Religious belief

[Buster's Uncle]

Elok, that's pretty much in detail what I would have told myself back in the day.  I don't know as much about Orthodox as I should, and I'm surprised to hear so much doctrinal agreement - I wouldn't expect that from a Catholic.

We resemble the Catholics insofar as they are the nearest spot to us on the family tree of Christianity.  We split from them more than a thousand years ago, and have grown in rather different directions from them and Western Christianity in general.  We resemble them more than we resemble Southern Baptists, but the similarities can be misleading.  Our conception of sin, for example; we see it more as an illness to be cured than a crime to be punished.  That shapes our whole attitude to salvation.  No satisfaction theory of atonement--apparently some guy named Anselm of Canterbury came up with that around the time of the final split.  We don't do guilt nearly as much as the RCC does either.  The purpose of an Orthodox life is theosis, reunion with God, which sounds almost Hindu to a casual Western learner (it's derived primarily from "partakers of the Divine nature" in 2 Peter).

Right - the history of the Great Schism (which had much more to do with hierarchy/politics than doctrine in other areas, though the two have evolved since colored by their native cultures) and what I do know of the Orthodox church (and Catholic) would have me expecting less agreement with a backwoods protestant than you express on the hard questions.

---

Apropos of nothing anyone else has said here, the obligatory xkcd:

[Elok]

Well, were those reactions you mentioned something you personally came up with, or an adaptation of what you'd been taught in Sunday School, etc. by your denomination?  I'm guessing it's a combination of the two.

[Buster's Uncle]

Definitely a combination - Sunday School was taught by morons more often than not.

Good point I hadn't considered; a good part of our agreement is probably from habits of thinking for ourselves (if starting from slightly different doctrinal assumptions).  It's certainly something I admire in you.

[Elok]

Looking back, a good deal of what I posted there was my elaboration on bedrock Orthodox principles, not the principles themselves.  The Orthodox approach to the OT is generally to ransack it for things that might be regarded as precursors of Christ--e.g. Joshua in the OT has the same name as Jesus, and his conquest of Canaan is therefore a metaphor or some such for the victory of Christ over the dominion of death.  The actual event itself, for its own sake, tends to be treated as an irrelevance (though the priest/seminarian never says so in as many words).  The idea of sharpening focus or growing awareness is something I heard from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at a retreat, though I don't know if that was just his opinion or what.  Actually, if you have any interest in Orthodox ideas, you could do worse than to pick up some of his stuff.  Especially if you can get a recording of him reading it.  He has . . . a very calm, ah-very soothing . . . very pleasantly ah-British voice . . . and-ah if, at any time you have heard him speaking of . . . ByZANtine history or ah-theology . . . you will ever after hear his writing . . . in that-ah same voice.

[Elok]

WRT the xkcd, there is a certain strain of atheist commonly found on the internet who can well match the insufferability of the most ardent fundamentalist, yes.  I avoid reading their stuff.  My incidental exposure to Dawkins quotes leads me to believe that, while the man may well be an exceptional biologist and popularizer of science, he does not really understand the belief systems he criticizes.  Also he'll occasionally say something horrifying that hits the news, and not appear to understand why everyone is so upset.  Like the bit about it being immoral to not abort a Down's baby.  Kind of a head-scratcher.

Thankfully, most atheists are not so utterly myopic and devoid of self-awareness.  Even most fundamentalists are not "fundies" as people tend to think of them, in my experience.

[Buster's Uncle]

[Ninja'd I'll respond to this last soon.]

Looking back, a good deal of what I posted there was my elaboration on bedrock Orthodox principles, not the principles themselves.  The Orthodox approach to the OT is generally to ransack it for things that might be regarded as precursors of Christ--e.g. Joshua in the OT has the same name as Jesus, and his conquest of Canaan is therefore a metaphor or some such for the victory of Christ over the dominion of death.  The actual event itself, for its own sake, tends to be treated as an irrelevance (though the priest/seminarian never says so in as many words).  The idea of sharpening focus or growing awareness is something I heard from Metropolitan Kallistos Ware at a retreat, though I don't know if that was just his opinion or what.  Actually, if you have any interest in Orthodox ideas, you could do worse than to pick up some of his stuff.  Especially if you can get a recording of him reading it.  He has . . . a very calm, ah-very soothing . . . very pleasantly ah-British voice . . . and-ah if, at any time you have heard him speaking of . . . ByZANtine history or ah-theology . . . you will ever after hear his writing . . . in that-ah same voice.

