the greatest gift of science to the world.... a curious, seeking mind... would be confined by what we *know* is true... right now. The more we *know*, the less we seek. That thought makes me strangely anxious.

Not so long ago, it was incomprehensible, contrary to everything we knew about bacteria, that a microbe could possibly live in the very low pH environment of the gut. I was in the lab community when it was proposed that H. pylori not only lived in the stomach, but was a causative agent of ulcers. There was quite a bit of resistance, but also quite a bit of investigation, and what was discovered was... we really didn't know everything about bacteria. We learned, and were able to bend our minds around something different from what we *knew*.

Science flexed. I love it when it does that.

[River]

Science is supposed to flex, but scientists are supposed to be skeptical. We can't just believe what our peers are saying just because they're our peers - we need to run their data through the wringer a few times and if the conclusions still stand, then science is allowed to flex. That's part of what makes research so slow and painful and hard.

The H. pylori thing was a pretty good sign we don't know anywhere near as much about infectious diseases as we thought we did or as much about bacteria in general either. In fact, when it comes to bacteria, we've barely begun to learn and the more we learn, the more we have to question the nature of life in general. If something can grow in hot acid, what exactly are the boundary conditions for living things?

But that's what I like about science. I get depressed if I've gone too long without learning something new. Both the hard foundations for what is known and the thrill of the unknown and the structure science gives us for studying that unknown. It's scary too, sometimes, because we spend all this time and effort on something that might not amount to anything. Sometimes, when you shine lights into the void, all you find is more void. But even then you've learned something, even if it's not going to advance your career much.