That does sound appealing - hard to beat a pleasant British accent for good listening.

There's a point that ought to be made explicit in all this about how religion/your native church is culture and influences one's world-view in a profound way, thus I identify as Southern Baptist even though I'm actually ex-and-agnostic; I once asserted to a non-practicing/believing Catholic that she was Catholic, not my finest moment of tact -especially given Yitzi's frequent bugbear about people trying to tell him what he believes and getting it wrong- but I stand behind the point.  You really have to take everything in your noodle out for a good looking over before you can rationally claim you're no longer (whatever).  I did that, more or less, and chose not to reject most of the world-view just because I lost faith in the core principal, and I sometimes find myself discussing theology as if my faith was still sound, for the sake of argument or whatever.

Also a point to be made that I was raised among ignoramuses with no reputation for incisive theological thought, deservedly, and I believe I can confidently point to myself as proof that religion don't make you stoopid, as some atheist seem to hint rather rudely; I can haz logic just fine, thank you.

(See also the edit I'm about to make to the WPC argument link post, if a little homework suits anyone.  I found the thread where it started, and there's the background to why I was interested in proving them as denied the foundational importance of the Bible in western culture and history were actually arguing religion and not my thesis at all.)

[Valka]

WRT the xkcd, there is a certain strain of atheist commonly found on the internet who can well match the insufferability of the most ardent fundamentalist, yes.  I avoid reading their stuff.  My incidental exposure to Dawkins quotes leads me to believe that, while the man may well be an exceptional biologist and popularizer of science, he does not really understand the belief systems he criticizes.  Also he'll occasionally say something horrifying that hits the news, and not appear to understand why everyone is so upset.  Like the bit about it being immoral to not abort a Down's baby.  Kind of a head-scratcher.

Thankfully, most atheists are not so utterly myopic and devoid of self-awareness.  Even most fundamentalists are not "fundies" as people tend to think of them, in my experience.

What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?

[Elok]

What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?

It strikes me as an attempt to pathologize religion; I understand he refers to the transmission of faith as a form of child abuse.

Faith is not entirely--perhaps not even primarily, depending on belief system--a matter of accepting a rational proposition.  The child has grown up in and been formed by the culture of Catholicism or Islam or whatever.  His/her values are going to be consistent with the community's, whether s/he has wrestled with Thomas Aquinas or the hadiths or not.  When I teach my son the basics of Christianity, I'm not trying to bypass his reason and teach him while he's still too young to reject the idea.  It's all part of my general effort to raise him correctly.  If he were not taught to be a Christian, he would likely find the idea ridiculous, yes--but ditto if I didn't teach him about sharing, taking turns, not hitting, potty-training, trying new foods . . . or Dawkins's preferred brand of secular humanism.

In general, I think Dawkins's argument is dependent on the common but IMO fallacious notion of a non-theistic null state: the idea that children are not "naturally" religious and would normally grow up finding the whole idea absurd.  But children don't "naturally" believe anything.  If anything, as an atheist acquaintance of mine pointed out, they have slightly animist tendencies, assuming everything is alive and has volition.  That's one of the most aggravating things about many secular-liberals; they tend to treat their own belief system as a value-neutral default instead of a set of propositions about the universe based on certain assumptions, the same as what they're arguing against (oh, but their assumptions are the RIGHT assumptions).  Perhaps this is what BUncle is getting at when he talks about atheism as a religion, though I wouldn't phrase it that way.

[Buster's Uncle]

That's more or less it.  It's basic communications theory that words mean what we think they mean, and I carry that to a fault in some situations.

There's an important thing I realized about atheists/atheism and my attitude thereof that I realized only in the last two or three year; it's NOT atheists I have a problem with, but rather a minority who TALK about it a lot and assertively.  The next guy having decided his position on the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the negative neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket - but the Dawkins/Hitchens of the world are rude douches in their way of talking about it, (as is almost anyone holding a strong position on matters spiritual, and aggressive in expressing it, insulting to holders of other positions).

I wish I remembered the URL of the science blog I saw a year or two ago.  Lots of great science articles linked and commented upon, lots of smug, superior, butthole insults to dissenting views (all religion).  It's a perfect illustration of what I'm taking about, but I'll never find it again.

(There's nothing wrong with me for not choosing to pick sides in the face of the Unknowable like it's a stinkin' sportsball game, either, and screw anyone trying to insinuate otherwise.)

My atheist guest mentioned earlier and I had a pleasant talk about God and religion in the car, confronted with a little church every few miles; the problem is in the mode of expression, not the opinion - and that's something I didn't see most of my life...

[Lorizael]

Why make Hell and use it on people?

Any animal needs a stick and carrot approach to training. 

I find arguments such as these entirely unconvincing. The implication is that God's capacity for creation is somehow subservient to animal psychology, rather than the other way around. God didn't have to create beings who respond in Pavlovian ways, but he did. The alternative is a god who is not all powerful, which usually runs afoul of some doctrinal issues...

[Elok]

By-the-by, as an actual aspie, I don't feel too put out by Buncle's use of the term.  Not sure why, possibly I'm just numb to it.  Now, given this board's topic, it's entirely possible three-quarters of its population is AS, so my one voice doesn't mean much.

[Buster's Uncle]

Thank you, Elok - remember everyone, that, for all that I'm no towering font of uber-sensitive terminology, when I use nerd-specific insult words, I am speaking as part of the tribe, not setting myself above it.  I have my own tendencies to ultra-focus and have a lot of trouble with nuance and the big picture -and a strong affinity for dichotomous world-views- just like the rest - recognizing that is, of course, one reason I talk about nuance and such so much, because it's something I wrestle with...

Excellent point, Lori.

[Valka]

What's your take on his being against referring to "a Catholic child" or "a Muslim child" or "a ______ child"?

It strikes me as an attempt to pathologize religion; I understand he refers to the transmission of faith as a form of child abuse.

Faith is not entirely--perhaps not even primarily, depending on belief system--a matter of accepting a rational proposition.  The child has grown up in and been formed by the culture of Catholicism or Islam or whatever.  His/her values are going to be consistent with the community's, whether s/he has wrestled with Thomas Aquinas or the hadiths or not.  When I teach my son the basics of Christianity, I'm not trying to bypass his reason and teach him while he's still too young to reject the idea.  It's all part of my general effort to raise him correctly.  If he were not taught to be a Christian, he would likely find the idea ridiculous, yes--but ditto if I didn't teach him about sharing, taking turns, not hitting, potty-training, trying new foods . . . or Dawkins's preferred brand of secular humanism.

In general, I think Dawkins's argument is dependent on the common but IMO fallacious notion of a non-theistic null state: the idea that children are not "naturally" religious and would normally grow up finding the whole idea absurd.  But children don't "naturally" believe anything.  If anything, as an atheist acquaintance of mine pointed out, they have slightly animist tendencies, assuming everything is alive and has volition.  That's one of the most aggravating things about many secular-liberals; they tend to treat their own belief system as a value-neutral default instead of a set of propositions about the universe based on certain assumptions, the same as what they're arguing against (oh, but their assumptions are the RIGHT assumptions).  Perhaps this is what BUncle is getting at when he talks about atheism as a religion, though I wouldn't phrase it that way.

Sorry, but when I see things like the "Jesus Camp" videos, that's something that looks exactly to me like a form of mental abuse perpetrated on children. And then later on, sending those kids out to preach and distribute pamphlets (yeah, who's going to yell at a kid?)... If they want to proselytize, stop hiding behind kids. That's one of the reasons JWs annoy me; they drag along a little 4-year-old girl in a frilly dress as a prop, in part so people won't be as inclined to be nasty when they shut the door on them.

I live in a bible belt region of Canada. Some twit in the YT comment pages ranted at me that "Canada has an abortion clinic on every corner" but refused to listen when I told her that she'd be far more likely to find a church on the average corner in the non-commercial/non-residential zones. There's one intersection near my home that contains 1 church, one religion-based homeless drop-in place, a gas station/convenience store, and a fast-food restaurant.

That's one of the most aggravating things about many secular-liberals; they tend to treat their own belief system as a value-neutral default instead of a set of propositions about the universe based on certain assumptions, the same as what they're arguing against (oh, but their assumptions are the RIGHT assumptions).

Interesting... that's the attitude I see from Christian commenters on the CBC comment boards (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Canada's public news service). There are people who just don't understand why it's objectionable to have mandatory prayer in public schools, creationism taught in science classes, the bible taught as history, and so on. They think their view is the "value-neutral default" and can't understand why others would find it offensive to have their views made into laws or added to the school curriculum for everyone to follow.

I used to work for the City of Red Deer as a Deputy Returning Officer for municipal elections and also as a census taker. I remember the time when we were told to raise our hands and swear on the bible that we would carry out our duties as required, in a completely unbiased and confidential way, etc. ... and the city clerk gave me a really dirty look when I refused. The other people did various *gasp!*, "tch" and "tsk" sounds, as well, along with a "what's wrong with you" attitude. I asked to make an affirmation - which is my right. So I did, and had zero sympathy for the city clerk who had to spend a couple of extra minutes to get this done.

Thing is, for me swearing on a bible is like swearing on some inanimate object that's no different from any other. It's not a sufficient guarantee of my honesty the way my bare word and a signature is.

[Elok]

I am not familiar with "Jesus camp," so I can't say whether I do what they do or not.  We go to church every Sunday and on feast days, read Bible stories sometimes, do morning and evening prayers as a family, etc.  I assume that if you have kids you will raise them to believe your values, same as I do with mine.

I do not mean to imply that all religious people are paragons of reason and fairness, nor that all atheists are the opposite.  Thankfully most atheists are of the apathetic variety, or simply have better things to do.

[Lorizael]

So, as someone who falls on the "a" side of the atheist/theist spectrum, the value-neutral system that I were to teach any potential children of mine (had I not specifically constructed my life to avoid having to do so) is: There are a lot of things about the universe which could be true. Don't assume any of them are true. Instead, build up a reliable way of discovering truths and then apply it to the universe as you see fit.

I don't proclaim that gods aren't real or that they definitively don't exist. From that statement and the above, you might say that I look more or less agnostic. But if someone puts a gun to my head and demands that I declare for atheism or agnosticism, I would eventually concede that atheism is more my cup of tea. The reason is that I'm not on the fence about gods. I don't think we're currently capable of proving that gods exist, and in the mean time I don't see any evidence* that they do. I am open to the possibility that they might, but I don't take them into consideration when deciding things.

In that sense, I am an atheist in the same way that I am an a-unicorn-ist. I don't know that magical horny horses don't exist, but I operate under the assumption that they don't unless given a good reason to believe otherwise. Clearly, however, it would be silly to describe oneself as an adherent of aunicorism, and that's generally true of me and atheism as well. I have a lot of positive beliefs about the world, and I'd rather focus on those than on the fact that I do not think there are gods.

*Theists, obviously, will quibble with the notion that there is no evidence for divinity and say that my belief that there are no gods colors how I interpret the evidence. It's hard to counter a claim like this, but I think a more nuanced way to state what I think here is that I don't see any more evidence for gods than I do for a lot of other things. Depending on your framework and observational biases, there are many ways to interpret reality. You can make a reasonable case for gods being plausible, or for Matrix-style simulation being plausible, or for living in the imagined world of a mentally challenged, mute child being plausible, but no good evidence to conclude one way or the other on these questions. To me, what that leaves you with is simply accepting the world as you see it and developing tools to uncover what can't be seen and reinterpret what can be seen, hence that first paragraph up there about my child-rearing philosophy.